New proposed FAA rule requiring remote identification for SUAVs over .55 lbs

[RRHandy]

Go Texas (CVA59) I have more or less said the same thing in another thread, come to my club and give out fines and you will see class action law suits across the country.

[CVA59]

I may as well throw my 2 cents in (aka RANT).

First off, as now a civilian and retired police officer, I am law abiding citizen but this has gone too far! This is yet another overreach from the Fed's to gain global control because of a few bad apples. Because there have been a few incidents involving idiots flying actual drones, they feel they have the right to go after us all? I don't think so! I will NEVER relent to my flying being monitored by anyone especially the Fed's! I fly to relax, have fun and share friendships with my fellow flyers, nothing more, nothing less!

Second, I feel the AMA is NOT protecting us as a whole as they should. I feel they are only willing to go so far in fighting for our hobby's rights & freedoms. When it gets down to government funding and crooked politics, I don't see the AMA as being any different than any other group(s) that seeks federal aid and grants to stay in operation. I'm NOT running down the AMA just to run them down. I have and still am a AMA member. However, seeing how all this garbage unfolds in the coming months will determine if I continue being a part of the AMA. I DO NOT have to have the AMA on my side or be a member to fly my planes! The AMA has over the course of many years built a fear in most flyers that if they are not AMA members, horrible and terrible things can happen to them if an accident occurs, that is BS!!! Now, to make things worse, the FAA has jumped on-board and that has some feeling even more intimidated and scared by this tactic.

I get it that for AMA chartered clubs, the flyers have to be AMA members. However, for those of us who fly at random but SAFE & UNOCCUPIED places, there is no place for the AMA or FAA to interfere with my hobby! So, does that make me a "rogue pilot"? I really don't give a sh_t what I'm labeled especially when it has to do with the crooked US Government! Again, GO AFTER THE DRONE GUYS WHO ARE CAUSING THE ISSUES AND LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!

I WILL always wherever and whenever I choose and as long as I am not interfering with anyone else's property, business functions or the overall public safety, fly my planes how I choose without any devices that monitor me or my planes! I am a grown adult with more than enough common sense to fly my planes in a safe and respectful manner. I've been building and flying for 30 years without ever an incident so I'd say I have a pretty good record "Mr. FAA"!

This is not about simply monitoring our hobby to make it safer or whatever the FAA wants to call it, it's about the FAA having the POWER to control our hobby! Thanks anyway but, I'll keep my guns, freedom and fly R/C airplanes as I choose Uncle Sam!!!!!

Sorry guys but I am SICK OF THIS SH_T!!!!!!!!!

I DESPISE technology and always have and here is yet another reason why. All this technology that is created and everyone thinks it is so wonderful until it is used against us and then all of a sudden everyone has second thoughts about it! Sounds like it's time to go back to the old Futaba FM Tx & Rx's that can't be monitored by an ID signal.

[aymodeler]

Not to sound alarmist, but this is much worse than you might think. The current wording mandates that all UAS manufactured after the rule goes into effect are equipped with compliant remote ID system. ARFs (defined as a kit that does not contain 100% of the parts required for a UAS system) become a thing of the past since the person assembling the ARF now becomes the manufacturer and is required to document full compliance of all requirements with the FAA (not an easy task). Kits that contain 100% of the parts required for complete a UAS system are allowed as they kit producer is considered the manufacturer (assuming that they comply with the full set of requirements). Ametuer built planes (where over 50% of the content is fabricated by an individual) are only allowed at fixed flying sites. It is not at all clear how this is measured (what constitutes 50%). There is also a requirement that all planes now be registered individually.

The most disturbing language is centered around the FRIAs (the fixed flying sites). While it is true that they give us a temporary stay of execution for existing planes that are grandfathered in, but the rule is structured in such a way that they will be winnowed away since FRIA status must be applied for within 12 months of the rule going into effect and there is no provision to ever apply for a new FRIA (or to reinstate an existing one should its status be lost).

Don't be fooled by the AMAs passive response. This is a big deal and will likely have huge impacts on the hobby and on the industry.

[xviper]

xviper, our FAA has us put an ID tag on the outside of our planes too.

