Press Release – FAA Announces Small UAS Registration Rule

AMA is pulling to get us to use our AMA numbers instead. Still, the whole thing is stupid. Someone reports a UAS for violating rules that are 1) subject to interpretation and 2) would be hard to identify the violator in the first place. You could always say, no, wasn't mine, must have been someone else in the area with an unregistered UAS.
 
So if a kid writes his operators number in normal script on the top of the device, how's anybody going to read it to even call?

Cowman is right, this is simply for an after the fact finger pointing exercise.
 
Palmpilot said:
Considering how quickly this was thrown together, I think the FAA is in a panic.
Click to expand...


No just behind the power curve. Power being many literally.

ollopa said:
This is stupid. I guess I'll be painting fake somebody else's numbers on all my model aircraft.
Click to expand...


Cmon. Have some fun. Wipe down the thing for prints, put someone's number you hate on it, and fly it square into the window at a control tower. Hahaha. You need more evil in your plan.

jbarrass said:
So if a kid writes his operators number in normal script on the top of the device, how's anybody going to read it to even call?

Cowman is right, this is simply for an after the fact finger pointing exercise.
Click to expand...


They're going to reassemble the little bits after it goes through a high bypass turbine and hold a 13 year old accountable for an airliner engine. Should be plenty of fun to watch on TV.

You mean a head stuffing exercise. Squarely up and locked -- and the emergency extension procedure hasn't worked.

Wonder how long until some civil disobedient lands a fleet of the things on the entrance steps to FAA HQ autonomously. Haha.
 
evapilotaz said:
So I own 5 RC Airplanes and 3 Quad copters. Thanks to all the abusers of the hobby I have to register.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Maybe this will get more in the mainstream to think about gun control laws in a different light. There may be a silver lining after all.
 
This is a little tongue in cheek but I couldn't resist. ;)

So, let me get this straight...the same agency that is whining about being under funded because of ridiculous oversight programs and heavy handedness creates an even larger bureaucracy. Here is my spin...the FAA needed to find some way to offset the dwindling GA numbers, because of over regulation, by requiring 400,000 drones to be registered as aircraft. The same reason they would consider reserving Class G airspace or Drone Zones for Amazon's stupid drone deliveries. Virtually overnight, a new business case to request more funding and save their collective hydes. It's a money grab.:yes:

I'm surprised no one has gone down the deep conspiracy trail on this topic.

This isn't about safety it is about keeping surveillance technologies out of the hands of common people. Homeland Security doesn't want the populace to have the same capabilities that they are using against their own people.:lol:
 
I am surprised at the tenor of this discussion, I am sick of government waste & regulation as much as the next fellow but I see the merit in this reg. I know a fellow who has a fairly high end quad copter, he knows the regs but blows them off, flies up to several thousand feet, out of LOS. My understanding is that commercial pilots have reported several hundred near misses with drones this year alone. Something tells me there were similar discussions when car registration was introduced, and ditto for airplane registration & pilot certs. The truth is there are 350M people in this country & we cannot behave like we are living in the Wild West of the 1880s. In fact a drone can be much more of a hazard to a large plane than one of us flying around--at least we will show up on TCAS. So even though i cannot believe I am saying it, I support this reg.

and $5? that's like, what a cappuccino?
 
hankrausch said:
he knows the regs but blows them off, flies up to several thousand feet, out of LOS.
Click to expand...

When we have that, how is the new reg going to prevent this:
My understanding is that commercial pilots have reported several hundred near misses with drones this year alone.
Click to expand...

With cars, we implemented training of operators, too.
 
wsuffa said:
When we have that, how is the new reg going to prevent this:

I hope I am using this quote feature correctly--

Of course,a registration reg does not explicitly stop someone from blowing off the regs, but I submit that it does implicitly have a curbing effect on a rogue operator's actions--you are less likely to ignore the regs because you know there is some mechanism, albeit imperfect, to map drones to people.

In linear algebra whenever you impose any boundary constraint, no matter how slight, you limit the allowed set of solutions--I guess I think the same things happen mentally to a potential rogue operator.

In the satellite business the FCC is starting to enforce tagging of all satellite transmissions for pretty much exactly the same reason--to prevent rogue operators from interfering with use of a shared medium. At first the US military was all up in arms--they are not going to bow to the FCC and tag their transmissions!

...until they realized that in a "tagged" world, NOT tagging is just as much an identifier as tagging. In fact more so.
Click to expand...
 
hankrausch said:
I hope I am using this quote feature correctly--

Of course,a registration reg does not explicitly stop someone from blowing off the regs, but I submit that it does implicitly have a curbing effect on a rogue operator's actions--you are less likely to ignore the regs because you know there is some mechanism, albeit imperfect, to map drones to people.
Click to expand...

Only if the drones get caught. As implemented the reg doesn't require any identification to be transmitted - even more so, if a rogue operator decides not to tag the drone, then there's no way to tell.

I submit that folks like your friend that flout the rules now will stick up their middle finger at them going forward.
In linear algebra whenever you impose any boundary constraint, no matter how slight, you limit the allowed set of solutions--I guess I think the same things happen mentally to a potential rogue operator.
Click to expand...

Except you haven't set up a constraint at all. I buy a drone, I might be told I have to register it. But no one forces me to. If I don't tag the drone, and it gets found (or shot down), then it is no more likely that the operator will get identified than the likelihood now. And there are plenty of folks in this country that would see this as a means for the government to identify everyone who owns a drone for surveillance purposes. If you want to see how this will play out in practice, look at what happened with CB radios in the 70's.

"I require you to stay behind the line. No, I really mean it. No, I won't physically stop you if you don't stay behind the line. But if I catch you I might fine you."

It is, therefore, not a true constraint. It does add a burden.

In the satellite business the FCC is starting to enforce tagging of all satellite transmissions for pretty much exactly the same reason--to prevent rogue operators from interfering with use of a shared medium. At first the US military was all up in arms--they are not going to bow to the FCC and tag their transmissions!

...until they realized that in a "tagged" world, NOT tagging is just as much an identifier as tagging. In fact more so.
Click to expand...

That's different because the requirement is to tag with a transmission that can be received by an external observer without entering the transmission facility.

It would be a good analogy if the FAA (or FCC) were to require that the drone transmit an identifying beacon. Or require that the controller transmit such a beacon. Observed, easy enforcement. Or the drone had to have the ID number tagged large enough to be seen at a distance (like N-numbers or auto license plates).

This tagging proposal will only provide for enforcement after the fact - it requires essentially voluntary compliance.
 
You make some very good points, it is an imperfect reg!
 
hankrausch said:
I am surprised at the tenor of this discussion, I am sick of government waste & regulation as much as the next fellow but I see the merit in this reg. I know a fellow who has a fairly high end quad copter, he knows the regs but blows them off, flies up to several thousand feet, out of LOS. My understanding is that commercial pilots have reported several hundred near misses with drones this year alone. Something tells me there were similar discussions when car registration was introduced, and ditto for airplane registration & pilot certs. The truth is there are 350M people in this country & we cannot behave like we are living in the Wild West of the 1880s. In fact a drone can be much more of a hazard to a large plane than one of us flying around--at least we will show up on TCAS. So even though i cannot believe I am saying it, I support this reg.

and $5? that's like, what a cappuccino?
Click to expand...
I don't show up on TCAS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top