Drones may soon be required to be registered.

<p>Alan: In practice, I've yet to ever encounter a neighbor (of mine, or of anyone else's where I was operating) that cared in the least. Quite the opposite. Everyone who sees things in operation wants to come over and talk about it. If I'm in the air at the time, they all get kind of mesmerized by seeing the ground-side video display with the flight telemetry. They quickly realize that their entire house is occupying an inch or two of the display on an iPad, and realize that nobody is looking in their windows, or even could without flying down low and so close to their house that it would be impossible to confuse the action for being anything other than deliberate. That much becomes so immediately clear to everyone who actually sees this stuff in person that most of the reflexive push-back and concern just basically melts away. <br /><br />Most neighbors don't let me leave the scene without asking if I'll take some shots of their rooftops for them, and check out their gutters while I'm up there. Why not? I do it for goodwill and and every time I'm asked, provided it seems safe. Too many trees sometimes, or parents who don't understand why I'd like them to take their kids inside from the back yard for a minute while I get shots of their shingles or their chimney top. <br /><br />But truly, as you have guessed, these things just work themselves out. A lot of internet tough-guy-ism melts away when people actually see, up close and personal, and understand the technology with both its utility and its limits. It's clear to me that usually people come to the topic having seen either wildly silly fictional portrayals from bad TV shows, or they're just disposed to the same sort of hostility that many street photographers normally encounter. Once they understand that they're likely to get a better neighbor if the real estate agent can attract better buyers by including better imagery in their listings, the technology starts to lose its media-fueled comic book villain atmospherics. </p>

<p>As a follow-up to those who still care about this: people inside the task force are mentioning that the DoT-orchestrated panel will be recommending that, indeed, even small fixed-wing toys that weigh only 9 ounces will have to be registered with the federal government. It's not about multi-rotors (drones), not about cameras, not about payload capacity, and not even about whether little Jonny's new 9-ounce (!) holiday toy plane has a range of more than 50 feet or must be used indoors because it can't operate in a breeze - nope, time to get on a federal database that will be open to FOIA requests and fishing expeditions. Needless to say, a whole lot of hobbyists with a basement full of small model airplanes (source of power is not relevant - tiny gas engines, batteries, rubber bands, etc) are none to pleased - they'll all going to have to register each toy, and if they take one apart and use some of the parts to build another one, they'll have to re-register it.</p>

<p>Matt, when the question is whether state trespass law can prevent drones flying over private property you say no, because all flying things are under plenary federal authority and federal law cloaks all flying things in magical protection that nothing else may penetrate. But when the question is whether that same federal government may actually regulate those flying things, you cry foul - apparently the magical anti-regulation barrier created by federal regulation also serves to keep out that same regulation!</p>

<p>Either a recreational drone is a flying machine subject to the same rules as any other - the FAA rules and federal air regulations, which where appropriate have some effects that override common law air rights - or they are not, and not being part of the federal regulatory scheme the states may make rules restricting their use and apply normal trespass law when they violate private airspace. Which is it? There's no option where the things are subject to <em>no law at all.</em> You seem to think that's the case, but it's not.</p>

