FAA Registration Rules Announced NOW

[buford]

You need to read the tenth amendment and not rely on it being read to you.
The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution.

Decades ago, Congress passed 49 USC § 40103 - 'Sovereignty and use of airspace' The law states that: The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States. No state has challenged this law, so where is the tenth amendment being violated? Also decades ago, Congress passed 49 USC § 44102 which requires aircraft to be registered prior to operation. Again, no state has challenged this law.

What you are asking for is just short of anarchy. Your drone may not be able to fly across state lines, but mine could. All aviation activity must be regulated at the federal level or we would have different regulations for every state and town. Total chaos.

So, are you one of those guys that flies by your tablet way the hell out of eyesight, just because it's cool?

 

[fvader]

So you're suggesting there is no difference between the way a bird thinks and they way a human being thinks? Lord help us.....

No not at all.. It was just a bit of sarcasm.
what i'm suggesting is the actions of the govt. in response to certain situations, is not always the most logical or effective action.

 

[R2-D2]

Then entire task force was simply a dog and pony show. They already knew the terms they wanted to come to before they even put this task force together. They made a task force and announced it to the public but it was just a theater. The public no longer has a say in this democracy. This place is ran by mega corporations and the rest of us are just peons.

It's simply not possible for any government agency to announce their decision from a legit task force and then have an online database ready to go about 7 days later. The wheels of the government turn much much slower than that. They'd have to put out contracts for IT people to code the registration database. All of that was done months before this announcement. I'm sure the FAA already has a road map into where they expect this to go in the next 10 years or so as their strategic plan.

There plan for 2025 don't mention this because what they public is just propaganda.
https://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/media/Destination2025.pdf

But now they got $5 tax on millions of quad toys such as Star Wars quads they are well funded. Probably even have their own SWAT team like the IRS and others do. I won't be surprised of we find out in 2016 the FAA bought 2 billion rounds of ammo like other agencies have.

 

[erkme73]

It's been stated here that the registration information is publicly searchable/accessible. If that really is the case, what would keep an ill-intentioned person from using a specific registration number that he looked up on the FAA site, to frame someone?

For example, a jilted ex knows that the new love of his former fling is into quads - so he gets one, looks up the registration number of the guy, plasters it on his new quad, and then flies it over a military base/stadium/[fill in the blank]. Seems far fetched, but imagine the possibilities of using this as a way to shirk responsibility and blame others.

 

[RKBA]

It's been stated here that the registration information is publicly searchable/accessible. If that really is the case, what would keep an ill-intentioned person from using a specific registration number that he looked up on the FAA site, to frame someone?

Not far fetched at all.... We've already seen someone here threatening to turn in those who refuse to comply.

 

[SteveMann]

Didn't a moderator ask a couple of posts back, to stop making comments about political issues? You seem to read and reply to everyone's comments with a statement regard legal aspects. Could you stop doing that also? It means nothing. We are all aware of where the "laws" are located. If we didn't know, we could look them up. Not everyone here has a "childishly small mind" as you put it.

Just stating the obvious. If anyone bothered to read and understand the law, this thread would have ended long ago. But when some people keep comparing aircraft registration with Obamacare and the Tenth amendment with absolutely no comprehension what they are talking about, I have to dumb down the explanation as it applies to the original topic, speak slowly and use small words.

But, since the tin-foil hatters have dumbed this thread down to repeating themselves, I will say no more.

 

[buford]

Just stating the obvious. If anyone bothered to read and understand the law, this thread would have ended long ago. But when some people keep comparing aircraft registration with Obamacare and the Tenth amendment with absolutely no comprehension what they are talking about, I have to dumb down the explanation as it applies to the original topic, speak slowly and use small words.

But, since the tin-foil hatters have dumbed this thread down to repeating themselves, I will say no more.

Have many friends?

 

[Jeff48920]

You are not required to show the information to any other persons. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask for identification to establish that the inspector is acting on behalf of the FAA administrator--if so, you must therefore present them.

Steve, I am pretty sure this is incorrect. That Reg solely addresses "airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part [Part 61]". The title of Part 61 of the Regs, PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS, may not address the UAS registration certificate discussed under Sections 48 or 91. I suppose one could argue that the Section 91 amendment, which, according to that section, discusses the airworthiness certificates, is an "airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license" under section 61, but I think that would be wrong since it is not one of those things arising out of that section.

