FAA To Drone Owners: Get Ready To Register To Fly (networkworld.com)

coondoggie writes: While an actual rule could be months away, drones weighing about 9 ounces or more will apparently need to be registered with the Federal Aviation Administration going forward. The registration requirement and other details came form the government’s UAS Task Force which was created by the FAA last month and featured all manner of associates from Google, the Academy of Model Aeronautics and Air Line Pilots Association to Walmart, GoPro and Amazon. “By some estimates, as many as 400,000 new unmanned aircraft will be sold during the holiday season. Pilots with little or no aviation experience will be at the controls of many of these aircraft. Many of these new aviators may not even be aware that their activities in our airspace could be dangerous to other aircraft -- or that they are, in fact, pilots once they start flying their unmanned aircraft,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta in announcing the task force’s results.

Comments

I hope...

[cayenne8]

...that the drone registration Federal website works at least as well as the site for Obamacare when it first came online....

I wonder, will all drones be grounded till the US Federal Drone Registration website is actually up and running enough to accept peoples' input?

Re:I hope...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> drone registration Federal website works at least as well as the site for Obamacare when it first came online

Question 1) How much money did you make in 2015?
Question 2) Send it in.

Re:I hope...

[David_Hart]

...that the drone registration Federal website works at least as well as the site for Obamacare when it first came online....

I wonder, will all drones be grounded till the US Federal Drone Registration website is actually up and running enough to accept peoples' input?

Unless it has to interact with multiple state and federal systems with diverse data formats running on equipment and software that is decades old, and no longer supported, and connecting all of that to the more modern systems of third party private sector companies whose vested interest is in seeing all all fail... then it should be fairly smooth sailing....

Re:I hope...

[Mikkeles]

The important point is: what's a drone? That is: how much autonomous control is required?

Re:I hope...

[cayenne8]

Unless it has to interact with multiple state and federal systems with diverse data formats running on equipment and software that is decades old, and no longer supported, and connecting all of that to the more modern systems of third party private sector companies whose vested interest is in seeing all all fail... then it should be fairly smooth sailing....

I"m willing to bet that indeed it will come at least CLOSE to having all of those parameters you mentioned.

I can't imagine that it won't in some if not many ways have to interact with states, and likely they want to tie it in with several other stove pipe systems. That's just how federal computer projects all seem to "work"...and I use the word "work" here lightly....

Re:I hope...

[TWX]

Probably zero autonomous control.

Basically the quadcopter people have ruined RC aircraft for the fixed-wing and scale-model helicopter folks. I will admit that given the developments in camera, storage, and battery technology it may have been inevitable, but it was the quadcopter crowd that really embraced high quality video while flying into the personal space of others and loiter on a large scale.

Re:I hope...

[BarbaraHudson]

Next up - registering your kite. After all, it fits their definition of a remotely controlled aircraft ...

Re:I hope...

[jpapon]

This happens with every technology when the barrier to entry is significantly lowered. I'm sure early automobile enthusiasts felt the same way about the Model-T ruining their happy-go-lucky days of driving without licenses.

Re:I hope...

[tsqr]

The important point is: what's a drone?

That's probably not important at all. I am willing to bet your next paycheck that the word "drone" will be mentioned parenthetically in the requirements, if it's mentioned at all. The FAA Rulemaking Committee's summary cited in TFA refers to them by the TLA, "UAS" (unmanned aircraft system).

Re:I hope...

[I'm New Around Here]

If the government wants to do that, it is certainly within their authority.

Re:I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm registering my kite. It definitely weighs more than 9oz. I built a 'paper airplane' out of a 4x8 sheet of styrofoam that also fits the definition.

Re:I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I will have to start registering my frisbees

Re:I hope...

[dilvish_the_damned]

This happens with every technology when the barrier to entry is significantly lowered. I'm sure early automobile enthusiasts felt the same way about the Model-T ruining their happy-go-lucky days of driving without licenses.

It was quite dangerous to be near anyone driving at the time. Most did not know how to drive, obviously did not start with the benefit of being an automobile passenger for 15 years, and they tended to think of it as a carriage without the horses and drove them accordingly. Comedy and injury ensued. So probably about the same as drones.

Re:I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was quite dangerous to be near anyone driving at the time. Most did not know how to drive

So, about like today?

Re:I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the 'flying into the personal space of others and loitering on a large scale' is largely fictional, but who am I to ruin a good scam?

Re:I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another important point: why the minimum age requirement? I know kids flying RC aircraft in aerobatic competitions (and winning) that are under the age of 13. According to the proposed rules they will not have to register themselves (or their aircraft) until they turn 13.

Re:I hope...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the FAA's report. Unlike the partner article it contains said definition as well as several pages of equations used to calculate the 250 gram lower limit.

Re:I hope...

[mysidia]

Makes one wonder why they didn't ban them.... and blamed the pedestrians who got hit....

Re:I hope...

[paulpach]

If the government wants to do that, it is certainly within their authority.

No it isn't. The constitution only grants a handful of powers to the federal government listed in article 1 section 8, everything else is reserved for the states or the individuals. Education, healthcare, transportation, and yes, aviation are nowhere mentioned in the constitution, and are strictly jurisdiction of the states or individuals according to the 9th and 10th amendment.

Not that that has ever stopped the federal government from doing whatever they want. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but it is justified by a loose interpretation of the "general Welfare" and "regulate commerce among the serveral states" that is not supported by the federalist papers. But by law, this is outside their authority.

Re:I hope...

[Coren22]

http://smile.amazon.com/gp/pro...

The weight requirement seems actually pretty high. That is the drone I bought for my son to play with. It isn't heavy enough for registration, despite all that extra plastic protecting the rotors, and that the thing is over a foot across. My guess is that this limit has to do with transmitters for the camera and autononomous flight ability (gps, as well as a computer strong enough to allow navigation).

I would expect that the regulation has something about powered flight which would exclude kites though.

What purpose does registration serve?

[JoeyRox]

Registration will provide the FAA with the owner's name and address. How will this information be useful to them? Are they going to have airports reroute traffic around neighborhoods that have high concentrations of drone owners?

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[SeaFox]

It's so when your drone does $terroristaction they know were to send the SWAT team.
Not that they'll be verifying these addresses, of course.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

When idiots crash their drones into things then authorities will be able to hold the pilot responsible.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Jane Q. Public]

When idiots crash their drones into things then authorities will be able to hold the pilot responsible.

Will they?

Show me where in the Constitution, or in the Air Commerce Act, the FAA was given authority over all airspace in the U.S.

They don't have such authority. Any more than the EPA has legal authority over the birdbath in your backyard.

Unless you're flying your drone in "navigable airspace" (which is interstate airways and around the airports that serve them), FAA has no lawful authority over you.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Opportunist]

It's so when $terroristaction with a drone happens they know were to send the SWAT team.
Not that they'll be verifying these addresses, of course.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) It will allow them to send you information about your legal obligations and operating restrictions as a drone pilot;
2) It will allow them to identify the owner of a drone if that drone crashes into something and causes damage;

Can somebody please explain to me how "registering your drone" is some kind of unbelievable infringement on your human rights? You have to get licensed to own a gun, drive a car, and you have to register to vote. Why is it such a strange idea that you might, when operating something that could hurt or kill other people, and which almost certainly operates in public spaces, you take affirmative steps to understand the regulations relative to your new hobby?

I bet that almost every one of you cunts whining about registration is also a rabid fan of the idea of draconian gun control measures.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[MightyMartian]

I'm thinking you're probably retarded, because that's the only way I can parse "how me where in the Constitution, or in the Air Commerce Act, the FAA was given authority over all airspace in the U.S." and explain the idiocy of it.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[JoeMerchant]

Back in antiquity, I had to "register" to get a "bikes on trains" permit to carry my bike on the metro. It was a nominal $5 fee (covered the cost of the photograph) and a royal pain to go to the downtown office to get the permit, but the whole point was to educate the permitee about the dos and don'ts of carrying your bike on the metro. Then, whenever somebody it being a bonehead with their bike on the metro, the officials can say either: a) "You need to have a permit to do that, go get it." saving themselves all effort at education on-the-spot, or b) "I see you have a permit, but you obviously didn't pay attention to the training." and possibly revoke the permit on-the-spot, forcing the ex-permitee to jump more hoops to get it reinstated.

Hunting and fishing licenses are a similar game, though their fees are higher, and annual. The presumption is that you will learn what you're supposed to know as a licensee - though, in practice, they're mostly just an annual fee.

Registering drones, like registering handguns, will give some traceability to the bits of electronic junk that get lost in hard to get to locations inside state/national parks, and on other people's private land. It might make some operators a little more careful and a little more aware of the impacts their toy can have. I don't think it's much about keeping them out of the flightpath of commercial airliners, I think it is about making the owners more accountable for less serious bone-headdedness.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[msauve]

Maybe if you paid attention to the first letter of sentences, you'd be able to understand more.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[BarbaraHudson]

Or they can post signs, like they do here.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[JustNiz]

Two words: Registration fees.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me where in the Constitution, or in the Air Commerce Act, the FAA was given authority over all airspace in the U.S.

Of course, you're aware that those are not the only laws governing the operation, authority, and structure of the FAA, right? In fact, the law in question that gives the FAA the authority to regulate drones is the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012," specifically, Title III, Subtitle B, "Unmanned Aircraft Systems," in which Congress specifically directs the FAA as follows:

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with representatives of the aviation industry, Federal agencies that employ unmanned aircraft systems technology in the national airspace system, and the unmanned aircraft systems industry, shall develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.

