USA registration

[tcope]

That's not correct. Section 336 said that the FAA could not promulgate any new rules. It did not specifically mention registration and included the caveat that it did not prevent the FAA from enforcing airspace safety - those were not separate powers:

We are arguing the same thing... I say Section 336 specifically did not allow for the registration. You say that Section 336 allowed it, outside of 336, under their safety authority.

​

You can assert your opinion that registration did nothing for safety, and I tend to agree, but you cannot cite it as a fact, and the motives that recreational fliers had for registering are not relevant to the law. Registration was struck down because, however one looked at it, it clearly was a new rule.

I can cite it as a fact as the registration was never used in that capacity. The database was _never_ used to trace a drone to the owner. The FAA stood in front of the public and said that the issue was not obtaining the drone, it was matching the drone to the user. That was a lie and the database was _never_ used in that function.

An altitude limit, such as 400 ft, is relatively easy to argue as an effective safety provision, but the FAA did not attempt to make it a rule (336 prohibited that too) and instead simply tried to get hobbyist agreement not to exceed it as part of the registration process.

You can only argue a 400' limit as a safety issue as much as you can argue for 350', 250', 200' etc. limit to the same degree. When you registered you did legally agree to fly under 400':

"To operate as a hobbyist, you must operate according to the safety guidance you have acknowledged and in accordance with a community based set of safety guidance. For further information on the safety guidance visit"

"Please remember the Safety Guidance:

• I will fly below 400 feet"
  

 

[sar104]

We are arguing the same thing... I say Section 336 specifically did not allow for the registration. You say that Section 336 allowed it, outside of 336, under their safety authority.

​

No - I didn't say that 336 allowed it, I said that the FAA argued that 336 allowed it under 336 (b).

I can cite it as a fact as the registration was never used in that capacity. The database was _never_ used to trace a drone to the owner. The FAA stood in front of the public and said that the issue was not obtaining the drone, it was matching the drone to the user. That was a lie and the database was _never_ used in that function.

Agreed - it was never used in that way, but that does not mean that it was not the intent to be able to use it that way, or that it would not have been used that way at some point had it not been struck down in the courts before the opportunity arose.

You can only argue a 400' limit as a safety issue as much as you can argue for 350', 250', 200' etc. limit to the same degree. When you registered you did legally agree to fly under 400':

"To operate as a hobbyist, you must operate according to the safety guidance you have acknowledged and in accordance with a community based set of safety guidance. For further information on the safety guidance visit"

"Please remember the Safety Guidance:

• I will fly below 400 feet"

That's both misunderstanding 14 CFR Part 101 and confusing guidance with law.

It misunderstands Part 101 in that Part 101 does not constrain or prohibit sUAS flights in any way. Part 101 simply defines some criteria for flying that are necessary in order to be exempt from Part 107. Not complying with Part 101 simply results in being subject to Part 107.

It confuses guidance with law because, as you quoted, the Section 336 criterion in question is to fly according to a "community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization". There is no such set of guidelines with a 400 ft altitude limit, and the FAA subsequently acknowledged that and admitted that the 400 ft "guidance" was only guidance. It had to be just guidance, otherwise it would have been a new rule.

 

[J3ffrey]

The first time around you didn't register any drone, you registered yourself as a drone owner. There was no easy way to unregister as a drone owner, it wasn't a law and no police force in the country seemed to even know about it or how to access that info. That's what I'm not okay with.

 

[Kestrel]

Whats wrong with registration? Its basically a money grab, as seen by the one drone strike on a helicopter, the drone was in pieces and they only found a small piece of the drone I believe, if the drone does actually blow into pieces when its hit by an aircraft then what makes you think they'll find a registration number.

 

[DroningOn]

There is so much wrong with forcing registration of private property but I don’t think it’s a money grab per se. it more forcing people to self incriminate themselves which I will never do. If I commit a crime, cause damage or an injury with my Mavic then prosecute or sue me. It’s that simple. I’m not going to help them do it by giving them a head start.

 

[sar104]

There is so much wrong with forcing registration of private property but I don’t think it’s a money grab per se. it more forcing people to self incriminate themselves which I will never do. If I commit a crime, cause damage or an injury with my Mavic then prosecute or sue me. It’s that simple. I’m not going to help them do it by giving them a head start.

That seems fair enough. I assume that you don't register your vehicles either. No problems with that?

 

[DroningOn]

That seems fair enough. I assume that you don't register your vehicles either. No problems with that?

That is such a BS response that everybody makes, it is not the same. You only have to register your vehicle to drive it on the street and it is a State and local revenue generator ie tax not to mention you actually register the vehicle, not yourself. You guys really need to Find another example, they are not analogous

 

[sar104]

That is such a BS response that everybody makes, it is not the same. You only have to register your vehicle to drive it on the street and it is a State and local revenue generator ie tax not to mention you actually register the vehicle, not yourself. You guys really need to Find another example, they are not analogous

I wasn't criticizing at all - why did you take it that way? But that's fine - you can choose to follow State law and ignore Federal Law if that makes you feel empowered. And if equating flying in the NAS to driving off-road makes you feel better about it, then even better.

 

[DroningOn]

I wasn't criticizing at all - why did you take it that way? But that's fine - you can choose to follow State law and ignore Federal Law if that makes you feel empowered. And if equating flying in the NAS to driving off-road makes you feel better about it, then even better.

Don’t be coy, we all knew what you meant.
Those of us who have a problem with being forced to register with the Federal government for owning something ARE actually following the law not rejecting it.

 

[sar104]

Don’t be coy, we all knew what you meant.
Those of us who have a problem with being forced to register with the Federal government for owning something ARE actually following the law not rejecting it.

