Slashdot Mirror

An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.

(Source - and that definition references an FAA publication on Automated Flight Controls.)

You're correct - Teslas are NOT goddam self-driving, full stop, end of story. But if that's the case, why does Tesla insist on using a term which, properly defined, indicates that the system will "control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant hands-on control by a human operator being required"?

Autopilot, that's something else altogether; sure, they have an autopilot.

So they have a system that controls the trajectory of your vehicle without constant hands-on control by a human operator being required. As long as the operator doesn't take his hands off the controls and doesn't stop paying attention. But it's totally an autopilot, aside from the fact that it doesn't meet any of the criteria for being an autopilot.

Glad we've cleared that up.

That isn't what autopilot in an airplane means at all. Stop spreading misinformation.

Increases in battery life have been "incremental" but also exponential - the increase has been something like 7% per year on the average, a ten-year doubling.

Pack safe!

Already done. It's called Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS).
http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...

There's also a system called WAAS, Wide Area Augmentation System, and others.
http://www.novatel.com/an-intr...

A short description (I know, TLDR...) is that ground-based transmitters broadcast an error signal - the difference between received data and the actual known surveyed position. Any properly-equipped receiver uses this signal to offset its GPS-measured position accordingly.

My Garmin GPS that I got back in 2005 used the WAAS system. It's been around for quite some time.

I guess according to you, the people in the US Army at Yuma don't know how to run their own facility.

Now you are being stupid, because you know I didn't say that. I replied to your asinine claim that FAA has no control over MOA. Quote from you: "The FAA does not control airspace in military operating areas (MOAs), which Yuma is one of. " That's ridiculous.

Your "cite" is called the FAR -- Federal Aviation Regulations, and the Aeronautical Information Manual. For example, AIM 3-4-5, Military Operations Areas: "a. MOAs consist of airspace of defined vertical and lateral limits established for the purpose of separating certain military training activities from IFR traffic." IF, as you ignorantly claim, FAA has no regulatory authority over a MOA, there could be no IFR (or VFR) traffic therein. It would be (and is, according to you) uncontrolled. A civil aircraft could simply wander about the MOA in IMC as they desired because FAA has no authority to control them there.

Before you start to yammer that the military has regulatory control over MOA, consider AIM 3-4-5 (c): "Prior to entering an active MOA, pilots should contact the controlling agency for traffic advisories." Notice that it does not say they MUST contact someone for permission to enter, it says they SHOULD (recommended) contact the "controlling agency" (which is an FAA facility, usually the encompassing center), for traffic advisories.

Further, FAR 91.1 says, in part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and SS91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) have nothing to do with military (public) aircraft, and (a) does not exempt public aircraft. It refers only to "aircraft". The word "military" appears 11 times in 14CFR91, none in the context of "MOA" or exclusion of certain special use airspace from FAA regulation. There are specific exemptions from certain FAA regulations for military aircraft in 14CFR91, but no blanket one that would remove MOA from FAA controlled airspace.

You have no clue about FAA regulations or authority, so please stop. Yes, Yuma has authorizations to operate UAS, but that does not remove FAA control from that MOA. MOA are not isolated from controlled airspace in any way -- they are non-regulatory and have no different rules than the airspace they are a part of.

CATIII autoland does exist, and is used, just not in the USA. The FAA rules do not allow CATIII landings in the US. It is used quite regularly outside of the USA.

And once again someone posts crap without knowing what the hell they are talking about, and this is why we have such idiots running our countries...

https://www.faa.gov/about/offi...

You are wrong, there are lots of US airports that allow Category III Autoland and have for decades...

http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/P...
Is that not the point of the remote pilot airman certificate?

This whole issue is bogus. Search for this item on Amazon; look at the details. It's handled and shipped by one of Amazon's partner companies, not shipped by Amazon.

Bzzt! Error. First off, you look at the item NOW, doesn't tell you who shipped it when it leaked.

The FAA announcement indicates the claim that they are making it to have been shipped by Amazon. Amazon could certainly dispute that, I suppose, but they won't be doing so by referring to their website.

You would have to produce the packaging, and see where it left. I would say the FAA has that. You don't.

How is this Amazon's fault? Is Amazon supposed to police every mom-and-pop that is essentially using Amazon as its marketplace?

Ok, let's say this is a third party that is linked on their website. This wasn't a random advertisement, Amazon chose to do business with this third party and place their product in some prominence. That third party's actions reflect on Amazon, if Amazon cannot police the people it does business with to behave properly, how can I, the consumer, trust them?

