Drones may soon be required to be registered.

[Matt Laur]

<p>Not basing my thoughts on "alarmist reports," Andy. Basing it on what was actually said by the officials at the announcement. They explicitly mentioned hobbyists, and retro-active registration, and targeting those who don't comply. </p>

[andylynn]

And a committee is being formed to write the rules on which drones must be registered, which implies that not all drones

must be registered. Given that the statute already exempt hobby and recreational use at low altitudes with line of sight,

and that it's already been explained that registration is part of the overall enforcement program, all this talk of separation

of powers violations and "your kid's toy helicopter" is clearly premature.

[DB_Gallery]

<p>Thank.<br>

God.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Andy: they came right out and said that such distinctions may be based on size or weight. But not on <em>user</em>. Contrary the continuing-to-be-ignored law, the DoT (<em>not</em> the FAA) is talking about policing and targeting (their choice of word, not mine) all RC users, including recreational/hobbyists. The task force is looking to split hairs over whether or not the no-GPS-involved $15 mall kiosk toy is "a drone," but they are resolved on the question of whether the new regulation and its supporting bureaucracy will include, contrary to the law, non-commercial users. They've said that it will.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The FAA is the part of the DoT that regulates aviation. The Secretary of Transportation was in charge of the announcement because he has authority over the FAA. The FAA Administrator also spoke at the announcement today, at which the agency announced that a task force is being formed, and one of its responsibilities will be to decide which drones and owners will be exempt from registration. This <em>clearly and </em><em>unambiguously</em> means that, contrary to alarmist pre-announcement web articles by people who were not fully informed, the new regulations <em>will exempt some drones and owners</em>, which Congress directed in the statute.</p>

<p>I don't get why this is controversial. How is forming a panel to come up with the protocol for deciding whether a drone is going to be regulated the same thing as ignoring the statute? This is how regulatory agencies work. Congress passes a statute, which is actually an instruction to a regulating authority because the legislature does not have the ability to implement. The regulating authority follows some process or other to make the regulations that it uses to implement the statute. Usually this involves some filling in of details. The regulations are also "laws," just like statutes and court decisions.</p>

<p>For example: Congress says regulate drones but don't apply this to recreational usage and gives some guidelines about what that means. DoT/FAA decides that to implement regulations on drones it will need to register the drones. They won't have to register the drones that won't be regulated because they are strictly recreational, but they'll need a process to decide which drones those are.</p>

<p>This is perfectly reasonable. You just object, reflexively, to anything that interferes with drone use, but that's not a reasonable position.</p>

[donald_miller5]

When it comes to transponders and gps systems that would restrict flying in designated areas how could they be enforced. Unless these

functions are highly integrated or deeply embedded in the RC hardware and software there will probably be a large segment who would

disable or remove them from their equipment just on general principle alone. The FAA can write all the regulations they want but at what

point are they going to enforce them or are they able to depending on how much of their resources they are going to expend on it. I can

not see them driving around looking for rather benign balsa wood and glue artifacts and seizing them.

 

Some people have drawn analogies to CB radios. There were all these urban legends where everyone knew somebody who had a fleet

of directional radio finder vehicles pull up in front of their homes and were invaded by FCC agents who seized all the equipment and

imposed all kinds of huge fines and punitive actions.

[henry_finley1]

<p>The FCC is too busy enforcing the border. (that was a joke). What is a drone? Isn't that some kind of bee? Does this mean I can't fly my Carl Goldberg Eaglet in the soybean field after they combined it? Or do I have to pray to the God of Liberalism and hope I don't get arrested as a terrorist? After all, I might chase a buzzard with it.<br>

Drone. Yeah, whatever.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Pretty soon the FAA will ask to certify an airworthiness certificate for all registered non piloted RC drones over a certain power and size. And then they will have to decide on fuel and communications. Do they then have different visual and instrument ratings. One never knows when an agency gets its hands into a new pot. Trouble is that they never got over the rise and fall of the DC10 affair. Remember the cargo doors? The crashing deck floors and gutted cables and wires.. Long memories has the bureaucracy when bad stuff happens to good people.

 

This will be n interesting case of wait and see and how the RC industry lobbies. So far our exurban neighborhood has had only military helo flyovers in bad weather when they have to miss the quiet flt path, and even then they get a ration of calls, To the poor Wheeler Amy base PIO.

