Registration leads to . . .
The FAA has decided that drones should be registered:
The registry for drones weighing at least 9 ounces marks the latest balancing act for federal regulators who are trying to keep the skies safe as drones increasingly share airspace with passenger planes. Industry groups have estimated that hundreds of thousands have already been sold, with many more on the way as holiday gifts.
The registration will cost $5 for an unlimited number of aircraft and will be valid for three years. The credit-card transaction will help confirm the owner’s identity, and the fee will be refunded during the first month, to encourage people to register early.
No act of congress, just unaccountable bureaucrats making it up as they go.
December 14th, 2015 at 6:26 pm
Trial run to set precedence for guns??
December 14th, 2015 at 9:00 pm
I can just see the first ten year old who takes his drone out of Christmas morning getting hauled in front of a federal judge.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:41 am
I know someone who is working this issue and there is more here than you think. The problem is the aviation law says crazy things like, “you cannot just fly anything over anything or shit will fall from the sky.”
OK, so that’s not verbatim but you get the point.
Hobby drones are not operating in a gray-zone, as many like to claim. Absent very small exceptions, they are outright illegal to operate for commercial purposes or over public places. They are always illegal to operate without line of sight, unless you file with the FAA. Technically some will also require an actual pilot’s license.
This is all longstanding law that has worked for the life of American aviation. None of it considered drones. They announced a honeymoon period (reduced enforcement) while they worked a new process, but honestly it was getting strained.
The new regs represent a massive deregulation of public and private airspace. I saw some of the competing plans and trust me this is way better (air worthiness certs, no home-built custom frames, mandated software loads, ‘pilot’ training, etc.). It pretty much represents the bare-assed minimum that will still meet federal law.
This is not extra regulation. This is big deregulation. The current system was a failure. This one is better – and could get better still. We’ll see.
December 15th, 2015 at 9:47 am
BTW, re-reading my post I failed to mention that the current regs today – if followed – would require air worthiness, pilot training and flight plans for all commercial flight (wedding photos, real estate, etc.) as well as most flights over public spaces or even private space over a certain altitude. That is existing law. They were able to look askance only because they were studying new regs.
To give you an idea of how complex it is, the US Navy drone test range had to file plans for every flight off their controlled airspace, and even had to use chase planes (manned to maintain line-of-sight control) to move from one controlled airspace to another (10 miles) after filing flight plans with the FAA. I know the guy who used to coordinate all of it.
So long story short: the new regulations get rid of all that for hobbyists and basic commercial drone operators. It’s rare to see regs get easier.
Just because they were not enforcing the law now, does not mean they could look the other way forever.
December 15th, 2015 at 2:49 pm
I was watching two guys fly R/C model planes a month or two ago. Those puppies weighed more than 9 ounces. Do they count as drones? Inquiring citizens want to know!
December 15th, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Ellen, I just stumbled across this in one of my old e-mails. I think the crux of the matter is concerning drones for commercial purposes.
(Emphasis mine)
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn.
Date Filed: March 9, 2015
Case #: 13-1401
Sotomayor, J., delivered the Court’s opinion which Roberts, C.J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan JJ. joined, and Alito J., joining except for Part III-B. Alito, J. filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J. and Thomas J., filed concurring opinions in the judgment.
Full Text Opinion:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Under the Federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a federal agency is not required to engage in notice and comment procedures when amending and existing interpretive rule.
… SNIP …
The Court found that the § 1 of the APA requires agencies to use the same rules and procedures required for the issuance of a rule to be used when a rule is amended or repealed. Also, the Court found that § 4 of the APA exempts agencies from engaging in notice and comment procedures when promulgating interpretive rules. The Court held that the decision in Paralyzed Veterans created an additional jurisprudential procedural right that violates the intention of Congress and reversed.
I don’t know if the FAA used “notice and comment” in this particular case, but this ruling leaves the door wide open for someone, I dunno, say ATF from changing the rules by playing fast and loose with then definitions of”amended” and “interpreted.”