FAA Registration Rules Announced NOW

[joe21]

Like it or not the FAA regulates the air above your property. It is not yours to use exclusively.

Everything I have every read on the topic (and my experience dealing in NYC real estate and "air rights" issues") says you are wrong. Not unlimited, but up to a reasonable height. Not to get back into the legal realm, but there is a famous SCotUS decision which affirms landowner exclusive use up something in the 86' range (too lazy to look up the reference right now). Lawyers will argue for different heights for various reasons in different circumstances.

Based on what you wrote, the area 6 inches above your backyard lawn is the equivalent of a public road that anyone can use and is currently regulated by the FAA. Do we need FAA clearance to build a deck? To build a home? To erect a flagpole? Should I expect a visit from the FAA when we shoot clay birds in our backyards? Or course not - because we own and have exclusive use of that airspace.

I know my local zoning board has limits on building height, but you seem to be suggesting the FAA somehow has a say in that decision.

Conversely, are you suggesting that the FAA can decide to make a public aircraft right-of-way 10 feet above my property?

 

[GadgetGuy]

Not directed at you GG but I love this as we have it in MS.
We also have what's called a ..attitude adjustment...
View attachment 37874
jk

I like it! Similar to putting a waffle imprint on the face of the suspect in handcuffs, in the backseat, by stopping suddenly! They become more "respectful" thereafter!

 

[GadgetGuy]

That's the most alarming part about this new scheme. It gives law enforcement yet another "reason" to get involved with innocent Americans minding their own business. Whether on your own private property or out in public. I wish more people thought about the "laws" they support that aren't required, don't achieve anything, but that they think are a "good idea." I wish they realized that behind every one of those good ideas, was a government man with a gun either enforcing that law or asking questions to see if that law might have been broken.

I personally prefer to not have conversations with people with guns who think I am up to, or might be, "no good." And this new unconstitutional rule is just going to tee up more tense interactions without any real benefit to the American people.

People should contact their State representatives and try to get their State to pass a law making it clear that despite the nonsensical federal "law" - their State recognizes that people have a right to fly drones in a safe and responsible manner without registering them regardless of the federal overreach. That should at least keep local law enforcement from these needless and potentially dangerous interactions. States need to refuse to support this unconstitutional federal overreach like four have now done with respect to the unconstitutional federal prohibition of marijuana.

What remains to be seen is how each individual local law enforcement agency will choose to repond to citizen complaints about "illegal" drone flying. They will likely each develop their own policy. They certainly have more important things to deal with, which are already straining their limited resources, without adding investigating suspected drone registration violations!

 

[GoodnNuff]

What remains to be seen is how each individual local law enforcement agency will choose to repond to citizen complaints about "illegal" drone flying. They will likely each develop their own policy. They certainly have more important things to deal with, which are already straining their limited resources, without adding investigating suspected drone registration violations!

Police do not waste their time pulling every driver over to ensure that the vehicle they are driving is registered and that they are licensed to drive it.
I'm confident that this will be the same with drone pilots - we will not be approached unless there is a legal reason to approach and ask for our registration.

Of course those of you making a brouhaha over this will argue that.

 

[joe21]

What remains to be seen is how each individual local law enforcement agency will choose to repond to citizen complaints about "illegal" drone flying. They will likely each develop their own policy. They certainly have more important things to deal with, which are already straining their limited resources, without adding investigating suspected drone registration violations!

I'm not sure that is the real issue with "interaction"

Right now, registration is not required. Unless you are doing something wrong (flying where you should not) the police have no cause to bother with you.

Registration however, gives them cause to interact even when you are doing nothing wrong and no complaint has been made. Now, they can hassle for proof your craft is registered.

Registration or not (drone or not), if someone makes a complaint against you the police (usually) have an obligation to investigate the complaint. "Hey, that guy almost flew into me! Officer asks you if you did. If the complaint seems valid, more questioning and ID becomes necessary.

With registration, the complaint becomes necessary. Now they get to ask you for papers and you have to show your documents, land the craft and show the matching number.

At least, that's what I took the "interaction" comment to mean.

 

[GadgetGuy]

What would that accomplish? This exercise is for loss and/or recovery, not to prove to law enforcement/whomever whether you own 1 or more UAVs. Proof of ownership would be possession of the UAV in person, or the cert # affixed to the UAV when it crashes somewhere (and is subsequently queried for in the db).

The FAA appears to be expecting the public to assist in registration enforcement by allowing them to look up the owner and physical addrss of any reg #, under the guise of returning your lost aircraft to you, but not using a 3rd party notification system, that would anonymize your personal information, like a chipped lost dog or cat (database only available to vets and animal control), or abandoned stolen car with a plate number (only available to law enforcement, or the DMV, or someone with an accompanying affadavit stating a legitimate need). If I don't know your reg #, but I know your name and see you are flying a drone, they may want the public to be able to detemine whether you are a registered drone flyer by also being able to look up your name. Just one of many possible justifications. It isn't a stretch to anticipate that both reg# and name will be both eventually be searchable. For now, we definitely know the reg# is searchable by anyone.

 

[aka1ceman]

And like public roads, that regulation should come from State governments when interstate travel isn't conducted (and most drone operators are not flying interstate missions, I would imagine). .

Its not actually a bad idea.
Even if they were in another state, does not your drivers license work in all 50 states? Even though another state has slightly different laws than possibly your home state, you have to follow those in the state you are in.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I'm not sure that is the real issue with "interaction"

Right now, registration is not required. Unless you are doing something wrong (flying where you should not) the police have no cause to bother with you.

Registration however, gives them cause to interact even when you are doing nothing wrong and no complaint has been made. Now, they can hassle for proof your craft is registered.

Registration or not (drone or not), if someone makes a complaint against you the police (usually) have an obligation to investigate the complaint. "Hey, that guy almost flew into me! Officer asks you if you did. If the complaint seems valid, more questioning and ID becomes necessary.

With registration, the complaint becomes necessary. Now they get to ask you for papers and you have to show your documents, land the craft and show the matching number.

At least, that's what I took the "interaction" comment to mean.

So really, no different than it is now, except if we are registered they can't fine us for not being registered. If there is a complaint against me now, the police will investigate, determine if the complaint is valid, and ask for my ID, then further investigate.
And going by anecdotal information from those who have been approached by LE and have posted their encounters on various drone forums I am on, 99.9% of those interactions result in a "Have a good time flying!" from the LE as he goes along his way...

 

[GoodnNuff]

The FAA appears to be expecting the public to assist in registration enforcement by allowing them to look up the owner and physical addrss of any reg #, under the guise of returning your lost aircraft to you, but not using a 3rd party notification system, that would anonymize your personal information, like a chipped lost dog or cat (database only available to vets and animal control), or abandoned stolen car with a plate number (only available to law enforcement, or the DMV, or someone with an accompanying affadavit stating a legitimate need). If I don't know your reg #, but I know your name and see you are flying a drone, they may want the public to be able to detemine whether you are a registered drone flyer by also being able to look up your name. Just one of many possible justifications.

 

[Reed L]

At this point I am seriously considering my P3 and getting out while the getting is good. The media, public, AMA and FAA are all against us. It is only a matter of time before there is nowhere to fly these things. Registration is only the start... there are _rules_ (not guidelines) in the works, and I don't think I will like those. People forget there is another option to register/not register... you can choose to sell your bird and find a less regulated activity. Declining sales is a more powerful tool than the tools at the AMA. It is my bet that the negative press combined with registration and the upcoming regulation is going to kill the potential of this market.

Forgive me please, but the way you are talking, "Sell my Bird", etc is exactly what an activist troll would say to stir up the wrong attitude. Trying to convince people that this is actually a way is exactly what the FAA, AMA,and so many anti-UAV people want us to do. So are you an activist troll or a person that loves this hobby? Selling your bird and giving up is the sheeples way of doing things, just follow the leader right off of a cliff.
As I stated above, I apologize to you joe21 and I mean you no wrong, but I'm trying to keep things right and what you said is Not an acceptable solution, in fact it's the cowards way out! Honestly I do believe that you are a media troll but you can easily change my way of thinking.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Police do not waste their time pulling every driver over to ensure that the vehicle they are driving is registered and that they are licensed to drive it.
I'm confident that this will be the same with drone pilots - we will not be approached unless there is a legal reason to approach and ask for our registration.

Of course those you making a brouhaha over this will argue that.

Actually, many modern police cars are already equipped with camera that scans and reads license plates, which scans all plates around them, while on patrol, searching for any red flags (reported stolen), and they already know who the registered owner of your car is before they ever pull you over.

However, I agree. You won't be approached unless someone complains, or you draw indepentently draw the attention of the LEO. The question remains how each local LE agency will respond to drone complaints. Will they send an officer out, or tell the caller it is an FAA matter, and they won't intervene.

The real problem is that the police will have to intervene when the drone hater caller decides to demand your reg# so he can look it up on the FAA website, and verify your registration, to pursue the matter with the FAA if you aren't, and you refuse, and it gets heated, and you call the police for your own safety. It is just a bad idea all around!

 

[Flyer91]

I think that is a very good idea. Personally, I will never give the AMA a dime. Read through the FAA documents on this matter. They pushed for registration - as long as it didn't affect their own "model" flyers. They threw us under the bus and then asked the bus drive to back up to hit us again.

The flaw I see in your plan is time. If "drone" people ever become numerous enough to have a say in the AMA, it will too late. Drones will likely be banned at that point. Meanwhile, we will be funding their efforts to have them lobby against us and create the bans.

I vote with my wallet. At this point I am seriously considering my P3 and getting out while the getting is good. The media, public, AMA and FAA are all against us. It is only a matter of time before there is nowhere to fly these things. Registration is only the start... there are _rules_ (not guidelines) in the works, and I don't think I will like those. People forget there is another option to register/not register... you can choose to sell your bird and find a less regulated activity. Declining sales is a more powerful tool than the tools at the AMA. It is my bet that the negative press combined with registration and the upcoming regulation is going to kill the potential of this market.

I can't blame you Joe, and if you look at my history posting here and on RCGs .... that's exactly what I did in the spring of 2014.
But since then, drone ownership has grow, and continues to grow to a point that is providing us the best chance of making the needed changes from within the AMA by way of how we vote for it's leadership.

It may very well not work, and if another way to get organized shows up ... I will happily go with it.
But so far ... other than a "work from within" approach, all I'm seeing/hearing is the repetitive complaining .... and although that's completely understandable, maybe even is heard by the powers that be .... it simply doesn't accomplish much.

As far as it might backfire, I agree, and I mentioned that as well in my thread, for the exact reason you point out.
I would only add ... that the quote made by one person in a reply to one of my posts (that I took as him calling me a coward) is appropriate in this case.
If we don't do something besides just hoping our individual complaints will get our voices heard, and we don't try to get enough people to join the AMA to be effective in voting for a more aggressively pro-drone leadership, because we are 'afraid' that our numbers won't be enough to win the battle to make them more pro-drone effective, but instead that they might be of only enough numbers to enhance their ability to do us more harm than good ... then IMHO the other poster saying basically ... that those that are afraid to fight for what they want because they think they won't win, don't deserve what they want ... is probably correct.

But that said ... IMHO getting out can also be a correct thing too.
If the future of flying drones looks unappealing to a person, I see no reason for them not to decide to move their expendable money to another hobby, and send their message that way.
I just don't see that as having enough impact to effect any significant change .... unless a current drone growth trend is bucked, which would require a much larger number of us doing that, than what it would take to fill the ranks of the AMA 'just enough to make it change' to a more 'aggressively pro-drone' organization.

If we don't try 'something' and just continue to ***** about it all ... 'after the fact' (myself included ) I really don't see how our positions will be furthered at all.

 

[ianwood]

The FAA appears to be expecting the public to assist in registration enforcement by allowing them to look up the owner and physical addrss of any reg #, under the guise of returning your lost aircraft to you, but not using a 3rd party notification system, that would anonymize your personal information, like a chipped lost dog or cat (database only available to vets and animal control), or abandoned stolen car with a plate number (only available to law enforcement, or the DMV, or someone with an accompanying affadavit stating a legitimate need). If I don't know your reg #, but I know your name and see you are flying a drone, they may want the public to be able to detemine whether you are a registered drone flyer by also being able to look up your name. Just one of many possible justifications. It isn't a stretch to anticipate that both reg# and name will be both eventually be searchable. For now, we definitely know the reg# is searchable by anyone.

You do realize they have to type in the registration number to pull up any information. That is specified in the document. You can't search by name, region, or any other function. That means they need physical access to your drone to get that information. Only likely to happen if you lose it.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I'm not sure that is the real issue with "interaction"

Right now, registration is not required. Unless you are doing something wrong (flying where you should not) the police have no cause to bother with you.

Registration however, gives them cause to interact even when you are doing nothing wrong and no complaint has been made. Now, they can hassle for proof your craft is registered.

Registration or not (drone or not), if someone makes a complaint against you the police (usually) have an obligation to investigate the complaint. "Hey, that guy almost flew into me! Officer asks you if you did. If the complaint seems valid, more questioning and ID becomes necessary.

With registration, the complaint becomes necessary. Now they get to ask you for papers and you have to show your documents, land the craft and show the matching number.

At least, that's what I took the "interaction" comment to mean.

