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

[RRHandy]

Gringotuerto Well said.

Guys, What many of you also don't realize, is that much of the push for remote ID was driven by terrorism concerns by the TSA. Terror organizations around the world have been pursuing and using weaponized drones.
Federal Law Enforcement Agencies want the ability to know who is flying that drone near a power station or football stadium. Granted, a "bad actor" is not going to register their drone or have remote ID. That, in itself, will be a useful tool for them.
Yes, commercial interests also were pushing the effort.

This will NOT kill the hobby. Those flying at a club feild will feel no impact. Those of us that fly elsewhere will put a small inexpensive transponer in our planes. It can be moved from plane to plane. This will take a while before this happens. Those that buy HH RTF or BNF planes will have it built in eventuall. Nothing different than a telemetry system many of them have now.

I don't like the incursion into our hobby either. The fact is that our airspace is going to get busier. There has to be some way to manage it. The people that I know with the FAA, don't want this anymore than we do.

I have said it before, small inexpensive transponder, $5.00 x 81 = $405.00 for me Now, let alone future bought planes with it in it and you think that the government don't have their hand out.

[Gringotuerto]

Unfortunately terrorists don't play by the rules or follow them.

Yes, but it still helps. For example, remote ID could be "subtracted from" primary surveillance, to highlight suspicious vehicles more quickly.

Guys, What many of you also don't realize, is that much of the push for remote ID was driven by terrorism concerns by the TSA.

Yes, essentially true, but I don't think necessarily just TSA but other parts of DHS, as well as others (DoD, etc.). In some meetings FAA was not only not driving, but even appeared uncomfortable (my subjective impression) with what they were being pushed/asked/ordered to do by security-related agencies. Kind of weird, I don't know how it gets decided who is calling the shots when there are multiple stakeholders. But let's just say, other agencies certainly talked to them as though they were subservient; whether or not they really were I don't know.

[MikeT]

I have said it before, small inexpensive transponder, $5.00 x 81 = $405.00 for me Now, let alone future bought planes with it in it and you think that the government don't have their hand out.

Theses are supposed to be. Movable from plane to plane.
Mike

[Gringotuerto]

Theses are supposed to be. Movable from plane to plane.
Mike

Or if you fly in a FRIA, then you don't need any equipment. A lot of us belong to and fly at an AMA member club, and AMA will work to get these sites all designated as FRIAs. If you aren't in that situation, then ...could be more complicated.

[Wild Man]

I Feel betrayed by the AMA As some of you have stated they are money hungry also. They are hoping this will increase their membership ,and more new clubs for them. I do not see the need for this over reach in regulations in states like Wyo. S.D. N.D. Mt. There is nothing to blow up or attack, Most of these small town Airports in these states may only have two Planes land in days some times weeks The Reg. Should be left up to each individual Sate Take the State of Wyo. There are more oil field, natural gas fields and coal mine vehicles licensed in the state then there are People I see no reason for the larger Class G Airspace States have to put up with such Stupidity. The greatest lie ever told is " we are from the gov. and we are here to help What a joke. Money talks BS walks. Many of the Fliers in Wyo. Montana and SD do not belong to the AMA nor do they ever plan to be. So I hope they leave us alone out here in Gods Country. So do we just shut up and do as told? I feel like a sheep being lead to slaughter. To many just say OH well there is nothing we can do about it

[Hugh Wiedman]

I Feel betrayed by the AMA As some of you have stated they are money hungry also. They are hoping this will increase their membership ,and more new clubs for them. I do not see the need for this over reach in regulations in states like Wyo. S.D. N.D. Mt. There is nothing to blow up or attack, Most of these small town Airports in these states may only have two Planes land in days some times weeks The Reg. Should be left up to each individual Sate Take the State of Wyo. There are more oil field, natural gas fields and coal mine vehicles licensed in the state then there are People I see no reason for the larger Class G Airspace States have to put up with such Stupidity. The greatest lie ever told is " we are from the gov. and we are here to help What a joke. Money talks BS walks. Many of the Fliers in Wyo. Montana and SD do not belong to the AMA nor do they ever plan to be. So I hope they leave us alone out here in Gods Country. So do we just shut up and do as told? I feel like a sheep being lead to slaughter. To many just say OH well there is nothing we can do about it