This will beg the question of who has the right to inspect a Section 91 certificate. Under Section 91.203 the certificate under that part must be "displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew." Unfortunately this reading is completely inappropriate were it to be adopted for UAS usage.

To my reading, the interim final rule solely addresses Parts 1, 47, 48, 91 and 375. Upon reading of those sections, I don't see any Section or Part specifically addressing who is entitled to look at the certificate issued thereunder. Using the construction rules of law, "if a specific issue is addressed in one part or section without reference to another, and if that issue does not appear in another part or section, it is assumed that the drafter intended for the issue NOT to be addressed in that section."

Between you and me, I believe it is an oversight, but it can be a nasty one if non-intended individuals are not restricted from demanding to see a section 47, 48 or 91 certificate.

If you have a cite to another section, I would be glad to look at it.

 

[damitjim01]

Not far fetched at all.... We've already seen someone here threatening to turn in those who refuse to comply.

I guess they'll need to start having FAA court like traffic court. A place where you can go plead your case and face your accuser... but we know that won't happen.

 

[RKBA]

But, since the tin-foil hatters have dumbed this thread down to repeating themselves, I will say no more.

Promise?

 

[buford]

I guess they'll need to start having FAA court like traffic court. A place where you can go plead your case and face your accuser... but we know that won't happen.

maybe we a another forum, noncomplinflyers, and you cant get in if you registered. Hmm

 

[buford]

Promise?

Thank god!

 

[buford]

I think that some people want to get in here and quote laws and statutes to who laid the chunk, when they don't realize that probably everyone has made up their mind, to register or not to register. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I for one wont listen to that kind of verbal masturbation.

 

[kenjancef]

It's been stated here that the registration information is publicly searchable/accessible. If that really is the case, what would keep an ill-intentioned person from using a specific registration number that he looked up on the FAA site, to frame someone?

For example, a jilted ex knows that the new love of his former fling is into quads - so he gets one, looks up the registration number of the guy, plasters it on his new quad, and then flies it over a military base/stadium/[fill in the blank]. Seems far fetched, but imagine the possibilities of using this as a way to shirk responsibility and blame others.

But the FAA registration is also based on serial number of the quad. Someone can steal my N Number, and the quad in question can be found crashed on a table near a ferris wheel somewhere... when they check the N Number the serial number of the quad won't match up, so the offender will be out of luck...

 

[erkme73]

For those liberty-minded people who prefer to keep government and its peace officers law enforcement officers interactions to a minimum, my concern would be a compulsory interaction with law enforcement. I'm hoping someone can clear this up, but currently, if I'm CURRENTLY flying my quad on my property, or property where I'm legally authorized, and a cop shows up, I have ZERO legal requirement to interact. But, if as a result of this new registration requirement, said cop now has the authority to demand documentation - even without the reasonable suspicion that I have, am, or am about to commit a crime - well, there goes the 4th Amendment...

 

[erkme73]

But the FAA registration is also based on serial number of the quad. Someone can steal my N Number, and the quad in question can be found crashed on a table near a ferris wheel somewhere... when they check the N Number the serial number of the quad won't match up, so the offender will be out of luck...

Are we certain the SN won't be visible to the public? I've read elsewhere that they won't us N-numbers, since there is a finite amount, and they would likely be exhausted.

 

[davis]

I say go big or go home.

if local law can enforce the FAA rules and impose fines, guess what, that's revenue for the city. everyone will want to get paid at the end of the day.

 

[erkme73]

I think that some people want to get in here and quote laws and statutes to who laid the chunk, when they don't realize that probably everyone has made up their mind, to register or not to register. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. I for one wont listen to that kind of verbal masturbation.

But you'll be happy to contribute to it...

 

[davis]

"Register before January 20, 2016 and your $5 registration fee will be refunded!"

Probably only need to spend an hour or two to get this "refund"

you kidding? your refund will come 30-60 days after the january deadline. they'll collect the interest on all us hobbyists.

 

[kenjancef]

I look at it this way... if this registration is going to make it better for us in the long run, putting aside how we may feel about the Government, then I'm all for it. I'm getting sick and tired of people that fly like idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Do you know how much fun I have when I go out flying with my 8 year old son?? I don't want any idiot ruining that for me. Might not make sense to everyone, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it...