Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Americans No Longer Have To Register Non-Commercial Drones With the FAA (recode.net)

Posted by msmash on from the go-and-be-happy dept.

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a federal rule that required owners of recreational drones and other model aircraft to register the devices with the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA had announced the rule in 2015 in response to growing reports of drones flying near manned aircraft and airports. Drones have become increasingly popular with hobbyists and more than 550,000 unmanned aircraft were registered within the first year it was required. From a report: The court ruled that the FAA's drone registration rules, which have been in place since 2015, were in violation of a law passed by Congress in 2012. That law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, prohibited the FAA from passing any rules on the operation of model aircraft -- in other words, rules that restrict how non-commercial hobbyist drone operators fly. Now, if a person buys a new drone to fly for fun, they no longer have to register that aircraft with the FAA. But if flying for commercial purposes, drone buyers still need to register. The lawsuit was won by John Taylor, a model aircraft enthusiast, who brought the case against the FAA in January 2016. Since first opening the FAA's registration system in December 2015, more than 820,000 people have registered to fly drones.

70 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Unsurprising by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:

    In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.

    1. Re:Unsurprising by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"? If we are going to regulate drones, it should be done based on weight, altitude, payload (cameras, machine guns, etc.) and location (near airports or flight paths). It should not be based on whether the operator is earning some money to feed his family.

    2. Re:Unsurprising by thebes · · Score: 1

      Surely there can be some middle ground:

      https://www.youtube.com/result...

    3. Re:Unsurprising by Repentinus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"?

      Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use".

      Commercial pilots of traditional aircraft have stricter qualification requirements because they are likely to fly heavier aircraft, they are likely to fly more often, and they are likely to operate in busier airspaces. As a consequence, commercial flights pose a greater risk. This is also true of commercial operation of model aircraft.

      We place a higher standard on commercial operation of vehicles (taxis, buses, lorries), professional engineering and construction (you need to be adequately educated and licensed to undertake the construction of a large shopping mall whereas you are likely permitted to build your own dwelling), professional practice of law (you cannot represent others without a law licence), etc. In doing so, we recognize that the risks for professional activities are higher, the public has a heightened expectation of competence, and professional practice is associated with an income that should cover compliance with the requirements. We rarely place similar restrictions on non-professional activities. Why should it be any different in aviation?

    4. Re:Unsurprising by tsqr · · Score: 1

      The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did.

      That's right. And that 2012 law expires 4 months from now. What will happen next? From TFA: “The goal of the registration rule was to assist law enforcement and others to enforce the law against unauthorized drone flights, and to educate hobbyists that a drone is not just a toy and operators need to follow the rules,” said Lisa Ellman, an attorney and specialist on the drone regulation with the law firm Hogan Lovells. “These are worthy goals, so if this ruling stands it wouldn't surprise us to see a legislative response here."

    5. Re:Unsurprising by Repentinus · · Score: 1

      If we are going to regulate drones, it should be done based on weight, altitude, payload (cameras, machine guns, etc.) and location (near airports or flight paths).

      We do.

      Sec 336(a)(3):

      the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

      Sec 336(a)(5):

      when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

      Sec 336(c)(2)

      flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;

      Airspace controls and restrictions are also applicable to model aircraft.

    6. Re:Unsurprising by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Commercial pilots of traditional aircraft have stricter qualification requirements because they are likely to fly heavier aircraft, they are likely to fly more often, and they are likely to operate in busier airspaces.

      That is stupid reasoning. If heaviness, frequency, and location are problems, then they should be regulated directly, rather than regulating commerce just because it is correlated with these things. Many commercial operators use tiny drones. Many hobbyists use big drones. The regulation should be based on the size not the motivation of the user.

    7. Re:Unsurprising by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Commercial use is where all the money is, and that's where Congresspeople can get donations to stop getting in the way of things.

      This is the way most of the world operates. It is just lessened and pushed even more underground in the US and Europe.