What exactly do you want? Amazon not to know that their partners behave responsibly? Not to care?

I also frequently fly on airliners, which don't allow the use of personal digital radio transmitters (e.g. Bluetooth sources) during flight.

Honest question: what part of the world are you in? At least for Americans, the FAA started allowing Bluetooth all the way back in 2013, and (so far as I know) all of the airlines updated their policies to permit it shortly thereafter. Here's a relevant snippet from the press release I linked:

Cell phones should be in airplane mode or with cellular service disabled – i.e., no signal bars displayed—and cannot be used for voice communications based on FCC regulations that prohibit any airborne calls using cell phones. If your air carrier provides Wi-Fi service during flight, you may use those services. You can also continue to use short-range Bluetooth accessories

I know that many airlines prohibit the use of personal electronics during takeoff and landing, but you can re-enable both Bluetooth and WiFi without disabling airplane mode on modern smartphones, and you're explicitly allowed to do so in order to use things like in-flight WiFi or your Bluetooth accessories, so long as you're not using cell signals as well. If you're elsewhere in the world, I can't speak towards your situation, but you may want to double-check what the relevant policies are for the airlines you're traveling with, since I'd wager you actually can use Bluetooth.

Mind you, this doesn't address all of your concerns, and I agree that there are places where Bluetooth simply isn't an option.

The FAA has managed to bobble the entry of UAVs into the real world. The underlying problem is this: The FAA controls a concept called the National Airspace System (NAS). This has evolved since around the 1930's and has managed a phenomenal degree of success in terms of aviation safety. In terms of efficiency, organization and ability to adjust to new technologies - not so much.

Up until UAVs wandered into the radar, the FAA mostly worked with manufacturers and commercial entities that understood lawyers, meetings, minutia and 1000 page densely typed technical documents. The hoi polli of general aviation was ignored in as much as was possible, they only represented a few thousand people. Now, the likelihood of millions of annoying little things running around in the Sacred Airspace became more and more real as DJI kept pumping out thousands and thousands of Phantoms. A few of which managed not to crash into the ground in the first 15 minutes.

The media got into the act and now everything that used to be a UFO (including plastic bags) is now a drone. Instant terror. Instant headlines. Instant advertising dollars. Add a Congress member who got a complaint that their second cousin saw a drone looking at a 15 year old girl from 1000 feet away last night and you are getting close to the Perfect Storm.

Coupled with the FAA being hobbled by a previous congressional mandate not to mess with hobby aircraft (which, by and large, managed to organize and control themselves much like amateur radio) and some of the traditional aircraft manufacturers seeing another market to get into (and keep others out of)

and you have the mess that we are currently going through.

It will probably get cleaned up to some extent fairly soon.

In the FAA's defense, they are overseeing a paradigm shift from thousands of aircraft of known provenance piloted by persons with demonstrated skills to a playing field consisting of millions of little tiny things (who can, nonetheless, fly several miles around and several thousand feet high) piloted by someone whose technical prowess may be limited to tying their shoes. It's not a pretty sight.

Ahem

Most advanced airports have a similar system called RWSL for planes. I wish this system would be adopted for all road markers and stopngolights by every city. That way when it snows out four lane roads donâ(TM)t turn it one lane getoutofmywayfests.

The AC has a point. After reading this link, the point is general aviation, specifically aircraft marked 'experimental.' This is typically home-built, antique, etc. aircraft not suitable for passengers etc. But they can still fall on bystanders, which is exactly what happened here.

The accident rate is actually shockingly high. This is not at all comparable to commercial airliner travel, which is what I assume you are insinuating.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_s...

There's a bit more to the story than that.

While Boeing was developing its own supersonic airliner, they were faced with the tough task of competing against Concorde, which was already established and flying. Instead of competing, the entrenched US aviation industry smeared the supersonic airline industry and encourage an FAA sanction prohibiting Concords (or any supersonic airliner) from flying supersonic over land.

It's funny that they are now looking into this again, and all their old fear-mongering is biting them on the ass.

FAA information.

Concorde.

An example of how there is a lot of confusion regarding take off noise (which was indeed very loud) and the sustained sonic-boom during supersonic flight. The author of that page also states that he's been unable to acquire data detailing the noise at ground level caused by the sonic boom from a Concorde. My own search has also been futile...

You know the fun thing about what you just shared?

