USA - Registration numbers to be required on exterior of aircraft soon (Feb. 23)

[Cheech Wizard]

I know a lot of you have already seen or purchased our FAA Decals, but here they are again Aerial-Pixel FAA Decals.
In addition to the 8 decals shown below we now include two 1.75" decals for the smaller aircraft like the Mavic Air and Spark.

These are great stickers, Bought them when I first got (and registered) my drone, then bought another set after I skinned it. I'm pretty sure I read in the new FAA rules you can no longer just use a sharpie, It has to be stickers.

 

[tcope]

They look up the registration, locate the owner, and verify that it is an innocent (threat-wise) situation.

Let me walk you through your own example....

I'm a terrorist. I register my drone as John Smith. I put in some address and a phone number to a pre-paid cell phone that I bought for $20. This took me all of 45 minutes (ok, an hour if the cell store is far away). I then create a drone to deliver a bomb. Now, I'll just ignore the obvious situation... I create a bomb that is delivered by the drone. What I do is spend a lot of time, not creating a bomb that I can blow up upon delivery (because that would be _way_ to easy and I'm a much more James Bond villain type of terrorist)... I take the time to create a bomb that only blows up with the battery is removed. Now, I fly that drone to some busy spot and land it. A first responder then gets the drone and calls me (remember, I'm a sophisticated terrorist so I put the registration on the drone (because that is the only situation where your scenario works.... I'm a law "abiding person" who put their registration on the drone). The first responder then calls me and as a "law abiding person" I tell them, yeah... my bad, I accidentally flew that drone and landed it next to the White House. So now what? They are safe to open the drone? Oh? They don't remove the battery? Well, without the registration they don't open the battery either. However, under my frame of mind, they treat the drone as it could explode. Who's going to keep that first responder alive in this situation... you line of thinking or mine?

So I've just shot your situation full of problems. Truth is, you could come keep coming up with more and they will be just as flawed as this one.

But wait... you did....

That's probably going to deal with a large proportion of cases, just like with luggage and vehicles. On the other hand, if the marking is fake, or the registered owner cannot be found, or denies knowledge of it, or doesn't check out, then the drone is viewed as a threat and treated accordingly

Well, I already showed that this is _easily_ not the case.... but seriously, we are talking about drone and you are now talking about luggage and vehicles? I'm going to guess you mean a drone inside if luggage or a vehicle? What the #$%$%? That would just put the bomb inside.... the VEHICLE OR LUGGAGE! They don't need a drone for that! I guess you are going to have first responders open up the luggage, find the drone and then not want to open the drone? Seriously?

Without external marking they can't conduct that check without handling it, which they don't want to do, so they will always have to treat it as a threat.

YES!!!!!!! If this is an _actual_ problem... people rigging the drone to explode if the battery is removed THEY SHOULD ALWAYS TREAT IS AS SUCH.... external registration or not! The problem goes back to the stupid registration itself.

It potentially rules out threats without having to conduct controlled explosions or use other IED mitigation techniques in every case.

No... no it does not. I just gave you something I came up with over the span of 10 minutes and 1 hour's worth of execution that proves this wrong. The new rule.... could get people killed.

 

[sar104]

Let me walk you through your own example....

I'm a terrorist. I register my drone as John Smith. I put in some address and a phone number to a pre-paid cell phone that I bought for $20. This took me all of 45 minutes (ok, an hour if the cell store is far away). I then create a drone to deliver a bomb. Now, I'll just ignore the obvious situation... I create a bomb that is delivered by the drone. What I do is spend a lot of time, not creating a bomb that I can blow up upon delivery (because that would be _way_ to easy and I'm a much more James Bond villain type of terrorist)... I take the time to create a bomb that only blows up with the battery is removed. Now, I fly that drone to some busy spot and land it. A first responder then gets the drone and calls me (remember, I'm a sophisticated terrorist so I put the registration on the drone (because that is the only situation where your scenario works.... I'm a law "abiding person" who put their registration on the drone). The first responder then calls me and as a "law abiding person" I tell them, yeah... my bad, I accidentally flew that drone and landed it next to the White House. So now what? They are safe to open the drone? Oh? They don't remove the battery? Well, without the registration they don't open the battery either. However, under my frame of mind, they treat the drone as it could explode. Who's going to keep that first responder alive in this situation... you line of thinking or mine?

You really are just painfully clueless. LE doesn't verify identity by calling random prepaid cell phones. They don't even verify identity by calling known cell phone numbers. They find you, in person, get your ID and check you out.

So I've just shot your situation full of problems. Truth is, you could come keep coming up with more and they will be just as flawed as this one.

No - what keeps happening is that you continue to post what you appear to think are rebuttals, but which are straw man arguments that don't even make any sense.