They go on to specify in quite a bit of detail exactly what must be covered in such a plan. So, let's pick your question back up:

Are you asserting that Congress doesn't have any authority to make this law, and delegate enforcement of it to the FAA? If so, then perhaps you could share for us your legal rationale, rather than spouting off generalized inanities that demonstrate your lack of knowledge about aviation. If not, then perhaps you can take your claims that the FAA has "no lawful authority" over you, and shove them up your ass.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[cayenne8]

It's so when your drone does $terroristaction they know were to send the SWAT team.

So, the new way to "SWAT" people you don't like, have their doors broken down, etc...is to either steal their drone and do something nefarious with it, or likely could be just as easy as finding out your target's serial number, and just etching that onto ANY drone, as that with the emergency reactions to things, likely they will be happy to get an address and break down your front door and shoot your dog, etc...

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[AHuxley]

So that the drone owner gets into a federal database with new federal standards. Many states do not have stop and identify statutes to find out who a drone owner is.
Flying a drone is not a crime or can not be presented as been a reasonably crime like act to induce the showing of photo ID.
So it hard to get the names of the owner unless they walk back to their car (plate number), are followed by law enforcement officials, or have a cell phone on them (StingRay, IMSI-catcher).
Such passive options are now been replaced with a more direct federal ID demands. The drone can be inspected to see if it is registered and if the registered number is readable and can be found as required. That induces a chat down giving law enforcement at a city, state, federal level reason to start a conversation with all drone users in any part of the USA and a request for photo ID.
Out of state press can be identified, talked to, moved on, tracked, equipment taken before a media event becomes public. The drone as a tool for news gathering in the USA becomes illegal until proven legal to local law enforcement.
Is the 4k camera on the drone next for federal registration with the owners registration number visible in every frame captured?

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Bartles]

I noticed that you didn't address the question. Instead you just attacked the questioner as idiotic and ignored the premise.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[rmdingler]

Err, your sock is showing.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Jane Q. Public]

In fact, the law in question that gives the FAA the authority to regulate drones is the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012," specifically, Title III, Subtitle B, "Unmanned Aircraft Systems," in which Congress specifically directs the FAA as follows:

Do you know what "the national airspace system" referred to there is?

Do you know what the Commerce clause in the Constitution is (which is the ONLY Constitutional authority FAA has)?

Are you asserting that Congress doesn't have any authority to make this law,

No, I'm saying Congress' authority to make this law is limited to "navigable airspace", which is the concept which governs interstate air transportation. The "interstate" part is what gives the FAA its authority.

rather than spouting off generalized inanities that demonstrate your lack of knowledge about aviation. If not, then perhaps you can take your claims that the FAA has "no lawful authority" over you, and shove them up your ass.

It's not a generalization, it's Constitutional law. Read about it some time.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either way, they still haven't explained how this meshes with Section 336 in which Congress specifically exempted R/C aircraft from FAA regulation as long as they meet certain requirements (under 55 pounds, under 500 feet, within line of sight, etc).

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Handguns aren't registered.

Re: What purpose does registration serve?

[Squiddie]

You do not have to be licensed to own a gun in most states, and some don't even require it for carrying. Maybe this should go like encryption, and we can claim UAVs are guaranteed by the 2A.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what "the national airspace system" referred to there is?

Yes, I do. Do you? Specifically, Class G airspace - the "uncontrolled" airspace up to 1200 feet, except in the vicinity of an airport, where the ceiling is much lower? Because that's part of the national airspace system, and the rules identifying and controlling it are the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA reauthorization of 2012 grants them the charter of "integrating uav flight" into the national airspace, which includes Class G - therefore, they are well within their legal rights to regulate that space.

Do you know what the Commerce clause in the Constitution is (which is the ONLY Constitutional authority FAA has)?

No, the FAA has NO "constitutional authority" - the CONGRESS has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Congress has *delegated* the air travel and commerce elements of that authority to the FAA, and therefore, the FAA has whatever authority the Congress says it does to regulate air travel. If you believe that Congress does NOT have the authority to create the FAA and direct them to enforce and regulate that space, please explain your logic, because shouting "TEH CONTATUSHIN! MUH RITES!" doesn't really make for a compelling legal argument, counselor. If Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, then it is up to them to determine the means by which that regulation should be accomplished - and in their wisdom, they felt the FAA would be the best way to manage it. So they delegated the regulatory authority to the FAA. That's pretty simple reasoning.

No, I'm saying Congress' authority to make this law is limited to "navigable airspace", which is the concept which governs interstate air transportation. The "interstate" part is what gives the FAA its authority.

So, you're saying that Class G airspace only exists as a navigable airspace in one state? Or it is only accessible and navigable to the state over which it exists? Because - and granted, I'm no physicist - I'm pretty sure that if I fly a drone across a state line, it doesn't self destruct, or become a lawn dart.

It's not a generalization, it's Constitutional law. Read about it some time.

Once again - shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!" doesn't constitute (ha!) an argument. Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce. Air travel is part of interstate commerce, and thus the use of the airspace used by air travel is regulated by the FAA, by order of Congress. The FAA regulates ALL airspace, not just the airspace above an airport, or routes between airports. Why? Because the stuff going on at 500 feet can easily affect the stuff going on at other altitudes, without a well-defined set of regulations in place to govern what responsible people will do in that space.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[I'm New Around Here]

Buuurrrnnnn!!

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Hunting and fishing licenses are also to ensure the proper level/age/gender of animals, or at least close to it, is hunted, for conservation, etc. purposes

.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Bing Tsher E]

Because - and granted, I'm no physicist - I'm pretty sure that if I fly a drone across a state line, it doesn't self destruct, or become a lawn dart.

No, the deal is, if you fly a drone across a state line, it becomes subject to federal regulation. And not before.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in antiquity you didn't have to register RC cars, planes, helicopters or kites or balloons. It seems we get overreaction to every new tech by fearful people. Did you know for years people could just run an RC car into traffic and cause an accident! But that doesn't happen with any significance just like planes or helicopters crashing because of drones flying everywhere and being a nuisance hasn't happened. If it gets near that point then let's worry more then.

Perhaps if they become a nuisance then we could use regular investigative work or just shoot them down I guess.

How about instead of wringing our hands and rushing to register every every scary thing (like guns, new technology, 3-D printers, hardware trips, people who know scary knowledge etc.), we just don't and be gladdened to see that society still moves on, and handles it just fine, and we're all freer for it.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[lgw]

You have to get licensed to own a gun, drive a car, and you have to register to vote.

You do not have to get licensed to own a gun, at least in states that show the slightest respect for the US Constitution. You do not have to get licensed to drive a car, unless you want to drive it in public places (and even then, driving farm equipment on farm-to-market roads doesn't require a license, as that was seen as an undue burden). You don't, in practice, have to register to vote, unless you live somewhere that requires an ID to vote - and most states see an ID as an undue burden.

You don't need a pilots license to fly a plane (well, most planes), if you stay at low altitude and away form airports. You shouldn't need to register to own a drone, or to fly one as long as you stay at low altitude and away from airports.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Registration will provide the FAA with the owner's name and address. How will this information be useful to them?

You have to have an ID number attached to the drone so it will catch people dumb enough to use their actual ID number when trying to smuggle dope into prisons. It also concentrates data on individuals interested in drones that the Feds can sell to drone advertisers. It will also create a black market for stolen ID numbers when the website gets hacked in a couple of days. Like most federal regulations, everyone will profit except actual citizens (if I read the article correctly, the number can be inside the battery compartment so you can't see it to know who to sue for photographing your nude swimming pool party).

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The FAA was faced with managing a rapidly changing technology that some people were using to endanger others. While I dislike many government intrusions, an important role of the government is to protect us from assholes and criminal behavior. Registering drones is a good idea.

The FCC has long managed the licensing of HAM and CB radio equipment and enthusiasts. Decades ago CB users had to get a license. So why is registering drones considered governmental overreach? We need to get registration and appropriate punishments for those who abuse the air space, whether it's someone piloting an unlicensed gyrocopter into D.C. or some scumbag flying a drone near a 757.

Re: What purpose does registration serve?

[pla]

Wait... You might have found the ultimate loophole here!

What if I mount a gun to a quadcopter, and then by legal magic, instead of a "drone", I have a "flying gun"?

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Cramer]

Some firearms require licensing, but not all. (i.e. handguns) And the gun rights lobby screams murder about that. (it's a convenient index/map of where all the guns are, when the nazis want to take them all away.)

A license to drive is supposed to indicate you know how to drive, and it thus a means to revoke that privilege. In reality, it's more a tax than anything else.

Voter registration is there to make sure a person only votes once. If you don't care to vote, then you don't register! If you don't want to shop at Sam's Club, don't buy a membership.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read the article correctly, the number can be inside the battery compartment so you can't see it to know who to sue for photographing your nude swimming pool party

Pretty close, it says:

Markings enclosed in a compartment, such as a battery compartment, will be considered “readily accessible” if they can be accessed without the use of tools.

Now we have a legal question as to whether the owner/pilot is a tool. Given most quadcopter pilots, the answer is likely "yes."

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

The recommendation covers any UAS over 250 grams. There is no minimum altitude nor use of public property required for the rules to apply. I find the idea of attaching a registration number to my 2-meter sailplane(~750 grams) while using an upstart in my own 30 acre field quite silly.

