Court Quashes Drone Registration

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229025-1.html
Court Quashes Drone Registration

By Russ Niles

A Washington court has quashed the FAA’s drone registration program.
The court ruled Friday that the registration rule violates the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act, passed by Congress in 2012, that
specifically bars the FAA from creating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft.” Since December of 2015, the FAA has
required drone owners to register drones weighing between .55 pounds
and 55 pounds by filling out an online form and paying $5. ?

The FAA is considering its next move. It could appeal the ruling but
that could be a lengthy and expensive process since it was a panel of
three judges that quashed the rule. A more direct route would be to
have Congress include a registration requirement in the FAA
reauthorization bill that must be passed by September. The
registration program was enacted to provide some measure of control
and legal leverage over an explosion of consumer drones on the market.
So far 820,000 drones have been registered. The ruling came from a
challenge by model aircraft buff and insurance lawyer John A. Taylor.
The judges agreed that the program “directly violates [a] clear
statutory prohibition."

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:06:55 PM UTC-4, Larry Dighera wrote:
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229025-1.html
Court Quashes Drone Registration

By Russ Niles

A Washington court has quashed the FAA’s drone registration program.
The court ruled Friday that the registration rule violates the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act, passed by Congress in 2012, that
specifically bars the FAA from creating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft.� Since December of 2015, the FAA has
required drone owners to register drones weighing between .55 pounds
and 55 pounds by filling out an online form and paying $5. ?

The FAA is considering its next move. It could appeal the ruling but
that could be a lengthy and expensive process since it was a panel of
three judges that quashed the rule. A more direct route would be to
have Congress include a registration requirement in the FAA
reauthorization bill that must be passed by September. The
registration program was enacted to provide some measure of control
and legal leverage over an explosion of consumer drones on the market.
So far 820,000 drones have been registered. The ruling came from a
challenge by model aircraft buff and insurance lawyer John A. Taylor.
The judges agreed that the program “directly violates [a] clear
statutory prohibition."

The whole concept of "drone registration" was a ridiculous over-reach
in the first place. Is there a need to protect commercial and private
aviation? Absolutely! But first they need to differentiate between
between toys and UAV. (yes, I know... technically, yada yada yada)

First divide everything that flies into weight classes. Otherwise you'll be
registering your parakeet.

---

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229262-1.html

Drone Remote Registration Coming
By Russ Niles

As the FAA sorts out the mess created when its drone registration rule
was struck down by the courts, it’s already thinking about taking the
registration requirement to the next level and requiring operators to
transmit their registration information. The drone website
https://wetalkuav.com/faa-drone-registration/ reported that the first
meeting of the FAA’s UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation
Rulemaking Committee, held June 23-24, discussed existing technologies
available that would broadcast the registration of individual aircraft
and the rules that exist to regulate that kind of tracking. The next
meeting of the committee is July 18-19.

The technology likely isn’t much of an issue and in March, the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) issued
a challenge to manufacturers to come up with a workable remote
identification system and 45 companies responded. DJI, the biggest
manufacturer of consumer drones, has some ideas on how it might all
work. “DJI understands that accountability is a key part of
responsible drone use, and we have outlined a proposal that balances
the privacy of drone operators with the legitimate concerns
authorities have about some drone operations,” Brendan Schulman, DJI’s
VP of policy and legal affairs, told the website.
================================================== =======================
https://wetalkuav.com/faa-drone-registration/

THE FAA WANTS TO CHECK DRONE REGISTRATION FROM A DISTANCE

By Malek Murison - July 5, 20171023

After the catastrophic fire in the Grenfell apartment block in west
London last month, London’s Fire Brigade used a drone to help inspect
the damage and search for survivors near the top of the tower.


In the shadow of a tragedy, it was at least a refreshing change to see
a positive story about drones being used for good. Normally drones and
fires don’t mix so well. There are plenty of reports of them getting
in the way of emergency services
https://petapixel.com/2017/07/03/dro...g-forest-fire/
attempting to put out forest fires, for example. They have also been
known to smuggle contraband into prisons from above and come
dangerously close to commercial aircraft.

Those are just some examples of rogue pilot behavior, which pushed the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to make drone registration
mandatory back in 2015. The legality of that registration rule has
been challenged
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...ter-your-drone
in recent weeks, but even so, it still has a major flaw.

The flaw is that forcing pilots to register their drone is no use if
you can’t read the registration. It will have put off a number of
would-be rogue pilots, but those who are intent on, for example,
prison deliveries, know that all they have to do is not get caught.

This is because you can only read the registration of a drone if it’s
been captured. Otherwise, it’s just a blip in the sky potentially
flying miles away from its operator.

This problem has convinced the FAA to search for solutions; for a way
to read a drone’s registration from a distance. So far that search is
at a very early stage. Between June 21-23 the UAS Identification and
Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) had its first meeting. In
that meeting it considered issues “such as existing regulations
applicable to drone identification and tracking, air traffic
management for drones, concerns and authorities of local law
enforcement, and potential legal considerations.”

According to an FAA statement
https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=88325 the group “developed
some preliminary questions and identification parameters, and reviewed
a sample of existing identification technologies.”

Are remote registration checks a step towards drone air traffic
control?

Running tests on a drone in flight

The notion of “existing identification technologies” suggests that the
FAA is thinking about some kind of air traffic control system. NASA is
currently testing such a system
https://www.nasa.gov/aero/nasa-compl...ight-campaign/
, which will be put forward to the FAA in 2019 as a potential traffic
management solution for drones.

However, before any kind of remote registration-reading system can be
effective, a database of users needs to be put together.

Ultimately regulators will need the assistance of manufacturers.
Especially industry giants such as DJI.
https://wetalkuav.com/dji-spark-obst...-better-mavic/

In March, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
(AUVSI) http://www.auvsi.org/home began an industry-wide search for
potential identification systems for drones. DJI was one of the 45
companies to offer a proposal
https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dj...r-small-drones,
suggesting that drones could transmit their location and registration
number via radio equipment.

At the time, DJI’s VP of policy and legal affairs, Brendan Schulman,
said that “DJI understands that accountability is a key part of
responsible drone use, and we have outlined a proposal that balances
the privacy of drone operators with the legitimate concerns
authorities have about some drone operations.”

“This is another example of how the UAS industry is innovating
solutions to emerging concerns, and we look forward to working with
other stakeholders on how to implement the best possible system.”

FAA logo
Swarms of commercial drones and those making deliveries will require
some kind of traffic control system.
Proper enforcement is a matter of time

There’s not much point in requiring drones to be registered if all it
means is a tiny number written onto the base of your Phantom. That
will help officials find pilots in the result of a crash, but it won’t
stop criminal activity altogether. That much is obvious.

As commercial applications ranging from delivery to agriculture gain
more traction, a comprehensive air traffic control system that
identifies drones from a distance is only a matter of time.
================================================== =======================

On Mon, 22 May 2017 09:06:48 -0700, Larry Dighera
wrote:

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...-229025-1.html
Court Quashes Drone Registration

By Russ Niles

A Washington court has quashed the FAA’s drone registration program.
The court ruled Friday that the registration rule violates the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act, passed by Congress in 2012, that
specifically bars the FAA from creating “any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft.” Since December of 2015, the FAA has
required drone owners to register drones weighing between .55 pounds
and 55 pounds by filling out an online form and paying $5. ?

The FAA is considering its next move. It could appeal the ruling but
that could be a lengthy and expensive process since it was a panel of
three judges that quashed the rule. A more direct route would be to
have Congress include a registration requirement in the FAA
reauthorization bill that must be passed by September. The
registration program was enacted to provide some measure of control
and legal leverage over an explosion of consumer drones on the market.
So far 820,000 drones have been registered. The ruling came from a
challenge by model aircraft buff and insurance lawyer John A. Taylor.
The judges agreed that the program “directly violates [a] clear
statutory prohibition."