
New U.S. FAA rule requires drone owners to register by Feb 19 - jhull
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drones-registration-idUSKBN0TX1RP20151214
======
eykanal
The comments here really surprise me. My dad's a pilot, and I've heard from
him firsthand how drones are a very serious problem for airplanes. Comments
like "this is just one more example of tracking" or "I can't believe I have to
do this even if it's only for my house" seem to be said out of anger rather
than from serious consideration of the issues with drones. Your $30 drone can
very easily cause someone else's $1,000,000 airplane serious damage, and as
drones get more sophisticated and more capable the danger will only increase.

I want to say "Just because you can make it doesn't mean you can use it
irresponsibly", but people will take issue with my use of the words "can't"
and "irresponsibly". It's probably easier to say as follows: when you're
playing in the sandbox, you play nice with other kids. Here, when you're
playing in the air, you have to play nice with other things in the air. The
fact your toy is tiny and easy to use doesn't change the fact that you're
still playing in the same sandbox as everyone else.

~~~
Someone1234
If the drone pilot is flying outside of controlled airspace (e.g. airport,
major event, etc) and below 1,000 feet, and somehow an aircraft and drone
collide then it is the aircraft pilot's fault. It is illegal to fly below
1,000 feet except in an emergency or in controlled airspace.

If your "dad" is routinely flying low enough over urban areas so that drones
are a legitimate concern then they're likely also routinely breaking FAA rules
and I hope they get fined.

Also, this is why most aircraft have insurance...

~~~
niccaluim
"It is illegal to fly below 1,000 feet"

Where on earth did you read that? Yes, the rule is 1,000 feet above the
highest obstacle within a radius of 2,000 feet when over a congested area, but
when not flying over a city, minimum altitude is 500 feet.

~~~
Someone1234
> Where on earth did you read that?

Why did you ask me and then quote the exact regs back verbatim? Why ask a
rhetorical question with the implication that I am wrong if your very next
sentence is going to confirm that I am indeed correct?

As you yourself said, 1000 feet is the minimum allowed in most normal
situations. You can go fly over the desert at 500 feet if you wish, but drones
won't be an issue out there.

~~~
sokoloff
You can fly over the desert at 1 inch if you want. FAR 91.119.c (subject to
the catch-all exception in 91.13)

------
cooper12
> Failure to register can result in a hefty penalty, including civil fines of
> up to $27,500 and criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and three years in
> prison.

> "The goal is not to be punitive but to get people into compliance," FAA
> Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said.

These two sentences don't seem to mesh for me. Even if they don't plan to
actually prosecute any violators (yet), just the threat of that is ridiculous.
I guess it's just another tool in the arsenal of prosecutors if they decide
they don't like you.

Edit: The second quote was removed from the article.

~~~
omni
I think the idea is that you can achieve compliance through fear of punitive
action without ever actually having to punish anyone (in an ideal world).

Before law: "I'll just fly my drone around this airport, it's not like I'll
get caught or anything."

After law: "Crap, now if anything happens this is gonna get traced right back
to me and my life is gonna be ruined, maybe I shouldn't fly around this
airport like a moron."

~~~
bjt2n3904
After law: "Crap, now if anything happens this is gonna get traced right back
to me and my life is gonna be ruined, maybe I shouldn't <register my drone>
like a moron."

People willing to break one aspect of the law are generally willing to break
other parts as well.

~~~
omni
Sure, but this means you now can't fly in a park or any public space without
the risk of a police officer coming by and asking to see your registration.
I'm assuming police would be empowered to do that?