For autonomous and semi-autonomous(including gyro stabilized craft) flying in public space, it makes sense.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[qwijibo]

Come on, do you really think the federal government can implement a system that won't let people register random drones to other people?

I would expect a record number of registrations to Barack Obama and Mickey Mouse.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Cyberax]

It's the states that don't have any gun regulation who shit on the Constitution. Particularly on the "well-regulated militia" part.

See, the gun owners were supposed to be a part of militia and be ready to be conscripted into armies to protect their country. Yet what percentage of gun owners has military training?

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, I do. Do you? Specifically, Class G airspace - the "uncontrolled" airspace up to 1200 feet, except in the vicinity of an airport, where the ceiling is much lower? Because that's part of the national airspace system, and the rules identifying and controlling it are the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA reauthorization of 2012 grants them the charter of "integrating uav flight" into the national airspace, which includes Class G - therefore, they are well within their legal rights to regulate that space.

That isn't an answer. You're defining something in terms of that something... a completely circular argument which has no meaning. I asked you a question which you haven't answered.

If you need it made more clear, then look this up: what was the Congressional authority under which the 2012 reauthorization was made? Here's a big hint: it's called a "REauthorization"... not a grant of new authority.

Your description of areas around airports are irrelevant, because I mentioned them myself, earlier.

the CONGRESS has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce

This is just asinine. Of course it's Congress' authority under which the law was made. FAA authority can only be assigned via Congressional authority. Again, this is not an argument. It's something I already mentioned myself.

So, you're saying that Class G airspace only exists as a navigable airspace in one state?

Of course not. Where did I state that? What I stated was that it's part of a system of INTERSTATE routes. Get a goddamned clue.

Once again - shouting "THE CONSTITUTION!" doesn't constitute (ha!) an argument. Congress has authority to regulate interstate commerce. Air travel is part of interstate commerce, and thus the use of the airspace used by air travel is regulated by the FAA, by order of Congress. The FAA regulates ALL airspace, not just the airspace above an airport, or routes between airports. Why? Because the stuff going on at 500 feet can easily affect the stuff going on at other altitudes, without a well-defined set of regulations in place to govern what responsible people will do in that space.

I didn't "shout" anything... you seem to be the one doing the shouting here. And an awful lot of hand-waving.

No, FAA does not regulate "all" airspace. This goes right back to my original statement. FAA regulates -- via its Congressionally-granted authority to regulate COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE AIR TRAVEL (that pesky "interstate commerce" clause you don't seem to understand) -- is in charge of "navigable airways". Which are defined as commonly-traveled INTERSTATE airways, and other airspace that is part of that system... like areas around airports.

That is a very far cry from "all" airspace. In fact, it's a system of particular routes and particular altititudes, and other areas (such as airports), which you can find clearly printed on aviation charts of the United States.

The FAA does NOT have jurisdiction over OTHER airspace... which in fact is the majority of the airspace.

Therefore it does not have jurisdiction over drones that do not cross into that airspace. For example, the FAA has absolutely NO legal authority over the air 250 feet above my property. That's MY airspace, by international law.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Jane Q. Public]

No, the deal is, if you fly a drone across a state line, it becomes subject to federal regulation. And not before.

Almost but not quite. "Navigable airspace" means commonly-traveled interstate air routes, and associated airspace, like around airports.

And that's reasonable.

But the vast majority of airspace, outside of those commonly traveled routes and altitudes, is completely outside FAA's jurisdiction. That's a basic principle of how our Constitution models Federal authority.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't comment on things you obviously have no idea about.

Every man between 17 and 40 were already part of the "militia", and technically still are.

do a little reading about what constituted the "militia" in the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Dereck1701]

"right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms"

Why do so many people blithely ignore the the next part of the same sentence in the second amendment? Even if you buy the garbage that it applies to the "militia" (any able bodied male between 18 and 45 throughout most of the countries early history) the very next part says that it applies to everyone (IE: People).

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[drinkypoo]

Hunting and fishing licenses are also to ensure the proper level/age/gender of animals, or at least close to it, is hunted, for conservation, etc. purposes

No, no they are not. Licenses don't do that. The only thing licenses do is make sure that someone has spent money. Only enforcement does that. Enforcement already happens; they have wardens out all year making sure that people aren't poaching. I live in major hunting country, so there's lots of them here.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[drinkypoo]

So, the new way to "SWAT" people you don't like, have their doors broken down, etc...is to either steal their drone and do something nefarious with it, or likely could be just as easy as finding out your target's serial number, and just etching that onto ANY drone

No, it's much much worse than that. You acquire a drone by any means, you register it to your target through the websystem which provides instant registration, you slap the registration number on the drone and you fly it into a controlled airspace. Done and done.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[drinkypoo]

See, the gun owners were supposed to be a part of militia and be ready to be conscripted into armies to protect their country.

A "Well-regulated" militia was, by the parlance of the times (the meaning of well-regulated, that is) one which was working properly, i.e. in the defense of the people. It had nothing to do with rules and regulations. That's a modern connotation. You think you know how to read, but you don't. If you did, you'd take the age of the material into account.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[drinkypoo]

No, I'm saying Congress' authority to make this law is limited to "navigable airspace", which is the concept which governs interstate air transportation. The "interstate" part is what gives the FAA its authority.

Congress' authority is to pass laws enabling commerce, securing the nation, etc. The FAA's authority is derived from congress. The "interstate" part just gives the FAA more authority. The authority which the federal government does not accumulate to itself falls to the states. However, aviation is an area over which the feds assert authority, and state laws can't supersede federal laws./p

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

It prevents autistic creeps from sperging out over their rights to spy into people's windows.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the address right here:

1060 West Addison
Chicago, IL 60613

It worked for Elwood, right?
It's not like I'd be requesting a paper certificate...

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[swillden]

Hunting and fishing licenses are also to ensure the proper level/age/gender of animals, or at least close to it, is hunted, for conservation, etc. purposes

No, no they are not. Licenses don't do that. The only thing licenses do is make sure that someone has spent money. Only enforcement does that. Enforcement already happens; they have wardens out all year making sure that people aren't poaching. I live in major hunting country, so there's lots of them here.

For most big game, there's also a tag attached to the license, which much be attached to the game animal when taken. Tags do serve (with enforcement) to ensure that the right number, age and gender of animals are taken. Other game species have daily limits, but those could be enforced without any sort of specific licensing. Of course, the license fees generally pay for the enforcement, so licenses do help manage hunting for conservation. License fees generally pay for lots of other conservation measures as well.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Coren22]

I think it was an attempt at correcting the previous comment. He forgot to quote it and bold his change though, as well as adding FTFY to the bottom.

He was indicating rather than when you commit a terrorist act, it could happen when any terrorist act happens, you don't even have to be involved.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't an answer. You're defining something in terms of that something...

Yes, I'm pointing out that "CLASS G AIRSPACE" - which is considered part of the "national airspace system" constitutes *every scrap of air* over US territory that is not a part of other classes of air space. Which means that the FAA claims as its jurisdiction ALL AIRSPACE over US territory. What about this are you failing to understand? You're claiming they have no jurisdiction- the FAA, Congress, and accepted constitutional law ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

You want an answer to your question? Your question is NONSENSICAL, and IDIOTIC. It is based on a flawed premise, and as such, there is no way to answer it that is congruent with actual, hard, concrete reality. You think you're being a very clever armchair lawyer, but in actuality, you're deeply ignorant of the laws and regulations governing the space you're offering a legal opinion in.

If you need it made more clear, then look this up: what was the Congressional authority under which the 2012 reauthorization was made? Here's a big hint: it's called a "REauthorization"... not a grant of new authority.

Are you really that stupid? Reauthorization simply means a renewal of funding to the regulatory body. And for what it's worth, the name of the act in question is FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. But yeah, I guess you'd see how "Modernization and Reform" would mean "NOTHING ABOUT THIS ORGANIZATION CAN CHANGE, EVER, BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT."

FAA regulates -- via its Congressionally-granted authority to regulate COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE AIR TRAVEL (that pesky "interstate commerce" clause you don't seem to understand)

No, the FAA regulates - via its Congressionally-granted authority - the National Airspace System. It is ludicrous to claim that the FAA can only regulate the "interstate" part of that airspace system. In fact, they regulate the entirety of US airspace, because you cannot regulate interstate commerce, and allow every state to say "Well, inside the state, we get to do whatever the fuck we want, fuck your interstate rules." You clearly don't understand how the commerce clause works, and I can assure you that every supreme court in history would disagree with your ludicrously narrow interpretation.

Therefore it does not have jurisdiction over drones that do not cross into that airspace. For example, the FAA has absolutely NO legal authority over the air 250 feet above my property. That's MY airspace, by international law.

Really? Which international body wrote that law - got a reference? Because I'm pretty sure that the US government doesn't recognize any external organization's right to create laws governing its own sovereign territory. You'd also be hard-pressed to identify an actual federal law that agrees with you, as well.

