FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Drone on]

Again, there is a difference between a LAW (statute legislated by elected people) and a REGULATION (promulgated by unelected executive branch people).

Not challenging, just asking. In effect, what is the difference?

 

[DroningOn]

Another thought I'm having is these rules are so Draconian it isn't about safety at all that's just the BS cover story. It all about sweeping every drone, model airplane, kite and birthday balloon from the low sky so the commercial drones won't be interfered with. Eventually they'll come after small time 107 drone businesses. If your drone doesn't remote ID as Amazon or Fed-Ex you're illegal.

The statement from the “commercial drone alliance“ absolutely says it all and is what’s behind all of this nonsense. It has nothing to do with safety, no matter what some people here say.

“The Commercial Drone Alliance was thrilled to see the FAA’s proposed remote ID rule today – the federal government’s holiday gift to the commercial drone industry. We are still reviewing the details, but offhand the FAA’s proposal appears to open the door for expansion of the billion-dollar commercial drone economy here in the U.S...
...Our main concern is the implementation period, which is needlessly [long] up to 3 years. Until remote ID is implemented, the American public will be deprived of many of the vast safety, humanitarian and efficiency benefits of commercial drones. Remote ID implementation will be cheap or even free for most drone operators. We need implementation yesterday, not 3 years from now. We look forward to filing public comments with the agency and to continuing our work with the federal government to continue to integrate commercial drones into the National Airspace System.”

 

[dronerdave]

What I wonder is:

IF the FAA increased the size of the VLOS bubble from 400'x400' to 400'high & max VLOS to 2500' out (or less depending on conditions) how many people would reject that?

As rec fliers, I understand that as a whole we need to be on the same page or we will probably get something shoved down out throats that most of us can't live with such as this 400x400 rule. I'd like to see some compromise on that. I fly further than 400' from my transmitter with my fixed wing RC stuff all the time.

Speaking as one who doesn't fly record distances, I do work quite a bit to around 3000' out. Even that seems reasonable to me. I don't care if the FAA knows where I'm flying but I really don't want to pay for it and I don't want restrictions on legal areas I currently fly at because I can't transmit some kind of a location beacon. I'm not sure about how all that's gonna work but I don't even care if the FAA knows where I've flown in the past... just hope they don't stick me in a little bottle.

 

[deleted member 877]

It amazes me how people think that they can "reject" a law. When/if the proposal is eventually ratified and passed into law the choice will then be to either obey or disobey. Of course everybody has the right to disobey laws so long as they understand that the authorities have the right to prosecute.

Welcome to "Living in a Civilised Society 101". Class dismissed - LOL.

 

[Verdrone]

If they want compliance they should make it easy. If they want compliance they should not take any freedom away. It's funny how we all have the freedom to speed and drink and drive still but it we put a dent in Cessna, look out American.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

As I tried to explain to you (but you're evidently not taking any notice), it's more than speculation - a lot more. Repeating yourself over and over again is not going to convince anyone to take your point of view if they don't already agree with you.

What makes you think that there is nothing in place to "address the real causes of aviation accidents, injuries and deaths?"

I don't think you've explained it in terms that are more than speculation. The statistics regarding accidents caused by manned aircraft with drones are the evidence and the evidence says the ID legislation and hundreds of millions proposed to be spent implementing it is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

Given the number of accidents, injuries and fatalities associated with manned flight the $500 million being proposed to provide a solution to a non-existent problem would be better spend address the causes of real accidents, real injuries and real deaths.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It amazes me how people think that they can "reject" a law. When/if the proposal is eventually ratified and passed into law the choice will then be to either obey or disobey. Of course everybody has the right to disobey laws so long as they understand that the authorities have the right to prosecute.

Welcome to "Living in a Civilised Society 101". Class dismissed - LOL.

Not my own words but appropriate in my opinion...

“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all."

Welcome to a rational civilized society 101.

 

[deleted member 877]

If they want compliance they should make it easy. If they want compliance they should not take any freedom away. It's funny how we all have the freedom to speed and drink and drive still but it we put a dent in Cessna, look out American.

Certainly you do have the "freedom to speed and drink and drive" no different than if you put a dent in a Cessna with your drone, the authorities have the "freedom" to throw you in jail.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

There have been three confirmed collisions, the one in the US being the most well known - the collision between a Phantom and a Black Hawk over New York. And in any case, there is no reason to ignore this particular safety issue just because you can think of other safety concerns.

I'll say to you what I said to someone else that posted these types of statistics, if you're holding up these incidences as justification for spending $500 million I'll point you to the statistics regarding multiple times more accidents, injuries and deaths as a result of manned aircraft accidents as a better place to expend resources IF safety is the real concern.

There is a reason to ignore the safety concerns drones when resources to address all of the concerns is limited and the seriousness of the other concerns is of much higher concern given the number accident, injuries and deaths that occur. Speculations over what might happen don't trump the concerns regarding what is actually happening with respect to aviation safety.

 

[Maviculous]

. In truth, self regulation was working just fine. How many people are flying drones? How many have posed a real problem? My parents bought me a bow and arrow when I was a teen. No regulation on just shooting it. Probably more accidents from that then use of drones.

