If it Flies, then it....has to be registered

[ironroad 218]

Sorry for the long ranting post, but something about this really bothers me, it makes me wonder "what's next"?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The 21st of December marks the first day of DOTs/FAA requirement for any rc aircraft over .55 oz to be registered with the United States Federal Government.

 

What does that mean? ANYONE flying something in the airspace, regardless if you are operating from private property, flying your kid's Christmas toy, or flying with professionals an rc/hobby event, has to register they name and address as if they were registering a full-sized aircraft.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/21/the-faas-drone-registration-site-is-now-up-and-running/

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-to-require-most-drones-to-be-registered-and-marked-1450110318

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/heres-what-you-need-to-know-to-register-your-drone/

 

How did this come to be? In my opinion, the same way most regulations in the U.S. have been brought about in the last three decades (across multiple presidential administrations and multiple sessions of Congress), knee-jerk reactions to the government's inability to keep up with modern consumer technology and look ahead to possible trends instead of political infighting and political careers. Now I have always been moderate in my views and have a pretty decent understanding of how our U.S. federal system works (political science, governmental administration, and history were my areas of concentration as an undergraduate many years ago).

 

I have come to the conclusion that "knee jerk" reactions in law and rule making making almost always lead to more problems down the road for everyone, including those "making" them. RC flying has existed as a hobby since the late 1930ss. "Drones" (a term that has been perverted by the media and a clueless public to mean any RC aircraft with a camera) have existed since the tail end of World War II, as their development was pretty much on par with guided munitions/"smart bombs" (something the public thinks has only existed since the 1991 Persian Gulf War). However, since most RC aircraft no longer require hours of building and tinkering in the garage and even more hours of flying time, anyone at any skill level can get their hands of something that uses to only be a niche market for enthusiast with time and money on their hands.

 

Can RC aircraft kill? Yes, for decades hobbyist have noted that their hobby requires skill and patience and bad accidents can happen. But unlike the gasoline and kerosene powered beasts of yesteryear most of the available aircraft on today's market are battery powered and are made of cheap polymers, foams, and plastics. But the worry about today's aircraft isn't about  accidental killing, but more about worries by people who are professional "meddlers". On one hand, you have government employees/agencies looking to justify their positions and budgets. They believe that there is some secret terrorist society training to strap sticks of dynamite to rc toys in order to fly them into important places or people, something reminiscent of one of Wile E Coyote's schemes to catch the road runner (most consumer rc aircraft can barely lift their own weight, let alone alone an extra pound of explosive material). Then there are the "rubes" who believe that there is a secret society of expertly trained RC perverts, hiding in the shadows ready to spy on their home, property, and children. If the government does not take care of the "drone problem" then grandpa and his shotgun will.

 

I really see this whole "ruling" by DOT/FAA ending badly for all parties, either through sheer embarrassment or by litigation. The executive did an "end-run" around Congress's own laws/mandates that initially declared RC aircraft were a hobby and could not be regulated by the FAA http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/hr658_020112.pdf . They got around it by getting the DOT to declare anything over a certain weight an "aircraft", but they stopped short of calling any RC hobbyists "pilots". IMHO, due to the niche nature of the hobby, it is low enough on the pole for most people not to care (unless they think the gang of perverted terrorist are coming to track them down) and just enough legal play with words that certain categories won't draw the attention of Congress and the courts.

 

In my opinion, too little regulation leads to large catastrophic problems later, either in the system or in society at large and too much regulation stifles rights, innovation, and growth.  Ideally it would be a "zero sum" gain, everyone would either get something or no one  anything. But in some cases it is best to completely leave government/bureaucracy completely out for the good of personal rights and freedoms.

 

A bad precedent has been set.

Edited December 22, 2015 by ironroad

[Snailman 517]

RC Cars and ships can kill too.

 

Martial artist can kill too... with bare hand. They should either register their hands or only allowed on the street in handcuffs...

 

Age of Idiocracy.

 

 

 

EDIT: Not to mention fully functional RC Submarines... !!!  Damn I have to build one... till it's legal

Edited December 22, 2015 by Snailman

[Tirak 4]

Just to put this point out there, hobbyist drones have become something of a nuisance around airports, endangering passenger aircraft.

[Snailman 517]

Just to put this point out there, hobbyist drones have become something of a nuisance around airports, endangering passenger aircraft.

