People aren't getting the notion that , if you belong to a club, the club will force you to register, they know that they don't have to do shit, we'll police our own.

Show me your AMA card to join the club/renew membership in the club....no AMA? Sorry, you can't be in the club. They just add on one more requirement...Show me you are .gov compliant....you can't show us your registered/.Gov compliant??? Sorry, you can't be in the club.

This WILL be how it works out.

If you aren't in a club, you can always fly renegade and flout the King's laws.

Since they are cracking down on R/C aircraft I might have to just get a helicycle now.
Skip to 4:25 for take-off.

The FAA website keeps mentioning some law that congress enacted but they don't reference it.


https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/


https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/



Talked to my father who works inspecting aircraft. He said this sounds like BS.

Actually, yes I would. I would much prefer to fly thru a group of 9oz. quadcopter toys than a flock of Canadian geese, which have already proven themselves to be unregistered flying terrorists that brought down a commercial airliner. Remember, this registration scheme isn't about safety, it's about CONTROL.

While you are correct that it is about control, I do not agree on the danger.   Toy drones, you are probably safe.  



This is a 7oz brushless motor and 6 oz battery, similar to the motors used on drones.  Processing 4 of these through a compressor is NOT going to go well.   I'd rather take a goose.  



Sorry, choice of example CD was unfortunate.  







 

Canada geese (not Canadian geese, they don't have a passport from Ottawa  ) are certainly a hazard that are mitigated through bird tracking radars, bird management, and other practices.  But to ignore the threat by remote control aircraft just because they have yet to down an airliner is short sighted.

And I disagree on the control portion.  The FAA doesn't give a shit about you running a quad copter a hundred feet over your property.  They care that larger ones have been spotted on approach paths, in TFR areas, and other places that their operation is hazardous to manned aircraft.  

The problem is that  the FAA is out of its comfort zone dealing with these so they go to their standard practice of registration.  I personally can't think of a good answer on how to deal with them, do you have any better ideas that don't involve simply pretending there isn't a problem?

Register. Nothing

Eh, I am not so quick to accept that the FAA isn't on a power grab.  They have a chance and there is NO government organization that doesn't want more control.



The logical solution would be to require membership, insurance and training from a national organization (AMA) and operating a model aircraft outside of the bounds they set would be reason for a very stiff fine.  There are 75 years worth of history of safe operation of model aircraft.
 

So my dad, an avid R/C pilot, sent me an email tonight complaining about the FAA thing and government overreach.  And how they should spend the energy on AR15 assault rifles and stopping mass shootings.



Pretty sure I am not getting a Christmas card this year.  

Do you not hear yourself making the very same extremely tired standard gun control arguments that we all fight against daily?  

That's not how it works. This registration won't do a single damn thing to mitigate the risk you are so worried about, that has not yet materialized. And you have to know this, just like the FAA has to know this. So why are they doing it? Just like gun control: best case, it's delusional good intentions; worst case... fill in the blank.

Any power you allow the state to take will never be given back to you willingly. Hundreds of thousands of harmless RC flyers and quad operators are being negatively impacted and infringed upon for no good reason at all.

The threat has materialized.  There is a low but real chance that a larger quadcopter will impact a manned aircraft with an impact that is incredibly expensive or catastrophic.  It doesn't have to be actualized to be a threat.

If government organizations always want more control then why did the FAA choose to exempt RC aircraft operated under listed circumstances back in 1981 and ignore their authority until it became recurring news stories?

No money in it at the time.  
 

FIFY.  



 

There's no money in it under this plan.

LMAO.



"We need money to properly enforce the regulations as outlined in regulations XXX, failure to do so will result in death of women and babies...."





 

I live out in the country but there is a farmer's field that is registered as an airport several miles away.

ETA-The threat has materialized.There is a low but real chance that a 50BMG will impact a manned aircraft with an impact that is incredibly expensive or catastrophic.It doesn't have to be actualized to be a threat.



Geez,you sound like the anti gunners that wanted/want to ban the .50s......................

"The logical solution would be to require membership,insurance and training from a national organization (NRA) and operating a firearm outside of the bounds they set would be reason for a very stiff fine.There are 100s of years of safe operation of firearms."

 
Point taken, but what's wrong with that?  

LOL

I guarantee that if airliners were reporting near hits by tracer fire on approach shit would get ugly quick.

And I don't think that this is useful or practical.

You do know what the term threat means in relation to risk management?

How do the new regulations affecting hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people do anything to manage this minuscule risk?

This is stupid, hopefully someone will sue and make them back pedal. The money spent of making this "law" should be used on drone operator education. Keep drones low and away from airports and don't worry about it. Someone doesn't do either, make it a felony like lasers are treated.

Backyard flyers aren't likely to suck up to this.  There are millions of the things around, they were on the front page of most black Friday newspaper inserts this year, hottest toy in a while. The compliance rate for those will be nil.  
Anyone flying at a AMA regulated field(almost any R/C airport) will have no choice as the AMA will require it, you are required to be insured to fly at those places also and it has been that way for decades. My big gasser R/C planes have been wall hangers for years as my eyes got old. I fly them on the sim still.

