Drone Wars: The FAA Awakens

“Make no mistake: unmanned aircraft enthusiast are aviators, and with that title comes a great deal of responsibility,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
Click to expand...
Lol, make the 2lb drone "aviator" feel big and strong so they get their limited addition airworthiness certificate of authenticity!*

*while supplies last
 
Last edited:
“Make no mistake: unmanned aircraft enthusiast are aviators, and with that title comes a great deal of responsibility,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

No. No they aren't. Having an RC car doesn't make you a motorist. Going to a spin class doesn't make you a cyclist. At least he didn't call them pilots too.
 
Jett said:
“Make no mistake: unmanned aircraft enthusiast are aviators, and with that title comes a great deal of responsibility,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

No. No they aren't. Having an RC car doesn't make you a motorist. Going to a spin class doesn't make you a cyclist. At least he didn't call them pilots too.
Click to expand...

It is a PR statement, one of inclusion to get the enthusiast involved in participation of the registration program and the understanding between being an enthusiast and a commercial operator. The enthusiast's are going to be more liable now, at least they are being friendly about the invitation to accept.
 
Load of crap. I get the impression it is a response cultured for Fox sound bites. "We're doing something! See?"
 
We can't get the FFA to enforce existing rules in "real" aircraft how the heck are they going to run down some 14 year old in the park to make sure they are flying "legal"?

And what is the fine for failing to register? This goes beyond stupid........
 
So from the looks of it, even old man Jim has to register his RC airplane.

I hope they are prepared for the millions of certificates that they are about to issue.
 
Good. Personally I'm more for education rather than regulation, but if regulation is the only way to spread the good word of airspace, right of way rules, etc... Then I'm all for it. Technology has far outpaced the regulations on this one. We aren't dealing with a foam Cub in the backyard anymore. The capability and performance of these things can certainly be a problem of someone doesn't understand the big picture.

Take a look at how many people are suddenly in the aerial photography business these days. Some may understand airspace and safety, yet many do not. Nor do they understand many of the laws they have to comply with, such as how someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property.
 
Next CFIs will be able to endorse the operators, looking forward to see that as an endorsement
 
CFI A&P said:
Good. Personally I'm more for education rather than regulation, but if regulation is the only way to spread the good word of airspace, right of way rules, etc... Then I'm all for it. Technology has far outpaced the regulations on this one. We aren't dealing with a foam Cub in the backyard anymore. The capability and performance of these things can certainly be a problem of someone doesn't understand the big picture.

Take a look at how many people are suddenly in the aerial photography business these days. Some may understand airspace and safety, yet many do not. Nor do they understand many of the laws they have to comply with, such as how someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy on their property.
Click to expand...

1) 'We' have not been dealing with foam 'parkflyer' Cub for a long, long time. Many RC enthusiast understand the regulations related to recreation RC operations. It has been the recent widening of recreation models to a broader scope of individuals, who while would be and are considered enthusiast, are less aware of the regulations related to RC operations (AC91-57, 1981)

2) I speculate that this registration rule is really a method for the FAA to distinguish between the two types of UAS operations: commercial civil and recreational. I am not really aware of aerial photography companies appearing 'these days' - but their operation as a business without FAA approval is illegal is my understanding as it is not considered recreational or a hobby. An example being that a UAS used to take pictures of a house or property then selling them for compensation is consider not to be recreational use of a UAV.

Regarding reasonable expectation of privacy: in what sense are you referring to this applying? What compliance are you referring to in regards to UAS?
 
All government agencies like to expand and grow over time. This is a huge land grab by the FAA, that will most likely swell their ranks (and budget) even more so.

Meanwhile, Dubai is now offering a $1 mil quad racing competition.

Yay for stifling innovation, America.
 
n57flyguy said:
1) 'We' have not been dealing with foam 'parkflyer' Cub for a long, long time. Many RC enthusiast understand the regulations related to recreation RC operations. It has been the recent widening of recreation models to a broader scope of individuals, who while would be and are considered enthusiast, are less aware of the regulations related to RC operations (AC91-57, 1981)
Click to expand...
AC91-57 isn't even close to regulatory, in fact, go ahead and read to me the first line of text on it...

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.
Click to expand...

BTW that one was canceled, the FAA is going balls to the wall attempting to make these things illegal for small operator use.
 
wheelsup said:
All government agencies like to expand and grow over time. This is a huge land grab by the FAA, that will most likely swell their ranks (and budget) even more so.
Click to expand...

It would be wise to insist it is more of their obligation, that even being remotely operated, UA's are aircraft that do fall under the FAA's regulation, rule making, and enforcement, rather than a 'land grab.'
 
wheelsup said:
AC91-57 isn't even close to regulatory, in fact, go ahead and read to me the first line of text on it...



BTW that one was canceled, the FAA is going balls to the wall attempting to make these things illegal for small operator use.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that, it is an AC.

Describe 'balls to the wall' in an attempt to make these illegal for a (and please define a) small operator to use.
 
n57flyguy said:
It would be wise to insist it is more of their obligation, that even being remotely operated, UA's are aircraft that do fall under the FAA's regulation, rule making, and enforcement, rather than a 'land grab.'
Click to expand...
That's like saying you can get a speeding ticket for "driving" and RC car down the highway.

You can't; it's not legal to operate an RC car on a highway (if you cause a ruckus the local police will get you for something, I assume). The FAA could make this a lot simpler if they would give hobbyists some reasonable areas to operate in. Now with "rule changes" it's actually not legal to use goggles and race friends between trees. Pretty stupid, what traffic are you going to hit at 3' above the ground?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top