      BTW, they want tax simplification, as was done in the 1980s, to get rid of most loopholes so they can hand them back out again in upcoming years.

      Learn from history.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:Unsurprising by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      That is stupid reasoning. If heaviness, frequency, and location are problems, then they should be regulated directly, rather than regulating commerce just because it is correlated with these things. Many commercial operators use tiny drones. Many hobbyists use big drones. The regulation should be based on the size not the motivation of the user.

      "Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use."

      You skipped the most important part of the response. We live under the rule of law, not the rule of what Shanghai Bill thinks the law should be. If you get yourself elected to Congress, you even get 1/536th of a say in the matter.

    9. Re:Unsurprising by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      So the fact that people have been calling them models for decades, that's meaningless? YOU know what the word means, all of the people who've been building and flying model aircraft for decades know what it means. The FAA knows what it means, and congress, who wrote the law that the Obama administration violated, know what it means.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Unsurprising by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, my Phantom class UAVs look like a pair of Flying Bananas glued together.

      Sort of a demented model aircraft, if you will.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:Unsurprising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"?

      Because "model aircraft" is already well defined in those other laws, and it only covers hobbyist use. "Model" being an important word there. When used commercially it is no longer a mere "model" of an aircraft, but rather is a fully functional flying tool.

      It makes perfect sense using plain English. But only if you assume that words have specific, known meanings.

    12. Re:Unsurprising by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:

      In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.

      Actually, it's not so clear and may very well be overturned on appeal. The problem is this. (Excerpt from ruling which quotes the Act which supposedly makes the FAA's regulation illegal.):

      The Act defines “model aircraft” as “an unmanned aircraft that is — (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

      The problem is part (2): "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft." Drones do not need to be in the operators visual line of sight because they typically have an on board camera which the operator can use to navigate even when the drone is out of the visual line of sight. That's what distinguishes a drone from a remote controlled aircraft, and it is drones, not RC aircraft which were required to be registered by the FAA before this ruling. I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.

      Note that I'm not saying I agree with the FAA's policy. I'm just saying I think this court got it wrong from a legal point of view.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    13. Re: Unsurprising by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Because the law says that its use of "model aircraft" is limited to hobbyist/non-commercial flight, as the court was quoted above. Resolving questions like yours is a major reason that laws have "definitions" sections.

    14. Re: Unsurprising by Entrope · · Score: 1

      That's neither tricky nor grounds to overturn the law. A model airplane ceases to be one when its operator flies it out of his or her line of sight (subject to reasonable exceptions for momentary, accidental, breaks in the line of sight). Any model aircraft could be flown out of the operator's sight -- that doesn't mean the FAA suddenly gets to regulate them all.

    15. Re:Unsurprising by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.

      Putting aside the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court would find an issue like this interesting enough to burn one of its 60ish annual grants of certiorari, there's actually no error on which to base a cert petition in the issue you're raising. From the opinion (worth a read -- it's short):

      Lest there be any doubt about whether the Registration Rule is a rule “regarding a model aircraft” for purposes of Section 336, the Registration Rule states that its “definition of ‘model aircraft’ is identical to the definition provided in section 336(c) of Public Law 112–95,” the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.

      So there are no nits to pick here -- that which the FAA required to be registered is that which falls under the Section 336 definition, and the Court of Appeals held that registration requirement unlawful. Game over.

    16. Re:Unsurprising by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      The statue, as written, is gibberish...

      Blah, blah, blah, private citizen breaks the law and goes to jail...
      Blah, blah, blah, agency violates the law and can't send the private citizen to jail... just like what happened here.

      It is entirely correct for the FAA to attempt to regulate over the top of it...

      No. It's not. Just like it's not entirely correct for me to kill you for advocating anarchy. But keep it up, I may become convinced... of both.

    17. Re:Unsurprising by grumling · · Score: 1

      No, because the AMA's lobbyist did a great job getting that language put into the act. The AMA doesn't care about commercial users, just their membership.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  2. Re:Democrats strike again by olsmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Registering or not registering a drone will not change the behavior of idiots who use them dangerously.