Well, I already showed that this is _easily_ not the case.... but seriously, we are talking about drone and you are now talking about luggage and vehicles? I'm going to guess you mean a drone inside if luggage or a vehicle? What the #$%$%? That would just put the bomb inside.... the VEHICLE OR LUGGAGE! They don't need a drone for that! I guess you are going to have first responders open up the luggage, find the drone and then not want to open the drone? Seriously?

No - of course I don't mean drones in luggage and vehicles. Is that the best you can come up with to avoid addressing the analogy with how suspect vehicles and packages are treated? That's just pathetic.

YES!!!!!!! If this is an _actual_ problem... people rigging the drone to explode if the battery is removed THEY SHOULD ALWAYS TREAT IS AS SUCH.... external registration or not! The problem goes back to the stupid registration itself.

Not if you can find the owners, check them out, establish that they are not terrorists and confirm what happened.

No... no it does not. I just gave you something I came up with over the span of 10 minutes and 1 hour's worth of execution that proves this wrong. The new rule.... could get people killed.

Well you sure wasted your time and mine, because everything that you posted, as is the case throughout this thread, was complete nonsense.

 

[NC_Spark_3D]

I saved a copy of the FAA example stickers, worked one over in Windows Paint, then printed it on sticky label paper in an inkjet printer. After that, I covered the sticker with transparent packing tape to waterproof it. You could do this with plain paper. Just cover it with transparent tape and leave some extra tape around the edge of the label to stick to the airframe.

 

[tcope]

You really are just painfully clueless. LE doesn't verify identity by calling random prepaid cell phones. They don't even verify identity by calling known cell phone numbers. They find you, in person, get your ID and check you out.

What do they do with the drone in the meantime? Remember, it could be rigged to blow up at any moment. Do they just leave it in the back of their vehicle?

Answer... no... they treat it as bomb until, as you claim, they can contact the FAA, obtain the contact information for the person it's registered to, have someone drive out to their address, perhaps wait for them to get home, and then sit down for some time and question them until they convince them that there is no bomb in the drone. I'm sure that won't take hours or days. All the while, they have a possible bomb in their possession... that they _are already treating as a bomb... so the external registration did nothing.

No - what keeps happening is that you continue to post what you appear to think are rebuttals, but which are straw man arguments that don't even make any sense.

You may want to look up what a strawman arguments it. You are not using the phrase correctly. A strawman argument would be something like changing the focus of putting a bomb in a drone into one where the bomb is now in luggage or a vehicle (something we _were_ discussing into something we were not discussing and using that non-discussion thing in the same argument.

No - of course I don't mean drones in luggage and vehicles. Is that the best you can come up with to avoid addressing the analogy with how suspect vehicles and packages are treated? That's just pathetic.

Well, there you go.... a strawman argument. _I_ came up with the bomb in luggage and a vehicle? I never came up with that. You did. I agree, it was avoiding the topic of discussion.

Everything I'm posting is simply fact and credible examples. I'm sorry that they don't support your view. But as always, I appreciate other points of view.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

The _large_ numbers on a plane are so they can be used to identify the plane from a distance. The FAA wants a number on the outside of a drone because the drone may be rigged to blow up if opened. That is... not even close to being for the same purpose. Several other reasons as well.

OK, now we are getting somewhere... What are those "Several other reasons"?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

We are not talking about identification nor does this new rule having anything to do with that. The registration that is seperate from this addresses identification.

HUH?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Because affixing the registration number into the drone already identifies it. This new rule does not outline the requirement of registration... it _only_ addresses _where_ that identification needs to be placed. So.... it's about placement... not identification.[/QU

Has anyone raised the question as to what to do with these markings if we decide to sell the AC?

Use stickers and pull them off?

 

[Cheech Wizard]

The registration rule change is an interim rule, and takes effect later this month. The flying over people and flying at night ones are proposed rule changes, and will go through the public comment phase before being introduced. There are full details in the link in the email - I don't know why that didn't work for you.

It's obvious that Tcope didn't click all the links in the FAA email links and do any research... I was wondering when someone was going to mention that along with putting the Reg numbers on, you can now fly at night AND over crowds!

 

[Cheech Wizard]

I don’t recall seeing a font specification. You could consider using the “wingding” font, if you are concerned...

NO.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Okay - follow that line of thought. The bad guy creates a fake registration and puts it on the drone before flying it somewhere. LE finds it, looks up the registration, gets contact information and attempts to verify the drone owner's identity and contact him/her. Just like when they find a suspicious vehicle. That's going to fail - they are not going to be able to make contact with a real, verifiable person who confirms that they own the drone. Unable to rule it out, they treat it as a threat. Again, just like when they find a suspicious vehicle that they cannot verify.

Is this simple concept really so difficult to understand, or are you just arguing for the sake of it?



Don't tempt me.

It's so simple, even SOME cavemen get it!

 

[Cheech Wizard]

I would encourage you all to go to the FAA web site to comment on Rin 2120-al32. Imagine that you are a terrorist and putting a bomb in my drone. But you are law abiding and therefore put your correct registration number on the drone. Does that seem insane to anyone else?

