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

[TiredIronGRB]

Let's keep this discussion on track

[VOODOO]

Let's keep this discussion on track

My comments ARE actually on track. I have spent several hours watching the drone flyer's diatribes on Utube concerning the proposed requirement for remote id. There are multiple lists of drone flyers who state they have no intent on complying with this proposed rule. Several even admitted to flying without spotters and/or flying well beyond LOS. FAA is sorely understaffed , and if or when a drone without ID causes a fatal accident the agency will ground all r/c activity. In 2019 national news reported on at least two inflight collisions with drones. One of these almost brought down a TV news helicopter.All AMA members need to comply with any enacted rules, and divorce ourselves from those who flaunt regulation.

[CVA59]

http://www.uavexpertnews.com/2020/02/goal-of-faa-to-eliminate-the-model-hobby-industry/?fbclid=IwAR2yHDDZkITZBpnPzSruV2ue02rFcLKsuBttTLcZEfO8xm2XAcP71fqyH6o

[CVA59]

All AMA members need to comply with any enacted rules, and divorce ourselves from those who flaunt regulation.

I agree 100000% with you in respect to the "drone" guys since as you stated, "In 2019 national news reported on at least two inflight collisions with drones. One of these almost brought down a TV news helicopter". Because I am a responsible, respectful and safe R/C aircraft flyer, to repeat myself again, I will never comply under any circumstances with the FAA's enacted rules should this current proposal become law. However, that's just one of many issues facing us R/C aircraft flyers, the FAA should keep the R/C aircraft flyers separate from the "drone" guys and they are not. However, I do feel with as much backlash as the FAA is getting, they will surely have to do something different.

[T-CAT]

It's amazing how the FAA doesn't yet distinguish RC aircraft by Categories (they obviously do with full-sized aircraft), which should be done. The blanket term of "Drone" is not doing the hobby any good whatsoever. There also must be more distinguishment of FPV vs Line of Sight, considering FPV has more potential for use that the FAA would find unacceptable. Thankfully, there has been at least an understanding of commercial versus non-commercial RC.

[VOODOO]

It's amazing how the FAA doesn't yet distinguish RC aircraft by Categories (they obviously do with full-sized aircraft), which should be done. The blanket term of "Drone" is not doing the hobby any good whatsoever. There also must be more distinguishment of FPV vs Line of Sight, considering FPV has more potential for use that the FAA would find unacceptable. Thankfully, there has been at least an understanding of commercial versus non-commercial RC.

How can the FAA separate the drones from historically safe r/c flyers when our AMA officers decided to put us all under the same umbrella? In my mind, Rich Hanson and the AMA directors who agreed to this are directly to blame for this quagmire we find ourselves in now.

[VOODOO]

I agree 100000% with you in respect to the "drone" guys since as you stated, "In 2019 national news reported on at least two inflight collisions with drones. One of these almost brought down a TV news helicopter". Because I am a responsible, respectful and safe R/C aircraft flyer, to repeat myself again, I will never comply under any circumstances with the FAA's enacted rules should this current proposal become law. However, that's just one of many issues facing us R/C aircraft flyers, the FAA should keep the R/C aircraft flyers separate from the "drone" guys and they are not. However, I do feel with as much backlash as the FAA is getting, they will surely have to do something different.

I wish I could agree about changing FAA's focus, but I feel that is tilting at windmills. Our backlash should be directed to the AMA officers, and demand that we disown drone and FPV flyers from the organization. Then we can approach FAA and emphasize that we are NOT part of the problem.

[CVA59]

How can the FAA separate the drones from historically safe r/c flyers when our AMA officers decided to put us all under the same umbrella? In my mind, Rich Hanson and the AMA directors who agreed to this are directly to blame for this quagmire we find ourselves in now.

Well put VOODOO!............... I agree!!!!

