Welcome Mavic Pilot!
Jump in and join our free DJI Mavic community today!
Sign up

FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

Hawkwind

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2019
Messages
53
Reaction score
43
Location
AL, USA
I have posted my public response of objections to the Remote ID NPRM.
 

RBRTSTLL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
61
Reaction score
35
Location
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania
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)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GregE

Citizen Flier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
151
Reaction score
78
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)

 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B and GregE

GregE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
123
Reaction score
87
Location
Wetside, WA
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
 

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jun 1, 2017
Messages
3,204
Reaction score
4,956
Age
49
Location
Western NC, USA
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

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.
 

nafisgal

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Messages
114
Reaction score
42
Age
50
Location
galicia
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 ...
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.
 
Last edited:

RBRTSTLL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
61
Reaction score
35
Location
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania
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.