FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two
- Thread starter dirkclod
- Start date
B52-D
Well-Known Member
DRONES win in Michigan, I hope other states will prevail.
Judge In Michigan Rules In Favor Of Drone Operators
Genesee County Violated State Law Prohibiting Local Governments From Enacting Drone Restrictions
After more than a year in the making, the challenge to a drone ordinance passed in Genesee County, Michigan has resulted in what is being described as "a huge win" for drone operators.
Writing on the UAV Legal News and Discussion Facebook page, Ryan J. Latourette, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Great Lakes Drone Company LLC, said that in a recent action granted a permanent injunction against the county precluding enforcement of their ordinance that disallowed the use or possession of drones in county parks.
The injunction was sought out by a coalition of drone operators in Michigan after one of their own, Jason Harrison, was handcuffed, detained, and had both his drone and all electronics confiscated for legally flying in a Genesee County park back in December of 2018.
The drone operators formed the MCDO (Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators) and brought suit against the county regarding their ordinance. Michigan law specifically prohibits local governments from creating or enforcing their own drone ordinance in MCL 259.205 which is part of Act 436 passed in 2016 that covers unmanned aerial vehicles. Genesee County had attempted to argue that they were exempted from the state law. Hearings held back in October and November looked deeply into both the county’s interest to restrict drones and into the wording of the state law preempting the county’s ordinance.
A very short one-day respite from the ordinance was imposed by Judge Farah covering a few hours on Thanksgiving Day of 2019 for an event called Moundsgiving where off road vehicles flock to a park called the Mounds within the Genesee County parks system. The county was enjoined from barring drone operators from flying to catch all the action of the event provided that they follow FAA regulations. Despite that order parks police did still make an initial attempt to enforce the park ban and confronted Ryan Latourette and Jason Bates, both members of MCDO. After showing the officers the temporary injunction operators continued to fly without further incident.
Now, nearly three months after hearings on the lawsuit concluded, the decision is final. The State law specifically preempting all local ordinance on drones was found to be the rule of law. It is so ordered that local subdivisions may not create or enforce their own drone ordinances in the State of Michigan due to state law MCL 259.305. A total of 17 states across the nation have the same or very similarly worded state preemption law. While this case sets precedent only for the State of Michigan, it creates a very distinct signal that localities in other states with the preemption clause could find themselves in legal trouble attempting to enforce it. And the hope now is for the other 33 states to take up legislation to pass state preemption language similar to Michigan to ensure that there isn’t a patchwork of drone ordinances that endanger the national airspace (as was previously warned by the FAA).
"This day is a huge celebration for the rule of law and legal drone operations," Latourette wrote.
(Image from file)
Judge In Michigan Rules In Favor Of Drone Operators
Genesee County Violated State Law Prohibiting Local Governments From Enacting Drone Restrictions
After more than a year in the making, the challenge to a drone ordinance passed in Genesee County, Michigan has resulted in what is being described as "a huge win" for drone operators.
Writing on the UAV Legal News and Discussion Facebook page, Ryan J. Latourette, Director of Regulatory Affairs at Great Lakes Drone Company LLC, said that in a recent action granted a permanent injunction against the county precluding enforcement of their ordinance that disallowed the use or possession of drones in county parks.
The injunction was sought out by a coalition of drone operators in Michigan after one of their own, Jason Harrison, was handcuffed, detained, and had both his drone and all electronics confiscated for legally flying in a Genesee County park back in December of 2018.
The drone operators formed the MCDO (Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators) and brought suit against the county regarding their ordinance. Michigan law specifically prohibits local governments from creating or enforcing their own drone ordinance in MCL 259.205 which is part of Act 436 passed in 2016 that covers unmanned aerial vehicles. Genesee County had attempted to argue that they were exempted from the state law. Hearings held back in October and November looked deeply into both the county’s interest to restrict drones and into the wording of the state law preempting the county’s ordinance.