Again, FOR ME, I am NOT just bashing the AMA just to bash them! They simply "dropped the ball" for lack of a better term, PERIOD! I have always looked to and rested in knowing the AMA "had my/our backs" when it comes to things of this nature. I was obviously wrong. Can the AMA change everything to the way we always want it? NO! I'm not that stupid to think that either. However, as the sanctioning body of Remote Controlled Aircraft, they should've had in place a handful of years ago, plans, ideas, solutions, legal teams, alternatives, options, and a set of alternate "proposed rules" to try and sell the FAA should a day like this ever come. Did they, NO! I don't care what any of the die hard AMA lovers on here say, the AMA has been predominately reactive instead of proactive with this latest NPRM / RemoteID crap. Why would you seek shelter from a tornado once it is already on-top of you with an expectation you will be fine? No, a rational and intelligent person would seek shelter before it got to you provided you had enough warning. The AMA has had plenty of warning about this possibility ever since the drones starting becoming a cause for concern. Right now, the tornado (aka....FAA) is on-top of us. Apparently, the AMA is making some attempt to do something by forming a "coalition" in some effort to hopefully get us shelter from this massive power grab, provided it's not too late. I've said this before, In pretty much most of life's situations, it's always better to be proactive than reactive or at least that is my personal experiences.

The ones who sit by and say, "calm down, let's just wait and see what happens" will get you burned EVERY SINGLE TIME! If this was a one person to one person battle with the FAA, I would simply laugh at it and go on. However, this NOT just a small group or one person. The FAA has the power to set things in motion that WILL destroy the R/C model aviation hobby permanently! I for one, REFUSE to be calm, respectful and wait to see what happens with any of this garbage. There are several across the social media platform who have taken on the self appointed role of the benevolent spokesperson apparently. Those are typically the ones who are so in love with the AMA and the same ones I laugh at with complete amazement and discount every word they say. No one is going to correct my own individual way of handling this garbage, I do not mind steeping on toes whatsoever. So, my advice to everyone is; write you letters in whatever terms be it; rudeness, kindness, elation, anger, frustration or what ever terminology you feel the urge to, just as I have done repeatedly. I have learned through a highly successful career as a Texas Police Officer, some people and groups you cannot play nice with, this latest over reach from the FAA is one of the best examples I can think of. With some people and groups, you have to be very stern and forceful especially as in this case where they are in violation of our privacy, rights and freedoms. The time for "polite & politically correct" letter writing is over! It is time for us all to begin telling the FAA (and the AMA for that matter) how we all truly feel and that we as a community will not bend to any of these rules as they have proposed. In your letters, tell the FAA to create a new set of rules that do not infringe, restrict or violate our privacy, freedoms, rights, then and only then will we be willing to listen and even comply as long as the rules remain fair and just to our hobby overall. Demand for them to send you their data on how many R/C aircraft vs. drone accidents vs. manned aircraft have occurred. Demand they share with you their basis for creating such stupid package of rules in the first place. Although, we all know they will NOT comply with those demand(s), it will show them we are not going to easily bow down to them and that we are prepared to fight back. Sometimes, it's not the actual spoken words, it's the unspoken message behind the words that will have the most impact on someone.

The FAA has clearly stated their intentions and that is more than enough for me to see what they are planning. Again, I'll be d_mned if I'l gonna give one second of attention to those on social media who say; "just be calm and respectful". Is the FAA being calm and respectful to our hobby? H_LL NO!!!!! They are trying to destroy it! I will never give one ounce of professionalism or respect to these Government thugs (aka.......FAA) who want to destroy my innocent and harmless hobby that I have been doing most all my life without NOT ONE single incident of any kind.

Ok, whewwwwwww........that fire drill is over, I'm off my soap box (again)

[MikeT]

Well put VOODOO!............... I agree!!!!

Again, FOR ME, I am NOT just bashing the AMA just to bash them! They simply "dropped the ball" for lack of a better term, PERIOD! I have always looked to and rested in knowing the AMA "had my/our backs" when it comes to things of this nature. I was obviously wrong. Can the AMA change everything to the way we always want it? NO! I'm not that stupid to think that either. However, as the sanctioning body of Remote Controlled Aircraft, they should've had in place a handful of years ago, plans, ideas, solutions, legal teams, alternatives, options, and a set of alternate "proposed rules" to try and sell the FAA should a day like this ever come. Did they, NO! I don't care what any of the die hard AMA lovers on here say, the AMA has been predominately reactive instead of proactive with this latest NPRM / RemoteID crap. Why would you seek shelter from a tornado once it is already on-top of you with an expectation you will be fine? No, a rational and intelligent person would seek shelter before it got to you provided you had enough warning. The AMA has had plenty of warning about this possibility ever since the drones starting becoming a cause for concern. Right now, the tornado (aka....FAA) is on-top of us. Apparently, the AMA is making some attempt to do something by forming a "coalition" in some effort to hopefully get us shelter from this massive power grab, provided it's not too late. I've said this before, In pretty much most of life's situations, it's always better to be proactive than reactive or at least that is my personal experiences.

The ones who sit by and say, "calm down, let's just wait and see what happens" will get you burned EVERY SINGLE TIME! If this was a one person to one person battle with the FAA, I would simply laugh at it and go on. However, this NOT just a small group or one person. The FAA has the power to set things in motion that WILL destroy the R/C model aviation hobby permanently! I for one, REFUSE to be calm, respectful and wait to see what happens with any of this garbage. There are several across the social media platform who have taken on the self appointed role of the benevolent spokesperson apparently. Those are typically the ones who are so in love with the AMA and the same ones I laugh at with complete amazement and discount every word they say. No one is going to correct my own individual way of handling this garbage, I do not mind steeping on toes whatsoever. So, my advice to everyone is; write you letters in whatever terms be it; rudeness, kindness, elation, anger, frustration or what ever terminology you feel the urge to, just as I have done repeatedly. I have learned through a highly successful career as a Texas Police Officer, some people and groups you cannot play nice with, this latest over reach from the FAA is one of the best examples I can think of. With some people and groups, you have to be very stern and forceful especially as in this case where they are in violation of our privacy, rights and freedoms. The time for "polite & politically correct" letter writing is over! It is time for us all to begin telling the FAA (and the AMA for that matter) how we all truly feel and that we as a community will not bend to any of these rules as they have proposed. In your letters, tell the FAA to create a new set of rules that do not infringe, restrict or violate our privacy, freedoms, rights, then and only then will we be willing to listen and even comply as long as the rules remain fair and just to our hobby overall. Demand for them to send you their data on how many R/C aircraft vs. drone accidents vs. manned aircraft have occurred. Demand they share with you their basis for creating such stupid package of rules in the first place. Although, we all know they will NOT comply with those demand(s), it will show them we are not going to easily bow down to them and that we are prepared to fight back. Sometimes, it's not the actual spoken words, it's the unspoken message behind the words that will have the most impact on someone.

The FAA has clearly stated their intentions and that is more than enough for me to see what they are planning. Again, I'll be d_mned if I'l gonna give one second of attention to those on social media who say; "just be calm and respectful". Is the FAA being calm and respectful to our hobby? H_LL NO!!!!! They are trying to destroy it! I will never give one ounce of professionalism or respect to these Government thugs (aka.......FAA) who want to destroy my innocent and harmless hobby that I have been doing most all my life without NOT ONE single incident of any kind.

Ok, whewwwwwww........that fire drill is over, I'm off my soap box (again)

All water under the bridge now. Sure we all asked them not to do it but they didn't listen. Fast forward to today , now were facing some pretty tough regulation that's going to effect .a bunch of modelers all we can do now is submit our comments and hope of the best. Let's hope the AMA can actually get the fields we use a pass on this stuff. Both feilds I fly at are in Glass G airspace and not a threat to anyone or anything. As a matter of fact one has a waiver issued by the FAA to fly high powered rockets to 14,500 feet monthly. All it took to get that was a simple form and I found the FAA very accommodating during the application process. The FAA isn't the bad guy here and can be worked with if you go about it the right way.

