Drone rule draft
 

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:27:51 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:29:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or
nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying
around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to
see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad.


Not exactly, They are registering the operator from what is in the
proposal.
I am also not sure local cops can actually enforce a FAA regulation
(it is not a law the way it is being proposed, just a regulation)

You also will have the problem that if the drone is gone when the cop
gets there, there would be little he could do anyway, even if there
was a local ordinance.

This is far from being solved with anything I have seen so far. We
have not even established that spying from the air is illegal, or
could be made illegal. The operator might be a minor, you probably
have to establish exactly where the drone was flying etc,etc.

I agree the FAA will be aggressive when these things interfere with
regulated air operations but the nuisance operation may end up in
civil court, assuming the operator has anything worth suing for.

At the end of the day the HOA in that kind of community might be the
biggest rock in the bag, assuming the operator doesn't live outside
the fence. My wife's HOA has already acted on this, no drones without
prior permission of the board. There is no "due process" in an HOA. An
allegation is almost as good as a conviction. Owners can be fined and
renters can be kicked out.

Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer
would be registered also.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Drone rule draft
 

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:35:10 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:40:21 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:52:44 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote:

Another useless government boondoggle.

**********************
Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered
with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member
panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel,
which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone
manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to
the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta
didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26
people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking
out late last week.

The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly
accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the
group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple
drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to
determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but
analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are
unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to
start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the
existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace
access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on
the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an
estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays.


Can't fix stupid.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

especially in Washington.


Can't blame this on Washington or politicians.

"The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone
manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to
the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday."

Regulation favors big corporations and the "aviation groups" hate
drones. They would require regular GA pilot licenses for them if they
got their wish.

I doubt I will ever buy one so I really don't have a dog in the fight.

I do wonder how they actually plan on enforcing this since it is the
operator they want to register, not the purchaser or the drone itself.
When these things start hitting the Craigs list and Ebay market, used
for a few bucks each, any chance of tracking them will be ridiculous.

I know it is "free" now but once the regulation costs starts hitting
budgets, I doubt that will last long if the plan survives very long.
OTOH this is very likely to go the way of the CB and marine VHF
license. These days I doubt more than 10% of these operators have any
license at all and they might not actually remember the call sign. VHF
went license free 25 years ago and CB has been a free fire zone for
more like 40 years (KHFS-5589 here) That was probably in the last
batch of CB licenses ever issued. FCC doesn't seem to remember it.

The 'registration' can be enforced at AMA sanctioned flying fields by disallowing the
flying of drones without the registration data attached. Easy.
Except that the drones causing the problems are most likely not being flown from AMA
sanctioned fields.


That is a solution to a problem that never existed in the first place
AMA fields are never going to be within 5 miles of an airport.
I also doubt that .001% of drones are going to be flown on an AMA
field and then it would just be to get pictures of model plane
operation. Most are going to be flown within walking distance of the
owner's house.

Probably right, although we've several folks fly multirotors at the fields I go to.
But, I'm sure that's just a small percent of the actual operators. Hell, who wants to
fork over $125 for the privilege of a field if they can take off and land in their
driveway, or from a picnic table in the back yard.

And, they're cheap now. The quad I got for the grandkids to play with cost about $70.
No camera or GPS though.

If it weighs more than 8oz, they better get themselves registered.

I suppose I'd have to register as the owner and then register all the grandkids that
may be operators.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Drone rule draft
 

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 8:07:11 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2015 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:29:40 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote:

Another useless government boondoggle.

**********************
Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered
with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member
panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel,
which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone
manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to
the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta
didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26
people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking
out late last week.

The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly
accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the
group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple
drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to
determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but
analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are
unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to
start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the
existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace
access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on
the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an
estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays.


Can't fix stupid.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

especially in Washington.


Can't blame this on Washington or politicians.

"The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone
manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to
the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday."

The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already
decided there *would* be a registration process.

That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing
nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the
problem.

"The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the
creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an
enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing
this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while
achieving a maximum level of compliance."

More at:

http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke.


It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or
nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying
around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to
see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad.

And if it's registered? What then?


Probably a warning to stop being an asshole. :-)

So nothing really changes, except the feel good legislation.

Drone rule draft
 

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:36:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:


This is what FAA told the group:

"1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be
registered.
- Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and
operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other
factors such as age of operator.

2. Develop and recommend registration processes.
- Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: electronic means for
registration, data retention and storage, fee collection, and information required to
be submitted for registration.


3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and marking.
- Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: how certificates will be
issued and how a UAS will be able to be identified with the registered owner."

In other words, register the aircraft and a means to identify same with the
registered owner.

Just like guns.

It is a great dream for people who think the government can and should
do everything but how does this translate to a $50 used drone sold at
a garage sale?
They expect to sell a million for christmas. Probably half of those
will be used by kids.
That doesn't include the home built machines and as far as I know none
of them have serial numbers.
The guy who works for my wife is pounding them out from parts, custom
configuring them for his customers and selling them (at least one a
week).
These can't be confused with very specialized "model" aircraft and
they certainly do not conform to anything else the FAA regulates.

Again I am reminded of the CB radio or the marine VHF. Both exploded
into the consumer market (after being a somewhat regulated niche) and
the government just had to admit they were beyond their capabilities
in trying to regulate them.

I suspect they may just say the drones that can carry a couple of
pounds (Amazon etc) are regulated and the rest will remain in the
wild.
They will still have a limited degree of success.

Drone rule draft
 

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer
would be registered also.
--
That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register
"operators".
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea
to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone
with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally
realized the futility of it.

The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator,
not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is
going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would
be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives.

Drone rule draft
 

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:43:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 8:07:11 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2015 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 7:29:40 PM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/23/2015 5:53 PM, wrote:
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:17:06 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:18:01 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 11/23/2015 2:07 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/23/2015 1:33 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:26:04 -0500, wrote:

Another useless government boondoggle.

**********************
Drones weighing as little as eight ounces will have to be registered
with the FAA if the agency accepts recommendations of a 26-member
panel struck last month to design a registration scheme. The panel,
which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone
manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to
the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday. Although Huerta
didn't release details of the suggestions, it's pretty hard to get 26
people to keep a secret so elements of the proposal started leaking
out late last week.

The panel wants registration to be free and to be painlessly
accomplished online. Rather than register individual aircraft, the
group wants operators themselves to be registered so that multiple
drones can be listed under their names. It will be up to the FAA to
determine the penalties that will apply to those who don't comply but
analysts worry that because the vast majority of hobby users are
unfamiliar with aviation regulations that compliance will be slow to
start. Aviation groups were adamant that the drones fit into the
existing system and that manned aviation not give up any airspace
access to accommodate them. Huerta has promised a quick turnaround on
the new rules because the FAA wants the rules in place before an
estimated 700,000 drones end up as presents over the coming holidays.


Can't fix stupid.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

especially in Washington.


Can't blame this on Washington or politicians.

"The panel, which included representatives from Amazon, Google, drone
manufacturers and aviation groups, delivered their recommendations to
the FAA Administrator Michael Huerta on Saturday."

The FAA desired recommendations to implement the registration process. They'd already
decided there *would* be a registration process.

That's what's stupid. A way to increase the size of government while accomplishing
nothing. Those who will follow the registration process are not the ones causing the
problem.

"The stated objective of the Task Force was to develop recommendations for the
creation of a registration process, which ultimately would contribute to an
enforceable rule imposed by the FAA. The FAA stated that the intent of establishing
this registration framework was to promote a culture of accountability while
achieving a maximum level of compliance."

More at:

http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

This will be nothing more than "feel good" legislation. You'll have to register your son's toy drone. What a joke.


It *does* open the door to respond and take action about reckless or
nuisance flying however. A neighbor complains about a quad flying
around in his backyard. Cops respond, locates the operator and ask to
see it's registration. No registration? Goodbye quad.

And if it's registered? What then?


