FAA Registration is no more!

I think people should do it anyway, never know, someone might find you through this program and return your lost drone!
 
Your right about returns but the downfall I see is that if something happens in your area like some unregistered guy crashes into someone and flys off.. they're gonna come talk to you because your registered.

Nonetheless I feel it's good for them to be able to hold people accountable for their actions, although I don't really agree with a "Registry"; if only people were mature enough to have common sense and fly safe and smart it wouldn't be neccesary. Some new rules and regulations will replace it eventually because of the bad eggs.
 
LOL! @ Jackson!

I have my name, phone number and address on my drone right beside my registry number. That way the insurance agent knows who to sue.
 
Fascinating. The bottom-rung quads are derided here as "toys" compared to "hobby" quads. But go to court to oppose registration with the FAA, and the more expensive quads suddenly become "toys" in the courtroom, according to their owners.... I wonder if FAA attorneys monitor these forums and other social media, just to see what contradictory statements they can introduce in court?
 
DuaneM said:
That way the insurance agent knows who to sue.
Click to expand...

No need to register is true if you are flying only pleasure and personal, most homeowners insurance will cover you and your quad only ( no liability/property damage coverage for what you do while flying )
I fly commercially (Part 107 ) as well as recreational, purchased Aviation insurance for my business ($1 million in errors & omissions, personal/property liability, $3,000 in hull (drone damage coverage), $5,000 medical), reasonably cheap at $650 annual, lots of peace of mind should my DJI fall from the sky into someones Ferrari !
 
Last edited:
QuadKid said:
No need to register is true if you are flying only pleasure and personal, most homeowners insurance will cover you and your quad only ( no liability/property damage coverage for what you do while flying )
I fly commercially (Part 107 ) as well as recreational, purchased Aviation insurance for my business ($1 million in errors & omissions, personal/property liability, $3,000 in hull (drone damage coverage), $5,000 medical), reasonably cheap at $650 annual, lots of peace of mind should my DJI fall from the sky into someones Ferrari !
Click to expand...
The bigger concern regarding the majority on non-pro quad flyers from the standpoint of many who don't fly them, is the potential "Peeping Tom". The guy who buys them with or equips them with FPV capability, to spy on women and kids in the bathroom or bedroom two, three, or more floors up from street level, or in the backyard. As for the idiots that fly them over a forest fire, massive traffic accident, or police hostage situation to get a "ringside seat", they are the drone piloting equivalent of the idiots that will drive out to these same locations to watch up close, and not only get in the way, in the instense of the traffic accident, snarl traffic that could otherwise pass by in the opposite direction. Then get upset when the police order them to leave, or face prosecution for the appropriate violations.
 
The FAA received about 180 comments on the NPRM raising concerns about the
potential impacts of small UAS operations on privacy. Most commenters expressed support
for UAS integration and recognized the many benefits of this technology across diverse
industries, but commenters discussed concerns regarding personal privacy, data privacy,
private property rights and intellectual property rights.

Although the FAA regulates the safe and efficient operation of all aircraft within
the NAS, the FAA has never extended its administrative reach to regulate the use of
cameras and other sensors extraneous to the airworthiness or safe operation of the aircraft
in order to protect individual privacy.

The University of North Georgia commented that privacy
concerns are minimal provided flights are operated in accordance with FAA rules, and
images are acquired from 300 feet or above and are not obtained using facial recognition
technology.

Overall, the comments demonstrate a lack of consensus regarding the extent to
which UAS integration poses potential risks for privacy intrusions, how privacy concerns
should be addressed, and the FAA’s role in efforts to address these concerns. In response,
the FAA notes that its mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in
the world, and does not include regulating privacy.

None of the UAS-related provisions of Public Law 112-95 directed the FAA to
consider privacy issues when addressing the integration of small UAS into the airspace, or
mandated the inclusion of privacy considerations in the UAS Comprehensive Plan.

Privacy Issues are regulated by State & Local agencies, for example in my State & County

Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes
 
QuadKid said:
The FAA received about 180 comments on the NPRM raising concerns about the
potential impacts of small UAS operations on privacy. Most commenters expressed support
for UAS integration and recognized the many benefits of this technology across diverse
industries, but commenters discussed concerns regarding personal privacy, data privacy,
private property rights and intellectual property rights.

Although the FAA regulates the safe and efficient operation of all aircraft within
the NAS, the FAA has never extended its administrative reach to regulate the use of
cameras and other sensors extraneous to the airworthiness or safe operation of the aircraft
in order to protect individual privacy.

The University of North Georgia commented that privacy
concerns are minimal provided flights are operated in accordance with FAA rules, and
images are acquired from 300 feet or above and are not obtained using facial recognition
technology.

Overall, the comments demonstrate a lack of consensus regarding the extent to
which UAS integration poses potential risks for privacy intrusions, how privacy concerns
should be addressed, and the FAA’s role in efforts to address these concerns. In response,
the FAA notes that its mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in
the world, and does not include regulating privacy.

None of the UAS-related provisions of Public Law 112-95 directed the FAA to
consider privacy issues when addressing the integration of small UAS into the airspace, or
mandated the inclusion of privacy considerations in the UAS Comprehensive Plan.

Privacy Issues are regulated by State & Local agencies, for example in my State & County

Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms,
medical facilities, and inside
their homes
Click to expand...
That is the general view that the courts have taken across the country. The concern is in regard to what is regarded as the limit of "being in public". You have that reasonable expectation of privacy in your backyard, when you erected an eight-foot solid wood fence to keep casual passerbys on the street from watching you and your family and friends sunbathing. But what about that quad that your neighbor flies at an altitude of seventy-five-to-one hundred fifty feet, well within the FAA-imposed maximum limit of four hundred feet? He's not physicslly up there, but that 3-D gimballed camera still makes it easy for him to look down and see what you all are doing. And doing so without your consent. Not everybody is so inclined, but what about the ones who are? What are your legitmate claims to privacy from above the roof of your home? Or even that eight-foot fence? Is his viewing from that altitude just an extension of what he could see in your yard, looking down from his own bedroom window on the second floor?
 
As for Trump, I'm fairly certain that being a developer, he and his company have explored the use of drones for company purposes, just to stay ahead of the competition. Like just about all of his competitors. So he's unlikely to favor any regulations that will hamper his operations, once he leaves office. Whether that is in four years or eight. And that is something that applies to every President that has had business interests prior to, or after holding office. Regardless of party affiliation.
 
Last edited:
DuaneM said:
No cameras on mine anymore (too many crashed gimbals), but trying to tell people it doesn't have a camera on it is a major pain in the butt! I do have a pretty big parachute module on it, so they think that's a camera! I have a next door drunken ass neighbor that thinks I'm looking at him while testing my builds in my yard.
As for insurance, I'll have to look into the homeowners stuff, didn't see that in the massive book of exceptions to spending their money.
Courts and the law ... not a clue except what I read in these forums. I'm not stupid, just ignorant of rules outside of what the FAA tells us and I hate reading so much "legalese", I get bored easily and just go back to build/rebuilding a drone or two.

I wonder if Trump will tell us about the Extraterrestrials the governments of the world have or just tell everyone they are government drones/UAVs? LMAO!
Click to expand...
Okaaaaay....
 
On the other hand, General Curtis E LeMay was meticulous in making sure that everything he had droning overhead with a payload, was properly marked and identified with Eighth Air Force....
 
Back
Top