Totaly, how is a terrorist putting a bomb in your drone again?

 

[sar104]

What do they do with the drone in the meantime? Remember, it could be rigged to blow up at any moment. Do they just leave it in the back of their vehicle?

They do what they always do - evacuate the area and leave it alone.

Answer... no... they treat it as bomb until, as you claim, they can contact the FAA, obtain the contact information for the person it's registered to, have someone drive out to their address, perhaps wait for them to get home, and then sit down for some time and question them until they convince them that there is no bomb in the drone. I'm sure that won't take hours or days. All the while, they have a possible bomb in their possession... that they _are already treating as a bomb... so the external registration did nothing.

If it takes hours or days then it's not going to change anything. If the owner is just down the road, and looking for his drone, it might be almost immediate.

You may want to look up what a strawman arguments it. You are not using the phrase correctly. A strawman argument would be something like changing the focus of putting a bomb in a drone into one where the bomb is now in luggage or a vehicle (something we _were_ discussing into something we were not discussing and using that non-discussion thing in the same argument.

No - I've been using it entirely correctly. A straw man argument is where you create your own scenario or position to argue against, rather than addressing the arguments actually being made. Which is pretty much all you ever do.

Well, there you go.... a strawman argument. _I_ came up with the bomb in luggage and a vehicle? I never came up with that. You did. I agree, it was avoiding the topic of discussion.

I pointed out the analogy of how registration on drones allows LE to try to track down the owner, just like with luggage and vehicles. You posted this BS in response:

Well, I already showed that this is _easily_ not the case.... but seriously, we are talking about drone and you are now talking about luggage and vehicles? I'm going to guess you mean a drone inside if luggage or a vehicle? What the #$%$%? That would just put the bomb inside.... the VEHICLE OR LUGGAGE! They don't need a drone for that! I guess you are going to have first responders open up the luggage, find the drone and then not want to open the drone? Seriously?​

That's a straw man because I said nothing, anywhere, about drones in vehicles or luggage. You invented that as a position to argue with.

Everything I'm posting is simply fact and credible examples. I'm sorry that they don't support your view. But as always, I appreciate other points of view.

No - nothing you have posted is credible or relevant at all. I've long suspected that many of your posts are just trolling attempts. You contribute nothing useful to these forums - mostly just sowing misinformation and confusion, and I suspect that you know perfectly well that some of us feel obliged to respond as a result, which is the entire point, of course. That's pretty sad. But since it's clearly impossible to outlast your stamina for this and as I really detest wasting so much of my time, I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[NCjonNC]

It sometimes amazes me how rude folks can get over simple forum posts of someone’s opinions. That’s NOT directed towards anyone in particular at all... just see a lot of disrespect at times. I guess I believe anyone has rights to THEIR opinion without such backlash!

 

[Cheech Wizard]

So, Nobody is happy that you can fly over crowds and at night now? Part of the new FAA rules? Did ANYBODY besides me and @sar104 click on the links in the email that sent you to other links? The lack of research is obvious. We have a guy that knows how terrorists think? Over regulation from the Gov. activists. and last... law abiding citizens. You were supposed to register your drones in Dec 2018. Only a month or so after the FAA said we didn't have to register.

 

[sar104]

It's obvious that Tcope didn't click all the links in the FAA email links and do any research... I was wondering when someone was going to mention that along with putting the Reg numbers on, you can now fly at night AND over crowds!

No - it's far worse than that.

 

[sar104]

It sometimes amazes me how rude folks can get over simple forum posts of someone’s opinions. That’s NOT directed towards anyone in particular at all... just see a lot of disrespect at times. I guess I believe anyone has rights to THEIR opinion without such backlash!

I'll say, for the record, that I have no problem with anyone's opinions. I have serious problems with misrepresentation of my posts, the use of straw man arguments, and trolling in general.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

It sometimes amazes me how rude folks can get over simple forum posts of someone’s opinions. That’s NOT directed towards anyone in particular at all... just see a lot of disrespect at times. I guess I believe anyone has rights to THEIR opinion without such backlash!

Yes, it's easy to get aggravated on this forum.

 

[sar104]

Yes, it's easy to get aggravated on this forum.

Yes - I really should just stick to the technical and forensic threads. It's just hard to resist jumping in to the regulatory discussions when so much misinformation is posted; it's impossible to win an argument on the internet against anyone who just wants to argue.

 

[Cheech Wizard]

Yes - I really should just stick to the technical and forensic threads. It's just hard to resist jumping in to the regulatory discussions when so much misinformation is posted; it's impossible to win an argument on the internet against anyone who just wants to argue.

I know that first hand, I'm just back from a 9 week banishment for saying something pretty bad to a member in a PM. A troll and he started the PM then posted it publicly. Set me up. Bad on me... no bad (they called it vulgar) language....oooops.

@sar104 , you just keep being yourself, You can't teach unteachable students.