~~~
bigiain
I must have missed the bit in the article where they explained how all local
cops are going to receive training in "drone inspection" and access to an up-
to-date database of registration numbers.

~~~
omni
> drone owners will receive an FAA identification number that they must
> display on aircraft

How many hours of training do you think it'll take for them to look for and
read a sticker?

> access to an up-to-date database of registration numbers.

Cops probably have smartphones, right?
[http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Serial_Inquiry.aspx](http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Serial_Inquiry.aspx)

------
Someone1234
What surprises me is is the minimum weight requirement: 250 grams. That's well
below a weight that could reasonably be considered a danger to aircraft or
people.

Just for comparison purposes, a McDonald's Big Mac weighs 215-240 grams
without wrapper, so with a wrapper if you turned a Big Mac into a drone, it
would likely require registration.

The real question is, what is their endgame here? Just send out notifications?
It isn't like drones have transponders yet(?).

I like the FAA but this seems misguided and unworkable. Plus $5 is significant
when some drones this impacts only costs $30.

Hopefully the FAA has birds 250+ grams register too, just for consistency. In
particular as birds kill an order of magnitude more pilots than drones have
(have drones ever taken down a plane?).

~~~
omni
I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a jet
turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true? Birds
don't weigh a lot either, but run into one and you could have a major problem
on your hands.

~~~
Someone1234
> I was under the impression that pretty much anything getting sucked into a
> jet turbine is a major problem, can anyone speak to whether that's true?

Definitely untrue. Air, water, and particulates get sucked in all of the time,
it doesn't cause a "major problem."

It really boils down to mass and in some cases chemical makeup. Smaller birds
get sucked in all the time, and often don't even damage the fan blades.
Whereas a couple of Canadian Geese could clog up an engine causing it to stop.

While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is
"unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat. It is more smaller single
engine aircraft and helicopters that are at risk from drones flying into them
(in particular during take-off/landing).

Larger drones definitely need some kind of moderation. But as I said above
250g is too small, a pigeon weighs over 350g by comparison. How are you going
to regulate them?!

PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be
taken down a peg or two.

~~~
commandar
>While the news likes to drum beat about large commercial aircraft, it is
"unlikely" that a drone could be a real threat.

You have to keep in mind that many of these drones are made of things like
carbon fiber and are almost certainly carrying lithium-polymer battery packs
with a smattering of metal parts thrown in, though. I'd think the potential
for damage to a turbine is quite a bit greater than that of a small bird of
similar weight.

>PS - I actually fully support regulating pigeons, those things need to be
taken down a peg or two.

Little known tangential fact about Captain Sullenberger landing on the Hudson
- one of the things to happen as a result was a mass culling of Canadian Geese
in New York:

>To prevent similar incidents, workers from the United States Department of
Agriculture Wildlife Services and the city's Parks and Recreation Department
and Environmental Protection Departments descended on 17 locations across New
York capturing and gassing 1,235 Canada geese in June and July 2009.[118] The
Agriculture Department undertook another goose control measure by coating
1,739 eggs with corn oil, which kills developing goslings by depriving them of
air.[118]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-
te...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549#Long-term_effects)

~~~
bigiain
So there's just under 3000 fewer Canadian Geese than there would have been
otherwise?

I wonder what that is as a percentage of the total Canadian Goose population,
and the population of large birds generally?

We've recently here had hysterical calls to "cull the sharks!!!" after a few
shark attacks. It stinks to me of politically and more likely profit
motivations - local politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something"
(never mind the pointlessness or futility of their chosen "something"), and
politicians friends who can be rewarded with fat government contracts to buy
themselves new boats and guns and go playing with them on the public purse,
while making a completely insignificant change to the total shark population
or the risk of swimming in the ocean.

------
JoblessWonder
It seems like a LOT of people here didn't read the actual report. I'm skimming
through it, but the most interesting thing in here is that the limits are
based on only one line of reasoning: " _what would cause death or serious
injury due to a UAS (drone) and a person on the ground._ " They said that
there wasn't enough data to support a rule based on anything else.

    
    
      "The Task Force ultimately agreed to use a mass-based 
      approach to determine an appropriate category of sUAS to 
      recommend for exclusion from the registration requirement.  
      This was based upon the probability of a catastrophic event 
      occurring (i.e., death or serious injury) due to a 
      collision between an sUAS and a person on the ground.  
      Because of the lack of data on UAS-aircraft collisions, 
      engine ingestion, propeller, and rotor impacts by UAS, the 
      probability of a catastrophic event occurring due to those 
      events was not part of the consideration.  This approach 
      best satisfied the Task Force’s concerns about safety and 
      provided a minimum weight threshold for registration that 
      is easy to understand and apply and would therefore 
      encourage compliance.  The formula considered was 
      identified to the group as a standard aviation risk 
      assessment formula used in consideration of manned aircraft 
      safety."

------
tomswartz07
The article does not link to the FAA's website.

Here's the link to the actual FAA page:
[https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/)

It appears that registration opens on 21 Dec, 2015. Further, if registration
is done before January 20, 2016 the $5 registration fee will be refunded.

~~~
DennisP
So now, model airplane hobbyists who've been doing the same thing for decades
can be penalized with "fines of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment for up to
three years," if they don't realize they have to register their balsa wood RC
airplanes.

~~~
bigiain
Not just register, but register every single one of them.

I've got 4 or 5 rc gliders in my garage and half a dozen or more kits or
collections of parts to build more, as well as 5 quad copters that'd all fall
under these rules.

At the height of my slope combat phase, I was probably averaging building 2 or
3 new slope soaring gliders every weekend. And I had friends who were _way_
more prolific than I was.

I wonder just how scalable their new "drone registry" is? It's easy enough to
keep track of 747s and A380s, but whatever system they use for that was
unlikely to be designed/specced for "webscale" type growth (and given their
"$5 is the same price as we charge airliners!" comment, I wouldn't bet against
this being exactly the same system/database)

~~~
lightbulbjim
It's worth noting that you register once and then mark each aircraft with your
registration number[0]. You don't need to register each aircraft.

0:
[https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/#use](https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/#use)

------
god_bless_texas
I guess I'm glad they're taking some kind of action. As a pilot of both single
engine airplanes and "drones", I definitely see the argument from both sides.

Let's see how that website holds up at lunchtime on Dec 25th!

------
code4tee
Model airplanes have been around for ages and are generally used by very
responsible operators. Local airports and the FAA often have a good working
relationship with the local model aircraft club.

The issue with "drones" (which are really just a type of model aircraft) is a
wave of irresponsible operators.

The regulators aren't looking to regulate the space because they were bored
and looking for something to do. They are looking to regulate the space
because there are too many idiots out there causing problems at the moment. If
people are going to get upset at someone they should be upset at the people
breaking all sorts of existing regulations and causing the FAA to step in to
try and get things under control.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I see very little wrong with this simple registration step. As a drone owner,
it costs me a minimal charge, doesn't impair my drone's operation with onerous
rules. (Some were considering things like geofencing being MANDATORY!) It
merely asks me to tag my drone with a number, which isn't a big deal at all.

I'd argue this has been actually a fantastic example of the government working
in moderation. They involved drone manufacturers, commercial operators, and
hobbyist groups directly in the discussion process, you can see it throughout
their documentation. The community was well-invested in this entire process.

They've avoided any sort of crazy burden that would kill the drone industry,
but they've offered a clear step to say that they're watching, and put in a
basic framework that, while imperfect, gives them a starting point in an
investigation.

------
1024core
Is there any verification of the registration? Here's a hypothetical
situation: a guy with a drone has a pesky neighbor he doesn't get along with.
So he "registers" his drone in the neighbor's name; takes it to a nearby
airport and lets it fly around over there and crash. Now the neighbor's in
trouble, and has to defend himself from these hefty fines.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Well, you have to pay the registration fee with a credit card. My guess is,
they keep enough of that information on file to prove whose card made the
payment.

~~~
Glyptodon
Just buy a prepaid with cash and register it to your neighbor. It's really
hard.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Can't a credit card processor determine if a card is a prepaid or not? If
they're using it as a verification step, they'd probably want to disallow
those.

~~~
Glyptodon
If they disallow them how's a 13 year old going to register their drone as
required?

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Adult's credit card, probably? I assume the FAA would like to tie drones owned
by minors to responsible adults somehow. We haven't seen the form yet though,
mind you.

------
thescriptkiddie
Damn, I thought the model clubs won this debate 50 years ago. What's the
excuse this time? Terrorists making remote controlled bombs? Creeps taking
aerial photographs? Kids having fun outside instead of doing their homework?
Bloggers keep bringing up interference with air traffic, but that's completely
irrelevant. Models are required by law to stay under 500 feet, and civil
aviation is required to stay above. Even if there was a collision, it would do
no more damage than a bird strike. And birds don't know they're supposed to
stay away from airports. Kites, model rockets, and _laser pointers_ are all
more dangerous to commercial aircraft than model aircraft.

~~~
sliverstorm
I gather many drone operators have flagrantly violated the 500 foot flight
ceiling.

Perhaps it's more of an issue now because in the days of RC planes operated
line-of-sight, you inherently had a tougher time flying high & far than today
with live video feed and long range controls.

~~~
thrownaway2424
It also used to be a requirement that you knew how to fly the aircraft, which
wasn't much easier than flying a real airplane, and in the case of R/C
helicopters was actual harder than flying a full-sized manned helicopter. With
the latest multicopters and even some of the electric fixed-wing craft, any
moron can keep the thing in the air. Hence the current wave of trouble.

~~~
thescriptkiddie
Fixed-wing models have been idiot-proof for a long time. You can buy a
beginner's kit at any hobby store, and they're much easier to fly than a
multirotor. I don't think accessibility is responsible for the recent
popularity of multirotors, I think they're just more interesting because
they're unlike anything full-sized.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Guess I'm just old then. When I was learning, most models would barely fly,
and then only if you flew them perfectly.

~~~
khedoros
Models these days are generally built of durable and reparable foam, and the
thrust/weight ratio is often over 1:1. Stalls are easy to avoid, and most
beginning-level planes can be safely glided down without power (that is, just
enough to power the servos without running the prop). If you're lucky, you
should be able to repair your way through a few crashes.

That being said, my wife has flown a quadcopter with zero experience (but
careful supervision of the owner). My impression is that a high quality
multirotor will be easier to fly than a fixed-wing.

------
Rebelgecko
One thing I haven't seen discussed is that the registration process is only
open to US citizens. Am I misunderstanding something, or did the FAA just make
citizenship a requirement for flying a $20 quadcopter in your backyard?

~~~
cryptoz
No, it seems like anyone can do it, without any relevance to your citizenship.
I think the fancy new website is the only part that currently limits to US
citizens, but that seems only temporary until they fix it.

> Q. Who is required to register on the new online UAS registration website?

> A. Only individual recreational or hobby users who meet U.S. citizenship
> requirements are able to register their unmanned aircraft using this new
> streamlined web-based process. __This new, faster and easier system will be
> available for other UAS owners soon. __

[https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/](https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/)

~~~
Rebelgecko
Later on they say that for foreign nationals it's only a certificate of
"ownership" , not a certificate of "recognition of registration". I'm not sure
what the difference is. However it looks like permanent residents are lumped
with citizens when it comes to being allowed to register.

------
grendelt
Does this apply to RC planes and helicopters too? Or is this only for the oh-
so-scary "drones"?

~~~
wmeredith
What's the difference? [serious]

~~~
tomswartz07
Quadcopters ("drones", ugh) are unable to maintain their altitude if there is
a power failure. If one or more of the motors fail, it falls like a brick.

Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily
glide back to earth after a motor fails.

~~~
pc86
> _Airplanes, however, are much different in that they could softly and easily
> glide back to earth after a motor fails._

Yes, the whole way to the scene of the crash.

I'm with you that these two things should be classified and treated very
differently, but let's not pretend that if the power dies on a model airplane
there's no danger.

~~~
tomswartz07
You're correct.

Having no power in a model airplane is definitely an issue.

My main point being, however, it's arguably far easier to manuver an airplane
after motor failure than a drone/quadcopter.

~~~
fryguy
Is motor failure that frequent of a failure mode? I feel like complete
electric failure (out of range) is much more likely in which case it will
still fall like a rock?

~~~
paulmd
Models (non-FPV) are typically flown until they deplete their power supply,
which happens rapidly. For small electric models this is usually 6-8 minutes.
Larger electric models and gas (usually nitromethane) models can sometimes
stay up for 15 minutes or more, depending on how hard you're hitting the
power.

Gas models use a separate battery pack for running the receiver and servos.
Electric models usually use the same pack (via "battery eliminator circuit"),
but there's a low-voltage cutoff that cuts the motor power off while there's
still enough power to run the electronics. There's typically a "soft-cutoff"
feature that allows you to restart the motors if you need power to land - you
get maybe a 10 second burst of low power or 5 seconds at medium power before
the cutoff trips again. It can help to stretch out an approach if you're
downwind and not going to make the field.

Either way there is no technical problem with making a power-off landing. Such
"deadstick" landings are very standard in the RC world, and most fields will
want to see trainee pilots make several of them on a "buddy box" system under
the control of an instructor before they will approve you to fly alone.
They're no big deal _as long as_ you're being responsible with where you're
flying.

Radio range is essentially "as far as you have a line-of-sight". Typical
radios will have a range of 1.5-3 miles but you'll lose visual on the aircraft
at a fraction of that distance. Some micro-sized parkflyer aircraft have less
sensitive receivers, but since they're smaller you'll lose visual at shorter
ranges too. Some radios have longer range, particularly amateur radio
operators who can operate with greater transmitter power. These are popular
with the FPV crowd, but to operate on these bands you must have your callsign
and address on the plane.

The long range can actually be a bit of a problem because the signals really
will go quite far, and can result in intermittent loss of control if someone
else is operating on that frequency. AMA-licensed fields have a pinboard (if
you don't have the clothespin with your frequency on it, you can't turn your
radio on), and the fields are spaced out far enough to avoid this (typically a
minimum of 5 miles). You're supposed to check before you just go fly
somewhere, but some people don't. 2.4 GHz spread-spectrum radios are getting
very popular nowadays because they're largely immune to these radio hits.

------
nqzero
this registration requirement is absurd on many levels, but the pinnacle is
that it holds even if you fly only above your own property

~~~
tomswartz07
A good number of idiots do fly 'only above [their] own property'. The issue is
that they fly much higher than 400' above their property.

------
Glyptodon
Somehow this really angers me.

~~~
yc1010
So now people have to register toys they own....

The anger you are feeling is the screws being tightened a little tighter.
Everything nowadays is regulated, controlled and monitored, we in the west are
not free, especially in "the land of the free"

And some beuracrat(s) at FAA just guaranteed themselves job security for long
time

~~~
threeseed
Except that they aren't toys. They are flying blades and we've already seen
situations in which they have interfered with lives/property being saved.

And if you are so angry at regulation then go and live in China. I would
highly recommend Beijing this time of year.

Just remember to breath in deep and taste the freedom.

~~~
yc1010
How many people in US have died from gun and car related deaths last year? As
compared to "drone strikes"

~~~
bigiain
Around 100 people a year die in the US falling off ladders, with another
~35,000 requiring Emergency Department treatment.

(from the table about halfway thru
[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a2.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a2.htm)
)

Drones are no doubt an emerging area of possible concern, but this heavy
handed regulation is pure and simple control via hysteria.

------
tibbon
As someone who enjoys flying drones, I don't mind registration- I just want
clarity.

Recently I was going out with some friends to the Boston Harbor Islands. I
wanted to take a small Parrot AR drone out there, to fly around 25 feet in the
air, to capture some group photos and check out some neat angles of military
ruins. Yet, I find things like this
([https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=1...](https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153))
on the FAA site that indicates I can't fly anything Class B airspace.

There's stuff about applying for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization,
which seems needlessly heavy. I find things that say things like, "Community-
based guidelines require recreational operators to give notice for flights
within 5 statute miles of an airport."

I attempt to contact Logan's tower, and get bounced around between literally
10 different people... all equally confused. It feels _really_ odd to call an
airport about this, and I have a sinking feeling that this is a good way to
get on some watch list, so I'm quite careful with my words.

Eventually, I get in touch with the Assistant Director Airport Operations
Airside who responds that 'Massport does not have jurisdiction of that area
and cannot give approval for the use of the drone. That approval must come
from the FAA local ATC since the area you are looking to operate the drone in
falls within their Airspace.'. I spoke with him on the phone as well, and he
was super nice and indicated that he was hoping they'd figure all of this out
soon as well, because he owns a drone too.

Sites like this ([http://fromwhereidrone.com/can-you-fly-your-drone-
within-5-m...](http://fromwhereidrone.com/can-you-fly-your-drone-
within-5-miles-of-an-airport/)) make it sound super easy and casual to get
permission... but I found the opposite.

Class B airspace covers basically _every_ major city in the US. Additionally,
I couldn't fly because all national parks have had a ban since mid-2014... so
even if the FAA allowed it, the Boston Harbor Islands (which are technically a
national park, through a joint venture with Massachusetts) I couldn't have
legally flown.

I am 100% about safety for these things. I think there should be height
limitations, but also reasonable allowances. I wouldn't mind if the GPS lock
on the drone kept it below 50 feet (treetop level) in places like this.

Anyway, I had to spend a few hours realizing not only that I couldn't fly on
the islands, but legally I couldn't fly almost anywhere around here...
including my own back yard which is 4.5 miles from Logan.

~~~
Glyptodon
The 5 mile limit for airports is absurd.

~~~
tomswartz07
I wouldn't say 'absurd', I'd consider it very conservative, however.

I think 2.5 miles is plenty, but there could be legitimate reasons that full-
size aircraft would be flying near 400 feet near an airport.

~~~
Dylan16807
That it's a total restriction in those areas is absurd. There's no reason for
the space below 40-50 feet to be restricted anywhere.

~~~
LesZedCB
It's not a total restriction. You can fly _at_ the airport if you tell ATC and
they clear you. Though that specific scenario is unlikely, I've seen emails
from hobbyists to ATCs asking permission to fly within the limits and they
approved it with certain hight restrictions (below the trees in one case).

------
jemfinch
I can literally manufacture an unregistered firearm in my garage, but now
anyone with a flying toy heavier than eight ounces must register with the
federal government?

The over-regulation here is _insane_.

------
ufmace
I've read a few pages on this, and everything still seems pretty unclear. Does
this mean anything airborne, no matter how small and low-power? Exactly what
counts as a "drone"? A paper airplane? How about a balsa-wood glider? The
little quad-copter toy drones - they're powered, but don't seem like they'd be
able to go over 100ft or so.

It seems pretty reasonable to register the ones that can fly reliably over a
few hundred feet, out of easy eyesight of the operator, maybe faster than
10-20mph or so, that sort of thing. But I'm a little disturbed by the apparent
lack of a lower limit. It may sound absurd to be fined for not registering a
paper airplane, but exactly what part of this says explicitly that it's not
required? I'd hope we know better than to trust Government agents not to over-
reach in ways that go against all common sense.

~~~
simoncion
So, first, read this sub-thread [0] for a bit of history.

Second, here [1] is a summary of the guidelines from the AMA.

Third, the full FAA rule can be viewed here [2] (PDF warning).

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10733635](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10733635)

[1] [http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/14/ama-
and-t...](http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2015/12/14/ama-and-the-faa-
registration-process/)

[2]
[http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf](http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf)

------
superuser2
Will this apply retroactively to RC model aircraft, or only products that are
marketed as "drones"?

------
roosterjm2k2
Every argument FOR this is made moot by the fact that you dont have to
register ultralights...

