FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[rxlawdude]

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

Correct as far as mandating new requirements on old technology, but the government CAN limit where those UAVs can be used without ID.

 

[JAW]

My prediction----The AMA and its Old Geezer traffic-pattern-flyers-at-approved-sites will strongly support this.

 

[old man mavic]

the main reason for the new legislation ,is the simple fact of numbers and liability,model aircraft and heli flying has always been a closed pastime purely for enthusiasts,who flew their models at designated sites, following a raft of safety rules which were strictly enforced and because of this there was not the exposure to the public ,of small unmanned aircraft flying around over their heads,it was only people who had an interest in the hobby who new anything about it
suddenly thousands of amazing drones appeared, and anyone could purchase one and fly it where ever they liked,with no regard to safe practises and no knowledge of how it worked and now we are faced with over regulation to some extent as governments try to play catch up

 

[sar104]

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.

Well what do you expect? Comparing the millions of UAVs now in use that can fly up to 500 m and out for miles with the relatively tiny number of RC aircraft historically flown just at designated RC fields is not useful. It is going to require a completely different approach to aviation and public safety, and the fact that they are trying to develop such an approach is not an indication of an attempt to stamp out recreational drone use. The proposal describes a way to integrate drone use with relatively painless safety systems, not to outlaw it.

 

[Evmoius]

There are so many problems with this. If it were to go into law as currently written it would be completely ignored by basically everyone who builds their own craft. It would also mean sub 250g craft will become every bit as capable as their bigger brothers.

But it isn't final yet. It's the commenting phase. We all need to voice our concerns now.

 

[sar104]

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.

No - that logic does not extend to vehicles on the roads. Tracking requirements for aircraft is a more realistic comparison. And whether or not you fly anywhere that it matters is completely irrelevant when plenty of others do fly where it matters. It's what your equipment is capable of, not how you, personally, intend to use it, that determines the level of engineered safety required.

 

[xman1]

No - that logic does not extend to vehicles on the roads. Tracking requirements for aircraft is a more realistic comparison. And whether or not you fly anywhere that it matters is completely irrelevant when plenty of others do fly where it matters. It's what your equipment is capable of, not how you, personally, intend to use it, that determines the level of engineered safety required.

Model rockets? RC helicopters? Why is this just applying to drones? This is the point. It is anti-drone only.

 

[sar104]

Model rockets? RC helicopters? Why is this just applying to drones? This is the point. It is anti-drone only.

I think you should read the proposal before commenting further. It applies to all unmanned aircraft.

 

[xman1]

There is legal standing I think on this if it does not apply to all model aircraft. That is grounds for its removal alone.

 

[xman1]

I think you should read the proposal before commenting further. It applies to all unmanned aircraft.

Not from what i read. It is specifically calling out only drones. Did you see something different?

 

[Evmoius]

Not from what i read. It is specifically calling out only drones. Did you see something different?

Everything that flys with a powered motor and a control link is now considered a UAV.

 

[sar104]

Not from what i read. It is specifically calling out only drones. Did you see something different?

Then you haven't read the proposal. It doesn't use the word "drone" in the entire document. It applies to all unmanned aircraft systems, as described in I.A of the document.

 

[old man mavic]

any unmanned RC aircraft regardless of its design is called a drone it is a generic term

 

[xman1]

Then you haven't read the proposal. It doesn't use the word "drone" in the entire document. It applies to all unmanned aircraft systems, as described in I.A of the document.

Not quite. There is a distinction between RC and UAS in almost all government sites. UAS always refers to a drone from my understanding, or unmanned aireal system, and RC generally does not fall under this term.

Example from a government website:

UAS and RC Aircraft Information

For the most current rules that regulate UAS and RC operations, please refer to the links below, provided by the FAA.

 

[BigAl07]

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.

Because some of us Armchair Expects have been doing this for decades with an amazing record of safety. The reason is because we had to learn how to FLY the aircraft and could only fly them in very specific (limited) locations and only as far as we could see. If you didn't take the time to Learn to Fly or you opted to fly outside of your skills or equipment it was a Self Correcting problem and you took your new aircraft home "re-Kitted" in a trash bag.

Now we have aircraft that literally fly themselves and the only requirement to fly one is a credit card and a heart beat. From that point on the aircraft flies itself even if the operator is incapacitated or something. All these autonomous aircraft combined with reckless and unskilled operators have brought this wrath upon ourselves.

Many of us "Armchair Experts" have been predicting this type of legislation for a good while now and many of us are going to voice our opinions in FULL SUPPORT of it.

Model rockets? RC helicopters? Why is this just applying to drones? This is the point. It is anti-drone only.

As already state (But I couldn't help myself) R/C helicopters ARE included in this as are R/C airplanes. It doesn't not say, "This only applies to MultiRotor Aircraft". It applies to all sUAS.

 

[BigAl07]

Not quite. There is a distinction between RC and UAS in almost all government sites. UAS always refers to a drone from my understanding, or unmanned aireal system, and RC generally does not fall under this term.

Example from a government website:

UAS and RC Aircraft Information

For the most current rules that regulate UAS and RC operations, please refer to the links below, provided by the FAA.

Since 2012 Congress mandated that R/C aircraft (planes, helo, MultiRotors etc) are ALL aircraft. They happen to fall into a smaller category called UAS but still AIRCRAFT none the less.

 

[sar104]

Not quite. There is a distinction between RC and UAS in almost all government sites. UAS always refers to a drone from my understanding, or unmanned aireal system, and RC generally does not fall under this term.

Example from a government website:

UAS and RC Aircraft Information

For the most current rules that regulate UAS and RC operations, please refer to the links below, provided by the FAA.

As I said earlier - you really should take some time to learn about this topic before posting further. Almost everything that you have posted so far is incorrect, and it's becoming pretty tedious.

 

[xman1]

As I said earlier - you really should take some time to learn about this topic before posting further. Almost everything that you have posted so far is incorrect, and it's becoming pretty tedious.

I will respectively agree to disagree then with your definition. We are arguing about semantics at the moment.

Edit: I think this will take the law going into effect to come to a conclusion. You must think from the position of the FAA I think on this one. I also don't see how one could add this sort of transponder to normal RC aircraft or model rockets.

 

[Paul2660]

From how I read this in essence the FAA is grounding all non commercial drones.

If internet is required I guess you can fly in your front yard unless internet is needed all the time. Net no internet connection will allow this over any distance and height.

Also as previously mentioned how will you be able to fly in National Forest or remote areas that currently have no restrictions? You can’t establish a internet connection in the field.

Lastly this implies that all current drones sold by DJI would not work as none have any built in remote id capability that I know of. Sure DJI says this can be added via software but not sure how easily this will happen.

Big issue for me is fact that most folks places currently fly don’t have internet thus no remote id via software or built in would work

Also most internet works are locked. There are not public networks for flying. So you are going to be limited to your front yard.

Sad day.

Paul C

 

[sar104]

I will respectively agree to disagree then with your definition. We are arguing about semantics at the moment.

You are welcome to hold whatever opinion you want, but it doesn't change the contents of the proposal. If you could be bothered to read it you would find it perfectly clear in terms of scope.