Slashdot Mirror
Drone Registration Is FAA's Way of Getting You To Read Their "EULA" (hackaday.com)
szczys writes: There is little to complain about when it comes to the new FAA rules regarding drones (unless perhaps you live in DC). The regulations are basically an End User Licensing Agreement and focus on educating responsible operators. Eight simple rules cover how to avoid doing dangerous things with Unmanned Aerial Systems. The FAA has even left alone the small toy drones, and the certification system for those above 55 lbs remains. The one aspect that is concerning is that of privacy; the drone database will be publicly searchable and contains names and addresses of drone owners. If the DMV keeps license plate data protected, the FAA should do the same.
FTFA:
It is completely reasonable to conclude that since the FCC database is capable of reverse lookup (rather than by callsign only), the FAA database will do the same. It also reasonable to conclude that as of now, there are far more ham radio operators than drone operators.
I'm not making a case for or against this. I'm just pointing out a federal system in place which already has this.
Beware of the Leopard.
There is little to complain about...
Other than the fact that the FAA is closing down model airplane clubs in the absence of any actual regulation being in place, and is threatening people with tens of thousands of dollars in fines for not registering a 9-ounce toy airplane despite the fact that the 2012 FMRA law prohibits the FAA from doing exactly what it just did. Just another example of the executive branch deliberately ignoring laws they don't like. Again.
There's plenty to complain about.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"Other than the fact that the FAA is closing down model airplane clubs..."
The FAA is not closing down any model airplane clubs nor any other clubs.
"...in the absence of any actual regulation being in place,"
Yes, there are regulations now in place.
"...and is threatening people with tens of thousands of dollars in fines for not registering"
No, they are not threatening people with fines of tens of thousands of dollars, and they're not
threatening them for not registering. They are saying if you fly your UAS outside of regulations
you are subject to fines. That's not about "registration" as much as it is about "regulation."
"...a 9-ounce toy airplane despite the fact that the 2012 FMRA law prohibits the FAA from doing exactly what it just did. Just another example of the executive branch deliberately ignoring laws they don't like. Again. "
Adding the word "Again" to a nonsense statement doesn't imply anyone did anything wrong, only that your temper tantrum went on twice as long.
If you have reason to believe it's unlawful, by all means challenge it. That doesn't mean cry your eyes out on facebook or slashdot. It means file suit. If that's too hard for you and you'd rather someone else does it, that's fine too, just stop crying and wait for the adults to handle the situation.
The FAA has passed regulations and that's life. You don't like and the tears are flowing and that's life. If you think they are in the wrong and don't have the right to do that then... first you should read up on the last two times they tried and how they got shot down and how they changed their method so now they have their ducks in a row... then dry your eyes... reapply your mascara... and challenge the FAA.
There is no law or FAA regulation requiring model aircraft to fly below 400 feet. If you accept the FAA's definition of model aircraft being aircraft as defined by the statutes and regulations, the regulation actually says that except for helicopters and except for takeoff and landing approaches, aircraft must stay ABOVE 500 feet. The 400-foot rule is an asspull published in an advisory circular (advisory meaning it does not set any rules). If you do not accept the FAA's definition of model aircraft being aircraft as defined by the statutes and regulations, the FAA has no authority to regulate model aircraft in the first place.
Once again, reflects only guidance published in an advisory document.
These are published in NOTAMs -- notices to airmen. Model aircraft operators are not airmen (unless they have airman's certificates for full-scale flight). Note that if model aircraft are "aircraft", the regs make it illegal to fly one without such a certificate, so registration will not make you legal.
Probably a good idea, but another asspull. If model aircraft are "aircraft", flying over people is normal and expected.
NOTAMs are often issued for sports events, so this one can be fitted into a consistent intepretation.
Same thing concerning NOTAMS.
Not sure why it's any safer to fly near aircraft when you're not near an airport. Note that if the FAA interpretation is correct, a model airport (including a piece of ground you land your heli or quad) is an airport. And that this would prohibit flying in proximity to other model aircraft (because model aircraft are aircraft, right?)
This one can be read consistently.
I am a certificated pilot, and I am an aircraft owner. My name, address, certificate status, medical status, aircraft registration, and aircraft registration status are all available in a publically searchable FAA database. I this is requried of me to be a user of the national airspace system, why should drone operators be exempt?