I fly a micro quad in the house, and the cheap backyard electric(air hog junk). I'm not going to be registering any of that.

A government agency, the 4th branch of government without constraints of transparency and due process, back pedaling? I doubt it.

hrmmm

This is so incredibly ridiculous it's hard to believe it's for real. Are we sure someone didn't hack faa.gov and post this shit? Register the plastic toy helicopter your 9 year-old son flies in the living room, or else face a $250,000 fine?

No, he's ok until he's 13 and takes the toy outside. Then he's a criminal mastermind.

I do, and your risk management shouldn't result in regulating everyone else. Mitigate your own risks.

It's also in conflict with what congress voted on and passed about two years ago, that exempted model aircraft built and flown for recreational purposes, from any registration.  So the FAA has overstepped its bounds.
People need to be contacting their local congressman.   And this is the problem when congress has delegated or more properly abrogated its duties under the constitution to nameless unelected bureaucrats.

If you would clear the spittle off your monitor you'd be able to read above where I said it wouldn't.  But at least you accept that there is a risk so we are getting somewhere.

My son has a quad with a gopro and he is trying to land gigs for real estate companies, production companies, etc doing aerial photography.  Apparently if you get paid for using a quad (ie not just a "hobbyist"), you have to get a pilot's license. . . at least that's how he's reading the regs he's seen. .

That would be a commercial operation, and he's correct.

The problem seems to be guys like this (unlicensed commercial operators) thinking they can fly wherever and whenever, and end up busting existing airspace (like the NY incidents) or coming close to manned aircraft.

You make Michael Moore look like a goddamn genius.

 
They are pretty sweet machines.  Helped dad build one.  He had to sell it due to health issues and I wasn't in a place to buy it at the time

Oh no, an ad hominem the sign of someone winning an arguement.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

So you are as bad as the anti gun types-pile on restrictions/regulations/etc on EVERYONE ,even though it wont do shit in the grand scheme of things.

How about just going after those that actually break the law.Like has been said about laser pointers-go after the ones doing it,not everyone.

The problem also seems to be agencies that can't differentiate between reckless use violating existing FARs and someone flying a small photo bird below 500' in uncontrolled airspace.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

You guys are blaming government when its the actions of retarded drone pilots that have led to this

Jesus.  I've said this wouldn't help.  I'm not supporting their decision.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Nope. I still blame government for being unable to enforce existing regulations, enacting capricious and overreaching regulations, and still failing to grasp that violators will still violate. It's not just an echo chamber here. Zip on over to helifreak.com, and you'll find similar sentiment. And a surprising showing of RKBA support on a site that IIRC specifically discourages gun discussion.


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I'd like to point out that the ceiling as stated in AC 91-57 is 400 feet.  Perhaps it isn't the FAA that doesn't understand the FAR.  

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Don't know if anyone posted the ama's response but here it is- AMA and the FAA Registration Process
Today the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. AMA was a member of the task force that helped develop recommendations for this registration rule and argued throughout the process that registration makes sense at some level but only for those operating outside the guidance of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes.

Unfortunately, the new FAA registration rule does not include our advice. The rule is counter to Congress’s intent in the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and makes the registration process an unnecessary burden for all of our members who have been operating safely for decades.

While we are disappointed with the new registration rule and still maintain that AMA members should be exempt from registration, the rule is being implemented over AMA objections. Therefore, we want to provide you with important information about the registration rule and how AMA members can comply with the new federal requirements:

•All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones.
•Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register.
•You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft.
•You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch – but should not require tools to access.
•The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21.
•There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days.
•You only need to register once every 3 years.
We are still working out the logistics for this process. Some details are still being discussed, including:

•We are seriously discussing with the FAA a system where your AMA number could be used as your federal registration number as well. At this point, this is only a proposal and details are not yet finalized.
•At this time, AMA members will not automatically be registered when the registration website launches next week. However, we are in conversations with the FAA about the best way to streamline the registration process for AMA members going forward.
This is an ongoing process and we will continue to provide updates on the registration rule. Stay tuned to modelaircraft.org/gov, social media and your email for the latest news on the registration process.

Thank you,
AMA Government Relations and Advocacy Team

I think they are suing to atop this also.

I think a lot of this really stems from the quad-copters.

Flying a RC Plane or Helicopter takes some skill, and a lot of people
either did not get into it or did not last due to to the skill level needed.
And most RC Aircraft people fly them at either RC Fields or in open fields.

An RC Aircraft can be dangerous and really should be flown in a safe area.
The people flying the quad-copters in neighborhoods and in areas that
draw attention to them has made them a bit of a target to be regulated.

The "Drone Pilots" sure had a hand in it.

I used to fly Airplanes and Helicopters and none of this became an issue until recently.