Mike

[CVA59]

The FAA isn't the bad guy here and can be worked with if you go about it the right way. Mike

I respectfully disagree. Do you work for the FAA? Simply because the FAA was gracious enough to grant you guys a place for model rocketry doesn't mean they are not at fault with this NPRM. The FAA is the one pushing for sanctions against our hobby that will create devastating effects, if not, "officially" bring it to and end at some point. I didn't start the NPRM process, the AMA didn't start the NPRM process, even the drone guys didn't start the NPRM process, the FAA did. Therefore, I lay all the blame on the FAA for meddling in something they have no business in. Now, since there has been 1-2 notable incidents between "drones" and manned aircraft, yes, the FAA needs to step in and put sanctions in place for the guy who goes to Target/Best Buy, buys a $50-$1,000 drone and goes flying it in ways he shouldn't. What that would look like for the drone user? I have no clue as it is not my concern since I do not fly drones. I fly R/C fixed wing EDF Jets. However, as I have said hundreds of times seems like, no matter how many laws, rules, restrictions, data, research, fancy talking, political correctness the FAA comes up with, all this NPRM is going to do is create more and more violators. It will NOT stop anyone from flying in ways they shouldn't. Instead of just downright slamming ALL of us to the ground with this NPRM, the FAA should be creatively working with us to build a rules package that would be both beneficial to us, manned flight and their claim of "safety". If they would offer something that is not so "one sided", I am pretty sure most people wouldn't be taking issue with what we are today. Of course, If the FAA's motives with this NPRM were legit, that is more than likely how they would do it but we all know the FAA's motives are not looking out for us so my point is futile.

I have a friend who is from the FAA and also a avid R/C flyer. He too has discussed this with me. He laughs at how naive most everyone seems to be on social media when it comes to what the FAA's true motives are and how they will handle the slow and consistent destruction of our hobby. He says the FAA does whatever it wants no matter how many people scream, fuss and complain. So, that's straight from the "horses mouth" plus what all I have read in the NPRM. Why would I not consider them the "bad guy" in this case?????

[MikeT]

I respectfully disagree. Do you work for the FAA? Simply because the FAA was gracious enough to grant you guys a place for model rocketry doesn't mean they are not at fault with this NPRM. The FAA is the one pushing for sanctions against our hobby that will create devastating effects, if not, "officially" bring it to and end at some point. I didn't start the NPRM process, the AMA didn't start the NPRM process, even the drone guys didn't start the NPRM process, the FAA did. Therefore, I lay all the blame on the FAA for meddling in something they have no business in. Now, since there has been 1-2 notable incidents between "drones" and manned aircraft, yes, the FAA needs to step in and put sanctions in place for the guy who goes to Target/Best Buy, buys a $50-$1,000 drone and goes flying it in ways he shouldn't. What that would look like for the drone user? I have no clue as it is not my concern since I do not fly drones. I fly R/C fixed wing EDF Jets. However, as I have said hundreds of times seems like, no matter how many laws, rules, restrictions, data, research, fancy talking, political correctness the FAA comes up with, all this NPRM is going to do is create more and more violators. It will NOT stop anyone from flying in ways they shouldn't. Instead of just downright slamming ALL of us to the ground with this NPRM, the FAA should be creatively working with us to build a rules package that would be both beneficial to us, manned flight and their claim of "safety". If they would offer something that is not so "one sided", I am pretty sure most people wouldn't be taking issue with what we are today. Of course, If the FAA's motives with this NPRM were legit, that is more than likely how they would do it but we all know the FAA's motives are not looking out for us so my point is futile.