I agree that if you intend to own it but not fly it in the NAS then that's a fair point.

 

[DroningOn]

I agree that if you intend to own it but not fly it in the NAS then that's a fair point.

You are assuming that my plastic toy, as soon as it leaves the ground, is flying “in the NAS“. This is something for the courts to eventually decide, not some bureaucrat in the Transportation Department.
Word of caution to the “there’s nothing wrong with registration“ crowd. We are not knee-jerk naysayers, there are broader issues at stake here.

 

[sar104]

You are assuming that my plastic toy, as soon as it leaves the ground, is flying “in the NAS“. This is something for the courts to eventually decide, not some bureaucrat in the Transportation Department.
Word of caution to the “there’s nothing wrong with registration“ crowd. We are not knee-jerk naysayers, there are broader issues at stake here.

Well then a couple of questions. Firstly, when do you think you are in the NAS? Would that be just above some arbitrary altitude that you don't ever intend to exceed, or some other criterion? Secondly, what are the broader issues? Word of caution to the "registration is wrong" crowd - simply asserting it's unfair/illegal/unconstitutional etc. is not an actual, reasoned argument.

 

[DroningOn]

Well then a couple of questions. Firstly, when do you think you are in the NAS? Would that be just above some arbitrary altitude that you don't ever intend to exceed, or some other criterion? Secondly, what are the broader issues? Word of caution to the "registration is wrong" crowd - simply asserting it's unfair/illegal/unconstitutional etc. is not an actual, reasoned argument.

Sorry, here’s how it works..... since you are advocating the implementation of this, it up to YOU to provide the reasoned argument not I. If this actually comes up again, maybe we’ll talk then.

P.S. Before you do, I suggest you study up on what the “NAS” actually is.

 

[sar104]

Sorry, here’s how it works..... since you are advocating the implementation of this, it up to YOU to provide the reasoned argument not I. If this actually comes up again, maybe we’ll talk then.

P.S. Before you do, I suggest you study up on what the “NAS” actually is.

No - that's not how it works at all. I'm not advocating for it particularly, I'm just curious about the supposed basis for all the "it's unconstitutional" nonsense that you and others keep posting. So no - it's not me complaining and yammering on about it and not my job to justify or convince you of anything.

You are the one posting your objection to the proposed law, and if all you intend to do is make vague comments to the effect that registration would be problematic without ever explaining why, then fine, but it's a pointless waste of time since it's not going to lead to any substantial discussion. But if you are so convinced that it is wrong, then why are you so unwilling to simply state the basis for that position?

As for the NAS, I'm licensed to fly in it so, clearly unlike you, I'm well aware what it is.

 

[Kestrel]

That is such a BS response that everybody makes, it is not the same. You only have to register your vehicle to drive it on the street and it is a State and local revenue generator ie tax not to mention you actually register the vehicle, not yourself. You guys really need to Find another example, they are not analogous

Do you propose people take a test too? Because cars and drones are not the same thing..

 

[DroningOn]

No - that's not how it works at all. I'm not advocating for it particularly, I'm just curious about the supposed basis for all the "it's unconstitutional" nonsense that you and others keep posting. So no - it's not me complaining and yammering on about it and not my job to justify or convince you of anything.

You are the one posting your objection to the proposed law, and if all you intend to do is make vague comments to the effect that registration would be problematic without ever explaining why, then fine, but it's a pointless waste of time since it's not going to lead to any substantial discussion. But if you are so convinced that it is wrong, then why are you so unwilling to simply state the basis for that position?

As for the NAS, I'm licensed to fly in it so, clearly unlike you, I'm well aware what it is.

I have never referred to this being “unconstitutional” so you’re obviously not referring to me but seeing as you label any such reference as “nonsense“ I completely agree with you that this is a “pointless waste of time“. You tip your hand too easily.
As for what the NAS is and seeing that you are “licensed to fly in it” you undoubtedly know that it is a complex system, not just a space. A system that our plastic toys are not a part of no matter how much you “Drone pilots“ out there want them to be. Have fun kids.

 

[whiskeylover]

There is so much wrong with forcing registration of private property

Airspace is not private property.

 

[BigAl07]

Airspace is not private property.

He's talking about registering your UAS. I can see where it could read differently but it's about the UAS not the NAS.

 

[whiskeylover]

He's talking about registering your UAS. I can see where it could read differently but it's about the UAS not the NAS.

My bad. I read it as "registration ON private property"

 

[2nckayakers]

Here is exactly what is going to lead us down a road to more regulation. This whole notion that your drone is just a toy and doesn't need any regulation at all, is why it scares the bejesus out of the FAA and the aviation community in general. If your drone weighs less than half a pound and you can only fly it up to 100 feet away from you in all directions then it is a toy. But when it weighs half a pound or better and has the capability of flying 4 miles away and several thousand feet high, then it is no longer a toy, it is an aircraft that definitely can have an affect on other aircraft in the NAS. The big difference in this whole scenario is I (and those others on here that think similarly) understand the gravity of what affect our UAS can have on other aircraft. We take it seriously and we try to do everything we can to enhance our situational awareness to the extent that it may seem like overkill to some. Where as those on here that think they are just playing with a toy don't think twice about stepping out anywhere, flipping on a few buttons, and tossing their toy into the wild blue yonder and anyone who criticizes them for doing that is just infringing on their personal right to do anything they please and thinks everyone that is not doing the same is just a wanta be something that they aren't. Right now I just fly for fun, but eventually I am going to find something I am interested in doing that turns my fun into a money maker and to do that you have to treat everything like it is something more than a toy and just going out to fly around your back yard.