Here we go.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta announced Oct. 19 “the creation of a task force to develop recommendations for a registration process for Unmanned Aircraft Systems.”
The task force will be comprised of “25 to 30 diverse” industry representatives.
“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 Foxx. “It will help protect public safety in the air and on the ground.”
Wow… Really?
“Registration will help make sure that operators know the rules and remain accountable to the flying public for flying their unmanned aircraft responsibly,” said Huerta. “When they don’t fly safely, they’ll know there will be consequences.”
Incredible…the power of registration.
Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee, New Jersey’s Frank LoBiondo stated, “I am pleased to see DOT taking the concerns and suggestions of the House Aviation Subcommittee seriously. UAS technology represents the next frontier in aviation, creating new economic opportunities here at home. But safety must always come first. We cannot allow reckless individuals to endanger the safety of our airspace. The registration process will play an important role in protecting our airspace and allowing the industry to grow. I will continue to work with DOT and stakeholders towards fully integrating UAS safely into the national airspace.”
Okay, enough hyperbole.
Cars and trucks are registered, which should “play an important role in protecting our” — switch airspace for — roads.
Yet, according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.”
Further, “In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That’s 1% of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.”
Possessing properly registered vehicles, the operators no doubt understood the “culture of accountability and responsibility” and that they’d face “consequences” to their unsafe actions. Apparently they didn’t care. Maybe they didn’t happen to agree. Perhaps it was something else.
And still, we let these “reckless individuals endanger the safety”… of our roads.
Look, I’m not typically this cynical. I prefer to seek and find the good in people and opportunities. This announcement — and what it represents — I don’t care for.
If “safety must always come first” as LoBiondo specifically stated, then why does the FAA make it so difficult to create safer products?
This is less about safety than it is about doing something. Anything that’ll make the public feel like the government is doing something.
It also enjoys the side benefit of justifying a huge — and growing — budget. The remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) industry is growing rapidly. This is a great way to justify that ever-increasing budget and head-count.
How about a dose of reality? The vast majority of pilots and drivers operate their craft responsibly and legally. Just like the vast majority of RPA operators.
Among the “responsible” are the commercial operators. They’ve got skin in the game. They risk everything if they operate negligently. And they know that. They’re the ones who will get caught up in this proposed registration process. Ironically, they are also the ones we least need to worry about.
Does anyone really think DJI, maker of the hugely popular Phantom-line of RPAs, will allow itself to be sucked up into a registration procedure? I don’t think so.
How’s the saying go? You can’t legislate common sense. Maybe you can register it.
At the least it’s more enlightening than one of these reality TV stars, kim who?
Joey what?
Just remember the FAA motto:
We’re not happy till you’re not happy.
Drones should have serial numbers and can be registered at time of purchase, takes half a minute, the same as buying a hand gun. The reason for the registration is to hold the owner and operator of any injuries his or her drone caused. The first time a drone hurts, or causes serious injury to someone the first thing one wants to know, is who owns that damn thing, I assure you that is going to happen. People need to be made responsible for all there wrong doing period, no if or whats about it, There is almost no accountability or respect in today’s way of life. It appears the only way to keep somewhat of a handle on these drones is to have then serialized same as an aircraft. Start with the letter D for drone you have a zillion serial numbers to pick from. Just a thought and my opinion.
What happens if the original purchaser sells his drone to someone else down the road? There would need to be some way to transfer the registration.
I loved the sarcasm in the article. I’m with Ben on this one.
Who is going to fund this registration? Heck it takes weeks and months to get your PPL certificate after the info is sent electronically into Oklahoma. I can imagine what would happen when some clerks for the FAA is faced with a bunch of paper forms!
What happens when the drone is resold? Do the drones out there now have serial numbers? Do we need another government website to register the devices?
Most of the drones to be sold this holiday season are already in the pipeline. The horse is already out of the barn.
As another poster pointed out the FCC tried this with CB radios. Back when they first came out, in the old tube type days, one had to register and take a test to get a license. We had to broadcast our radio license numbers. There were some stiff fines for messing around or too strong a transmitter.
Then came transistorized radios, small cheaper and the traveling public found them. The number of radios out there exploded. The problem then became the vast majority did not register, and did not seek a license to operate. Get it good buddy? 10-4!
The FCC finally relinquished and now the CB are essentially unregulated. A failure.
Drones are no different, can’t and won’t work registering them.
What would possibly work is to mandate guidance systems that would keep them away from airports and under 500 feet. Automatically and without operator input or override.
As time goes on the older drones would be replaced with the newer regulated drones.
We as pilots and aircraft owners are used to the heavy hand of the FAA regulating every part of our existence. The public on the other hand is more like gun owners, resistant to government interference.
Registration? Won’t and can’t work.
I don’t recall that a test was required to obtain a CB (Citizen’s Radio Service) license. That and that it could be used in business was what set it apart from Ham Radio.
Citizen Band also has much lower power, and thus shorter range, than HAM.
simple solution being overlooked by all the powers that be.
Have the drone limited to 400 feet above ground level by a built in gps that most drones seem to already have. Also have them prevented to fly within 5 miles of the airports also by the built in gps that should be required in all drones.
David- This is simply not as simple as you seem to think for a number of reasons.
There are more than 500 different models of sUAS made by 168 manufacturers, plus hundreds of homebuilt models from open-source information. (www.the333.org). Many do not have or need a GPS. Next is the problem of jurisdiction. The FAA has already decided against type-certification of sUAS, without which the FAA cannot dictate any design features.
Also, don’t forget that GPS altitude is so unreliable that a barometric altimeter is still required equipment in manned aircraft.
We need to define the legal limits of personal privacy and responsibility laws. When is it illegal to fly over someone’s property taking pictures. When and what can you do with those pictures.
This is not a drone problem it is an ethical and legal one. What happens when I shoot down a drone doing this over my property? What can someone do, legally, with drone acquired images?
Then, what about liability insurance if my drone hits another flying object or crashes into someone or their property on the ground?
The whole issue of drones has opened an entire area of legal ramifications that have not been discussed or contemplated to any degree.
Dennis says: “The whole issue of drones has opened an entire area of legal ramifications that have not been discussed or contemplated to any degree.”
No. No it does not.
There are already sufficient laws on the books regarding privacy – why do we need more laws just because of a drone? Wouldn’t privacy laws work whether you are stalking with a camera on a balloon? A kite? A camera on a stick? How is a drone different except that it is noisy and impossible to be stealthy. What difference does it make what the camera is attached to?
Are you one of the crowd whom the word “drone” causes a sphincteral reaction?
Liability? Who is liable if my baseball goes through your window? What possible difference would it make whether a golf ball or a drone causes damage?
Shoot them down? Ever hear of 18 U.S. Code §32 – ‘Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities’? Not only would it be a federal offense, there is likely local ordinances about shooting in your city, and then you are liable for any damage that the falling drone would cause. You only own the airspace over your property that you can reasonably use. (SCOTUS Causby v US).
You’re worried about what? A Cessna at 1,000 ft carrying a camera with a good stabilized telephoto lens would get much higher resolution images than any drone at 100 ft. Are you going to start shooting at Cessnas over your property because they MIGHT be taking photos of whatever you are hiding?
The panic, here, is completely out of any sort of proportion to reality. (Good line. Thanks Ben).
“Dangerous” and “invasion of privacy” concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance.
Stalking and privacy laws unfortunately have not kept up with technology.
A Cessna at 1000′ flying by at 90 mph is not the same as a drone hovering outside a bedroom window. No a kite or balloon would not be expected to nor could do the same as the drone.
I ask, again, what difference does it make what the camera is attached to? the existing privacy laws would apply.
Didn’t the FCC try this with CB radios? That worked out fine. So what’s the problem? Wink, wink
So much for smaller government. More tax dollars up in smoke.
How will they force people to register them? They will probably just put a registration form in the box. Of course, most people won’t pay any attention to it.
I think this is just the FAA saying “see, we are doing something.”
chris said: ‘I think this is just the FAA saying “see, we are doing something.”’
In fairness to Huerta, this was a DOT announcement. I suspect that Huerta is in a no-win position and not a willing participant.
Ben, you continue to amaze me with your accurate grasp of events around sUAS, RPAS or Drones, whatever you want to call them. Again, may I quote you?
For the record. I’m not against regulation, I’m just against bad regulation. I am not in the least opposed to making owners of these small aircraft operate them safely. But the proposed registry won’t even move the needle on the frequency of reported drone sightings, let alone do anything to curtail irresponsible flights.
The FAA wants to be able to find the owner of a drone that is caught flying irresponsibly, well and good. but an emergency rule in less than six weeks to register 2-million model aircraft? Really? What could possibly go wrong?
Just because an rogue drone might cause an accident smacks of “Minority Report”. The FAA is going to make an emergency rule for something that has not happened yet?
14 CFR §91.139 – ‘Emergency air traffic rules’ gives the administrator the authority to make up rules “Whenever the Administrator determines that an emergency condition exists, or will exist, “. I am pretty confident that someone will challenge the validity of the emergency rule on the ground that it was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) notice and comment provision, 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) because no evidence of an emergency exists.
49 USC §44101(a) does require that all aircraft be registered. The FAA has never followed the statute with model aircraft for decades, so they had plenty of time to promulgate rules through the normal NTSB process. In other words, what emergency?
Mr. Foxx: Where is the fact-based evidence of an emergency?
I’ve written the opposing view point to this article. Drone registration is a really good idea. https://medium.com/@joshuaziering/dear-drone-pilot-a-case-for-registration-f9d96b388e1c
Interesting point of view Joshua. I’m sure you won’t be surprised that I’m not convinced… but I appreciate the counter-position. In particular you state, “Without a registry someone can accidentally send a drone sailing into a crowd, turn off the transmitter, get in their car, and hope nobody saw them do it. There is potentially a future where “hit and run” with a drone exists and the FAA is trying to stop it.” An FAA registry will do nothing to stop “hit and run” accidents. After all, we have both the term and an automobile registry. What I believe you are seeking is a way to find the owner of the RPA in the event of a “hit and run”. My argument is I don’t believe the FAA is the best way to track that information. I’ll keep thinking on it though. Thank you for the link to your idea.
Please don’t use the N number group
it is difficult enough to get a special N number for your favorite aircraft
50 million drones will soak up every last N number
look at the internet addresses and what happened
I would rather not have 6 and 7 digit numbers
An N-Number can be in any of these formats:
• One to five numbers (N12345)
• One to four numbers followed by one letter (N1234Z)
• One to three numbers followed by two letters (N123AZ)
N-Numbers do not have:
• A zero as the first number
• The letters “I” or “O”
There are only 915,399 possible registration numbers. About 350,000 are already in use, and there’s approximately 1 Million drones (1.7 million after the holiday season) needing registration. Whoops.
what could possibly go wrong?
Aw, come on Stephen, in the end it won’t matter that much anyway. Ain’t gonna be much general aviation left in a few years. See, as soon as Google and Wal-Mart get their squadron of drones out delivering life’s necessities, to the general public, we’ll be legislated out of existence.
I mean, who’s side do you think the general public will take when the inevitable confrontation between drones and general aviation comes to a head? Those UAV’s that provide a valuable service, or those “rich boys, in their annoying toys”? And since there’s way more of them, then there is of us, who do you think the law makers are more likely to listen too?
Get in all the flying you can now. ’cause our days are numbered.