I have a friend who is from the FAA and also a avid R/C flyer. He too has discussed this with me. He laughs at how naive most everyone seems to be on social media when it comes to what the FAA's true motives are and how they will handle the slow and consistent destruction of our hobby. He says the FAA does whatever it wants no matter how many people scream, fuss and complain. So, that's straight from the "horses mouth" plus what all I have read in the NPRM. Why would I not consider them the "bad guy" in this case?????

Since I've actually had dealing with them ( High Powered Rocketry) I passing on my experience with them. Every time I called or emailed them for clearance ( required by our waiver) I've been treated with respect and they have been very accommodating. We only have one chance at survival here that's working with them. I get it your pissed by that doesn't change anything.

Mike

[CVA59]

I get it your pissed by that doesn't change anything. Mike

It's not just that "I'm pissed Mike. If the FAA was as accommodating as you say, they would not be trying to enact this NPRM as written in the first place. They are not stupid, they know exactly what this will do to my hobby and they simply do not care. WE are NOT the problem, the drone safety is the issue. They refuse to acknowledge that. They want to put us all in one basket and that is not going to work for many reasons. Now, If I contact them as you have, and very politely explain to them that there has been a gross error on their part pertaining to the MPRM and on behalf of the R/C aircraft modeling community, would they pretty please remove all references to fixed wing R/C model aircraft from the NPRM. Are you going to sit there and actually think that they would accommodate my request????? H_LL NO! However, if you have a contact at the FAA that would accommodate my request, please pass along the info, I would like to get this insanity stopped ASAP. Or better yet, maybe you could contact them again since you already have a connection. I'm not trying to be a smart a_s but it's obvious to me what is going on here. The FAA is laughing at us, they will continue laughing at us and that's the facts my friend. As others have stated, the FAA wants guys like me out of "their airspace" for"Google" and "Amazon" related reasons IMHO.

A couple examples

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR9PoBAssw0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TedKIlo0c04

[VOODOO]

IMHO the bad guys here is not the FAA, but the AMA officers and the drone/FPV flyers. Not all, but a sizable number are on course to kill a large quantity of people with their with obsessions to hover over final approach paths of airports to get "neat" photos of airliners, or over forest fires which result in the grounding of airborne fire suppression. Having piloted commercial aircraft for 30 years, I have found MOST of the FAA personnel to be dedicated and professional in their jobs, both inspectors in the ****pit and ground based , I cannot speak for the top brass in FAA, but FAA is a ponderous, slow moving bureaucracy, like all of our national government. I see the portion of the aircraft where the pilots sit is no longer to be described by it's traditional name, anyone have a better name??

[CVA59]

IMHO the bad guys here is not the FAA, but the AMA officers and the drone/FPV flyers. Not all, but a sizable number are on course to kill a large quantity of people with their with obsessions to hover over final approach paths of airports to get "neat" photos of airliners, or over forest fires which result in the grounding of airborne fire suppression. Having piloted commercial aircraft for 30 years, I have found MOST of the FAA personnel to be dedicated and professional in their jobs, both inspectors in the ****pit and ground based , I cannot speak for the top brass in FAA, but FAA is a ponderous, slow moving bureaucracy, like all of our national government.

VOODOO, I understand your viewpoint based on your mandated connections to the FAA. However, I agree and disagree with you somewhat. Let's say, as the FAA claims, the NPRM is mostly driven by "safety concerns". If it were not for the small percentage of the "rogue" drone guys causing / caused the issues, would there even be a NPRM? NO. Prior to the "drones" this was not even an issue. So, is the FAA creating the NPRM based on a handful of drone incidents? possibly but I doubt it, I feel that is just the excuse for a bigger reason (Amazon & Google). So, thereby the FAA are the initiators of the NPRM that they claim has something to do with manned and unmanned UAS's having the potential of being in conflicting airspace. For me, that makes the FAA 100% at fault with their extremely flawed and so called "data" IMHO! I am all for the FAA creating an NPRM for the drone guys ONLY and not us R/C aircraft flyers.