  3. Re:Democrats strike again by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    Registering or not registering a drone will not change the behavior of idiots who use them dangerously.

    This!!

    I"m curious...why do commercial drones have to be registered, but hobbyist do not?

    I mean, the rules about where you fly them are the same, etc....so, why is it that commercial still have to be registered, but un-payed fliers do not? You have just as good or stupid drone operators regardless if they are making a buck at it or not...

    Is this just for the govt to get its fees?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  4. Re:Democrats strike again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But isn’t the “rule of law” (FAA Modernization and Reform Act) EXACTLY what is being followed here?

  5. Woo hoo! by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    Now I can operate my Telemaster (big, cheap RC plane) anywhere and any way I want, and nobody can tell me that I can't because they can't make any rules about model aircraft operations. It was in the news, it must be true.

    1. Re:Woo hoo! by operagost · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, you can't operate it any way you want, any more than you can swing a baseball bat any way you want, throw rocks any way you want, or set fires anywhere you want. We don't need to have a license to have a rock, a baseball bat, or fire starters (at least, not today), but we have plenty of laws in place to dissuade people from harming people or destroying property. Asking legislators to compensate for the failings of law enforcement or actions of jackholes is harmful to the liberty of the peaceful citizen.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Woo hoo! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, you can't. The Fine Regulation states that you can only fly according to AMA (Academy of Model Aircraft) rules. Anything else is subject to fines, jail time and the Spanish Inquisition.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Woo hoo! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you are trying to be funny (no sweat, I try and fail at that all the time), but I'm also pretty sure that you are trying to make a broader point - and I'm not really catching it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Woo hoo! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      But pretty much everyone here expects that phrase as the next comment.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Re:Democrats strike again by spacepimp · · Score: 2

    Commercial flights are entirely different. The section 107 is actually a waiver that states you have permission to violate flight restrictions provided you use minimization and efforts predescribed to fly, via putting in for a NOTAM. Since you have passed a test you are legally able to fly in restricted airspace, such as across from an airport, or similar. A hobbyist can't fly a drone in a no fly zone, while a section 107 approved commercial flight may.

  7. Re:Democrats strike again by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

    Registering or not registering a drone will not change the behavior of idiots who use them dangerously.

    The number of drone incidents, either as a whole or as a percentage, is so vanishingly tiny in context that it's really a non-issue covered by criminal negligence and other laws and regulations already on the books. People using them dangerously is just the excuse fed to the public to justify registration. The actual reason is to be better able to track down and destroy video evidence of illegal & unconstitutional acts perpetrated by authorities obtained using civilian commercial camera-drones, and silence the owners/operators.

    But of course, it's totally legit for government to fly aircraft and drones overhead with sophisticated electronic eavesdropping equipment hoovering-up everybody's communications and with high-resolution still and video cameras reading your book over your shoulder from 3,500 feet and storing it all for possible future use. In case someone becomes "inconvenient".

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  8. Re:Democrats strike again by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Sure it would. RC aircraft have existed for more than 50 years yet most people used them responsibly. The reason for that is that RC planes used to be hard to fly, and that has kept the idiots away. Now that drones have removed the difficulty barrier, registration can create another. Most drone purchases are impulse buy Christmas presents for 5 year old Bobby, if buying a drone included a registration process only people serious about them would get one.

  9. Re: Democrats strike again by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    Probability vs consequence. Yet another person who has no clue what risk assessment and risk management it's all about. If there it's a way to find out if someone flew their drone into the window of a plane (by registering the drone) then people will use them more wisely.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  10. Good news or bad news? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I've watched plenty of videos from hobbyist drones that went straight up at high attitudes. I wonder if such attitudes are possible in Silicon Valley, as the whole area is a flight path for multiple airports in the region. I'm thinking about getting a camera drone.

