• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

UAS Restration Requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimCR120

Got Lobstah?
Site Moderator
#1
This just hit my inbox from the AMA:

Dear members,
Last month, we shared new information about the FAA's UAS registration requirement, which Congress has reinstated.
Today, we are writing to let you know that President Trump has signed this bill making UAS registration a federal requirement again, including for AMA members.
For more information and frequently asked questions, please visit our federal registration page.
Thank you,
AMA Government Relations
Like it or not, it's back
 

PsyBorg

Wake up! Time to fly!
#2
I like how the AMA says you have to put the reg number on the quad as well as AMA stuff. Then they show a video with this huge freakin label for all their information.. I ain't puttin my name nor address on my stuff EVER. I don't need some nutbag coming to my place thinkin they can get more free toys or worse. Besides on small quads its going to be hard enough to find space for the registry number let alone all the AMA info too.

I may use the dremel tool and etch the numbers on the frame then fill with paint if I can do it well enough with shaky hands to make it legible. I guess people might be able to find a small plastic pouch that can be sticky taped under the top plates on quads where they can write the info on a small piece of paper as my best idea for now how to do it.

In any case I do not recommend, law or not, that people put personal information on their gear these days. AMA number and FAA number is viable to track owners down with some bit of privacy at least.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#4
Screw it. I have a drone reg number from the first time. I am NOT paying for a second go around. They should still have my stuff in the system.
 

makattack

Winter is coming
Moderator
Mentor
#5
On the bright side, they did say the AMA will not be enforcing nor requiring CD's and clubs to do so either. Also, fpv is not banned.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#6
On the bright side, they did say the AMA will not be enforcing nor requiring CD's and clubs to do so either. Also, fpv is not banned.
They can't ban FPV without banning HAM radio...And that would get ugly, since the FCC's already under scrutiny for messing with Net Neutrality. Banning broadcasts within a certain range of HAM operators? It'd be adding fuel to the fire.
 

AkimboGlueGuns

Biplane Guy
Mentor
#7
They can't ban FPV without banning HAM radio...And that would get ugly, since the FCC's already under scrutiny for messing with Net Neutrality. Banning broadcasts within a certain range of HAM operators? It'd be adding fuel to the fire.
I honestly wouldn't put it past Ajit Pai at this point. He's only concerned about how much money he's going to get after he's done screwing the internet, if he finds a couple bucks in HAM he'll go after that too.
 

Geeto67

Posting Elsewhere
#8
Yeah, I'm still not a fan of this. Wasn't this deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court last time?
nope. It was deemed "illegal", whether it was unconstitutional was never addressed. Without going into a lot of legal jargon or detail here is what happened: The FAA had something called an "interpretative rule", a formal statement that details how they were going to enforce a law or regulation, that said " [the FAA] may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft". This interpretation became part of the FAA modernization Act of 2012 (under Section 336), making it federal law.

Then the FAA created an amendment to the Act, called Part 48, that required model aircraft registration. So the AMA and Taylor sued. The Court ruled that section 336 (the original rule) and Part 48 were conflicting, and that the original interpretative rule prohibited the FAA from writing Part 48 in the first place and therefore it was null and void. So the FAA gave up and did not enforce Part 48. Any attempt to enforce Part 48 by the FAA means the government is doing something illegal and can be sued.

So how did we get here, with government registration?

To put it as simply as I can: The original court ruling says the FAA cannot write a rule to regulate model aircraft, but it did not say any other government agency couldn't write a rule to regulate models. The new registration law is part of the 2018 National Defense act, which was not written by the FAA. Because the FAA didn't write the rule it doesn't violate the previous court ruling that said the FAA can't write laws to regulate models. What's interesting is that the administrator of the National defense act can appoint the FAA to enforce the new regulation and it ends up looking like the old system.

Before you get up in arms about it, this happens in government all the time, agencies have laws regarding their power and sometimes they overstep their bounds and another agency has to take over, it has nothing to do with the merit of whether drone registration is unconstitutional or not.

So there is probably another round of lawsuits on the horizion to challenge whether the new law was written properly and is not there just to circumvent a previous ruling. If you are wondering if registration is unconstitutional, you need only to go out to the parking lot and look at your car's license plate, or down to your local airport and look at civilian airplane's registration number (in the US it's the "N" number on the fuselage).

