Who will register their Phantom with the FAA?

[John N Kronyak]

I predict that:
1. Government makes a rule for registration.
2. Registration won't be obeyed by a large percentage of the people.
3. The problems that the Government said registration would fix will not fix it.
4. Government decides that the regulations didn't go far enough and proposes rigorous enforcement.
5. Government to hire 100,000 new government union employees with pensions and healthcare to police the drones.
6. Registration fees will go way up to pay for the new staff. Draconian fines will accompany very innocent mistakes. Outlaws will continue without repercussions.
7. All the above still won't solve the worst problems.
8. A new government solution will be proposed where everybody wanting to fly a drone has to attend a 16 hour class, do a Homeland Security background check, get photographed, fingerprinted, and carry a government license when you fly. Also log and report all flights.
9. Hire 200,000 new employees for the newly created Federal Government agency DAA (Drone Administration Agency)
10. All government agencies will be completely exempt from the new rules and allowed to surveil all of us at their whims.

Right on the mark,kirkdickinson

 

[joseph sharp]

So will you slap some numbers on your P3x and register with the FAA?

doesn't any body want to play by the rules? thank the rogue pilots for all the hassle of the faa

 

[4kskyguy]

anyone need lettering contact mike at [email protected]. I have a vinyl cutter for making letters - just tell me the size and colors and what you want written. I do it as a hobby/hobby/hobby. lol
Here is a point no one thought of - if you loose it they can get it back to you ! And if registered some yahoo cop cant take it .

 

[iowahill]

So will you slap some numbers on your P3x and register with the FAA?

If that's what's required, I'll do it. I am a Private Pilot who always secured my seat belt on takeoff and landing as required, but never did so in my car until mandated by law. Protests are futile and traffic fines are expensive. I will comply with any REASONABLE regs that protect the legitimate rights of others while also allowing me my own equally legitimate rights. As a nation, we in the United States allow greater freedoms of frequency use and airspace allowances than other nations (AND a few of our own state/regional restrictions!). We must respect and support reasonable use of the skies above our ears as we are not the only ones using that space.

 

[snerd]

I slapped a few letters and numbers on my phantom... you wouldn't believe all the thumbs up at the park! The numbers somehow make them feel much better now.

Also... sense I feel like I'm a 'pilot' now... I wear an American Airlines looking pilot hat.. .makes me feel like I'm a real pilot and that I am actually piloting.

Okay, I LOL'd at this !!

 

[kenjancef]

Okay, I LOL'd at this !!

He was kidding???

 

[SteveMann]

I think that's why they are doing this. $ big fines

No, it's not about money. The FAA does not keep one cent of any fines it collects. And a million dollar fine is couch lint in a $9 Billion dollar budget.

 

[SteveMann]

Most of this could be constructed under the current framework of law, though there would need to be some adjustments to make it easier.

It's amazing how bullheaded the DOT and FAA officials are on this when the solution on where to start is SO simple - instead of concentrating on the similarities, work it thru based on the differences!

I wrote a guest editorial in Robotics Trends about exactly this analogy. The problem is the FAA is prohibited by Congress from promulgating any new rules affecting hobby aircraft flight, and operator licensing would require an amendment to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, or a new law. The FAA does have the authority to require registration - some would say a statutory obligation. So, according to the FAA, no new rules needed.

 

[Bob West]

Darn, I just sold mine and I forget the name of the guy who bought it.

 

[Chuck Young]

And you can sure they'll be a fee. More disguised taxation.

Are you serious?

Five Bucks. Five Bucks? Now that is one serious TAX, five bucks.

 

[jlummel]

[...] the FAA is prohibited by Congress from promulgating any new rules affecting hobby aircraft flight, [...] The FAA does have the authority to require registration - some would say a statutory obligation. So, according to the FAA, no new rules needed.

The authority to require registration of commercial equipment only! But not hobby equipment, and as you point out above the FAA is prohibited by Congress from doing such.

If a change is to be made for hobby equipment, it would make more sense to change it to operate like a ham license than try some harebrained registration scheme doomed to failure in both the courts of law AND the court of public opinion...

The "adjustments" to the law I mentioned earlier were in regards to exactly that.

 

[kenjancef]

Are you serious?

Five Bucks. Five Bucks. Now that is one serious TAX, five bucks.

Actually, if you give them the number you want, instead of taking the next available number, it's ten bucks...

 

[SteveMann]

The authority to require registration of commercial equipment, but not hobby equipment (and are in fact prohibited from it). If a change is to be made for hobby equipment, it would make more sense to change it to operate like a ham license than try some harebrained registration scheme doomed to failure in both the courts of law AND the court of public opinion...

No, the FAA is actually statutorily required to register all aircraft:

49 U.S. Code § 44101 - Operation of aircraft
(a) Registration Requirement.— Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a person may operate an aircraft only when the aircraft is registered under section 44103 of this title.
​

In the administrator's logic for requiring the registration of model aircraft, well read it for yourself:

"In 2012, Congress confirmed that UAS, including those used for recreation or hobby purposes, are aircraft consistent with the statutory definition set forth in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(6). See Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 331(8), 336 (defining an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft that is that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft,” and model aircraft as “an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft, and flown for hobby or recreational purposes”); see also Administrator v. Pirker, NTSB Order No. EA-5730, (Nov. 17, 2014) (affirming that the statutory definition of aircraft is clear and unambiguous and “includes any air aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small.”). Because UAS, including model aircraft, are aircraft, they are subject to FAA regulation, including the statutory requirements regarding registration set forth in 49 U.S.C. 44101(a), and further prescribed in regulation at 14 CFR part 47."
​

The FAA is probably correct that 49 USC §44101(a) does require that all aircraft be registered. More on that below.

