U.S. to make drone registration mandatory for certain models

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2015
The U.S. Department of Transportation in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration on Monday announced the formation of a task force charged with the creation of a registration process for unmanned aircraft systems, otherwise known as drones.




Consumer interest in drone piloting has rapidly increased over the past year, in no small part thanks to flight-enhancing technological advances like smartphone connectivity. However, with more drones in the sky, untrained aviators are quickly becoming a liability to both commercial pilots and bystanders on the ground.

For example, the FAA receives reports of potentially unsafe drone activity on a daily basis, while sightings of the unmanned craft have doubled since last year, the DOT says. The new UAS task force, and the forthcoming drone registration process, is meant to address those concerns.

"Registering unmanned aircraft will help build a culture of accountability and responsibility, especially with new users who have no experience operating in the U.S. aviation system," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "It will help protect public safety in the air and on the ground."

Comprised of 25 to 30 representatives from the UAS and manned aviation industries, the federal government and other stakeholders, the task force will develop criteria for drone classification based on safety risk. Owners of smaller toys and other hardware will not be required to register their equipment, the DOT says. The task force is taking commercial operators into consideration with its forthcoming registration framework and will explore ways to streamline the process for such users.

With a registration system in place the government will make drone owners accountable for rule adherence and safe flight protocols. The task force is expected to deliver recommendations on registration and additional safety regulations by Nov. 20.

Separately, the FAA will continue education and outreach efforts like the "Know Before You Fly" and "No Drone Zone" programs.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,632member
    When drones are criminalized, only criminals will have drones.
  • Reply 2 of 59

    Never really wanted a drone.

     

    Now I might buy one of these before registration becomes illegally mandatory and never register it.

  • Reply 3 of 59
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,471member

    Being a long time RC person, I have several drones worth of parts sitting here (bought kits, parts, etc to build my own).  Anywhere from 20cm to 90cm span...

     

    Don't have any cameras at the moment to put on them.

     

    Not big on registration...

  • Reply 4 of 59
    jessijessi Posts: 302member

    Any officer of the government at any level who enforces this "law" (which isn't a law even), while armed, is a felon under US 18-242.

     

    There is no power to regulate airspace, let alone hobbyists enumerated in the constitution.  However, it is a crime to violate constitutional rights under color of law.

     

    This shows how the government acting in a criminal fashion is so common that it doesn't even merit pointing out-- and most people just assume the government did it therefore it is moral/legal/right.

     

    It isn't.

     

    They are criminals.

     

    Drones aren't so big a deal now, but this is just one of a million instances of criminality like this.

     

    Also- eventually drones will be used to spy on us, and kill us (drones have already been used to murder american citizens by the american government, with %90 of the total people killed by US drones being innocents) ... but we of course will not be allowed to be "armed" with drones to protect us -- a violation of the second amendment.

  • Reply 5 of 59
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member

    "...registration mandatory for certain models".

     

    I'm hoping it's only the ones that fly.

  • Reply 6 of 59
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Mine sounds like a noisy box fan, has a reliable range of maybe 100 feet, and can't carry anything but it's own toy-caliber camera.

    And it's much less likely to hurt anyone or anything than a typical R/C aircraft is, since it's so easy to control.

    Now, when you get up to something bigger and more powerful, sure, laws are needed.

    And yes, the constitution DOES grant the power to regulate aircraft. Thank goodness.
  • Reply 7 of 59
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    I'm glad that guy who stole the anthrax from Ft. Detrick didn't have a drone.
  • Reply 8 of 59
    Drones will likely need much further regulation. As an earlier poster said, anthrax or other pathogens could easily be spread by drone. Further, explosives can be attached and can collide with a jumbo jet on takeoff. It will not be long before something horrible happens.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    Drones will likely need much further regulation. As an earlier poster said, anthrax or other pathogens could easily be spread by drone. Further, explosives can be attached and can collide with a jumbo jet on takeoff. It will not be long before something horrible happens.

    People can easily drive on sidewalks or into stores and hit people; why haven't we banned cars yet? It's only a matter of time.
  • Reply 10 of 59
    Originally Posted by currentinterest View Post

    As an earlier poster said, anthrax or other pathogens could easily be spread by drone.

     

    Anthrax or other pathogens can also be spread by dumping them onto an exterior HVAC system or releasing them in a subway.

     

    Maybe we should ban HVAC systems.