TL; DR version: the FAA wrote a law that violated their own laws and a court said they couldn't do that, so another agency wrote the law and that is what was just passed.


If you guys want to know more about this, this is a good starter read:
https://jrupprechtlaw.com/drone-registration-lawsuit
It was written by one of the Atty's in the original suit.
 

lrussi750

Rogue Pilot
Mentor
#9
Guess who is not registering! Didn't register the first time and will not this time as well. They can pry my transmitter out of my cold, dead hands!
 
Last edited:

Geeto67

Posting Elsewhere
#10
Guess who is not registering! Didn't register the first time an will not this time as well. They can pry my transmitter out of my cold, dead hands!

They don't have to wait for your cold dead hands, they can just fine you up to $250,000 and put you in jail for 3 years. Just sayin' this isn't like forgetting to register your car under state law where you pay small fine and go your merry way - It's federal law enforced by FAA and FBI and depending on the circumstances they can put you in a nice quasi-rape-y federal prison.

They don't have a sense of humor about this.

That being said, I can't possibly imagine how they are even going to start to enforce this. I imagine we are only going to see cases where there is an accident or as part of a collection of other criminal activities (like using drones to monitor drug operations, human trafficking, or stalking/invasion of privacy). Case in point it could be used to add years to the prison sentences of people involved in things like this: https://gizmodo.com/drone-gang-jail...118.833239346.1513003334-737638253.1449762709
 
Last edited:

LitterBug

Troll Spammer
#11
FYI....
Q: If I already registered, do I have register again?
A: You will not have to register again since this bill simply reverses the John Taylor case. We will share more as details emerge.

No need to re-register if ya already had... You keep the same number you already had.

LB
 

lrussi750

Rogue Pilot
Mentor
#12
That being said, I can't possibly imagine how they are even going to start to enforce this. I imagine we are only going to see cases where there is an accident or as part of a collection of other criminal activities (like using drones to monitor drug operations, human trafficking, or stalking/invasion of privacy). Case in point it could be used to add years to the prison sentences of people involved in things like this: https://gizmodo.com/drone-gang-jail...118.833239346.1513003334-737638253.1449762709
That's why this whole thing is ridiculous! Criminals are not going to register drones, so they put a process in place to hassle everyone else so in the event they catch a criminal doing something illegal they can add another charge to their case. Registering and insuring vehicles, land, air or sea is totally understandable since they can be weapons of mass destruction. I can see regulating and registering something that is over 50 pounds as a commercial "drone". Something this size and larger can be lethal. It's has nothing to do with money, it's the simple matter that my 500g foamboard model flying in a field or empty park is not a threat to anyone. As such I will not be registering. They can come hassle me at the field, i'll crash my dangerous drone into them and run away. They won't know who did it because there will no identification numbers on my kit :black_eyed: :p :cool:
 
Last edited:

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#13
They don't have to wait for your cold dead hands, they can just fine you up to $250,000 and put you in jail for 3 years. Just sayin' this isn't like forgetting to register your car under state law where you pay small fine and go your merry way - It's federal law enforced by FAA and FBI and depending on the circumstances they can put you in a nice quasi-rape-y federal prison.

They don't have a sense of humor about this.

That being said, I can't possibly imagine how they are even going to start to enforce this. I imagine we are only going to see cases where there is an accident or as part of a collection of other criminal activities (like using drones to monitor drug operations, human trafficking, or stalking/invasion of privacy).
They could send people out to the fields to see if pilots' aircraft are marked accordingly. If not, "Here's a fine for you, and a fine for you, and a fine for you..."

Never mind that you're flying at an AMA sanctioned field...*sigh*

Now, personally, there ARE times when I think the...well..."toilet paper" people who fly when they REALLY shouldn't, and fly WHERE they shouldn't, NEED to be fined. For example - the idiots that I saw trying to fly a DJI over where the Lilac Fire was burning here in San Diego. The FAA had put up a TFR on anything from 0 to 6000' in the Bonsall/Oceanside area. The reason is that they had copters and fire fighting bombers coming through the area, and they didn't want to have to worry about a plane interfering with their flight paths while trying to spot the fires or drop retardant on the flames. THOSE are the people that need the fines. You're potentially endangering a firefighter's life so that you can have "cool footage" of the flames.
 

jaredstrees

Well-known member
#14
HA HA HA! Tell 'em Luis! Love it! I did register, as at that time I was a complete noob, (still kinda am) and wanted to follow the rules. Needless to say, none of my aircraft have my FAA # on them.
 
