FAA Registration Rules Announced NOW

[joe21]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you:
(William E. Peck and Co., Inc. v. Lowe)

There is also Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (among others). I see where you are coming from but don't want to derail the topic further. I merely wanted to explain where I thought the tax analogy came from..In the end, you are NOT going to win a court case for not paying income taxes with a Constitutional argument.

Which I guess brings us back to the topic. Regardless of "Constitutionality" the three branches often work together to manufacture a desired result. If they need to re-interpret, re-write, ignore - or create a constitutional amendment, they will to achieve their goals. It's a noble argument, but usually an expensive and futile one.

 

[Reed L]

It's one thing to sit here and watch the government break the law and it's another to fight back. As a California Gold Miner, I've been fighting and losing for years,but we still fight. When laws or people go too far, then it's time for the state to Step in and fight for us. What we really need is a group willing to fight for laws not to be broken. The FAA wants us to register toys now, next it will be squirt guns... We've already had a lot of people and counties stand up for us in California as far as our mining rights go -and when the USFS went to far, the Mariposa Country Sheriff took away their authority. So I'm not trying to go off topic, I'm letting you see that there have been many others fighting for our rights against the government overstepping their grounds for a long time. You will always have an activist in an open forum saying that it's all for the greater good, whether it's legal or not. On the mining forum that I visit, we have had open discussions with the activists that constantly monitor it. There are activists here as well.
Here's the link to the story on Mariposa County and we have been fighting laws that break the law for many years.

Sonora / Tuolumne News, Sports, & Weather, Angels Camp, Twain Harte, Jamestown | Union Democrat

And here's a letter on the officer - Yet another USFS LEO gone rogue - American Mining Rights Association

Then just to top it off for people who have some time, you can watch the USFS lying on their show we miners call "Wild Injustice", where they use dead fish in their shows that were part of some toxic spill that took place in some other part of the country. The National Geographic Camera Crews had the miners sign a contract before the show, saying that they would go along with the script. Then when it became heated, they were told that they would be put away, everything would be confiscated and that they had signed the contracts. There's a whole playlist on it and then so much more. The USFS did their best to mask the truth and make all miners look bad, while they are actually breaking Federal Law right on TV. It's no different here with UAV's other then this is just the beginning. We've all seen the media's anti-drone policy just like we've all seen their anti-mining policy. What we need is a Political Voice run by enough people who know the UAV laws and will help us all fight together. AMA could be this voice if they choose but the decision needs to be made for everyone of us to unite together and keep the fed's out of our differing State's business. Registration should be state run if at all and like has been stated here already - the Fed's really don't have any lawful authority on our small UAV's. It's free to sign their form and register but is it legal? And if not then how can we come together to fight it. It's like with the gun laws, the feds found out that they couldn't take our guns away, so they took away the availability to buy the ammunition in many states and bought billions of rounds for every department they could to keep the ammo out of the hands of the people who can fight back... Bottom Line is when asked to fly for a tv show - don't sign a script, even if they tell you it's pro-UAV

 

[ianwood]

OK. Enough tax talk already!

 

[GadgetGuy]

14 CFR §61.3 - Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.

(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:

(1) The Administrator;
(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;
(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.
​

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.

Excellent information, Steve! Thank you!
"First show me your papers, and then I'll show you mine.
Otherwise, buzz off!"
If he has a gun and a badge, then I'll share willingly!

 

[GadgetGuy]

AMA and the FAA Registration Process
"Unfortunately, the new FAA registration rule does not include our advice."
AMA Government Relations and Advocacy Team

Your self serving "advice" and attempt to sell all drone owners down the river to protect your own skins didn't work! Welcome to FAA registration!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Model aircraft are considered aircraft for the purpose of FAA rules. Aircraft registration data has been public information for decades. Why should you be different? What makes you special?

Nothing. Thank you for confirming this fact. It will help those who still erroneously believe that "hiding" your registration number inside your battery compartment will prevent anyone else from discovering it and planting your number inside their rogue drone in order to frame you for their nefarious acts. Every registration number is publicly available to anyone!