Not a single drone strike. NOT ONE.

We wet ourselves just because we SEE a drone. Yet there are over 10,000 bird strikes every frakking year. There are more bird strikes in a typical HOUR than ALL DRONE-AIRCRAFT COLLISIONS EVER.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/ai...

SorryNotSorry for the all-caps, but this point needs to be driven home.

They must have a 360 running.

"A 360" in the sense of "an IBM System/360", or "a 360" in the sense of "a machine compatible - except perhaps at the supervisor-mode level - with an IBM System/360"? If the latter, then that's not interesting; my laptop was purchased in 2015, but, as far as I know, its CPU is compatible, even at the ring 0 level, with the CPU from the original IBM Personal Computer (whether I could boot the original version of MS-DOS on it is another matter), and the most recent CPU design capable of running System/360 problem-state code was also announced in 2015.

Despite the FAA claiming security concerns,, it took me 10 minutes to find Lora

Presumably you meant "Loral".

was once bidding on a contract to replace IBM 9020Es,

Yes, in 1995. IBM replaced the 9020A and 9020D machines in the late 1980s, and then replaced the 9020E's in the 1990s.

so they are probably running 360-compatible gear.

What they're running now might well be "360-compatible", but that might be in the same way that the Haswell Core i7 in my laptop is "8088-compatible".

You are the one who is seriously misinformed:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As it currently is you need to register to own a hobby drone, but not to own a gun.

You can buy a drone with cash, anywhere, no questions asked. You cannot buy a gun without 2 forms of identification, a federal background check, and possibly a wait a few days for the background check to clear. Lots of people cannot buy the gun at all and will be arrested for trying. MANY states ALSO require you to have a license before you can buy a gun - for instance, in you need a license first to buy a gun.

Maybe you are trolling, or stupid. But now you are at least a little more informed.

The drone is well trained at keeping itself in the air. (The pilot isn't flying it, he's only telling it where to go).
Training wouldn't fix the reasons the drone goes down. And when it falls, its not like 2kg dead weight, it falls under prop spin to make rather boring news items about what might have been.

Hardly further from the truth. Look at the UAV forums - "Why did my Phantom crash" is a perennial source of amusement to the regulars.

And, in order to help Timothy out, This is the document that small UAV enthusiasts are pinning their hopes on.

The good: Minimal or no registration, no complex GeoFencing (UAV won't start in certain places, stops flying, complains loudly, software crashes because the idjits set it up wrong).
The bad: Daylight only. Visual distance only (how far can you see a 10 cm object?)
The Ugly: It's only a recommendation. Somebody will screw it up royal before it gets established.

You are the one who is seriously misinformed:

https://www.faa.gov/news/press...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As it currently is you need to register to own a hobby drone, but not to own a gun.

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) IN GENERAL.
—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds
unless otherwise certified through a design, construction,
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis-
tered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not
interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport
air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of
an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating
procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic
control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport)).

Q20. What about tethered drones?
A. Both tethered and untethered UAS must be registered.

You make a compelling argument, but you happen to be mistaken. See sections 113 and 114 in this FAA advisory. State and local governments can regulate helipads, via zoning or otherwise.

http://www.faa.gov/documentlib...

The FCC is more like what you imagine the FAA to be. Specifically, as noted in that FAA advisory, the FAA is legally charged with the SAFETY of air travel only. This is in contrast to the FCC, which has wide authority over anything related to radio spectrum. The ATF is somewhat the opposite- you have to certify your explosives storage complies with local and state law BEFORE they'll start the federal process.

Especially since going indoors doesn't exempt them from that dubious new registration program anyway: if it flies by remote control and it weighs more than half a pound, it has to be registered before it ever flies

No, the FAA says otherwise.

From their FAQ --

Q22. If I only fly it indoors, do I have to register it?
A. No, the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use.

Now, given that they haven't even really written the regulations for much of this stuff yet, and it's largely based on advisory circulars and FAQs and such, it's possible that whenever they do get off their butt and write the actual rules that they could say something else, but for now ... they explicitly say you don't have to register anything that only flies indoors.

Also, they aren't registering model aircraft anyways -- they're registering pilots, and then requiring that the pilot's registration information be on the model aircraft. (After all, when you go to your site, do you tell them about your models? No, not a thing -- instead you just tell them about yourself.)

I am patiently awaiting the court ruling saying my family can start flying again. They expanded the DC no fly zone to 30 mile radius, which covers my entire county, and indicated that it applied to ALL UAS ("drones").

https://www.faa.gov/uas/no_dro...