The remote ID that the FAA is talking about here is electronic. Something that will broadcast what the ID of the aircraft is. I suspect that if this does become a requirement, that it will be something within the aircraft receiver. Sort of like the telemetry info that Spektrum receivers can transmit now. It would just be part of the cost of each new receiver as they get phased in.

It's just my guess, but that would seem to be the lightest, simplest, and least expensive way to do it. I would bet that companies like DJI are already thinking about it.

Wow! That's going to be very intrusive and may put a damper on the whole industry and hobby. I have some of these telemetry RXs on a couple of my sailplanes. If they piggyback an ID signal into such a device, the range on those things will be in the several miles range. Any monitoring that an FAA official would want to do would have to place him within that range. This, of course, is meant to "catch" the few numbnuts who fly within the designated limits of an aerodrome (ie, airport). For the vast majority of RC pilots who fly in sanctioned fields and even non-sanctioned areas away from aerodromes, the authorities will not care or bother until there is a complaint. By the time an official gets within the range of an offending drone of UAV, the model will be long gone. It seems to me that's a lot of bureaucratic fuss just to "catch" a small fraction of one percent of the kind of nutbags that started all this in the first place.

[Twowingtj]

xviper, our FAA has us put an ID tag on the outside of our planes too.

The remote ID that the FAA is talking about here is electronic. Something that will broadcast what the ID of the aircraft is. I suspect that if this does become a requirement, that it will be something within the aircraft receiver. Sort of like the telemetry info that Spektrum receivers can transmit now. It would just be part of the cost of each new receiver as they get phased in.

It's just my guess, but that would seem to be the lightest, simplest, and least expensive way to do it. I would bet that companies like DJI are already thinking about it.

[xviper]

I wonder how much these remote id things are going to cost per plane

Does anyone know exactly what these "remote ID things" are. In Canada (Transport Canada is our equivalent to FAA), they have given quite a bit of leeway to MAAC (equivalent to AMA) sanctioned fields since MAAC rules are much stiffer than TC rules. This whole thing about ID is simply a printed tag that one "should" affix to the outside or inside of every plane that flies. The tag must have the owner's/flyer's name and contact information, MAAC number. I printed up a few and I just tape one to each plane I fly and move it from plane to plane. Once on the ground and in your possession, there is no implication that the plane must be tagged. MAAC preaches that this is a way for us to get our planes back in the even that we lose it. Many of us don't see it this way. We see it as NOT so much as "getting our plane back" but more "TO ASSIGN BLAME AND HOLD SOMEONE ACCOUNTABLE". My feeling is that if I lose a plane far enough away that I can't go out and find it, it likely hit hard enough to destroy it and I don't care if I get it back or not. It's not about helping me. It's all about helping them find the perpetrator (crime and punishment).

[Capt. Crunch]

I wonder how much these remote id things are going to cost per plane

[Twowingtj]

The alternative to flying at an AMA field is to use a LAANC app (Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability). Something like AirMap.It's free and pretty straight forward. If you don't have a smart phone or data, then it's another problem.

Let's not forget that we also have FAA knowledge testing also coming in 2020.

It's all a PITA, but if we want to keep flying, it's got to be done. I've got no intension of giving up on the hobby. Law abiding hobbyists will jump through the hoops.

The ones that had caused the problems or concerns will will remain a problem.

The whole process will likely discourage many good people from taking the hobby up.

[T-CAT]

There are many of us who do not fly at club fields; that find the hour++ drive to a club field oppressive. Having an open field or even a local park nearby, that doesn’t have problems with rc activity, is the bare essence of this hobby. The obligation of being able to fly only at a club field is an unnecessary burden, and presumptive that safe operation can only take place there. Besides.... I am an AMA member; since I choose to fly at other-than-AMA recognized fields, does this make me a rogue?

That the AMA has chosen only to fight for their recognized fields, they have chosen to adopt that same attitude - and thereby establish their motives as suspect and discriminatory. Apparently, one isn’t good enough to enjoy the hobby unless one toes the line, joins the AMA, and flies only at their anoited locations.

It’s becoming very transparent what the objectives of these two stakeholders really is.