If you want to make up shit, you're welcome to it. But please don't use "the constitution," "international law" and "commerce clause" as your justifications for making shit up. Your legal logic sucks, your arguments are shit, and your entire point is irrelevant in the real world. Enjoy your fantasy land, until the FAA decides to fine you for being an asshole.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

First off.... You are an idiot. You do not have to get licensed to own a gun in most jurisdictions. You do not have to register to vote in all jurisdictions either. just show up with your ID(or don't since that is apparently a burden) and you can vote. As for driving a car... There are plenty of people who are not licensed. The fact that a TOY has to be regulated to the point of licensing is ludicrous. The thought that your sub pound drone is going to do any appreciable damage to anything(unless it falls out of the sky and lands on a person) is ridiculous. If it does damage sue the operator. Most drones are not capable of the range or altitude needed to pose a real threat to anyone/anything. If you want to place restrictions pass laws. Issuing edicts without legislative oversight is tyranny. Based upon your statements you are the rabid fan of draconian gun control.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[drinkypoo]

For most big game, there's also a tag attached to the license, which much be attached to the game animal when taken.

At least in California, the tags are separate from the license. You buy them if you want to hunt or fish something with a limit, or something they've just chosen to monetize.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Cyberax]

A "Well-regulated" militia was, by the parlance of the times (the meaning of well-regulated, that is) one which was working properly, i.e. in the defense of the people. It had nothing to do with rules and regulations.

Yes, and it assumed that the militia was ready to be conscripted and properly trained for that. In modern terms it required a military training. If you _insist_ on limiting the meaning to 19-th century, then perhaps gun owners should be allowed to buy only flintlocks?

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[lgw]

It was established legal tradition in Britain for some time before the US war for independence that people were allowed to own guns because, even though hunting was illegal, guns weren't only for hunting, they could be used to defend one's home. It was common in the colonies (where everyone had guns, and hunting was legal) that every man was required to bring his gun to church on Sunday, in case a group of men with guns was required for any purpose. These guns were expected to be serviceable military weapons - a tradition going back to the late medieval period, where every man was required to own a weapon of war in case that was needed (and swords were very cheaply available after the plague, so real military weapons, not farm implements, were expected).

There are still several modern nations in which every man of age is required to own a modern military rifle (issued by the government). This idea that somehow the "right to keep and bear arms" excludes modern military small arms is a very modern contrivance, and not at all the intent of the Second Amendment. Heck, not just small arms - even 100 years ago cannon were typically bought for the town by the wealthy, and taken off to war when needed.

It's a very simple idea with centuries of legal tradition behind it: a free man has the right to own a gun, and not just for hunting, but actual military small arms. Totalitarian states disarm their subjects to prevent uprisings. Free societies have an armed populace to keep the government nervous about uprisings. It really is that fundamental.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Jane really that stupid? That's a good question. I've often pondered alternatives. Maybe "Jane Q. Public" and his equally charming real life identity are just part of some elaborate performance art like the old "Candid Camera". You know the kind of irony that Millennials are into: "Haha, I'm pretending to be a delusional psychopath who thinks he's a very clever lawyer (scientist, surgeon, scholar, etc.)"

Or maybe Jane lost a bet years ago and now has to spend ~90% of his waking hours on Slashdot and Twitter, spreading misinformation and insulting anyone who expresses skepticism at Jane's claims. Or maybe this is Lonny Eachus's cry for help?

https://twitter.com/search?q=f...

https://archive.is/N6UFe#selec...

https://archive.is/BtXDD

https://archive.is/MZRCq#selec...

https://archive.is/Iwuvi#selec...

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Cyberax]

That's because having a chemical warhead or an automatic weapon to defend a house is neither sane nor practical. Neither is a requirement to be ready to serve in military with your own weapons.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Jane Q. Public]

You're claiming they have no jurisdiction- the FAA, Congress, and accepted constitutional law ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU.

No, they don't. "Accepted Constitutional Law" says that the Federal government has authority ONLY over the items specifically enumerated in the Constitution. One of those items is the Interstate Commerce Clause, which gives the Federal government to regulate some aspects of interstate commerce.

The Interstate Commerce Clause was the basis of authority for the Air Commerce Act of 1926, which was effectively the creation of the FAA. In fact it was a bureau of the Commerce Department. Look it up.

Regardless of attempted Federal expansion, the Constitution only gives the Federal government the power it gives it. No more, no less. Congress does not have authority to lawfully expand its own authority, nor the Executive Branch, nor the Judicial Branch.

So you decide: is the Constitution a valid document, or is it not? If it is, then the FAA can lawfully control only airspace that is regularly used in interstate commerce. That is the basis for ALL of its authority. No matter how many "regulations" it wants to pass.

If the Constitution is not valid, then screw it, it doesn't matter. The government could do whatever it wanted until it was overthrown... as it surely would be, and a new Constitution implemented.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Jane Q. Public]

NOTHING ABOUT THIS ORGANIZATION CAN CHANGE, EVER, BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT.

I didn't actually say that, but since you mention it, it's true. The Constitution does forbid it from using its power EXCEPT to the extent necessary to help regulate Interstate Commerce.

That's the way it works, man. I didn't invent the damned thing.

By the way: "Class G" airspace is COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED by the FAA. Maybe you should read your own sources.

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

Re:What purpose does registration serve?

[Anonymous Coward]

The response mentioned here will be posted as a response to this comment if this article is locked before I'm finished.

Pilots?

[Anonymous Coward]

A $500 drone owner is to a pilot as a script kiddie is to a programmer

Re:Pilots?

[JoeMerchant]

How about a kayaker to a cargo ship captain?

Re:Pilots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor fucking analogy asshat.

Kaykers dont need a license, while I am pretty sure you need some sort of license to drive a cargo ship.

Re:Pilots?

[x0ra]

programmers don't need a license either, and I'm pretty sure most of them started as script kiddies...

Re:Pilots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor fucking analogy asshat.

Kaykers dont need a license, while I am pretty sure you need some sort of license to drive a cargo ship.

Cargo ship captains carrying "Syrian refugees" to the EU do not need licenses since smugglers don't obey the laws in any case.

Get ready for future requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Next year drone flying classes and a manditory annual tax will be required to maintain your registration.

Re:Get ready for future requirements

[Bartles]

Don't for get the pilot database complete with fingerprints and DNA profiles.

Infringing on the freedom of the press

[AHuxley]

First they came for the journalism drones, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Journalist.
Then they came for the environmental journalist, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an animal rights activists.
Then they came for the citizen journalism, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not into 1st Amendment audits.
Then they came for my drone—and there was no one left to speak for me.
No more 4k ready drones moving along public property capturing news worthy footage without been in a database for a later State or Federal chat down.

Re:Infringing on the freedom of the press

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL! First they came for your first-world problems, but I did not speak out because fuck your drone!

Re:Infringing on the freedom of the press

[Anonymous Coward]

First they came for the journalism drones, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Journalist.

Then they came for the environmental journalist, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not an animal rights activists.

Then they came for the citizen journalism, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not into 1st Amendment audits.

Then they came for my drone—and there was no one left to speak for me.

No more 4k ready drones moving along public property capturing news worthy footage without been in a database for a later State or Federal chat down.

Whether a professional reporter in a news van or an amateur blogger in the family car, these journalists still have to register their terrestrial vehicles and obtain training and operating licenses. Why wouldn't that extend to aircraft?

Re:Infringing on the freedom of the press

[ScentCone]

Because vehicle registration like that is a state-level activity, not a federal activity. And congress, in the 2012 FRMA law, explicitly fended the FAA off from doing some of this stuff. But the Obama administration is trying yet another counter-constitutional end-run by acting at the DoT level instead of the FAA level, and the task force is recommending that EVERY RC FLYING ANYTHING, including a kid's 9-ounce fixed wing toy plane, make that kid subject to federal registration and fines if he doesn't. Yeah, 9 ounces. 250 grams. Are you paying attention?

Re:Infringing on the freedom of the press

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars operate on publicly owned and maintained infrastructure. That infrastructure requires money to upkeep.

R/C aircraft operate in a space that requires no infrastructure.

Re:Infringing on the freedom of the press

[AHuxley]

AC re "these journalists still have to register their terrestrial vehicles and obtain training and operating licenses."
The US Constitution is clear on the role of the press, media, journalists been able to work anywhere in the USA in public without any level of government "infringing on the freedom of the press".
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is very clear on the role of a free press.
Inducing a police chat down, demand for papers, photo ID, just for using a tool (a drone) just for been media and having a camera is "infringing on the freedom of the press"
The press in the USA do not need to register, obtain training, get gov registered university "degrees" like in some nations. They are free to report and record what they can see from public land. Demanding papers, photo ID before, during or after the use of a camera on a drone over public property is a very chilling new method for local law enforcement to block press access.

pilots once they start flying their unmanned.....

[turkeydance]

well, does my son's RC car make him a "driver", too? registration is one step closer to confiscation.

Weight? Really?

[JustNiz]

Weight is pretty much the most clueless measurement to use.
You could build something really big, put helium balloons inside it and have it sit on a scale and still weigh less than 9 oz.
Any of Physical size, maximum range, maximum speed, maximum altitude, any of those would have been much less clueless.

Re:Weight? Really?

[mark-t]

One could probably assume that although they use the term "weight", they are probably referring to mass, since the units are equivalent in Earth gravity.

Re:Weight? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weight is pretty much the most clueless measurement to use.
You could build something really big, put helium balloons inside it and have it sit on a scale and still weigh less than 9 oz.
Any of Physical size, maximum range, maximum speed, maximum altitude, any of those would have been much less clueless.

Weight in common parlance is synonym for mass. You can attach all the helium balloons you want, the end effect is that the mass of your drone + balloons goes up. It doesn't go down.

