FAA Registration

[Ed W. Prohaska]

I just cut and pasted this from AMA's web site regarding questions and answers about FAA registration:

Question: "This rule seems to be for drones and your link to registration sends me to a drone zone – I do not fly drones."

Answer: "The FAA and many other entities group all unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) together and often use drone, UAS, quadcopter, or model aircraft interchangeably.  The only model aircraft exempt from registration are: models weighing less than 250 g (about half a pound), free flight, control line, and indoor models."

I read that to mean control line is exempt from registration. So, my rhetorical question is: Why would they put this on their web site for the world to see and also tell people the same thing over the phone, if it were not true? EWP

[Tony Drago]

The way this reads below. Could make one believe and also sounds like all mentioned below.
 Have to weigh 8oz. or less. aka half a pound

The only model aircraft exempt from registration are: models weighing less than 250 g (about half a pound), free flight, control line, and indoor models."

[Chad Hill]

"The only model aircraft exempt from registration are: models weighing less than 250 g (about half a pound), free flight, control line, and indoor models."

But the real question is, has the FAA - repeat FAA - put this statement forward in print? I have not seen it. If so, someone please advise where. I could not find this clarification on their website.

[Brett Buck]

"The only model aircraft exempt from registration are: models weighing less than 250 g (about half a pound), free flight, control line, and indoor models."

But the real question is, has the FAA - repeat FAA - put this statement forward in print? I have not seen it. If so, someone please advise where. I could not find this clarification on their website.

  Absolutely!  I am pretty sure (based on what the AMA has quoted from the FAA and from the FAA documentation) that the intent was to only regulate UAS, and a UAS has a flying component and "ground control station". That would indeed let CL/FF, rockets, etc, off the hook.

      Unfortunately, and partly due to AMA incompetence and/or lack of interest, that's not at all clear from the actual regulations and it doesn't appear to be described anywhere in the "end user" documentation. Morevover, it also says something about "tethered drones", by which they mean a typical FPV quadcopter-like thing that operates by trailing wire control rather than an RF link. Those are *not* exempt, because they could "become detached". I don't think I need to elaborate on how that is going to influence your argument with Deputy Barney Fife.

   I asked Budreau to go back to the FAA, in their lobbying efforts, to explictly clarify this. His response was that they were not interested in that sort of minor detail in their dealings, and also, more-or-less threatened me with something along the lines of "be careful asking for clarification, because they might just come after you, too".

     Given that, I would not expect the AMA to go to bat with this topic. You might get in trouble, and eventually prevail in court based on "well congress actually said this..." after months/years of legal challenges. That will be both expensive and time-consuming, and will not likely get your confiscated items back (if any) for years (if ever), and you can more-or-less not expect any help from the AMA.

     Brett

[wwwarbird]

 I still figure us C/Ler's need not worry about any of it, but for anyone who might care this is from the EAA site...

 https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-14-2019-FAA-Publishes-Drone-Rulemaking-Documents

 

[Sean McEntee]

  Absolutely!  I am pretty sure (based on what the AMA has quoted from the FAA and from the FAA documentation) that the intent was to only regulate UAS, and a UAS has a flying component and "ground control station". That would indeed let CL/FF, rockets, etc, off the hook.

      Unfortunately, and partly due to AMA incompetence and/or lack of interest, that's not at all clear from the actual regulations and it doesn't appear to be described anywhere in the "end user" documentation. Morevover, it also says something about "tethered drones", by which they mean a typical FPV quadcopter-like thing that operates by trailing wire control rather than an RF link. Those are *not* exempt, because they could "become detached". I don't think I need to elaborate on how that is going to influence your argument with Deputy Barney Fife.

   I asked Budreau to go back to the FAA, in their lobbying efforts, to explictly clarify this. His response was that they were not interested in that sort of minor detail in their dealings, and also, more-or-less threatened me with something along the lines of "be careful asking for clarification, because they might just come after you, too".

     Given that, I would not expect the AMA to go to bat with this topic. You might get in trouble, and eventually prevail in court based on "well congress actually said this..." after months/years of legal challenges. That will be both expensive and time-consuming, and will not likely get your confiscated items back (if any) for years (if ever), and you can more-or-less not expect any help from the AMA.

     Brett

      Tethered drones were used for security during the superbowl, and a direct-connect system was meant as an added level of safety and also to narrow the exclusion zone in which they needed to operate.  The argument that subjected aircraft require both an air and ground subsystem would still include direct connect sUAS and still exclude CL and FF from this requirement. 

      My opinion to the big question:  FF is golden.  Pretty much all FF sites are in pretty rural areas; far away from controlled airspace and populated areas.  For control-line, as mentioned in previous threads, local PDs don't have the time, resources, training, education, or sheer interest in enforcing FAA regulations on UAS.  I promise that, even taking a quadcopter out to the local park and flying it around, the chances of being checked for registration are almost nonexistent.  One would have to be blatantly breaking a REAL LAW before the FAA would jump in with "Hey, by the way, your equipment isn't registered." 

     My advice: Only folks with any type of commercial rating would do well to register because, as small of a chance as it is, its still not worth it.   If not, get a vinyl decal of Calvin urinating on the FAA, stick it on your model, and go flying.

[Steve Helmick]

Some of the FF guys are considering registration with the FAA because (and only because) they have R/C DT. I could be wrong, but IIRC, F1C models are required by the FAI to have R/C DT.

Do they make prisoners eat tofu in Federal Prisons? If they do, I may have to register.  Steve

[Ken Culbertson]

"The only model aircraft exempt from registration are: models weighing less than 250 g (about half a pound), free flight, control line, and indoor models."

But the real question is, has the FAA - repeat FAA - put this statement forward in print? I have not seen it. If so, someone please advise where. I could not find this clarification on their website.

FINALLY somebody get's it!

Ken

[john e. holliday]

The only way to get a definite answer is to have some one arrested for flying their control line plane and if convicted appeal it all the way to the supreme court.  Of course the old fogies that are sitting on the supreme probably cant remember what a model plane is.  Like the minorities that have them banned from local parks and school grounds because of a little noise.   My mower is louder than my LA 46.  They also forgot that some one flying locally would keep the youngsters entertained and maybe get them doing some thing with their hands beside using them on computer games.

[Jim Kraft]

Wait a minute Doc. Are you accusing the government of having common sense? You should be ashamed of yourself.

I remember the days I use to fly in any city park with no muffler, and people came out to watch. The same on ball diamonds and school yards. My first exposure to control line was in a school yard back in the early 40's. We have come a long ways baby.

I can still fly on my Grand daughters farm if I can keep the revenuers from finding me. When the black SUV's show up act dumb.

[wwwarbird]

When the black SUV's show up act dumb.

 That's good advice, play to their level. 

[Serge_Krauss]

Here's an e-mail exchange of a week or two ago:

AMA: Dear members, We're writing to let you know the FAA issued an Interim Final Rule today that will require drone pilots and model aircraft pilots to display their FAA-issued registration number on the outside surface of their aircraft. The rule will take effect on Monday, February 25, which means the markings must be in place for any outdoor flight beginning on that date...(There were three more paragraphs, but this one prompted me to respond.

SK: As usual, you have not mentioned control-line aircraft as either covered under the requirement or not covered. Having seen inconsistancy or often lack of awareness of our existence, there is no way that control line fliers can know whether this is an illogical FAA mandate applied to us or one of AMA's oversights. How about some clue about whether our tied-to-the-ground models flying tethered at or below 70' are seen as a national threat.  - SK

AMA: Mr. Krauss, Thank you for reaching out with your question – I apologize for the delay in response; I’ve been answering emails in the order received. If you exclusively fly models or unmanned aircraft weighing under a half pound  (250 grams or .55 pounds), indoors, control line, or free flight models – this rule would not apply. You do not need to register and would not need to mark the outside of the aircraft. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you for your support! Sincerely, Angie Martin Government Affairs. 765-287-1256 ext. 236.

[Brett Buck]

Here's an e-mail exchange of a week or two ago:

AMA: Dear members, We're writing to let you know the FAA issued an Interim Final Rule today that will require drone pilots and model aircraft pilots to display their FAA-issued registration number on the outside surface of their aircraft. The rule will take effect on Monday, February 25, which means the markings must be in place for any outdoor flight beginning on that date...(There were three more paragraphs, but this one prompted me to respond.

SK: As usual, you have not mentioned control-line aircraft as either covered under the requirement or not covered. Having seen inconsistancy or often lack of awareness of our existence, there is no way that control line fliers can know whether this is an illogical FAA mandate applied to us or one of AMA's oversights. How about some clue about whether our tied-to-the-ground models flying tethered at or below 70' are seen as a national threat.  - SK

AMA: Mr. Krauss, Thank you for reaching out with your question – I apologize for the delay in response; I’ve been answering emails in the order received. If you exclusively fly models or unmanned aircraft weighing under a half pound  (250 grams or .55 pounds), indoors, control line, or free flight models – this rule would not apply. You do not need to register and would not need to mark the outside of the aircraft. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you for your support! Sincerely, Angie Martin Government Affairs. 765-287-1256 ext. 236.

     That's at least consistent. The problem is that there is no one from the FAA saying that, and so far no one has found any indication that CL is exempt.

     Brett

[peabody]

If the law was that EVERYONE that flys models weighing more than 1/2 pound, why would it be so bad?
If you think the Government doesn't need to know, you're deluding yourself.

[Brett Buck]

If the law was that EVERYONE that flys models weighing more than 1/2 pound, why would it be so bad?
If you think the Government doesn't need to know, you're deluding yourself.

    The point of the law was to govern the irresponsible use of drones, that is their charter. They have now, to make it simple on themselves, just made it a blanket rule. They had to go out of their way to do it, having to get the Special Rule for Model Aircraft repealed or mooted.

   The issue with registration for RC is irritating, but justifiable for RC, and would not be onerous if it applied to all.  The problem is that this is not the end of the road - they are talking about having testing and transponders, and maybe mandatory geofencing software. How do you suppose you will comply with the geofencing software requirements on your Twister?

   This issue at hand here is that the AMA is saying one thing - that we are exempt -  which may well have been the intent of the law, but the FAA appears to show absolutely no distinctions in the model tyoe.

     Brett

[944_Jim]

The FAA needs to recognize the geo-fencing capabilities of a pair 25-70' lines.
If this goes absolutely sideways then my twin .020-powered profile Mosquito will have to become a full-fuselage Mosquito to carry a silly piece of Federally-required hardware that weighs more and costs more than the rest of the model.
This is stupid for the FAA to pretend there are no differences between CL and RC...especially between "us" and drone.
This may drive me to be a criminal, or go electric, small and indoors!

"Hey, man...whatchu in for? I got 20 to life for double-murder," he says.
"I got 3 to 5 for TEN GRAMS over the Federal limit...while flying my carpet-thread controlled toy airplane," says I.

That won't play out well in the showers!

[wwwarbird]

    ...but the FAA appears to show absolutely no distinctions in the model tyoe.

     Brett

 Because at this point, as a result of typical government laziness and ignorance, they've essentially made it a blanket rule like you mentioned. Would anyone really expect anything different these days?

 If the Feds were going to do anything at all I'd predicted and expected this current result by them long ago. I'd say not to expect much if any change or discernment from here. Along with many other segments of our model aviation hobbies they have no idea about what makes our C/L segment different from anything else, nor do they care. The AMA sure as hell isn't going to bother raising any flags in our defense either. Probably the one good thing about drones/quads is that they are such an obvious focal point these days that it makes our C/L segment even less visible to anyone other than ourselves. I'm sticking with suggesting that the bottom line in our case is to just shrug it all off and go out and fly as we've always done, no worries.

[Serge_Krauss]

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I have no intention of registering my simple CL planes.

[Steve Helmick]

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I have no intention of registering my simple CL planes.

I'll try to be contrary and won't register anything I've got. Which might include AK-47's, muskets, handguns and all sorts of other stuff that they have no business knowing about. The government can't get their own business done right, so why should we let them mess with our business?  Steve

[Skip Chernoff]

Our C/L and R/C flying site is located directly under one of the landing approaches for NE Philly Airport. We are always watching for approaching aircraft and stay below the 400' limit. As the crow flies, we're probably less than 1 mile from the airport.

I am certain that one of these days someone from the FAA will pay us a visit to check our compliance. As field safety officer, I'm encouraging all pilots to have their FAA numbers on their planes whether they like it or not. Cheers,Skip

[wwwarbird]

I'm not trying to be contrary, but I have no intention of registering my simple CL planes.

 Me either.

 

[EddyR]

  I have found that most people who are not molders when picking up my 2.5--3 pound models think they only weight a few ounces.   Hay that's correct they only weight 7 ounces.
Ed

[Lauri Malila]

Me either.

Why would we bother when it's very clear at the moment that FF and CL don't have to be registered? L

[Brett Buck]

Why would we bother when it's very clear at the moment that FF and CL don't have to be registered? L

  That is absolutely NOT clear. The AMA asserts this, it was probably the original intent to only regulate RC/drones (hence the use of the phrase "ground-control station") but it (so far) is nowhere to be found in any FAA-propagated regulation.

    Brett

[Ken Culbertson]

  That is absolutely NOT clear. The AMA asserts this, it was probably the original intent to only regulate RC/drones (hence the use of the phrase "ground-control station") but it (so far) is nowhere to be found in any FAA-propagated regulation.

    Brett

I contacted the FAA and asked the question directly.  They asked me to read the prepared responses to see if it had already been answered then to submit the question if it was not.  It wasn't so I did.  They sent me a thank you email with the prepared answers that I had just told them did not answer the question as their response.  So I went to open an account, (fighting city hall is not my long suit).  I entered my email and it said it was not on file and I needed to add an account.  So I did and it told me that my email was already on file and I should log in.  Now it doesn't like my password and I should get an email with a link to change it.  I am still waiting for the email.

These are the people keeping our sky's safe?

[wwwarbird]

I contacted the FAA and asked the question directly.

 Bad idea if you ask me. I've suggested it before but as far as the C/L segment goes I feel we'd do much better to just stay quiet and remain under the radar. I'd bet it would be pretty tough to find anyone in the FAA who even knows what a Control Line model is, might as well do what we can to keep it that way.

[Dave Hull]

Wayne,

"Just staying quiet" may work or it may not. For some flying sites, in my opinion it is not smart.

One of our fields is adjacent to a smaller towered airport. A group of our fliers reported that the tower supervisor either heard our guys were flying, or saw them. He immediately came over to the grassy field we were renting. His initial suspicion was that we were flying drones, and he was going to shut it down. He was apparently patient enough to listen to an explanation of what control line was, and how the plane was tethered and then strapped to the wrist. At that point, he told us to have fun, and went back to the tower. It could have turned out very different.
 
What we need is an FAA memo to the field offices that provides guidance that control line airplanes are tethered, that they are not remotely piloted (no RF link), that they have no GPS coupled autopilot and cannot operate autonomously, and are not within the category of sUAS by both the FAA and the Congress' definitions. With such a guidance document in hand, we could refer to it when parks people try to shut us down for operating in a VIP TFR area, for when we are within a 5 mile radius of a tower without a letter agreement with the tower to permit sUAS flight, and for when they simply call the local police to enforce a "no sUAS" policy. It would also exempt us from the FAA registration and marking requirements. Using a memo to provide a rules interpretation--a guidance document--is how the FAA normally operates.

I made an attempt to get the responsible AMA person to do this (relative to the VIP TFRs) back in April of 2011. I was rebuffed. The reason given was that we (control line guys) should not "rock the boat." And here we are. Still. The situation has not "gone away by ignoring it."  It has cascaded into the sUAS thing. If we had dealt with the control line exception back then, it is highly likely that it would have carried over into the rules being rolled out today.

So everyone gets to make a personal decision about whether to register, mark, or even fly. If you fly in a city, or near an airport then getting that decision right becomes important. If the tower calls the local cops and they come out and confiscate your equipment, do you think the AMA would have any ability/interest to intervene on your behalf? That would be rocking the boat....

In a way, it is kind of like making an omelet. If you are doing everything you can to keep the fragile shell from breaking, you aren't ever going to accomplish anything.

Dave Hull

[Jim Kraft]

FAA definition. If it flies, and is not controlled from with in, it is a UAS. That is the only definition they give. So it is up to the lawyers to define their definition. The full law has not been completed, and we will not know what is required until it comes out. It appears there will be a test and a card required to show one has completed the test and is certified to fly model airplanes. One has to be over 16 years old to even be certified. Or have a certified person with them.

Control line falls somewhere in all the confusion. That is where the lawyers come in. They are already advertising to handle your law suit.

[Ken Culbertson]

Wayne,

"Just staying quiet" may work or it may not. For some flying sites, in my opinion it is not smart.

One of our fields is adjacent to a smaller towered airport. A group of our fliers reported that the tower supervisor either heard our guys were flying, or saw them. He immediately came over to the grassy field we were renting. His initial suspicion was that we were flying drones, and he was going to shut it down. He was apparently patient enough to listen to an explanation of what control line was, and how the plane was tethered and then strapped to the wrist. At that point, he told us to have fun, and went back to the tower. It could have turned out very different.
 
What we need is an FAA memo to the field offices that provides guidance that control line airplanes are tethered, that they are not remotely piloted (no RF link), that they have no GPS coupled autopilot and cannot operate autonomously, and are not within the category of sUAS by both the FAA and the Congress' definitions. With such a guidance document in hand, we could refer to it when parks people try to shut us down for operating in a VIP TFR area, for when we are within a 5 mile radius of a tower without a letter agreement with the tower to permit sUAS flight, and for when they simply call the local police to enforce a "no sUAS" policy. It would also exempt us from the FAA registration and marking requirements. Using a memo to provide a rules interpretation--a guidance document--is how the FAA normally operates.

I made an attempt to get the responsible AMA person to do this (relative to the VIP TFRs) back in April of 2011. I was rebuffed. The reason given was that we (control line guys) should not "rock the boat." And here we are. Still. The situation has not "gone away by ignoring it."  It has cascaded into the sUAS thing. If we had dealt with the control line exception back then, it is highly likely that it would have carried over into the rules being rolled out today.

So everyone gets to make a personal decision about whether to register, mark, or even fly. If you fly in a city, or near an airport then getting that decision right becomes important. If the tower calls the local cops and they come out and confiscate your equipment, do you think the AMA would have any ability/interest to intervene on your behalf? That would be rocking the boat....

In a way, it is kind of like making an omelet. If you are doing everything you can to keep the fragile shell from breaking, you aren't ever going to accomplish anything.

Dave Hull

I couldn't agree more.  There is a right way and a wrong way to "fight" city hall.  Defiance rarely works, cooperation and logic rarely fails (unless it is politics which has become logic free).  Our problem is that we let the AMA be our voice.  In retrospect it should have been PAMPA but that is water over the dam and under the bridge - we are stuck.  I don't think it is unreasonable to approach both the AMA and FAA to try and get such a clarification letter issued.  In the mean time, either don't fly or get the stupid number.

It is unfathomable to me that our AMA representatives let this slide without a serious fight.  From the government side, I can see why we are simply Road Kill.  If we voted as a block we probably couldn't sway an election for dog catcher and regulating the drones actually is a national security issue.  Getting legislators to make exceptions for "US" when they don't really even know who "US" is was AMA's job.  So now it is too late for that.  Getting a change to the legislation through a socialist house - forget it.  Somewhere inside the FAA there is a reasonable person with the authority to issue a clarification.  Seriously folks, you have to be 16 years old, licensed and get permission to fly a paper airplane in your front yard under the strict letter of this law and we all know that IS NOT what they intended.

Ken 

Ken

[Dave_Trible]

No I don’t think that was intended but they do have a real set of problems with drones and airports especially.  They are now investing serious money in drone ‘jamming’ devices around major airports and I DO understand what the concern is and why ‘they’ have to try to get a handle on it.  It’s a shame real modeling has to be thrown under the same bus but ‘they’ aren’t going to try to discern wheat from chaff.  Many in the FAA have some interest and understanding of what model airplanes are and the differences between that and drones.  Drones are having as many good uses as bad and are here to stay.  For me- I just paid my five bucks and moved on.  I doubt you’ll ever have a problem unless you do something that draws negative attention to yourself.  They have to have tools and mechanisms to deal with those who do. 

Dave

[Dave Hull]

Ken,

A bit of hyperbole on your part, but I get it. The lower weight limit would exclude any conceivable paper airplane on that basis. I think the 16 year old age minimum is for a Part 107 operators license, just like other FAA pilot's licenses. We are talking registration here, not licensing. And we don't have an FAA ruling that separates certain types of model airplanes from sUAS's for registration purposes. But I won't dispute your sentiment.

Given the situation, I think it is important to be precise, so that we are dealing with exactly what is law, and not someone's opinion which is untested in either an FAA hearing, or a court of law. Since this was all so foreseeable, it is really unfortunate that anyone would be faced with legal action over a "non-security issue" coming from a control line plane. Or in your example, a paper airplane.

You can always go with the AMA guidance, which is that control line planes are not included in the current, evolving, regulations. I hope it gets documented by the FAA that way eventually. I just don't expect that the AMA will be able to provide any support for confiscated equipment, legal counsel, or help with fines while we take that journey. And if the modeler gets crucified in social media before the facts get straightened out, well, that is how American's apparently like to consume their (spectacular) news nowadays.

Dave

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken,

A bit of hyperbole on your part, but I get it. The lower weight limit would exclude any conceivable paper airplane on that basis. I think the 16 year old age minimum is for a Part 107 operators license, just like other FAA pilot's licenses. We are talking registration here, not licensing. And we don't have an FAA ruling that separates certain types of model airplanes from sUAS's for registration purposes. But I won't dispute your sentiment.

Given the situation, I think it is important to be precise, so that we are dealing with exactly what is law, and not someone's opinion which is untested in either an FAA hearing, or a court of law. Since this was all so foreseeable, it is really unfortunate that anyone would be faced with legal action over a "non-security issue" coming from a control line plane. Or in your example, a paper airplane.

You can always go with the AMA guidance, which is that control line planes are not included in the current, evolving, regulations. I hope it gets documented by the FAA that way eventually. I just don't expect that the AMA will be able to provide any support for confiscated equipment, legal counsel, or help with fines while we take that journey. And if the modeler gets crucified in social media before the facts get straightened out, well, that is how American's apparently like to consume their (spectacular) news nowadays.

Dave

Guilty as charged but I have made some pretty heavy paper airplanes in my life.  My point was how it will play out when the low level enforcers show up.  My 7 year old grandson got a really nice drone for Christmas that is over the weight limit by about an ounce.  Technically he has to wait till he is 13 (1) now to fly it by himself.

ken

(1) I have been reminded that it is 13 not 16.  My bad.

[Dave Hull]

Ken,

Where are you seeing the age 16 piloting restriction for hobby drones? What I can find is that you have to be 13 in order to register. Else, someone older than 13 has to register it for you. See the link below. And it goes without saying that someone needs to clearly explain the consequences of bad choices if he decides it would be cool to fly it (fill in the blank here). The guy who flew over the White House grounds probably went thru some excruciating interviews. He can probably forget about any type of government employment for the rest of his life. The guy who interfered within the TFR in New York, exceeded the 400 foot limit, and got run over by a Blackhawk helicopter got dragged out of work the next day by the FBI. That sounds like fun as well as being career-enhancing. The guys flying near the fire bombers would have gotten a warm. welcoming interview, had they been caught. Near my house, the local kids thought that racing the cars down residential streets was pretty fun for a while.... Not sure if some guy with an expensive car stopped to explain life to them or if they just got bored with it.

I share your concern about local enforcement.

Dave


ref.:  https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/

[Ken Culbertson]

Ken,

Where are you seeing the age 16 piloting restriction for hobby drones? What I can find is that you have to be 13 in order to register

13!  Sorry I thought it was 16.

Ken

[wwwarbird]

 Whatever the case, I guess time will tell. The biggest bummer about the whole thing is that the Feds have now become involved in our hobby. As a result the only thing we can probably count on is that if there's a way to screw us, there's a good chance they'll find it. 

[Dave_Trible]

This seems again to depends who you are asking.  If you fly just controline or free flight the AMA believes you do not.  However the 400' rule hasn't changed so I wouldn't trust that for sure if I ever flew any FF.  The federal regs for now would have you to think anything but a paper airplane is considered a UAS and the OWNER should be registered.  I see some are saying "register their airplanes"-no.  You are registering yourself just like your AMA license (or drivers license for that matter) not the aircraft.  I'll say again;  you are out $5 and then simply are covered and not have to worry about it either way no matter what you are going to fly or which way the FAA stears the rules unless we are totally banned.  That will never happen given all the ever-growing commercial use for drones. I think I spent more than that last time I went to McDonalds-and this won't give you indigestion.  You can principally say no- just like a drivers license, car insurance, health insurance,  fishing license , or AMA license,  but you will be the one to suffer any consequences when something happens.  I joined up the first day and will say nobody has contacted me, asked for a list of my equipment or cared in the least what I'm doing with it.  I'm lost in the masses-but legal.

Dave

[Chad Hill]

When CL contests are held which attract foreign modelers, will they be required to register with the FAA? Just imagine...ridiculousness reaches a new level.

[Ken Culbertson]

This seems again to depends who you are asking.  If you fly just controline or free flight the AMA believes you do not.  However the 400' rule hasn't changed so I wouldn't trust that for sure if I ever flew any FF.  The federal regs for now would have you to think anything but a paper airplane is considered a UAS and the OWNER should be registered.  I see some are saying "register their airplanes"-no.  You are registering yourself just like your AMA license (or drivers license for that matter) not the aircraft.  I'll say again;  you are out $5 and then simply are covered and not have to worry about it either way no matter what you are going to fly or which way the FAA stears the rules unless we are totally banned.  That will never happen given all the ever-growing commercial use for drones. I think I spent more than that last time I went to McDonalds-and this won't give you indigestion.  You can principally say no- just like a drivers license, car insurance, health insurance,  fishing license , or AMA license,  but you will be the one to suffer any consequences when something happens.  I joined up the first day and will say nobody has contacted me, asked for a list of my equipment or cared in the least what I'm doing with it.  I'm lost in the masses-but legal.

Dave

Now that I have my own personalized FAA Number am I free to raise hell with them?
I even printed out my own wallet card to proudly stick in Barney Fife's face.  Sometimes when things are so rediculous that you just say ,,,huh it is better to just comply and fight it elsewhere.  I remember having to get the FCC (I think it was FCC) operators license back in the 60's to fly RC.  It was stupid and they did away with it.  Stupid had children.

Ken aka FA3XFXLXL7

[Dave_Trible]

Looks good on ya!

Dave

[dave siegler]

The Faa inst staffed to enforce this. 

The only time this will be checked is if a drone flies away and they need to get the owner. 
Local law enforcement isnt going to check your airplanes.
Lighten up all of you. 

[Ken Culbertson]

The Faa inst staffed to enforce this. 

The only time this will be checked is if a drone flies away and they need to get the owner. 
Local law enforcement isnt going to check your airplanes.
Lighten up all of you.

Ever belong to a HOA?  You give a bureaucrat a regulation and you have a tyrant.  You are probably right but it took 5 minutes and I don't have to worry about it any more.

FA3XFXLXL7

[Dan McEntee]

Now that I have my own personalized FAA Number am I free to raise hell with them?
I even printed out my own wallet card to proudly stick in Barney Fife's face.  Sometimes when things are so rediculous that you just say ,,,huh it is better to just comply and fight it elsewhere.  I remember having to get the FCC (I think it was FCC) operators license back in the 60's to fly RC.  It was stupid and they did away with it.  Stupid had children.

Ken aka FA3XFXLXL7

    This is I think stinks the most. You have to print your own license?  How phony, baloney is that? I don't own a printer!  If they want me to have it, then they should provide it. Leaves too much of a chance of fake registration. That is why I think the whole thing is a scare tactic. And there have been instances where run away quads have been recovered by local law enforcement, and they had registration numbers on them. local law enforcement called FAA and was told that they had no way of tracking the number! Just think how easy it is to make up a fake number!

    But in my observation, things have sorta died down on this front. Less and less in the news about it as time goes by. Craig's List here has more and more of the Phantom and other higher end quads listed. I think the fad is passing. It will settle down to the people using them as real tools, with an occasional rogue.

  Type at you later,
  Dan McEntee

[Jim Kraft]

I thing one could copy the norm of the FAA number and put it on your plane. Since they have no way to check them, how would they know. It reminds me of when I bought my first Harley. I think I was 14, and did not want to buy a tag. I got an old 1/2 ton farm tag that is the size of a motorcycle tag, and repainted it. Never got stopped for not having a license.

I did get stopped for driving a car under age at night, but that is another story. Preachers kids can be good for nothing.