FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[AMann]

Already carry it. Comes with AMA membership. $2.5 million liability and $1k on the drone for under $70/yr.

Thanks!

 

[AMann]

Well one possible means to be compliant with current equipment for those of us that fly in open spaces without cell phone coverage or Internet could be a satellite tracker on our drone that is something like this $100 one - it Would also have to send more telemetry in addition to pilot location, etc., but annual monitoring could be more than this basic one that costs $200/yr:

Amazon.com: Spot Trace: Sports & Outdoors

Buy Spot Trace: Handheld GPS Units - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases

www.amazon.com

I would be willing to pay it if I was flying with a high-end camera drone, but not with just a Mavic.

 

[sar104]

If the FAA is proposing these regulations due to their concern of safety within the national air space, why have they not applied similar regulations to all forms of aviation?

Paramotors are a prime example. Per the official USPPA website, “Our sport is basically self-regulated so you are not required by law to be a certified pilot”.

USPPA regulations site

They appear to be concerned with a 1lb UAV flying over 400’ AGL, but don’t mind the 350lb setup of a man and his powered parachute flying at 15,000’ AGL.

And I don’t wanna hear the “mass number of UAVs in the sky compared to paramotors” excuse. I live in rural midwest and only know of not even a handful of other UAVs in my entire area and have never come across another one in the air while I’ve been out flying.

You do realize that's a basic logical fallacy - unless you are trying to argue that the lack of UAVs at your location means that there are very few UAVs flying anywhere else either. You may not want to hear it, but it's a valid consideration.

I understand that visibility of a UAV compared to a powered parachute is apples to oranges. But so is 400’ compared to 15k’.

A hobby is a hobby and what should be good for the goose should be good for the gander. If UAVs are gonna be required to transmit operations, so should every other form of aviation that shares the airspace.

The other difference is that paramotors, etc., have a significantly greater incentive not to get into conflict with air traffic - they will die.

That said - I think that eventually these other kinds of aircraft will also be required to use some kind of broadcast system.

 

[Matriculated01]

If the FAA is proposing these regulations due to their concern of safety within the national air space, why have they not applied similar regulations to all forms of aviation?

Paramotors are a prime example. Per the official USPPA website, “Our sport is basically self-regulated so you are not required by law to be a certified pilot”.

USPPA regulations site

They appear to be concerned with a 1lb UAV flying over 400’ AGL, but don’t mind the 350lb setup of a man and his powered parachute flying at 15,000’ AGL.

And I don’t wanna hear the “mass number of UAVs in the sky compared to paramotors” excuse. I live in rural midwest and only know of not even a handful of other UAVs in my entire area and have never come across another one in the air while I’ve been out flying.

I understand that visibility of a UAV compared to a powered parachute is apples to oranges. But so is 400’ compared to 15k’.

A hobby is a hobby and what should be good for the goose should be good for the gander. If UAVs are gonna be required to transmit operations, so should every other form of aviation that shares the airspace.

iInconclusion, and to my point, this is being driven from somewhere other than the FAA safety office.

Paramotors are not a potential multi-billion dollar industry waiting to happen. It’s not about safety, it’s about commercial interests needing regulation to legitimize and make possible their drone operations. Or it is about safety but mainly in the context of having millions of commercial drones in the sky. Point is, regulation is the only way the desired drone revolution can happen and the billion$ can be made. No such possibility with paramotors.

 

[AMann]

You do realize that's a basic logical fallacy - unless you are trying to argue that the lack of UAVs at your location means that there are very few UAVs flying anywhere else either. You may not want to hear it, but it's a valid consideration.


The other difference is that paramotors, etc., have a significantly greater incentive not to get into conflict with air traffic - they will die.

That said - I think that eventually these other kinds of aircraft will also be required to use some kind of broadcast system.

I wonder what they’re going to do with tethered drones?

Also, I hope they leave KAP and even kid’s helium balloons alone!

