FAA doesn’t require registration of personal drones anymore

May 21, 2017

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

FAA doesn’t require registration of personal drones anymore

May 21, 2017

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Join the Discussion

Share on:

This Friday, federal appeals court in Washington D.C. decided that Federal Aviation Administration has no right to require hobbyists to register their camera drones and model aircraft. As SF Gate reports, this decision came after a drone hobbyist John Taylor filed a claim against the FAA in 2016. He claimed that they don’t have the right to force him to register his aircraft.

As U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh states, “Taylor does not think that the FAA had the statutory authority to issue the registration rule and require him to register.” And according to the judge, he is right.

Even with this decision, the restricted areas for flying unmanned aircraft remain the same. However, from now on, you can fly your camera drone or model aircraft in the permitted areas, but you are not required to register it with FAA as long as you use it for personal purposes.

Drones used for crop or cell-tower inspection, real estate photography, as well as delivery drones, don’t fall into this category. They are considered commercial drones, and they still require registration.

The registration system went into effect Dec. 21, 2015. From then on, as SF Gate reports, around 745,000 people have signed up with FAA. The new regulation (or better to say, the lack of one), could bring lots of issues.

First of all, FAA uses the regulation system to educate users about safety. Also, when the owners register, FAA can track which of the users pose a risk. Without the registration, there is no way of tracing the drone back to the owner who poses the risk to others with irresponsible flying. For example, if someone hurts a person with a drone or flies in the restricted area, the authorities have no easy way of finding the pilot. Considering that the number of hobbyist drone users is rising, I wonder about the results this decision will give.

What do you think? Does FAA have the right to require users to register, or not? Was this a good decision?

[via SF Gate]

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19 responses to “FAA doesn’t require registration of personal drones anymore”

  1. Jenn Grover Avatar
    Jenn Grover

    Good or bad is never the proper question for a judicial case. “Did they apply the law properly?” is a better question.

  2. Tod Heckert Avatar
    Tod Heckert

    never did register. my drones..Fuck the FAA.

    1. John Harper (AE5X) Avatar
      John Harper (AE5X)

      Easy, Big Feller – some of us in the FAA are also drone flyers. Lots of us!

      1. Muhammad Steinberg Avatar
        Muhammad Steinberg

        LMAO!!!…YEP!!!

  3. Bob Hdly Avatar
    Bob Hdly

    I am on the fence about this one. I own a Phantom 3 and yes it was annoying and all to register and pay a small fee, but there are a LOT of idiots out there who do not take the safety of others in to account the way they use drones and I can see some value in tracing a drone back to such an idiot for purposes of an injury or property damage law suit.

    1. suruha Avatar
      suruha

      I agree with what you write! It might be an inconvenience, but, for those that are irresponsible, it might help. That’s always a shame when a few ruin things for the rest. But, then, one does tire of the Feds sticking their fingers in everyone’s ‘pie’.

  4. pincherio Avatar
    pincherio

    Based on this decision, can it be argued that the DMV has no authority to regulate the ownership and use of private motor vehicles? Sounds pretty stupid, but when you can win a law suit against a company for not warning you that the hot coffee you ordered may be hot, you should know you live in a pretty fucked up system. Love the USA but, dayum…

    1. Eric Dye Avatar
      Eric Dye

      If you are referring to the Liebeck v McDonald’s coffee case from the 90s, that story was horribly covered. McDonald’s was not sued for the coffee being hot. The lady sued to recover medical bills for 3rd degree burns after McDonald’s refused to settle for $20,000. It’s actually an interesting case, both law wise and how it was covered in the media. The poor woman received death threats for decades over something that wasn’t her fault.

      1. pincherio Avatar
        pincherio

        Let’s see… woman buys a cup of hot coffee, drives away with the cup between her legs, suffers burns when coffee spills on her, and this is McDonald’s fault because…? And now, every manufacturer entails added cost to print warning labels to common sense issues and passes these off to customers because of a trigger happy legal system of ambulance chasers. Lawyers came off as the biggest winners

        1. Eric Dye Avatar
          Eric Dye

          Again, that’s not what happened.

          1. pincherio Avatar
            pincherio

            I’m sorry. She wasn’t driving. It was her grandson who was driving. She removed the cap of the cup and stuck the cup between her legs to put cream and sugar in the coffee…while her grandson was driving. How stupid and insensitive of me for not getting my facts straight.

      2. Madara Avatar
        Madara

        I thought it was because McDonald’s intentionally made their coffee too hot so people would stay longer and possibly buy more to eat. I argued relentlessly with a friend of mine why I believed she shouldn’t have gotten a penny, but if she was willing to settle for $20,000 McDonald’s should have taken it.

    2. Adrian Lyons Avatar
      Adrian Lyons

      If by chance the DMV was restricted from enacting new laws governing certain motor vehicles and then later came out with a rule against those certain vehicles, then yes, they would not be allowed to do that. That is exactly what happened here. The FAA was restricted from regulating hobbyist models but years after that restriction was put in place, they enacted the drone registration program for all hobbyists. Yes, they were NOT allowed by law to enact that requirement. It should have been struck down by members of government the moment it was put in place. Why it took a suit by a member of the public is a problem.

      If they want to go about it right, there is a way to do that. Trying to circumvent the law makes them as bad as the drone pilots that are causing all of the bad publicity and negative stereotype of all drone flyers are a menace to society by saying “screw the law, we’re gonna do whatever the hell we feel like”.

      1. pincherio Avatar
        pincherio

        Yup. It’s all fun and games in the legal arena til an unregistered drone drops out of the sky and lands on your head. The you can congratulate the judge for applying the law correctly.

    3. Muhammad Steinberg Avatar
      Muhammad Steinberg

      Go run some redlights, speed thru school zones and do burnouts in front of LE and get back with us on that.

    4. ext237 Avatar
      ext237

      “… but when you can win a law suit against a company for not warning you that the hot coffee you ordered may be hot …”

      Google images of the woman’s burns, then tell me if that happened to your mother/wife, you wouldn’t sue. They didn’t sue because of lack of warning, they sued because McDonalds over-heat their coffee to dangerous temperatures in order to yield more coffee per scoop of grounds.

      And the amount of award was equal to one day of McDonald’s coffee sales. They took an independent elderly woman who had just retired and turned her into a wheelchair bound woman covered in burns and scars in her legs and crotch.

      Before making an analogy, make sure you aren’t embarrassing yourself and highlighting your lack of education on a subject.

      1. pincherio Avatar
        pincherio

        And how did the woman have burns on her legs and crotch? Because the coffee cup was on her lap while her grandson was driving. And because she took off the cap so she could put cream and sugar into the coffee. That’s how she got burned. She’s 79. Old people don’t heal well. McDonald’s served her coffee that was 30-40 degrees hotter than other companies. That just meant that it burned her sooner. If she didn’t remove the cap in the first place or, better yet, if her idiot grandson who was old enough to drive had the sense to not hand her the coffee without cream and sugar, maybe she wouldn’t have been burned at all. I’m not defending how hot McDonald’s keeps their coffee but, to my knowledge, driving around with a cup of coffee without it’s lid on will not end well.

  5. Nina Claasen Avatar
    Nina Claasen

    Wynand Kruger

  6. Marta Krause Avatar
    Marta Krause

    nope.