A very short one-day respite from the ordinance was imposed by Judge Farah covering a few hours on Thanksgiving Day of 2019 for an event called Moundsgiving where off road vehicles flock to a park called the Mounds within the Genesee County parks system. The county was enjoined from barring drone operators from flying to catch all the action of the event provided that they follow FAA regulations. Despite that order parks police did still make an initial attempt to enforce the park ban and confronted Ryan Latourette and Jason Bates, both members of MCDO. After showing the officers the temporary injunction operators continued to fly without further incident.
Now, nearly three months after hearings on the lawsuit concluded, the decision is final. The State law specifically preempting all local ordinance on drones was found to be the rule of law. It is so ordered that local subdivisions may not create or enforce their own drone ordinances in the State of Michigan due to state law MCL 259.305. A total of 17 states across the nation have the same or very similarly worded state preemption law. While this case sets precedent only for the State of Michigan, it creates a very distinct signal that localities in other states with the preemption clause could find themselves in legal trouble attempting to enforce it. And the hope now is for the other 33 states to take up legislation to pass state preemption language similar to Michigan to ensure that there isn’t a patchwork of drone ordinances that endanger the national airspace (as was previously warned by the FAA).
"This day is a huge celebration for the rule of law and legal drone operations," Latourette wrote.
(Image from file)
Citizen Flier
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 344
- Reactions
- 181
There is some interesting advice/insight from DP Review about how to respond to FAA public comments invitation. (hopefully this is not a duplicate post)
www.dpreview.com
Opinion: New rules proposed by the FAA are a threat to drone pilots – including photographers
The FAA recently proposed rules that could impact all drone operators in the US, virtually requiring an internet connection to fly and a requirement to broadcast personally identifying information. Here's what's at stake and how to make your voice heard.
www.dpreview.com
GregE
Well-Known Member
Disappointing and scary reading the comments below the article. The vast majority opine that drones are intrusive, dangerous and need to be restricted/ banned.
Read thru there- it should encourage us to make our comments by March 2
Read thru there- it should encourage us to make our comments by March 2
Reading those comments is a good indicator of how the vast majority of John Q. Public feels about drones in general.
Some of those comments are SPOT on while many of them have no merit what so ever. Both sides of the argument have had ample time to comment.
Too many pending messages ....
I leave the link to the update on the subject of the FAA ..
If someone has already put it, a thousand apologies .. but I saw it interesting ...
www.faa.gov
Briefly comment: When they need to know how the sector breathes ... They usually release this type of news in advance Probe ...
If it's going to be a tool in the hands of "authorities" ... Ok ...
If it is going to be freely available to any user ... It can mean putting the integrity and safety of the pilots at risk.
Here in the EU (Europe) it clashes head-on with the Law on data protection and privacy ... so I suppose they will give it a lot of turns before approving such nonsense.
I leave the link to the update on the subject of the FAA ..
If someone has already put it, a thousand apologies .. but I saw it interesting ...
FAA Releases UAS Remote Tracking & ID ARC Report
www.faa.gov
If it's going to be a tool in the hands of "authorities" ... Ok ...
If it is going to be freely available to any user ... It can mean putting the integrity and safety of the pilots at risk.
Here in the EU (Europe) it clashes head-on with the Law on data protection and privacy ... so I suppose they will give it a lot of turns before approving such nonsense.
Last edited:
B52-D
Well-Known Member
DJI’s Response to Remote ID, Drone to Phone Technology, network instead of Broadcasting.
DJI Releases Video Explaining Its 'Drone To Phone' Remote ID
System Is A De-Facto Electronic License Plate For Drones
As drones become commonplace in the skies, people understandably want to know where they are and what they’re doing. That’s why DJI has developed what we call Drone-to-Phone Remote Identification.
Drone-to-Phone Remote ID works like an electronic license plate for drones. It shows a drone’s location, altitude, speed and direction, as well as an identifier like a serial number or registration number and the location of the pilot. DJI’s system uses an ASTM International standard and off-the-shelf technology to send this information directly from a drone to a commonly-available smartphone.
DJI’s Drone-to-Phone implementation of the Remote ID standard has real advantages for drone pilots, authorities and the public at large. We believe drone pilots ought to be able to decide how best to comply with the Remote ID rules that regulators are writing all over the world.
