Drones may soon be required to be registered.

[andylynn]

<p>Good! This clarifies that you don't have to consider the "will it be out of line-of-sight" question and make a judgment call on whether to register your drone, registration is free for the first three years, and it avoids placing any burden on the recreational user who only operates within line of sight aside from spending five minutes with a web site and a sharpie. The next moron who <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/04/437539727/drone-crash-at-u-s-open-new-york-city-teacher-arrested">crashes a drone at a sporting event</a> will be easily tracked, and the hobby users who don't stay within line of sight operation can be held to whatever other rules are being considered.</p>

<p>Isn't "This law is pointless because criminals will break it" an argument against all laws in general? Also, the registration program <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/">clearly belongs to the FAA</a>, which is turn belongs to the DOT, so I don't see why the DOT being involved should be considered offensive.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If it clearly belongs to the FAA, then it directly violates the plainly worded 2012 FMRA <em>law</em>. The attempt to get around the law through the auspices of the DoT (this was a hot topic of discussion among the panel members on the advisory board that, as it turns out, was of course completely ignored) is offensive because of the arrogance it signals on the part of the administration, in its contempt for congress.<br /><br />As for the next person who crashes something being easily tracked ... how will that work, exactly, if the bad guy doesn't feel like registering, or writes down a made-up or illegible number? As usual, the rule only really applies to people who are inclined to be thoughtful in the first place. Malicious operators aren't going to run out and announce themselves to the government, let alone write incriminating information on the RC planes they build.<br /><br />As for LOS, etc., this has no bearing on that. That's only for commercial operators, and is still under discussion. The FAA is legally barred from regulating hobby users on that front, just as they are barred from the sort of new bureaucracy they've just created. There are already several organizations putting together legal challenges on the simple grounds that the 2012 law is being plainly violated in letter and spirit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't "This law is pointless because criminals will break it" an argument against all laws in general?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Because criminal prosecution isn't prior restraint. And this isn't a law, it's a regulation ... with very dubious authority to present that middle school hobbyist with a jail term for flying his half-pound plastic toy in his back yard without magic numbers on it. <br /><br />The real treasure here is the DoT officially calling that 12 year old kid with a 9-ounce toy an "aviator," and the 9-ounce toy an "aircraft." Interestingly, that pronouncement will probably kick off a lot of courtroom friction as hundreds of state and local RC toy rules fall apart in the face of the elevation of RC toys to "aircraft," which are out of bounds for local regulation and are strictly federal territory.</p>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>As for the next person who crashes something being easily tracked ... how will that work, exactly, if the bad guy doesn't feel like registering, or writes down a made-up or illegible number?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Then when they do find him there will be more punishments piled on. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The real treasure here is the DoT officially calling that 12 year old kid with a 9-ounce toy an "aviator," and the 9-ounce toy an "aircraft."</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You yourself referred to a drone as an aircraft when arguing that it's not legal to down one that trespasses on your property! You think that flying a drone above somebody's roof level is not trespass because it's an aircraft in the public air highway. But you also don't think it's subject to regulations as an aircraft in the public air highway.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it clearly belongs to the FAA, then it directly violates the plainly worded 2012 FMRA <em>law</em>. The attempt to get around the law through the auspices of the DoT (this was a hot topic of discussion among the panel members on the advisory board that, as it turns out, was of course completely ignored) is offensive because of the arrogance it signals on the part of the administration, in its contempt for congress.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Then it's DOT that is doing the work. The FAA is the part of the DOT that is tasked with regulation and oversight of commercial aviation. When Congress instructs DOT to do something, DOT delegates it to FAA. This is not "contempt for Congress." What would you have DOT do, task the drone regulations to the Federal Railroads Administration? Perhaps the Secretary of Transportation should have asked the St. Lawrence Seaway administrator to write up the drone rules? No? Then it's down to the aviation people.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Andy: Show me where I said that flying <em>at roof level</em> without permission of the roof's owner isn't trespass. Be specific.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Then it's DOT that is doing the work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. The law bans the FAA from doing what's just been done, which is why the administration used the FAA-centric language/construction in the 2012 law to get around the clear intent of congress. Congress instructed <em>the FAA</em> to NOT do something. They <em>prohibited</em> the FAA from doing what was just done. You seem to be suggesting that that's OK, as long as that agency's parent entity does it, instead.<br /><br />So, if congress passes a law explicitly saying that the TSA cannot racially profile passengers, are you OK if DHS institutes such a program, instead? Or if the the FBI is barred, in a law passed through congress, from reading the internal content of your email, is it OK of the DoJ does it, instead? After all, it would be the DoJ "doing the work," right? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What would you have DOT do, task the drone regulations to the Federal Railroads Administration? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>What? I would have the DoT leave aviation safety regulations to the FAA, where that expertise and structure already exists and which is chartered for that very purpose, and then I would expect that agency to follow the law. With respect to the topic at hand, the law plainly prohibits what was just done. How is this confusing?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Bad timing for new registration plan if you oppose it. Check on the video in the story. PS> How do you make it a link?<br>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/12/22/top-slalom-skier-nearly-taken-out-by-drone-during-world-cup-race/</p>