 

[GadgetGuy]

You are giving the AMA too much credit. Except for emergencies, the FAA doesn't make rules without a comment opportunity. They are extremely reluctant to reopening a closed docket. Consider the Part 107 NPRM 60-day comment period. The FAA denied three petitioners who wanted to extend the comment period: The U.S. Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association, The Helicopter Association International, The Agricultural Retailers Association. There's no way the FAA will re-open a docket for the AMA.

I agree. My only point is that the AMA is still trying anyway. See their post above!

 

[speedytwenty]

Which I guess brings us back to the topic. Regardless of "Constitutionality" the three branches often work together to manufacture a desired result. If they need to re-interpret, re-write, ignore - or create a constitutional amendment, they will to achieve their goals. It's a noble argument, but usually an expensive and futile one.

That's why it's important to be clear. People think the Constitution grants them rights when rights don't exist. The only rights we have are the ones we're capable and willing to defend.

The government structures the legal system to brainwash us into thinking they are acting for the benefit of the "people". And the court system is tailored so that it's the defendant against everyone. Eg. "State vs. Me"

Their authority is illegitimate regardless of anything written on paper. Their so called jurisdiction is derived at the barrel of a gun. They just can't be too obvious because they need the obedient slaves to control the disobedient slaves.

 

[GadgetGuy]

It's that idiot drone flyers that required this registration.

I would argue that it has been the daily hype by the media, working the public up into a frenzy about hobbyist drones, while deliberately exploiting the unpopularity of military drones, and lumping them all into one category used for spying and assassination. If our aircraft had always been called quadcopters, instead of drones, this never would have happened.

 

[ken ferg]

Looks like I will hold off my purchase until the final rules are published. Was stoked to get my 1st drone. hate to get one and find out down the road it has to be tethered to your yard! Will used the grand I would have spent on more reloading stuff. Enjoy your hobby folks. Looks like it is getting neutered.

"tethered to your yard!" NOPE !! To quote the FAA's Q&A
Q. What about tethered drones?

A. Both tethered and untethered UAS must be registered.

Evidently The Muller Sky Car, and hot air balloons can be tethered and not considered "flying craft" by the FAA while tethered. But not us! Side note my Grand Father was an FAA A & P mechanic and I can remember him tieing a rope to a uncertified helicopter's landing skid so he could test hover it legally.

Once again we are special!

 

[GadgetGuy]

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...

Not for hobbyists. One number without an "N" used for all your hobby aircraft, now owned and acquired within the next three years. No serial numbers or specified aircraft owned and operated by you is currently going to be required,

I have no idea... You may be right, being that they said it won't be like N Number registration. Good point... Guess we won't know for sure until next Monday. Someone should compute how many combinations there can be with N Numbers... lol...

And in my case, since I have an N Number for my P2, what do I do with the Syma X5c that I just bought 2 days ago? And what do I do with the quad I'm building now? Waiting on the motors from China before I can get it airborne... probably have to register those separately.

You need to read the 211 pages. No N numbers for hobbyists since registration will only be available in the United States. Just one reg# useable for all your aircraft. No need to wait until Monday.

Umm... yea, it is... I just did a search on my N Number...the very first box in the result is the serial number of my Phantom...

If you have an N number, serial number is required. If you are registering as a hobbyist now, no N number is available to you until you become commercial.

 

[Meta4]

That's why it's important to be clear. People think the Constitution grants them rights when rights don't exist. The only rights we have are the ones we're capable and willing to defend ....

Their authority is illegitimate regardless of anything written on paper. Their so called jurisdiction is derived at the barrel of a gun. They just can't be too obvious because they need the obedient slaves to control the disobedient slaves.

Apart from being irrelevant and tedious this post is against the spirit of rule 13 in our community guidelines here:
Community Guidelines | DJI Phantom Forum

There are plenty of forums where you can drag that stuff out but don't bring it in here.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Someone else did that earlier, didn't follow up on it. That said, most registration sites are public, but your name isn't required, just a number to put on an "unregistered" vehicle. Could even be made up if you have the format or read off someone's vehicle.

Exactly, but the FAA has explicitly stated in the 211 page document that the public can input any registration number and immediately see the owner's full name, and one would assume you could also enter any name and get the associated registration number. In any event, it's public information, available to anyone!

