Activation code to enable drone after TRUST completion

[Droning on and on...]

Throwing this concept out for discussion.

TRUST certification compliance is abysmal in the US. Suppose your drone couldn't fly until the TRUST certification had been successfully completed?

It would work like this: When you get a new drone, it requires an activation code to be submitted to the manufacturer as part of the activation process. This code is generated by the TRUST certifying entity, upon successful completion of the TRUST process. It is tied to the drone serial number.

Please leave out of the discussion the logistics, operation, etc. of how this would work. Assume the FAA, TRUST proxies, drone manufacturers, etc. are all integrated and it works.

Would this be a good idea? Too "Big Brother"?

I hate authoritarianism, and seek as small a government footprint as possible, minimal interference and interaction from "the man" in my life. Yet, I also completely see the need for traffic lights and laws, and fully support them in concept (if not every detail of implementation). This is like that, IMO.

 

[mavic3usa]

Negative.

 

[akdrone]

With all the toy drones I'm not sure how it could be implemented but I've thought of the same thing

 

[Felix le Chat]

Throwing this concept out for discussion.

TRUST certification compliance is abysmal in the US. Suppose your drone couldn't fly until the TRUST certification had been successfully completed?

It would work like this: When you get a new drone, it requires an activation code to be submitted to the manufacturer as part of the activation process. This code is generated by the TRUST certifying entity, upon successful completion of the TRUST process. It is tied to the drone serial number.

Please leave out of the discussion the logistics, operation, etc. of how this would work. Assume the FAA, TRUST proxies, drone manufacturers, etc. are all integrated and it works.

Would this be a good idea? Too "Big Brother"?

I hate authoritarianism, and seek as small a government footprint as possible, minimal interference and interaction from "the man" in my life. Yet, I also completely see the need for traffic lights and laws, and fully support them in concept (if not every detail of implementation). This is like that, IMO.

Even easier? Make it a Federal/state offense for retailers to sell drones without a TRUST or 107 cert being presented and verified by QR code scan. A bit like buying a gun when you have to provide valid ID.

 

[glocke12]

Throwing this concept out for discussion.

TRUST certification compliance is abysmal in the US. Suppose your drone couldn't fly until the TRUST certification had been successfully completed?

It would work like this: When you get a new drone, it requires an activation code to be submitted to the manufacturer as part of the activation process. This code is generated by the TRUST certifying entity, upon successful completion of the TRUST process. It is tied to the drone serial number.

Please leave out of the discussion the logistics, operation, etc. of how this would work. Assume the FAA, TRUST proxies, drone manufacturers, etc. are all integrated and it works.

Would this be a good idea? Too "Big Brother"?

I hate authoritarianism, and seek as small a government footprint as possible, minimal interference and interaction from "the man" in my life. Yet, I also completely see the need for traffic lights and laws, and fully support them in concept (if not every detail of implementation). This is like that, IMO.

Dude. WTF.

Between this and the folks that want to report people, I've never seen a community that wants to get into bed with .gov so badly.

ETA: I'm not trying to be insulting here, I just find the overall amount of " self-policing " I see in this hobby to be surprising and suggesting this type of stuff will always lead to further restrictions or hoops to jump through down the road.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Dude. WTF.

Between this and the folks that want to report people, I've never seen a community that wants to get into bed with .gov so badly.

ETA: I'm not trying to be insulting here, I just find the overall amount of " self-policing " I see in this hobby to be surprising and suggesting this type of stuff will always lead to further restrictions or hoops to jump through down the road.

Yeah... it is disturbing that more and more free-range drone fliers are supporting a move towards a structured and self disciplined, self-regulated 'community'.

A bit like the RC Aircraft flying clubs after all individual owners of RC planes discovered that the only way they could carry on their hobby was by forming a club and being legally restricted to flying round in very small circles.

Exactly the same direction all of us are being herded in... unless we're bright enough to join together as a community and force our way into a seat at the regulatory table to represent our own best interests.

What all of us need to take into account is that the rule making 'stakeholder' committees who are steering the creation of the drone Aviation regulation we have to comply with are mainly commercial entities whose best interests lie in making sure they have the monopoly of use in the sub-400' airspace... 90% of them want to remove all free-range drone fliers from the airspace... and every single glorious individualist is on the outside looking in.

So maybe a consolidated, self-regulated union of independent drone fliers isn't such a bad long term strategy after all.

 

[glocke12]

Yeah... it is disturbing that more and more free-range drone fliers are supporting a move towards a structured and self disciplined, self-regulated 'community'.

A bit like the RC Aircraft flying clubs after all individual owners of RC planes discovered that the only way they could carry on their hobby was by forming a club and being legally restricted to flying round in very small circles.

Exactly the same direction all of us are being herded in... unless we're bright enough to join together as a community and force our way into a seat at the regulatory table to represent our own best interests.

What all of us need to take into account is that the rule making 'stakeholder' committees who are steering the creation of the drone Aviation regulation we have to comply with are mainly commercial entities whose best interests lie in making sure they have the monopoly of use in the sub-400' airspace... 90% of them want to remove all free-range drone fliers from the airspace... and every single glorious individualist is on the outside looking in.

So maybe a consolidated, self-regulated union of independent drone fliers isn't such a bad long term strategy after all.

you are talking about something vastly different than what the OP is talking about. OP wants a non-functional item to be sold that is only functional after someone takes a test that is so basic you can pass it without study. Its ridiculous given how basic the Trust exam is and is a dangerous road to start down on because it is than the start of incrementally giving away your access to use these. I won't even go into how awful it is this community seemingly has such a large amount of members ready to rat others out for infractions.