<p>Also, I can't believe that your information is correct. Rubber band powered toys? Like those balsa wood things? The federal government is not going to try to put those in a database. Or those line of sight helicopters with 5 minutes of battery that they sell at Sharper Image. These reports are alarmist.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Matt, when the question is whether state trespass law can prevent drones flying over private property you say no</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course I do. Because the word "over" is meaningless. Flying around your property at tree/rooftop height isn't the same as traversing at a higher altitude. So I refuse to take the bait when the question is deliberately imprecise and without any specifics or context.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But when the question is whether that same federal government may actually regulate those flying things, you cry foul</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm crying foul over the <em>meaninglessness</em> of setting up a brand new hunk of federal bureaucracy to individually track 9-ounce toys and their owners, considering the complete lack of any examples, whatsoever, of any problems ever arising from the use of such things after DECADES of them in the air.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't believe that your information is correct. Rubber band powered toys? Like those balsa wood things?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If they weight nine ounces, yes. In fact, they don't have to have any power at all, not even a rubber band. The new registration being proposed would also apply to completely un-powered toy RC sailplanes, if they are over the 9-ounce threshold. Why do you have trouble believing that? The spokesman for the DoT said we should think of them as looking to register anything that flies in any form. The entire proposition isn't going to have a single impact on safety, and isn't meant to. The panel's participants admit that there's no plan for how they will deal with the fact that a person who actually means harm could simply provide fake information in their registration (or better yet, the name and address of another person that they know to own and operate similar equipment).<br /><br />This is a completely non-serious exercise meant entirely to provide soundbite-friendly statements from the administration to appease those riled by the fear mongers who insist that all of the non-events we've not been seeing are a clear sign of the need for emergency action in order to reduce the rate of events from the current ZERO down to ... zero? They're not very clear on that part.<br /><br />Meanwhile, more people die falling on stairs every year than they do in, say, murders using guns (to say nothing of accidents involving RC toys and camera drones ... just checked ... yup! still at zero!). I'm betting that some of those killer stair wells don't have federally approved railings. Won't somebody think of the stair victims? Aren't stairs at least as much a form of transportation as a 9-ounce toy model, and thus certainly something the DoT should consider?<br /><br />Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it ... except apparently unsafe stairwells <em>actually hurt people</em>, while RC birds, despite millions in use, are wildly safer. It's that sort of silliness (despite the thousands of recurring actual human deaths, obviously) that point out how absurd this sort of thing really is. The hand-wringing in this is area completely misguided, if actual injuries and deaths are what people are worried about. Especially considering how small a number ZERO is, compared to the thousands of deaths <em>every month</em> in, say, poorly executed medical treatments.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Matt, when the question is whether state trespass law can prevent drones flying over private property you say no<br>

Of course I do. Because the word "over" is meaningless. Flying around your property at tree/rooftop height isn't the same as traversing at a higher altitude. So I refuse to take the bait when the question is deliberately imprecise and without any specifics or context.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You wrote: "As courts have reinforced, your reasonable expectation of control ends right about where you've stopped building objects (like your windmill, your roof, etc)." That was right before you misapplied the ruling in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17209011020287234065">United States v Causby (1946)</a>, which the property owner won, by saying "unless you've got a 100' HAM antenna tower on your property, or a very tall wind turbine, etc., somebody flying an ultralight or a model airplane over at 100' isn't in "your" air space". My comment was referring to your apparent argument that anybody is free to fly a drone above property at any level that is higher than the tallest building on your property - a proposition for which there is no legal support. <br>

<br>

If I misunderstood you, and you would agree with me and Justice Douglas that a property owner's rights extend to the level that the federal government has specified as the minimal safe elevation for air traffic (the level at which the air space is a "public highway") - and I don't know where that currently is off the top of my head but probably somewhere between 300 and 500 feet - so that flying machines below that level are trespassing and ones above it are not - then I agree with you and apologize for mischaracterizing your earlier comments.<br>

<br>

Since you don't have a citation for the comment on the FAA news, I don't know how complete your information is. But I think the answer is "not very". I don't have a paid WSJ subscription so I can't read their article, which appears to be the original source, but a Fortune article on it says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-task-force-to-recommend-drone-registration-sources-say-1446788167">WSJ reports</a> that three unnamed people “familiar with the matter” have told them that the recommendation on the table will be for consumers to register any flying drone 9 ounces and up with the FAA for use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not much to go on, but it doesn't take much to get the Internet to freak out these days. But you read a bit further and it turns out that maybe this is all not going to be much of a burden on the common recreational user after all. For example, here's one attorney on the record in a Fortune article who seems to think that the question of whether these rules will apply to recreational users is unanswered:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Guy Haggard a board-certified aviation attorney with GrayRobinson, Orlando, Fla., said registration is “overkill for small drones that are really just toys.”<br>

“The FAA requires registration of all aircraft already and drones are considered aircraft, but model aircraft used for hobby purposes are exempt from regulation by the FAA by law. So the upcoming registration rules I would speculate should provide exemptions. But we will see,” Haggard said via email.<br>

