FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[AMann]

My point is there hasn't been 1 fatal accident caused by a drone strike that I'm aware of and the risk based on everything I've read is miniscule. How much does spending hundreds of millions of dollars further mitigate the potential of a fatal accident? Are there ways that money could be spent that would have a greater impact on reducing risk in areas where hundreds or thousands of lives are lost? If ten people get killed in the process of constructing all of the infrastructure (for instance building the communications towers to support this network) have we really mitigated loss of life in a situation where up to this point no lives have been lost?

Toy helicopter slices off top of man’s head

A Queens teenager’s obsession with high-powered model helicopters ended in gruesome death yesterday, when one of his beloved toy whirlybirds spun out of control in a Brooklyn park and scalped him, …

nypost.com

... and not so minuscule of a risk for causing great harm, either:

Toddler's eye sliced in half by drone - BBC News

An 18-month-old boy loses an eye after it is sliced in half by the propeller of a drone flown by a family friend.

www.google.com

In both cases, the pilots were not so careful.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Toddler's eye sliced in half by drone - BBC News

An 18-month-old boy loses an eye after it is sliced in half by the propeller of a drone flown by a family friend.

www.google.com

And this legislation would have prevented neither incident. Again, a solution looking for a problem. If you're going to reference an accident make it one relevant to the discussion.

 

[D-Rosin]

can we vote for this to Not Take Place?
or does this have to do in what state we are located in?

 

[AMann]

And this legislation would have prevented neither incident.

Pilot errors, both of them.

Change of subject - as far as the infrastructure, it’s already there as the system could easily use cellular data to relay the drone information.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Ask and you shall receive. 12 confirmed, 8 suspected, 2 fatalities

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > (Suspected) drone collisions with aircraft

Aviation Safety Network: Aviation Safety Network: Databases containing descriptions of over 11000 airliner write-offs, hijackings and military aircraft accidents.

aviation-safety.net

This is how many accidents over how many years across what geographic area? Are you seriously proposing this as relevant to this dicussion of aviation safety and what should be the priority?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Pilot errors, both of them.

Change of subject - as far as the infrastructure, it’s already there as the system could easily use cellular data to relay the drone information.

Pilot error that has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft collision aviodance and the legislation being discussed.

 

[kcabpilot]

...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.

I believe it’s like self driving cars, there are those who believe it’s right around the corner but is it gonna be any better than the spellcheckers we have now? Because if it’s only that good it’s got a long, long way to go and if they can’t figure out how to stop a spellchecker from changing a perfectly spelled word into something completely different that I didn’t want how are they gonna stop a car from taking you to the wrong destination?

 

[AMann]

Pilot error that has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft collision aviodance and the legislation being discussed.

Actually, pilot error, unintentional and not, has everything to do with aircraft collision avoidance and is one of the reasons for the proposed legislation. Pilot error is probably the highest cause of aircraft accidents, and it probably is even more so for drone related accidents and for transgressions of drone safety regulations. That’s why the ability to be able to identify pilots who are flying drones illegally, whether intentional or not, is being proposed.

 

[Chip]

rxlawdude said:
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?

In US, a law is enacted at state and federal levels by a vote of a legislature consisting of duly elected representatives of the people. A regulation is enacted by an administrative agency by government officials who are appointed to their positions not elected.

A duly enacted regulation does have the same force and effect of law but some may think its lacks the same impramatur of the people like a law created by legislative vote.

To be duly enacted, a regulation must go through several stages including proposal, comment period, response and analysis, and final adoption. I think the recreational hobby flyers should be designated as the official HOSEES in these proposed regs BUT Big Al is right when he says:

If you don't like something in this proposal then you have time to add your input. If you don't do that then you don't have any say-so later down the road. For it or against it you've got an opportunity to weigh in and let your thoughts be known.

 

[Bob1956]

t

The proposal says that only recognized community organizations (such as the AMA) can apply for the establishment of "identification areas" where remote ID won't be required.

Good. The AMA can be bought, just like the FAA. And they're probably affordable for working types. During Prohibition alcohol was outlawed but not for medicinal purposes. Doctors back then made big bucks writing Rx for booze, all legal.

 

[badaxed]

Hey not everyone gets to become an old geezer only the lucky ones.

"Getting Old ain't for sissy's"

See p.22 of the proposal (at the bottom.). It explains how things work when an internet connection is NOT available.

	No person would be allowed to operate a UAS within the airspace of the United States unless the operation is conducted under one of the following: (1) the UAS is a standard remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.110; (2) the UAS is a limited remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.115; or (3) the UAS does not have remote identification equipment and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.120.
	(Standard) Remote identification: If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.
In-flight loss of broadcast capability:	A person manipulating the flight controls of a standard remote identification UAS that can no longer broadcast the message elements would have to land as soon as practicable.

