FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Rangerider]

That would be fine except an ADS-B is going to be required to be installed on all UAVs. If someone reports you to the FAA, while you're at a park, and they happen to know who you are or get a shot of your license plate, the FAA would simply need to go back to the remote Id service providers to look up your flight. If your data isn't there, you're up the creek.

This is the police state in action! If you see something, say something! Be a good citizen and report all violations of the law to the authorities! Heil!

 

[Rangerider]

It will take 3-4 years to implant.

one of the objections I sent in my email to the FAA and DOT was the WIFI business... Some of the safest places to fly in AZ, and the western U.S. are the remote stretches of National Forest and deserts and WiFi is often not available.

Did you say implant? My God this is worse than I thought. No implants for me!

 

[Matriculated01]

Okay. I would appreciate you rebutting that video, correcting the inaccuracies, and enlightening the rest of us. Please do that and I will compare what you contend to what the video producer contends. That should be beneficial to all of us. Don't just accuse someone who put a lot of time and effort into providing us with useful and informative info as the video producer did and then accusing them of 'click-baiting'. I am standing by for enlightenment.

You’ll be waiting a long time. Certain members of this here forum are trying their best to soften the landing for this monstrosity, who knows why. I do know that government and corporations do engage in covert online activities to influence public opinion and make their hare brained schemes seem more palatable. But people are not falling for it, check out the FAA’s FB page, they are being crapped on by approximately 99% of all commenters. People see this for what it is and no amount of wool being pulled over our eyes will change that.

 

[sar104]

Okay. I would appreciate you rebutting that video, correcting the inaccuracies, and enlightening the rest of us. Please do that and I will compare what you contend to what the video producer contends. That should be beneficial to all of us. Don't just accuse someone who put a lot of time and effort into providing us with useful and informative info as the video producer did and then accusing them of 'click-baiting'. I am standing by for enlightenment.

I wasn't accusing you of anything - just pointing out that a lot of internet videos are basically worthless. As for rebutting that stuff, I've done that multiple times in this thread, including, on the internet issue, in my previous reply to you. How much more do you want? Take a look at page 22 of the proposal, specifically 89.110.

 

[sar104]

You’ll be waiting a long time. Certain members of this here forum are trying their best to soften the landing for this monstrosity, who knows why. I do know that government and corporations do engage in covert online activities to influence public opinion and make their hare brained schemes seem more palatable. But people are not falling for it, check out the FAA’s FB page, they are being crapped on by approximately 99% of all commenters. People see this for what it is and no amount of wool being pulled over our eyes will change that.

Just stop. You already conceded this particular point earlier after multiple posts pushing completely incorrect information. You have made it perfectly clear - you don't like this proposal, and you are quite happy to misrepresent it in order to try to defend that position. Have you no regard at all for intellectual honesty?

 

[deleted member 877]

Just stop. You already conceded this particular point earlier after multiple posts pushing completely incorrect information. You have made it perfectly clear - you don't like this proposal, and you are quite happy to misrepresent it in order to try to defend that position. Have you no regard at all for intellectual honesty?

X 2

 

[Matriculated01]

Just stop. You already conceded this particular point earlier after multiple posts pushing completely incorrect information. You have made it perfectly clear - you don't like this proposal, and you are quite happy to misrepresent it in order to try to defend that position. Have you no regard at all for intellectual honesty?

I only conceded a minor part of the point and that in itself shows your accusation of intellectual dishonesty to be a ridiculous personal attack. Openness to being corrected is a sign of honest intellectual engagement. Defensiveness and resorts to personal attacks, as you’ve engaged in, are a sign of someone who’s losing the argument.

 

[sar104]

I only conceded a minor part of the point and that in itself shows your accusation of intellectual dishonesty to be a ridiculous personal attack. Openness to being corrected is a sign of honest intellectual engagement. Defensiveness and resorts to personal attacks, as you’ve engaged in, are a sign of someone who’s losing the argument.

And it was the point in question that was under discussion - the internet requirement. And now you want to play the victim card. That's just pathetic.

 

[Matriculated01]

And it was the point in question that was under discussion - the internet requirement. And now you want to play the victim card. That's just pathetic.

I’ll let both of our posts speak for themselves. Fair minded people will see what’s going on here.

 

[deleted member 877]

You’ll be waiting a long time. Certain members of this here forum are trying their best to soften the landing for this monstrosity, who knows why. I do know that government and corporations do engage in covert online activities to influence public opinion and make their hare brained schemes seem more palatable. But people are not falling for it, check out the FAA’s FB page, they are being crapped on by approximately 99% of all commenters. People see this for what it is and no amount of wool being pulled over our eyes will change that.

Facebook, seriously? One could expect that the 99% of all commenters you refer to is entirely made up of nut bags and conspiracy theorists ?

 

[sar104]

I’m not playing the victim, just pointing out

I’ll let both of our posts speak for themselves. Fair minded people will see what’s going on here.

This is not about being fair-minded, fair or unfair. It's about a relatively simple proposal. You hammered on about the internet requirement for numerous posts before dropping it. Now you are still complaining, but with no specifics. What else here are you actually still objecting to?

 

[Phochief]

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?

Mexico?

 

[deleted member 877]

Mexico?

That’s gold Jerry, GOLD !

 

[Rangerider]

You’ll be waiting a long time. Certain members of this here forum are trying their best to soften the landing for this monstrosity, who knows why. I do know that government and corporations do engage in covert online activities to influence public opinion and make their hare brained schemes seem more palatable. But people are not falling for it, check out the FAA’s FB page, they are being crapped on by approximately 99% of all commenters. People see this for what it is and no amount of wool being pulled over our eyes will change that.

Yeah, the gov/corp apologists are hard at work to convince the herd to just bend over and accept your fate to serfdom. If'm sure there are corporate trolls on this forum. That's okay let them troll on.

 

[Rangerider]

I wasn't accusing you of anything - just pointing out that a lot of internet videos are basically worthless. As for rebutting that stuff, I've done that multiple times in this thread, including, on the internet issue, in my previous reply to you. How much more do you want? Take a look at page 22 of the proposal, specifically 89.110.

Okay I will do that. Later today I will try to wade through the entire thread. I don't take your response as a personal attack. I know you are above that. BTW, do you see anything onerous about the FAA/corp nprm?

 

[Rangerider]

Facebook, seriously? One could expect that the 99% of all commenters you refer to is entirely made up of nut bags and conspiracy theorists ?

Count me in with that crowd. The term was created long ago by the CIA to denigrate/marginalize anyone who disagreed with the government plan/party line.

 

[sar104]

Okay I will do that. Later today I will try to wade through the entire thread. Do you see anything onerous about the FAA/corp nprm?

Nothing particularly onerous in principle, but it does require some significant actions on the part of pilots. Serious recreational pilots or Part 107 pilots who are used to navigating the LAANC system etc. won't have any problems, but I do wonder about how the average casual user - many of whom don't even seem to be able to use the simple registration requirements - will cope with subscribing to RID USS providers etc. This may reduce the accessibility of this hobby to those kinds of people. My guess is they will mostly end up using UAVs that are below the weight threshold.

I'm also not convinced at the need to make the USS data publicly available, but that's a more philosophical issue.

 

[sar104]

Count me in with that crowd. The term was created long ago by the CIA to denigrate/marginalize anyone who disagreed with the government plan/party line.

Conspiracy theorists predate the CIA. And they are real, and characterized by their determination to invent their own reality that is inconsistent with established fact.

 

[Rangerider]

Nothing particularly onerous in principle, but it does require some significant actions on the part of pilots. Serious recreational pilots or Part 107 pilots who are used to navigating the LAANC system etc. won't have any problems, but I do wonder about how the average casual user - many of whom don't even seem to be able to use the simple registration requirements - will cope with subscribing to RID USS providers etc. This may reduce the accessibility of this hobby to those kinds of people.

I'm also not convinced at the need to make the USS data publicly available, but that's a more philosophical issue.

So what is the rid/uss thingy going to cost me? It's just one more layer of bureaucracy and cost to enrich some new cottage industry tool of the corps in my opinion.

 

[Huckleberry]

Facebook, seriously? One could expect that the 99% of all commenters you refer to is entirely made up of nut bags and conspiracy theorists ?

I don’t think it’s very appropriate to essentially label every person that disagrees with this proposal a nut bag or conspiracy theorist. Since you insist on pointing out when others may be breaking a forum rule, you might wanna review general rule #2 and #14 yourself.
This proposal is obviously very personal for almost every person who operates a UAV. Just because one persons opinion differs from another’s is not grounds for the disrespect being shown in this thread by many. I for one am one of those “nut bags“ or “conspiracy theorist” and I will be expressing my concern for parts of the proposal accordingly. But I would prefer not to be labeled as a negative stereotype simply because I have concerns.