Re:Weight? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have the tech for controlling swarms of quadrotor drones. If the max take-off weight of a drone is less than 250g, it doesn't need to be registered. Just have a swarm of sub-250g drones converge on, pick up and carry around your kilogram-range payload.

(Hey, arguably it's safer because losing one drone doesn't mean your payload plummets to the ground.)

Re:Weight? Really?

[spire3661]

But is weight a synonym for mass LEGALLY? That is the question. Lots of people think copyright infringement is theft, even though by the legal definition of theft its impossible to steal IP simply by copying it

Dear FAA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bite me. Not a chance I'm registering anything, I am sick and tired of drooling morons in public office that have no business being there dictating my life.

in fact I'm gonna go fly it right now with my eyes closed and while drinking beer. MURIKA!

Re: pilots once they start flying their unmanned..

[Dutchmaan]

If your son's RC car is affecting regular traffic then yes.. that makes him a "driver"

Imagine if RC cars were a relatively new thing.. and people started attaching cameras to them and driving them on the freeway around emergency responders.

Put a gun on it

[Anonymous Coward]

Just put a gun on it and claim 2nd amendment like a good little libertard.

Translate please!

[MobyDisk]

I have questions!

Registration is mandatory prior to operation of a UAS in the NAS not at point of sale.

UAS = Unmanned Aircraft Systems AKA "RC aircraft"
NAS = ???

Persons must be 13 years of age to register.

I don't think you have to be 13 years or older to purchase or operate one, so this seems like a loophole.

Re:Translate please!

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was to wager a guess I would say NAS would probably be National Air Space. Tho I reserve the right to be wrong :P

Re:Translate please!

[Anonymous Coward]

NAS = National Air Space

With the way the FAA works, they're basically saying those 13 and under aren't allowed to operate anything greater than 9oz.

Fly whatever, the FAA is bound by Section 336 from regulating hobby R/C craft until Congress actually changes the law.

Re:Translate please!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, before you put fingers to the keyboard, read the proposed regs. 13 and under would have their parents register it for them, due to child privacy laws.

Make registering worthwhile

[Peter (Professor) Fo]

If the Govt. encouraged drone-flying then it would have a cadre of skilled operators who took their hobby seriously enough to want to see it well regulated and free from idiots. That way a basically unenforceable law costing millions to police would be mostly self-policed by people with decent civic values... As well as cutting edge skills and technology. Hey what's that you say Sooty? 'Nerds being sociable?' Yes, why not.

In the UK plane spotters were once seen as some sort of terror threat but then it was realised that the anoraks would be the best people to spot an unusual sort of person.

At the start of WW2 many 'radio hams' were available to become the core of rapidly expanding signals sections.

By all means have an unlicensed backyard toy category of no registration (though everyday laws of privacy, harassment etc still apply) (a bit like flying a kite.) and a 'big-boys' category but make it something people want to achieve, belong to, participate in, rather than endless form-filling and wallet opening.

What's the definition of "Drone" to the FCC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it actually what a drone is, or does it also sweep up all R/C aircraft in the mix?

Drones are for cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOO! MOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU QUADCOWS!!

(empty) weight has worked for aircraf for a long t

[raymorris]

Weight is an extremely important and controlling parameter for aircraft. It has worked well as an important parameter for classification. For example, the smaller two classes of manned aircraft are called Ultralight and Light Sport Aircraft.

"Maximum" speed, range, and altitude are less useful because they are highly variable under different conditions and impossible to test for a true maximum. Maximum design ratings are used, but weight it the major criterion, the criterion that the classes are named after.

The FAA also regulates lighter-than-air craft such as hot air balloons and blimps. It turns out that by using the EMPTY weight of the craft, you totally avoid the issue of filling it with helium balloons- and the trick of having the gas tank only 1/4 full when it's weighed. They are all measured empty, and it's the empty weight the classifications are based on.

As a quadcopter pilot...

[dotancohen]

...this is a good thing. Non-drone quads, like all RC craft, require skill to do something stupid that will hurt more than your neighbours or your wallet. Autonomous, self-piloting, drones can be more dangerous than a car if flown improperly. Regulate them, just as cars and other aircraft are regulated.

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[ScentCone]

So that's your justification for them including 9-ounce balsa wood model airplanes in this process? really?

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[misexistentialist]

drones can be more dangerous than a car if flown improperly

So can baseballs. I'd insult your general attitude, but you're going to find out that regulation will mean that your days of calling yourself a "pilot" outside of your living room will soon be over.

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an AMA member and have over 100 hours (about 10 minutes in any single stretch because batteries) of r/c flight time under my belt.

like all RC craft, require skill to do something stupid that will hurt more than your neighbours or your wallet. Autonomous, self-piloting, drones can be more dangerous than a car if flown improperly.

This is entirely and 100% disconnected from reality. Threats are based on weight, altitude, and stuff on board - the average lipo battery is devilishly evil if punctured, which is easy on any r/c craft.

I can't understand why people think autonomous operating modes are the problem aside from people just assume the publicized crashes must involved that mode. They do not. Morons running autonomous flight are going to deliver their crafts to the trees and fly them into the ground by accident just like morons behind the sticks will do.

The problem is morons, not the craft or the operating mode. Every R/C toy caries risks though for tiny ones you can mitigate all of them with safety glasses. Otherwise you'll have to find a way to deal with a 50 pound "toy" full of gasoline flying overhead under control of an idiot who does not care about you.

Slight problem there.

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[dotancohen]

So that's your justification for them including 9-ounce balsa wood model airplanes in this process? really?

Right, that is exactly what I said. Are you perchance a blood relation of my wife?

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[dotancohen]

I can't understand why people think autonomous operating modes are the problem aside from people just assume the publicized crashes must involved that mode.

Because with autonomous mode the quad can navigate beyond line of sight. Stupid rises exponentially with distance.

Additionally, RC pilots know their skill level, and have experience battling winds, updrafts, etc. You and I know the limits of the craft, or at least, when they are approaching the limits and in what weather not to launch. Drone users get right up against the limits of the vehicle's capability then crash, with no warning to either the standers-by nor the "operator". They have no idea that the wind at 100 meters is different from the wind at ground level, furthermore, even if they read that the wind is different they don't know how to identify it from the ground, before launch.

In short, autonomous mode lowers the bar of entry to using a dangerous device.

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[dotancohen]

So can baseballs. I'd insult your general attitude, but you're going to find out that regulation will mean that your days of calling yourself a "pilot" outside of your living room will soon be over.

If a sudden surge of people throwing hundreds of thousands of baseballs, constantly, in major cities were to happen then in fact I would expect the government to regulate baseballs. And that is exactly what is happening with autonomous flying craft.

Now replace baseballs with stones. In your city, what would the police do to people who throw stones at other people constantly?

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[thegarbz]

Autonomous, self-piloting, drones can be more dangerous than a car if flown improperly.

Citation required.

Re:As a quadcopter pilot...

[dotancohen]

Citation required.

Are you trolling, it is extremely well documented:
http://tinyurl.com/fucfz

Re: pilots once they start flying their unmanned..

[ScentCone]

Imagine if RC cars were a relatively new thing.. and people started attaching cameras to them and driving them on the freeway around emergency responders.

There are already laws in place to punish anyone doing such a thing. Just like there already are for flying model airplanes in the way of real aircraft.

Exactly what part do you register?

[hsthompson69]

So, we generally work by the fiction that a "gun" is the lower receiver, and that is the part that is what we register.

Exactly what part of the drone are you going to serialize and register? The wings? The engine? The fuselage? Will you need to de-register when it breaks? Re-register it after it's repaired?

At what point will the government decide to have us "register" all of the home made cakes we bake in our ovens? The parts and technology for a cake are just as common and available as the parts and technology for a drone...

Re:Exactly what part do you register?

[AHuxley]

Yourself. The person is registered in a new federal database. The registration number "must be affixed to the aircraft" and "marking must be readily accessible and maintained in a condition that is readable and legible upon close visual inspection".
Its all about the person and connecting them to any and all drones in use. A demand for photo ID does the rest.

Re:Exactly what part do you register?

[iggymanz]

that's nice, I'm putting your registration number on my drone and then going to do naughty, naught things

Re:Exactly what part do you register?

[hsthompson69]

Okay, so let's just register people, and insist they inscribe their social security number onto everything they own - cars, guns, drones, clothes, computers, cell phones, baseballs, cakes, or anything else you could possibly misuse or cause damage with...this couldn't possibly get creepy, and then we'll have one universal identifier for each individual.

Maybe, just maybe, those people without those identifiers can be deported immediately, because obviously nobody would be able to actually *forge* any sort of universal identifier, right?

Sigh.

This is like anti-abortion folk being pro death penalty, and pro-choice folk being anti-death penalty. Your liberals would jump at the chance to register every person and take away every gun, and your conservatives would jump at the chance to register every person and deport every illegal immigrant - and both would see the other as some horrific injustice.

Re:Exactly what part do you register?

[AHuxley]

Yes very much a new bureaucracy demanding papers when a drone is in use.

Let's register baseballs too.

[hsthompson69]

I'll bet you get more damage to property from poorly regulated baseballs thrown by children than drones.

Obviously, baseballs can hurt, and even kill people, and people play with them in public spaces all the time - we really need to get everyone registered properly so we can educate them and hold them responsible for the errant throw.

Re:Let's register baseballs too.

[Bing Tsher E]

People could even throw baseballs across state lines! We'd better have the Feds regulate all throwing of baseballs!

Re:Let's register baseballs too.