Unless I'm totally missing something (wouldn't be the first time.. today LOL) they have stated it is NOT a public database. This could have changed since the initial release though. Here's what I'm going on:

Privacy
Q. Who can see the data that I can enter?

A. The FAA will be able to see the data that you enter. The FAA is using a contractor to maintain the website and database, and that contractor also will be able to see the data that you enter. Like the FAA, the contractor is required to comply with strict legal requirements to protect the confidentiality of the personal data you provide. Under certain circumstances, law enforcement officers might also be able to see the data.

Q. Will my email address be used for other purposes? Will you make it available to other agencies or companies?

A. No.

Q. Why is the current Aircraft Registry fully searchable but this one is not?

A. The current Aircraft Registry is most frequently used to record the documents used to secure the financing of the aircraft and to aid in proof of ownership. Full searchability of that portion of the Aircraft Registry is needed to enable those purposes. It is much less likely that UAS in the .55 pound to 55 pounds category will require secured financing or need to affirmatively prove ownership. The Government, in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act, protects and generally does not release personal information. Given the nature of UAS, in particular, the risk that the communications link between the operator of the UAS is disrupted or lost, and the risk of losing the UAS is larger than it is for other types of aircraft. Allowing searches of the unique identifying number of UAS will enable the return of these aircraft to their owners

You need to read the 211 page document, and cannot rely upon the ambiguities in the FAQ. The public will be able to enter a registration number and retrieve the full name and physical address of the registered owner of that number. No ambiguity in this statement by the FAA:

"Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier, The name and address associated with that unique identifier will populate in accordance with that search." (Page 148)

GadgetGuy is the one that has made the proclamation that the registration numbers will be accessible to the public, I doubt the veracity of his statement and didn't bother asking for a citation.

Why won't anyone else read the 211 page document themselves? Am I the only one who can read? It is the first link in this thread. Before you post, you all need to read it! Read and then post. Stop speculating and doubting the veracity of the FAA document that is the very subject of this thread, until you have at least read it yourself first!

 

[Meta4]

Exactly, but the FAA has explicitly stated in the 211 page document that the public can input any registration number and immediately see the owner's full name, and one would assume you could also enter any name and get the associated registration number. In any event, it's public information, available to anyone!

GG ... I'm trolling through the 211 pages myself.
Can you point me to the page where this gem is?

 

[GadgetGuy]

""

Exerpt from the FAA FAQ:
I don't know the answer. To my reading the first sentence contradicts the next two. First they claim they "generally" do not release personal information. Then they go on to imply a need to release that same personal information. The last sentence in particular strongly implies that you will be able to search for an owners information if you have the registration number.

The FAQ is not the document that controls. It was a poorly written ambiguous summary of a very clearly written 211 page legal document. Read the 211 page document itself. It is unambiguous! The public can enter a registration number and pull up your full name!

"Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier, The name and address associated with that unique identifier will populate in accordance with that search." (Page 148)

GG ... I'm trolling through the 211 pages myself.
Can you point me to the page where this gem is?

Since you asked nicely , page 148, in the middle of the page, states,

"Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier, The name and address associated with that unique identifier will populate in accordance with that search."

Anyone still doubting the veracity of my statements above?

Everyone reading this thread should really read the entire original 211 page document to better understand how the FAA justified this registration requirement, and how the AMA tried to sell all drone owners down the river during the process, in all the AMA proposals and AMA advice to the FAA to get the FAA to exclude the AMA from registration while forcing us to all join the AMA and register our drones with the AMA, so we could all fly under all AMA rules!

That would make sense, if you have the number, you can search a database to link it to a specific owner. However I doubt the list will be open to public perusal.
It would make no sense. I can't access a database of car registration numbers, drivers licenses, etc., and I don't see this information being any less protected.

It may make no sense to you, but it does to the FAA. So decreed by them Monday in the 211 page document, that you apparently still haven't read, but seem to know all about. Please read the document, so you can catch up, and then we can all be on the same page...

"Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier, The name and address associated with that unique identifier will populate in accordance with that search." (Page 148)

The N database is open and online. Most gov't databases are open, just not online. It's called public record, but usually involves you showing up in some gov't office and making the request in writing.

