As I understand it... it is the capability for RID broadcast under whatever protocol is ultimately used must exist, not the actualconnection made... but we’ll see what the actual version brings in a couple of years.
FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two
- Thread starter dirkclod
- Start date
So you have to take off, fly in a short radius around you, land, then go to another takeoff spot, fly in a short radius, land.
Rinse and repeat?
Or maybe you take off, walk several hundred yards or get in a car and that is how you expand the radius?
Rinse and repeat?
Or maybe you take off, walk several hundred yards or get in a car and that is how you expand the radius?
That is true for Standard RID.
I need to clarify the last bit of that post. If your controller does not have the capability of connecting to an RID USS ( it has WiFi to connect to the aircraft , but no secondary WiFi or cellular to connect to the USS) then you will be restricted to flying at a FRIA.
If you have a system that qualifies as a Limited RID and are unable to get an internet connection you will be grounded except at a FRIA. If you are flying outside of a FRIA with Limited RID and lose the connection to the USS, you will have to land ASAP and will not be able to launch again until you are able to connect to the USS.
Last edited:
Rangerider
Well-Known Member
The EAA is now opposing the FAA rule to restrict drones. See this post Experimental Aircraft Association Opposes FAA's NPRM
Rangerider. Do you think this will help quad pilots very much? When I went to an EAA forum I got the impression that they were going to do everything they could for “legacy/traditional” modelers....not necessarily for quads.
The legacy/traditional modelers are in the same group as the multirotors. Many of them fly at AMA fields, but not all, and those that do also fly outside of sanctioned fields. Many of those modelers use VLOS but it is much farther than 400’ especially with larger scale aircraft and high speed jet aircraft. A 400 foot limit is gone in the blink of an eye with jet powered models. Any and all that fight the corporate takeover of low altitude airspace are needed to change the proposed regulations in the NPRM. The only ones for the passage of the proposed regulations must have something to gain by them and that excludes the recreational/hobbyist pilot and small commercial mapping/inspection/videography businesses.
Rangerider
Well-Known Member
Yes I think it will help the drone community! I agree with DoomMeister. The EAA is helping our position. The battle is the same for both modelers and recreational drone pilots. The EAA is defending their members and not directly the drone pilots. Like these guys:
Last edited:
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
Very true and for whatever reason most of my RC club members don't even know about what this proposal might do. I fly weekly or more with friends who routinely fly RC turbine aircraft that are often longer than 6 feet and cost thousands. Our site says AMA field on it but the way I'm understanding the new rules is we don't (as of yet) have the endorsements to fly beyond this idiotic 400' bubble thing if it goes into effect. I was watching some guys pylon race the other day and commented they were well beyond compliance of the newly proposed rules And as you mention turbine aircraft often take over 400' to do a standard run. Here is a friend during a typical fly day at our runway with one of his jets. No way to comply and I can't believe this new FAA proposal.
One of the worst parts of it are that all flying fields would have to apply within a twelve month window after this is adopted and hope to be approved. Just because you have a field now does not mean it will survive after this is adopted. After the 12 month window there are to be no more applications for FRIA’s. Pure planned obsolescence for hobby flying of any sort. We’ll be in the way of big business.
dronerdave
Well-Known Member
That's true but I also feel for those who fly multirotors & fixed wing off of their own property. Good luck trying to gain permission to qualify your alfalfa field that has a little runway as a FRIA. And at another club I belong to, we're flying off an active aircraft runway. Talk about already integrating into the NAS. Many of us have been doing it for years with practically no harm to the airspace. But I don't give in to the big business end of things as much as how the FAA is looking at autonomous flight and how FPV is causing problems by irresponsible RC operators. Whether or not it's happening that often doesn't mean much... the FAA wants the problem to be controlled. These new regs, if passed, are just the wrong solution. The question is if the FAA can accept a system that works for the majority of us who fly VLOS and a proven way to stop irresponsible RC fliers. I'm OK with an inexpensive way to get this done but this cellular connection fee garbage is nothing I want.
B52-D
Well-Known Member
Remote ID NPRM Already Totals Over 10,000 Comments
Overwhelming Interest Shows That The FAA Is Going To Have It's Hands Full With This...
The FAA's Remote ID NPRM has caused quite a ruckus, especially with the unmanned hobby segment, with the support of EAA and other entities doing their best to fight off what many people see as altogether ham-fisted rulemaking. The feelings have been magnified as many affected parties thought the FAA's refusal to accede to an EAA request for a deadline extension seemed too much like the FAA trying to put their thumb on the scale.
Regardless of all that, the interest and response to the Remote ID NPRM has been HUGE! As of early Sunday morning, the current tally shows the comment roster totaling and astounding 10,628... and will no doubt be a good bit higher once you read this.
EAA noted that the rule would require most UAS, no matter whether they are “drones” or traditional model aircraft, to carry equipment that identifies the device and broadcasts its location. Additionally, many would be required to be equipped with “geofencing” systems that autonomously contain the craft within a defined altitude and lateral boundary.
