Gullixson: Do we really need a federal registry to monitor flying toys?

Are some people being reckless in their use of recreational drones? Absolutely. We need stiff laws to stop the knuckleheads who deliberately or accidentally allow their unmanned aerial vehicles to violate protected airspace around airports, major wildfires, power plants, etc.

All the same, I groaned when I heard last week that federal authorities will respond by requiring owners of all recreational drones to register their aircraft — toys in most cases — under rules the government is rushing to put together before the holidays. I can just imagine the conversations on Christmas morning.

'Dad, did you finish putting it together?'

'Well, it cost me five hours and all my self-respect, but, yes, your quadcopter is finally ready.'

'Great, can we go fly it?'

'No, son, now we have to go down and register it with the Federal Aviation Administration.'

'How long will that take?'

'Well, federal offices are closed until after the holidays, and there's threat of a government shutdown. They also haven't put the final touches on the regulations. So I would guess, maybe March.'

All this to control something that, in many cases, probably won't last a week before it breaks or crashes behind someone's wood pile.

Is it really worth the effort and expense?

Keep in mind that commercially operated unmanned aircraft already are regulated and must be registered. So the high-end flying machines that Google, Facebook and Amazon Prime are using already are booked. The decision announced Monday by U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta calls for making the same rules apply for recreational ones. Although it's not clear at this point what it all will entail, this could include that $89 copter you plan to buy at Target for your child.

How will developing a master database of all the recreational drone users in the nation help? It still won't prevent abuse. It certainly won't stop those who build their own drones. And it won't prevent problems of people who merely lose control of their aircraft, which has been the reason for many of the 969 reports of unsafe drone activity so far this year. From what I can tell, all it will do is help track down the owners of unmanned aerial vehicles that violate the law and either crash or are brought down, possibly by a gun blast. (As if that won't cause more safety problems.) How much of a problem has that really been? It's not clear.

Gov. Jerry Brown understood part of the problem in regulating drones when he vetoed legislation last month that would have made flying a drone lower than 350 feet above private property a trespass violation.

'This bill, however, while well-intentioned, could expose the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation and new causes of action,' he wrote in his veto message.

Is more education needed about the dangers of unmanned aerial vehicles? Certainly. Particularly in neighborhoods and parks closest to airports. Education about potential conflicts with airplanes has been needed since the early 20th century when sophisticated radio-controlled aircraft first came on the scene.

Remember that not long ago the big concern was people using green laser pointers near airports, blinding pilots. Five years ago, there were three times more 'laser events' near airports than reported unsafe drone reports this year. But thanks to increased education and high-profile prosecutions, we seem to have gotten past that without registering all laser pointers.

We can do it with drones as well. There are many solutions for dealing with these problems. But sweeping new federal rules and mandatory registration all UAVs is not one of them.

Paul Gullixson is editorial director for The Press Democrat. Email him at paul.gullixson@com.