HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

What do U think your Quad, 40 size trainer, scale war bird of 40 Percenter is going to look like with a 12" high N Number on the side. May be Quads will be required to cary a large License Plate with the 12" numbers suspended below it.


This from a previous post of mine and this is what we can expect if model aviation is to be subject to Federail Aviation Regulations i.e. FAR's
Speaking of "N" Numbers this is only part of the FAR concerning them
We have a lot ot look forward to if the FAA ever gets serious. I believe they have been at this since around 2008 or thereabouts. I would have just posted the URL but this is more fun.
PART 45—IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING

§45.27 Location of marks; nonfixed-wing aircraft.

(a) Rotorcraft. Each operator of a rotorcraft must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail the marks required by §45.23.
(b) Airships. Each operator of an airship must display on that airship the marks required by §45.23, horizontally on—
(1) The upper surface of the right horizontal stabilizer and on the under surface of the left horizontal stabilizer with the top of the marks toward the leading edge of each stabilizer; and
(2) Each side of the bottom half of the vertical stabilizer.
(c) Spherical balloons. Each operator of a spherical balloon must display the marks required by §45.23 in two places diametrically opposite and near the maximum horizontal circumference of that balloon.
(d) Nonspherical balloons. Each operator of a nonspherical balloon must display the marks required by §45.23 on each side of the balloon near its maximum cross section and immediately above either the rigging band or the points of attachment of the basket or cabin suspension cables.
(e) Powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft. Each operator of a powered parachute or a weight-shift-control aircraft must display the marks required by §§45.23 and 45.29(b)(2) of this part. The marks must be displayed in two diametrically opposite positions on the fuselage, a structural member, or a component of the aircraft and must be visible from the side of the aircraft.
[Doc. No. 2047, 29 FR 3223, Mar. 11, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 45-15, 48 FR 11392, Mar. 17, 1983; Amdt. 45-24, 69 FR 44863, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 45-25, 72 FR 52469, Sept. 14, 2007]
Back to Top

§45.29 Size of marks.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, each operator of an aircraft must display marks on the aircraft meeting the size requirements of this section.
(b) Height. Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this part, the nationality and registration marks must be of equal height and on—
(1) Fixed-wing aircraft, must be at least 12 inches high, except that:
(i) An aircraft displaying marks at least 2 inches high before November 1, 1981 and an aircraft manufactured after November 2, 1981, but before January 1, 1983, may display those marks until the aircraft is repainted or the marks are repainted, restored, or changed;
(ii) Marks at least 3 inches high may be displayed on a glider;
(iii) Marks at least 3 inches high may be displayed on an aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under §21.191 (d), §21.191 (g), or §21.191 (i) of this chapter to operate as an exhibition aircraft, an amateur-built aircraft, or a light-sport aircraft when the maximum cruising speed of the aircraft does not exceed 180 knots CAS; and
(iv) Marks may be displayed on an exhibition, antique, or other aircraft in accordance with §45.22.
(2) Airships, spherical balloons, nonspherical balloons, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft must be at least 3 inches high; and
(3) Rotorcraft, must be at least 12 inches high, except that rotorcraft displaying before April 18, 1983, marks required by §45.29(b)(3) in effect on April 17, 1983, and rotorcraft manufactured on or after April 18, 1983, but before December 31, 1983, may display those marks until the aircraft is repainted or the marks are repainted, restored, or changed.
(c) Width. Characters must be two-thirds as wide as they are high, except the number “1”, which must be one-sixth as wide as it is high, and the letters “M” and “W” which may be as wide as they are high.
(d) Thickness. Characters must be formed by solid lines one-sixth as thick as the character is high.
(e) Spacing. The space between each character may not be less than one-fourth of the character width.
(f) If either one of the surfaces authorized for displaying required marks under §45.25 is large enough for display of marks meeting the size requirements of this section and the other is not, full size marks must be placed on the larger surface. If neither surface is large enough for full-size marks, marks as large as practicable must be displayed on the larger of the two surfaces. If no surface authorized to be marked by §45.27 is large enough for full-size marks, marks as large as practicable must be placed on the largest of the authorized surfaces. However, powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft must display marks at least 3 inches high.
(g) Uniformity. The marks required by this part for fixed-wing aircraft must have the same height, width, thickness, and spacing on both sides of the aircraft.
(h) After March 7, 1988, each operator of an aircraft penetrating an ADIZ or DEWIZ must display on that aircraft temporary or permanent nationality and registration marks at least 12 inches high.
[Doc. No. 2047, 29 FR 3223, Mar. 11, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 45-2, 31 FR 9863, July 21, 1966; Amdt. 45-9, 42 FR 41102, Aug. 15, 1977; Amdt. 45-13, 46 FR 48604, Oct. 1, 1981; Amdt. 45-15, 48 FR 11392, Mar. 17, 1983; Amdt. 45-17, 52 FR 34102, Sept. 9, 1987; 52 FR 36566, Sept. 30, 1987; Amdt. 45-24, 69 FR 44863, July 27, 2004; Amdt.45-25, 72 FR 52469, Sept. 14, 2007]
OH Crap here's the URL good luck.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx...#se14.1.45_129

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Who says if Quads and other Model Aircraft are required to display some sort of Identification registration, who says that the people bent on violating the law, will provide the correct registration number. Let's say that some one does crash and the owner ship is determined through a Registration or a Serial Number, a person that crashes will just say they sold the craft or it was stolen recently. What if a person doesn't register his craft but just displays a fake number. Crashes and walks away. Of course if they have a Smart phone the Feds can prove the Perp was in the Area when the crash happened. Ain't Technology Great?

wahoo

My Feedback: (59)

http://www.aeriographer.com/tired-pe...w-really-isnt/

RCSCALEGUY

Someone register my beverage I might decide to drink it. I don't want to have to take responsibility for that. Registering, should make everyone safe! Just watch out on all public holidays, and avoid the flying fields they may setup stations for checking your registration.

Way out of proportion, but you get the idea.

wahoo

My Feedback: (59)

Lmfao <--click it

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Funny. I believe in another thread where a member here was going to go through the process of registering either a micro quad or a Air Hogs type of heli to prove some point. Doubt it ever happened though.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

http://gizmodo.com/you-can-now-buy-d...aig-1738884980

Most HO policies would provide the third party liability coverage anyway, but this is an interesting twist in that this policy will cover the damage to the "drone" as well. Obviously the premium and deductible might not make that a worthwhile proposition depending on the model.

rcmiket

Well I can promise your AMA coverage would be worthless( not that it's great in the first place) just look where the guy's flying.

Mike

franklin_m

If indeed that several writers here are correct, namely that "registration won't stop these incidents." This leads me to think that we've got a vested interest in doing our best to make sure registration does work, because if it doesn't, the only options left would likely be draconian in nature and impact the hobby even worse.

Granpooba

My Feedback: (5)

Hard to believe that this subject has drawn so many views / comments and is still continuing.

What will be, will be !

Sport_Pilot

IMO it only takes a little education. A sticker on the box, and a flyer inside the box is all it takes. Most of the problems are clueless people who buy and fly with no regard to rules they never thought existed.

rcmiket

Here's the problem all the "stickers and flyers" in or on the box cannot fix stupid. People that are going to do stupid things will do so regardless.Not to mention that they actually would have to read them and I can assure you from first hand experience they don't .

Mike

Sport_Pilot

Most of the stupid is actually completely ignorant people thinking they are free to do as they want. I am not pretending a sticker would stop everybody, but it would eliminate the majority of the stupid stuff ignorant people do.

franklin_m

If you look all the way at the bottom, you'll note that the page you're quoting was last updated on 21 August, which is well BEFORE the Secretary of Transportation's statement on 21 OCTOBER. Clearly the website has not been updated to reflect the more recent comments made by the Secretary. Here's the exact wording of Secretary Foxx's statement from October 21st:

Oh...and news this morning is that a drone in North Hollywood knocked out power to a large area of the city. I humbly submit that if registration doesn't fix the problem, as many have said, then perhaps we should consider that what might follow to fix the problem could be much more of an impact on the hobby than requiring a number on all our aircraft.

rcmiket

That's already in place with Blade( Horizon Hobby) and Yuneec both have "know before you fly" as the first item you see when you open the box and have done so since day one.
I cannot say what other manufactures do.