[jpo3136b]

<p>I feel like this is part of our social change that's coming about from more people moving to cities. It's seems similar to attitude changes towards amateur radio, firearms use and off-road transportation. In my state over 80% of our land is rural or semi-rural. If you crashed your drone or fired your shotgun or wrecked your four wheeler two counties away, no one would care. In town, you might make the news.</p>

<p>We see a lot of political discussions about things like this where geography, having space, is an important part of mitigating risk. Yet, we don't often talk about it. It is as though everyone lives in suburbia or "The City." Meanwhile these same activities could take place over the surface of most of our land and no one would care.</p>

<p>If you crashed your drone in the country, you might have trouble finding it. If you flew your drone in the city, you might need to find a lawyer. If you crashed your drone in the city, you might need an ad agency to help you with public relations during the televised lawsuit.</p>

<p>Too bad we're not smart enough, as a group, to use a map when considering public policies. Maybe we'll get there. If we could bring ourselves to use population densities as a common part of safety discussions, then a lot of this stuff would get sorted out with less yelling.</p>

[DickArnold]

I think I will weigh in. Quite sometime ago I worked in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. After that I

joined the FAA and wound up the Integrated Product Team Leader for GPS and Navigation research, development

and acquisition. The office of the Secretary to my knowledge does not possess the technical expertise nor the

budget to take on major programs. The FAA budget is done by line item by program and that is where the contract

money is appropriated. It is my guess that the Secretary wanted some visibility (he is a polictical appointee) so he

announced the program. He is supported by the FAA and when i was responible for the GPS R&D budget no matter

who announced what about GPS they had to come to my organization for R&D because we received the

appropriation by line item for specific programs. So you can bet the FAA is de facto supporting the Secretary. UAV

regulation is a tough thing to manage for anyone. As Matt rightfully said one has not yet bashed an airplane, and I

would say "yet". The threat is amorphous and ill defined. The big question is where do you place resources when

you have such an ill defined threat I am also an experienced pilot. So I view the threat from a bureucratic view and

also from a pilots view. I flew in Viet Nam and I know what worried me there. A drone weighing a pound or less

does not worry me much but a forty pound drone could do some real damage. So classification of these aircraft by

weight and actual capability to do harm would seem appropriate and makes good sense. Doing this could exempt a

great many drones. The larger drones probably should be registered perhaps. We ran into a problem in assessing

airline aviation hazards because there are so few airline accidents these it is hard to define trends. Yet, these

accidents still happen. We have no real trends with drones. It seems to me that the bigger and more expensive they

get the more responsibly they are operated motivated by investment protection if nothing else. There is also a

strong political factor that I don't have explain in all of this. What I hope is happening is what happened long ago in

aviation and that is aviation manufacturers, airlines and the FAA working together. RTCA a non-FAA organization

that develops consensus standards for equipment certification, design and manufacter based upon FAA and industry

input. If I were in the FAA today I would certainly not want the drone job because "if you don't know where you are

going any road will get you there" Matt I understand your concerns because bureaucracies sometimes react badly

and for the wrong reasons. I just hope whover does this upcoming regulation uses some common sense.

[craig_gillette]

<p>FUD abounds. Yet there is not small amount of precedence suggesting "drone" fans shouldn't be worried about the government wading into this arena. For example, in California, there are registration fees and a vehicle license fee (tax) and since California is one the states with the highest sales and gas taxes and personal income taxes, it's become important for some politicians to suggest that increasing the license tax is a good way to raise even more money. Politically, cars are "bad." So we might expect the idea that registration will bring with it fees, more fees, and then some. Also discussions I've seen suggest that either the rumors are, uh, interesting, or that some involved in the rules process are unfamiliar with some of the practical issues. Like one story I saw suggested "they" wanted the rules in place before the holiday shopping season yet others that small toy or hobbiest "drones" aren't the target of the effort. </p>

<p>Others have suggested "tail numbers?" That reeks of practicality. Not that having some way of tracking by number might not be worthwhile in some ways but that presupposes that enough of the craft will be recovered to track the number and that somehow the numbers are permanent enough to not be obliterated physically or electronically without some effort. That will lead back to the casual user/abuser but isn't necessarily helpful at all when someone wants to intentionally bypass the "system."</p>

<p>Historically, in 1960 the rules changed for placing numbers on civil aircraft. They were no longer required on wing surfaces. A relative in law enforcement commented at one point that the change impacted the ability to deal with low flying aircraft. It had been kind of possible to read wing numbers. After the change, they were only required on vertical surfaces. So if someone was buzzing a "friend" or whatever, the change made it very difficult for a ground observer to read the numbers. That suggests to me that external numbering except on the largest craft is not going to of practical importance in controlling abusive flying. But, dang, it sure sounds good.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The proposal in the EU is that drones are to be given a chip (ic) that holds its ID. The drone's ID and its owner will be recorded in a register.<br>That requires that the drone, or at least the chip in it, is recovered before it can be determined who the owner is. But it's better than nothing.<br>The chip could also be of the RFID sort, making it easier to find and read. Maybe an even more powerful transponder would be possible, so determining the ID could be done at distance.

[AlanKlein]

<p>Why is it better than nothing? It seems like a waste of money, time and resources to set up a whole government division to keep and store all these chips. And then all the stores that sell these drones have to keep records and forward them to the government, another huge cost and waste of time. And if the drone buzzes a place it doesn't belong, the chip is of no value unless in an unlikely event the drone crashes. Only then could you recover the chip. It seems that doing nothing is better. </p>

<p>The FAA should go slow. Make reasonable rules like no flying near airports and above certain heights without pre-approval. Let's see what happens. Just how dangerous are these things? If it turns out they are more dangerous, so then tighten the rules. But I think the news outlets are ratcheting up the supposed danger because that kind of news sells.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> The FAA should go slow. Make reasonable rules like no flying near airports and above certain heights without pre-approval. Let's see what happens.</p>

<p>The FAA has had reasonable rules. But they're not working. Since August pilots have reported 650 close calls with aircraft (including drones coming within 100 feet of commercial airlines during landing at JFK), that number expected to rise to more than 1,000 by the end of the year. Drones have interfered with LifeLine medical evacuation helicopters a number of times. Drones have interfered with and suspended air tanker fire retardant delivery operations multiple times when battling massive wildfires in California.</p>

<p>"Let's see what happens" was given a chance and is not enough. The Air Line Pilots Association has called on the FAA for stronger measures, including collision avoidance technology on drones, and for air traffic controllers to be able to identify drones on radar - presumably via transponders.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Brad: Those "close call" stats have been solidly debunked. Further, many of the legitimate sitings were of <em>government operated UAVs</em>, not anything that commercial or hobby fliers were operating. Those were larger UAVs that <em>were carrying transponders</em> and of course that had no impact on the fact that they were in the wrong place or not coordinating properly with ATC. <br /><br />The ALPA's suggestions are driven almost entirely by the awareness that given time, UAS technology is going to put a lot of their paying members out of work. </p>

[AlanKlein]

Collision avoidance transponders on hobby drones?

They don't even have them on most private airplanes I

believe. What do these things cost and how heavy are

they?

 

As an aside, how does the limit on drones work that

prevent going higher than let's say 500 feet since the

landing will be at different elevations depending where

you start from. For example, Denver is already 5,000

feet high.

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Brad: Those "close call" stats have been solidly debunked.</p>

<p>All of them? How many? Has the FAA amended their report with your information and released it to the public?</p>

<p>>>> The ALPA's suggestions are driven almost entirely by the awareness that given time, UAS technology is going to put a lot of their paying members out of work.</p>

<p>Is what you're saying is that the Air Line Pilots Association's position is not motivated by concern for the safety of their passengers and aircraft, but rather an agenda relating to long-term job retention?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Maybe ALPA is concerned with both.</p>

[DickArnold]

What I said above is that the nature of the threat has to be defined before you can act against it. I agree with the

ALPA concern as I would be concerned were if I were still flying today. I think Brad has legitmate concerns but so far there is

not enough empirical statistical evidence to determine where enforcement, registration and drone equipage should be

directed. This is very new to the aviation and airspace milieau. It's like firing a shotgun at a flock of birds hoping to hit

one. My father taught me to pick a single target if I hoped to hit a duck. It's the same here. Just where should DOT or the

FAA put their emphasis. With forty-five years working in aviation or flying airplanes or being an aviation bureaucrat

managing programs I would not like to manage this one inside the FAA. There is a limited budget for all of these

things and there are not enough Congresionally appropriated program funds to cover every thing that is needed. The

legislators are also the first ones to excoriate bureaucrats when things go wrong. This is one duck who has had his tail feathers singed. So we have to find the right duck in the flock to aim at. That is still being determined. I started flying in 1954 and I know that there is a lot of blood behind the historic development of aviation regulation. An old quote "It takes an unusual amount ot tension to create significant progress" The first blood will probably create that tension. We'll see. It is one thing to pass a law and totally another to appropriate enough money in a specific budget line item to fund it and to authorize the additional hires to enforce it.

[DickArnold]

Brad,I came within about ten feet of a C-130 over the Ho Chi Minh trail, All I could see was the Landing gear pod as I

went by it. I will guarantee you that I was not worried about my long term future. I was worried about the next fifteen

seconds of my life as I dove under him. The big problem in Class B airspace is that you fly instrument approaches where you cannot see in front of you in cloud and there is no way of knowing that a drone may be in your flight path when you break out of the overcast with little latitude to take evasive action close to the ground. That is unless drone operation around airports is monitored and strictly controlled. The FAA has made rules but such things are legitimately worrisome to pilots. Ask Sullinger what a 10 pound goose can do.

[Matt Laur]

<p>I would suggest, Dick, that the mass and density of a Canadian goose is actually a much bigger risk than a 3-pound frangible plastic toy copter or even one of the larger 10-pound carbon fiber flavor machines. And of course Captain Sullenberger went right through a flock and ingested multiple birds into BOTH engines, which is why he lost all power and had to ditch. <br /><br />Quite the encounter with that C-130 - yowza!<br /><br />You're right that the nature and reality of the threat needs to be understood. Right now, all we have are simple statistics - many dead every year in general aviation accidents (almost all a result of human error), but so far - despite millions of air-hours on drones, including some idiots around airports - zero collisions and of course zero injuries (let alone death). People are far, far more likely to die in their own car on the way to the airport than they are in any sort of air accident, and so far not a single person has been hurt in any kind of event involving an RC machine in the air. Keeping in mind that people have been flying them for decades - including many clubs that actually have their operations right near airports.<br /><br />So far, the most notable sitings of "drones" by general aviation pilots have been their encounters with government-operated drones - the kinds that are actually big enough to see at a distance. The military has very tight coordination with air traffic control, has transponders on every one of those birds, and they are operated by highly skilled pilots with a career at stake ... and they have managed to get under foot as much BECAUSE they are permitted to operate in those areas, just like GA pilots have close encounters with other manned aircraft operated by confuse, mistaken, or misdirected pilots all the time.<br /><br />Point being, throwing a bunch of registration-oriented paperwork at hobbyists - who in their vast numbers have no interest in causing trouble or operating in controlled air space, and the vast majority of whom are already operating machines that have built-in GPS-based geofencing and no-fly-zone awareness - simply isn't going to remove the risk of a malicious operator. So far, most of the malicious operators have been more inclined to try to smuggle contraband into prisons - something people have been trying to use technology to do for as long as there have been prisons!</p>

[andylynn]

That sounds like the kind of problem that registration would help to reduce.

[Matt Laur]

<p>Which problem is that, Andy? All of the general aviation deaths that have occurred this year (another several just last week) all involved "registered" machines operated by trained and certified pilots. We can't compare that to a count of injuries or deaths involving general aviation accidents tangled up RC models, because there weren't any this year. Or ever, as there have never been any, ever. But hundreds and hundreds of people have died in "registered" aircraft just this year. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem you're saying that registration will reduce. We can't reduce something that hasn't ever happened.</p>

[DickArnold]

I agree that a ten pound goose has denser substance than most drones. I have handled several different drones

and they are quite light and fragile and maybe frangible in conflict with compressor blades on a large jet engine.

What we ought to do is what we did with chickens when jet engines came out and throw a bunch of them into jet

engines on test stands and see what happens. This may help to define the problem. I bet we could determine a

mass and substance that is frangible and exempt drones with those characteristics. Although that presupposes that

we make ingestion of drones by jet engines acceptable. I think some of those chickens became frangible and the

engines kept running. Temperatures around turbine blades get up over 1800 f. They certainly got cooked on the

way out. That also would provide information for drone construction. You can't get much data solely waiting for

accidents to provide it. Trying to register a million drones without developing a massive registry is not practical IMO. We have to exempt a lot of them by evaluating potential hazards, size, mass, operating areas with actual risk analysis.

Enforcement will be a nightmare. This large fine levied by the FAA is a great deterrent. The FAA has never had enough inspectors to do their job of monitoring the aviation industry. It relies on designees in industry for significant supplementation. However designees with Matt's qualifications and interest could be a great help. Airline maintenance inspections are largely records of inspections

based upon industry compliance as shown in the records. Almost anything suggested for drones requires significant

regulatory budget and personnel. That is why I think important we avoid a shotgun approach to tame this ever

growing beast and target our approaches. BTW I am just thinking out loud. Lastly, built in electronic limitations are

gaining acceptance. IMO it is the way to go. UAV proximity sensors should be high priority. It is the electronic

version of the old "see and be seen and avoid".

[AlanKlein]

<p>I'm curious about the way drones are operated now around people's property. For example, real estate agents use these things to get stills and videos for home sale listings. When they fly these things, how can they do that without getting over other people's property especially in urban and surburban areas? Do they get permission from the neighbors? Do they just alert them or do they just fly the drones without notification?</p>

<p>If I had a drone and was flying it for fun, I might notify my neighbor just so they know what's going on. I can't imagine that's going to be a big deal. Neighbors are going to know you have one of these things after the first time you fly it. And when you fly it with your grandkids when they come over, the neighbors will probably just ignore it knowing it's you. I think these things are just going to work themselves out and it;s just the papers that are making a big case out of it. (Other than in airport areas).</p>

<p>Regarding the lawsuit at hand, there was no mention of the size of the guy's property. If he lived on a 50 acre farm, then the use of a shotgun would be looked at differently than if the guy was shooting with neighbor's homes twenty feet away. What was the situation the judge decided in?</p>