Are you ready to register your aircraft?
11-21-2015, 11:19 AM
#1677
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo,
NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every single one of my fixed wings and helis are more dangerous than my 250 quad (multirotor)?!?! 1/2 lb? Really? They have really gone off the deep end and went straight up reefer madness. lol
I wonder how many Black Sheep pilots are going to register? smh
All you darn city people ruin it for everybody!!
I wonder how many Black Sheep pilots are going to register? smh
All you darn city people ruin it for everybody!!
Last edited by mike1974; 11-21-2015 at 11:21 AM.
11-21-2015, 11:40 AM
#1678
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: northern,
VT
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-21-2015, 01:43 PM
#1680
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Just sitting back and amusing myself by reading all the postings. Then it hit me .................................
What has all this chit / chat accomplished
Yes, yes, I know everybody is venting.
But hell, same thing is accomplished after eating a can of Bush's Baked Beans.
What has all this chit / chat accomplished
Yes, yes, I know everybody is venting.
But hell, same thing is accomplished after eating a can of Bush's Baked Beans.
11-21-2015, 02:25 PM
#1681
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=19778
Not one use of the word "drone," instead saying these recommendations are from the task force charged "...to develop a process for owners of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to register their aircraft..." [emphasis added]
Just a hunch, but everyone out there that is hanging on the media's use of the word "drone" in stories about his process should note the absence of that term in FAA communications. As I said earlier, I predict the registration requirement will apply to sUAS without distinction between fixed wing, heli, glider, or MR. They're all sUAS to the FAA....and all "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation.
11-21-2015, 02:54 PM
#1682
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=19778
Not one use of the word "drone," instead saying these recommendations are from the task force charged "...to develop a process for owners of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to register their aircraft..." [emphasis added]
Just a hunch, but everyone out there that is hanging on the media's use of the word "drone" in stories about his process should note the absence of that term in FAA communications. As I said earlier, I predict the registration requirement will apply to sUAS without distinction between fixed wing, heli, glider, or MR. They're all sUAS to the FAA....and all "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation.
11-21-2015, 05:53 PM
#1684
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HoundDog 
Mike
11-21-2015, 05:56 PM
#1685
My Feedback: (30)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hereford,
TX
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just sitting back and amusing myself by reading all the postings. Then it hit me .................................
What has all this chit / chat accomplished
Yes, yes, I know everybody is venting.
But hell, same thing is accomplished after eating a can of Bush's Baked Beans.
What has all this chit / chat accomplished
Yes, yes, I know everybody is venting.
But hell, same thing is accomplished after eating a can of Bush's Baked Beans.
11-21-2015, 11:53 PM
#1687
high alt being anything over 3500ft msl. haven't ever seen a multirotor over that alt.
so, i have to disagree with ya on that spirit and intent part.
11-22-2015, 02:50 AM
#1688
Just sitting back and amusing myself by reading all the postings. Then it hit me ................................. What has all this chit / chat accomplished Yes, yes, I know everybody is venting. But hell, same thing is accomplished after eating a can of Bush's Baked Beans.
Yes, yes, I know everybody is venting. But hell, same thing is accomplished after eating a can of Bush's Baked Beans.
11-22-2015, 04:37 AM
#1689
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
maybe for the low alt/airport approach stuff, that is correct. most of the high altitude stuff i see on u tube and elsewhere involves foam fixed wing stuff.
high alt being anything over 3500ft msl. haven't ever seen a multirotor over that alt.
so, i have to disagree with ya on that spirit and intent part.
high alt being anything over 3500ft msl. haven't ever seen a multirotor over that alt.
so, i have to disagree with ya on that spirit and intent part.
I don't fixed wing or helis will be singled out, which may or may not be better as this will lead to yet more gray areas and questions. Would be nice for the suggestions/recommendations and later the legislation to be crystal clear, but that is almost certainly not going to happen. I still maintain at the end of the day, this will not have an overall adverse affect on this hobby, nor change the way the overwhelming majority of us operate in the hobby. Yes, I wear rose tinted lenses.
11-22-2015, 05:03 AM
#1690
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-22-2015, 06:04 AM
#1691
I don't see "drones" or "multi-rotors" mentioned anywhere in that. In fact, I'll remind you that the FAA defines aircraft as "any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air. 49 U.S.C. 40102, see also 14 C.F.R. 1.1." They went on to add that "Although model aircraft may take many forms, at a base level model aircraft are clearly 'invented, used, or designed' to fly in the air."
FAA has consistently used sUAS and "aircraft" in the context of this registration discussion. Any belief that there is some hidden spirit or intent that it applies to a smaller subset is simply not supported by FAA official statements.
11-22-2015, 06:08 AM
#1692
The assertion that there is some "spirit and intent" is, at best, uninformed wishful thinking. At worst, it's deliberately ignoring the precise language ("sUAS" and "aircraft") used in FAA statements when discussing registration. The use of those words is not accidental...as they align with the authority the FAA is asserting.
Last edited by franklin_m; 11-22-2015 at 06:35 AM. Reason: correct spelling
11-22-2015, 06:32 AM
#1693
The assertion that there is some "spirit and intent" is, at best, uniformed wishful thinking. At worst, it's deliberately ignoring the precise language ("sUAS" and "aircraft") used in FAA statements when discussing registration. The use of those words is not accidental...as they align with the authority the FAA is asserting.