 

 

That must be true, but it's just a mask. It would be enough to set a No-Drone-flight barrier around airports. No, they try a global solution - because the real reason is different. Same stuff like gun control... But I don't want to get into politics here.  Just stupid. Or contrary, too clever.

[+logan4 845]

Common, 90% of these drones barely have 30-50 yard range or barely can stand any medium or larger gusts. No one are allowed to go inside the airport's fence on foot unless they are passengers on small Airports/aircrafts, or support companies and have been checked by security. Even if they intentionally mess  near the runway all AC still above 50-75 yards at the fence on most places and all areas are set up with cameras watching day and night. Not talking about some island resorts where the runway is 10yards from the fence.

You would need a serious RC plane to even get nearby a real thing.

With this much effort they can ban spoons, forks as those have killing capability too.

The airplanes have far greater chance to get hit by a bird than an RC aircraft.

[Snailman 517]

Speaking of birds... when they will ban carrier pigeons or hunting falcons? :biggrin:

[Tirak 4]

 

That came up pretty easily, and I've read numerous articles about fire fighting aircraft being unable to do their job because of drones in the area where they need to operate.

 

There are quite a few drones on the market that are fairly sturdy, the hobby has evolved to the point where it's relativly easy to get your hands on even fairly substantial ones that can take a gust, and can achieve fairly high altitudes. Rather than constantly having to change the requirements every year to handle the next flying tech toy, the FAA went with the carpet bomb solution. Does it suck for enthusiasts in the hobby, yeah, but this isn't a case of mindless government oversight, there are legitimate concerns. I think we can all agree that we wish there was a different solution, but you can't say this one was groundless.

[ironroad 218]

 

That came up pretty easily, and I've read numerous articles about fire fighting aircraft being unable to do their job because of drones in the area where they need to operate.

 

There are quite a few drones on the market that are fairly sturdy, the hobby has evolved to the point where it's relativly easy to get your hands on even fairly substantial ones that can take a gust, and can achieve fairly high altitudes. Rather than constantly having to change the requirements every year to handle the next flying tech toy, the FAA went with the carpet bomb solution. Does it suck for enthusiasts in the hobby, yeah, but this isn't a case of mindless government oversight, there are legitimate concerns. I think we can all agree that we wish there was a different solution, but you can't say this one was groundless.

 

Laws needed to made; however, it appears that the FAA just violated its own mandates set by Congress. It was a "ruling" made by hysteria and not common sense. Laser pointers are just as dangerous to aircrews as RC aircraft are. IMHO the government was beyond the curve on this one, failed to acknowledge that civilians have access to tech to use to be exclusive to the military, tech companies, or wealthy enthusiast. Furthermore, a lot of state/local governments have been PO'ed  for many years because they want to be able to openly regulate and tax the hobby, while gaining open access and approval by the FAA for "drone" tech for law enforcement purposes.

 

Just as note, I'm not against any regulation of the RC hobby but I'm against regulation that is made to strictly made to "deny" while not protecting the rights of hobbyist. I doubt the government is ready to offer the same protection to "toys" or prosecute those that attack them because they now have declared everything over a certain weight an "aircraft". Some states have taken it upon themselves to file charges, but I doubt the federal government is going to pursue  charges against some angry paranoid self-centered farmer with a shotgun that shoots down his neighbor's drone because it was spying on him.

[JediMaster 451]

I can just as easily paint this the opposite way. A skier was nearly injured, seriously, by a large camera drone that failed and crashed right where he'd been just 2 seconds earlier.

 

I also fail to see any regulation--this is registration. So that if a quadcopter drops through your windshield while you're driving on the interstate, the authorities can find out who it belongs to and make sure they're liable and held accountable.

 

Otherwise, what is stopping someone from buying one of these things for under $100, taking it out to the freeway when they're drunk and flying it low to see if they can get a few laughs making people freak out?

 

There are no "hobbyist's rights". Was that hidden in the 1st amendment where I missed it? You have zero right to get to play how you want to play, and it does NOT trump the rights of your fellow citizens to not be injured or killed by your stupidity. You want to hold back gov't regulation and rely on the intelligence of Americans to keep you safe instead? You want to count on them doing the right thing instead of having the threat of fines and/or jail to hold them back? We wouldn't need the ability to bear arms if we could rely on Americans being intelligent and considerate because there wouldn't be crime, would there? No one would need any guns because no one would ever threaten them, we'd all be perfectly safe all the time.