The prevailing attitude demonstrated by you is that UAS operators are inherently and collectively reckless. I see that promoted around like the terrorist muslim trope, and that attitude is stupid, unjustified, and ignorant. UAS pilots have been flying longer than manned aircraft pilots. Modelling clubs go back to the turn of the previous century. Like aircraft, there have been some close calls, but UAS operators are far more conscientious than drivers, even commercial drivers, at obeying common sense accepted methods of operation. To my knowledge, over a century of flying and only 2 people have ever been killed from a model aircraft. Compare that to any recreational activity ... go cart racing, boating, fishing, skeet shooting, skiing, etc.

The FAA has previously acknowledged the minimal impact on national air space with only a single advisement circular recommending best practices originally written in 1981, which virtually all fliers read as "obey these suggestions and keep flying". It was recently updated 3 months ago when the FAA was charged with coming up with acceptable regulations for commercial fliers.

It's only because of ignorant knee-jerk statements like yours, with little basis on reality other than anecdotal reports, combined with the FAA's tardiness on creating real regulations that they were given 3 years to create due last september, that the FAA came out with their goofy-ass regulations which violates section 336 of the law explicitly denying them authority to regulate model aircraft.

I too am a certificated airman. While I don't know about aircraft owner registrations, an airman can remove the address information from the publicly releasable airman database here: http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/change_releasability/

From the FAA website:

The owner must be:
- 13 years of age or older. (If the owner is less than 13 years of age, a person 13 years of age or older must register the small unmanned aircraft.)
- A U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

So, non-citizens can fly drones, but only if they're permanent residents.

I can see reasons to allow US visitors to fly drones (e.g., tournaments, photojournalism, or bona fide tourism) so perhaps there should be some provision for temporary licensing.

55lbs is a pretty hefty UAS (not drone).

The rules are about 0.55lbs (1/100th of that.)
https://www.faa.gov/uas/regist...

Enjoy.

E

Is TFA a click bait? I DO NOT see any link or picture of an email in the TFA at all. It is all about "talking to drone hobbyist." Why do people get hive and talk bad about it when they have NOT even verify the source for the issue. I also do not see any announcement on FAA site -- https://www.faa.gov/news/press... -- about the banning drone in DC area. Strange...

Although, you might be required to actually break their regulation, and get them to put you in jail, and until that happens, the courts will not even hear a case against this abuse.

Oh, it's even better than that. There isn't any regulation. The FAA has several ways to make rules about the airspace. They can publish regulations in the Federal Register; this is the hard way. Or they can issue a NOTAM, a Notice to Airmen, containing restrictions in the airspace. This is the easy way. The NOTAM for the DC SFRA is here.

It talks about model aircraft once:
"THE FOLLOWING OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED WITHIN THE DC FRZ: [...] MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS"

Note "DC FRZ". The DC FRZ (Flight Restricted Zone) is a 15-mile radius area centered on Reagan National. The SFRA is a 30-mile radius area centered on the same point. So where's the restriction for the whole SFRA? Well, they've published it on their website, and also in something called AC 91-57A. Thing is, "AC" stands for "Advisory Circular". By definition, it doesn't set any rules; it's advisory.

So it's really tough to challenge the regulation, because _no such regulation exists_. The FAA has told the police to shut down fields, and told the (private) Academy for Model Aeronautics to shut down fields, or else. But they haven't bothered to make an actual regulation to back up their orders.

This is not a restriction on piloted aircraft. Hence, it's not listed as a NOTAM as you pointed out.
Nor is it listed as a TFR at http://tfr.faa.gov/

I agree the FAA needs a MUCH BETTER MECHANISM so UAS pilots can check for such flight restrictions.

Ehud
CPL-H
Tucson AZ

>Is a regular, run of the mill R/C toy that is flown within line of sight of its operator at all times considered a "drone?"

No, but RC aircraft are also banned in DC, since they can be weaponized nearly as well as a drone can.

You are mistaken. According to the FAA, any unmanned aircraft is under the jurisdiction of the FAA. The new registrations rules only apply to aircraft over 0.55 lbs. I can't find details about the DC "No Drone Zone," but I assume the same criteria applies even though the FAA's website says, "all unmanned aircraft."

As you can see by the crazy stuff that gets posted here, and worse at political sites, we have a lot of dangerously stupid, deeply-misinformed people running around.