Now we have till the 20h of December 2015 to see what they will require. Everything we discuss here is just conjecture and guess work on our part. But I'll bet ya the FAA misses that dead line too.
11-22-2015, 06:41 AM
#1695
I think you're safe, the FAA has been consistent in their use of "sUAS" and "aircraft" in their public statements dealing with registration. I think we would be wise to use precise language in our comments, lest we hand the FAA the ability to interpret to their liking.
11-22-2015, 06:49 AM
#1696
So what if we have to Register our toys or even if we have to register as an R/C pilot? U and I and every one here knows that those that will continue to fly when and where they are not supposed to won't bother to register anyway. Only Law abiding people will/do follow the law and register what ever the Feds deem necessary.
11-22-2015, 07:17 AM
#1697
Perhaps, but registration will address (eventually one way or another) those AMA members (presumably) in these forums that have said they'll refuse to register. Secondly, it will make it much easier for local authorities to help police compliance - visible registration numbers being something local regulators can easily require / check. Thirdly, it will create a class of non-compliers. And sooner or later the local spot checks will catch up with them. Lastly, having a federally required number on the model will change behavior.
"having a federally required number on the model will change behavior".
Like I said before when flying at a contest or a sanctioned event or a designated Flying (site) Field the display of a Registration number is unnecessary. It should be required to be in the aircraft when flying. But we'll just have to wait for the FAA to meet their NEW DEADLINE.
11-22-2015, 07:21 AM
#1698
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: northern,
VT
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-compliers??????? , change behavior???????
Need to claim "sanctuary city" status for our flying fields and then we can just ignore what ever laws we disagree with or don't like.
Need to claim "sanctuary city" status for our flying fields and then we can just ignore what ever laws we disagree with or don't like.
11-22-2015, 07:22 AM
#1699
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-22-2015, 08:13 AM
#1700
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are currently no FARs that relate to sUAVs. I don't think the current registration system that applies to full aircraft will be generalized to sUAVs. The requirements for full scale aircraft state that each individual aircraft must have a registration identifier that begins with "N,: whereas the upcoming sUAV registration will probably use another format, and will be assigned to pilots, rather that aircraft.
Even if they do charge $5 for registration, paying that once for all of my aircraft is a lot better than paying $5 for all of my current and future models.
This is a good point. However, the FAA and local law enforcement will be able to identify any downed aircraft that are involved in incidents that are similar to previous incidents. So far, I am not aware of any sUAV accident that the FAA or law enforcement investigated that destroyed the aircraft to the point where a registration number would not have been retrieved.
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=19778
Not one use of the word "drone," instead saying these recommendations are from the task force charged "...to develop a process for owners of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to register their aircraft..." [emphasis added]
Just a hunch, but everyone out there that is hanging on the media's use of the word "drone" in stories about his process should note the absence of that term in FAA communications. As I said earlier, I predict the registration requirement will apply to sUAS without distinction between fixed wing, heli, glider, or MR. They're all sUAS to the FAA....and all "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation.
True. The word drone is rarely,if ever, used by the FAA. Then again, the FAA's official terms terms ("sUAV" and "UAV") are rarely, if ever used by the media.
Very good point. The advent of FPV predates the explosive popularity of multirotor aircraft. The FAA has not forgotten about Pirker's Ritewing Zephyr. I am certain they are keeping fixed wing aircraft in mind as they develop the new rules.
Even if they do charge $5 for registration, paying that once for all of my aircraft is a lot better than paying $5 for all of my current and future models.
https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=19778
Not one use of the word "drone," instead saying these recommendations are from the task force charged "...to develop a process for owners of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) to register their aircraft..." [emphasis added]
Just a hunch, but everyone out there that is hanging on the media's use of the word "drone" in stories about his process should note the absence of that term in FAA communications. As I said earlier, I predict the registration requirement will apply to sUAS without distinction between fixed wing, heli, glider, or MR. They're all sUAS to the FAA....and all "aircraft" subject to FAA regulation.
Agree...mostly. I've noted before first videos that I ever saw were from foamy fixed wing Bixler/Sky Surfer modded aircraft with video feeds, loaded up with batteries, making flights 30 minutes long at 10,0000 feet. A few were done in overcast weather too, and of course over homes/highways etc. Great views, horrible ideas! To me those are just as dangerous as a 2 pound DJI Phantom floating through the air. But those aren't the folks that got the ball rolling on stupid (notwithstanding what they did of course). It's the dopes who decided to fly over sports events and crashed, or into the sides of high rise buildings, or into national forest treasures, etc etc. And all the while, usually taping the event and then posting it up for the world to see. And then they wonder..why is the big bad government picking on me? The MR/Drones are easy to demonize because of the way they look, and fly, an
way or another) those AMA members (presumably) in these forums that have said they'll refuse to register. Secondly, it will make it much easier for local authorities to help police compliance - visible registration numbers being something local regulators can easily require / check. Thirdly, it will create a class of non-compliers. And sooner or later the local spot checks will catch up with them. Lastly, having a federally required number on the model will change behavior.
way or another) those AMA members (presumably) in these forums that have said they'll refuse to register. Secondly, it will make it much easier for local authorities to help police compliance - visible registration numbers being something local regulators can easily require / check. Thirdly, it will create a class of non-compliers. And sooner or later the local spot checks will catch up with them. Lastly, having a federally required number on the model will change behavior.