    1. Re:Good news or bad news? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Not on 50k per year, that's for sure.

      Something like the DJI Phantom P3 would be bought by my side business and written off as a tax expense.

    2. Re:Good news or bad news? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Define "high altitudes". Most commercial aircraft fly at 39k feet, I doubt many consumer grade drones can go 7 miles up.

      The tallest buildings in San Jose are 27 stories or less and situated on either side of the flight path to the San Jose International Airport. Buildings closest to the flight path are shorter in height. The city tore out a residential neighborhood and put in a park next to the airport because airplanes were coming in above the roof lines. It wouldn't take much for a drone to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  11. Refund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I want my 5 dollars!

    1. Re:Refund? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can sue for less than the filing fee, and since you won't have to pay it again you can't claim you'll be harmed by enough to meet the threshold.

      A class action could sweep in people who were harmed at the $5 level, but you still need an original plaintiff who was harmed enough to have standing.

      The easiest route to a refund would be to stand in front of the FAA for a few months with a sign. If you have a few hundred other people with you, maybe you'll get noticed!

  12. Re:Democrats strike again by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    I"m curious...why do commercial drones have to be registered, but hobbyist do not?

    Because the type of people that become entrepreneurs and the type that become bureaucrats are polar opposites. People in government often have a reflexive hostility toward anything to do with commerce.

  13. Re:They need numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you (personally) actually had a problem with a drone? Or is this just getting ped off cause its fun?

  14. This is kinda what I was wondering by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if we're gonna have to have a major airline accident over a population center from some kid's $500 drone before somebody takes action. Or am I just completely off base here? I don't know enough about aviation to say for sure and the articles I've read don't really touch on the issue. Most of the news outlets seem to have sided with the hobbyists over the FAA here.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is kinda what I was wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlikely, most drones that are operated recklessly are the cheap toy ones. They would damage the engine for sure if sucked in, but so would a big bird.

    2. Re:This is kinda what I was wondering by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would we have a rash of something that we didn't have BEFORE the FAA started collecting their $5, but when we already had literally millions of these devices flying around, and untold millions of hours of airtime without any such thing happening? Please explain.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:This is kinda what I was wondering by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering if we're gonna have to have a major airline accident over a population center from some kid's $500 drone before somebody takes action.

      The hobbyists with money are going to be the ones to worry about. If the drone used to pull Casey Neistat on skies flew around an airport, it might cause problems.

      http://dronelife.com/2016/12/20/custom-drone-ski-lift-neistat/

    4. Re:This is kinda what I was wondering by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A major airliner in the worst case sucks in a drone, loses an engine, and lands safely at the nearest airport.

      The real airplane danger would be a military fighter jet hitting one and taking some damage, and the pilot ejecting leaving the plane to crash in a neighborhood.

      Unlikely, but possible.

      But the big threat to the public isn't airplanes, it is helicopters. They crash easy, and they suck things in easy.

      That isn't why the government wants to regulate. The government wants to regulate because private drones make VIP protection at events really, really difficult. They can't, because Congress said no in the past. Expect Congress to pass narrow exceptions allowing the temporary regulation of "model aircraft" near public events.

  15. Re:Democrats strike again by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Most drones bought for 5-year-old Bobby are cheap, plastic pieces of shit that can barely work outside - let alone pose more of a hazard to aircraft than, say, a goose. This whole thing is solving an imaginary problem.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  16. Re:Sad that Trump is endangering the public like t by x0ra · · Score: 2

    A court decision, based on a regulation promulgated under Obama, is now the responsibility of Trump ? Oh my...

  17. Re:Democrats strike again by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Not really. The FLIGHTS aren't any different at all. Unless a 107 holder explicitly seeks and gets authorization to fly where he's not normally allowed to, the commercial user doesn't get to do anything the hobby user gets to. The number of people who seek and get authorization to fly a small quadcopter at, say, an airport or over a prison are exceedingly small.

    The fact that an individual machine that weights about the same as a stick of butter must registered for one person, but not for the other, is still capricious and silly.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  18. Re:Democrats strike again by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Ah, never actually done anything on your own, have you? Didn't think so. Your cartoon villain impression of what it means to be self employed would be funny if it weren't so childishly toxic. Grow up.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  19. Re: Democrats strike again by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    No. There were already millions of these units flying around with untold millions of flight hours on them before the FAA decided to collect their $5 for every toy sold. And the number of collisions with aircraft that even broke somebody's NOSE? Run down the list, I dare you. While you're at it, compare that to the number of people who've died playing soccer, or who've been hit and killed by another skier on the slopes. Go ahead, do some comparing.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  20. Re: Democrats strike again by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    That's it! You're brilliant!

    We need to register soccer balls and skis!

    (And bathtubs and toasters while we're at it. No problemo, they're all going to be connected to the Internet anyway.)

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  21. Re:Democrats strike again by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    What about when some peeping tom uses one to film your backyard?
    I think that if some boob runs a drone over his neighbors yard the neighbor should be allowed to knock it down. It is already like this with other intrusions. In most places if a tree crosses the property line your neighbor can trim it. Registration might have curbed some of this as the neighbor could have alerted authorities to the drone.

  22. Re:Class Action by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Make it a RICO suit since this was obviously nothing more than a racket/money grab.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  23. Re:Sad that Trump is endangering the public like t by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    A court decision, based on a regulation promulgated under Obama, is now the responsibility of Trump ? Oh my...

    No, the LAW, passed by congress in 2012 is the law. Period. The Obama administration decided to violate that law by conjuring up a pointless new regulatory limitation and fine threat outside the bounds of that law. The court just decided that the Obama administration's over-reach needed to be smacked down, as it deserved to be. That doesn't suddenly make the Trump administration newly responsible for anything. The law said that the FAA could act as if it had responsibility or authority in this area, and that's still the case. Obama grabbed executive power where he was not allowed, and now that power grab had been undone. How does that involve Trump? Be specific.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  24. Re:Democrats strike again by MangoCats · · Score: 1

    But it will change the cost to find and prosecute said idiots after damages have been done. Don't forget, scaring the public is very expensive.

  25. Money Back by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    I want my money back that the FAA required me to spend for illegal registration - WITH INTEREST! Time to start a class action lawsuit.

  26. Re:Democrats strike again by sabri · · Score: 1

    What about when some peeping tom uses one to film your backyard? I think that if some boob runs a drone over his neighbors yard the neighbor should be allowed to knock it down.

    Are you going to shoot me down in my little Cessna 172 at 1000ft as well? Because I can effectively do the same thing.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  27. Re:Democrats strike again by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    They _all_ work outside, what they have huge problems with is wind more than 1 mph.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  28. Re:Drones aren't model aircraft by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    What the heck are they?

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  29. Re:Democrats strike again by spacepimp · · Score: 1

    See my accidental AC post ...
    I agree with everything you said.

  30. Nice by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Another win for Trump!

  31. Re:Democrats strike again by theNetImp · · Score: 1

    Democrats? How do you know the guy who fought this law is a Democrat? I would suspect he could very well be a Republican who wants the government to be less restrictive.

    Point is you're an idiot for pointing fingers at a political party.

  32. Re:Democrats strike again by rworne · · Score: 1

    It still bothers me the FAA knowingly tried to land grab, and forced a lot of people to pay for a registration, that they had no right to mandate.

    Putting aside whether they had the right to do it or not, they allowed free registrations - and the free registration period did not expire until after the holidays, where lots of people would have gotten drones for presents. So everyone that had a drone on or before Jan 20, 2016 could register it for free. Even paid, we are talking $5 here. They could have easily made the fee so expensive it would have killed the market.

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  33. Re:Democrats strike again by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    It is already illegal for model aircraft and manned aircraft to share the same airspace, and there are rules to prevent this and organizations such as AMA operate airfields for hobbyists specifically to prevent this.