In the United States, the FAA wants most drone pilots to use a different kind of Remote ID with higher costs and more burdens.
According to DroneDJ, a spokesperson for DJI clarified that this is simply a proof of concept based on the requirements from the FAA. The app is not currently available to the public. "The app and the associated drone firmware updates used for DJI’s demonstration this week are not yet available for public use, pending further direction from aviation regulators and final publication of the ASTM International standard,” the spokesman said.
Comments on the FAA's NPRM for remote ID are due by March 2.
See You Tube Video.
DJI Releases Video Explaining Its 'Drone To Phone' Remote ID
System Is A De-Facto Electronic License Plate For Drones
As drones become commonplace in the skies, people understandably want to know where they are and what they’re doing. That’s why DJI has developed what we call Drone-to-Phone Remote Identification.
Drone-to-Phone Remote ID works like an electronic license plate for drones. It shows a drone’s location, altitude, speed and direction, as well as an identifier like a serial number or registration number and the location of the pilot. DJI’s system uses an ASTM International standard and off-the-shelf technology to send this information directly from a drone to a commonly-available smartphone.
DJI’s Drone-to-Phone implementation of the Remote ID standard has real advantages for drone pilots, authorities and the public at large. We believe drone pilots ought to be able to decide how best to comply with the Remote ID rules that regulators are writing all over the world.
In the United States, the FAA wants most drone pilots to use a different kind of Remote ID with higher costs and more burdens.
According to DroneDJ, a spokesperson for DJI clarified that this is simply a proof of concept based on the requirements from the FAA. The app is not currently available to the public. "The app and the associated drone firmware updates used for DJI’s demonstration this week are not yet available for public use, pending further direction from aviation regulators and final publication of the ASTM International standard,” the spokesman said.
Comments on the FAA's NPRM for remote ID are due by March 2.
See You Tube Video.
MEFfly
Active Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2019
- Messages
- 34
- Reactions
- 21
I posted my comments (5 pages) to FAA yesterday. Up over 25,000 comments as of today.
Unfortunately, there are a few people throwing drone users under the bus while trying to defend their model aircraft hobby.
Here's an except from one I saw today (from an AMA club member/leader).
"The advent of the multi rotor UAS (drones) and the irresponsible use of these systems has fueled the need to better control the airspace. The long history of radio controlled model aircraft has shown we are not the problem, but we are now being thrown into the same category as drones, and the consequence is rules being proposed that should not be applicable to RC model airplanes. Responsible flying at flying sites as ours should be recognized and allowed to continue in their current fashion."
sad ;-(
Unfortunately, there are a few people throwing drone users under the bus while trying to defend their model aircraft hobby.
Here's an except from one I saw today (from an AMA club member/leader).
"The advent of the multi rotor UAS (drones) and the irresponsible use of these systems has fueled the need to better control the airspace. The long history of radio controlled model aircraft has shown we are not the problem, but we are now being thrown into the same category as drones, and the consequence is rules being proposed that should not be applicable to RC model airplanes. Responsible flying at flying sites as ours should be recognized and allowed to continue in their current fashion."
sad ;-(
Unfortunately the above statement has been proven "True" time and time again. Plank and Heli R/C operators were well behaved and flew safely for decades. Not because we were all "great guys/girls" but because the technology was limiting our ability to fly in places and ways that weren't safe. Once the aircraft became Auto-Stabilizing (Gyro Stabilized) and Autonomous Flying (GPS Controlled) it allowed operators who know nothing about actual flight (safety, regulations, airspace etc). This has created the "Environment" we are playing in today.
I think R/C operators who are flying from and remaining within close proximity to a Fixed Flying Site (AMA/FAA approved) should be 100% exempt from all Remote ID rules and regs.
If you read through them you'll also see MANNED aircraft pilots are joining in and not supporting the industry as well. There are a few manned "only" pilots who do support the R/C industry but most are not UAS friendly.
I don't think it's going to be as "Easy" to get this pushed back as some might have expected. I think we may have out-kicked our defense from the get-go but I could be wrong.
