DOT to the rescue! (Multi rotor registration)

[Shady]

So its started

After news of the registration. I ran out to get a quad and after several stops at different stores I could not find any.

On my way to the car from the last store I hear PSSSSSSSSST hey want a quad? I got some in the trunk they are just 2000% higher than last week. So I had to go and buy out his stock just to make sure I had some and figure I could resell some to get my cash back. Now I have to hope they really do put in some registration/license so I can really make some cash. I figure I need to hit up ebay and amazon and buy all the consumables for them and I will be set for life.

I feel the neckbeard starting.

 

[Mreed911]

So its started

After news of the registration. I ran out to get a quad and after several stops at different stores I could not find any.

On my way to the car from the last store I hear PSSSSSSSSST hey want a quad? I got some in the trunk they are just 2000% higher than last week. So I had to go and buy out his stock just to make sure I had some and figure I could resell some to get my cash back. Now I have to hope they really do put in some registration/license so I can really make some cash. I figure I need to hit up ebay and amazon and buy all the consumables for them and I will be set for life.

I feel the neckbeard starting.

I'll trade you a 50rd box of 22LR for that quad ya got there...

 

[TheDan]

Must stay #8 birdshot w improved cylinder away.

This is agreeable to me. Everyone to motion that drones must stay "#8 birdshot w improved cylinder" away from another's private property without prior consent, say aye.

 

[Younggun]

No, height of violation didn't answer my questions. Why do you want to fly over other's property at all? Regardless of airspace. 100 feet or 1000 feet, what does it matter? Why be there at all?

I specifically said I don't want laws or regulation for the drones. Government laws makes things worse, not better. I don't want them to limit my rights and extend them to others. I want the freedom to deal with my property as I see fit.

Whether having capability to do harm or not goes out the window when you're on my property and trespassing (physically or through controlled property). I don't know whether you have the capability to do harm or not. That's the point and I prefer not to wait to find out.

I've mentioned cameras, property damage, and personal injury. You cannot photograph, cause injury, or property damage to me or my house unless you are on my property. Houses with fences the same. If you are circumventing any means, it's an issue.

You keep referencing retaliation at random. Someone on my property is not a random stranger in public. They have made a reasonable effort to enter my property. Their right to be there on my property does not exist, them having a camera, gun, whatever, exacerbates that. Public places is not an issue as I chose to be there, I have the option to not be there. It's public use.

The microwave example was to point out that just because someone has the capability does not mean it's ok for them to use it without repercussion. Not that you implied you wanted to take pictures.

What if I put up an RF jammer on my property that affected the ability for you to use the drone on my property but the signal jammed it on your property as a side effect? Would you be upset about that radio frequency invading your airspace?

My contention is that there is a reasonable height at which you cease to control air above you property.

Why fly over? Sometimes you need to get from point A to point C.


Radio frequencies? RC already has to contend with such things. Not sure how you blocking my wifi router in the house, cordless phones, etc from working is related to something passing 300' above your head with no effect on anything below.

The microwave thing is irrelevant if it only applies if it's used to view you. It means you entire argument only applies if the camera is pointed at you.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

TBH, I'm taking an exaggerated stance on this than I normally would simply because the arguments I'm hearing are so silly.

As Hippie put it, if people on both sides weren't assholes there would be no reason to debate (paraphrased).


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mike1234567]

A flying asshole? THAT I gotta see!!

 

[Younggun]

Ever been on a plane? Almost a guaranteed sighting.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

Need to get from point a to point b? Go around or don't go at all. Pretty simple. Stay off property that isn't yours. A few hundred feet is easily my personal space. You don't like it, go to a park, a lake or anything public that no one cares about. That's what public parks are for. Otherwise realize that there are people that will take your investment out of the sky with an single click and find a nice grave for it by the time you can attempt to claim it. Then it's your word against theirs and law can't do nothing and we know how thorough police investigations are with theft. Speaking of law, what happens if we start allowing these drones flying allow over as they wish and government says hey, we can too, let's find new laws were can cite now. Now you have things buzzing about your property looking for law violations and fines. Or you have neighbors that complain and tattle on you. The implications for allowing trespass are only going to get worse.

You keep relating to what YOU will do with your drone and you say it will not affect anything below. That is just not the case for everyone. Fact is it will affect what is below in many cases. It already has and the number of hobby machines are very few (hence the laws and regulations route). It will only get worse. You have to realize your intentions may never cause issue, but others will. You might have a passion for the hobby, but most people are assholes and don't understand boundaries. People like their privacy (even if some of it is only perceived), why provoke it over something so simple as don't fly over there?

Not wanting something on or directly above your own property that isn't yours is silly? #droneentitlement

 

[Younggun]

lol.

You are being just as overzealous as those who feel they should be able to hover 10 feet off the ground in your back yard.

You've gone from "shotgun range" to "300' isn't enough.

But that's fine, some people will rage about it with little or no understanding. Some people will force someone like me to defend something that may be a chance occurrence because someone like you wouldn't be able to just walk over and talk to a neighbor and ask why he happened to cross his property that day.

I've tried to be nice about it, but the truth is at this point you have absolutely no legal authority to do anything but call the cops. You claim the high ground but then say you'd have no issue violating multiple laws because your neighbor had to make a detour for some reason. You are the one who assholes would fly over just because of your attitude towards it. And they could do it outside your shotguns reach.

But 99% won't, because they aren't dicks. They would avoid you because most people don't want to be around an asshole. And when for some strange reason the quad crossed your property and you shot it down and buried it, you would be the one replacing it because due to the known risk they would probably record the crossing just for the evidence showing who violated the law by shooting it down.

All because people can't just show a half assed amount of respect towards each other, can't say "hey, would you mind not crossing over my place". Really, these RC guys are such pricks, right?

I sure feel sorry for the guy who lives in the city, he can't even take off without violating everyone's privacy on the whole block, even if he just goes straight up!


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mreed911]

Speaking of law, what happens if we start allowing these drones flying allow over as they wish and government says hey, we can too, let's find new laws were can cite now. Now you have things buzzing about your property looking for law violations and fines. Or you have neighbors that complain and tattle on you. The implications for allowing trespass are only going to get worse.

Just remember, there's a difference in hobby and commerce. I'm not advocating the hobbyist be able to do stupid things, just saying if your HOA wants to fly around to check your back yard, that's commercial. POUND them if they're not licensed.

 

[Mike1234567]

A.T.Y. -- I gots AREOL nekked pitchers o' yer chikkenz. Bock bock!!

 

[A.Texas.Yankee]

lol.

You are being just as overzealous as those who feel they should be able to hover 10 feet off the ground in your back yard.

You've gone from "shotgun range" to "300' isn't enough.

But that's fine, some people will rage about it with little or no understanding. Some people will force someone like me to defend something that may be a chance occurrence because someone like you wouldn't be able to just walk over and talk to a neighbor and ask why he happened to cross his property that day.

I've tried to be nice about it, but the truth is at this point you have absolutely no legal authority to do anything but call the cops. You claim the high ground but then say you'd have no issue violating multiple laws because your neighbor had to make a detour for some reason. You are the one who $#@!s would fly over just because of your attitude towards it. And they could do it outside your shotguns reach.

But 99% won't, because they aren't dicks. They would avoid you because most people don't want to be around an $#@!. And when for some strange reason the quad crossed your property and you shot it down and buried it, you would be the one replacing it because due to the known risk they would probably record the crossing just for the evidence showing who violated the law by shooting it down.

All because people can't just show a half assed amount of respect towards each other, can't say "hey, would you mind not crossing over my place". Really, these RC guys are such pricks, right?

I sure feel sorry for the guy who lives in the city, he can't even take off without violating everyone's privacy on the whole block, even if he just goes straight up!


Sent from my HAL 9000

I claimed the high ground? Never! Wouldn't the drone have the high ground? My stance has been the same, keep shit that ain't mine from flying over what is mine. It's that simple.

I never said one thing about my legal authority to do anything. You kept mentioning the law. I obviously don't agree about existing legal authority when it comes to my privacy and potential safety on my land. It's real simple on my end, "I was out shooting my clay pigeons and next thing I know it plastic is falling out of the air..." 'nough said. No cop is going to waste his time paste that. I didn't break any laws, at best it could be construed as an accident, but you'll probably have to have insurance on it now anyways, so it'll just be a deductible. You act like all laws are Washington's gift to us all of a sudden.

What's wrong with you going over to neighbors first and asking? Then you know their stance. If they don't like, then you know to stay away.

I don't want shit flying above my house without my permission. What's wrong with that? Why are you entitled to invade the airspace above my house and I'm not entitled to want to prevent it?

Again, you're relating your experience and your standards to the whole populous, that's inaccurate. I'm sure if you were my neighbor it probably wouldn't be an issue. But people are dicks. They will abuse the privilege. It's a sad fact. People will use it negatively. Isn't that why the DOT is regulating it now, the bastards?

People in the city can't fire a gun, even target shooting, right? And that's a 2A right to own a gun. Cities suck, that's why I don't live in one. Model rockets are the same thing, fireworks, too. They go really high and are banned from crossing property lines or banned from use altogether. Crossing property lines doesn't get a pass because it's a hobby and you feel it's non threatening and should be allowed.

I have said before, I'm really not sure what I would deem acceptable elevation minimum. I, myself, just wouldn't go over my neighbors at all, no matter the height without permission. Heck, a plane flying 500' above the house seems awfully low.

Obviously we aren't going to agree on this one, I can say it any differently.

 

[Younggun]

So, while doing some more looking around I found a link to this release by DOT regarding their goals and giving 15 days for public comment, although the topics of comment are preselected and only asking "how can we more easily get in your shit".

I also found that the wording seems to point towards registration of ALL types of RC aircraft. Maybe some exemptions for weight or size, but it doesn't seem to say anything about limiting this to multi rotor registration.

Link is to the 9 page PDF, fairly easy reading with a few pages easily skimmed and skipped. Pay attention to the language, especially where they define aircraft and UAS.

http://www.regulations.gov/contentS...mber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Younggun]

From reading multiple sources it seems the heavy hitters on this task force will be a group represented commercial airline pilots. It's expected that they will push for maximum overreach and have done so in the past when brought in to weigh in on regulations regarding airspace, generally with a "we are bigger and everyone else can FOAD" type attitude.


The end of Nov should be interesting. I'm really not sure how they could get anything implemented by the end of the year as they are hoping, but I'm not sure it will matter since everything points to previously purchased aircraft being registered as well.

This could be come very expensive and very burdensome for those who have large collections of model aircraft if they go balls out with this.


Sent from my HAL 9000

 

[Mreed911]

The way to fight this is to suggest that registration should happen at initial purchase, be initiated by the manufacturer with proof of registration and "transfer" provided to the customer, and that any fees or costs must be included in the sales price of the vehicle (not as an additional cost or fee).

Also, suggest that radio controllers face the same regulations.

Then require manufacturers to set up a web portal to electronically validate the purchaser's FAA hobbyist license prior to completion of the sale, like an FAA-NICS check.

Make it as burdensome on the manufacturer as possible such that the trade groups step in to push back on the hobbyists side.

 

[Glockster69]

Just received this email


​

Academy of Model Aeronautics Member Communication

Thursday, October 29, 2015

By now, nearly everyone should be aware that the FAA and DOT are considering requiring registration of some sUAS and have created a task force to help develop that process. As part of these efforts, the DOT and FAA have asked for public input on the issue and have identified 10 questions in the document titled "Clarification of the Applicability of Aircraft Registration Requirements for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Request for Information Regarding Electronic Registration for UAS" that can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2015-4378. AMA asks that its members review the questions and offer comments. The government website for this project is cumbersome and only allows a person to either type comments into a text box or to upload a file. To help, however, we are offering suggested comments to the questions we feel would impact our membership the most. Feel free to provide your own comments on the registration of model aircraft. We want the DOT to know your thoughts on registration, whether you think its beneficial and necessary to ensure for safe operation in the National Airspace System (NAS) or state any objections or limits you would have to a registration process. Discuss any concerns you might have or suggestions with establishing thresholds of who or what should be exempted from registration and what method of registration would you favor. If you prefer, you can paste these comments directly into the response box. It's important that you submit your comments by November 6, 2015. Comments offered after this date will still be accepted, but might not carry as much weight as those submitted by the deadline. Q: Consistent with past practice of discretion, should certain UAS be excluded from registration based on performance capabilities or other characteristics? A threshold must be established under which sUAS/model aircraft are exempt from registration. Model aviation, operated within the safety programming of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), has an impeccable 80-year track record of operating safely and simply requiring AMA members to now register their aircraft would have no impact on that record. The sUAS that lack the capability to fly beyond line of site by using either first-person view, or those sUAS that lack onboard navigational systems that allow the aircraft to fly missions beyond visual line of site, should likewise be exempt because they pose little or no threat to other users of the airspace. This would include all sUAS that fall into the toy category. ​ Q: How should a registration process be designed to minimize burdens and best protect innovation and encourage growth in the UAS industry? Registration should involve only those platforms whose technological capabilities exceed a certain level. That threshold needs to be identified by using substantive, relevant data and not merely be a subjective point selected with nothing to support it. The process should be as automated as possible and minimally intrusive so as to only collect the data needed to identify the platform, if necessary. AMA members have used a system of aircraft identification for decades where members place their names and addresses or AMA numbers on their models. This should be acceptable for AMA members as an alternative means of complying with the registration process. ​ Q: What type of information should be collected during the registration process to positively identify the aircraft owner and aircraft? The only necessary data would be an identifying number/algorithm that connects through a database the name and address of the owner. Other information could be selected as appropriate such as an email address or telephone number. ​ Q: Are there additional means beyond aircraft registration to encourage accountability and responsible use of UAS? Although registration of some platforms might have a minimal impact on the small number of users flying irresponsibly, most enthusiasts are accountable and want to fly safely. This is why it is so important that the DOT and FAA focus more of their efforts on education and training and increase their support of AMA's and AUVSI's efforts with the Know Before You Fly program. Finally, the most important thing the FAA can do is to step up its efforts in taking enforcement action against anyone doing something that rises to the level of causing an eminent threat to others in the airspace; however, the real solution lies with education and enforcement. ​ ​

 

[Sugar Land]

In 6 months from now that quad will prolly end up in the closet with all the other cool toys. Can't see reg it

 

[TheDan]

...

 

[TheDan]

In 6 months from now that quad will prolly end up in the closet with all the other cool toys. Can't see reg it

I'm reporting you for breaking forum rules for talking about your unregistered cool toy closet