# U.S. Announces Task Force to Develop Drone Registry



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 19, 2015)

```
<p>From Reuters:</p>
<p>Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:32pm EDT – The Obama administration, faced with rising safety and security risks from a surge in unauthorized drone flights, announced a new task force on Monday to develop a new federal register for the owners of unmanned aerial systems.</p>
<p>The task force of both private sector and government officials is charged with recommending by Nov 20 a process for drone registration that federal authorities hope to have in place before the Christmas holiday, when more than 1 million drones are expected to be purchased by consumers.</p>
<p>“We’re going to require operators of drones to register their aircraft,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said at a news conference.</p>
<p>The registry would apply not only to new drone sales, but also to drones already in use, officials said.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/us-usa-drones-registry-idUSKCN0SD1YV20151019" target="_blank">Read more…</a></p>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 19, 2015)

When I first read this, I wondered what good it would do to register over a million drones. Those who intend to break the law would not register, or if they did, how would a drone be traced to them. They could put anyone's registration number on it, or none at all.

I don't think there is a way to deal with those who intentionally go about breaking the law, and there is no need to bother the honest ones with registration.

Maybe force drone manufacturers to put in a mandatory kill switch or a way for law enforcement to take over a offending drone. Hackers would likely circumvent this too.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 19, 2015)

.
Here's one useful potential use -- getting the equipment back to a rightful owner if lost...





These things are incremental, and the development of technology has many models. In the teens and early twenties, radio was unregulated. People typically built a radio and just began broadcasting. It took some years, but regulation eventually gave us the orderly system we have today. In the early days of aircraft anyone could get into an aircraft and fly anywhere they wanted to or could. Eventually the regulators stepped in and provided the basis for the constipated system we have now. The 1975 movie, "The Great Waldo Pepper" tells the story of early regulation and resistance to it.

This will start with simple registration. Some people will do it, some won't. As the FAA suggests, the mere requirement will make it all seem more serious. Next they'll start searching for refinements. Perhaps they'll require drone makers to equip each unit with an identifiable squawker so their presence can be monitored -- and probably recorded. Even simple registration might help when one falls out of the sky onto your eight-year-old at the little league field and the the owner flees rather than taking responsibility.

Think about the future -- you'll one day be able to tell your grandchildren you were there at the dawn of the drone era when anyone could just lift off and let loose anywhere or any way they liked. Exciting times.​


----------



## chromophore (Oct 19, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When I first read this, I wondered what good it would do to register over a million drones. Those who intend to break the law would not register, or if they did, how would a drone be traced to them. They could put anyone's registration number on it, or none at all.
> 
> I don't think there is a way to deal with those who intentionally go about breaking the law, and there is no need to bother the honest ones with registration.
> 
> Maybe force drone manufacturers to put in a mandatory kill switch or a way for law enforcement to take over a offending drone. Hackers would likely circumvent this too.



Regulation in general is not necessarily about preventing intentional criminal use; it is about enforcing rules that deter casual infringement.

For example, the issuance of drivers' licenses is not meant to ensure that there cannot be anyone who operates a motor vehicle on public roads without a license. People do it all the time. Yet there are very few people who are licensed that intentionally refuse to carry their license with them when they do drive. The general public recognizes that this is a necessary aspect of the privilege to drive; they recognize that it is to their collective benefit. It increases accountability. Similarly, the registration of motor vehicles is meant to ensure that people who own a vehicle are operating and maintaining it in accordance to legal requirements, but registration does not stop criminals from illegal operation of unregistered cars. The proposed registration of drones is in many ways similar to the registration of motor vehicles.

Can you hack a drone? Of course. But the bottom line is that the government sees a need to regulate drone operation because the collective drone-operating public has not demonstrated sufficient responsibility to make the risks (real or perceived) to the general public small enough to outweigh the bureaucratic costs of implementing a registration process. That it has taken them this long to act is saying quite a lot about how hands-off they have been until now.


----------



## LDS (Oct 19, 2015)

Psss... I can sell you an unregistered drone... ;D

(at a far higher price, of course...)


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 19, 2015)

What's the difference between a task force and a committee?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> What's the difference between a task force and a committee?



Task Forces generally have a specific job to accomplish. 

Committees are groups of congressional blowhards who grill people at the center of a controversy in public hearings to score points with the public. :

I very well may be wrong with that distinction, but that's been our recent sort of split between groups that talk about things and groups that actually do things.