Since it appears that the registration is only a recommendation and not mandatory, it’s unclear what penalty, if any, there would be for consumers who fail to apply.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

So we have registration, which is not particularly drastic anyway - so who cares - and it's optional, and it might not apply to recreational users anyway, because that's in the statute and statutes are a higher authority than regulations. You can read <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ95/pdf/PLAW-112publ95.pdf">the statute here</a>. Section 336 is the recreational exemption for model aircraft. It exempts unmanned aircraft under 55 pounds, used safely for recreational purposes and within line of sight of the operator, so long as they're not being used within 5 miles of an airport without prior arrangements.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Meanwhile, more people die falling on stairs every year than they do in, say, murders using guns</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Did that statistic come from Wayne Lapierre? The <a href="http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm">most recent number I can find</a> for deaths falling down stairs is 1,307 in the US in 2000. That year <a href="http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf">we had 10,801 firearm homicides</a>.</p>

<p>Section 336 is exactly what they are bypassing by going through the DoT. Congress didn't think that the administration would get around the law's exemption mandate by skipping the FAA entirely and using the regulatory power of the <em>transportation</em> department to deal with 9-ounce toys used by hobbyists.<br /><br />I get my information, by the way, through communication with someone who is <em>sitting on the task force</em>. He's disgusted at how the panel is leaning, but concedes that there's essentially nothing to be done to keep the administration from completely ignoring 336 through executive action. The new registration bureaucracy (which will NOT be optional) will include hobby toys. Current expectations are that fines for operating outside of the new regulation, even with a 9-ounce foam-winged toy, will be $20,000 (per toy, not per toy owner).<br /><br />Your quote (from Haggard), by the way, pre-dates the administration's decision to bypass the FAA's historical definition of "aircraft." Essentially, they just don't care. Again, per the DoT, "anything that flies" is now their turf.</p><div></div>

You can't bypass a statute by tasking something to the DoT instead of the FAA. It doesn't work that way. The statute

controls.

 

All this commentary is on rumors. It's alarmist speculation. What will actually happen in the end will be that the regs will

conform to the statute.

<blockquote>

<p>You can't bypass a statute by tasking something to the DoT instead of the FAA. It doesn't work that way. The statute controls.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act is about (wait for it!) <em>the FAA</em>. That law doesn't control what the DoT does <em>- it only effects the one agency, the FAA</em>. The administration is doing this through the DoT because the law doesn't explicitly talk about the DoT, and the task force says that they can ignore congress's exemption for hobbyists by ensuring that it's not the FAA that regulates them. It's not exactly mysterious. <br /><br />This isn't like a law that says "The goverment can't regulate hobbyist skateboards," it's like a law that says "The Department of Parks can't regulate skateboard use." Which means that DoT can happily ignore limitations put on DoP by congress if that what the administration tells them to do. So they're sticking to the letter of the law while flipping the bird to the spirit and congressional intent of the law. Which is why lots of people are talking about challenging this entire new regulatory grab in court.</p>

<p>That would be clever, but it doesn't work that way. The 2012 Act is an amendment to an existing title, you can't read lines from it in a vacuum. Statutory instructions relating to air safety given to one entity apply to both, because 49 U.S.C. § 106 delegates the DoT's aviation safety duties to the FAA Administrator. The instruction in 336 is given to the FAA Admin because that's the person tasked with promulgating the rules in this section. The Secretary of Transportation can't get around 336 by telling some other employee to publish the rules while the FAA Admin sits in his office playing Minesweeper.</p>

<p>Matt, you are being so paranoid, arguing with you is pointless. You're not reasonable. There is not going to be a $20,000 fine for children flying a toy without a license. In several months, when this all stops being idle speculation skimmed off Reddit and starts being published rules I'll say I told you so.</p>