Yep. If someone better at the actual math than myself worked it out, I'd be willing to wager that the number of actual accidents resulting in harm (both personal and property) would be statistically very low. Much lower than traffic accidents, bbq grill accidents, turkey frying burns etc...and G*d knows infections given to patients in hospitals (I am very well acquainted with the latter).
The "close calls" are dramatic, but extremely rare considering the number of UAV's now in the skies.
I'm hopeful that rational minds will prevail and our liberties won't be further restricted without VERY GOOD EVIDENCE to guide our legislator's decisions. I'm hopeful...but sadly I don't expect much rational and careful consideration. Irrational fear and drama seem to be winning?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Certainly you do have the "freedom to speed and drink and drive" no different than if you put a dent in a Cessna with your drone, the authorities have the "freedom" to throw you in jail.

Apples and oranges. Thousands of accidents and thousands of deaths caused each year by drunk drivers. Again, a solution looking for a problem.

 

[SnipeUout]

Please voice your opinions about this. It’s absolutely over regulated and aiming to gimp the industry.

Saddly the old men who control this could careless about about your hobby and more
about the trillion dollar commercial aviation industry that they are trying to protect. The same industry that employs them.

I have killed dozens of birds, some that are far heavier then a DJI Inspire. You don’t see the FAA trying to regulate birds.

Oh and those bird will always dominate the sky’s and fly where they want.

 

[Verdrone]

Certainly you do have the "freedom to speed and drink and drive" no different than if you put a dent in a Cessna with your drone, the authorities have the "freedom" to throw you in jail.

You could use technology to limit automobile speed. But they don't.

 

[deleted member 877]

You could use technology to limit automobile speed. But they don't.

Not currently but In-car breathalyzers are common in Australia and the United States, where they’re known more often as ‘alcohol interlock devices’, or ‘alcolocks’. Fitted onto the dashboard, the breathalyzer needs a clean breath sample before the car’s engine will start. If the driver doesn’t pass the test, they must wait a certain amount of time before they can re-test. In-built chips can let the police know when a driver fails a test or if someone has tampered with the machine.

 

[kcabpilot]

I’ll say it again, when you read that statement from the Commercial Drone Alliance about this emerging “billion dollar” industry delivering Chia Pets with drones I have to bite my tongue. These guys have no clue what they’re in for, the public ain’t gonna like it and when the public don’t like it and their reps in Washington start getting phone calls these aspiring entrepreneurs are gonna be in a world of hurt.

Just look at the general perception of drone hobbyists by the public now. If these things are constantly buzzing over back yards across the nation there’s gonna be a riot.

That’s my opinion anyway.

 

[kcabpilot]

Oof. I hadn't looked into prices since I don't own or operate, but that sucks.

Whatever they end up doing with drones I don’t think it will involve ADS-B

 

[Verdrone]

Not currently but In-car breathalyzers are common in Australia and the United States, where they’re known more often as ‘alcohol interlock devices’, or ‘alcolocks’. Fitted onto the dashboard, the breathalyzer needs a clean breath sample before the car’s engine will start. If the driver doesn’t pass the test, they must wait a certain amount of time before they can re-test. In-built chips can let the police know when a driver fails a test or if someone has tampered with the machine.

Let's put them in all cars

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

You could use technology to limit automobile speed. But they don't.

No they don't, and likely won't, where there's a $ to bleed from taxpayers.
Like drone identifying tech (if it does get in, and probably will when commercial autonomous use increases),they would more likely be wanting to send out an infringement notice and fine, if your cars inbuilt GPS indicates you have gone over the speed limit by even a minuscule amount, and it'll ping on the phone as it comes through !!

PS. I've never had a speed camera (or red camera) fine, and not had one at all (by all the regular speed detection methods) since I was a very young man.
I learned from a reasonably young age, and not having the spare $ after marrying at 21

when you read that statement from the Commercial Drone Alliance about this emerging “billion dollar” industry delivering Chia Pets with drones I have to bite my tongue. These guys have no clue what they’re in for, the public ain’t gonna like it and when the public don’t like it

I do tend to agree that we won't see it mainstream in the next few years, too dangerous / unviable for numerous reasons now, and too costly to really run profitably until tech improves.
Won't take too many more years though.

 

[deleted member 877]

I’ll say it again, when you read that statement from the Commercial Drone Alliance about this emerging “billion dollar” industry delivering Chia Pets with drones I have to bite my tongue. These guys have no clue what they’re in for, the public ain’t gonna like it and when the public don’t like it and their reps in Washington start getting phone calls these aspiring entrepreneurs are gonna be in a world of hurt.

Just look at the general perception of drone hobbyists by the public now. If these things are constantly buzzing over back yards across the nation there’s gonna be a riot.

That’s my opinion anyway.

I have to agree and I do know that there was a huge amount of public backlash when drone delivery was trialed in Australia. It's difficult to predict if drone delivery will ultimately be successful and become widespread. I'm hoping that it doesn't.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

It's difficult to predict if drone delivery will ultimately be successful and become widespread. I'm hoping that it doesn't.

And let's hope that authorities don't go preparing for it just yet, and limit us to the max before it is time for day to day autonomy in commercial use.