#15
I still think the weirdest part about this is that the FAA doesn't register ultralights. So a vehicle that carries a living person into the sky doesn't need registered but a .5 lb model does.
 

Geeto67

Posting Elsewhere
#16
I still think the weirdest part about this is that the FAA doesn't register ultralights. So a vehicle that carries a living person into the sky doesn't need registered but a .5 lb model does.
It's not that weird if you think about it. If the concern with a drone is that it interferes with the rights or safety of other individuals, or conducts illegal activities, with little or no inherent risk to the operator - the law adds risk to put some of the operator's skin in the game. With an ultralight - the pilot has some skin in the game because their life is on the line so there isn't a need to add the legal incentive to not fly too close to full scale airplanes or not invade other's privacy.
 

foamtest

Toothpick glider kid
#17
I still think the weirdest part about this is that the FAA doesn't register ultralights. So a vehicle that carries a living person into the sky doesn't need registered but a .5 lb model does.
This actually brings up a good point, an ultralight can actually cause serious damage, both monetarily and in regards to human lives, but this has no regulation. Just to state, I am not for ultralight regulation, but its ridiculous that my 1lb rc plane has to be registered but an ultralight does not. This leads me to believe that it's not a matter of safety its a matter of the government wanting to make a quick buck and invade further into our personal lives. Plus this won't do anything to stop criminals just like... well it's better to not bring more serious politics into this even though it would be good practice for my political science course.
 

Geeto67

Posting Elsewhere
#18
They could send people out to the fields to see if pilots' aircraft are marked accordingly. If not, "Here's a fine for you, and a fine for you, and a fine for you..."

Never mind that you're flying at an AMA sanctioned field...*sigh*
People don't realize how much money that costs to do. You aren't just paying for someone to go out there an write citations (and they would have to be law enforcement officials, so most likely FAA inspectors or FBI agents who make a decent salary) but they have to be available for evidence collection (depositions) and to testify at trial, so it's a huge waste of resources that doesn't justify the cost. Make all the government waste jokes you want, most departments run on tight budgets and there is literally 0 appetite for wasting an FBI or overworked FAA inspectors time chasing an idiot in the park with a 3 channel foamie.

More than likely they will rely in local law enforcement to do the heavy lifting and even then, those departments really don't care for enforcing a law that isn't posing an immediate threat to safety and well being.

And keep in mind - It's not a violation if it isn't in the air. If you own it and never fly it then what can they really cite you for? You aren't "operating" anything unregistered if it is sitting in the box.

Now, personally, there ARE times when I think the...well..."toilet paper" people who fly when they REALLY shouldn't, and fly WHERE they shouldn't, NEED to be fined. For example - the idiots that I saw trying to fly a DJI over where the Lilac Fire was burning here in San Diego. The FAA had put up a TFR on anything from 0 to 6000' in the Bonsall/Oceanside area. The reason is that they had copters and fire fighting bombers coming through the area, and they didn't want to have to worry about a plane interfering with their flight paths while trying to spot the fires or drop retardant on the flames. THOSE are the people that need the fines. You're potentially endangering a firefighter's life so that you can have "cool footage" of the flames.
And those people will probably get fines (and I think there are impounds involved too by the way) now that it is back because you have law enforcement on the scene. I'm just saying it's hard enough to enforce full size aircraft and their N numbers are several feet big - a tiny little plane or copter? forget it.


Wanna know my concern? It isn't registration lists or fines for illegally flying - it's the rules about maintaining visual contact with the airplane at all times. Anybody who has been doing this a long time will eventually have an airplane fly away from them. It happens less and less frequently and the tech gets better but it's the nature of using the transmitters we use to fly - eventually something will interrupt the signal and the plane will fly away to usually never be seen again. Does that mean that if the FAA finds it with my name and number on it they can now prosecute me for failing to maintain visual flight? even if I was not at fault? Time will tell.
 

sprzout

Knower of useless information
Mentor
#19
People don't realize how much money that costs to do. You aren't just paying for someone to go out there an write citations (and they would have to be law enforcement officials, so most likely FAA inspectors or FBI agents who make a decent salary) but they have to be available for evidence collection (depositions) and to testify at trial, so it's a huge waste of resources that doesn't justify the cost. Make all the government waste jokes you want, most departments run on tight budgets and there is literally 0 appetite for wasting an FBI or overworked FAA inspectors time chasing an idiot in the park with a 3 channel foamie.

More than likely they will rely in local law enforcement to do the heavy lifting and even then, those departments really don't care for enforcing a law that isn't posing an immediate threat to safety and well being.

And keep in mind - It's not a violation if it isn't in the air. If you own it and never fly it then what can they really cite you for? You aren't "operating" anything unregistered if it is sitting in the box.



And those people will probably get fines (and I think there are impounds involved too by the way) now that it is back because you have law enforcement on the scene. I'm just saying it's hard enough to enforce full size aircraft and their N numbers are several feet big - a tiny little plane or copter? forget it.


Wanna know my concern? It isn't registration lists or fines for illegally flying - it's the rules about maintaining visual contact with the airplane at all times. Anybody who has been doing this a long time will eventually have an airplane fly away from them. It happens less and less frequently and the tech gets better but it's the nature of using the transmitters we use to fly - eventually something will interrupt the signal and the plane will fly away to usually never be seen again. Does that mean that if the FAA finds it with my name and number on it they can now prosecute me for failing to maintain visual flight? even if I was not at fault? Time will tell.
We had a guy at our club who had that very thing happen to him, and it was a worry for the club, in all actuality. He started flying his gas powered plane with a full tank, put the bird up in the air, and it was set on a light, lazy, upward spiral shortly after takeoff, when he lost control of it. No, it wasn't signal interference at all, as the plane didn't divert into another direction or anything. No, this was negligence on the pilot - he didn't check the battery levels on his battery controlling the servos.

So, with a full tank of gas, the plane climbed probably up to over 1000', which was clearly in FAA airspace at that point, over the next 40 minutes, until the motor ran out of fuel and it glided down to a landing some 6 miles away at a ranch. Now, fortunately, he had his information on the plane and the rancher contacted him and he recovered the plane, which was in one piece, believe it or not; but it was still a big worry that he could get a fine for his negligence, should a full size, small aircraft pilot cross into the same airspace (which is possible; we have Oceanside Municipal airport out to the west of our field, Palomar airport to the southwest, and Ramona airport to the east of us, where all sorts of small aircraft such as Cessnas, Beechrafts, Pipers, etc. fly in and out of. They're usually a couple thousand feet up, but when you have an airplane that was out of control and due to the pilot not doing a proper preflight check, you have to think, "Should they be liable to a fine?" I don't know. I'm not the right person to pass judgement on that situation; I just know that it CAN happen, it HAS happened, and it probably WILL happen again.

Where I think it's REALLY a problem is all the Christmas present drones that people are buying and will be taking out to various parks and trying to fly them without knowing how to fly, and more importantly, without knowing how to fly SAFELY, is where we need something - I don't know what. I don't know if it SHOULD be a license, or if it should be a minimum training class for these people on some of the basics - DON'T fly above people. DON'T fly where there are crowds. DON'T fly it where you can't see it. DO make sure your flight area is clear of obstructions for first time fliers, such as trees, power lines, people and pets. DO use a spotter to help keep an eye out for unintentional people/flying objects/birds encroaching in your flight area. And DO try to have fun in a safe manner.

For most of us, it's common sense, right? Fly safely without endangering others? But it doesn't seem to be for most people buying a drone, because they see them as a toy, not something that can slice and dice body parts like most of us know or have seen. I'm willing to help someone learn how to fly, but I think safety is first and foremost with something that can shred clothing, fingers, etc...we've all heard horror stories.
 

aspieman

Posting Elsewhere
#20
I honestly wouldn't put it past Ajit Pai at this point. He's only concerned about how much money he's going to get after he's done screwing the internet, if he finds a couple bucks in HAM he'll go after that too.
who said hes screwing the internet? hes helping our president to make the internet great again with more freedom and your saying hes looking for more pork money? i dont get you. hes trying to make it better for us so that we can get more internet. i only get internet from my night job now because its to expensive at home and the cloosest free wifi at home is just to slow and sometimes i cant connect to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.