Indeed. ;)

>Is a regular, run of the mill R/C toy that is flown within line of sight of its operator at all times considered a "drone?"

No, but RC aircraft are also banned in DC, since they can be weaponized nearly as well as a drone can.

You are mistaken. According to the FAA, any unmanned aircraft is under the jurisdiction of the FAA. The new registrations rules only apply to aircraft over 0.55 lbs. I can't find details about the DC "No Drone Zone," but I assume the same criteria applies even though the FAA's website says, "all unmanned aircraft."

As you can see by the crazy stuff that gets posted here, and worse at political sites, we have a lot of dangerously stupid, deeply-misinformed people running around.

Indeed. ;)

The word, "drone," is a media-applied description.

The FAA does not use the word drone. It uses, "Unmanned Aircraft System."

You are correct in that it's simply any small airplane, regardless of configuration (fixed-wing, helicopter, quad-copter, whatever).

Here's a FAQ.

The FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US including that below 500 ft above ground level (AGL). https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Specifically *ALL* airspace within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the US coastline is subject to FAA jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (you can read the boring primary source if you follow links at http://macklow.com/airspace/)

Federal law comes before and above local and state law, so local and state politicians can growse and complain, but they passed laws about airspace... and they have no jurisdiction over that airspace. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) makes sure of that. http://litigation.findlaw.com/...

Finally, these are not drones, and the FAA has not promulgated regulation about drones. These are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This is what the FAA registration is for, and it DOES cover model aircraft above a certain weight. https://www.faa.gov/uas/

Ehud
P.S. The following articles all APPEAR to be different... until you read the comments, and realize that every time this topic comes up the same people come out of the woodwork to make up the same stories. Please help spread the facts. (See links above).
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
and even on a California legislature story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

The FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace in the US including that below 500 ft above ground level (AGL). https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...
Specifically *ALL* airspace within 12 nautical miles (NM) of the US coastline is subject to FAA jurisdiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (you can read the boring primary source if you follow links at http://macklow.com/airspace/)

Federal law comes before and above local and state law, so local and state politicians can growse and complain, but they passed laws about airspace... and they have no jurisdiction over that airspace. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) makes sure of that. http://litigation.findlaw.com/...

Finally, these are not drones, and the FAA has not promulgated regulation about drones. These are unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This is what the FAA registration is for, and it DOES cover model aircraft above a certain weight. https://www.faa.gov/uas/

Ehud
P.S. The following articles all APPEAR to be different... until you read the comments, and realize that every time this topic comes up the same people come out of the woodwork to make up the same stories. Please help spread the facts. (See links above).
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
and even on a California legislature story: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...

The FAA is saying "model aircraft" are also "aircraft" at the same time, thus must be registered if it is a "aircraft" greater than 250g and a "model aircraft" less than 55lbs.
Law says 55lbs, the FAA pulled 250g out of there ass.
The FAA came up with 250g by doing a point mass free-fall force equation. Didn't you know a solid metal ball and balsa model aircraft fall at the same rate with equal force?
Also see how the FAA suddenly redefined "model aircraft" and changed to say you need to register it. See Sep 2015 https://web.archive.org/web/20... and the verbiage now , Dec 2015 https://www.faa.gov/uas/faq/#q... .

How's about some full text for reference? FAA can still legally regulate quadcopters in certain situations, i.e. you are within 5 miles of an airport (I am) and don't notify the controller (who would?)

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...

Section 336 also prohibits the FAA from promulgating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if the
following statutory requirements are met:
  the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
  the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization;
  the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and
operational safety program administered by a community-based
organization;
  the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and
gives way to any manned aircraft; and
  when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft
provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control
tower with prior notice of the operation.

Any ideas how FAA's own interpretation of the "special rule" for model aircraft would allow them to continue with drone registration?

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...

The only out they seem to grant to themselves is general regulation non specific to model aircraft.

> FAA only cares about >500ft above the ground/water
https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...

Done making up your own "facts" yet? This may surprise you, but there other people than you. Weight was actually defined before you were even born. We don't need you to define it. You're not running the FAA either, so it's not necessary for you to make the rules. If you have an interest, you can READ what the rules actually are.

The FAA rules are exactly the opposite of what you understand:

https://www.faa.gov/regulation...

Operational Limitations

- Visual line-of-sight (VLOS) only; the unmanned aircraft must remain
within VLOS of the operator or visual observer.
- At all times the small unmanned aircraft must remain close enough to
the operator for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with
vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses.