 

[Huckleberry]

Paramotors are not a potential multi-billion dollar industry waiting to happen. It’s not about safety, it’s about commercial interests needing regulation to legitimize and make possible their drone operations. Or it is about safety but mainly in the context of having millions of commercial drones in the sky. Point is, regulation is the only way the desired drone revolution can happen and the billion$ can be made. No such possibility with paramotors.

Hence the last sentence of my post.

 

[sar104]

I wonder what they’re going to do with tethered drones? Also, I hope they leave KAP and kid’s helium balloons alone!

I would guess they will be subject to the same requirements - they are up in the airspace and present many similar hazards to other traffic as untethered drones.

 

[AMann]

I would guess they will be subject to the same requirements - they are up in the airspace and present many similar hazards to other traffic as untethered drones.

Yeah I guess you’re right, I was thinking it would be an alternative to what I’m used to using out in open spaces, I guess if I’m doing it commercially, a satellite tracker would have to be used.

edit: sorry I’m using speech to text...

 

[sar104]

Yeah I guess you’re right, I was thinking it would be an alternative to what I’m used to using out in open spaces, I guess if I’m doing it commercially, a satellite tracker would have to be used.

Why a satellite tracker?

 

[AMann]

Why a satellite tracker?

If I’m out of cellular range, I mean.

 

[Matriculated01]

Hence the last sentence of my post.

Which was...

“iInconclusion, and to my point, this is being driven from somewhere other than the FAA safety office.”[sic]

...and is 100% correct on its face.

 

[Brevanskc]

Does the fact that we already have Remote Identification Technology built into our controller/drone via the Go 4 app mean that if we flip the switch to activate it and have a connection cellular connection or hot spot connection that we meet the requirements of standard remote ID or perhaps a third part company must register the number? I did not fully understand the dji Phone to Drone technology news release I saw posted a while ago.

 

[Thomas B]

Does the fact that we already have Remote Identification Technology built into our controller/drone via the Go 4 app mean that if we flip the switch to activate it and have a connection cellular connection or hot spot connection that we meet the requirements of standard remote ID or perhaps a third part company must register the number? I did not fully understand the dji Phone to Drone technology news release I saw posted a while ago.

To be sure it is an option please be sure to email TSA and FAA.

 

[Matriculated01]

Question for those who have read the whole thing:

Is it explained anywhere in the proposal how much the required subscription to a USS is going to cost?

 

[James Shipp III]

Do you think three years is going to be enough time to get this system in place?

I've read the cost estimate of $500 million over ten years but if the history of accuracy of cost estimates holds true it could be 3 or 4 times that much. I also don't understand why UAS manufacturers and users would be required to be incompliance in 3 years for a system that may not be operation for many years after that.

Of course this is all in the discussion phase with the details yet to be worked out. In the meantime maybe some genius can figure out how to build a unit that can be incorporated into drones that won't cost an arm and a leg or come up with an under 0.55 lb drone design with the functionality of a Mavic Pro.

Really....and if such a genius should come forward why would they not simply change the law to exclude the under 0.55 limit? Simple swipe of the pen my friend!

 

[dfb]

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.

I can't imagine why anyone would fly at a club based flight zone, other than initial training. Not a lot of skill needed for today's quadcopters. It's not a crowd-pleaser since spectators can't see them in the air! Club based airfields make good sense for rc fixed wings. They are large and colorful and actually NEED to do VLOS. The spectators love to watch.

For me, my Mavic 2 is a camera. How many pictures can you take of the same flying field?

 

[Thomas B]

Question for those who have read the whole thing:

Is it explained anywhere in the proposal how much the required subscription to a USS is going to cost?

Not that I saw.

 

[sar104]

Question for those who have read the whole thing:

Is it explained anywhere in the proposal how much the required subscription to a USS is going to cost?

Page 196:

• The FAA assumes each entity operating a UAS would be required to subscribe to a Remote ID USS at a rate of $2.50 per month or $30 per year.

 

[Papa Echo]

Bruce (xjet) from New Zealand has made an excellent and very important video about the planed regulations:

Please watch it and spread it.

 

[sar104]

If I’m out of cellular range, I mean.

Assuming that your UAV has SRID, then it will simply broadcast. A satellite tracker is neither necessary nor an option.