[Malstrond]

I'm wondering how this will be implemented.

If used recreationally, they're R/C flying models, no matter how much the DJI marketing dept likes the term. So will the the hobby that has been fine for decades be hit too?

Will you have to register a Cheerson CX-Stars that weighs 8g?

What about the congressional Special Rule for Model Aircraft? "Technically it's not the FAA so we can regulate everything!" or what?

They're also not that hard to build yourself and the components are shared with other things (e.g. motors are shared with R/C cars and the first popular flight controller was an Arduino with the sensors from a Wii Motion Plus or Nunchuk) so you can't ban the part sales.

[nether]

The registration will probably only apply to drones of a certain gross weight. I'm guessing it'll be somewhere around 20 lb, given that's how much the frozen turkeys weigh that they use for birdstrike testing.

[tim333]

Probably a lot less. While an airliner will probably survive a 20lb object in the engines I don't think they would be very keen on having that happen.

[swingbridge]

A 20lbs object of metal packed with a highly energetic battery that turns into a powerful explosive when destructively smashed to bits. These things a far more dangerous than a typical bird or debris strike.

[MichaelApproved]

You can't ban parts but couldn't you enforce a a rule that restricts airspace above a certain height to only registered devices?

[Malstrond]

This is already true.

Model aircraft have to be flown within visual line of sight (FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 336), which restricts the height.

Commercial use is already FAA territory and you have to be registered (Section 333 Exemption).

/Edit: Section 336, not 366.

[sopooneo]

I'm delving deep here, but it seems that section primarily states what the FAA will not regulate or "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding". To my reading, it does not state that operation outside those guidelines necessarily does put a craft under the FAA jurisdiction. I admit I could be reading it completely wrong.

But then if you look at this page[1] on the FAAs web site, it says only that operators are "strongly encouraged" to follow certain restrictions like line-of-sight operation. It doesn't say they have to.

Mind you, I follow all those rules myself when flying rc planes, and prefer that other in the hobby also do. I think they're good rules. I'm just playing with interpretation.

[1] https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

[Malstrond]

The section 336 says that the FAA will not "not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding" if certain criteria are matched. For example that the aicraft is a model aircraft. and c) (2) says that a model aicraft is "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft".

So if you exceed visual line of sight it becomes a normal aircraft, just like every other plane. And they all have to be registered.

[sopooneo]

That would hold if we assume all things which fly (aside from animals, obviously) are under the jurisdiction of the FAA by default. And then then only certain itemized exceptions (like model aircraft as they define them) are not.

However, I'm not certain that's the case.

[shoegumfoot]

> However, I'm not certain that's the case.

I am.

> That would hold if we assume all things which fly (aside from animals, obviously) are under the jurisdiction of the FAA by default.

There's plenty of statute and precedent making it blindingly clear that this is the case.

[the_mitsuhiko]

Austria's drone law basically is making differences by weight and purpose of flight. I expect it to be similar. Heavy drones and sith purpose of filming require a flight picense light which means you are aware of regulations and will follow them.

[tensafefrogs]

I suspect we'll see an explosion in popularity of "drones" that are just small enough to to avoid these regulations.