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

[Valkpilot]

I concur with everything you have said EXCEPT that the rule has yet to be implemented...………..it is still in the proposal stage.

I thought the five mile rule was part of the legislation that took away our exemption.

[Grossman56]

Well, if their is any bright side to the Corona virus, the skies are a lot clearer now that the airlines are cancelling flights.

Grossman56

[OV10]

Today I witnessed a perfect example of why the FAA implemented this rule, and why it doesn't work. Today when we got home from her doctor's appointment I was helping my mother into the house and I heard a familiar noise. I looked up and there was a drone "buzzing" around the neighborhood. It wasn't commercial, it was the kind that you could pick up at Walmart in the electronics section, one of those low-end DJI types. First of all it was flying over other peoples property, and there were children out playing, essentially breaking two FAA and AMA rules. Add to this the fact that we're within the five mile radius of an airport (even though you can't see the airport), and I doubt they even knew that they had to get tower permission (I quit flying mine in my own yard over this), this was a third violation. These are the people that have "ruined" it for us, and will blithely keep on doing the same thing.

I concur with everything you have said EXCEPT that the rule has yet to be implemented...………..it is still in the proposal stage.

[Valkpilot]

Hey, given what's going on with the outbreak, I got an idea on how to kill remote ID. What we need to do is start a rumor on the Internet that the remote ID system, as proposed, causes cancer the way that second hand smoke does. The public outrage will either cause the FAA to remove the rule, or ban the hobby, which is what remote Id is pretty much doing.

[Valkpilot]

Today I witnessed a perfect example of why the FAA implemented this rule, and why it doesn't work. Today when we got home from her doctor's appointment I was helping my mother into the house and I heard a familiar noise. I looked up and there was a drone "buzzing" around the neighborhood. It wasn't commercial, it was the kind that you could pick up at Walmart in the electronics section, one of those low-end DJI types. First of all it was flying over other peoples property, and there were children out playing, essentially breaking two FAA and AMA rules. Add to this the fact that we're within the five mile radius of an airport (even though you can't see the airport), and I doubt they even knew that they had to get tower permission (I quit flying mine in my own yard over this), this was a third violation. These are the people that have "ruined" it for us, and will blithely keep on doing the same thing.

[Valkpilot]

By the way folks, we've picked up a surprise group of allies:

https://www.wisfarmer.com/story/opin...rs/4978046002/

[Valkpilot]

Typical in what is referred to as journalism these days, few facts, an anecdotal incident or two, plenty misleading of statements and unsubstantiated numbers.

Timing of the story seems a little suspicious to me, as if after getting 50,000 comments letting them know how crazy their Remote ID plan is, someone at the FAA feels a need to get the general public on their side.

It would have been nice if the writer had actually spent a little time checking out what is going on and not just parroting the FAA's talking points. I wonder if he would be interested in comparing how many aircraft are damaged to the point of being grounded for repairs after striking turtles on the runway, verses how many "confirmed" drone strikes there have been.

The incident cited are all explainable. The LA news chopper was probably flying outside a usual flight corridor, and as far as news choppers are concerned, how many times have THEY cause obstructions in rescue efforts? The in the Blackhawk incident, in the original reporting on it it was stated that it was flying OUTSIDE the usual corridor they used. The airliner incidents can be chalked up to people who will do the same thing even if the proposed rule is enacted, And as far as the Cessna pilot is concerned, he doesn't know if it was a drone, a chunk of ice from an aircraft at a higher altitude, or a turd chucked at him by a disgruntled E.T..

[Grossman56]

Typical in what is referred to as journalism these days, few facts, an anecdotal incident or two, plenty misleading of statements and unsubstantiated numbers.

Timing of the story seems a little suspicious to me, as if after getting 50,000 comments letting them know how crazy their Remote ID plan is, someone at the FAA feels a need to get the general public on their side.

It would have been nice if the writer had actually spent a little time checking out what is going on and not just parroting the FAA's talking points. I wonder if he would be interested in comparing how many aircraft are damaged to the point of being grounded for repairs after striking turtles on the runway, verses how many "confirmed" drone strikes there have been.

I hear you there, what about birds getting sucked into turbines and the list goes on and on. What idiot put a flame thrower on a drone?? Someone who is undoubtedly NOT a member of the AMA or any kind of safety first club. Like I said before, it's parroting the plight of law abiding gun owners versus outlaws.

Grossman56

[wvrailfan]

Typical in what is referred to as journalism these days, few facts, an anecdotal incident or two, plenty misleading of statements and unsubstantiated numbers.