Among other concerns was the contention that this rule is based on an imagined security and safety threat that simply is not proven in relation to traditional modeling. There is absolutely a risk posed by drones operated in proximity to aircraft by poorly informed, careless, and/or deliberately malicious operators, but the same cannot be said for models.
The rule would require every modeler to uniquely register every aircraft they own. Models come and go from modelers’ collections on a regular basis, which would necessitate frequent changes to the registry. A prolific modeler could easily own more than 100 models – a truly unwieldy number to maintain valid registrations, especially if there is a per-aircraft fee involved.
The rule also mandates technology that is not available in large numbers and is not yet fully mature. In the case of the ADS-B mandate, for example, extensive testing took place prior to the 2008 NPRM that mandated its use (and the mandate was not in effect until a decade after the publication of the rule).
There were a number of other concerns, but honestly, the list is a bit too ponderous to mention them all in this article... so if you have a few spare days (grin), we invite you to check out all the comments... hundreds of pages of them, that have been filed in response to the FAA's ill-conceived NPRM.
FMI: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems?fbclid=IwAR0xuTPOS54BA4ShZgwqCMdKaqDWslmGamWMXH_0ckwkYWjiuKTUtljcnn
GREAT RESPONSE ON NPRM , 10,000 AND COUNTING ! !
Overwhelming Interest Shows That The FAA Is Going To Have It's Hands Full With This...
The FAA's Remote ID NPRM has caused quite a ruckus, especially with the unmanned hobby segment, with the support of EAA and other entities doing their best to fight off what many people see as altogether ham-fisted rulemaking. The feelings have been magnified as many affected parties thought the FAA's refusal to accede to an EAA request for a deadline extension seemed too much like the FAA trying to put their thumb on the scale.
Regardless of all that, the interest and response to the Remote ID NPRM has been HUGE! As of early Sunday morning, the current tally shows the comment roster totaling and astounding 10,628... and will no doubt be a good bit higher once you read this.
EAA noted that the rule would require most UAS, no matter whether they are “drones” or traditional model aircraft, to carry equipment that identifies the device and broadcasts its location. Additionally, many would be required to be equipped with “geofencing” systems that autonomously contain the craft within a defined altitude and lateral boundary.
Among other concerns was the contention that this rule is based on an imagined security and safety threat that simply is not proven in relation to traditional modeling. There is absolutely a risk posed by drones operated in proximity to aircraft by poorly informed, careless, and/or deliberately malicious operators, but the same cannot be said for models.
The rule would require every modeler to uniquely register every aircraft they own. Models come and go from modelers’ collections on a regular basis, which would necessitate frequent changes to the registry. A prolific modeler could easily own more than 100 models – a truly unwieldy number to maintain valid registrations, especially if there is a per-aircraft fee involved.
The rule also mandates technology that is not available in large numbers and is not yet fully mature. In the case of the ADS-B mandate, for example, extensive testing took place prior to the 2008 NPRM that mandated its use (and the mandate was not in effect until a decade after the publication of the rule).
There were a number of other concerns, but honestly, the list is a bit too ponderous to mention them all in this article... so if you have a few spare days (grin), we invite you to check out all the comments... hundreds of pages of them, that have been filed in response to the FAA's ill-conceived NPRM.
FMI: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems?fbclid=IwAR0xuTPOS54BA4ShZgwqCMdKaqDWslmGamWMXH_0ckwkYWjiuKTUtljcnn
GREAT RESPONSE ON NPRM , 10,000 AND COUNTING ! !
Is that a lot compared to other proposed rule changes by the FAA or other federal agencies?
We need to have some context.
We need to have some context.
Yes it's a LOT indeed!!
But to be fair, the "System" will sort out duplications etc so that # may drop a good bit especially if people are "Copy/Pasting" their responses. Rest assured that is a LOT!!
I suppose a recitation of all of the problems and issues is a good starting point.
B52-D
Well-Known Member
A NEWLY FORMED COALITION THAT WILL HELP OUR CAUSE.
New Coalition Launches to Protect Model Aviation Hobby Industry
Will Start With A Fight For A Better Remote ID Rule
A new coalition has been launched to protect the model aviation hobby industry, starting with the fight for a better rule on remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). As written, the proposed remote ID rule would seriously disincentivize participation in the model aviation hobby. The coalition of aviation associations, hobby shops and manufacturers is deeply concerned about the impact this rule and future regulations will have on the model aviation hobby, the many jobs and businesses that support it and the STEM learning opportunities the hobby provides. Model aviation is the natural precursor to careers in aviation – jobs which the U.S. desperately needs to fill.
“Since 2015, the model aviation hobby has faced increasingly burdensome regulation which has made it difficult for the hobby to thrive,” said Chad Budreau, Executive Director of AMA. “The most recent example of this is remote ID. If the proposed rule is implemented as written, the model aircraft hobby will shrink, businesses will close, jobs will disappear, and young people will turn away from the hobby of flying model airplanes.”