It is troubling to see how this is panning out, as many people (likely the majority) won't have access to dedicated AMA flying fields (we had a local AMA flying field shut down not long ago, and it could easily happen again), and that should not mean that they cannot fly safely. Just because someone flies at an AMA field doesn't mean it's instantly safe, or safer than non-AMA sanctioned fields. The burden to follow the new proposed rules, use RI's, etc. on all aircraft is not fair. These new proposed FAA rules are taking things to a new level. I shouldn't feel like I have to obtain an AMA membership or fly at an AMA field to fly RC aircraft and fly them safely, but that's essentially what it feels like they are trying to do.

What's next on the agenda? Log all information pertaining to each RC flight? Speed restrictions of 50mph? Biennial flight reviews? No Kit aircaft allowed for sale on the market and only BNF with dedicated equipment (RI/transponder, etc.) included from the manufacturer that the FAA deems as airworthy and approved for remote control operation? One FAA official as your bystander to review each flight? A horizontal flight radius of 200ft? Etc.

[PikeStaff]

There are many of us who do not fly at club fields; that find the hour++ drive to a club field oppressive. Having an open field or even a local park nearby, that doesn’t have problems with rc activity, is the bare essence of this hobby. The obligation of being able to fly only at a club field is an unnecessary burden, and presumptive that safe operation can only take place there. Besides.... I am an AMA member; since I choose to fly at other-than-AMA recognized fields, does this make me a rogue?

That the AMA has chosen only to fight for their recognized fields, they have chosen to adopt that same attitude - and thereby establish their motives as suspect and discriminatory. Apparently, one isn’t good enough to enjoy the hobby unless one toes the line, joins the AMA, and flies only at their anoited locations.

It’s becoming very transparent what the objectives of these two stakeholders really is.

[T-CAT]

The aim appears to be toward multirotor aircraft (much of their pictures are of multirotor aircraft, popular brands like DJI are spoken of, etc.), but they unfortunately consider all remote aircraft as "Drones", so all RC aircraft appears is equal and under the same proposed rules. There should be segments or "Categories" of aircraft described in their literature, as well as FPV versus non-FPV. In my opinion, FPV is likely what they are more worried about than line of site. It would be nice to see them focus on whether the aircraft being flown is FPV vs Line of Site, as well as the Category of aircraft being piloted to determine the necessary procedures. The irresponsible FPV (note.....I didn't say all FPV flyers) flyers are much of the issue and it's affecting the entire RC aircraft segment of the hobby. FPV aircaft have greater risk potential than Line of Site, and the focus should be on controlling that segment more than Line of Sight, and not all be under the same umbrella so to speak.

[RRHandy]

DRONES, People, or quads if you like, read the wording and you will see that this is for non AMA club fields. They are trying to get control of the rogue fliers and not us.

[T-CAT]

This is getting more frustrating. I imagine many of us participate in the the hobby, specifically RC aircraft in this case, because it is enjoyable as it can be stress relieving, fun, productive, promotes learning, interesting, and more. Well, it's becoming less enjoyable and will eventually feel like work, which is the opposite of a hobby.

With the uncertainty of the future of RC aircraft, RC companies may be wise diversifying their RC product offerings to many various ground-based RC types. I see Motion RC venturing into RC tanks, construction, etc. Other companies already offer boats, cars, etc., which may not be far behind. I like RC boats and cars, and own some, but nothing compares (for me) to RC aircraft and the joy I get from the hobby by building them, working on them, and flying them.

Hopefully the folks fortunate enough to have a dedicated CBO recognized by the FAA will have a FRIA that has flight ring of a diameter large enough to use a variety of aircraft. If not, it will be mainly micros and small and slow aircraft that could stay within the boundaries. There many worrisome statements made in that document.

[PikeStaff]

This is utter insanity. The FAA plans on contracting out virtually all equipment and operational aspects of flight operations - with obvious intent to use IT monitoring to levy fines and penalties. PLUS, it does away with multi-aircraft umbrella coverage under a single user registration; EACH aircraft will require individual registration. And would also, thereby, require its’ own ID system installation.

All under the aegis of providing safety and better use of the airspace.

Hello, Big Brother.

[fredmdbud]

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf