Sport_Pilot

I know for a fact that the FAA does not enforce AC's. However they do use them for proof of violating a regulation. Part 91.13 is probably the most common. However the new NPRM for sUAV should clear this up. See page 1723 and 173.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli..._signature.pdf

da Rock

They'll do as good a job of enforcement as they do with emigration. And as they enforce the present gun laws. What will come of that?

More "laws". Just like always.

da Rock

I don't know how long the following pages have been available, but they should shed some light on what affect the registration would have on gliders. For that matter, what effect there would be on any of our model types.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration...gistration.pdf

It's a progression of pictures of models and whether or not each would require the owner to register himself in order to legally fly that model.
Every model pictured is a multi rotor drone. There isn't a single picture of any type model we'd naturally think of as a model airplane. No sailplane models, no warbirds, 3D, IMAC, pylon, not anything but multi-rotor things.

Having followed this issue about our model airplanes being included, it has been interesting to see how the FAA's online info has expanded and grown. This new (at least to me) info certainly changes the way I feel about the threat. Until they include some "real" model airplanes in their examples, as far as I'm concerned, there are no real issues.

Got nothing that fits their examples. Won't be registering, and certainly won't need to agree to any flight rules.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Pictures aside, if its remotely piloted using a control link from the ground, and is between .5 and 55 pounds, the operator is required to register.

longsoar

DLG's are mostly out of the registration loop!
So far I haven't registered as I personally feel violated and stripped off my rights.
All over sudden FAA feels it has a right to go around Congress when it was told Model Aircraft are not to be regulated by FAA.
The same goes for the gan law. I never saw a criminal buying guns at the gun store specifically for a criminal act.
We still have laws against wrong-doing. If an idiot buys a quadcopter for Christmas and flies it in NY City crashing on someone's head - guess what? - there is a law against it.
All AMA members are pretty much know the rules and flying clubs are here to teach newcomers.
Out of 700 drone incidents reported by FAA none of them were actually supported by solid evidence. Refueling plane pilot saw a drone high up and missed it by 10 feet?! He took evasive action? What kind of BS is that? How far can you see the drone if you know it is there? What was the plane's speed. Do your math - it is impossible to see and avoid.
This drone registration law based on pure and simple lies.. and, as always this law works against normal people.

If AMA won't be able to come-up with workable solution - they may face the fact - we won't be needing them anymore.
Unless AMA will work-out the deal with FAA to require on the top of the FAA registration to require an AMA registration. Sounds about right?

juggler-3310

When police find one of these drones flying in restricted airspace they want to know who is responsible. But they have no way to trace it back to the pilot. That is the reason why this law was enacted. They want to know who is responsible by being able to trace the registration number back to the owner. But it won't work because someone who is irresponsible enough to fly a drone in restricted airspace and put people at risk is not actually going to register their aircraft and subject themselves to legal scrutiny and the resulting penalties. And the vast majority of us who have been operating these model aircraft safely and responsibly for decades get screwed over in the process because of a few morons. These idiots in Washington appear to approach other issues in exactly the same way, and we are all worse off for it. Time to clean house in the upcoming elections.

STKNRUD

The biggest point that has been missed is your personal liability insurance provided by your homeowner's or renter's policy that provides you coverage while flying RC models. It only extendes your liability coverage to flying PROVIDING you are not violating any laws and are doing it with the property owner's permission. If you don't register you are violating a federal law and you will not have coverage from your's or the AMA's insurance policy. I learned this talking to underwriters when I was getting a written statement of coverage to provide to a land owner to fly my jets on his private airport. I would be concerned less with whether you flew above 400' and being "caught" then accidentally hurting someone or something and not having insurance. So for those that think not registering is just a matter of civil disobedience, you are betting you won't be involved in an accident. No thanks. This is a hobby and I am not betting my home and finances by flying without coverage.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Some people think that but insurance doesn't work that way.

For example, if you're texting or DUI (texting is illegal here) and get in a wreck, your car insurance won't use that as a reason not to pay.

STKNRUD

Andy,
Not the same. All accidents usually occur as the result of a violation of the operating rules. Ask them if they will pay if you never got a driver's license. Why does everyone on these threads want to challenge or debate? I did the research with the underwriters. If you don't agree, go fly and hope for the best.

Sport_Pilot

The exclusions sometimes list criminal violations, but does not extend to traffic rules. For example you can break the law on speeding or running a stop light and it will pay, but will not pay if you are using the vehicle to rob a bank.

STKNRUD

Engaging in an unlawful act is different than breaking an operating rule and having an accident. Flying a full scale airplane without a valid pilot's license is an unlawful act. Flying a plane too low and causing an accident is a violation the operating rules. Underwriters come to the scene of an accident and if you don't have a pilot's license, they put their checkbook away and go home. Flying an RC plane without registration is an unlawful act and regardless of what caused the accident, they won't pay.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Fair point, carry on then

STKNRUD

I want to update previous post with new info. I am wrong in some respect based on new info. Two years ago I was told by Allstate underwriters the 'activity had to be lawful and with property owners permission'. They did not exclude nor specifically include model flying. I am told now that Allstate's homeowner's liability coverage will NOT cover any model flying (not personally verified). They have now put that coverage under a separate full-scale aircraft policy. My current underwriter does cover model flying with the homeowner's policy but I am told that others are doing what Allstate is doing. MY underwriter even specifically states model flying is covered (non-commercial). CHECK WITH YOUR UNDERWRITER. These kinds of details are not always provided in the policy. Do not assume you have coverage.

Regarding registration and insurance….MY underwriter would cover a claim even if I were not registered as long as the loss did not involve criminal activity...intentional injury. But again, this can depend on the language. As with Allstate two years ago, "unlawful activity", would include flying without registering.

Regarding car insurance and driving without a license, I was wrong...kind of. You can't get insurance without a valid license. But if your license is suspended, you will be covered so long as there is not incidental criminal activity. What is criminal? Depends on underwriter and they have the money and attorneys. If you are leaving a burglary you committed, no coverage. If it involves a hit-and-run, probably no coverage. Running a red light, covered.

I apologize for making a case about coverage with info that was not representative of all circumstances and underwriters. My intent was not to "win" a debate. I just had some old information that I did not know varied between underwriters.

CONCLUSION: Do not rely on my posts or anyone else's or even your own belief. VERIFY with your underwriter in writing if possible. Each underwriter is different and it changes from one year to another. This is a hobby. There is no up-side benefit to defying the FAA; no profit or winning lottery ticket IMO. VERIFY your insurance coverage.

USSBB57

The items that makes drones much more of a potential problem than traditional RC aircraft, are

1. GPS guidance;
2. autopilot/stabilization systems; and
3. live feed video capabilities.

If you remove those features, then a quadcopter "drone" is just a quadcopter, requiring far more skill to fly and with much more greater limits in the range and altitude at which it can be flown and controlled.

The FAA has in essence used the UAV / UAS definition describing these more complex ariel systems and applied it to R?C aircraft based primarily on the presence of a radio control link tethering the model to the ground in absence of the other criteria inherent in the traditional UAV / UAS definition. In short, it's a typical example of regulatory over reach, done by largely ignoring the critical differences between UAV / UAS and R/C hobby aircraft.

A UAV or UAS is:

1. capable of being operated without an internal pilot,
2. tethered to the ground by a radio link; and
3. can be programmed for both flight and payload operations prior to launch.

One and two do apply to R/C aircraft however, three does not, and that is significant. The ability to program a course and flight on the ground prior to flight means that UAVs and UASs differ from small R/C hobby aircraft in that they can be operated out of line of sight and at altitudes where an individual cannot readily see them.

Similar to how programmed GPS guidance and auto stabilization/autopilot systems can allow more or less autonomous operation beyond visual range, a live video link gives a similar beyond visual range capability, allowing the pilot to potentially maintain orientation and attitude at much greater heights and distances.

If an R/C aircraft lacks either of those systems, then it's not a UAV or UAS.

That's the legal and technological distinction that needs to be made. Doing so might throw some modelers using those systems under the bus, and it might require some careful definition to work around the gyroscopic stabilization common in single rotor R/C helicopters (but they don't usually fly above 400' anyway). However it's a logical approach using specifically defined components of systems that differentiate the UAV / UAS, and that give them the "beyond visual range" and "almost any idiot can fly them" capabilities that care making them a problem in much wider public use.

I don't think that standing around and hoping the AMA can make this happen is a great idea. The FAA after all implemented the rule over the input and objection of the AMA, as large or not it's just one public commenter. What's needed is extensive public comment and an extensive effort directed at your elected senators and representatives. It is after all an election year and education your senators and representatives on the regulatory over reach that has occurred due to the significant difference between R/C aircraft and the more complex and more capable UAV / UAS that the FAA should be limited to in its jurisdiction will go a long way toward getting congress to step in and tell the FAA "No, that's not what we intended". huge numbers are not needed. If a representative gets even 20 letters or e-mails from constituents saying in effect, this is ridiculous and is big government at it's worst restricting a hobby with a record of 50 plus years of safe operation, they'll probably respond positively. It is after all a low threat, non controversial issue for them if they can frame it in easy to understand technical differences. You can also invite them to come to the local field and experience for themselves the substantial differences in flying an R/C model versus a drone. As we all know, your first flights on an R/C model are usually very humbling, and unless you've got a trainer box they are often pretty short.

Sport_Pilot

Actually using a sUAV to plot its flight without input from the pilot is completely illegal right now. I think it will be allowed for commercial operations but I think it is illegal for that even right now. Maybe the FAA needs to ban sales except to those with a commercial license.

ejett

My Feedback: (4)

That alleged incident between the tanker aircraft and a football sized drone at 3800 ft would have had to be a FPV UAV. It's pretty difficult to see a 3m sailplane over 2500 ft and that's a heck of a lot bigger than a football sized drone. This is likely to have been a military operated drone anyway, IMO. Now drones such as this are a potential threat to military and commercial aircraft, I'll give you that, but anybody that is threatening either of these operations with a sUAV is likely to be a foreign national that means to do harm and will not register his "drone".

Now, take me and my 4-6 lb sailplane. It's a lot bigger and easier to see than a "football sized drone" and being unpowered is not likely to be an issue for any manned aircraft. One other thing is that I will do everything I can to avoid a manned aircraft because my hobby sailplane is something I don't want smashed up by a manned aircraft.

Again, the government's "solution" to the problem is to regulate law abiding citizens and placing additional fees and burdens on them which will have exactly zero effect on anyone meaning to do harm to commercial or military aircraft or installations.

That's my thoughts on the matter.

EJ

longsoar

A bit off-topic, but in my opinion very relative study:
"A 2kg drone is likely to cause injury to a human passenger once every 187 million years of operation"
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...ssenger-once-e

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

That stat seems unrealistic given the massive proliferation of these aircraft over the past few years. Would be great if that is in fact that case, but I doubt it. Also, GMU is in the Top 3 if not Top 5 ranked far right conservative leaning schools. Take it for what it's worth.

Was at a glider event last month, flights in the 1500-1800 foot level. Club is 11 miles from the nearest tower. Someone reported two yellow gliders at 1800 feet to the tower, who then sent out a State Trooper. First, there were no yellow gliders there that day which reinforces the fact that many "sightings" or "near misses" are incorrectly reported. The Trooper spoke with the CD, confirmed this was an AMA event, hung around for a little while, then left. No actions taken by any LE or FAA.

Sport_Pilot

But most of them are not flying. Most are in closets and basements and fly only a few times a year. I don't see what being conservative has to do with this. IMO a liberal school would be more biased toward flying drones than a conservative one. Just the opposite of what you are implying.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Good point...or flew once, then crashed. LoL.

gratter

Just saw the FAA came out with their ruling today. Here is what was written about us.
"Part 107 will not apply to model aircraft. Model aircraft operators must continue to satisfy all the criteria specified in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95 (PDF) (which will now be codified in Part 101), including the stipulation they be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes."