FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[sar104]

“Accountable to congress” - like I said, unaccountable bureaucrats. Nobody said they’re not just doing their job, doesn’t change the fact of what they are.

Hang on - you wanted this enacted by the legislature, but you don't want the legislature to be allowed to delegate the heavy lifting to government agencies, and "accountable to Congress" is unaccountable?

And people not complying with laws/regs they deem unjust is a fantasy now? Ok, sure.

Yes - assuming that by "conscientious objectors" you don't just mean people sneaking around trying to get away with breaking the law.

 

[Matriculated01]

I agree with him 100% and this was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the proposal. This is to open the sky for commercial use, BVLOS, night flights, exedra. Most commercial flights will be automated and this system will allow drones to see other drones. Local law enforcement agencies will see this cash cow and automate their end. Sending you a fine in the mail when you fly outside of your 400 foot bubble.
This will definitely make the hobby more expensive and of course a lot more restricted. Please post your videos and pictures of your local AMA box I can't wait to see them. The first thing I thought of when I saw the Mavic mini was there goes the weight restrictions. Do you think if battery technology increased energy density by four you would be allowed to fly for hours? The FAA would step in and restrict flight times not because of safety but because no commercial entity wants a hobbyist in the sky for hours. I've said it before and I'll say it again "there is gold in them there skies and hobbyists (me) are just in the way." I wonder who's gonna pay the 500 million for this system?
Please write the FAA and let them know what you think. It's probably our last chance.

Spot on, Greg.

 

[deleted member 877]

Who knows its early for those questions. My point was the comments are important part of the record and often important part of subsequent legal challenge. The FAA has legal duty to explain themselves in detail and the public should make them do it. Court challenges are time consuming and costly sure. But, be careful about scoffing too soon. Remember that all it took was one person, John A. Taylor, to prove in court that the FAA had no right to require registration of hobby drones under former law. Yes, the FAA was subsequently bailed out of their mess by Congress which amended the law but still all it took was one guy to prove the FAA overstepped its authority and enacted a bogus regulation.

In an opinion May 19, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit said that although drone-related safety incidents have been increasing and registration as a policy may help “to some degree,” the letter of the law was clear. “In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,’ yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a ‘rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’ Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler,” the opinion reads. And so the requirement was vacated.

That was certainly an anomaly and it ain’t gonna happen again. A court challenge in any shape or form to the eventual outcome, unless of course it goes against the big players, is a pipe dream. But, by all means, dream on .....

 

[Matriculated01]

Hang on - you wanted this enacted by the legislature, but you don't want the legislature to be allowed to delegate the heavy lifting to government agencies, and "accountable to Congress" is unaccountable?


Yes - assuming that by "conscientious objectors" you don't just mean people sneaking around trying to get away with breaking the law.

Correct, I don’t want them delegating. I want them doing the heavy lifting on something like this. If they have enough time to name post offices they have enough time to directly handle the implementation of a new mass surveillance scheme. It’s not like they’ve been shy about that type of thing in the past. They need to roll their sleeves up and do the hard work, then answer to the voters. Of course hiding behind nameless, faceless bureaucrats and delegating the dirty work of kissing up to Amazon and taking away freedoms is the much easier way to go, and apparently they have eager defenders even in the group they intend to screw. It’s a crazy world.

 

[sar104]

Correct, I don’t want them delegating. I want them doing the heavy lifting on something like this. If they have enough time to name post offices they have enough time to directly handle the implementation of a new mass surveillance scheme. It’s not like they’ve been shy about that type of thing in the past. They need to roll their sleeves up and do the hard work, then answer to the voters. Of course hiding behind nameless, faceless bureaucrats and delegating the dirty work of kissing up to Amazon and taking away freedoms is the much easier way to go, and apparently they have eager defenders even in the group they intend to screw. It’s a crazy world.

OK - you have now flailed your way completely into fantasy land to try to salvage your position. This discussion has become pointless.

 

[deleted member 877]

Correct, I don’t want them delegating. I want them doing the heavy lifting on something like this. If they have enough time to name post offices they have enough time to directly handle the implementation of a new mass surveillance scheme. It’s not like they’ve been shy about that type of thing in the past. They need to roll their sleeves up and do the hard work, then answer to the voters. Of course hiding behind nameless, faceless bureaucrats and delegating the dirty work of kissing up to Amazon and taking away freedoms is the much easier way to go, and apparently they have eager defenders even in the group they intend to screw. It’s a crazy world.

Can you be specific as to these “freedoms”, apart from not being monitored whilst sharing the airspace with manned aircraft, that you keep referring to?

 

[Matriculated01]

Can you be specific as to these “freedoms”, apart from not being monitored whilst sharing the airspace with manned aircraft, that you keep referring to?

What are we talking about here Pete? Freedom to fly my drone without being tracked by the government. And many, many people in this thread alone have given potential solutions to the “sharing” of airspace between manned and unmanned craft. Namely, they don’t. Keep manned craft above 500, unmanned below 400, institute NFZ’s around airports to account for lift offs and landings, presto - problem solved. But that is not even remotely what this is about. It’s about commercial need for regulation to legitimize the army of drones they’re about to release for profit. Like Greg said, they will need drones seeing other drones to account for automated and BVLOS flight. Continually attempting to make this about safety is just falling for the talking points.

 

[BigAl07]

What are we talking about here Pete? Freedom to fly my drone without being tracked by the government. And many, many people in this thread alone have given potential solutions to the “sharing” of airspace between manned and unmanned craft. Namely, they don’t. Keep manned craft above 500, unmanned below 400, institute NFZ’s around airports to account for lift offs and landings, presto - problem solved. But that is not even remotely what this is about. It’s about commercial need for regulation to legitimize the army of drones they’re about to release for profit. Like Greg said, they will need drones seeing other drones to account for automated and BVLOS flight. Continually attempting to make this about safety is just falling for the talking points.

You want to be a Big Boy and play in the NAS but you want to have your own set of rules or better yet change the existing rules so you can do whatever you want. That's not how this works.

Many of us have been preaching for years now that rogue operations are going to be more regulations upon us.... well HERE WE ARE!!

It's about being able to SAFELY integrate into the NAS not about asking everyone else to change the rules for us....

 

[Rich5741]

Not sure if it was already mentioned, but page 103 to 113 is the place I found most helpful with understanding what this meant from a practical perspective (and assuming the first ”drone selfie” example was a proxy for sub-400ft usage case). Makes it pretty clear that if no internet is available, then full (e.g. via internet and via broadcast) remote ID capable drones will be able to fly, and implies that this could be allowed for >400ft (and making further inference that this would cover non-visual-line-of-sight flying).

I admit I did not read the whole thing, but one way that I think this could have a silver lining is If there was a requirement for state and local government to also post no-fly (or “no take-off and land” as they like to put it) zones into the maps in the USS applications and potential safe harbor if operating with remote ID capable craft outside of no-fly zones. Right now, figuring out the layers of local and state requirements is challenging and often turns up contradictory info (for example, on a recent trip to AZ, one municipality had a document on their website that said the entire city was a no-fly zone, but in the statue it said sUAS was prohibited only in 3 parks), especially if traveling. If drone pilots need to register where they want to fly, then why not also make governments register where they want to prohibit flights, or better yet also make them responsible for applying to the FAA if they want to establish no-fly zones?

Would retrofitting mass market drones be difficult? I think most operate on WiFi bands (2.4 and 5.8 GHz) and I believe DJI recently demo-ed software for Mavic Air and Mavic Pro 2 to broadcast remote ID information direct from the craft (DJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification) without any hardware mods. I’ve got to imagine this was done with the upcoming FAA rules in mind, given its been several years since the FAA announced it was working on this, plus it was developed to an international standard - presumably (but if, I know) the FAA would adhere to an international standard...

 

[Matriculated01]

You want to be a Big Boy and play in the NAS but you want to have your own set of rules or better yet change the existing rules so you can do whatever you want. That's not how this works.

Many of us have been preaching for years now that rogue operations are going to be more regulations upon us.... well HERE WE ARE!!

It's about being able to SAFELY integrate into the NAS not about asking everyone else to change the rules for us....

If you don’t mind I like to think and speak for myself. I don’t want to do whatever I want nor do I want my own set of rules. I respect and follow the rules already in place and agree with each and every one. I suggest going back and re-reading some of the stuff in this thread to find my thoughts and objections.

 

[deleted member 877]

What are we talking about here Pete? Freedom to fly my drone without being tracked by the government. And many, many people in this thread alone have given potential solutions to the “sharing” of airspace between manned and unmanned craft. Namely, they don’t. Keep manned craft above 500, unmanned below 400, institute NFZ’s around airports to account for lift offs and landings, presto - problem solved. But that is not even remotely what this is about. It’s about commercial need for regulation to legitimize the army of drones they’re about to release for profit. Like Greg said, they will need drones seeing other drones to account for automated and BVLOS flight. Continually attempting to make this about safety is just falling for the talking points.

But can't you see that, with this proposal, they are at least throwing us a bone? They could have just gone, bugger it, we'll simply outlaw all recreational drone activity - end of story. That would be an easier course of action for the FAA and who, with any real influence, do you think would come on board to defend us?

 

[Chip]

OK - you have now flailed your way completely into fantasy land to try to salvage your position. This discussion has become pointless.

I don't see flailing I think he offerred an opinion as to Congressional grant of authority. Hard to criticize an opinion relating to separation of powers. Its a very informative discussion here and I appreciate and enjoy hearing from all sides.

 

[BigAl07]

If you don’t mind I like to think and speak for myself. I don’t want to do whatever I want nor do I want my own set of rules. I respect and follow the rules already in place and agree with each and every one. I suggest going back and re-reading some of the stuff in this thread to find my thoughts and objections.

I can assure you I've read each and every word you've posted on this thread and I stand by my comments sir.

Namely, they don’t. Keep manned craft above 500, unmanned below 400, institute NFZ’s around airports to account for lift offs and landings, presto - problem solved.

You clearly stated above the rules you want changed to fit your needs/wants. That's not putting words in your mouth that's quoting your words sir. Big difference there.

 

[Matriculated01]

But can't you see that, with this proposal, they are at least throwing us a bone? They could have just gone, bugger it, we'll simply outlaw all recreational drone activity - end of story. That would be an easier course of action for the FAA and who, with any real influence, do you think would come on board to defend us?

Unfortunately, you’re right - with the current sad state of affairs they could have just done whatever they wanted. We shouldn’t settle for bones and I’m still gonna voice my opinion though. That’s the one thing they can’t take away (at least until they can) ?

 

[Matriculated01]

I can assure you I've read each and every word you've posted on this thread and I stand by my comments sir.



You clearly stated above the rules you want changed to fit your needs/wants. That's not putting words in your mouth that's quoting your words sir. Big difference there.

Big Al you’re reading my mind sir, not my words. I stated that was one of the numerous options mentioned by other people, I understand it’s more complicated than that, and don’t advocate for it. It was an off handed remark not really related to the core of my point, which is - it’s not about safety, it’s about $$$, and we’re just pawns that need to be scooted out of the way.

 

[Chip]

That was certainly an anomaly and it ain’t gonna happen again. A court challenge in any shape or form to the eventual outcome, unless of course it goes against the big players, is a pipe dream. But, by all means, dream on .....

What was an anomaly? The FAA overstepping its authority and enacting an illegal regulation? Refusing to admit it was wrong even in face of overwhelming evidence and clear statutory language wasting time and millions of dollars? I dont know. Maybe that was just a tune up for the main event.

 

[Earthman]

If the government is going to take away more of our freedoms ...

Nobody is free to fly or has the right to fly in the national airspace without following the FAA regulations. It’s not a “freedom,” it’s a privilege that is granted to those who follow the rules and denied to those who don’t.

Otherwise, complain all you want or do something more constructive and try to influence the rule-making process, which isn’t a waste of time as some would have us believe. After all, the FAA granted recreational RC flying many years of very limited regulation, but that changed with the proliferation of drones. The introduction and rapid expansion of drone use and abuse has been “a game changer,” so new regulations are needed.

There is no doubt that there are very powerful commercial interests making their views known to the FAA. However, our interested would be better served if we spent our time communicating our thoughts to the FAA on how to make the system work for everyone.

 

[deleted member 877]

Unfortunately, you’re right - with the current sad state of affairs they could have just done whatever they wanted. We shouldn’t settle for bones and I’m still gonna voice my opinion though. That’s the one thing they can’t take away (at least until they can) ?

Great, at least now it seems that you're willing to face reality but going back to the "freedoms" thing, the proposal caters for the recreational drone community to be able to legally fly BVLOS. That's giving freedom - not taking it away.

Edit: Sorry, I was wrong about BVLOS being on the table for the recreational drone flying community - I read too much into the bit about being able to fly a maximum distance of 2,500' outbound.

The other thing I'm struggling with (and this has been previously mentioned) is why does anyone, including the government or foreign owned DJI, being able to access information as to where/when you fly necessarily have to be a problem - unless of course you've been flying illegally?

 

[Prmath]

This really makes me reluctant to take any new upgrades. Lord only knows What they are adding to the software.......

 

[deleted member 877]

What was an anomaly? The FAA overstepping its authority and enacting an illegal regulation? Refusing to admit it was wrong even in face of overwhelming evidence and clear statutory language wasting time and millions of dollars? I dont know. Maybe that was just a tune up for the main event.

Of course it was an anomaly. Can you cite any other historical instances of "The FAA overstepping its authority and enacting an illegal regulation"?