“Not only does burdensome regulation negatively impact our existing community of responsible and safe model aircraft hobbyists, it will be devastating to the broader aviation industry. Burdensome regulations put everything at risk – the entire model aviation hobby, thousands of jobs and businesses, as well as future pilots, engineers and aerospace experts. We are starting this coalition to protect the model aviation hobby and make sure this doesn’t happen with remote ID or any future regulations,” continued Budreau.
As part of their effort to curb burdensome regulation, the coalition sent a letter to Congress expressing their concern over increasingly burdensome regulation and new rules for recreational UAS operators. The letter sent to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure describes the prominence and importance of the model aviation industry, particularly for inspiring interest amongst young people in careers in STEM.
According to the letter, model aviation supports a $1 billion hobby industry and is responsible for thousands of jobs. However, in a recent survey of hobby shops, about 77% of respondents said the FAA’s UAS regulations have hurt their sales either somewhat or drastically and almost 70% said that FAA regulations are the biggest threat to the model aircraft industry.
Regarding remote ID, the coalition is concerned that some elements of the proposal would disincentivize participation in the model aviation hobby, impose significant costs on the model aviation community, and unnecessarily restrict existing, safe model aircraft operations. Specifically, the group is asking the FAA to address the following concerns with the proposed remote ID rule:
FMI: www.modelaircraft.org/govcoalition
New Coalition Launches to Protect Model Aviation Hobby Industry
Will Start With A Fight For A Better Remote ID Rule
A new coalition has been launched to protect the model aviation hobby industry, starting with the fight for a better rule on remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). As written, the proposed remote ID rule would seriously disincentivize participation in the model aviation hobby. The coalition of aviation associations, hobby shops and manufacturers is deeply concerned about the impact this rule and future regulations will have on the model aviation hobby, the many jobs and businesses that support it and the STEM learning opportunities the hobby provides. Model aviation is the natural precursor to careers in aviation – jobs which the U.S. desperately needs to fill.
“Since 2015, the model aviation hobby has faced increasingly burdensome regulation which has made it difficult for the hobby to thrive,” said Chad Budreau, Executive Director of AMA. “The most recent example of this is remote ID. If the proposed rule is implemented as written, the model aircraft hobby will shrink, businesses will close, jobs will disappear, and young people will turn away from the hobby of flying model airplanes.”
“Not only does burdensome regulation negatively impact our existing community of responsible and safe model aircraft hobbyists, it will be devastating to the broader aviation industry. Burdensome regulations put everything at risk – the entire model aviation hobby, thousands of jobs and businesses, as well as future pilots, engineers and aerospace experts. We are starting this coalition to protect the model aviation hobby and make sure this doesn’t happen with remote ID or any future regulations,” continued Budreau.
As part of their effort to curb burdensome regulation, the coalition sent a letter to Congress expressing their concern over increasingly burdensome regulation and new rules for recreational UAS operators. The letter sent to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure describes the prominence and importance of the model aviation industry, particularly for inspiring interest amongst young people in careers in STEM.
According to the letter, model aviation supports a $1 billion hobby industry and is responsible for thousands of jobs. However, in a recent survey of hobby shops, about 77% of respondents said the FAA’s UAS regulations have hurt their sales either somewhat or drastically and almost 70% said that FAA regulations are the biggest threat to the model aircraft industry.
Regarding remote ID, the coalition is concerned that some elements of the proposal would disincentivize participation in the model aviation hobby, impose significant costs on the model aviation community, and unnecessarily restrict existing, safe model aircraft operations. Specifically, the group is asking the FAA to address the following concerns with the proposed remote ID rule:
- First, the rule should provide community-based organizations (CBOs), like AMA, more flexibility to establish and maintain fixed flying sites that satisfy remote ID compliance.
- Second, the rule should create a pathway for remote ID compliance at AMA events and competitions, which may not take place at fixed flying sites.
- Third, the rule should account for situations where there is no internet connectivity, as many safe places to fly are in rural areas with little or no service.
- Fourth, the rule should revise the definition of amateur-built UAS to effectively delineate the categories of aircraft.
- Finally, the rule should not require modelers to register every aircraft individually.
- The Academy of Model Aeronautics
- National Retail Hobby Store Association
- Hobby Manufacturers Association
- Futaba
- Civil Air Patrol
- ReadyMade RC
- Balsa USA
- Drone Zone
- Anderson RC
- Sullivan Products
- MexAir RC
- Family Hobby Center
- Bob Smith Industries
- Dave’s RC Electronics
- Aloft Hobbies
- Tampa Drones
- Big Lake Hobbies
- B&B Specialties
- Radio South
- Wind Catcher RC
- MikeGoesFlying
- Bitgo Hobby
- Arizona Aircraft Replicas
- Tripe Tree Aerodrome
- Action Hobbies
- Brownie’s Pro & Sport Hobbies LLC
- Thomas Drones LLC
FMI: www.modelaircraft.org/govcoalition
This seems to primarily pertain to AMA interests...not the hobby/commercial drone needs!
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
-
Air 3 Loch Kinardochy - Spring Highland Sunshine- Started by AlbionDrones
- Replies: 0
-
-
Forum statistics