Mike

rcmiket

http://abc7.com/news/drone-hits-west...utage/1052589/

Here's the link to the Hollywood power outage in case anyone is interested..

Mike

Sport_Pilot

Power lines are well below the 400 foot limit and I think the FAA has determined it cannot enforce safety that has nothing to do with protecting the NAS. Stuff like that needs to be handled on the local level.

rcmiket

Absolutely, unfortunately problems like this just reinforces their reasoning for wanting "control" and since we (traditional modelers) are lumped in with the drone bunch we'll suffer.

Mike

philakapd

I don't see the harm in trying to "lead them to the water". Give new pilots the opportunity to learn and decide for themselves if they want to register and take responsibility. From my personal experiences, the XBOX generation doesn't know of the AMA, radio controlled airfields, safety guidelines, etc. I say this because when a newcomer to my home sees my hangar, they ask where I fly? They are stunned these models exist and people actually have dedicated areas to fly safely.

It's easy to purchase a fixed wing foamie or a multirotor from a gas station. When the purchase of the new "toy" is made, I don't believe general public safety is at the top of the list for the majority of new pilots. A simple sticker or note located on the package can teach a newcomer to provide information affixed to the aircraft. Perhaps a few would use the internet and find RCU, AMA or other resources to learn more about the subjects. If the sticker on my pickup truck didn't say "diesel only", I can assure you my wife would fill it up with gasoline. She doesn't know the difference between the fuels or the reasoning behind each of them. The casual park flyer could use a little help knowing there is a WHOLE COMMUNITY of enthusiasts eager to share the joys of flying, safely.

And to answer the question of the OP. I think I have approximately 25 fixed wing aircraft. I don't own any multirotors. All of my aircraft have labels revealing my identity as required by the AMA. I think that is good enough.

Clear Skies To All

-PD

franklin_m

And I'd argue, as viewed by government and the public's perspective, we've demonstrated we can't stop it ourselves.

franklin_m

I too have my AMA number in/on everything I own that flies, right down to my Blade Nano QX, where it's written in fine sharpie inside the canopy. AMA is contending that registration should not be burdensome....

The weakness of their position is that right now, if I apply to AMA and get a number which I have to put on/in all my sUAS to comply with letter of law with respect to AMA rules, why would getting a number from the FAA and doing the same be any more burdensome? It's not. Hence the weakness of their position. Also, having multiple registration systems just invites chaos. Registration, in the context of the Secretary's remarks, is an inherently governmental function as the devices are all using the NAS...which is regulated by government.

[email protected]

My Feedback: (1)

to heck with what anyone says i wont register anything

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right, which is exactly why I said it's been around a while. The date was clearly indicated in the quoted story.

It's doubtful registration will stop ANY drone incident, just as registering a gun or a car hasn't stopped bad things from happening with them either. It's a feel good bandaid on a much larger issue. Even stiff penalties probably won't stop someone either..again look at guns, and even drugs. At the end of the day, nothing will stop someone who is intent on doing what they want. Significant legal consequences, civil and criminal, need to handed out when appropriate. Hopefully that will prove to be a deterrent to that specific person, and serve as an example to other thinking about it.

Sport_Pilot

I don't think it is the work required to register the model that people are complaining about. It's the fact that the government knows you have one, and they may come knocking at your door asking you to turn over the models.

That and the fact this will not do any good, and so the FAA will go the next step which will not be so easy.

franklin_m

On pt 1...yes, you pointed it out that it's been around a while, but I think it would have been more accurate for you to point out that the points you emphasized were all based on documents / postings that preceded the most recent statement by DOT Secretary, which makes them less reliable as indicators of what the future holds for our hobby.

On pt 2 ... don't necessarily disagree. But the optics of the situation here is that the DOT/FAA have to demonstrate that lesser measures have failed before they move forward with more restrictive measures. I'd argue that they tried education, and that has not resulted in sufficient improvement. Now they're trying registration (in some form yet TBD) in conjunction with education. If that works, great, but if it doesn't, then they've demonstrated that lesser measures have failed and thus can justify additional actions in the future.