Timing of the story seems a little suspicious to me, as if after getting 50,000 comments letting them know how crazy their Remote ID plan is, someone at the FAA feels a need to get the general public on their side.

It would have been nice if the writer had actually spent a little time checking out what is going on and not just parroting the FAA's talking points. I wonder if he would be interested in comparing how many aircraft are damaged to the point of being grounded for repairs after striking turtles on the runway, verses how many "confirmed" drone strikes there have been.

[Valkpilot]

Interesting because I was thinking to myself, "I wonder if he is an R/C enthusiast, that's what we need in the upper FAA is someone who is one of us" Good for you guys, wish he'd phone up his FAA counterpart and smarten him up.

Grossman56

Well, Monsieur Garneau and his American counterpart share similar "pedigrees" up to a point. Here's Mr. Elwell's bio of what happened AFTER he left the Air Force according to Wikipedia:

"For 16 years, Elwell was a commercial pilot for American Airlines. Elwell also had a role of American Airlines's Managing Director for International and Government Affairs.^[3] He also served as a legislative fellow for the late Senator Ted Stevens.^[3] While working for Senator Stevens, Elwell was part of other aviation safety programs in Alaska, including the Capstone Program in the Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta, as well as the installation of real-time weather cameras at remote airfields and mountain passes.^[5]

Elwell was named Vice President of the Aerospace Industries Association^[6] in 2008 where he stayed until 2013. Elwell was a civil aerospace manufacturer representative in this capacity where he was an lobbyist for various companies.^[3]

Elwell joined Airlines for America (A4A) in 2013^[4] where he was the Senior Vice President for Safety, Security, and Operations. Elwell left this role in 2015.^[3]

Elwell also served as the Senior Advisor on Aviation to Secretary Elaine Chao.^[7]"

As for Ms Chao, who refuses to distinguish the difference between a "drone" and a model helicopter or airplane, worked in banking prior to becoming a professional bureaucrat, and has no credentials related to aviation.

[fredmdbud]

For all the belly-aching about the FAA - misdirected vitriol. The Commercial Drone Alliance, the folks who want to make money with drones, has been pushing against any and all exemptions; if rules are imposed on them, then impose them on everyone.

They are dancing with glee about this: https://www.commercialdronealliance....ircraft-system

[Grossman56]

You're probably right about the "little fiefdoms" observation. Let's face it; most bureaucrats love to seize power over people. But the truth is, the Minister of Transport Canada happens to be Marc Garneau; who is a retired RCAF jet pilot and former Canadian astronaut. After much petitioning from MAAC and non-MAAC members about keeping the Model Aircraft Hobby separate from moronic buffoons who do idiotic stunts with drones, Mr. Garneau confirmed that he understood the passion and educative value of model aviation flight. Without it, he would have never fulfilled his dream of being an Air Force aviator, let alone a Canadian astronaut!....His status likely compelled the exemption....He did make it clear that mishandled drones are catastrophic to real aviation....Yes they are Sir!!!

Interesting because I was thinking to myself, "I wonder if he is an R/C enthusiast, that's what we need in the upper FAA is someone who is one of us" Good for you guys, wish he'd phone up his FAA counterpart and smarten him up.

Grossman56

[Valkpilot]

You're probably right about the "little fiefdoms" observation. Let's face it; most bureaucrats love to seize power over people. But the truth is, the Minister of Transport Canada happens to be Marc Garneau; who is a retired RCAF jet pilot and former Canadian astronaut. After much petitioning from MAAC and non-MAAC members about keeping the Model Aircraft Hobby separate from moronic buffoons who do idiotic stunts with drones, Mr. Garneau confirmed that he understood the passion and educative value of model aviation flight. Without it, he would have never fulfilled his dream of being an Air Force aviator, let alone a Canadian astronaut!....His status likely compelled the exemption....He did make it clear that mishandled drones are catastrophic to real aviation....Yes they are Sir!!!

Is his full name Joseph Jean-Pierre Marc Garneau? Because if it is WOW!, I looked him up in Wikipedia, and if it's the same person then he and I have something in common. You see, on the last carrier I was on prior to retirement, I was in Combat Systems Department, with my primary task being maintainer for the Undersea Warfare Module, and one of my collateral duties was Departmental Supply Petty Officer (though it took up a lot more time than my primary duty). And as far as the drone comment, very true, but the actions the the FAA are taking are actually a placebo to salve public concern. Just like guns, unless some formal credentialization occurs, there will all ways be some one going to their local WalMart, or on
to Amazon, picking out a drone that catches their eye, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[AirHead]

It probably has to do with the situation that some Canadian bureaucrats aren't as interested in building little "fiefdoms" as their US counterparts. The original exemption rule was a thorn in the side for some of the FAA folks. They didn't like the idea that there was something that they couldn't control, so once that rule was removed, they've gone at it with a vengeance. It reminds me of the situation of Preston Tucker versus the Detroit car manufacturers.

You're probably right about the "little fiefdoms" observation. Let's face it; most bureaucrats love to seize power over people. But the truth is, the Minister of Transport Canada happens to be Marc Garneau; who is a retired RCAF jet pilot and former Canadian astronaut. After much petitioning from MAAC and non-MAAC members about keeping the Model Aircraft Hobby separate from moronic buffoons who do idiotic stunts with drones, Mr. Garneau confirmed that he understood the passion and educative value of model aviation flight. Without it, he would have never fulfilled his dream of being an Air Force aviator, let alone a Canadian astronaut!....His status likely compelled the exemption....He did make it clear that mishandled drones are catastrophic to real aviation....Yes they are Sir!!!

[Valkpilot]

Now that's interesting, some common sense from the Canadian Government!!
Now if our dear counterparts would just take note. Hopefully someone has pointed this out in their comments!!

Grossman56

It probably has to do with the situation that some Canadian bureaucrats aren't as interested in building little "fiefdoms" as their US counterparts. The original exemption rule was a thorn in the side for some of the FAA folks. They didn't like the idea that there was something that they couldn't control, so once that rule was removed, they've gone at it with a vengeance. It reminds me of the situation of Preston Tucker versus the Detroit car manufacturers.

[Grossman56]

Now that's interesting, some common sense from the Canadian Government!!
Now if our dear counterparts would just take note. Hopefully someone has pointed this out in their comments!!

Grossman56

[AirHead]

Grossman, you forgot to work in the immigrant angle. You should have included something along the lines of you being a newly naturalized citizen, and expected this kind of thing happens in Canada, but you'd never expect it to happen here.

Funny you'd mention that something like this happens in Canada. Truth is, the opposite happened. Minister of Transport up here, signed and put into effect on June 1, 2019, an exemption for the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada or MAAC, to continue to fly and govern the Model Aviation RC Hobby without interference from the Feds unless any of the exemption is breached or the Minister is concerned that the exemption is not in the best interest of the Public. In any event, the Minister is satisfied that after more than 70 years, the RC hobby community is self-regulating, safe and responsible. They have not applied any rules for changing the current status as to having remote ID transponders or such. Live and let live they said...Sounds great! Carry On Bravely!. Then again, there are only 37 million people in a huge chunk of geography up here and there aren't that many flyers...

[OV10]

In preparing my comments to the FAA, I did some google searches on collisions and near misses between commercial/private aircraft and drones/rc planes. I found over the last 10 years there have been hundreds of reports to the FAA involving near misses and some collisions with drones. Conversely, I found 1 collision in 2011 involving an RC airplane and private plane. Suggested to the FAA that their rule making be directed to where the safety concern lies. Show me empirical evidence that flying RC line of sight aircraft endangers commercial/civil airspace and I'll change my tune. That's not to say we are without fault. Take a look at the vids posted on youtube by a few of our own showing them flying on beaches, parks,neighborhoods over pedestrians, traffic and neighbors houses. However, that is within the purview of the local authorities, not the FAA

You are absolutely spot on with that observation when you say a few of our own...……….. it happened just the other day on this forum
The most probable outcome is likely coming down to what has always happened with the laws of society, punish the many for the actions of the few
I've written my piece to the FAA knowing full well it most likely will fall on daft minds of elected officials and thusly forcing me to become an outlaw of the new rule.
My service to this country is becoming a question to me of why because of the nonsense that occurs by our officials more and more these days.
This rant has been building and is now done.

[ICM]

In preparing my comments to the FAA, I did some google searches on collisions and near misses between commercial/private aircraft and drones/rc planes. I found over the last 10 years there have been hundreds of reports to the FAA involving near misses and some collisions with drones. Conversely, I found 1 collision in 2011 involving an RC airplane and private plane. Suggested to the FAA that their rule making be directed to where the safety concern lies. Show me empirical evidence that flying RC line of sight aircraft endangers commercial/civil airspace and I'll change my tune. That's not to say we are without fault. Take a look at the vids posted on youtube by a few of our own showing them flying on beaches, parks,neighborhoods over pedestrians, traffic and neighbors houses. However, that is within the purview of the local authorities, not the FAA

[F22trainer]

Grossman, you forgot to work in the immigrant angle. You should have included something along the lines of you being a newly naturalized citizen, and expected this kind of thing happens in Canada, but you'd never expect it to happen here.

My thoughts exactly, Valk.