Welcome, Autel Pilots!
Join our free Autel drone community today!
Join Us

Weight

Not sure what you think or believe is not true in the US, and specifically as of May of 2021. Have a look at the following (e.g. from the federal register, e.g. CFR part 49, 107, scroll down to section 107.7, part (a), (1) & (2) and note item (iii), excerpt is below:

§ 107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.
(a) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must -

(1) Have in that person's physical possession and readily accessible the remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot certificate.

(2) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from -
Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from -

(i) The Administrator;

(ii) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or

(iv) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.

Read more at: Federal Register :: Request Access

Hope that helps clarify some things.
I will not challenge even a bit that that is., word for word what the regulation says. I'm not challenging that fact. I'm impeaching it's legitamacy on grounds that it has no basis within The Supreme Courts Canon of Law. The authorities it empowers the government to impose are in direct contradiction with the precedents established in law by our courts and upheld consistently since our country's inception. The sovereignty of the people's rights granted under the 4th Amendment and the entitlement protections guaranteed in centuries of legal precedent are indisputable, they cannot be challenged, and are not open to interpretation. This regulation undeniably assumes powers and privileges that the government is not afforded now or ever in history. I do not have any doubt that if subjected to a constitutional challenge of its merits within the law that it will conclusively fail to meed the constitutional standard and therefore improper and unenforceable under the law.

Now, the facts I will present to support this arguement I believe will not only prove that this to be correct but will show that these facts have already been established in precedence and have been broadly recognized by the courts and accepted by government for decades. The system of regulation which The FAA is attempting to establish is not a new policy. The government tries to sell it as a new style of regulation necessary to regulate modern technology. But that's not true.. It's the application of an old system upon a new industry. For decades now states have been empowered to require citizens who wish to drive an automobile for personal use on the roads to test and prove competent and then maintain with the state and keep on their person at all times a valid driver's license. States are also authorized to require any vehicle intended to be operated on the roads, be registered with the state by its owner who shall be responsible for maintaining that registration and ensuring that the vehicle has a properlu displayed and valid license plate issued by that state.

But not just the states, but also the federal government has implemented an identical practice of regulation by deeming certain drivers and certain vehicles as "Commercial". And the government has asserted that "Commercial Drivers" and "Commercial vehicles" shall be held to higher standards of training, responsibility, professionalism, and safety. Those drivers and vehicles subject to these standards are required under federal law to maintain a valid special license from their state issuer and obtain special registrations to be kept on file with the state and the Federal Dot.

Both the States and the Federal government retain the right to establish rules, requirements, and regulations deemed necessary and eseential to sustaining a safe and economically viable transportation network. The "Administrators" of these networks have delegated police forces as the representatives charged with enforcing these rules and when they find drivers to be in violation of these rules, are granted authority to lawfully detain these drivers and require that they present for examination by the officer their proof of registration and their valid license so they may be identified now that they have surrendered their rights under the 4th amendment as consequence of their unlawful behavior.

But, under no circumstance of the law, either state or federal is it established in law or accepted in precedent that police have the authority to arbitrarily detain drivers and lawfully demand they submit proof. Of registration and license for purpose of identification. In fact, the notion of such action being taken is considered unanimously by the courts to be egregiously unconstitutional. Nothing I've just said can be denied. My question to the courts is this.

How is the FAAs mandate for the regulation of both recreational and commercial pilots and authority to establish criteria for determining which drones are or are not required to be registered? How is this different from the machinery of government which we use for regulating both the personal and commercial transportation networks country wide? If the simple act of driving a motor vehicle does not satisfy the standards which must be satisfied before police have the authority to detain citizens and demand their identification?

Any assertion that drones, which are flown remotely, place the public at any more risk so great As to warrant the denial of 4th Amendment protections is made in bad faith with the intentions of deceiving the courts and meant for establishing unconstitutional authoritarian rule over a portion of US citizens linked by a common interest. It is no more dangerous than it is to allow economy vehicles onto roadways shared by 80,000 lb trucks carrying hazardous materials while traveling at high rates of speed. There is no difference which can be reasonably argued which exempts the FAA from the constitution. Their assertion of authority which has been denied by every judge that's ever presided over it is a absurd beyond belief. It's and insult to the courts, the people, and the constitution of such ridiculus notion that it doesn't deserve the dignification of a response.
 
Last edited:
No worries, feel free to point out what is not true in your opinion, however, in the meantime fly safe and best wishes.
i wouldnt blame you if you provided your details to the police when they walk up to and ask why are you flying a drone and if your papers are all in order. there's a good chance if you have done nothing wrong then you can continue flying and all is good with a slight interruption. if someone complains, it might go a little bit differently with the interaction but where i am from, there hasn't been any problems mostly because the local law enforcement know what the state and local laws tell them what to do (and what not to do) and they take their orders from that, not from the faa. if the faa says get a fingerprint and a photo while you are there, my local police would say no sir. so i gotta be honest with you, it never really gets to that stage where i am from. sorry, that's what i meant.
 
i wouldnt blame you if you provided your details to the police when they walk up to and ask why are you flying a drone and if your papers are all in order. there's a good chance if you have done nothing wrong then you can continue flying and all is good with a slight interruption. if someone complains, it might go a little bit differently with the interaction but where i am from, there hasn't been any problems mostly because the local law enforcement know what the state and local laws tell them what to do (and what not to do) and they take their orders from that, not from the faa. if the faa says get a fingerprint and a photo while you are there, my local police would say no sir. so i gotta be honest with you, it never really gets to that stage where i am from. sorry, that's what i meant.
Its still important that both parties acknowledge the context of an interraction that happens as you describe. The police absolutely can walk up and engage anyone in conversation at any time in a consentual conversation that either party is not obligated to participate in and can be terminated by either at any time for any reason. They also are allowed to ASK you if you have or will present any documentation they wish to see. And you can absolutely volunteer this information of your own free will. But, it should be understood that without cause the police can only ask to see your papers. they cannot compel you to surrender it. And while you are free to surrender it willingly if you so choose, but it should be understood that you are under no obligation at this point in the interaction to do so. I urge people to be cautious of interractions that, for all purposes, have every aappearance of beig cordial, friendly, and with no malicious intent. Its very easy to be fooled by the perceived good will of a civil servant. But the sad fact is that in our society, civil servants rarely ever seek out members of the public with the intent to provide assistance that was not requested. The government does not knock on doors and say "Im from the government and Im here to help. In reality, if a representative of governent deliberately seeks out a citizen and shows any sort of specific interest in that citizen, that specific interest is almost never in the citizens best interests. The IRS only sends auditors to your home when you owe them money and police do not ask for identification or docuents under any context unless they plan to act on any information they discover should you volunteer it willingly. Sadly, an assertion of your rights in this moment will likely be interpreted by the officer as hostility and not free exercise of constitutional rights amd he abuse his authority and police with his emotions instead of his reason and escalate the interaction with an unlawful detainment and attempt to unlawfully coerce you to comply with his demands. Theres no real good way to escape the situation when a cop approaches you for any reason. Its understandable why so many choose to just comply with officers requests but a right unexercised is a right lost and with the disturbing trends weve seen politicians lean into in regards to our constitutional rights, there may come a day in wich many, many more americans regret not fighting for their constitutional rights when they had the opportunity to. Any compromise upon your rights,, no matter how slight or inconsequential, is a compromise no less than a warrantless search of your house. If more of us fought for the little ones now, It would save us from having to fight for the big ones later.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, however keep in mind that document was from September 2020 and things changed spring of 2021 with the new regulations, there is a supplement to the document you posted found at link below (check out page 2):

got it, no problem. however, nothing has changed over the years and it's still true even today: state and local police have no power to demand a drone license.
 
got it, no problem. however, nothing has changed over the years and it's still true even today: state and local police have no power to demand a drone license.
Believe what you want, however re-read what is in the links, as of spring 2021, state and local LEOs can request to see your drone license, as well as if 107, also your pic ID (not required for TRUST) as thats the law that was written by congress.
 
Believe what you want, however re-read what is in the links, as of spring 2021, state and local LEOs can request to see your drone license, as well as if 107, also your pic ID (not required for TRUST) as thats the law that was written by congress.
request is not the same as demand.

i agree, local leo can request to see your drone license.
i disagree; local leo cannot demand to see your drone license.
there's a legal difference.

pardon me gschulzuio but just so i understand you, are you in america? laws are different in other countries so outside the usa (where i am located) it is possible and likely that local police have jurisdiction but in the usa, negative sir.

if you show me a state law (from your state or any other state) where it says the police in that state can demand a drone license, i will amend my statement. here's an example of a state law where it says the police can demand a driver's license so please show me the state law that says a police officer can demand a drone license: 28-1595 - Failure to stop or provide driver license or evidence of identity; violation; classification

please don't post a federal law. if you are an america, you know that federal law doesn't give powers to state and local law enforcement. the irs cannot give the police the right to demand a tax payer id or social security number from a person standing a street corner. the fcc cannot give the police the right to demand an fcc id for a motorist to operate a radar detector. in many states, the local police has refrained from enforcing marijuana laws even though the government continues the schedule. but you know this, right?
 
Im in the USA
ok cool. you have the right to give consent to the police to see your drone id and you are free to show them even if they have no reason to see it. that's great and i'm sure most people will do this when asked. just please don't advocate for "rules" or "laws" that involve sanctions for drone flyers who don't wish to do so when it is inappropriate. people who fly improperly will eventually be caught and punished and it's not necessary to violate the rights of all the other honest drone flyers in the process of cracking down on "illegal" drone flights. :)
 
just please don't advocate for "rules" or "laws" that involve sanctions for drone flyers who don't wish to do so when it is inappropriate.
In the US congress (and whoever they listen to) makes the rules/laws/regulations that involve drones flying outdoors (FAA manages the airspace per those rules). There is a difference between advocating for new or more rules/laws vs. advocating awareness around current laws and related topics so people fly safe and not cause problems for the rest of us, I prefer the latter.
 
In the US congress (and whoever they listen to) makes the rules/laws/regulations that involve drones flying outdoors (FAA manages the airspace per those rules). There is a difference between advocating for new or more rules/laws vs. advocating awareness around current laws and related topics so people fly safe and not cause problems for the rest of us, I prefer the latter.
i think it's ok too which is why i said "when it's inappropriate."

when i see 500 drone laws passed in the name of safety and i see 0 deaths, 0 injuries, and $0 in damage that raises red flags for me. especially when there are 250 auto laws passed in the name of safety and there are 40k deaths, 2 million injuries and $100B in damages. (all fictitious numbers). i quickly start to think not all of these drone laws are safety-related. for example, a "inappropriate" law that says drone flyers must present license to local law enforcement upon demand (no ras or pc needed) is a big fat NO from me. not only am i keenly aware that it does nothing to promote safe flying but also i'm a big fan of the u.s. constitution....anyway, you get my point. there is no such law (yet) so nothing to worry about at this point. i honestly think congress has done a good job with laying out the framework for the current drone legislation (minus remote id) and hopefully the latest ruling from scotus will help keep the faa sensitive to our needs (i.e. recreational flyers, fpv flyers, non-commercial, etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ADOC
You are right... the police won't be hauling scales around to ticket you over 1/2 gram infractions.

However, accidents happen, even when not doing anything intentionally stupid. Its important to be compliant so that if something really bad happens the authorities can't throw the book at you for being overweight and unregistered.
Most scales, rules and laws etc allow some sort of error %.
 
With the weights coming so close to the limit I'm sure in a pinch I could shave some weight by scraping some plastic off the battery casings to keep it within parameters.

The real shame is with Autel pushing the weight to the edge, there is no room for extra features that could actually improve safety like prop guards or lights. This will prevent the Nano/Nano+ to be used under the new Operations Over People rules that come into effect on 4/21 of this year because prop guards would be necessary to qualify:

Ops over People, Category 1

The PIC must use an aircraft that:
•Weighs less than 250g (.55 lbs.), and
•Contains no “exposed rotating parts that would lacerate human skin upon impact with a human being”.
•There are no manufacturer requirements for Declaration of Compliance. It will be incumbent upon the PIC to make sure the UAS qualifies.
•No sustained flights over open air assemblies w/o RID (concerts, construction sites, etc.).
•Goes into effect on 4/21/21.
•No flights over open-air assemblies w/o RID.
I just watched a video on YT where a Japanese version of DJI-3 had a small battery giving the drone a 50g payload.
AUTEL really needs to do this, one larger & one smaller battery!
 

Latest threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
11,226
Messages
102,644
Members
9,818
Latest member
redwingaerials