[BlueStrat]

People could even throw baseballs across state lines! We'd better have the Feds regulate all throwing of baseballs!

Actually in a way they already do.

Or, at least Congress seems quite interested in the steroid use of people who throw/catch/hit baseballs for money.

Strat

Re: pilots once they start flying their unmanned..

[Dutchmaan]

Right now, personal drones are getting to a point where people ARE getting in the way of real aircraft, registration would make it easier for law enforcement to track a drone to it's owner instead of having to create some elaborate investigation into who owns the device.

Not even counting how drones are starting to be used a little more prolifically for businesses.

All this talk about "gub'mint confiscation" seems like runoff from gun nut types.

quads brought noobs.

[raymorris]

I first joined AMA 30 years ago. I've flown fixed wing, helicopters, and rockets. I've also climbed into something slightly larger and flown it. My next purchase will probably be a quad. I don't think that owning a quad will make me become stupid. The craft is not the problem.

The AMA used to work with manufacturers and retailers to have a very strong presence- every $12 kit included AMA information in the package. The AMA managed to reach a high enough percentage of purchasers that most were well-behaved.

Quads brought a ton of new people into the hobby and the existing community hasn't reached them effectively. Part of that is probably because models (other than rockets) used to be harder to fly, so newbies NEEDED an experienced pilot to train them. Clueless newbies who wouldn't learn from others quickly destroyed their new toys.

On the other hand, rockets could be flown without training, yet AMA dis a good job of getting the message of responsibility out to rocketers. How can this (large) new generation of flyers be reached and educated? Blaming it on the number of props won't do the trick, of course.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[I'm New Around Here]

What does the American Medical Association have to do with toy helicopters?

Re:quads brought noobs.

[fnj]

What does the American Medical Association have to do with toy helicopters?

[Ignoring the lame "toy" bait]

Nothing, but maybe the Academy of Model Aeronautics just possibly might. Just how many of all possible TLAs do you really believe are not overloaded?

Re:quads brought noobs.

[I'm New Around Here]

My point was that he should have spelled out that name. I have no idea what group he was referring to.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, he meant it's The Association of Model toy Airplanes.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have displayed the point much nicer by just telling everyone what it stood for.

That's ok though, we all know the FNG is a asshat now.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[TWX]

Quads brought a ton of new people into the hobby and the existing community hasn't reached them effectively. Part of that is probably because models (other than rockets) used to be harder to fly, so newbies NEEDED an experienced pilot to train them. Clueless newbies who wouldn't learn from others quickly destroyed their new toys.

I've got a secret for you- your hobby is experiencing its own Eternal September, and you never will reach those clueless newbies unless regulation forces them to actually apprentice with someone experienced. You could even look upon it as two separate hobbies- the older hobby for scale-model aircraft or scale-model-type aircraft that requires a significant degree of skill to participate in without constantly spending large sums of money to replace destroyed equipment, and another hobby for the inexperienced that only want a casual hobby, or want to use the equipment as a means for some greater hobby that can benefit from it.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[bongey]

The AMA doesn't agree with this decision. They invited the AMA to the conference but basically told the AMA to eat shit . http://amablog.modelaircraft.o... Yep I wouldn't be surprised if the AMA files a lawsuit.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[Aqualung812]

I came here to say Eternal September as well. Thank you.

For those of us that remember the Internet before 1993, this is history repeating itself.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[thegarbz]

The AMA managed to reach a high enough percentage of purchasers that most were well-behaved.

There's two parts to this. One part is the amount of reckless flying that is introduced by bringing quads down in price, and the other part is the realisation that we are now living in a different world.

I can't buy little magnetic toys, I can't buy lawn darts, I can't buy a chemistry set which contain any kind of acids, I can't buy cyanide at the pharmacy, I can't even buy a decent pain killer anymore. Part of the problem is idiots, but not just idiot end users; idiots in congress who are trying to singlehandedly save every child in the world from anything that may be a slight hazard to them.

I'm not sure that even if the barriers to entry remained quite high that this wouldn't have been the ultimate course of action eventually.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[Coren22]

All you whipper snappers ruined it way back when you didn't even have to be in a university to participate!

Re:quads brought noobs.

[0x537461746943]

The government should be looking at regulating assisted flight like GPS and autonomous type of models and not regular RC airplanes and helicopters. As you mentioned... They are the source of the problems when it comes to the public. Anyone can buy one and fly it wherever without any experience. Joe public can't just go buy a normal RC airplane or helicopter (without GPS) and go fly it over a public gathering. They would crash it before it even got off the ground without a lot of practice or help from others more experienced which might introduce them to the AMA.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[pnutjam]

It isn't kids complaining about drones, it's mostly our "heroes"; pilots, police, fire, etc..

Re:quads brought noobs.

[Obfuscant]

I don't think that owning a quad will make me become stupid. The craft is not the problem.

The problem is not quad copters making people stupid. Nobody said that someone with a lot of experience in other flight regimes is going to become a moron the day they light up their DJI. What IS the problem is that stupid people are buying and operating quad copters.

You're right, it's not the craft.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[TWX]

All you whipper snappers ruined it way back when you didn't even have to be in a university to participate!

A few of us that didn't have University access to Usenet in particular or the Internet in general and only got-in once the commercial Internet became available had some etiquette going-in, we started out on bulletin board systems and Fidonet and had to at least have a modicum of understanding so our local SysOp wouldn't ban us from his board. By that same token most BBSes were free, so without profiting off of the users the SysOp had good reason to ban abusive users so that the board would remain popular. AOL was profit-driven so they were much more willing to tolerate bad users and to give bad users access to everything because it meant that $24.95/month coming in.

Re:quads brought noobs.

[thegarbz]

Pilots? The people who complain every chance they get, constantly strike regardless of pay conditions, and somehow manage to tell the difference between a quad and a bird while passing them in excess of 200km/h all the while never actually recording a single incident? The same pilots who miss runways because they are playing with iPads, chatting in the cockpit, okay I'll stop now.

And on to the police. Our agents of justice who do everything in the public's best interest and never side with a politician debate. Not the same people who in my home country are randomly stopping middle eastern looking people in the street and asking them to see their immigration documents because some politician wants to clamp down on terrorism.

The fire department is more along my lines of thinking but actual complains from the them have been very few, and mostly when the complaints do come its from some political bigwig in an office.

To be fair anyone caught flying a drone in areas where they could inflict injury on large groups of people at once deserves to have their balls cut off, and I do consider many of the people you describe "heros", just not the ones who are running around making these complaints. They mostly do it due to an incredible lack of understanding about risks, or to further their political goals.

Money Grab

[schmaustech]

Nothing more then a money grab. Registering the drones will not change anything with some of the challenges we face with drones however the registration fee will be quite nice. Shall I drone on?

8 oz...

[harvey the nerd]

...drones are the new tech race. I won't be surprised to see hydrogen as fuel, structural factor and buoyant.

Re: pilots once they start flying their unmanned..

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKwpJvV3qfM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z7uOWbsnHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ickP7m0Uck8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaX4BEJKWM0

Re: pilots once they start flying their unmanned..

[I'm New Around Here]

And anyone who uses words like "gub'mint" seems like a moron nut type.

Corp america wins again?

[Anonymous Coward]

a. push accountability to the consumer.
b. who cares if the drone malfunctions and flies away or has a bad GPS day. Who cares if the vendor pushes a bad update (and you forget to revert).
c. who cares if the drone vendors push: "easy to use EVERYWHERE", when they can only reliably fly in maybe 10 typical areas
d. Industry nor FAA wants responsibility
e. Just throw all that data in the database and enforcement to local authorities.
f. "we're doing all this for safety!"
g. PROFIT!

I wonder who's going to safeguard all these CC #'s and cell phone#'s.... It will likely live in the cloud [service] waiting for someone to hack.

Fun times.

Place your blame for this appropriately

[kheldan]

Before any of you get all pissed off about 'having the government all up in your business', consider this: The assholes flying drones in the way of aircraft trying to put out wildfires, or into restricted airspace (read as: the Whitehouse), or to (attempt to) smuggle contraband into prisons, or to spy on people in their backyards? They are the ones you should be beating on for this and no one else.

Re:Place your blame for this appropriately

[spire3661]

NO. Its not my fault idiots exist. Liberty is not supposed to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. You have a shitty viewpoint.

Re:Place your blame for this appropriately

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone MOD this guy up, this is EXACTLY what happened.

Re:Place your blame for this appropriately

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, I should be able to fly my toy anywhere I want whenever I want and I'm going to throw a temper tantrum if they won't let me. WAH!

There, translated that for anyone who can't do it themselves. You're probably one of the spoiled entitled little assholes who think you're special and can do whatever you want, and tough shit if it means another hundred acres burns down, or are you the neighborhood pedophile with your hands down your pants watching some neighbors underage daughter play in her own backyard while you spy on her with a drone camera? Please kill yourself, you ruin things for everyone else.

Re:Place your blame for this appropriately

[dwillden]

Fires is a problem. But one that tech is addressing as devices capable of disabling drones in an area or forcing them to return to their controller are starting to come out.

As to the Whitehouse, mount some of the new laser's the navy has developed on the Whitehouse. If a drone enters proscribed airspace around the house it goes poof. Prisons? That's why guards have shotguns, free skeet practice. Backyards are a little challenging. Shotguns is also my initial answer but discharging firearms is often prohibited. But perhaps tech can help there with stay-away beacons on a smaller scale from what is starting to appear in response to the Fire and Airport issues.

Re:Place your blame for this appropriately

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, am waiting for the Star Trek style transporter for $49.95 (with free shipping) before I invest in a drone to expand my prison-contraband business model.

Re:Place your blame for this appropriately

[swillden]

Shotguns is also my initial answer but discharging firearms is often prohibited.

Except when justified. There was a recent case in which a judge ruled that a man's decision to discharge his shotgun within city limits to shoot down a drone flying over his property was justified.

Re:Place your blame for this appropriately

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, asshole, if you overgrown manchildren could be bothered to play with your toys in a responsible, appropriate manner, then none of this would happen. STFU and GTFO, faggot.

Uhhhh... Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either the comment is purposefully obtuse or just lazy ignorance.
Surprised you didn't go with American Motorcycle Association and some sort of "worry that the increased number of jumping and somersaulting motorcycles isn't endangering aircraft".

Re:(empty) weight has worked for aircraf for a lon

[Anonymous Coward]

Weight is not Mass..

A blimp has negative Weight, but lots of Mass..

So a RC blimp that has a mass of several metric tons and could lift your car wouldn't have to be registered..

Now if it had a gram restriction and not an ounce restriction that would make sense.

And I bet it is grams (mass) not oz (weight) but the article in question tried to dumb it down for the masses. (pun intended)

Opportunity for improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

They were careful to define aircraft, but could add the definition for operate to the proposed rule.
    The law appears to allow them to do this, they might as well show their whole hand.

The disclosure of registration information (basically none) seems contrary to the purpose of the rule.
The rule permits operators to be held responsible for their actions by identifying them.
This does little good if the person injured can't get access to the identity of the operator.
I wonder if either the database should be published (probably not), or at least available through specific published procedures available to the court.
Requiring the operator and injured to guess what the rules are seems unnecessary.

Although the penalty for not registering may be meager if the risk is likewise, the penalty for purposely mis-marking might be more interesting?

Because the question is stupid!

[Gription]

The constitution VERY SPECIFICALLY doesn't address specific regulations. Those are generated by LAWS. The constitution does give a very firm guide for how we are to come up with laws. Things like electing officials to create and maintain laws and having people in official capacities to enact those laws.
Staying awake during junior high and high school social studies classes would have avoided this incredible lack of knowledge. (If there wasn't the benefit of a proper education then there is a valid excuse for such ignorance.)

It is just as inane to say "Show me where in the constitution it says that police can enforce speed limits!" People really don't need to loudly proclaim their ignorance and supporting their ignorance makes a statement too...

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Bartles]

The authority to enact and enforce laws is granted by the enumerated powers of the Constitution.Those are the only powers granted to the federal government by the people. The FAA doesn't have the power to create laws, only enforce them. Ignorance is on full display here.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[spire3661]

Hold on. The FAA was created by and gets its mandates from CONGRESS. The EXECUTIVE branch makes sure the FAA's mandates are carried out.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Bartles]

Sure. But that doesn't give it the authority to exercise powers not granted to it.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[spire3661]

Not granted to who? Congress? The FAA is a direct extension of Congress. They have absolute authority to pass laws that say 'do whatever the FAA says'.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Bartles]

Oh. OK. Then I guess the FAA could regulate baseballs, frisbees, spitwads, polevaulting, and falcons. Plus it could regulate what people are allowed to say and pray while flying. Just because it has the pwoer to regulate, doesn't mean it has absolute power to regulate. It still is required to obey the supreme law of the United States.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[spire3661]

The FAA can issue 'unconstitutional' mandates all day long. Its up to the judiciary to find those actions unlawful, and the executive to enforce that finding. To bring suit, you have to prove you have suffered harm from these mandates(standing). The judiciary will not listen to you without you first proving standing.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[bongey]

No but federal law mandates that the FAA cannot regulate flying models under a certain weight. The FAA basically told the AMA to eat shit. http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Gription]

Regulations are how laws are actually implemented. An agency by its administrative mandate develops its regulations and enforces them. If someone has an issue with the regulations then that is handled by the judicial branch. Three branches of government acting as checks and balances against each other.

Sounds pretty much in line with the constitution and with what was taught in social studies...

----
BTW - The FAA does regulate baseballs, frisbees, spitwads, polevaulting, and falcons on board an aircraft. Try using any of them on a commercial flight and see how their regulation gets you into metal bracelets. Plus regulation will insure that you can't carry the last two on the plane. Regulation and enforcement at work.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[drinkypoo]

The authority to enact and enforce laws is granted by the enumerated powers of the Constitution.Those are the only powers granted to the federal government by the people. The FAA doesn't have the power to create laws, only enforce them.

Sigh. You really are thick. The FAA is a branch of the federal government. The government has the right to make laws to make management of the country possible. An FAA ruling can thus have the force of law, if the federal government says so.

Ignorance is on full display here.

Yes, and your ignorance is being caused by wishful thinking.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[mysidia]

Congress authority is set out in the constitution. Congress can pass resolutions which become law when signed by the president

Congress can pass laws, But congress cannot transfer any of their own lawmaking authority to an outside entity.

For example, it is not within congress' power to pass a law stating "Whatever Young billy says is the law, is the law."

You can replace 'Young Billy' with any corporation or government department you want, and it's still true --- congress literally does not have the power to say "Whatever foobar says," as that would be a transfer of lawmaking authority contrary to the constitution's requirements for passing laws.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of. The power to enact and enforce laws pursuant to the constitution is granted to the federal government. The FAA Does not fall under the enumerated powers. It shouldn't exist without an amendment.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

No but federal law mandates that the FAA cannot regulate flying models under a certain weight.

Even your highly biased link doesn't support this claim.

The FAA basically told the AMA to eat shit.

Riiiight. Because registering online for free with the FAA is such a huge burden. It seems less of a burden than paying the AMA $38. Ooooh, now I see why they are eating shit! They might lose free money.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Montezumaa]

The FAA is an executive agency*(you do understand what the fucking root word of "executive" is, right? I don't see the word "legislate" anywhere, which is what both, and each, side of the US Congress does). I do hope you understand how the Executive Branch of the US Government works. I guess you also believe that all law enforcement bodies within the United States(at the federal, state, and/or local level) exist to protect "us"(the citizens, and all other within the boarders of the United States, and the other, respective areas of competent jurisdiction. Here is a hint(well, I will give you two hints) to show your fallacy: 1. "Protect" isn't anywhere in the name, [and] 2. Warrant v DC(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)(as well as Deshaney v Winnebago County(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County), and Gozales v Castle Rock(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales))

*The FAA is actually an agency that exists under the US DoT(United States Department of Transportation)

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[KGIII]

Somewhere we screwed up. See, as near as I can tell - and I'm not an expert, the Constitution was an enumerated list of things the Government could or could not do. Basically, it said what the government could not do AND what the government could do - with certain limitations. Now, I'm not sure when, we seem to have interpreted this poorly. It has become more like, if the Constitution does not say that it is, expressly, disallowed then it is permitted. They seem like similar things at first blush but, really, they're not - the difference is kind of huge in practice.

I don't know where we screwed up and, maybe, I am missing something but that's seemingly how it was meant to be. Once upon a time (and it did not seem to be a long time) the idea was that if the Constitution didn't say they could do it then they couldn't do it and if the Constitution said that they couldn't do it then it was strictly verboten even if they could twist it into other definitions.

From my reading and learning, I've decided that there's no one spot to place the turn about. I think the biggest change happened when they decided to use their ability to regulate commerce between the States to stomp on a farmer and SCOTUS decided to uphold it. I don't really know so that's speculation that is based on my limited research and incidental learning.

I could be wrong but I don't think I am. There are a lot of people who seem to support this reinterpretation of the principle objectives in the very idea of a Constitution. I wish I could articulate this better but I am not a writer. Well, I am not a good writer.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[mysidia]

I think the biggest change happened when they decided to use their ability to regulate commerce between the States to stomp on a farmer and SCOTUS decided to uphold it

There was a progression -- from Marshal, to the meatpackers, to the New Deal

Gibbons v. Ogden -- 1824, 22US

The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments....

; But the end affect is the commerce clause barely exists, most certainly not implemented as it was intended. The commerce clause evolved from allowing Congress to regulate interstate commerce to allowing Congress to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce, thanks to the "Necessary and Proper clause"; for example, congress may regulate the channels of interstate commerce, congress may regulate anything that threatens interstate commerce, even if it's only intrastate activities, and congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce.

Then we got this whacky idea called rational basis review, where the judiciary must show deference to current elected representatives, if there are reasons that support congressional judgement, the justices are supposed to support the current elected, even if the judges would come to different conclusions. Increasing deference towards current politicians is also deference away from slamming their laws by declaring things "unconstitutional" when they are unconstitutional. US vs Lopez.

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[KGIII]

Thanks! Much appreciated. I'm not a scholar of history but I do try to learn a little here and there. It is disappointing that I have to tell this to people. It's unfortunate that you're the only one who picked up on it and commented. It really should be discussed by people who are more knowledgeable than I.

I'd also ignore the down mod. I got three in a row. That means that Matrix007 got mod points. They did get five for a while but now they only get three and they waste them all on me. They're my stalker. I'm greatly amused by them. At least I assume it's them. They told me they were going to mod all my posts down. It was five, they happen within a few minutes of each other, and now it's just three. I suspect that they're counterbalanced by meta moderation and that means they're losing points. It's too bad, really. I kind of like the attention.