In an alternate comparison..............why has the DOT not created a set of rules that would disable you and I from driving our cars except on certain days, at certain times and only under certain conditions because of the ones who have caused car wrecks / deaths on the highways of America? Why not go after the irresponsible, texting and drunk drivers who are largely to blame for the car wrecks. I have worked car wrecks for many years. I have investigated and concluded one thing, very FEW car wrecks are actually "accidents" such as mechanical failures, road hazards causing accidents and so on. Most all car wrecks from my many years of personal hands on experience are due to incidents where someone has violated their responsibility to operate the vehicle safely and violating the law by driving reckless, intoxicated, texting and or simply being incoherent. Why should i forgo my freedom in driving my car especially when I have a perfect driving record because of a few who are reckless? If the DOT enacted laws that covered all drivers based on the few violators, the DOT would be at 100% fault for not going after the ones who are causing the accidents in the first place.

It's like in most Military boot camps. When one recruit screws up, the DI makes everyone else pay for it! The same way the FAA is planning to make us law abiding, professional, respectful and safe R/C flyers pay the price.

[RCjetdude]

I think it goes further than just a distinction between R/C aircraft vs. drone. Add a powerful enough camera with VTx and and Video receiver to the equation and any aircraft can now potentially fly beyond line of sight. Likewise, take video transmission capability away from a drone and it too is limited to LOS is it not? What if the video camera/VTx manufacturers were required to build in RFID or whatever for the FAA identification program and then the guys who don't use them and are therefore limited to LOS continue to operate as normal? In that scenario, any quad with a camera that can transmit a signal would have to have the technology built in or anyone who decided they wanted to add the technology to any kind of aircraft would have to have it as well. I realize this could be a more long term solution and the interim would still need to be addressed but it seems at least more viable to me. Just my 2 cents.

[VOODOO]

My comments have all been inclusive of both drones and FPV flying. Having been in the pilot's seat twice when colliding with a crow sized bird and having a radome shattered by one and a windshield obscured by the other,my blood runs cold when I consider what if those incidents were with an object made with hard and/or metal parts. An airliner in full landing configuration is at it's most vulnerable and least maneuverable state and seeing a FPV drone in time to avoid it is improbable at best. It is time to face up to the fact that there are thousands of rogue flyers ( I would not consider them pilots} out there presenting a deadly hazard to manned full scale aircraft. What do we do about it?? I do not know.

[mshagg]

That's hyperbole. The fact remains no one has been killed by such an incident. So many claims from pilots turn out to be completely unsubstantiated.

Meanwhile they'll let chartered helis fly into the side of hills with half a mile of visibility? In my jurisdiction people regularly die at the hands of amateur pilots in general aviation. But no, it's guys flying quadcopters around abandoned buildings that are apparently the threat to uncontrolled airspace...

The finger pointing and efforts to throw segments of the hobby under the bus is a terrible strategy. Some of the popular youtubers referenced earlier are making more effective calls to action than the rest of the hobby combined. So much value to be had working with other segments of RC flight rather than divide and conquer.

[CVA59]

My comments have all been inclusive of both drones and FPV flying. Having been in the pilot's seat twice when colliding with a crow sized bird and having a radome shattered by one and a windshield obscured by the other,my blood runs cold when I consider what if those incidents were with an object made with hard and/or metal parts. An airliner in full landing configuration is at it's most vulnerable and least maneuverable state and seeing a FPV drone in time to avoid it is improbable at best. It is time to face up to the fact that there are thousands of rogue flyers ( I would not consider them pilots} out there presenting a deadly hazard to manned full scale aircraft. What do we do about it?? I do not know.

Point very well taken and understood. Again, back to your post, the FAA, if they want to do the "right" thing with this NPRM situation, they need to go target the "drone" (aka, hovering camera platform) flyers and hold them to a strict set of rules. Of course, we have to be realistic as well. No matter, if someone wants to get into a 777's airspace, the odds of stopping them would be very small regardless of how many laws or rules the FAA enacts. Where someone has a determined will, they will follow thru. Only a complete fool would believe that these FAA rules will put an end to some idiot buzzing around a 777 on final.

You ask, what do we do about it? We keep getting louder and louder with the FAA and anyone else who is affiliated with this nonsense. We keep hammering all the branches of Congress with letters and phone calls demanding this nonsense be stopped or at the very least, completely re-written such that it leaves us R/C aircraft flyers out of it! I have written to the FAA until my fingers are worn out. I've posted on social media, such as this; I have screamed, fussed, cussed and raised hell at the complacency I see on some social media outlets, the FAA, and the ones that downright favor this crap until I am quite honestly sick of hearing about it all. At the end of the day we have 1 action and 2 choices. First ACTION: do as I explained, pound the h_ll out of out State Rep's until they are sick of us. First CHOICE: Comply with whatever the FAA decides and get used to that new Government power grab as it pertains to our hobby. Second CHOICE: Do like me, once the final drafts are written into law provided and say the rules remain mostly unchanged, just ignore it all, keep flying and have fun. If you get caught, so be it, take your chances and plead ignorance. At that point it is on them to prove you wrong. Again, as a retired Police Officer, the burden proof is always the default task of the justice system to prove guilt. I can assure you, unless you are flying circles around a Football game or the Capitol Building, 98% of the time, they will not bother pushing you through the court system. I have already removed every FAA# and AMA# from ALL my aircraft.

[VOODOO]

That's hyperbole. The fact remains no one has been killed by such an incident. So many claims from pilots turn out to be completely unsubstantiated.

Meanwhile they'll let chartered helis fly into the side of hills with half a mile of visibility? In my jurisdiction people regularly die at the hands of amateur pilots in general aviation. But no, it's guys flying quadcopters around abandoned buildings that are apparently the threat to uncontrolled airspace...

The finger pointing and efforts to throw segments of the hobby under the bus is a terrible strategy. Some of the popular youtubers referenced earlier are making more effective calls to action than the rest of the hobby combined. So much value to be had working with other segments of RC flight rather than divide and conquer.

You must never read newspapers or watch the tv news. Too bad you missed the drone video on national news of pictures taken directly above the approach path into LAX showing a jumbo passing underneath. What about a trailing airliner approaching at a steeper glide path? Do you think the drone flyer will know it is coming until they collide? The answer is absolutely NO!! I am an avid r/c flyer since 1962 and still fly several times a week. I also spent 30 years flying commercial airliners, so I can assess the danger perhaps better than some. Before my flying career I worked briefly for the Allison Aircraft Engine Division of General Motors, in the jet engine test cells, where foreign objects were introduced in the intakes. If you could see the result of this. perhaps you would not be so cavalier about not yet having a fatal accident involving drones. About a month ago a LA news copter collided with a drone in its tail fuselage just a foot or so ahead of the tail rotor. A foot's difference and you would probably had your first fatal crash.When was the last time that a traditional fixed wing non FPV model had a similar incident?

[mshagg]

You must never read newspapers or watch the tv news.

I do. But I don't believe everything I read/hear at face value. Likewise, I don't buy into the myth that 'real world' pilots are beyond reproach. They're responsible for more aviation deaths than any drone operator ever has been. Everyone in this debate has a vested interest - us included.

Like it or not the quad guys are part of our hobby. How much effort you want to invest fighting them versus fighting the vested interests that benefit from that kind of thing... is a personal decision. Not my place to tell you how to fight the fight, and I value your contribution - just saying, I'll be taking a different approach when it inevitably comes to our shores.