But there are there are two things wrong with this statement. First, the court has already told the FAA that section 336 is not to be interpreted as a rule and if the FAA wants to make a rule based on Section 336 they need to go through the rulemaking process. Second, the NTSB Pirker decision said:

"At this stage of the proceeding, however, we decline to address issues beyond the threshold question that produced the decisional order on appeal: Is respondent’s unmanned aircraft system (UAS) an “aircraft” for purposes of § 91.13(a), which prohibits any “person” from “operat[ing] an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another”? We answer that question in the affirmative."
​

In other words, the Pirker NTSB decision determined that only 14 CFR §91.13 'Careless and Reckless' is applicable to model aircraft.

Next is the problem of making an emergency rule (SFAR) to implement this registry in less than two months, bypassing the normal NPRM process. 14 CFR §91.139 - 'Emergency air traffic rules' gives the administrator the authority to make up rules "Whenever the Administrator determines that an emergency condition exists, or will exist, ". I am pretty confident that someone will challenge the validity of the emergency rule on the ground that it was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act's (“APA”) notice and comment provision, 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). In other words, 'what emergency'?

If 49 USC §44101(a) does require that all aircraft be registered, the fact that the FAA has never followed the statute with model aircraft for decades, then they had plenty of time to promulgate rules through the normal NTSB process. In other words, what emergency?

 

[jlummel]

No, the FAA is actually statutorily required [...]

So we are on the same page then, that this registration scheme for hobby aircraft would be VERY unlikely to survive a court challenge and instead of wasting the time and effort to create a registration system, defend it in court and then eventually scrap it when it's found to violate the law, we should look towards implementing a regulatory scheme that is neither unwieldy nor over-reaching, and that works for everyone.

I favor a system similar to what the FCC does for ham operators, for the record. I'm not so much against regulation, I'm just against bad regulation...

PS- An interesting aspect of this is the FAA is saying 'because we registered aircraft before the 2012 law, we can still register hobby aircraft now'. Unfortunate because they are "prohibited by Congress from promulgating any new rules affecting hobby aircraft flight" there is no legal way for them start the process of registration now despite the creative way they interpret things. How is preventing someone from flying because their UAV isn't registered (which is the purpose of the new regulations this task force is working on) NOT going affect hobby aircraft flight? The FAA is trying to finesse their way onto a boat that's already sailed! They failed to act before the 2012 law and now they are prohibited from acting!

 

[fly_it]

I slapped a few letters and numbers on my phantom... you wouldn't believe all the thumbs up at the park! The numbers somehow make them feel much better now.

Also... sense I feel like I'm a 'pilot' now... I wear an American Airlines looking pilot hat.. .makes me feel like I'm a real pilot and that I am actually piloting.

Okay, I LOL'd at this !!

He was kidding???

@Bryce Are you kidding about the N number or are you actually getting more positive responses because of it?

 

[GadgetGuy]

It's 400' above ground level. Ground level = 0.

The DJI GO telemetry only measures 400 feet above the launch point, with no consideration for flying to lower elevations. Launch at 250 above sea level, fly up to 400 feet, and fly to the ocean. You are now 650 above "ground" and yet still haven't exceeded the 400 foot DJI limit, but are now out of compliance with FAA "guidelines"...

 

[GadgetGuy]

In the last month I've seen members here detail how to throw the police off your tracks by faking landing spots, or having a back up "sacrificial decoy" drone to confuse the police. I've seen many members advocate that since there are no "laws," only "rules," we should flaunt those rules or at least ignore them and fly with impunity. I've seen others here advocate flying at ridiculous altitudes.

You apparently have no sense of humor, and love to read malicious intent into everything you read that you didn't write yourself!

 

[RCFantom]

Ah, yes, completely forgot about that lol

So what's the big deal about this whole registration thing anyways? What is there to really be afraid of?

Trying to pacify the media and the rest of the cookie cutter community who's first impression of the word drone is.... Oooh no...

 

[GoodnNuff]

You apparently have no sense of humor, and love to read malicious intent into everything you read that you didn't write yourself!

People take such post serious regardless of the intent. And then they imitate.
People think that Bryce has really garnered respect by slapping some numbers on his quad and wearing a pilot hat. How many people will read that, slap some random numbers on their rig, and find an old pilot's hat to wear and think they are now a pilot?

 

[iowahill]

The DJI GO telemetry only measures 400 feet above the launch point, with no consideration for flying to lower elevations. Launch at 250 above sea level, fly up to 400 feet, and fly to the ocean. You are now 650 above "ground" and yet still haven't exceeded the 400 foot DJI limit, but are now out of compliance with FAA "guidelines"...

I don't think it quite works that way with the FAA rules. If it did, anyone living and/or operating their UAV 400 feet or more above sea level would be in violation. Hello Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, Boise, etc. I believe that AGL is the intended reference.