Awomen to that, this country is gone to hell in a handbasket. Suggest we keep our guns cleaned, oiled and loaded! I do fly at a two FRIA fields but even if this won't affect me yet, it's just the beginning of an erosion of our liberties.

[Gringotuerto]

I Feel betrayed by the AMA A..... I do not see the need for this over reach in regulations in states like Wyo. S.D. N.D. Mt. ....

I don't really see it that way. AMA has been doing a good job, it's just that the other side is basically two overwhelming forces: (1) commercial interests with deep pockets, like Amazon and Google; (2) defense and security parts of the government who want a detailed and continuous "data stream" on everything in the sky. You might consider the AMA well-funded, but in comparison, it is not. Look at a typical industry event (for example the annual FAA UAS Symposium). For 2020 it was online, but in 2019 there were about 1200 people there, and if I recall about 2-3 AMA folks. The other 1198 represent entities with bottomless budget and either don't care about our hobby or are openly hostile to it. And the quickest way to convert the "don't cares" to "openly hostile" is to stand up and make a lot of noise about hobbyists' rights. It's hard to explain, but 99% of the people involved are just NOT in a mood to hear that, and it doesn't take much to push them to the conclusion that hobbyists are a problem and the entire hobby needs to be terminated immediately. So it is a tough situation. IMHO the AMA plays the cards they are dealt about as well as they could be played.

As far as the rest of your comment about overreach - yeah, I do feel like we get caught up in overreach and irrational policy. The way regulations are settled is very political, and not rational engineering design. It turns into a political mess with stupid results sometimes. Frustrating.

[mshagg]

AMA has been doing a good job

AMA has now been removed from the FAA's advisory committee, so that's probably the end of that. The hobby doesnt even have a seat at the table any more.

But guess who does...

https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/drone_advisory_committee/media/DAC_Membership_Roster.pdf

[MikeT]

Apparently there was a "nomination process.Wonder what happened?

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/18/2020-13133/solicitation-of-nominations-for-appointment-to-the-drone-advisory-committee

Mike

[mshagg]

Apparently there was a "nomination process.Wonder what happened?

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/18/2020-13133/solicitation-of-nominations-for-appointment-to-the-drone-advisory-committee

Mike

One can only assume that they don't have the sophisticated lobbying infrastructure as the likes of Google and Hyundai...

[F106DeltaDart]

I noticed EAA isn’t on it either.. At least AOPA and Wing are still there. Both have generally been alongside AMA in advocacy so far.

[MikeT]

Shot Chad at the AMA a email on this and his response was quick and pointed out that apparently this "committee" is focused on the commercial aspects and the AMA ( Chad and Rich) are still involved in the other subcommittees ( that meet weekly) on low altitude manned aircraft and UAS operations. I've found it's best to go to the source rather than jump to conclusions.

Mike

[JoeM723]

I will not be complying with this FAA “rule” (only elected officials can write laws, the FAA is an unelected association). I absolutely will not be adding a bulky “remote ID thing” to an aircraft that is under 1 meter in wingspan and ABSOLUTELY will not add anything to my ultra micros to comply with a fake law.

[Wild Man]

I will not be complying with this FAA “rule” (only elected officials can write laws, the FAA is an unelected association). I absolutely will not be adding a bulky “remote ID thing” to an aircraft that is under 1 meter in wingspan and ABSOLUTELY will not add anything to my ultra micros to comply with a fake law.

Out here in the Great Mid West What they call Fly over Country Nd, SD WYO. Montana We are all with you on not Complying with such and Over reach by the FAA