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.<p>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.
> 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.<p>> "The goal is not to be punitive but to get people into compliance," FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker said.<p>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.<p>Edit: The second quote was removed from the article.
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.<p>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.<p>The real question is, what is their endgame here? Just send out notifications? It isn't like drones have transponders yet(?).<p>I like the FAA but this seems misguided and unworkable. Plus $5 is significant when some drones this impacts only costs $30.<p>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?).
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: "<i>what would cause death or serious injury due to a UAS (drone) and a person on the ground.</i>" They said that there wasn't enough data to support a rule based on anything else.<p><pre><code> "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."</code></pre>
The article does not link to the FAA's website.<p>Here's the link to the actual FAA page: <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/" rel="nofollow">https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/</a><p>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.
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.<p>Let's see how that website holds up at lunchtime on Dec 25th!
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.<p>The issue with "drones" (which are really just a type of model aircraft) is a wave of irresponsible operators.<p>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.
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.
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 <i>laser pointers</i> are all more dangerous to commercial aircraft than model aircraft.
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?
As someone who enjoys flying drones, I don't mind registration- I just want clarity.<p>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 (<a href="https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=14153" rel="nofollow">https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=1...</a>) on the FAA site that indicates I can't fly anything Class B airspace.<p>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."<p>I attempt to contact Logan's tower, and get bounced around between literally 10 different people... all equally confused. It feels <i>really</i> 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.<p>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.<p>Sites like this (<a href="http://fromwhereidrone.com/can-you-fly-your-drone-within-5-miles-of-an-airport/" rel="nofollow">http://fromwhereidrone.com/can-you-fly-your-drone-within-5-m...</a>) make it sound super easy and casual to get permission... but I found the opposite.<p>Class B airspace covers basically <i>every</i> 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.<p>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.<p>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.
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?<p>The over-regulation here is <i>insane</i>.
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.<p>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.