FAA requires drone registration

@TaRDy

Better that they institute this requirement now to avoid controversy in the future when consumer grade drones become more advanced...

@FroodyFrog Also, it would be way harder to make people do it later...like with guns...

@medz

That's what i was getting at. ;)

@FroodyFrog I'm curious if you realize just how advanced consumer grade drones are right now?

I can set up an autonomous mission for my $200 drone, flip a switch, and it will take off, fly where it was programmed to, following the path and altitudes it was programmed to, then land itself wherever it was programmed to... all with dual GPS accuracy, up to several miles away, or as far as it can travel in 15 minutes, whichever comes first. All at speeds of 20mph to 25mph. (with my $1,000 drone the distance, speed and time double).

They won't get much more advanced than that 'till, well, SkyNet...

@JerseyFrank "If you like the drone you have, you can keep the drone you have".

Last time I did that "streamlined and user friendly web based registration process" it cost me $330 a month, plus 40% of all my medical care costs AFTER meeting my $6,500 deductible...

@ruouttaurmind We SAVED over $300 a month and got peace of mind knowing we can't be denied coverage or dropped due to preexisting conditions.

@hallmike It's the whole "shared sacrifice" strategy in action. I sacrificed my $158 a month 80/20 plan with $2,000 deductible and now pay much more for far worse coverage so that others gain cost savings & guaranteed coverage.

I'm glad it worked out for you. It is a catastrophe for me. I now am paying for coverage I can't afford to use... $6,500 deductible then 40% out of pocket AFTER I meet my deductible.

@hallmike our cost went up dramatically. But the real stinger is our carrier is pulling out of Medical "Insurance" altogether 12/31/2015.

I would have supporting covering pre-existing conditions with a national pool (tax on all plans) without throwing everyone else under the bus with this craziness.

@hallmike did the monthly cost go down $300 because the actual plan cost was lower or due to the Federal subsidy? Two entirely different things.

@ruouttaurmind You may have gotten off easy. My family plan before healthcare reform cost me $750/mo. Now it costs $1300/mo for the same coverage. "luckily" my family "qualifies" for a "savings" of $100 per month, so the coverage "only" costs us $1200/mo. ("") My healthcare costs more than my mortgage and a car payment. Thanks, healthcare reform!

@RedOak Almost the same thing happening here. In FL, a particular carrier is "discontinuing" a specific tier of plans, but only in three of our 67 counties. They are trying to move everyone in these counties (Central Florida) to a high-co-pay plus co-insurance plan because reasons. Under this new plan, the co-pay to see a specialist is $125. Need to see an OB/Gyn? $125. An ENT? $125. A Podiatrist? $125. I happen to be one of the lucky ones that lives in one of said counties. It's great! And the best part is the premium is already unaffordable as it is! I agree that something needed to be done about healthcare in this Country, but this wasn't the way to do it, imo.

@danlo, @RedOak, I feel for you folks. I agree, the health care system was broken and needed to be fixed. The current system is not a fix at all. Some, like @hallmike, seem to have benefited. Many others, like you folks and myself, seem to have gotten the glorious short end of the stick.

Fortunately for me, I'm not married and have no dependents, so I can throw the dice and gamble that I won't get sick. I've opted to pay the penalty for not having health care coverage. Of course if I get married and procreate, all that will have to change. But for now at least, it's more cost effective to wad up $900 a year and throw it into the abyss in the form of a fine, versus $330 per month for coverage that, after paying the $330 monthly premium, I wouldn't have enough money left over to use.

@RedOak We make too much to qualify for the subsidy. I have insurance through my work, but she doesn't. I checked the Marketplace when it first came online and found a plan similar to what she had but with a different provider and saved $300+ per month. Didn't have to change doctors and I kept my plan through work.

@hallmike based on experience of friends and colleagues you got lucky. Especially if the coverage was truly apples to apples. It will be interesting to see how long that policy exists and/or at that rate.

@ruouttaurmind it is going to get interesting when the following three things happen:

(1) the presidentially delayed painful parts go live for the rest of the program.
(2) the folks like you (apparently very common) start paying the IRS penalties for not buying into the system. And those penalties ramp higher.
(3) the federal insurance company profit subsidies (bribes for political support) cap out and insurance companies take a bath.

@JerseyFrank

then they came for the sexbots.

literally.

@carl669

@medz Whaaa???? How'd you turn this into gun control?

@JerseyFrank You know, what with the debate over gun control and registering gun show firearms and all. It's related because registering drones is really no different from registering cars and other vehicles. Somehow only gun registration draws such controversy over wanting to track current and past owners. It's weird. I guess my TL:DR version is Drone owners are ok with drone control, so gun owners shouldn't care about gun control. It's just the government doing its job.

@JerseyFrank I agree with @medz that this is--both directly in some ways and ironically--in others related to gun control.

@medz I'm still far less afraid of drones, though…

@brhfl Guns can't record you changing clothes through the window though...most guns, anyway. Not my nipples!

@medz Eh, I'd rather my nippies be exposed to the world than shot through… ;)

@medz Drone owner here checking in, not very ok with drone control. There is no benefit to me (other than not being susceptible to a fine for not registering) for participation in this. The downside is getting the federal government involved in what toys I choose to play with. Not sure where that is enumerated as part of the federal government's job.

The bureaucracy involved for a program with limited effectiveness is ridiculous IMO and draws parallels to gun control efforts in that, much like with gun control, intentional bad actors are not going to participate in this registration program.

The one thing that this accomplishes is the government becoming able to hold someone liable if a properly labeled "drone" is either found or identified to be flying in a no fly zone. I'm waiting to find out what else it's good for.

@djslack As a responsible drone owner, you should embrace this because you know your drones will never be implicated in nefarious activities. Suppose one crashes into a transformer and takes power out to part of the town? Suppose a drone nicks an old lady's nose and causes her to fall and break her hip? If the irresponsible drone owners can just run away and not be held accountable, that gives good drone owners like you a bad name. You don't want that, do you?

@medz Are you spying on what I am have been doing today? I just wrote a piece somewhere with a similar stance o_O

@medz As a responsible citizen with libertarian leanings, I don't see where it's any business of the federal government what toys I play with. Your argument parallels those for gun registration, with the exception that the right to keep and bear drones is not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Just because I will act responsibly with my property does not give me any reason to embrace an action which I question the legal authority of the government to require. The actions of irresponsible operators give all drone operators a bad name without regard to whether they have registered their property with a body which does not regulate the airspace in which the drones operate.

@FroodyFrog Only always.

@medz I apologize for some of the things you may possibly see at nights.

@djslack This is not just a "toy" and you are just using the word because you think you are being smart using it.

No, i'm afraid not. mine are operated for my entertainment. This rule is specifically aimed at recreational users, and excludes commercial operators. The big targets are the thousands of recreational pilots who will receive them on Christmas morning. So yes, it's a toy.

@ELUNO How are my drones not "toys"? Just like Slack, I use them strictly for recreational purposes for my own entertainment. I fly for fun, I video or photograph wilderness scenery for my own amusement, just like an amateur photographer uses their camera for their own enjoyment. How is it not a toy?

@medz It's quite a stretch... one minute I'm flying my quadcopter in the park, the next minute some old lady is on death's doorstep. What about all those baseballs and ball bats that will be given to children this holiday season? How can we be sure the kiddies won't accidently hit a ball through the same old lady's front window, causing the glass to shatter, the sharp shards pelting her as she sits on her sofa enjoying a cuppa and the latest edition of Ladies Home Journal, puncturing her jugular, causing her to bleed out in a matter of a few short minutes.

Quite a stretch, isn't it...

@ruouttaurmind So the Canon Rebels and higher end models amateur photographers use nowadays are toys? lol, now you are reaching...

@djslack I can use my gun at the shooting range for my own entertainment. Does that make it a toy? lol

@ELUNO Yep. Sure does. There are certain guns that are pretty much only toys.

@ELUNO I can get a Canon Rebel T5 for less than $200. Compare it's features, capabilities and specifications to... say a Nikon D5500, Canon Rebel T6s, or Pentax K-2. Compared to the three latter models (still considered only semi-pro) the Rebel T5 is absolutely a toy. Little more than a point-n-shooter for the photography hobbyist.

@ruouttaurmind So you just fixated yourself on one shitty low end camera and ignored the whole point as a whole. You are a complete idiot and thankfully have now realized to stop wasting my time with you.

@ELUNO I thank you for maintaining the same courteous, respectful tone I have presented during our conversation.

It's the exchange of ideas and viewpoints that make forums like this an informative, educational, and a valuable part of the 'net, and I appreciate your contribution.

Hoping this finds you and yours in good health and great spirits,

@ruouttaurmind

@ELUNO - @ruouttaurmind is correct, and I would like to expand upon his sentiments that your classification of a recreational toy as a registration-worthy, potentially harmful device is circumstantial at best.

Using your camera analogy... I own a Rebel T1i, which you would certainly classify as a 'toy' compared to "higher end models amateur photographers use nowadays". I on the other hand, consider that camera to be a 'tool'. Sure, it's now 5 generations old, but it is the camera I use when I don't want to use a 'toy'. I have other Canon p/s cameras for those times.

Likewise, what I (and others, I'm sure) would consider to be dream cameras, the Canon EOS 7D Mark II, or the EOS 5D Mark III, would be considered 'toys' by comparison to someone with a studio full of EOS 1D X's.

tl;dr: Just because you think something isn't on par with higher-end products, it doesn't make it a 'toy'. Likewise, just because something is higher-end, doesn't mean it's not a 'toy' for someone else.

@danlo tl;dw: The problem is, that isn't the definition of a "toy." In fact, they are using "toy" in a derogatory way. "Oh, it isn't worth 1 trillion dollars? pshhh, what a kids toy."
So no, it is not a toy.
"toy
toi/Submit
noun
1.
an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.
"a toy car"
synonyms: plaything, game; More
2.
denoting a diminutive breed or variety of dog.
"a toy poodle"
synonyms: miniature, small, tiny, diminutive, dwarf, midget, pygmy
"a toy poodle""

@ELUNO With all due respect, you just contradicted your own point regarding quadcopters.

You wrote to @djslack "This is not just a "toy" and you are just using the word because you think you are being smart using it."

But then in your response to @danlo, you define a toy as "an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something." If a quadcopter "drone" doesn't meet that description perfectly, I have no idea what does.

Again, no disrespect intended, but you can't have it both ways. You tell @djslack an myself that our quadcopters aren't toys, then you offer a definition of "toy" that accurately describes our quadcopters.

@ruouttaurmind Sure, anything can be dangerous depending on how it's used. It's all about the amount of damage and how likely it is to happen. Baseball bats can and do hurt people. Can they take down a commercial airplane? Not likely. A drone, however, could cause quite a bit of damage which is why they're not allowed around airports. If someone clubs a group of people with a bat, folks can overpower him or at least identify him due to proximity. Drones are operated remotely. Greater potential damage + likelyhood someone could get away with doing it = need for regiatration. Same goes for cars and guns. Bats? Not so much.

@ELUNO OK, so maybe 'toy' is not the most appropriate terminology here, but certainly "recreational" should fit? I do not have any 'drones' (now synonymous with quad-copter), but I do own several r/c helicopters. I have one model in particular that has a 2-foot rotor span. My child plays with these r/c copters from time to time. To me, these are definitely 'toys', even when I (an adult) 'play' with them. By definition ("any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air."), I'm sure the FAA would require me to register my helicopters, which are solely "recreational", and by the definition of "an object for a child to play with", are also definitely 'toys'.

The lack of a clear, defined line between "toy", and "drone" is only going to create further issues. Simply specifying a weight (250g) is not a fair assessment. What If I have a 350g "drone", and I decide to strip the ferrings/body panels, crash protection, etc. from it and get it under 250g? Same exact parts and mechanisms, but now it's light enough to be considered flyable without registration.

@danlo, by the letter of the FAA ruling, ALL small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) must be registered with the FAA, whether rotor of fixed wing. I'm not sure if this has struck home yet with all the fixed wing R/C hobbyists who haven't considered they're affected too.

@ruouttaurmind I thought about that as well. There is a very large R/C park and club a few miles from my home that several hundred enthusiasts belong to / fly in. The majority of these individuals fly fixed-wing, acrobatic-focused planes. these planes span the range of values from several hundred to tens of thousands of dollars. A good friend of mine once paid $10k for an engine in his r/c plane. He and his wife enter competitions together - she calls out maneuvers and upcoming navigation requirements, and he controls the aircraft. The people that operate r/c aircraft at his level are extremely good at what they do, and very careful/responsible concerning their hobbies. I cannot see any of them deciding to do anything that would intentionally endanger anyone else. Yet, everyone at that park will be required to register.

@ruouttaurmind Not really. He is the one trying to have it not just both ways, but "all ways" by calling everything a "toy" as it best benefits him just because there are more expensive versions out there. Also, not really. Small scale models can be toys, but not all small scale models are toys. Just like not all toys are small scale models. Should be simple to understand.

@danlo Yeah, recreational might fit better. But you know, people do recreational fishing and have no problem applying for permits for that. Why would this be different?

@danlo Weight might be due to different reasons. What if a 250 drone smashing unto a flying helicopter doesn't really affect it, but something heavier might? It's not really about the model or how expensive the drone is.

@ELUNO Recreational fishing and hunting permits are a) registered with the state, not the federal government; b) required by laws passed in those states to utilize resources the state manages (wildlife and fisheries are managed resources); and, c) not posted to a public registry.

This rule by the FAA explicitly targets recreational use of remotely controlled aircraft, and specifically excludes commercial uses. It applies to airspace previously not subject to FAA regulation. It directly contradicts law passed by Congress. And the information collected is at best uncontrolled and at worst published publicly. All this for no explicit benefit to anyone involved with playing with these toys.

@danlo Weight reduction is a valid method of complying with the letter of this rule. If an arbitrary requirement is established and met, you have complied with the rule.

@djslack lol, stop wasting my time, kind sir.

(at)ELUNO, also, my definition of toy has nothing to do with expense and everything to do with purpose. If I want to use UAVs for commercial purposes I have no problem with registering, obtaining licenses, and whatever other requirements are lawfully put in place for participating in regulated commercial activity. It doesn't matter if the UAV cost $5 or $5000. There is precedent in the federal government regulating commercial activity.

If, on the other hand, I want to build and fly a twelve rotor remotely controlled multicopter that carries a 16 megapixel camera and infrared camera, that weighs 25 pounds and cost $15k to build, under 400 feet high, over my own property in uncontrolled airspace, using radio frequencies established for hobby use, it is no one's business but my own.

@djslack This is my point exactly. If the airspace up to 400ft in your own yard is truly unregulated (which it has been, historically), then what business is it of any local or federal authority what you do in that airspace, so long as you are not breaking any established local/state/federal laws while doing so. Let's not forget that some people live on several acres of land, far away from neighboring houses.

@danlo Yep. In general the airspace up to 1200' is uncontrolled airspace. However, the rules have long been that rc flight is allowed within sight and up to 400' in altitude, given restrictions for airports and other forbidden areas, so I'll take that as my point to use without raising additional challenges/gray areas.

@connorbush Not on this one, if you meet the requirement, register. Fly responsibly. There are going to be a lot of communities passing local ordinances in January like mad to appease their constituents when (literally) hundreds of thousands of these take to the skies the day after Christmas and people start freaking the fuck out. People, pets and property will be hurt and / or damaged. This will probably get very interesting.

@Pavlov drone-aggedon is nearly upon us. thanks pavlov.

@Pavlov Now if you could just figure out how to get the AI working in the drone... What would that classify as.... ;)

@sohmageek I believe that would be classified as the HK-Drone, Hunter Killer.

KuoH

@joelmw Drones aren't in the constitution though... Guns are... Less regulation on Firearms = less gun violence... look at Vermont... Hardly any regulation, least gun violence in the nation.

@sohmageek

@sohmageek And the city of Chicago has the strictest laws.
To all those who say there is nothing wrong with a national gun registry I have but one word: Australia.

If I am forced to give the government an inventory of my firearms I will abide by the law... the day before I report them to that same government as all stolen.

@medz oh my god! i can see his soul escaping from his neck hole!

@carl669 That's all the hot air he's full of! SICK BURN!

@medz

@thismyusername So lets say I just put NCC1701-D on the side of my Drone.. and deny deny deny if it crashes?

@Thumperchick - It's right there, hiding in plain sight (Obama-care [national socialism]).

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/hitlercare-vs-obamacare/

@Thumperchick Here ya go.

@dashcloud Yup and the registration being public or even poorly protected info will help no one. Imagine I buy a drone shipped from China, find some random person's registration ID and put it on the drone. Then proceed to fly it from a hidden location on to the White House lawn. Nothing will likely happen to me, but boy will that guy who's registration ID was used have a very unpleasant day.

KuoH

@ruouttaurmind Because they want the uninformed public to believe registration is a benefit to them. If they think registering might increase the chances of getting their $200 quad back, then they might actually do it. Obviously there was little thought put into privacy or data protection.

KuoH

@ruouttaurmind The FCC already does this with HAM radio operators. There is precedent. Not that you don't have a valid point.

@Thumperchick, thanks for your reply.

"Perhaps it bothers me more than it should...", but I really, really value my privacy. I don't see any constructive purpose to make that info publicly available. Most especially, I find it unconscionable and potentially harmful that they will publish personal info of minors. If only one single incident of stalking or harassment (or worse?) of a minor comes from this, it's too many.

@ruouttaurmind I agree, it bothers me that radio operators have their personal information published for all to see. I don't like the idea of a publicly accessible list of people's personal information - especially for something like a hobby. It's disconcerting to say the least.

@DaveInSoCal found a reddit thread. guy that owns it says it weighs 107g.

@DaveInSoCal From this thread on RCGroups: The X5C is just over 88g, the battery adds another 14.6g.

@carl669 thanks!