See p.22 of the proposal (at the bottom.). It explains how things work when an internet connection is NOT available.

	Imagine the publics opinion of these "rules" if the word UAS was replaced with "Automobile" See below No person would be allowed to operate an automobile on roads of the United States unless the operation is conducted under one of the following: (1) the automobile has a standard remote identification automobile and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.110; (2) the automobile is a limited remote identification automobile and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.115; or (3) the automobile does not have remote identification equipment and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.120.
	(Standard) Remote identification: If the internet is available at takeoff, the auotmobile would have to do the following from takeoff to stop (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the automobile. If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the drive, the automobile can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the automobile would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the automobile from takeoff to stop.
In-flight loss of broadcast capability:	A person manipulating the controls of a standard remote identification automobile that can no longer broadcast the message elements would have to stop their automobile as soon as practicable.

No person would be allowed to operate a UAS within the airspace of the United States unless the operation is conducted under one of the following: (1) the UAS is a standard remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.110; (2) the UAS is a limited remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.115; or (3) the UAS does not have remote identification equipment and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.120.
	(Standard) Remote identification: If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.
In-flight loss of broadcast capability:	A person manipulating the flight controls of a standard remote identification UAS that can no longer broadcast the message elements would have to land as soon as practicable	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. Seig heil. Women and children to the left. Everyone else to the right.

 

[Bob1956]

I'm not a lawyer. Are we getting upset over nothing or is hobby facing extinction ?

There is no such thing as "Internet Connection" in rural and remote areas where most of us fly. Three years from now (I think the comment period is a sham, these regs are already bought and paid for). Will we be able to turn on and launch our drones without cell coverage? Will the drone fly out 400 feet and stop? If so, that's extinction.

Again I think the lightweight minis will just buy extra time. Also don't think being 107 will save the little guy either. I can even see a scenario where an AMA Rc field is under a commercial drone corridor and would get shut down.

 

[badaxed]

See p.22 of the proposal (at the bottom.). It explains how things work when an internet connection is NOT available.

	No person would be allowed to operate a UAS within the airspace of the United States unless the operation is conducted under one of the following: (1) the UAS is a standard remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.110; (2) the UAS is a limited remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.115; or (3) the UAS does not have remote identification equipment and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.120.
	(Standard) Remote identification: If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.
In-flight loss of broadcast capability:	A person manipulating the flight controls of a standard remote identification UAS that can no longer broadcast the message elements would have to land as soon as practicable.

Land, land quickly. Here comes Amazon. Get out of their way.

 

[tcope]

I'm hopeful...but sadly I don't expect much rational and careful consideration. Irrational fear and drama seem to be winning?

However, we already know that is not the case. It started with the registration years and years ago, we then went through the elimination of Section 336 (which is still happening) and not the FAA is talking about the requirement to track dones. So in traditional style, the government (in this case the FAA) will continue to stack laws on laws. We are already to the point where there is simply no need for hobby vs personal commercial flight laws. But when has the government ever gone back and changed an existing law to make things work better.

 

[tcope]

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

More on point, the government could require GPS trackers in all vehicles. Same reasoning. Yeah, I'm sure the public would not mind that at all. Odd, since this would be millions of times more productive, yet lets not do that and require GPS tracking every time some little kid wants to fly his toy drone.

 

[Rich Sugden M.D.]

If you want to avoid all this government regulation and added cost be sure to make a comment after Jan. 1 on the proposed rules. KISS approach would be only require remote ID for drones flying over 400 ft. AGL and in controlled airspace requiring permission..

 

[Crigstar]

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.

A FRIA is an AMA field, but they do allow a 12 month period for other CBO’s to form. Refer below:
FAA-recognized identification areas
Applicability Prescribes procedural requirements to establish an FAA-recognized 89.201 identification area.
Eligibility
Only a community based organization (CBO) recognized by the Administrator would be allowed to apply for the establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area.
89.205
Requests for establishment
Application:
A CBO requesting establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area would have to submit an application within 12 calendar months from the effective date of the final rule. The FAA will not consider any applications submitted after that date.
89.210

 

[gmalinow]

I don't think you are reading that correctly. (I'm a lawyer, but don't hold that against me; I read proposed regulations and legislation as part of my job.)

It is clear that any drones without the ID technology (that means all of ours!) will ONLY be permitted in authorized club-based approved flight zones.

This is a prime example of the FAA and organizations like the AMA not understanding the primary purpose and enjoyment of sUAS aircraft. It is not simply for flying around a limited model airplane field. The recreational hobby that drone enthusiasts enjoy is mainly the freedom to photograph and video with a perspective that cannot be realized with a land based camera system.