    But it still happens, I recall reports of a giant scale model plane (1/2 scale!) crashing into a small aircraft and while there were no injuries it was thousands of dollars of damage and a very pissed off pilot. It was another case where R/C event was held at a private airfield normally used for full size craft, but the proper notices were not filed.

    That said the likely consequence of sucking a model into a commercial airliner is a very expensive fine and a tremendous civil suit for the turbine engine repair. Collision with a small aircraft can be more catastrophic as the planes are smaller and a harder to control when damaged and the pilots tend to be less experienced.

    Most tragic model aircraft accidents are with bystanders on the ground. Race events where high speed planes or stunt events with large class helicopters tend to be the most dangerous for ground-based pilots and spectators. 250-size FPS drone racing is likely as safe to manned aircraft and spectators as a golf course. (i.e. small but non-zero risk)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  34. I don't think it's every going to be a 'rash' by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's going to be the occasional one off, like most airline accidents. It's just those usually kill people. Sometimes lots of people.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  35. Re:820,000 added to terrorist watchlists by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    If violating the requirements caries few consequences then why not. It's why most people broadcasting on GMRS frequencies or powers didn't bother filing for the FCC's GMRS license even though it's a 1 page registration process with no test, but $70. (I think it lasts for 5 years?)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  36. Mod Parent up by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    this makes a lot of sense. I see hospital choppers all the time and a drone could screw one of those up real quick.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  37. Re:Another welcome (if rare) example of common sen by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Nobody understands the law. Common people don't understand what is legal and what is not legal. And government bureaucratic don't either. The legislature are frequently unsure of the laws they are supposed to read and vote on as well. Courts are about the only way anything gets done, it's not a real law until it's been tested in court. I don't have to be a lawyer to give you this advice: you don't want to be the guinea pig used for testing a new law.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  38. remember people by spongman · · Score: 1

    posting monetized flight videos on youtube is /still/ commercial use.

  39. Re:Democrats strike again by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Actually if you were operating your Cessena 172 below legal altitude (below 500') you would have a tag so I could report you.

  40. Re:Democrats strike again by grumling · · Score: 1

    The problem with the club field argument is that if you want to use a drone for photography it gets pretty boring to just take pictures of the club field. I enjoy flying my quadcopter, but if all I could do with it is fly it just for the sake of flying it I wouldn't have bothered.

    Two different hobbies.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  41. Re: Sad that Trump is endangering the public like by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's sure some insightful commentary on the specific issues I mentioned. Your keen insight is really constructive! I really appreciate how you're demonstrating your understanding of how Obama's man Huerta at the FAA had to use and end-around and use the DoT as a regulatory authority to get around the word of a plainly written law. Your grasp of the details make your personal ad hominem worth listening to.

    Ooops! Silly me, you have no idea what's actually going on here, and are just acting like a child. Carry on! Your complete lack of understanding about why issues like this - which go directly to separation of powers and the integrity of the constitution - is nicely on display.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  42. Re:Democrats strike again by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    The problem with the club field argument is that if you want to use a drone for photography it gets pretty boring to just take pictures of the club field. I enjoy flying my quadcopter, but if all I could do with it is fly it just for the sake of flying it I wouldn't have bothered.

    Two different hobbies.

    And this is the problem. If you fly without regard for AMA rules, then you are not part of the AMA and don't deserve the same protection. It's precisely why some people want to have everyone register their drones and pay a fee for each flight.

    Some people are behaving quite reasonably. They are flying quad copters on on private property, outside of FAA restricted airspace, and below the FAA ceiling for models. This eliminates interactions between model and manned aircraft, it still annoys people on the ground which is where most of this pressure against drones is coming from. Others are flying over public roads, near small airports and doing FPV at higher altitudes and beyond line-of-sight. And none of that behavior is acceptable and we don't have to tolerate such a "hobby".

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire