FAA Registration

[Spyder3534]

What do you guys think about the registration requirements?

Where do you think they will draw the line (size, weight, gps enabled, ect)?

[4_Props]

Nothing new in the rules for hobbyist. 400 feet high, 5 miles from airport, line of sight for FPV w/watcher. I can't see my Proto-X or H8 mini needing to register as they are toys. I'm assuming we would get a sticker to put on our bigger quads that has a registration number on it.

As I posted in another forum, this is due to two things. The media calling our quads/multirotors 'Drones'. Drones are killing people in Afghanistan. And the people that buy a 'toy' and see how high they can go. With no clue to rules or safety. This is again the case of a few impacting many.

I read the FAA is going to create an App to use your phone's GPS to identify when you are in a no fly zone. That could help us who are responsible.

[JonJet]

There are currently no new proposed regulations, laws or the like that have an effect on the hobbyist...

Congress gave us an exemption from FAA regulation in 2012

Ignore the media hype and FAA / DOT flag-waving...it's meaningless

[JohnCC]

Nothing new in the rules for hobbyist.

The exact rules haven't been posted yet. Registration will be required for hobbyists unlike before. What that registration entails and how it will work has yet to be revealed. We won't know until mid-November.

[JonJet]

Originally Posted by JohnCC

The exact rules haven't been posted yet. Registration will be required for hobbyists unlike before. What that registration entails and how it will work has yet to be revealed. We won't know until mid-November.

Originally Posted by JonJet

There are currently no new proposed regulations, laws or the like that have an effect on the hobbyist...

Congress gave us an exemption from FAA regulation in 2012

Ignore the media hype and FAA / DOT flag-waving...it's meaningless

[JonJet]

Just received email from AMA...which endeavors to KEEP hobbyists exempt from the registration process...


Dear Member,

As you might be aware, in a press conference on Monday October 19, 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced its intent to require registration for certain small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS).
Led by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, a concept was laid out calling for the creation of a task force to develop a plan to implement the registration process.
AMA was represented at the press conference by Government and Regulatory Affairs Representative Rich Hanson who offered comments on behalf of our organization. Representatives from the Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International (AUVSI) and the Air Line Pilots Association also provided input.

AMA has also been invited to participate in the task force which has been charged with completing its work by mid-November 2015.
The DOT is looking at the full spectrum of sUAS that would be subject to registration, and AMA agrees that registration may be appropriate at some level; however, before the process can be established, AMA believes that a threshold must be identified that will determine which platforms, what aircraft with what capabilities, will require registration and which will not.
AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process.
AMA was clear in its position that any required registration process “should not become a prohibitive burden for recreational users who fly for fun and educational purposes and who have operated harmoniously within our communities for decades.”
AMA does not and will not support any proposal that calls for the registration of any sUAS that fall below an established threshold and is resolute in its position that all forms of traditional model aircraft must remain exempt from the registration process.

[JohnCC]

AMA believes that traditional model aircraft, as well as the “toy-type” drones with minimal capability would fall below the threshold and not be subject to the registration process.

So the question remains is 350QX a toy under the threshold, or not?

In the manual Blade says in big bold red letters "this is not a toy."

[JonJet]

The question remains because the threshold has not been set...

AMA has been invited to become part of the task force, and desires a threshold

Whether the 350QX will be below or above will wait to be determined...but until then, you can fly it within the 2012 hobbyist exemption...and probably for a good long while after

[flightengr]

I know the AMA is supposed to be our advocate on this legal stuff, but I don't feel like they're going about this realistically. They're absolutely adamant that any new rules would not affect "traditional model aircraft" or "recreational flying" and should only affect commercial use of sUAS, but the problem is that the general public won't make that distinction. Anything that any RC flyers do - and do badly - will reflect poorly on all operation of RC aircraft, including the hobby and lead to more rules.

Seriously, if the FAA wants to register "drones" that are over 1 kilogram (for example - there will be a line somewhere), then there's no way you can make an exception for a 1/4-scale Cub that probably weighs 30 times that.

I'd like to see the AMA be part of the solution, and I think part of that solution means that even people flying sUAS for recreation will need to bend a little bit and go along with the plan.

Also, this registration concept is not new. The proposed Part 107 rules for commercial use include a provision to register the aircraft just like any other aircraft and display a tail number in a font that's as large as is feasible for that aircraft.

And, hello pot, this is kettle. To fly at a club field, we all need to be registered AMA members, and we're all supposed to put our AMA number on the aircraft. I don't think an FAA registration process would be any more arduous than it is to be an AMA member now.

Don't get me wrong - I think the AMA adds value to the hobby overall. I just don't agree with their absolute distinction between the hobby or commercial use of the exact same aircraft. I just don't think it's practical. And I'll be really disappointed if they end up making a distinction between multi-rotors and planes, effectively segregating the multi-rotor flyers. I have a bad feeling that's what they mean when they say "which platforms [and] capabilites" need regulating.

[Jskrapper]

I got the same email from the AMA. I am assuming the 350qx will fall into the 'Needs to be registered" category and if so, I will comply. Unhappily. But I want to do everything I can to prove that I am a true pilot of my aircraft and accept any responsibility that comes with that title. I will be putting my AMA# and my full name inside my aircraft in a somewhat see-able place before the weekend.

It is just like the automotive world. I register my cars, and still have a lot of authority to modify them. But I have to follow certain guidelines and laws if I decide to drive them on public roads. Just like flying my toy in public airspace.

If I go to the track with my car, I have to follow their rules, and if I go to a sanctioned field, I will have to follow their rules. It is necessary to weed out the idiots and educate those capable of learning.

[Russrcfan]

First I want to say that I'm against more government regulation. Too much control there and don't they have a lot bigger issues to deal with then me flying my multi rotor around in a safe manner? I know , it's the idiots that don't that has gotten us all the bad press. But , if I'm flying my 350 around in accordance with the laws, then how will registration hurt? Believe me when I say I'm the last person to condone giving the Feds more power and money. But I follow the rules. So how is it a problem to register? I think that I disagree with having to do it but I want more info, the pros and cons of registration. At this point I think they need to worry about bigger issues. I just want to know how this is going to affect us in the end. I'm against more regulation at this point but I want to hear all sides of the discussion as I am new to the hobby and would prefer to make my opinion on all the facts.

[Giant Tortoise]

Originally Posted by JohnCC

So the question remains is 350QX a toy under the threshold, or not?

In the manual Blade says in big bold red letters "this is not a toy."

It said that in my Hubsan manual.

[Spyder3534]

I am worried that registration will open up the ability for law enforcement to start unnecessarily hassling pilots.

That said I think that registration is a good idea, especially for birds that are GPS enabled and have an FPV downlink, its just too easy to fly out of LOS right out of the box.

As far as I'm concerned, because I already have my name and number written on my quad, I am already in compliance with what they are trying to do.

[JaggedEdge]

Originally Posted by Spyder3534

I am worried that registration will open up the ability for law enforcement to start unnecessarily hassling pilots.

That said I think that registration is a good idea, especially for birds that are GPS enabled and have an FPV downlink, its just too easy to fly out of LOS right out of the box.

As far as I'm concerned, because I already have my name and number written on my quad, I am already in compliance with what they are trying to do.

...and not just "drones". Everyone flying anything is going to be hassled if the LEO is less than reasonable.
Thanks guys!

[stilldre]

Originally Posted by JohnCC

So the question remains is 350QX a toy under the threshold, or not?

In the manual Blade says in big bold red letters "this is not a toy."

Thats more to cover there selfs i think matey ig you hand it over to a young child and he lumps half his fingers off they got something to back them up i expect lol

not that bothered about the rules tbh i keep under reg height and dont fly fpv either and am located 8miles from nearest airport here.

bit that bugs me about the media is one day drones are death and destruction like terminator next day there telling us how useless they are for helping recued climbers or hill side rescue teams etc

should make there mind up quadcopters are here to stay there not going anywhere fast tbh,you look at how many progs we watch know use drones for camera work that used to use RL helis etc

[JohnCC]

Guys, I get that, but let's be honest here.

350QX is not a toy, it can in fact be dangerous. The blades will cut you and it can cause property damage. It's a decent size quad with long range and can hit speeds up to 45mph. Does anyone really think that it fits into the AMA “toy-type” drones category?

I see people making wise cracks on other forums about having to "Register their drone" and taking pictures of the little cheerson's, symas, and nano qxes. There is no way those "drones" will fall within the threshold realistically. The Syma X5C-1 can barely break 150 ft, and the nano qx wouldn't hurt anyone.

The DJI Phantom and quads similar to it -- which is what the government is really after in MY opinion -- is likely going to be classed as a hobby drone with rules regarding registration. I feel like 350QX would most likely qualify as well.

Originally Posted by flightengr

They're absolutely adamant that any new rules would not affect "traditional model aircraft" or "recreational flying" and should only affect commercial use of sUAS, but the problem is that the general public won't make that distinction.

A very smart comment.

[stilldre]

Very true john you could do a lot of damage with these 350qx if it went wrong

i thought there was some sort of wieght limit too on the faa regs? sure the 350qx falls under this wieght? ie 55 lbs?

[flightengr]

Originally Posted by Spyder3534

I am worried that registration will open up the ability for law enforcement to start unnecessarily hassling pilots.

Originally Posted by JaggedEdge

...and not just "drones". Everyone flying anything is going to be hassled if the LEO is less than reasonable.
Thanks guys!

Trust me, local law enforcement wants nothing to do with this mess. The FAA still has sole jurisdiction of the airspace, and so far they have not delegated any powers to local authorities. All a LEO would do is react to a sitaution where someone is flying in an irresponsible manner, and then the LEO would have to decide if a local regulation applies ("disorderly conduct" is a nice catch-all). If there is no local regulation, then the best the LEO can do is take a report and pass the report along to the FAA field office for them to do whatever with it.

[JonJet]

Originally Posted by flightengr

Trust me, local law enforcement wants nothing to do with this mess. The FAA still has sole jurisdiction of the airspace, and so far they have not delegated any powers to local authorities. All a LEO would do is react to a sitaution where someone is flying in an irresponsible manner, and then the LEO would have to decide if a local regulation applies ("disorderly conduct" is a nice catch-all). If there is no local regulation, then the best the LEO can do is take a report and pass the report along to the FAA field office for them to do whatever with it.

If I were Vulcan...and I'm not, although I have been accused of being "too perfect" with My micro setup procedures...

I think My response to LEO (and all his FAA/DOT cronies) would be...

Go To Hell

[flightengr]

Originally Posted by stilldre

Very true john you could do a lot of damage with these 350qx if it went wrong

i thought there was some sort of wieght limit too on the faa regs? sure the 350qx falls under this wieght? ie 55 lbs?

Right now, everything under 55 lbs is treated the same way. To be licensed properly for commerical or governmental use today, the 350QX would be treated the same way as a very large, plane-like unmanned aircraft. As we all know, that's kind of absurd. The FAA is looking for more logical points to draw lines to have practical regulations for different kinds of sUAS.

If I were to place a bet, I think the line for registration will be at 1 kg. I know the manufacturers are pushing for 2 kg or even 3 kg, but a lot of the drones between 1 kg and 2 kg (like a 350QX or a DJI Phantom) are the ones making the headlines. Anything below the line will be considered a "micro sUAS" and will be subject to a lot less regulation.

There's where I think the AMA's stance is unreasonable. The AMA is representing a lot of people who only fly planes and only fly them at club fields because that's the only location where it's practical to do so. That's why I'm afraid the AMA is going to try to segment the sUAS world into "fixed-wing airplanes" and something else. Like I said, it's not practical to say the limit is 1 kg for a "rotary-wing aircraft not being flown at a club filed" but 55 lbs for "fixed-wing aircraft flown under the direction of a nationally-sanctioned membership organization".

The AMA has a lot of heli pilots in their membership as well, so I'm not sure where this would leave them. I think it's only the multi-rotors the AMA is looking to separate out, but I'm not sure how you draw the line between that and a conventional-style heli. They both have the same VTOL capability and therefore can be flown anywhere in theory, so I don't know how you can exclude one and not the other.

I fly them all and I'm an AMA member... where does that leave me?!