Probably a warning to stop being an asshole. :-)

So nothing really changes, except the feel good legislation.

Exactly. But the AMA will probably ask the RC clubs to check for drone registration
at the RC fields.

Oh, and the government gets bigger. I could see a whole new bureau just to keep track
of the millions of multirotors and operators out there.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Drone rule draft
 

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 21:56:40 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:36:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:


This is what FAA told the group:

"1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be
registered.
- Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and
operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other
factors such as age of operator.

2. Develop and recommend registration processes.
- Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: electronic means for
registration, data retention and storage, fee collection, and information required to
be submitted for registration.


3. Develop and recommend methods for proving registration and marking.
- Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: how certificates will be
issued and how a UAS will be able to be identified with the registered owner."

In other words, register the aircraft and a means to identify same with the
registered owner.

Just like guns.

It is a great dream for people who think the government can and should
do everything but how does this translate to a $50 used drone sold at
a garage sale?
They expect to sell a million for christmas. Probably half of those
will be used by kids.
That doesn't include the home built machines and as far as I know none
of them have serial numbers.
The guy who works for my wife is pounding them out from parts, custom
configuring them for his customers and selling them (at least one a
week).
These can't be confused with very specialized "model" aircraft and
they certainly do not conform to anything else the FAA regulates.

Again I am reminded of the CB radio or the marine VHF. Both exploded
into the consumer market (after being a somewhat regulated niche) and
the government just had to admit they were beyond their capabilities
in trying to regulate them.

I suspect they may just say the drones that can carry a couple of
pounds (Amazon etc) are regulated and the rest will remain in the
wild.
They will still have a limited degree of success.


Like I say, it's stupid. But the current proposal is for any drone weighing more than
8oz. That's not much of a multirotor, unless it gets weighed without batteries.

And it's for sure that Amazon, et al of that breed, are not the ones causing the
problems at air fields and forest fires.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Drone rule draft
 

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer
would be registered also.
--
That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register
"operators".
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea
to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone
with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally
realized the futility of it.

The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator,
not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is
going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would
be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives.

Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373

Go to page 2 and read para 1:

1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be
registered.

-Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and
operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other
factors such as age of operator. "

That seems pretty clear to me.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Drone rule draft
 

On 11/24/15 11:41 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer
would be registered also.
--
That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register
"operators".
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea
to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone
with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally
realized the futility of it.

The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator,
not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is
going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would
be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives.

Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373

Go to page 2 and read para 1:

1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be
registered.

-Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and
operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other
factors such as age of operator. "

That seems pretty clear to me.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



This thread is only worthwhile if it is going to create problems for
you. Please advise.

Drone rule draft
 

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:41:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 22:03:59 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:47:49 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Go back and read it again. The UAS (aircraft) gets registered. Of course, the buyer
would be registered also.
--
That is not what that linked proposal says. It was going to register
"operators".
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous. As bad as the stupid idea
to log ammo sales, license CB operators or even to license everyone
with a marine VHF. All of those ideas were abandoned once they finally
realized the futility of it.

The legislation will have to end up being on behavior of the operator,
not the inanimate object. That will be a local ordinance if it is
going to work. What might make perfect sense inside the beltway would
be pretty silly out in the boonies where Harry lives.

Jeees. Here's the final recommendation, the link I posted.

http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/....pdf?cid=TW373

Go to page 2 and read para 1:

1. Develop and recommend minimum requirements for UAS that would need to be
registered.

-Factors to consider include, but are not limited to: technical capabilities and
operational capabilities such as size, weight, speed, payload, equipage, and other
factors such as age of operator. "

That seems pretty clear to me.

Don't go all Harry on me. Make sure you read all of the link you post
The summary after the conclusion
**************
Do owners need to register each
individual UAS they own?

No
The registration system is owner based, so each
registrant will have a single registration number that covers
any and all UAS that the registrant owns.
**************

Obviously, if the owner chooses to use the S/N of his drone as his
number ... he can only have one (or all of them have the same S/N)

This is a very flawed document