 

In other words, an America that needs guns also needs limits to stop drunk idiots, which I would argue largely describes a good 50% of this country. An America with a population intelligent and considerate enough to police its own hobbies is also one that has no need of private weapon ownership. So which America do you think exists?

[ironroad 218]

I can just as easily paint this the opposite way. A skier was nearly injured, seriously, by a large camera drone that failed and crashed right where he'd been just 2 seconds earlier.

 

I also fail to see any regulation--this is registration. So that if a quadcopter drops through your windshield while you're driving on the interstate, the authorities can find out who it belongs to and make sure they're liable and held accountable.

 

Otherwise, what is stopping someone from buying one of these things for under $100, taking it out to the freeway when they're drunk and flying it low to see if they can get a few laughs making people freak out?

 

There are no "hobbyist's rights". Was that hidden in the 1st amendment where I missed it? You have zero right to get to play how you want to play, and it does NOT trump the rights of your fellow citizens to not be injured or killed by your stupidity. You want to hold back gov't regulation and rely on the intelligence of Americans to keep you safe instead? You want to count on them doing the right thing instead of having the threat of fines and/or jail to hold them back? We wouldn't need the ability to bear arms if we could rely on Americans being intelligent and considerate because there wouldn't be crime, would there? No one would need any guns because no one would ever threaten them, we'd all be perfectly safe all the time.

 

In other words, an America that needs guns also needs limits to stop drunk idiots, which I would argue largely describes a good 50% of this country. An America with a population intelligent and considerate enough to police its own hobbies is also one that has no need of private weapon ownership. So which America do you think exists?

 

You are correct, there is no "explicit" right to "hobbies" in the Constitution or a lot of things for that matter (privacy is a good example). The Constitution  says what the government "can't" legally do to you and there are individual rulings, statues, laws, regulations, rules, etc. that do explicitly say what individual citizens can and can't do. Likewise, there are many instances of inherent rights, common customs, etc. that all levels of government generally recognize, sort of a notion of  "You can do your thing so long as it isn't illegal, unethical, and doesn't not infringe upon the rights of others."

 

The part of "You must register and re-register every 3 years or face up to $27,500 in civil fines and up to $250,000 or 3 years in jail in criminal penalties seems like a rule/regulation to me. Then there is that pesky Congressional mandate that explicitly says the FAA can't promulgate any rules on hobbyist and hobby aircraft.

 

No the general rule of thumb for the past 30-40years has been the FAA doesn't regulate airspace under a certain altitude, unless it is for an emergency, national security event, etc. and RC hobbyist have to stay in line of sight and can't interfere with air operations or any registered aircraft. Most people doing stupid stuff with RC aircraft haven't been fined by FAA/DOT, they have been busted by local authorities for variations of "reckless endangerment", "disturbing the peace", or have faced civil law suits from private individuals.

 

As for the tangent on guns, that was established as part of the Constitution, as well as the constitutions of many states (some whose laws and constitutions predate the establishment of our current republic). Of course there are a lot of idiotic, negligent, and careless people in this country. And many of them legally possess a fire arm...

[Snailman 517]

For there are stupid and evil people, the majority must not suffer. But it is a general rule around the world it seems.

 

And this system is vulnerable to staged events that used to support and justify such "regulations".

 

and gun control... the terrorist, the criminal, the insane (and the well paid) can and will always get weapon. Control only deprives the opportunity of self defense from the law obeying majority. The only thing that can stop an armed bad guy is an armed good guy. Those who shit on the law will be in advantage - the state (police etc) protects only the system it serves.

 

But the holders of power want to keep their privileges of drone spying, weapon ownership, free speech and whatever other rights they want to deprive from the citizens in their sick paranoia of loosing their position and control. The more you tighten their grip, the more will slip through their fingers.

 

 

ON topic... What defines sovereign airspace over my own garden or land? For I could say anything flying (at what altitude??) over my grain fields trespassing my area of ownership? On my estate, I do what I want - or not?

[KJakker 875]

I thought I should mention that you should search "Canada ahead of US on drones" without quotation marks in a search engine like google or duckduckgo. It is rather interesting to read about the differences in how the two countries are handling the issue of commercial and hobbyist drones. 

[Snailman 517]

It is also interesting how they handle gun ownership, as well. And notable the difference in number of murders too.