What you are suggesting is something vastly different, hobbyist fliers and part 107 fliers having a seat at the table where they would hopefully push back on something like a suggestion for a " TRUST activation process ".

There is also the fact that such a rule will quite simply have no impact on keeping people from doing things they shouldn't do. Just like concealed carry permits in some states do not prevent criminals from illegally carrying a firearm.

Bottom line is more rules, especially rules suggested by community members are not the answer.

Having a seat at the table is the answer, and having that seat ( or seats ) populated by community members who are bright enough and eloquent enough to push back on the opposition at every turn and don't have the belief that we need to put more rules on ourselves is the answer.

I'll be fair here just to show that I am not an absolutist and say that instead of selling a non-functional item, a person simply has to fulfill a requirement to attend an in-person class/training session where they get a more in-depth overview of the regulations that are relevant to them, as well as a training session on the use of their drone that maybe involves a basic obstacle course. You would end up with far more knowledgeable and responsible people that way. I'd have done that and not complained, and it would be a great way to meet and network with others.

" commercial entities whose best interests lie in making sure they have the monopoly of use in the sub-400' airspace... 90% of them want to remove all free-range drone fliers from the airspace.."


Like it or not that 0-400 foot airspace restriction is coming for us no matter how much boot licking you do. Commercial drone deliveries by the like of Amazon are increasing, other independent companies will follow suit, and I suspect air taxis using that corridor will be here within the lifetime of most on this forum..Hobbyist fliers and even part 107 fliers will be either excluded or face very tight restrictions we won't be able to fight because we don't have the two things those other groups have, money and lobbyists. I've even seen a white paper within the past year on all of this...I should have downloaded it but didn't but it was pretty eye opening.

Fly while you can

 

[Felix le Chat]

you are talking about something vastly different than what the OP is talking about. OP wants a non-functional item to be sold that is only functional after someone takes a test that is so basic you can pass it without study. Its ridiculous given how basic the Trust exam is and is a dangerous road to start down on because it is than the start of incrementally giving away your access to use these. I won't even go into how awful it is this community seemingly has such a large amount of members ready to rat others out for infractions.

What you are suggesting is something vastly different, hobbyist fliers and part 107 fliers having a seat at the table where they would hopefully push back on something like a suggestion for a " TRUST activation process ".

There is also the fact that such a rule will quite simply have no impact on keeping people from doing things they shouldn't do. Just like concealed carry permits in some states do not prevent criminals from illegally carrying a firearm.

Bottom line is more rules, especially rules suggested by community members are not the answer.

Having a seat at the table is the answer, and having that seat ( or seats ) populated by community members who are bright enough and eloquent enough to push back on the opposition at every turn and don't have the belief that we need to put more rules on ourselves is the answer.

I'll be fair here just to show that I am not an absolutist and say that instead of selling a non-functional item, a person simply has to fulfill a requirement to attend an in-person class/training session where they get a more in-depth overview of the regulations that are relevant to them, as well as a training session on the use of their drone that maybe involves a basic obstacle course. You would end up with far more knowledgeable and responsible people that way. I'd have done that and not complained, and it would be a great way to meet and network with others.

" commercial entities whose best interests lie in making sure they have the monopoly of use in the sub-400' airspace... 90% of them want to remove all free-range drone fliers from the airspace.."


Like it or not that 0-400 foot airspace restriction is coming for us no matter how much boot licking you do. Commercial drone deliveries by the like of Amazon are increasing, other independent companies will follow suit, and I suspect air taxis using that corridor will be here within the lifetime of most on this forum..Hobbyist fliers and even part 107 fliers will be either excluded or face very tight restrictions we won't be able to fight because we don't have the two things those other places have, money and lobbyists. I've even seen a white paper within the past year on all of this...I should have downloaded it but didn't but it was pretty eye opening.

Fly while you can

I'm not on about 'boot licking' or begging for scraps and self-regulation has nothing to do with "ratting"... all three of which have always been very much against my nature.

What I am bright enough to grasp is the fact that any regulatory body, which is governmental by definition, will only allow free use of airspace when the users of those aircraft can show they're capable of ruled discipline as a structured community that is officially recognised as a legitimate 'stakeholder' in the regulatory process.

Early owners and fliers of private light aircraft used to be able to fly when and where they liked... that freedom was reigned in through the actions of irresponsible 'freedom-lovin' individualists' flying into cities to land on roads and in parks so they could go on a weekend bender at their favourite bar... City ordinances were passed and the Aviation Authorities started introducing the laws and fixed the rulebook that every pilot had to (and still has to) play by.

 

[KB9Radio]

That would seem to add another level of "Big Brother" that's really not needed. The things the Trust certification focuses on are all good things for sure, but aren't going to make the difference on who's a good/responsible drone pilot and who's not. Don't worry, if there's another level of regulation and/or another fee they can charge, they'll come up with it all on their own at some point. They don't need our help dreaming them up.

 

[Vic Moss]

Nope. And I’d fight any attempt to do that.

It’s just Big Brother on steroids. What about those who want to buy one for someone else as a gift?

And there is no way the FAA would ever go for something like this. Nor should they. And you’d need retailer buy in. They’d never sign off. And what about internet sales?

This is a non-starter.

Do we need better education? Yes. But there is already a requirement for manufacturers to include something about learning the rules. Enforce that.

 

[Mt-Ed]

What am I missing here?????? Taking the TRUST "test" was as easy as falling off a log, and just because one takes it doesn't mean said person is going to follow the agreement? Even carrying it while flying doesn't assure the pilot is going to abide by it? I don't see how attaching it to one's registration is going to change any of that?