The PD checked my FAA numbers on my Drone !

[Sojourner60]

As I understood it (and I certainly can be wrong), hobby registration is all encompassing.. Not separate registration # per drone. I bought 2 new ones recently and could find no place on my FAA account to register the QC separately...

I thought when I registered mine a couple weeks back there was a NEW button for when ya get a second drone.

 

[AndrewCCM]

I thought when I registered mine a couple weeks back there was a NEW button for when ya get a second drone.

I just posted some reference screenshots... It’s a single registration # for recreational / non-commercial and not the same as N numbers. I just logged into my FAA account and there is no place to add a second registration, unless I am a 107 holder.

 

[P3$E pilot]

So maybe we need to ask ourselves why these rules and local laws are being written. That way we might be able to argue the value of the rules so they can be repealed or torn down in court.

Do people think all copters are flown by terrorists seeking ways to take down our Capitols or Gov't Centers?

Do Pilots or Local Airport Operators have concerns about copter ops?

Do these laws address privacy concerns of local residents?

Does the law have a valid concern for specific property?

Does the law guard sensitive property from undue scrutiny, especially after photos are made available to the general public?

Do people think the copters are going to rain down on them at a concert or other open venue?

I can't imagine all the things DHS is thinking we will do with them... YIKES!

I think what we all need to take away from this discussion is that we need to band together under some organization and lobby for a unified structure for rules at both the Federal and Local levels.

What organization do you think is the best for our cause? AOA? AOPA?

Sorry if you think this is a hijack, but we need to band together to be able to fight the silly rule making that has come along. I certainly don't want continuous drones flying over me from an Amazon Warehouse, but if my copter flies over my neighbor's house during a photo op on my property, it should not be illegal, yet it seems to be in Kalifornia. While I'm not a big fan of what's going on in Washington these days, we could simplify the "Drone Rules" by letting the FAA take control of all airspace with regard to aircraft. We could negotiate the rules in one arena and the rules would apply in all airspace above one's home. Yes, that could apply to the space above your roof line, but having a standard set of rules would stabilize a world of silly local rules. JMHO.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Disagree.

The battery can be displaced or even lost in an accident.

I didn’t you’ll find language to support that statement.

Disagree with your disagreement. The label can also fall off or be displaced in an accident, or even in flight. Oops! In the most serious of accidents, there won't be anything left of your aircraft either! As long as the number is on the drone somewhere, without tools being needed to access it, it is in compliance. The battery, once inserted, is part of the aircraft. You could even put the number on one of the props. Putting it anywhere on the exterior surface of the battery is also fine, but it is not required to be visible prior to removing the battery. You are required to show a copy of your certificate upon request to a LEO. However, you may refuse examination of your aircraft by a LEO who wishes to check for the number inside, since it is not required to be displayed externally, and you are not required to show it to them on the aircraft. Make them get a warrant! The only purpose of the number on the aircraft is if it is found and you are not there to provide your number. Once you have shown them a copy of your valid certificate, they have no further right to examine the aircraft. That would be strictly voluntary, requiring your consent. Don't give it.
From the LEO card: "Markings: All UAS greater than 0.55 lbs are required to be registered, regardless of the type of operation. The operator must provide the registration certificate (paper or electronic) upon request and the UAS must be marked with the registration or serial number. To verify registration, contact a LEAP agent during normal business hours or the Regional Ops Center after hours." Nowhere does it state you must prove marking with the registration number upon request. Your assertion that it is marked is sufficient when it is not externally visible.

 

[P3$E pilot]

I also think that Check Point and Ramp Checks or other transgressions are unconstitutional. They are random and have no reasonable suspicion or other reason for a search. Does any goon have the right to stop you and demand any papers they require, flashing you a badge of whatever pseudo authority? But I digress...

 

[GadgetGuy]

It is better to show them than be confrontational. You represent all drone pilots when you fly. It is the law to have it registered, there is no way short of you landing for them to see it.where is the problem?

You only need to show them a copy of your registration certificate. That can be done without landing the aircraft, and you have a right to land the aircraft wherever and whenever you choose, as long as you are not breaking any laws. Nothing requires that it be landed where you launched from.

 

[Sojourner60]

I think part of the confusion is caused by some of us on this forum are recreational pilots and some are 107. My comments about registration are based on my experience as a 107 pilot.

 

[msinger]

As long as the number is on the drone somewhere, without tools being needed to access it, it is in compliance. The battery, once inserted, is part of the aircraft. You could even put the number on one of the props.

Please state your official FAA source.

 

[Mark The Droner]

I think this is one of those deals where there is no clear answer, there are arguments on both sides, and it would have to be hashed out in court for several days while hearing expert testimony from various sources supporting each side to finally allow a federal judge to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion so that the language of the rule can be edited so to be made perfectly clear as far as interpretation with no ambiguity...

Meanwhile the feds are closed down here in DC for lack of funds ...

 

[msinger]

I think this is one of those deals where there is no clear answer, there are arguments on both sides, and it would have to be hashed out in court for several days while hearing expert testimony from various sources supporting each side to finally allow a federal judge to come to some kind of reasonable conclusion so that the language of the rule can be edited so to be made perfectly clear as far as interpretation with no ambiguity...

Just going by the this example created by the FAA, it seems pretty clear that they want you to mark the actual aircraft (and not a removable part of the aircraft).

If you take time to dig into the subject further, you'll likely find this document which states you must "mark the aircraft in accordance with the provisions in 48.200 and 48.205".

14 CFR 48.205 states the following:

"The unique identifier must be affixed to the small unmanned aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed for the duration of each operation."

You've been around here for a while now, so I'm sure you've seen cases where a prop or battery was nowhere to be found when a crashed drone was recovered. That being the case, it doesn't seem marking those parts would satisfy the must "remain affixed for the duration of each operation" requirement.

 

[N017RW]

Please state your official FAA source.

He can't with absolute specificity, the term used is 'affixed to the aircraft' (I suppose you could create a flying battery ).
I respect his opinions but seems he is more interested in word play and creative interpretations as well as testing civil rights through civil disobedience.
You can do and act as he says but you'll possibly just find yourself in a situation that could have been easily avoided.

The FAA/LEO guidelines states that LEOs are to request aircraft registration certificate (physically/paper or electronically/mobile device) and verify markings on the aircraft. I suppose marking on the battery would suffice for some LEOs but should an incident occur I suspect this will result in a point of non-compliance. The aforementioned guidelines:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_enforcement/media/LEO_guidance_card.pdf

Additionally, this makes me scratch my head when another poster equated this document examination to 'surrendering' you registration of which you can just print as many as you want.

 

[Lakotah]

You know I came on this board to learn new and exciting things. All I’ve learned so far is how anti-police most of you are. To be honest, most of you spewing I know my rights don’t really know much if anything at all. I appreciate the learning experience but I think I will move on. While some of you are on track and have a understanding of what to do in a police encounter, others are very far off base, and you wonder why the encounter is not always cordial or you end up in trouble. Lack of accepting responsibility and always blaming others is the new trend. As well as not respecting laws, rules, and regulations.
I have seen people brag about violating all of the above as well as post videos or links to videos of their wrong doing on this site while others attempted to verbally correct the wrong doing only to get told, oh it wasn’t so bad, I only did it for a few minutes. Its not a big deal. Your total lack of respect for any law that you don’t feel you should follow is always somebody elses problem. “I’m gonna do what I want to do.” Then your called on it, and now its the Officers who are in the wrong since the are so uninformed or whatever other negative moniker you want to add to their title.
A friendly piece of advice, most of you anti-police advocates really need to learn the law before you get somebody in lots of trouble with your bad advice.
Not saying the OP was not giving full disclosure on his first post but he gives part of the story up front and later on says the officer was asking all sorts of questions which gives the impression the officer was more curious about the drone and learning things than harassing as what may have been the initial impression. Which to me attempted to make the officer to appear to over step his authority.
Officers can talk to whoever they want, whenever they want (they are human) without a warrant. A warrant is not needed to start a conversation. It is your choice at that point on how to proceed.

 

[N017RW]

There is lots to be learned here. The membership is a cross section of society, cultures, experiences, education and attitudes.
Sorry you feel you must move on but with all do respect it seems you lack tolerance which is a virtue.
Simply avoid non-technical discussions then and you will learn new things.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

havent you read my prior post .its Very Legal above as stated By thwe FAA. https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/registration/media/UAS_how_to_label_Infographic.pdf

What and where are you telling the FAA they're wrong? That's from their website.

Here's the actual regulation for marking of sUAVs.

FAR 48 REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

Subpart C—Aircraft Marking

§48.200 General.

(a) No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft registered in accordance with this part unless the aircraft displays a unique identifier in accordance with the requirements of §48.205 of this subpart.

(b) A unique identifier is one of the following:

(1) The registration number issued to an individual or the registration number issued to the aircraft by the Registry upon completion of the registration process provided by this part; or

(2) If authorized by the Administrator and provided with the application for Certificate of Aircraft Registration under §48.100 of this part, the small unmanned aircraft serial number.

§48.205 Display and location of unique identifier.

(a) The unique identifier must be maintained in a condition that is legible.

(b) The unique identifier must be affixed to the small unmanned aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed for the duration of each operation.

(c) The unique identifier must be readily accessible and visible upon inspection of the small unmanned aircraft. A unique identifier enclosed in a compartment is readily accessible if it can be accessed without the use of any tool.

 

[RKBA]

While it is often mentioned and link is provided, I have rarely if ever seen the actual verbiage of the “LEO card“ text posted. It deserves some examination. Starting with the first line, it reads:

“If you suspect a UAS operation is unsafe or unauthorized”:.......

In law enforcement world, “suspicion“ is never legal justification to arrest or otherwise detain an individual. This is not an opinion, this is the law. The above text should read “if you reasonably suspect“. This is not an interpretation or parsing of words, it is the LAW. This is the universal standard and has been since the Constitution was adopted over 200 years ago. While a police officer acting under the color of authority can ask you to do anything he wants voluntarily, he can only require you to do something if he or she reasonably suspect you of breaking a law and even then the 5th amendment allows you to decline. At that point (if you decline), the police officer’s only recourse is to place you under arrest and let the system take over. Moral of the story, it is always your choice how to proceed when interacting with police not theirs. Some on this forum Characterize this as being “anti-cops” while others characterize it as standing up for our rights. Fortunately that pesky 1st amendment allows both schools of thought. Not that anyone asked me but RKBAs choice is a simple one..... if a police officer approaches me while operating my drone and asks me to do something, I am going to ask them a question: “why are you asking me?“ If their answer doesn’t include that they reasonably suspect my UAS Operation is unsafe or unauthorized ( using the exact words written on the little card they are holding), I will politely decline and go on my way.

Welcome to the United States of America

 

[AndrewCCM]

I presented a similar question of a cop friend of mine who is a pilot and also flies drones. His response? "Potential Public Nuisance," almost a catch-all in many small towns. You're in a public place flying a drone, LE "may" reserve the right to ensure that you're not doing anything to annoy or endanger others within the community. In doing so he asks to see your registration. Not my interpretation but to be honest I don't see any judge disagreeing with this approach.

Curious what the legal definition of “annoy” others in the community is. There are plenty of annoying people that live on my block...They don’t even own drones...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Curious what the legal definition of “annoy” others in the community is. There are plenty of annoying people that live on my block...They don’t even own drones...

I guess it depends where you live. I grew up in NYC, the "annoying" tolerance could be high but when someone throws a brick through your window I guess they were annoyed!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Please state your official FAA source.

Please state yours!

 

[msinger]

Please state yours!

See my post above.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Just going by the this example created by the FAA, it seems pretty clear that they want you to mark the actual aircraft (and not a removable part of the aircraft).

If you take time to dig into the subject further, you'll likely find this document which states you must "mark the aircraft in accordance with the provisions in 48.200 and 48.205".

14 CFR 48.205 states the following:

"The unique identifier must be affixed to the small unmanned aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed for the duration of each operation."

You've been around here for a while now, so I'm sure you've seen cases where a prop or battery was nowhere to be found when a crashed drone was recovered. That being the case, it doesn't seem marking those parts would satisfy the must "remain affixed for the duration of each operation" requirement.

You are now playing lawyer, and speculating. "Affixed by any means necessary" certainly can include writing it on the battery inserted into the aircraft or written upon a prop. Those parts become part of the aircraft, once attached and inserted, since the "duration of each operation" does not include a crash, that might cause them to be broken off or ejected! We've all seen cases where the entire aircraft was destroyed (Blackhawk v. Drone) except for a single motor. So what? You took a position that cannot be defended without making multiple other assumptions that are not sustainable.