Agreed. All it takes is any drone flying complaint, no matter how unwarranted, to force the police to investigate the matter. How quickly they respond will depend upon how busy they already are with other more important matters. Expect to be harrassed by drone haters wherever you fly. Cops are a cell phone call away. Will we be coerced into giving our reg# to these drone haters to discourage them from calling the police, assuming that will even satisfy them? Would that even be wise, given that they will then also know your name and physical address?

 

[joe21]

\Will we be coerced into giving our reg# to these drone haters to discourage them from calling the police, assuming that will even satisfy them?

I would encourage them to call the police. If I am registered and doing nothing wrong, I have nothing to fear. (I'm not being sarcastic). Inform the twit that you are registered with the FAA and if they harass you they are committing a federal crime. When he police show up, explain how the other person was harassing you and "interfering with the safety" of your flight. You would have called yourself, expect you were concentrating on safely operating your aircraft. Point out the "interfering with flight crew" rule to the police and ask them to prosecute the person who called. Yes, the "interference" thing might by stretching the issue, but it is likely to shut everyone up. The only good thing about a bad law is turning it around to your own benefit.

 

[aka1ceman]

This is great that we have LEO here to share this information. I'm puzzled why a police officer would have to go collect operator registration number when a neighbor demands they do so. If there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, what would require LEO to do that? And if a police officer did go do that, and the drone operator responded, "am I being detained" (which an officer cannot do without reasonable suspicion of a crime) and LEO says "no, I'm just asking questions" and the drone operator leaves, then what?

Or if an LEO wrongly says the person is detained (not for RS of a crime but simply because somebody demanded the LEO go find out information), and the drone operator exercises their right to remain silent, then what?

If your neighbor called 9-1-1, they have to, are required to show up. Is not hard to formulate a story enough to get the officer involved finding out information he has no business finding out including your registration numbers.

 

[GadgetGuy]

You do realize they have to type in the registration number to pull up any information. That is specified in the document. You can't search by name, region, or any other function. That means they need physical access to your drone to get that information. Only likely to happen if you lose it.

I do realize that. However, social engineering can also get around that. "Give me your reg# or I will call the police and have them get it from you, and we'll see how that goes..." "If you are registered, I'll leave you alone." There is also no assurance that the database will not be searchable by name. Any 3rd party could sequentially enter every reg# and compile a reverse lookup database of drone registrants' names and addresses for drone haters to access for a fee. There is no security to prevent that.

 

[joe21]

I do realize that. However, social engineering can also get around that. "Give me your reg# or I will call the police and have them get it from you, and we'll see how that goes..." "If you are registered, I'll leave you alone." There is also no assurance that the database will not be searchable by name. Any 3rd party could sequentially enter every reg# and compile a reverse lookup database of drone registrants' names and addresses for drone haters to access for a fee. There is no security to prevent that.

I guess some people could be intimidated into giving out their number (of be like an AMA guy who wears the number on their hat!) The only number I would ever give out is "911"

The sequential search is very possible and I expect to see in a short time.

Also keep in mind that since it is searchable, it is "out there," That means the list should be easily obtainable with a FOIL request. Will we see newspapers publish these lists in a story "Which neighbors might be spying on you"? It's happened with other registered items.

 

[GoodnNuff]

I do realize that. However, social engineering can also get around that. "Give me your reg# or I will call the police and have them get it from you, and we'll see how that goes..." "If you are registered, I'll leave you alone." There is also no assurance that the database will not be searchable by name. Any 3rd party could sequentially enter every reg# and compile a reverse lookup database of drone registrants' names and addresses for drone haters to access for a fee. There is no security to prevent that.

I don't show my ID to any jerk off the street and I certainly won't show my drone registration to anyone who is not authorized to see. I doubt most people are as foolish as you think they are in that regard.
I will encourage them to call the police.

Some are either going to extremes to worry themselves over this, or going to extremes to frighten others with a lot of insipid and bombastic "what ifs."

 

[GadgetGuy]

Which is yet another problem with this new "law." It says you have to give your information over to LEO if they ask. But this is a real problem because cops are not allowed to detain you unless they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. For example, as the Supreme Court ruled decades ago, it's a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a cop to pull somebody over just to see whether or not they have a driver's license. If they have suspicion that the person is driving without a license, then no problem pulling them over to investigate their individualized suspicion of a crime. But to just stop somebody to see if they *might* be committing a crime? That's what our Fourth Amendment calls an unreasonable seizure and it's illegal.

There are a great many problems with this new unconstitutional move by non-law-makers.

Agreed, but any complaining person telling the cop you were spying on him is sufficient to raise the reasonable suspicion necessary to investigate your flying credentials. That's a pretty low bar. Everyone thinks we are spying on them with our drones.