Anyhow, I appreciate the lesson and it gives me a few points to do some additional reading/research. I'm disappointed that we've a Constitutional Scholar as a president who's used that scholarship to encourage and abet the circumvention of the document and its very ideals. I was a little skeptical of posting my comment, not because I fear moderation, because I didn't really have the wherewithal to dig out the resources to cite my claim. I was a little leery that I'd be asked to defend it and I don't quite know how to go about doing that in a reasonable time.

As I said, my fascination with history is not a scholarly pursuit. I do make an effort to understand. What's great is that someone on Slashdot frequently has the knowledge that I don't have. I can mention something like this, something that you might not have thought of or taken the time to write about, and mention the basics and someone (namely you in this case) will come along and fill in the gaps for me and for the other readers. I watch a lot of documentaries but they're entertainment and learning is incidental - I don't watch any real television and haven't in years so having all these documentaries online makes me very happy.

Having said that, and this may be tough to answer, there are mechanisms in place to get us back to where we were. Even SCOTUS can overturn prior decisions. I see this as a very unlikely outcome. Baring a straight up bloody revolution, do you see any path back to those limitations? Do you see the government conceding power willfully? If so, how can we go about working towards that goal?

Re:Because the question is stupid!

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA can issue 'unconstitutional' mandates all day long. Its up to the judiciary to find those actions unlawful, and the executive to enforce that finding.,

Not true. All government entities are bound by the Bill of Rights, the highest law in the land. This provides for unspecified rights 'retained by the people' (9th Amendment) and 'reserved to the people' (10th Amendment). The Bill of Rights, in short, is an open-ended document.

By definition, the government does not get to decide what rights are retained by the people, or reserved to the people.
Hence, the lawmaking authority of government only exists to the extent that it does not violate any such rights, which include all rights that a person in a free country would expect to have. Laws and precedents to the contrary are illegal.

In short, the Nuremberg Precedent is applicable to US law, under the 9th and 10th Amendments. Everybody working for any government organization has an individual and personal responsibility to not violate fundamental rights.

As a consequence of a number of rights arising under the 9th and 10th Amendments, such as the dual rights to ethical government and ethical practice of law, persons in government that issue regulations in violation of the Bill of Rights immediately and permanently cease to be qualified to hold an position of public trust and responsibility, and the the regulations themselves become immediately null and void. If this was not the case, it would create an artificial demand for the services of legal professionals, violating the right to ethical practice of law. No action by the judiciary or the executive is required.

Indeed, the whole point of having a Bill of Rights is that the entities in the original Constitution (the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court) could not be trusted any more than the state governments could. If these entities were able to define their own rules under which the Bill of Rights could be ignored, then the whole thing would become pointless.

ISO 80000 weight unaffacted by atmospheric buoyanc

[raymorris]

Weight does not vary by drag or buoyancy.

ISO 800000, which defines mass and weight, defines weight as Fg= mg. g is a locally constant value, NOT a property of object. g is ~ 9.8 m/s/s on earth. Weight is mass times g. To avoid any confusion, ISO 800000 explicitly states that atmospheric buoyancy is excluded for weight, that weight is the -local- g times the mass of the -object- . (Not the other way around, a -location- has gravity, an -object- has mass. Multiply the two to get weight.)

Also, as mentioned the SUBJECT line of post you replied to, and also your own post, FAA weight is EMPTY weight. It doesn't include the weight of any fluids including fuel, coolant, helium, etc. Guess you didn't bother to read your own subject line.

FAA told AMA to eat shit basically

[bongey]

The FAA basically told the AMA eat shit.
Even though the federal law says that the FAA cannot regulated model aircraft under federal law. Utter BS the law says they cannot regulate a model aircraft under 54 LBS, that is flown under 400 AGL and operated with VLOS of the operator. The AMA self limits themselves to 15lbs.
Official response from the AMA. http://amablog.modelaircraft.o...

This will be DOA when a lawsuit gets filed by the AMA.
I crashed more than one 1k aircraft on landing, do you think I won't just throw money at lawsuit to be filed against the FAA? (2.4GHz frequency hop is godsend now, haven't had a wreck since)

I have several drones and I support this

[Cyberax]

I have several drones (two quadrocopters and an octocopter) and I definitely support this.

First, the requirement is not onerous. There are no serious licensing requirements.

Second, having drones to be traceable is a good thing - if somebody crashes them into your window then you'd definitely want to find who did it. And never mind that a crashed drone can sometimes catch fire (mine did) from a ruptured battery (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... as an example).

Third, there is some honey here - FAA plans to review restrictions on flying inside the national parks once the registration system is up and running.

Re:I have several drones and I support this

[bongey]

As person that follows the rule of law, I cannot support this. No federal government agency should be allowed to break the law.
Federal law specifically says the FAA cannot regulate model aircraft under certain conditions.
FAA is trying to regulate model aircraft under the conditions set forth by law.
FAA is breaking the law, too bad we cannot take the administrators and send them to jail until they post bail.

Re: I have several drones and I support this

[Cyberax]

Can you provide a link to this law (and it must be a federal law)?

Re: I have several drones and I support this

[BlueStrat]

Can you provide a link to this law (and it must be a federal law)?

FAA is bound by Section 336 Special Rule For Model Aircraft from enacting new regulations regarding model aircraft which fall within the parameters described in Section 336.

On the other hand, a model aircraft operated pursuant to the terms of section 336 would potentially be excepted from a UAS aircraft certification rule, for example, because of the limitation on future rulemaking specifically âoeregarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.â Public Law 112-95, section 336(a).

https://www.federalregister.go...

Of course, all it will take is a little creative reinterpretation. Not like that's anything new when some Amendment, law, regulation, etc gets in the way of what those in power want these days. The Rule of Law is pretty much dead in the US.

Strat

yeah, right... because we all know

[Anonymous Coward]

that any terrorist will rush right out to register his drone-of-mass-death before deploying it, right?

Sheesh. I expect technical people to be more intelligent that your average ignorant Kardashian-watching stooge.

This drone stuff is in many ways exactly like gun control. In both cases laws are passed that will over time be a hassle to decent law-abiding people who will mostly just grit their teeth and pay the fees which will eventually be levied, take the tests that will eventually be required, surrender their privacy to the extent that will eventually be demanded, register their stuff so it can be grabbed eventually when some politician decides to go full-on demogogue, and limit their options for what they can own and operate in the desire to not get into trouble as they watch out for police while doing their hobby, like car drivers worrying about every police car they pass and every red light camera they pass beneath. Meanwhile, the trolls of this world who seek to harm others simply ignore all the rules, regulations, and laws and bear none of the costs - with the net result that a huge number of decent folks are inconvenienced and lots of money is spent in exchange for no net increase in safety.

Remind me again: The Russian government warned about the Boston Bombers multiple times... did they use [illegal] bombs and [illegally] kill people with both the bombs and the guns? The idiots who went to Texas to murder Pamela Geller and friends actually went on the internet to discuss it before doing it, even with all the govt spying on all of our internet activity... Did the feds show up to stop them? (even knowing when and where the SCHEDULED event was happening????). Giving the feds more info about your life does not necessarily make you any safer, and indeed in the era of the current administration can lead to political persecution as a bunch of TEA Partiers found out when, after seeking tax exempt org status, their info was passed to other agencies and they found themselves investigated by ATF, the FBI, Commerce and other agencies in quick and historically insanely unlikely succession.

because totally irresponsible drone operators

[Anonymous Coward]

will responsibly register their drones so that they can be arrested and fined?

riiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhht

You did not really think that through before you typed it, did you?

Useful! Not...

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be at least as useful as licensing Citizens Band operators! I'm sure the FAA will have lots of field enforcement personnel to manage this.

Apparently we fail to learn from history, yet again.

Remember CB licenes?

[Anonymous Coward]

You used to need a license to use a CB radio (I still know mine - KAKI-81XX, no idea if it is still valid, I doubt it). Then in the 1970's their use exploded and everyone started ignoring the requirement, it wasn't enforced and it went away.

Why would this be any different?

Coren22: EAT YOUR WORDS retard... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts

hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:

"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."

FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

NOT a secretary!

I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:

Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag... apk

Coren22: EAT YOUR WORDS retard... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts

hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:

"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."

FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

NOT a secretary!

I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:

Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag... apk

Re: pilots once they start flying their unmanned..

[Anonymous Coward]

With the exception of the emergency responder thing (get to that in a sec), there have been no verified reports of quadcopters getting in the way of full-sized aircraft. None. Zero. It's the "UFO" of the 21st century.

In the emergency responder case, the helicopter's downwash would have batted the 4lb quad down. There was no actual reason for it to be held up, except over-cautiousness (noble, for sure, but not practical).

Coren22: EAT YOUR WORDS retard... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts

hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:

"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."

FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...

(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

NOT a secretary!

I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

---

"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015

Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:

Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag... apk

Registration is for powered flight too

[0x537461746943]

I have a 290 gram hand launch glider which does not have any propulsion system. You throw it and find thermals to go higher. I will now need to register it.

Re:Registration is for UN-powered flight too

[0x537461746943]

I meant un-powered flight too.

Re:Registration is for UN-powered flight too

[BarbaraHudson]

I meant un-powered flight too.

Oh, great. So next time I dump a body off a bridge, I need to register it ... :-)

Finally

[ebvwfbw]

Horse was almost out of the barn and down range.