Are you ready to register your aircraft?
 

Looks like we may have to? Waiting for more details.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...stered-n446266

I would have no problem with it. Even if it's an OS .55AX powered Great Planes Extra 300SP. Flying a model airplane, like driving a car, is a privilege. Not a right.

Sort of a sensational title no? The story specified "drone".....why didn't the title?

Wall Street Journal ran a similar article which contained a quote from Hanson. Is it just me or are we seeing more comments about no flying above 400 feet? For example: "...including that the devices generally can’t fly above 400 feet or near airports."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/drone-ow...ces-1445041576

No! I will not be registering my planes, if that ever comes about.

Jimmy

Didn't we (the AMA) spend some big bucks to prevent this?

Mike

No RCMiket. The AMA spent big money to prevent the government from outright making R/C aircraft illegal of which the AMA successfully prevented that from happening.

Really? A total ban on R/C? How could I have missed that.
Mike.

If it's like any other Government program it will be expensive, require a license/permit for a fee and be so screwed up it won't work but will never shut down once started. Swapmeets will be outlawed or regulated, straw purchases a crime and the cartels will control AMA!
Elect. planes will be outlawed as entry level into more serious dangerous activity threatning the population as a whole. "The sky is falling" will be on posters displayed by marchers on every street in the country!:rolleyes:

Good thing I fly a traditional RC model and not a drone.

We can only hope that government vision can undeestand the difference.

It is not the drone but the operator. Our hobby is composed of the; good, bad and the ugly. Just like gun owners only the ugly make it hard on the rest of us.

Yes and if they don't understand the difference they can always post a question on this forum to help clear it up.

Good luck with that one.

Monday, sometime we should have exacting information on what the FAA and US DOT plan to do.

Watching intently from up here in Canada.

I don't see an issue with registering model aircraft, but I almost guarantee that this won't affect the traditional R/C crowd. There's no way they can effectively police the thousands of homebuilt multirotors built every year, or even come up with a foolproof definition of a "drone" in the first place, and they know that.

I'd actually be thrilled if the regulation change was something along the lines of mandatory education and/or paperwork for buyers of multirotors over a certain weight, which I'd predict would be around that of a Phantom. We're starting to see a lot more activity up here now, and there was a rather panicked call over a unicom a few weeks ago about a quadcopter at 800 AGL, which was the first I'd actually been at risk from their improper usage.

Either way, I'm interested in following this on Monday.

everything i buy is used guns planes cars women screw all our laws>>

We don't have a congress. We have a regress.

:rolleyes: Used women , eh ?

"Experienced" ....... Maybe even "been there , done that" ...... But Used ??? Dude , I defy you to go callin your woman a used piece of tail , and then please , post up a picture of the black eye she gives ya , you know , being the Halloween season 'n all ,,,

So , on topic , Isn't that what the whole CBO thing was about ? Separating hobby model aircraft from drones ? Since we (supposedly) don't fly where real aircraft do , and drones will fly where real aircraft are , well of course the FAA will want some kind of system of keeping track of what's flying in active full scale airspace . This doesn't surprise me at all and is exactly why I thought they wanted a clear distinction between hobby VS drone use .

notice, that, this is being done by the DOT, not the FAA.
our exemption from Faa regulation does not apply to the department of transportation.

I don't think there will be a way to differentiate between a traditional RC plane and a drone. Both use a transmitter and receiver, and both can be equipped with a camera. And they can have the same range. A quad would be safer in that usually, they have software that will cause them to land if they lose contact with the transmitter. That is not the case with a traditional RC plane. So one is not necessarily safer than the other. For those who feel the government can't register all the kit-built models. You are right. However, the government CAN require the registration of ANY new receiver, and even go as far as requiring a background check just as if it were a firearm. The ATF does the same with guns. You can buy a new trigger assembly for a Ruger 10/22, a new barrel, or any other part you want. But the lower receiver is the serial-numbered part, which cannot be transferred by a gun dealer without a background check and the proper paper work. Registration of the receiver on a model plane would cause that to be the serial-numbered part, thus assigning that serial number to which ever model aircraft the receiver goes into.

Don't discount the long arm of the U.S. government. It has a long reach!

Nope, they sure didn't.

If you didn't see this coming , you weren't looking .
You can't crash a quad into the grandstands at the U.S. Open Tennis match and expect anyone to laugh it off .
I say it's about time .

hell no I wont register my planes

The difference between aircraft and a drone is.....anybody can fly a drone. These new drones, a five year old can fly one. Not everyone can fly a plane. How long did your first plane last before you learned how to fly, seconds.

So AMA, how's that CBO thing working out so far? But don't worry, I'm sure there will be tens of thousands of quad pilots joining AMA any day now.