The FAA released their new drone / unmanned aircraft system registration requirements, but I was wondering if my existing normal fixed wing RC plane that weighs more than 1/2 a pound would also have to be registered? I couldn’t see anything in the FAQ explicitly, it makes it sound like anything that flies via remote control would be covered under this new system.
My understanding is that it applies to any rc aircraft, including planes and “non-drone” models as well.
Edit: Also, you don’t have to register each aircraft separately. Instead, you register as an operator, receive a unique ID number, and that number must be marked on all of your aircraft.
2 Likes
This is the definition of what has to be registered…
https://www.faa.gov/uas/faq/#qn1
[quote]What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)?
A UAS is the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft. The UA is the flying portion of the system, flown by a pilot via a ground control system, or autonomously through use of an on-board computer, communication links and any additional equipment that is necessary for the UA to operate safely. The FAA issues an experimental airworthiness certificate for the entire system, not just the flying portion of the system.[/quote]
I’m going with “yes”.
I can’t reverence it unfortunately, but I thought I read something very recently regarding the drones as to that they were NOT maintained by an operator with a visual line of sight, versus say… RC aircraft. That seemed to me to imply that there was a separate rating for remotely operated/pilotless RC aircraft that were operating in line of sight versus say, a drone with a camera and radio feed, or more sophisticated flight control including autonomous ones.
This is obviously a different perspective than in the text cited above, but it might indicate that the FAA has a split on unmanned aircraft that excludes RC models. I am sure it would not be the first time a government agency dictated confusing or contradictory policy.
Hope that helps.
FAA has apparently come out with much more stringent rules due to the increasing number incidents that are occurring. Some think they are overstepping a law passed by Congress that exempted RC aircraft within visual sight. There may be a challenge to some of the new rules - but be careful what is wished for.
When the exemption was passed the types and kinds of aircraft were not contemplated and airport problem is a real on going problem and Congress is likely to repeal the exempt in whole or part. Unfortunately a few bad actors has caused major problems for those that use these aircraft responsibility.
I expect there to be a huge outcry and general non-compliance - but when the someone gets in trouble with a drone, say with the local law. They may ask “Is it registered in compliance with Federal law?” and let the gov’t fine you. Maybe there will be new sanctuary cities for RC AC.
4 Likes
@pupdog, If I understand your first paragraph, you’re proposing there may be different handling (either because there should be or shouldn’t be… I don’t mean to speak for you on that point) between RC aircraft in line of site vs. operating a drone using POV.
Attempting to answer am implied question, here are a few key points related to non-commercial operations. (Commercial operation is covered by 333 exemptions and COAs and thus have their own rules.)
- All aircraft, including typical RC aircraft and drones with cameras and POV setups must be operated within line of site.
- If you are operating an aircraft using POV, there must be a separate spotter maintaining line of site.
- That line of site must be by unaided eye except for prescription glasses and sun glasses.
This is all based on the fundamental basis for the airspace… “see and avoid”… and is an extension of these rules applied to remotely piloted aircraft.
-Jonathan
1 Like
All UAS are included, not just multirotors. This means traditional RC airplanes too.
The AMA is a great resource in this stuff as well as the FAA website.
1 Like
Speaking of the AMA, I just received this email from them:
Dear AMA Members,
Yesterday, the AMA Executive Council unanimously approved an action plan to relieve and further protect our members from unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This plan addresses the recently announced interim rule requiring federal registration of all model aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing between 0.55 and 55 pounds.
AMA has long used a similar registration system with our members, which we pointed out during the task force deliberations and in private conversations with the FAA. As you are aware, AMA’s safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress’ intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.”
The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA’s petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA’s interpretation of the “Special Rule for Model Aircraft.” The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.
In promulgating its interim rule for registration earlier this week, the FAA repeatedly stated that model aircraft are aircraft, despite the fact that litigation is pending on this very question. The Council believes the FAA’s reliance on its interpretation of Section 336 for legal authority to compel our members to register warrants the Court’s immediate attention to AMA’s petition.
While we continue to believe that registration makes sense at some threshold and for flyers operating outside of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes, we also strongly believe our members are not the problem and should not have to bear the burden of additional regulations. Safety has been the cornerstone of our organization for 80 years and AMA’s members strive to be a part of the solution.
As we proceed with this process, we suggest AMA members hold off on registering their model aircraft with the FAA until advised by the AMA or until February 19, the FAA’s legal deadline for registering existing model aircraft.
Holding off on registration will allow AMA time to fully consider all possible options. On a parallel track, it also allows AMA to complete ongoing conversations with the FAA about how best to streamline the registration process for our members.
In the near future, we will also be asking our members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to the FAA’s interim rule on registration. We will follow-up soon with more detailed information on how to do this.
Thank you for your continued support of AMA. We will provide you with more updates as they become available.
Kind regards,
The AMA Executive Council
Bob Brown, AMA President
Gary Fitch, AMA Executive Vice President
Andy Argenio, AMA Vice President, District I
Eric Williams, AMA Vice President, District II
Mark Radcliff, AMA Vice President, District III
Jay Marsh, AMA Vice President, District IV
Kris Dixon, AMA Vice President, District V
Randy Cameron, AMA Vice President, District VI
Tim Jesky, AMA Vice President, District VII
Mark Johnston, AMA Vice President, District VIII
Jim Tiller, AMA Vice President, District IX
Lawrence Tougas, AMA Vice President, District X
Chuck Bower, AMA Vice President, District XI
3 Likes
The problem with this requirement is that the FAA is wanting everyone to
register their aircraft but they really have no way of determining if all
the aircraft are registered. The only way that this new requirement even
addresses the issue of safety is that IF and WHEN something happens, they
will have a means of tracking down the responsible party, if they
registered. I mean honestly, I can see the only way this being enforced is
the police showing up at a flying field and asking for “YOUR PAPERS
PLEASE!”
I can see a whole litigatory storm brewing where it will need to be
determined if the police had “probable cause” to approach anyone at a field
for proof of registration just because they can see that they are flying.
Legally they cannot make a traffic stop just to check that you have a
drivers license, so what is the difference.
People who are operating model aircraft within 5 miles of an airport are
already breaking the law, how is making another law going to prevent that?
This is my same arguement regarding outlawing handguns. It is already
against the law to kill, assault, and rob someone. Outlawing guns is not
going to stop this behavior. Law-biding people will not have guns,
law–breakers will have guns. Even if there is a decline in gun-related
crimes, the crimes involving other weapons will increase but a similar
number or at least in a proportionate amount.
If they really want to promote safety they should have spent the money they
wasted on this law and created a media campaign to promote RC safety. But
yes, I too will register my 250 racing quad.
Sorry…
1 Like
I wonder if Hobby King is going to be required to report certain parts
being bought. 
Sincerely,
Tim Nielsen
1 Like
Thank you for not using the “T” word.