When you register you get a single tail for all of your drone. The registration form isn't online yet, but I haven't heard anything about registering each one that have if you have multiples.

Regarding searching by the tail. Yes, you need the actual tail. But click back one page to the master search list. You have the ability to search by state and county. Every plane with their tail, and addresses of the owners is listed for that county. I wouldn't put it past the FAA to duplicating this exact search for the new list.

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Aircraft_Inquiry.aspx

Interestingly, the FAA itself seems to specifically agree with with the limitations placed on it by Sec 336 of the act:

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/...

Pretty hard to justify the new 'drone' regulations in light of this.

Except with it being public, someone could lookup your registration number via your name/address.

They could then start flying it around an airport, the white house, or some other no fly zone with a drone that uses your number.

Suddenly you have the feds knocking on your door.

I really don't get what you;re talking about.

There's a search field. One field. It has a spot for the drone's registration number. There is no spot for your address. It will look like this.

Presumably a sufficiently clever hacker could crack into the system and get the entire database, but a) they could do that regardless of whether it was publicly searchable (none of the GAO database was searchable), and b) it would be rather silly to risk Federal jail time for a list of addresses of drone owners.

So maybe you mean they could place a fictional number into the system with your name/address, and then you'd have the Feds knocking at your door? But that also makes no sense because the FAA and the Feds would have the false number info regardless of whether the data was publicly searchable.

Or maybe you meant that someone hates you so much they'd find your drone registration, buy a drone with the same model as yours, put your id information on it, and then sit back and laugh as you get arrested? That's pretty much impossible (as I said they can't search by name) unless they've gotten a good enough look at your drone to remember the drone id number (because that would be the only way to use the search box), and if they do that they don't really need to search the FAA website because they know what your drone looks like and they know it's identification information.

FAA controls from the ground up. Sorry you were so eager to use a racial slur you didn't look it up.

https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...

Ehud

FAA controls from the ground up. Sorry you were misled by crowdsource encyclopedia.

https://www.faa.gov/news/updat...

Ehud

It is the intent of the world's aviation organizations, driven by the U.S. FAA and their NextGen ATC modernization initiative, that conventional RADAR will eventually be replaced by the ADB-S or similar self identifying and locating system.

What could possibly go wrong, right?

Q: Someone intent on harm will not register a drone, so doesn't this requirement just penalize responsible people who are excited about UAS?

A: Registration also enables us to educate UAS owners on safe operations.

What they actually mean is the maximum weight at takeoff, not the maximum potential weight at takeoff,

No. MTOW is not an actual weight, it is a maximum weight. It includes the aircraft "Here: "MTOW is the heaviest weight at which the aircraft has been shown to meet all the airworthiness requirements applicable to it. " FAA defined the applicable aircraft: "Unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds and more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft ..."

Emphasis mine.

Luckily, they're not trying; it's based on the weight of what you're actually flying.

Wrong.

If you build a complete drone weighing 230g with battery but you plan to carry a 100g payload, you need to register for 130g.

A drone that weighs 230g that carries a 100g payload would be 330g. If it can actually fly (implying that the maximum takeoff weight is greater than 330g), then this regulation says it must be registered. I have no idea what you mean by "register for 130g". The registration applies whether or not the 230g drone is carrying that payload.

What about my 18 pound Remote control airplane that goes about 50 mile an hour? I'm far faster and far more deadly than any "drone" which is uneducated speak for quadcopter.

Yes, it's an unmanned aircraft, and you're going to have to register it even if it has absolutely no control intelligence whatsoever. It's not really registering the craft, though; if it's under 55 pounds, it's registering YOU. They're going to give you one number, and you're going to put it on all your UAs. This is actually not drone registration, this is actually unmanned aircraft registration, and that includes both remote control and autonomous aircraft, as well as everything in between.

If it's over 55 pounds then you have to fill out a paper form and send it in, just like registering a manned aircraft. And I believe it's still five dollars.

These new rules were written by morons in response to knee jerking.

To be fair, the new rules are dramatically less ridiculous than they could have been. RTFM to see how bad it could have been, some of the representatives were promoting shit like making it mandatory to attach a "fireproof" (HAHAHAHA) license plate, putting legible markings on the outside of the product, or even placing personally identifying information (like your address and a phone number) on the drone. The FAA saw little benefit to any of these suggestions, which is remarkable in itself.