- A


----------



## TeT (Oct 19, 2015)

What will be the Drone Registry Fee? Will it be yearly like your auto Registration?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 19, 2015)

In general, this had to be done. Will it stop misuse of these? Yes and no. Idiotic/inadvertent misuse will have the feedback loop of nasty fines, I'm sure, so they will tend to correct themselves. But deliberate misuse will still occur if someone is hell-bent on doing it. 

But we have to declare _something_ policy-wise on these things -- acknowledging that there is potentially dangerous new technology that is becoming more and more popular demands rules / guidelines and penalties for the obvious knuckleheaded things like flying near an emergency in progress, flying near airports, etc. Here in Cailfornia, we've had drones block/interrupt/threaten water-dropping aircraft during wildfires:

http://www.slrlounge.com/75000-reward-drone-operators-california-wildfires/

I'm still waiting for manufacturers to have to install proximity-based killswitches for the above scenarios, but baby steps are better than no steps at all, I guess.

- A


----------



## meywd (Oct 19, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When I first read this, I wondered what good it would do to register over a million drones. Those who intend to break the law would not register, or if they did, how would a drone be traced to them. They could put anyone's registration number on it, or none at all.
> 
> I don't think there is a way to deal with those who intentionally go about breaking the law, and there is no need to bother the honest ones with registration.
> 
> Maybe force drone manufacturers to put in a mandatory kill switch or a way for law enforcement to take over a offending drone. Hackers would likely circumvent this too.



If each drone component has a serial number then it will be easy to track, and some serial numbers can be hardcoded in the chips, of course even these can be overridden with customs chips, but then again it will not be a normal purchase now, would it?


----------



## tpatana (Oct 20, 2015)

meywd said:


> If each drone component has a serial number then it will be easy to track, and some serial numbers can be hardcoded in the chips, of course even these can be overridden with customs chips, but then again it will not be a normal purchase now, would it?



No clue on drones but I would guess they each have MAC-address on the control traffic. 

So officials should capture that when drone flies to no-fly zone. Then call the shop who sold said MAC and ask who bought that one. Get the address, send the SWAT team, break down the door, beat up the suspect, spoof the evidence, life without parole.

Ah, living the American dream.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 20, 2015)

As the great Ronaldus Maximus famously said, "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."


----------



## Aglet (Oct 20, 2015)

Yup, give everyone access to some great tools/recreational toys and there will be a few idiots making trouble that will have deleterious effects for all users.

So now da man is comin after yer toys

This is a developing battle with UAVs of all kinds proving themselves capable of very good AND very bad things.


kill Big drones

http://www.gizmag.com/us-army-eads-anti-drone-system/39781/


disable small to mini drones

http://www.gizmag.com/anti-uav-defense-system-radio-beam-drones/39778/


portable drone killer

http://www.gizmag.com/battelles-dronedefender-beam-gun-uavs/39885/


find drones where they don't belong

http://www.gizmag.com/us-faa-drone-detection-airport/39775/


----------



## Bennymiata (Oct 20, 2015)

Here in Oz, if the drone weighs over 6kg (about 12 lbs), the operator must be licensed and getting a drone operators certificate is almost as hard as getting a pilots license.
Smaller drones operate under the same laws as radio controlled aircraft, which means you can't fly them in streets or in parks, unless the park permits the flying of RC planes etc. and you must be 30m (100ft) from people, buildings etc. at all times. 
However, lots of people use smaller drones not just for fun, but also for real estate photography.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 20, 2015)

JonAustin said:


> As the great Ronaldus Maximus famously said, "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."



Now that's a truism if ever there was one


----------



## Tugela (Oct 20, 2015)

meywd said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > When I first read this, I wondered what good it would do to register over a million drones. Those who intend to break the law would not register, or if they did, how would a drone be traced to them. They could put anyone's registration number on it, or none at all.
> ...



The way to do it would be to require all drones offered for sale to include a transponder that law enforcement can ping to determine its identity and whether or not it has been properly licensed. If a drone doesn't respond to a ping, then shoot it down.

If done properly it would be a fairly simple way to enforce the regulations.


----------



## meywd (Oct 20, 2015)

tpatana said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > If each drone component has a serial number then it will be easy to track, and some serial numbers can be hardcoded in the chips, of course even these can be overridden with customs chips, but then again it will not be a normal purchase now, would it?
> ...



Yeah, MAC-Addresses are unique so it can be done, but I am not sure every drone has an NIC.


----------



## meywd (Oct 20, 2015)

Tugela said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



The same they do with airplanes, however that is not necessary, because if it poses a threat they will shoot it down anyway, since there is no humans on board and no political ramifications.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 20, 2015)

This is a local issue and should not be on the federal radar. I'm surprised at how many people support this.

Why is it on the radar?

Revenue, pure and simple. The feds will do it. Then the states.

Don't kid yourself into thinking they care about your safety. It is about the appearance of caring... and that justifies a new revenue stream.

I'm reminded of the 1970's when a license (Federal and issued by the FCC) was required to operate a citizen's band radio.

Local laws can be challenged when they are too restrictive of personal freedom. It takes years when the law is federal, if at all.

Don't surrender your freedom so easily.

35,000 people a year die in automobile accidents in the USA. 35,000! Nearly every car is registered at the state level. 

How many have been killed by a personal drone? 

The misuse of alcohol causes untold deaths and crime every year. It is regulated by federal, state, and local governments. Maybe the bottles ought to be registered. Maybe the bottles should have squawkers... that way the local police could keep a closer eye on the drinkers. 

Maybe every car should be required to have a breathalyzer installed whether or not the operator drinks. Afterall, we'll all be safer that way. 

If we could save just one person.... it is worth it. Forget about freedom and liberty. It's for the children, afterall. 

Registration will not stop some idiot from flying a drone in restricted airspace.


----------



## meywd (Oct 20, 2015)

I didn't read anyone express support, we are simply discussing the challenges of implementing it, I for one don't see the need, but I believe they are doing this for security reasons, like how drones are not allowed to fly above police stations, and how they are afraid of spying, so even if safety is one of the reasons it would be on the lower end of the list.


----------



## ashley (Oct 20, 2015)

_*The way to do it would be to require all drones offered for sale to include a transponder that law enforcement can ping to determine its identity and whether or not it has been properly licensed. If a drone doesn't respond to a ping, then shoot it down.

If done properly it would be a fairly simple way to enforce the regulations.


The same they do with airplanes, however that is not necessary, because if it poses a threat they will shoot it down anyway, since there is no humans on board and no political ramifications.*_

They can only shoot it down if they can see it… drones are too small to show up on radar, hence a transponder would show it up on radar, then they could find it

I believe there was a drone-strike with a light aircraft in the UK just a few weeks ago, so its just a matter of time before one hits a commercial aircraft… this is where the danger lies and the need for something to be done

Yes, I am a pilot and although a drone hitting a commercial jet will probably do minimal damage unless it enters an engine or hits the cockpit windshield, hitting a GA aircraft will cause damage, especially if a prop strike or goes through the cockpit window. Although GA pilots aren't openly worried about a drone-strike I think it is starting to make us all think about what-ifs; we do this because we need to have an action plan as to what to do if we do hit something which damages the aircraft or worse yet stops the engine

I think drones are a lot of fun and you can get some fantastic shots/footage from them, just a along as the operators are careful. Was recently told a story about a teenager flying his drone next to my local airfield. When confronted about his activity his answer was "but its an airport", as if it was alright to fly a drone at airports!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 20, 2015)

The drone community brought this on themselves. Like so many other activities, the few are ruining it for the many and it will be the many being inconvenienced because of the few.


----------



## Patpilot (Oct 20, 2015)

From a different perspective, that of a former airline pilot, registration provides an opportunity to ensure that the drone operators understand all of the rules and regulations for flying them. It doesn't ensure that they will not be used improperly, but it increases the chances that they will. It keeps the honest people honest. Eventually, I suspect, that drones will come with GPS units and a data base that will keep them clear of airports and arrival and departure paths.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 20, 2015)

RC helicopters have been around for most of my life. Were the issues that are being mentioned as the impetus behind this not issues before? Namely flying RC aircraft near airports, or above 400 ft?


----------



## cayenne (Oct 20, 2015)

tpatana said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > If each drone component has a serial number then it will be easy to track, and some serial numbers can be hardcoded in the chips, of course even these can be overridden with customs chips, but then again it will not be a normal purchase now, would it?
> ...



If it is anything like a MAC address on a computer, then it will also be insanely easy to spoof and fake.

cayenne


----------



## distant.star (Oct 20, 2015)

.
I agree completely.



Patpilot said:


> From a different perspective, that of a former airline pilot, registration provides an opportunity to ensure that the drone operators understand all of the rules and regulations for flying them. It doesn't ensure that they will not be used improperly, but it increases the chances that they will. It keeps the honest people honest. Eventually, I suspect, that drones will come with GPS units and a data base that will keep them clear of airports and arrival and departure paths.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Oct 20, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> This is a local issue and should not be on the federal radar. I'm surprised at how many people support this.


Nope. Regulation of airspace is under the authority of the FAA. It's at a federal level because 50 (51?) variations on airspace rules throughout our country would be a good idea?


CanonFanBoy said:


> Why is it on the radar?


Because they're already causing issues fighting fires in CA. Because they're spotted around airports and are a safety hazard there. Because idiots keep flying them where they shouldn't and often without the skills needed to keep them on course.


CanonFanBoy said:


> Revenue, pure and simple. The feds will do it. Then the states.


Yeah, they might make some money. That's not the reason to do it any more than a driver's license fee is about revenue. That is not to say that isn't a factor, but that it's hardly the main reason.


CanonFanBoy said:


> Local laws can be challenged when they are too restrictive of personal freedom. It takes years when the law is federal, if at all.
> 
> Don't surrender your freedom so easily.


So if the government is operating drones on U.S. soil, that's an infringement on personal freedoms and privacy, but if an individual is doing it, that's personal freedom and not an invasion of privacy or potential endangerment? Please explain.

No, really, explain that one.


CanonFanBoy said:


> How many have been killed by a personal drone?


None. Does someone have to die to change the rules? If so, can we talk about guns yet?

[Slippery Slope arguments ignored]



CanonFanBoy said:


> If we could save just one person.... it is worth it. Forget about freedom and liberty. It's for the children, afterall.


So what's acceptable collateral damage from another person's actions then? By that logic, why bother with any rules at all? Licenses, fees, regulations, and penalties are deterrents, not stoppers, of undesirable behavior. 


CanonFanBoy said:


> Registration will not stop some idiot from flying a drone in restricted airspace.


Nobody said it would any more than driver's licenses stop accidents or speed limits stop speeding. However licenses increase the likelihood that drivers understand the law and are aware of the consequences just as the speed limit signs make drivers aware that driving faster may incur additional fees.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 21, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> RC helicopters have been around for most of my life. Were the issues that are being mentioned as the impetus behind this not issues before? Namely flying RC aircraft near airports, or above 400 ft?



Typical RC aircraft have been around a long time but generally required a level of dedication and skill to participate and association with an organized group who _followed the rules._

Multicopters, by virtue of the built-in processing needed to keep them stable, are inherently easier to "fly." They also benefit from the offshoot of consumer electronics development far more than the 'normal' RC aircraft. This has allowed sohisticated and powerful technology to be produced at ridiculously low prices that mean they get sold in all kinds of retailers, not just 'hobby-shops.' Hobby shops, at least the ones with some integrity, advise and caution their customers on the use of products if those people don't have some sort of club affiliation where they can be taught the the rules of operating these models.
This all went out the retail window when multi-copter _drones_ hit the market. Any bub could operate one, and many don't know, or care, about common sense rules of safety. And now we have big brother looking to police the use of toys which should have remained useful tools and recreational devices handled by skilled and considerate operators.
Drones have become the corner-store canned-beer of remote control models.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 21, 2015)

The information available is pointing toward the regulation of the more powerful and professional level drones, the toy ones will not be regulated.

I almost was hit inside a Fry's Store by a sales person demonstrating a toy drone, letting it get out of control and crashing near me clear across the store. If the people demonstrating them can't safely fly them, it does not look good for the future with a million more expected to appear this December. Fortunately, most of the toy ones will self destruct in a few days due to inexperienced operators.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 21, 2015)

I see we have a lot of people talking who don't know what they are talking about.

Most drones don't have a MAC address for the simple reason that they don't have a network connection. Some have wifi and use that for control, configuration or just live video, but most use the public 2.4GHz band utilizing digital spread spectrum for control. It's not only hard to jam, it's also highly illegal to do so.

Most model aircraft don't have any sort of GPS Unit ID, MAC address, serial number or any other unique identifier anywhere on them. Only some multi-rotor craft have GPS. They don't need to. What they need is a 6-axis IMU (3 accelerometers, 3 rate gyros). Many supplement the IMU with a magnetic compass, a barometer, or both. Only some have GPS.

It's not hard at all to go to an online hobby store and buy a frame, a motor set, a set of speed controls, and a control board and build your own drone out of parts from many different suppliers. Again, such a device wouldn't have a serial number, or even a model number, and it has no real need of a GPS Unit ID or MAC address because it has no GPS device or networking capability.

Further, this policy is unlikely to apply to the most common consumer level drones because they are too small to cause a real threat. So it's only going to apply to large drones which are in the tens of thousands of dollars. However, those drones don't cause any problems because operators of expensive devices like that tend to know what they are doing.

Finally, the FAA is forbidden by law from promulgating rules on recreational model aircraft subject to a few rules, such as them weighing under 55 pounds. So, any registry for small recreational models is unenforceable and likely illegal if people are following the rules.

So, it's all a paper tiger meant to make it look like something is being done when, in reality, nothing is being done, nor does anything need to be done. We have rules both in the AMA and in the FAA Modernization Act of 2012. There's no need for more rules, just more education:

http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 21, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Fortunately, most of the toy ones will self destruct in a few days due to inexperienced operators.


2 years ago at Christmas I received a tiny remote control drone..... I charged the batteries and gave it it's maiden flight. About 5 seconds into the flight (hovering 4 feet in the air) it has snatched out of the air by Fluffy the cat and it never flew again.......


----------



## distant.star (Oct 21, 2015)

.
Fluffy 1, Drones 0

Good for Fluffy!!




Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Fortunately, most of the toy ones will self destruct in a few days due to inexperienced operators.
> ...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 21, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Finally, the FAA is forbidden by law from promulgating rules on recreational model aircraft subject to a few rules, such as them weighing under 55 pounds. So, any registry for small recreational models is unenforceable and likely illegal if people are following the rules.



That would depend on the judicial interpretation of the law. The courts may rule that registration is allowed and does not violate section 336 of the FAA Modernization Act of 2012.


----------



## chromophore (Oct 21, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> Fluffy 1, Drones 0
> 
> Good for Fluffy!!
> ...



I am surprised that there has not yet been the commercialization of robustly designed small drones as cat (or dog) toys. A small hovering object totally hits all of a cat's hunting instinct buttons like you wouldn't believe, second only to a laser pointer.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 21, 2015)

chromophore said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## Tugela (Oct 22, 2015)

ashley said:


> _*The way to do it would be to require all drones offered for sale to include a transponder that law enforcement can ping to determine its identity and whether or not it has been properly licensed. If a drone doesn't respond to a ping, then shoot it down.
> 
> If done properly it would be a fairly simple way to enforce the regulations.
> 
> ...



The beauty of radio controlled devices is that you can down them electronically.

Obviously they wouldn't do it if they didn't know it was there, but if one was seen flying about it provides law enforcement with a mechanism to deal with it.

They really need to do this because pretty soon there are going to be millions of them flying around, and you can bet that a good percentage of them are going to be used for invasion of privacy purposes.


----------



## Tugela (Oct 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> I see we have a lot of people talking who don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Most drones don't have a MAC address for the simple reason that they don't have a network connection. Some have wifi and use that for control, configuration or just live video, but most use the public 2.4GHz band utilizing digital spread spectrum for control. It's not only hard to jam, it's also highly illegal to do so.
> 
> ...



Requiring a transponder as part of licensing will knock out the current models, so that isn't a real problem. It doesn't matter if people make them from spare parts or not, if they fly without an active and registered transponder, they get brought down.

Current laws can be changed, so that isn't a problem either. Drone operation was not enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers.

I disagree with them not being a threat. If there are millions of them being flown, it is only a matter of time before damage to property or persons happen. And the implications of abuse with respect to invasion of privacy are enormous. I think it is just a matter of time before drones are heavily regulated. They may make an exception grandfathering single propeller devices, but the multicopter ones have to go.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 22, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Requiring a transponder as part of licensing will knock out the current models, so that isn't a real problem. It doesn't matter if people make them from spare parts or not, if they fly without an active and registered transponder, they get brought down.



I have some that have a total all-up mass of one ounce. Think that could carry a transponder?

And don't forget, there is existing law against that.



> Current laws can be changed, so that isn't a problem either.



You don't think getting new laws through Congress is a problem right now?



> Drone operation was not enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers.



That's a matter of debate.



> I disagree with them not being a threat.



Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if it's wrong.



> If there are millions of them being flown, it is only a matter of time before damage to property or persons happen.



At any one moment, around 1-10 billion birds are in the air over the US. Most consumer drones are flown a few minutes a year, and maybe there will be a million of them at the end of this year.



> And the implications of abuse with respect to invasion of privacy are enormous.



They're zero, actually. You don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when visible from any legal location in the national airspace, according to existing Supreme Court precedent. That's why Google can take those high res pictures from airplanes and put them on the web.

My pocket hyperzoom and my binoculars are a far greater threat to privacy than a R/C quadcopter with a 17mm-equivalent lens on board, like a DJI Phantom.



> I think it is just a matter of time before drones are heavily regulated. They may make an exception grandfathering single propeller devices, but the multicopter ones have to go.



Why? Anything I can do with a quadcopter I can do better with a regular helicopter - they're much more efficient.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > > And the implications of abuse with respect to invasion of privacy are enormous.
> ...


<SARCASM>

I disagree with you sir........

Drones with cameras are the greatest threat there is to our privacy! Far greater than the surveillance cameras spread throughout most workplaces.... far greater than the surveillance cameras in every store.... far greater than the surveillance cameras in the parking lots... far greater than the surveillance cameras along our highways.... far greater than the surveillance cameras at bus stops, train stations and airports....

They are more of a threat to our privacy than google which is data mining everything you do on the internet, far greater than your credit card companies tracking everything you buy, far greater than your aeroplan card and loyalty cards tracking your purchases....
<SARCASM ENDS>

and people worry about drones????? GET REAL!!!!!! Like someone is going to fly a drone in my back yard all night long hoping to get a picture of me walking naked to the bathroom....... and even if they did, they couldn't sell it or blackmail me with it..... Put things in context and stop living in fear.......


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 22, 2015)

meywd said:


> I didn't read anyone express support, we are simply discussing the challenges of implementing it, I for one don't see the need, but I believe they are doing this for security reasons, like how drones are not allowed to fly above police stations, and how they are afraid of spying, so even if safety is one of the reasons it would be on the lower end of the list.


You made the assumption I was speaking only about members on this forum. Not true, but now you see that there are. There is obviously support among the public servant class in Washington. There is no huge outcry from the people of this country... only from the servant class trying to act like the ruling class. They've got to constantly expand and constantly find reasons to do so.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 22, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Requiring a transponder as part of licensing will knock out the current models, so that isn't a real problem. It doesn't matter if people make them from spare parts or not, if they fly without an active and registered transponder, they get brought down.
> ...



I agree Lee Jay.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 22, 2015)

Tugela said:


> <snip>
> Current laws can be changed, so that isn't a problem either. Drone operation was not enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers.
> <snip>



Just a slight point of clarity. Remember, the US Constitution does NOT grant rights and privileges to the people, it is there to enumerate a limited number of rights and responsibilities for the federal govt....with everything else being reserved to the states and the people.

So, of course the constitution doesn't enshrine drone flying to the people, it doesn't enshrine anything as far as rights to the people. Basically most anything is legal until laws are passed limiting actions or making them illegal. Often confusions comes from the Bill of Rights amendments. There was a lot of controversy back then, in that the founding fathers didn't want it to appear at all that the Constitution granted rights...the compromise was made basically to say the BOR didn't grant rights so much as emphasized those special rights...etc.

A little confusing sure, but for most arguments sake, remember that the US Constitution does not and never GRANTS rights to people...they are all God given.

That's my $0.02,

cayenne


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 23, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



Yes! Right on the money. Our rights are ours simply because we are human. No man or government granted them or can take them away. The Constitution constrains government. It doesn't make government our ruler or our better.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 24, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> FAA regulations are just as good as laws and are passed by the agency all the time. This won't go through the Congress.



Has to.

Existing law:

_"...the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate 
any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being 
developed as a model aircraft, if--
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational 
use;"_...and so on.

In other words, the FAA is in violation of the existing law if they promulgate a new rule regarding recreational use of model aircraft.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 24, 2015)

The airport where I live uses drones to chase away geese from the property.......


----------

