Bring out your drones

and register them

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-regulators-to-require-registration-of-recreational-drones/2015/10/19/434961be-7664-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html

If you outlaw drones only outlaws will have drones

And this is why most RC hobbyists I know dislike "drone" owners....

There's always 1% of a population that berkeleys it up for the rest of them.

Am I going to have to register this one?

A drone used to mean this:

So does this apply just to shiny happy person quad copter owners? Or anything remotely piloted?

The Hoff wrote: There's always 1% of a population that berkeleys it up for the rest of them.

It was bound to happen.

I'm a little confused about what this is supposed to accomplish.

There's no training and licensing requirements, at least not substantial ones anyway.
There's no requirement for TCAS or transponders in these things.
You'll be unable to see an N number or any type of identification plate if you do have a close call.
This is only good if an incident does happen and the investigators are able to find the piece which has been registered.

This is simply a regulatory burden which makes everyone feel good at the end of the day. I won't even draw the firearm comparison here because this is dumb on it's own merits.

People always wonder why we have a ridiculous plethora of laws on every little thing. This is why. You leave it alone and there will ALWAYS be an a-hole that will come along and F it up.

I heard someone actually took a drone and flew it up to the upper floors of an Los Angeles Police building... argh...

I also heard the Hollywood sign is a virtual accident waiting to happen of drones and sightseeing helicopters.

I do really hope this does not trickle down to the RC people.

The0retical wrote: I'm a little confused about what this is supposed to accomplish....

It allows them to do something when the opportunity to prosecute arrives (currently, they can do almost nothing). They actually did find a guy in LA that was flying a drone over an active crime scene (near an LAPD helicopter).

It also of course gets the word out about the legalities (when you buy one). Of course, sort of similar to another item in society, when someone buys one from someone else the trail will likely be broken. The original owner might technically be liable, but not sure they could get that to stick in most cases.

In reply to aircooled:

They can already do something if the "drone" enters navigable airspace.

Penalties range from revocation of any FAA certificate and/or monetary fines for entry. Fires and whatnot are often classified temporary as prohibited airspace as well so those penalties would apply there as well, plus I'm sure the local PD would tack on something like interfering with official duties or obstruction.

The FAA is diving head first down an rabbit hole in a similar manner of MPAAs war on video piracy. The rules are basically unenforceable until something happens at which time the on the books rules would have been robust enough to mete out penalty. This is simply adding another layer of bureaucracy to be managed and presenting the idiots that are forcing this memo with a useless possibly "nice to know" ELUA that they won't read anyway.

I'll read the whole rule set when the FAA publishes it but this just sounds like they're reminding people new to aviation to do their due diligence and read the rules that apply or at least do a little more research lest they become a hazard.

SkyPan's 1.9 million dollar proposed penalty is a really good example of this. WAPO also made note that there have been other monetary fines for violating airspace rules as well.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=19555

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/faa-wants-to-fine-skypan-19-million-for-reckless-drone-operations/2015/10/06/2050ca2e-6c34-11e5-aa5b-f78a98956699_story.html

Is anyone else annoyed by the use of the word drone? I know they are talking about multicopters with cameras or other attachments, but wouldn't any R/C car, truck, tank, plane, helicopter, etc be considered a drone?

/rant 1

I don't know how they plan on the registration of tiny pieces of electronics that can easily be built/assembled at home. It worked really well for guns...

/rant 2

In reply to asoduk:

Yeah, but drones are those controversial killing machines we use in the war on terror. You don't want someone flying that in your back yard, do you?

Model aircraft are adorable but pricey toys enjoyed by nerdy children of well-to-do families and tweedy old men who keep a small metal ruler and pencil in their shirt pocket, and who have a need to pour their post-retirement work energy into something relaxing. You don't mind these as much, because these neighbors are harmless, and either know why your iPad isn't working or why your mower won't start.

In reply to asoduk:

I think the same thing. I wish we still called them remote controlled aircraft.

In reply to Mike:

Usually they won't know why your mower won't start as they have electric ones.... They are usually good at computers however

As far as drone vs rc aircraft, I see that more as a question of "does it have autopilot" RC aircraft take much more skill than most multi rotor copters to operate however.

Actually I'm glad we don't that way model aircraft may avoid getting swept up in the necessary regulation of hobby and commercial "Drones". Hobby level Drones are capable of being operated outside of existing aircraft regulations by people who are blissfully unaware of those regulations. The FAA has rules about what can occupy the sky and how it is operated. They can and should close the gaps as new technology is developed that exceeds current regulations. If everyone was operating " Drones" completely within the rules in effect for RC aircraft they probably wouldn't need to do anything but they aren't. People don't tend to take their .60 engined 48" span Piper cub and fly it over forest fires so I hope the regulations they introduce leave RC modeling alone but I suspect there will be changes there too.

Bring back single rotor helicopters, the ones with squash plates. THOSE bastards are hard as berk to fly, and even harder to fly well. That would cut down on the BS. You're too worried about smashing a grand worth of chopper to think about screwing around.

I have one of the first concept 30s in my basement. It has 1 gyro to attempt to control the tailrotor as you control collective/rpm. I've only flown it once years ago and only in ground effect. It literally can barely fly. The performance envelope is small at best. It's awesome and someday I will have time to try to fly it and cause irreparable damage to it.

Appleseed wrote: Bring back single rotor helicopters, the ones with squash plates. THOSE bastards are hard as berk to fly, and even harder to fly well. That would cut down on the BS. You're too worried about smashing a grand worth of chopper to think about screwing around.

I tried one for awhile after having a little indoor helicopter. How hard could it be? (Cue Clarkson image) Flew 3 times, crashed 3 times, repaired 3 times and sold.

And no registration required. $200 at the hobby store & this thing would cause WAY more damage if I hit someone or something with it.