 

[sar104]

I'm not a lawyer. Are we getting upset over nothing or is hobby facing extinction ?

Somewhere between those two extreme options. This development was probably inevitable. Existing NAS regulation was completely inadequate to deal with the explosion of recreational drones with batteries and control links that permit flight miles beyond VLOS at altitudes conflicting with manned aviation, or with the future commercial use of drones, especially for BVLOS operations. Reasonable regulations were implemented (Part 107 and the recreational exemption), but were largely ignored, especially by recreational users, who post freely about flying illegally. Meanwhile the technology keeps getting better, the number of users continues to increase, and the indidence of illegal flights also increases. Many of us on these forums have been pointing out that since the regulations continue to be ignored by pilots either ignorant of them or who believe that they know better and are justified in breaking them, then the outcome will be engineered controls such as those now proposed.

But at least this proposal provides a pathway to continue recreational flying, albeit with a little additional burden - other than being constrained to fly legally. Much of the complaining on this thread is just thinly veiled objection to the prospect of no longer being able to break the law with impunity. I have no sympathy for that position. And this will be a losing battle. The frequent comparisons to other issues like gun rights are flawed. There is no constitutional protection and public opinion outside the bubble of the hobby is not at all sympathetic - drones are widely regarded as a nuisance, a threat to privacy, and a hazard to aviation.

There is no such thing as "Internet Connection" in rural and remote areas where most of us fly. Three years from now (I think the comment period is a sham, these regs are already bought and paid for). Will we be able to turn on and launch our drones without cell coverage? Will the drone fly out 400 feet and stop? If so, that's extinction.

The proposed system doesn't require an internet connection. It's perfectly clear on that point if only you and so many others could be bothered to read it.

Again I think the lightweight minis will just buy extra time. Also don't think being 107 will save the little guy either. I can even see a scenario where an AMA Rc field is under a commercial drone corridor and would get shut down.

Maybe it's just human nature, but I simply don't understand this mindset. This kind of hand-wringing, sky-is-falling frenzy has followed nearly every development in this area over the last few years - altitude limits, 14 CFR Part 107, NPS restrictions, DJI GEO, etc. Every time the threads are the same - the hobby is dead, DJI is finished, poor me, I'm so oppressed. And then it's rapidly forgotten as the next crisis approaches.

Anyone who follows the history of technology realizes that sUAS are going to be ubiquitous. They have so many potential uses. There is no incentive to shut it down - the challenge is just integrating the various players with each other and with existing manned aviation. That's only going to happen via automated systems, not by the forlorn hope that individual users will choose to follow the rules.

 

[Verdrone]

Somewhere between those two extreme options. This development was probably inevitable. Existing NAS regulation was completely inadequate to deal with the explosion of recreational drones with batteries and control links that permit flight miles beyond VLOS at altitudes conflicting with manned aviation, or with the future commercial use of drones, especially for BVLOS operations. Reasonable regulations were implemented (Part 107 and the recreational exemption), but were largely ignored, especially by recreational users, who post freely about flying illegally. Meanwhile the technology keeps getting better, the number of users continues to increase, and the indidence of illegal flights also increases. Many of us on these forums have been pointing out that since the regulations continue to be ignored by pilots either ignorant of them or who believe that they know better and are justified in breaking them, then the outcome will be engineered controls such as those now proposed.

But at least this proposal provides a pathway to continue recreational flying, albeit with a little additional burden - other than being constrained to fly legally. Much of the complaining on this thread is just thinly veiled objection to the prospect of no longer being able to break the law with impunity. I have no sympathy for that position. And this will be a losing battle. The frequent comparisons to other issues like gun rights are flawed. There is no constitutional protection and public opinion outside the bubble of the hobby is not at all sympathetic - drones are widely regarded as a nuisance, a threat to privacy, and a hazard to aviation.


The proposed system doesn't require an internet connection. It's perfectly clear on that point if only you and so many others could be bothered to read it.


Maybe it's just human nature, but I simply don't understand this mindset. This kind of hand-wringing, sky-is-falling frenzy has followed nearly every development in this area over the last few years - altitude limits, 14 CFR Part 107, NPS restrictions, DJI GEO, etc. Every time the threads are the same - the hobby is dead, DJI is finished, poor me, I'm so oppressed. And then it's rapidly forgotten as the next crisis approaches.

Anyone who follows the history of technology realizes that sUAS are going to be ubiquitous. They have so many potential uses. There is no incentive to shut it down - the challenge is just integrating the various players with each other and with existing manned aviation. That's only going to happen via automated systems, not by the forlorn hope that individual users will choose to follow the rules.

Some Cars go 3 times the fastest speed limit and people keep dieing. 80% of cars go twice. That's the problem.