Not here. It will be a publicly searchable online database for the public to use to put in a reg number and retrieve the full name and address of the registrant.

"Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier, The name and address associated with that unique identifier will populate in accordance with that search." (Page 148)

I'll answer you directly, how's that? I am operating under the assumption that the database will become public. Initial posts 20-pages ago claimed that this was the case.

The information in the FAQ is clear as mud. For most of it, it talks about aircraft needing to be registered - yet it says for hobby fliers, only one number is issued - which can be applied to multiple aircraft. That implies it is the owner, not the aircraft that is registered. Then, under the privacy portion, it again discusses the need to reunite owners with aircraft which have been lost due to loss of communication.

So, according to the FAQ, if I find a quad in the woods and manage to find a registration number, how do I find the owner? Would that not require access to the database?

If FAQ, in its entirety is so buggered up and filled with conflicting double-speak, can you imagine what the enforcement will be like?

Please don't rely on the poorly written, ambiguous FAQ.

(It was apparently written by the same copywriter DJI used who wrote the promotional email for the thermal imaging camera, encouraging everyone to fly over fires to better understand how they spread!).

The only document that matters is the 211 page document cited at the beginning of this thread. It is the ORIGINAL SOURCE! It is unambiguous and very clear!

Are there any exemptions? The government nearly always writes in loop hole exemptions for Congress, police and whomever they deem are above the laws for us little people.

Good work mods having a good website where an actual discussion takes place and not just a bunch of trolling.

Everyone wants to discuss the FAQ, and no one, except me, has apparently read the actual 211 page document, cited in the first post, which this thread is supposed to be about, and not the FAQ!

The original 211 page document, if people would bother to read it, rather than a poorly written Cliff's Notes FAQ version, contradicts about 50% of the posts made so far about what will and won't happen.

"Additionally, as provided in the SORN, the general public will be able to search the part 48 registry database by the unique identifier, The name and address associated with that unique identifier will populate in accordance with that search."

 

[speedytwenty]

Apart from being irrelevant and tedious this post is against the spirit of rule 13 in our community guidelines here

Tedious? Perhaps.
Irrelevant? I strongly disagree.

The answer to whether or not you "must" register your drone is relevant to the jurisdiction the the FAA claims to have. This might be too deep for your liking but please explain to me how it is irrelevant please.

 

[Meta4]

Irrelevant? I strongly disagree.

The answer to whether or not you "must" register your drone is relevant to the jurisdiction the the FAA claims to have. This might be too deep for your liking but please explain to me how it is irrelevant please.

The community guidelines are quite clear.
Let's try to get things back on topic rather than getting distracted with political philosophies.

 

[Meta4]

Lots of crazy drone haters out there will now have easy access to the physical address required of every registered drone owner.

I won't dispute that there are some crazy folks out there unreasonably opposed to personal drones.
But they would only have easy access to the physical address of the owner of a drone if they can get the registration number.
How easy is that going to be for them?

 

[Reed L]

Any law enforcement officer can demand to see it, after being summoned by a drone hater complaining you are flying unregistered and won't prove to them that you are registered. Then the RP can request the officer to give him your reg # so they can immediately look it up to verify it is yours. Not a stretch. At the very least, you can be detained based upon the complaint. They can even falsely claim you were spying on their kids or through their windows to get the cops to respond, based upon a separate violation of invasion of privacy.

Sounds like when it happens we will all be wearing our registration on our hat's like the Fisherman in many states, but unfortunately it will be for our own safety.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I won't dispute that there are some crazy folks out there unreasonably opposed to personal drones.
But they would only have easy access to the physical address of the owner of a drone if they can get the registration number.
How easy is that going to be for them?

That remains to be seen. The FAA hasn't yet disclosed if the database will be reverse searchable by name. The easiest way would be to involve a law enforcement officer, complaining about your drone flying, get the cop to get your number, and then request a copy of the incident report, or ask for the number from the officer so they can verify it isn't bogus, which is the purpose of the FAA making it publicly searchable. If they can involve a cop, it's pretty easy. Merely threatening to call a cop if you don't give them your reg number might be enough. How else will they know you are registered without calling a cop?