FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[DroningOn]

Um, no. You can't sue a manufacturer for subsequent changes to the law.

Wrong..... it would be the equivalent of General Motors updating OnStar equipped vehicle‘s software to limit speed to coincide with posted limits if that’s not how I purchased it initially

 

[xman1]

I'd say you can sue for anything, just not neccesarily you would win or have standing for that matter.

 

[DroningOn]

I'd say you can sue for anything, just not neccesarily you would win or have standing for that matter.

Standing?? I paid for the drone and have been damaged by the fact that it is no longer the item I purchased. It’s called fraud

 

[rxlawdude]

Standing?? I paid for the drone and have been damaged by the fact that it is no longer the item I purchased. It’s called fraud

Sigh. Please hire a lawyer. Pay a lot of money. Lose.

Report back to us. You're 100% wrong on your legal theory.

 

[rxlawdude]

Wrong..... it would be the equivalent of General Motors updating OnStar equipped vehicle‘s software to limit speed to coincide with posted limits if that’s not how I purchased it initially

If the government regulation required GM and all semi-automated vehicles to remotely regulate speed, you would have absolutely no claim against GM. Sorry, that's a fact.

 

[sar104]

FAA Recognized identification area is going to be most places I would assume. You would however never be given authorization to enter within 5 miles of a major airport is what I think they are saying. At least I hope this is what they are saying. If it is not, I see mass violations of this directive in the future.

I don't think so:

Under the proposed rule, an FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area where UAS without remote identification can operate. An area would be eligible for establishment as an FAA-recognized identification area if it is a flying site that has been established within the programming of a community based organization recognized by the Administrator. The FAA would maintain a list of FAA-recognized identification areas at Federal Aviation Administration. FAA- recognized identification areas are discussed further in section XV of this preamble.​

 

[xman1]

Standing?? I paid for the drone and have been damaged by the fact that it is no longer the item I purchased. It’s called fraud

A law is a law. The manufacturer has no control over it and must comply.

However, you can always make your drone ignore those fence boxes if you know how to do it so it is not like you don't have any options.

 

[rxlawdude]

Another thought - what will happen when all the non-ID drone pilots converge on limited CBO-recognized locations? Seems that will increase the likelihood of in-flight collisions.

 

[xman1]

I don't think so:

Under the proposed rule, an FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area where UAS without remote identification can operate. An area would be eligible for establishment as an FAA-recognized identification area if it is a flying site that has been established within the programming of a community based organization recognized by the Administrator. The FAA would maintain a list of FAA-recognized identification areas at Federal Aviation Administration. FAA- recognized identification areas are discussed further in section XV of this preamble.​

I hear ya. I guess this is the time to speak up about it for the good of all. The FAA is looking for comments at this time.

 

[sar104]

Another thought - what will happen when all the non-ID drone pilots converge on limited CBO-recognized locations? Seems that will increase the likelihood of in-flight collisions.

I'm pretty sure that the FAA would prefer them to collide with each other rather than with manned aircraft or automated, compliant sUAS.

 

[sar104]

I hear ya. I guess this is the time to speak up about it for the good of all. The FAA is looking for comments at this time.

If you object then definitely. Personally I think it's a very good proposal, and I support it. Long term, this, or something like it, is the only way that sUAS technology is going to integrate into the NAS.

 

[DroningOn]

If the government regulation required GM and all semi-automated vehicles to remotely regulate speed, you would have absolutely no claim against GM. Sorry, that's a fact.

Legal precedents and laws are quite clear, especially in transportation issues, that increased regulations such as safety etc are not retroactive.

 

[sar104]

Legal precedents and laws are quite clear, especially in transportation issues, that increased regulations such as safety etc are not retroactive.

Not true in aviation - take the new ADS-B requirements, for example.

 

[Sandwich]

I’m sure you all received the last email from the FAA about remote identification. I don’t see the industry having a recreational future. Already there is plenty of restricted airspace, and State and Local restrictions, but that’s not enough, their plan and penalties take away from joy of flight. Their enforcement will have a purpose. That purpose will be restrict any use outside of commerce.
Their claim is its a safety issue, but since the ‘60s R/C aircraft have operated without these concerns and restraints. My Quadcopter has more safety built in to its design than any R/C. And in the world of R/C, there have been many fly always where the aircraft was never recovered.
i seldom fly anymore because of the bad press and negative public opinion of the sport. I guess I’ll hold on to my equipment for the mandatory buy back program.

 

[JAW]

DJI and other stakeholders have indicated remote ID can be achieved via software.

How Do You Feel About the Remote Identification Requirement?

Last week I took the time while on a 12 hour train ride to read the the report which is over 200 pages in length. My take is all Mavic 1 and Mavic 2 drones will be subject to remote ID and tracking requirements should the FAA adopt the committee's recommendations. This includes 107 flights as...

mavicpilots.com

 

[sar104]

Well that's a lot of unsupported speculation and assertions in such a short post. Nice work.

 

[99turbo]

Seems like it just says restricted to VLOS, not restricted to AMA fields or other defined areas.

Looking at the wording and the diagram provided, it looks like you would be restricted to approved areas like AMA fields and possibly 400' vertically and horizontally (not clear on that though). AMA and any other community organization would have to apply for approval of their already existing fields and new ones. Interesting that they dropped this after the Christmas buying season. It will be interesting to watch the back and forth on this proposal.

 

[Sandwich]

Well that's a lot of unsupported speculation and assertions in such a short post. Nice work.

Maybe then you could help me understand this string of legislative requirements and continued restrictions on objects that are seen as either toys, or camera platforms. Why now start regulating a product that has been flown since the ‘60s without this safety concern.
Yes, its a prediction, but it’s not without merit.
P.S. These forums are full of professional forum experts. Armchair experts who always have a condescending remark.

 

[Lowell Crabb]

What is this new rule they want? There is no internet available most places I fly. It doesn't sound feasible to me.

 

[xman1]

If you object then definitely. Personally I think it's a very good proposal, and I support it. Long term, this, or something like it, is the only way that sUAS technology is going to integrate into the NAS.

I disagree. Might as well put one on all cars too with that logic. For someone just looking for a little recreational photo taking it makes absolutely no sense. I am not in the flight line.

I can see the consequences already of mass violations. Following the current rules is fine but these new rules if implemented are grossly anti-drone.