  • Reply 11 of 59
    Not easy to drive into a jumbo jet, and the range of pathogen targets, leaders speaking at public events for example, is greatly expanded and more difficult to defend. Nothing will be done until one of these events occur.
  • Reply 12 of 59
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    People can easily drive on sidewalks or into stores and hit people; why haven't we banned cars yet? It's only a matter of time.
    And yet cars are registered and operators are required to be licensed: so, great point! Happy to see your support.
  • Reply 13 of 59
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    And yet cars are registered and operators are required to be licensed: so, great point! Happy to see your support.

    At the state level, not federally. So no, your point doesn't stand.
  • Reply 14 of 59
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfc1138 View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    People can easily drive on sidewalks or into stores and hit people; why haven't we banned cars yet? It's only a matter of time.


    And yet cars are registered and operators are required to be licensed: so, great point! Happy to see your support.

    Because a criminal would never steal a car without a license to drive or proper insurance...

  • Reply 15 of 59
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jessi View Post

     

    Any officer of the government at any level who enforces this "law" (which isn't a law even), while armed, is a felon under US 18-242.

     

    There is no power to regulate airspace, let alone hobbyists enumerated in the constitution.  However, it is a crime to violate constitutional rights under color of law.

     


     

    That's a restriction on the federal government, not state governments. I guess you must really hate the FAA.

  • Reply 16 of 59
    zonezone Posts: 54member

    This is about one issue and that is that your government doesn't want you to be able to watch them. Government officials do not want to be observed in public doing there public duties. There is a war on photographers and citizen filming and reporting on officials. Do you know most police officers think its illegal to film them in public? 

     

    There are plenty of things that are harmful in our society that kill or hurt thousands but are not banned or regulated much... this includes Cars, Guns, Alcohol, Slipping in the bath tube, bicycles and so on. While I am sure that drones can and will hurt someone in the future the deaths and injury's from non military drones and very rare and almost non existent. 

     

    The news said that 1000 complaint for were logged for drones in the USA for 2015. That's nothing... 20 a state? There are more calls for barking dogs or noisy neighbors ect. News makes it seem like drones are everywhere. I never seen one or know someone who has one?

  • Reply 17 of 59
    Some of the drones, such as those from DJI (this is a more expensive one of them with 4k video) http://www.amazon.com/DJI-Phantom-Professional-Quadcopter-Camera/dp/B00VSITBJO/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1445315472&sr=8-3&keywords=drone have quite good range.

    I was at a recent Tillicum Crossing bridge lighting on the Portland (OR) waterfront and there were 3 of these flying around at night. One had a distance that extended well across the Willamette river, went through the bridge support wires, and proceeded to hover over the I-5 Marquam bridge taking full video for several minutes. In many situations it was fully out of sight of the operator except for the images from his smart phone transmitted over microwave frequencies.

    While I think these are amazing and useful devices and I have family that owns one for desert photography, the potential distraction to drivers on a cornered bridge with a low height guard rail and exits to I-84/Columbia Gorge and merging traffic raised the chance of some dangerous accidents. Some folks just don't use common sense, hence a registration of some sort can be merited. Sheesh - we require operator licenses for certain signal strength walkie-talkies as well as HAM Radio. I don't hear folks making a big deal about that. It can be said that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource and it merits this, but so is the visual space of scenic areas.

    It can be said that there are areas that are tranquil in nature that folks should be free to enjoy without the distraction of the buzzing of drones. That particular evening was not one of them, but I can think of other places I have been that I wouldn't want to see one, starting with my back yard and certain areas in the national parks as part of the top of the list.
  • Reply 18 of 59

    While I certainly understand people's concern about 'Pandora's Box' being dropped onto a greasy hill, my concern would be about where the line is drawn. I can see how officials would be concerned about someone flying too close to an airport or freeway, especially with the higher end models that have long range/height/flight time. But what about the park flyer or the backyard flyer? We already have laws regarding that, such as invasion of privacy, littering, and vandalism. Going with that point, I can see some logic to back tracing the owner to the UAV for culpability reasons, but how to manage that? Have every RC pilot rivet a VIN plate to there craft? How much will the VIN plate cost? In the event of a bad crash what would the replacement registration fee be? 

  • Reply 19 of 59
    jimtjimt Posts: 16member
    "Comprised of 25 to 30 representatives from the UAS..."

    I know it's just a small nit, but somebody has to pick it!
    Either say "comprising" or "composed of", but "comprised of" is just plain wrong!
  • Reply 20 of 59
    Time to start the National Drone Association (NDA) to protect the rights of drone owners!
Sign In or Register to comment.