<p>Andy, I'm listening to the actual words spoken by the task force themselves. Several months? They say this is going to be handled as an emergency, and put in place <em>before this Christmas's peak shopping period</em> ... specifically so that they can have the new requirements in place to <em>apply to consumer/hobby purchases</em>. The number of purchases of this hardware by and for professionals is a pale shadow of the numbers bought for recreational use. The recreational users are the very ones they (the FAA) claim to be worried about, and what this entire thing is all about. They said as much at the presser announcing the task force. The FAA has been looking for a way around 336 since the day the law was passed, including simply dragging their feet on almost all of the scheduled requirements of the Act generally.<br /><br />As for "paranoia?" Really? We're not arguing. I'm telling you what people involved in the process are saying the panel will recommend to the DoT. You're saying, essentially, "that sounds ridiculous," and therefore I'm paranoid. I didn't say "without a license" (why put words in my mouth?). The task force is talking about the output of registration being a DoT number that must be visible on the body of the registered aircraft. Not a license.<br /><br />I presume that when you say "license" you're referring to a certification (as general aviation pilots are required to have, and which even users of a cheap 2-pound quadcopter used at 30' off the ground to inspect your gutters has to have under 333 - yup, that roofing guy needs to be a certified pilot now, but the next door can use the same device to check his own gutters without one - funny, isn't it?). No, they're not talking about requiring recreational users to have a pilot's certification. Just the impending new federal registration, which has to be tied back to and displayed the aircraft, toy, etc. The panel is apparently arguing over things like serial numbers ... tricky, of course - many of these machines have no serial numbers since they are built to suit from off the shelf parts.<br /><br />They are looking to define that requirement as applying to anything at or over 9 ounces. The task force includes FAA people and DoT people, as well as AMA and (please note) several parties involved in the manufacturing and distribution of the devices in question. The industry members are known individuals, including well known lawyers - not fantasists. You're calling me paranoid, so please also call the fact-checked reporters at the Wall Street Journal paranoid, too. They have been carefully reporting on this industry for years now, and are also reporting multiple panel members as confirming the 9-ounce and hobby-user requirement as part of the recommendation. The WSJ isn't Reddit - they've been reporting on aviation law matters for as long as there's been aviation law and regulation.</p>

The FAA and DOT have published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for non-recreational UASs. It is far too long to

reproduce here but it can be found in a web search. I am too tired to read all of it but that means there will be public

hearings and the public may make written comment. There is no permanent rule yet as I understand the process.

It does however define expected commercial uses. Publication of this rule will take a while.

 

Incidentally I saw a Canadian Video of a manned unmanned aerial vehicle. A guy climbed aboard a vehicle with I

think eight rotors that looked just like a UAV. He flew it for maybe thirty seconds over water and then landed it. It

looked like it was battery powered and had what appeared to be a UAV stabilization system. It had a platform that he

stood on, He landed it in the water. Not much battery life maybe. My guess is that it weighed about two hundred

pounds with batteries and passenger or pilot. A good way to bust ones ass.

<p>Dick: that proposed rulemaking (as it relates to commercial users) has been in the wind for a while now, after much commentary. We're all hoping that they will finally relieve people like simple photographers from needing to be certified GA pilots - something the current 333 provision requires, and which is clearly being ignored out of shear absurdity by many thousands of people every day.<br /><br />I've see that video you mentioned. Yeah, practical battery powered multi-rotor flight with human carrying capacity is... not exactly there yet! :-)</p>

<p>Here's a video of the fall foliage in New England that includes lots of drone shots. The drone flew over private and probably public areas. http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/56271706/video/houzz-tv-this-drone-video-of-autumn-in-new-england-will-lift-your-soul?utm_source=Houzz&utm_campaign=u2057&utm_medium=email&utm_content=gallery0</p>

<p>First, did you like the video?</p>

<p>Second, which heights and areas do you feel are acceptable or not and why? </p>

<p>It's a very nice video. Music's a touch dramatic. Shooting the footage might have involved trespassing - I don't really know where the drone was in relation to property lines and the elevation above ground level it was flying at, or whether they spoke with the property owners first, or what NH law has to salon the matter.</p>