Yeah, I was surprised seeing a post praising the FAA helping them fly over a lake or something. I admit and fear my ignorance, but so far from my limited data, it seems to me the FAA are are not friendly to Mavic pilots, and continue to over regulate, and plan to basically eliminate the affordability, and practicality of drone flying for most hobbyist and artists.
I got a letter from DJI today warning of the FAA making flying drones without their new regulated tracking devices illegal. I guess this would include my current mavics and phantoms. Also it said something about always having to be connected to the internet to fly, and always being monitored by or spied on by whatever government is currently in power.
Like I said my data is limited. I also watched a long video that seemed to say the FAA is trying to make drone flying for most hobbyist and photographers basically impossible. I do plan to write before March 2nd, but it's hard to believe anything we write will change a plan that is already made by the politicians and the ultra rich people who have the politicians (FAA) like Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, in their pocket.
I would like to be educated more in a way that doesn't take me reading hundreds of pages if possible, and isn't too insulting. Maybe I'm too harsh on the FAA, but my experience with them is they are are more about control than safety. I remember seeing stories about people being killed by airplanes, but I've never seen a story about anyone being killed by small drones.
Here is the email I got from DJI today.
"We’re writing you because a new FAA proposal could profoundly change how you fly your drone – and you have 6 days to tell the FAA what you think about it.
The FAA wants security and safety officials to be able to monitor airborne drones through “Remote Identification.” DJI strongly believes in Remote ID, but the FAA’s proposal would put new burdens on you. It could require you to pay a monthly fee to fly, connect to the internet for every flight, ground your older drones, and record every flight you take in a nationwide database.
You can learn more about the FAA’s plan – and DJI’s alternative solution – at this link. If you’re concerned about what this means for you, you need to act now. The FAA is accepting comments about the proposed Remote ID rule through March 2, and your voice will make a difference in how the FAA moves forward."
Not that I trust DJI either...
Here is the video I mentioned.
Unfortunately I don't believe we have fair representation, and all the power is by the ruling class, and our comments won't make a difference in their business plan. I hope to be convinced otherwise. So far I plan to comment that I believe these new plans have been corrupted by the ultra rich like Jeff Bezos of Amazon, and the Power hungry surveillance state.
I got a letter from DJI today warning of the FAA making flying drones without their new regulated tracking devices illegal. I guess this would include my current mavics and phantoms. Also it said something about always having to be connected to the internet to fly, and always being monitored by or spied on by whatever government is currently in power.
Like I said my data is limited. I also watched a long video that seemed to say the FAA is trying to make drone flying for most hobbyist and photographers basically impossible. I do plan to write before March 2nd, but it's hard to believe anything we write will change a plan that is already made by the politicians and the ultra rich people who have the politicians (FAA) like Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, in their pocket.
I would like to be educated more in a way that doesn't take me reading hundreds of pages if possible, and isn't too insulting. Maybe I'm too harsh on the FAA, but my experience with them is they are are more about control than safety. I remember seeing stories about people being killed by airplanes, but I've never seen a story about anyone being killed by small drones.
Here is the email I got from DJI today.
"We’re writing you because a new FAA proposal could profoundly change how you fly your drone – and you have 6 days to tell the FAA what you think about it.
The FAA wants security and safety officials to be able to monitor airborne drones through “Remote Identification.” DJI strongly believes in Remote ID, but the FAA’s proposal would put new burdens on you. It could require you to pay a monthly fee to fly, connect to the internet for every flight, ground your older drones, and record every flight you take in a nationwide database.
You can learn more about the FAA’s plan – and DJI’s alternative solution – at this link. If you’re concerned about what this means for you, you need to act now. The FAA is accepting comments about the proposed Remote ID rule through March 2, and your voice will make a difference in how the FAA moves forward."
Not that I trust DJI either...
Here is the video I mentioned.
Unfortunately I don't believe we have fair representation, and all the power is by the ruling class, and our comments won't make a difference in their business plan. I hope to be convinced otherwise. So far I plan to comment that I believe these new plans have been corrupted by the ultra rich like Jeff Bezos of Amazon, and the Power hungry surveillance state.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Funny thing is I have seen a lot of comments from fixed wing model hobbyists that say they have had many crash issues within their membership, there was even a thread here not long ago about a model club that shares an actual manned aircraft airfield for their flights !!
They had a large model / manned small plane actual crash, manned pilot was in the wrong.
DJIs info is a concern saying remote id being implemented around the world.
Are they a major player is pushing this ?
Of course, reading their blurb.
Very clever, force all current and new pilots into new complying aircraft.
I won’t be purchasing another DJI product ever (literally just decided this).
FPV cinematic is looking better and better almost every day.
All this BS (and it is), will force people into operating under the (literal) radar, illegally if necessary, or clear the skies, which is probably what the big money side of town wants.
First off @MavicTim WELCOME to the forum from a fellow NCer.
You might want to dig into the topic a bit deeper before you submit your reply. It's a bit more complicated than it appears. Here's a good video that explains HOW to reply in a way that doesn't just get rejected from the get-go:
mavicpilots.com
I'm moving your post into the thread about this very topic so that we are a bit more organized and it's easier to follow and reply.
Allen
You might want to dig into the topic a bit deeper before you submit your reply. It's a bit more complicated than it appears. Here's a good video that explains HOW to reply in a way that doesn't just get rejected from the get-go:
Flite Test gives solid advice on FAA Remote ID NPRM (Feb 23 2020)
This is an EXCELLENT video on what the FAA is expecting in your comments. I want to stress that EVERYONE take the time to write a courteous and intelligent response. Don't get emotional and don't be mean or it's a waste of your time. Also it's important to realize that it's not just UAS...
mavicpilots.com
I'm moving your post into the thread about this very topic so that we are a bit more organized and it's easier to follow and reply.
Allen
ThanksFirst off @MavicTim WELCOME to the forum from a fellow NCer.
You might want to dig into the topic a bit deeper before you submit your reply. It's a bit more complicated than it appears. Here's a good video that explains HOW to reply in a way that doesn't just get rejected from the get-go:
Flite Test gives solid advice on FAA Remote ID NPRM (Feb 23 2020)
This is an EXCELLENT video on what the FAA is expecting in your comments. I want to stress that EVERYONE take the time to write a courteous and intelligent response. Don't get emotional and don't be mean or it's a waste of your time. Also it's important to realize that it's not just UAS...
I'm moving your post into the thread about this very topic so that we are a bit more organized and it's easier to follow and reply.
Allen
MEFfly
Active Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2019
- Messages
- 34
- Reactions
- 21
My point was that rather than pushing back against the FAA over-reach towards UAS in general, these guys want to just protect their little specialty... there is principle at stake here.
So maybe the FAA moves forward with the regs as written, then both all us "bad" drone people AND the "traditional" model aircraft people are wiped out.
from my quick view, the comments are running 99.9% AGAINST thr various aspects of the proposed regs... so basis for lawsuits if they move ahead and pass them as is being entered into the record, so to speak.
Wondering if the recent FCC crackdown on Cell Phone companies using their technology to pinpoint users without their knowledge, is a prelude for future issues concerning the proposed ID mandate. I'm not against the mandate, I'm just against having to upgrade technology for this purpose, when the technology for instant ID is already there. An updated app could very well be the simple and cheapest solution.For those that don't know Round 1 is here.
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...www.federalregister.gov
FAA Drone ID Proposal:
Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint face $200 million in fines from FCC for sharing user data
The Federal Communications Commission has proposed $200 million in fines for the four major U.S. phone providers for improper disclosure of user data.
www.usatoday.com
Another article that gets the pertinent facts completely wrong. Or it could be deliberate misrepresentation - that's been shown to be very effective these days.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Air 3s Video settings tested - D-Log vs. HLG- Started by DroneZone Samui
- Replies: 0
-
-
Mavic 3 classic purchased in the USA, on CE transmission profile?
- Started by Ossbourne
- Replies: 0
-
-
Forum statistics