<p>For anyone still following this, the task force's report has been formally passed along. The content is as ridiculous as expected. They are recommending All RC flying devices of all kinds, including 9-ounce (actually just under 9 ounces) fixed wing toy airplanes, will be registered with the government. The task force couldn't come up with any examples of such things actually being a problem for general aviation, and so opted instead for a rather silly invocation of head injuries - something that, once again, is statistically absurd given the millions of flight hours already on the books and injuries you can count on one hand ... compared to head injuries from soccer balls, jumping dogs, falling branches, hail, and everything else. <br /><br />The single large organization representing hundreds of thousands of people and many decades of operating RC tools and toys (the AMA) was not allowed to include their analysis in the task forces's report. This will come down to private citizens spending money in court to challenge this deliberate end-run around the 2012 FMRA, up against lawyers paid for with a bottomless pool of those same citizens' taxes. Obviously the retired guys at the local club, flying their balsa wood gas models around in circles at tree-top level aren't likely to comply. We'll know more about the fines for which they'll be liable after the DoT gets past asserting that the 2012 law doesn't apply.<br /><br />The task force says that they believe their report's guidance can be integrated as an emergency action by the DoT to meet the administration's December 21st deadline so that retailers will have time (a couple of days, not counting the hundreds of thousands of purchases that will have already happened!) to inform people making Holiday purchases about their brand new obligations to the government for that 8-ounce toy plane or little plastic multi-rotor widget. Yes, their recommendation also applies to even people buying devices that aren't capable of operating outdoors in any sort of breeze. Should be no problem getting all of those holiday toy purchases registered before flight with that 4-day lead time, right? You can't make this stuff up. And no, the DoT hasn't yet contracted with any IT dev/hosting operation to create or run the web site and database where this registration will take place, and has made no comment about to whom the collected personal data will be visible and under what circumstances. You can imagine that the procurement for and implementation of that new government web site will be the picture of grace, given the less-than-one-month window.</p>

<p>Excellent news that <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Registration-requirement-sought-for-even-smaller-6647045.php">progress is underway</a>. Shouldn't be long, and though hardly perfect, it's a good start. Also pleased that the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) has been weighing in with their input. </p>

All they're making you do is provide a name and address, and put the number they give you on the drone. That's no

burden at all. I can't believe people care.

<p>They care, Andy, because they are thinking about it within the context of not only previous comments from the FAA (which sees fit to require some people who operate tiny plastic copters to have full pilots certificates), but also because the move runs exactly contrary to law. It's contempt for congress and the plain intent of the law. I know that just doesn't matter to you, but there's more to it than that. <br /><br />Not least, because it establishes another pointless and expensive and no doubt utterly un-secured trove of data that <em>will not do anything</em> to stop stupid people from doing stupid things, let alone malicious people from doing malicious things. And it's being done in the name of stopping (as an emergency government act!) something that <em>hasn't ever happened</em>. You can't believe people care because you're not thinking about how spectacularly this represents everything that our out of control regulatory agencies over-do every year. Eight <em>thousand</em> new regs every year, and things like this will do nothing to stop anything because <em>there's nothing to stop</em> that isn't already very against existing laws.<br /><br />But that's OK. The Diane Feinteins of the world, who said she wants to simply and completely ban "drones" (in reaction to seeing some Code Pink protesters fly a tethered half-pound pink plastic flybar mall kiosk toy five feet above a sidewalk outside her house), are famous for looking at databases of people who own things and saying, "well, since we have a list..."<br /><br />Journalists have already said they're looking forward to being able to go fishing through such data so they can publish the names of people in areas where someone phones in an "an evil drone was watching my cat!" call. We've seen agenda-driven journalists do exactly that stunt, publishing interactive web maps showing names and addresses of, say, gun owners. There are crazies out there who absolutely WILL treat the retired pilot down the street (whose hobby is flying RC stuff around) no differently than they will the guy who's listed on the publicly available sex offender address directory. <br /><br />You're the one who earlier in this thread said that you can't believe they'd recommend registration of line of sight toy copters. But they've just recommended <em>exactly</em> that. You've said they can't go around the 2012 FMRA, but they're saying they'll do exactly that within the next four weeks. Your "I can't believe" and "they can't" list is worth remembering when you say you also can't imagine why anybody would find this entire maneuver to be preposterous <em>given why they say they're doing it</em>. Pay attention! They just said that the basis for getting you to federally register your 8.8 ounce Sharper Image toy is because of the sorts of injuries that can occur when it's flown up to 500 feet. That's the sort of absurd rationale they're actually putting in writing and expecting the Department of Transportation to act on. You know, because that half pound Sharper Image toy copter is definitely a dangerous form of transportation.</p>

I think we should register golfers so they'll have to

place their registration number on each ball they hit.

That way if they forget to yell "fore", the person who

got hit on his head will be able to track down the

culprit.

Wait and see how it plays out. I agree with you that it does not go far enough to prevent injuries. Maybe Congress will

eventually come to their senses and ban the things altogether.

<p>>>><em> I think we should register golfers so they'll have to place their registration number on each ball they hit. That way if they forget to yell "fore", the person who got hit on his head will be able to track down the culprit.</em></p>

<p>When golfers begin interfering with life-flight medical evacuation helicopters, wildfire fire retardant delivery operations, and commercial and general aviation flights, or, when the Air Line Pilots Association recommends measures be put in place to deal with golf balls and golfers, I'll be the first to agree with you.</p>

<p>I don't think you will find any pilots who have issues with golf balls and golfers. As opposed to drones and drone operators who have actually caused real endangerment to people and property.</p>

The drone sizes of 8 ounces are no threat to jets. The

requirement is because it may hurt someone if it fell

out of the sky. Like golf balls. By over reaching in the

law and including insane and silly requirements, they

will diminish the overall purpose of the law in areas

where restrictions are important. The result will be,

people will pay less attention to the law. And it won't

be enforced. It will become liked the FCC license for 1

watt walkie talkies that almost all consumers just

ignore and which are not enforced in any case.

<p>It's likely this will be the most ignored piece of legislation in a long time - there's no way without an enormous increase in bureaucracy to do anything with this information. The chance of anyone reading a tail number on a 9-oz drone is near zero. It will come into play if/when someone gets hurt and the machine can be identified. Perhaps the smart insurance companies will use this as an opportunity to add a rider to my home policy so that I'm covered if I break someone's window. It's all rather humorous, costly, and way over-the-top paranoid. </p>

<p>Interestingly, to bring this back to photography, this may provide an approach to allow commercial photographers to use drones under some set of rules. That's not clear to me, but it would be good if that is true. If it still requires additional FAA certification and approval for each flight it solves nothing in what should be a real burgeoning business.</p>

<p> </p>

It gives the authorities an easier way to deal with the next idiot who crashes a drone in a crowded area. If it's numbered

the pilot can easily be found, and if it's not and the pilot can be found anyway, it's easy to get a penalty against him.

<p>As expected, the DoT (not the FAA) has announced that they will require people using 9-ounce devices to pay the government to register their toys. If a kid has no idea that the $29, half-pound toy helicopter he got for his birthday <em>three years ago</em> has to now become a federally registered aircraft, he is subject to a civil penalty of $27,500 and a criminal fine of $250,000 and three years in jail.<br /><br />Meanwhile, people intent on operating a remote control device where they're not supposed to, or using an RC plane for something nefarious (dropping contraband over a prison wall, carrying a bomb, etc) will just ignore the new requirement, save the registration costs, and just do what they were going to do anyway.<br /><br />The administration will no doubt take proud credit for administratively bypassing the 2012 law prohibiting exactly this sort of thing, and will claim to have stopped the horrible ongoing onslaught of RC-related mayhem that ... <em>hasn't been happening at all</em>. A victory for low-information-voter-friendly theatrics that won't change a single malicious, ignorant, or negligent person's behavior. But it will definitely show that middle school kid with the curiosity and passion to build and operate a 9-ounce toy in his back yard who's boss. </p>