FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Matriculated01]

I agree the FAA will go through the motions and then just enact the regs in accordance with instructions from their principals and sponsors ie $$$$$$$. But, they do have legal obligation to respond to public comments on the record and its worth forcing the FAA to go through as rigorous a process as possible in order to create a record that may support a legal challenge.

Agreed.

 

[deleted member 877]

Given the extremely polarizing nature of this debate I would suggest that it's time for everyone to take a step back to have a good look at the big picture. Regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting it would be stupid to hope or expect that the status quo will remain in place.

Significant changes are going to roll downhill like a big old snowball and the most that anyone who is opposed to rolling along with it can hope for is some sort of compromise. This constant and repetitive whinging about Big Brother this or Big Industry that is getting really old really quickly.

From 01-01-2020 there will be a window of two months to submit feedback but I am willing to bet real money that submissions containing nothing but 100% negativity will be promptly thrown in the trash. Compromise is the key to success IMHO.

 

[deleted member 877]

I agree the FAA will go through the motions and then just enact the regs in accordance with instructions from their principals and sponsors ie ? But, they do have legal obligation to respond to public comments on the record and its worth forcing the FAA to go through as rigorous a process as possible in order to create a record that may support a legal challenge.

Legal challenge? Seriously? I'm trying to think of how that would be funded and by whom?

 

[sar104]

Legal challenge? Seriously? I'm trying to think of how that would be funded and by whom?

It's going to be entirely powered and supported by hot air.

 

[Huckleberry]

Surely UAV manufacturers the likes of DJI will submit their input with possible solutions, beings they are one manufacturer that stands to lose big from this regulation. I’d assume a large percentage of their customers are hobbyists so they stand to lose a ( Mod Removed Langage) of a lot of sales if hobbyist in the US feel too restricted to fly any longer. Means sales would plummet.

Not that US law makers give a darn what DJI has to say........

 

[Chip]

It's going to be entirely powered and supported by hot air.

Hot air balloning is big industry in New Mexico I hear...

 

[sar104]

Surely UAV manufacturers the likes of DJI will submit their input with possible solutions, beings they are one manufacturer that stands to lose big from this regulation. I’d assume a large percentage of their customers are hobbyists so they stand to lose a ( Mod Removed Langage) of a lot of sales if hobbyist in the US feel too restricted to fly any longer. Means sales would plummet.

Not that US law makers give a darn what DJI has to say........

Actually that's likely not true - despite DJIs unpopularity with a number of government departments, they are at the forefront of much of this stuff and have been selected as partners by the FAA to develop standards and technology.

 

[sar104]

Hot air balloning is big industry in New Mexico I hear...

View attachment 89031

Yuuuge.

 

[Clay Turner]

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

DJI's drone to phone doesn't require internet or cellphone service. The sUAS transmits a one way WI-FI Aware signal that may be picked up and deciphered by a smart phone. Monitoring only will occur where it matters.

 

[Huckleberry]

Actually that's likely not true - despite DJIs unpopularity with a number of government departments, they are at the forefront of much of this stuff and have been selected as partners by the FAA to develop standards and technology.

Are you saying that DJI is in support of these regulations, even with as restrictive as they appear they’re going to be to the average hobbyist?

 

[deleted member 877]

Are you saying that DJI is in support of these regulations, even with as restrictive as they appear they’re going to be to the average hobbyist?

Either way DJI will benefit. If demand from the recreational sector drops off there will likely be a corresponding increase in demand from the commercial drone operators.

 

[sar104]

Are you saying that DJI is in support of these regulations, even with as restrictive as they appear they’re going to be to the average hobbyist?

DJI have been trying to walk a fine line between not upsetting customers while addressing the issues of public perception and the inevitability of long-term regulation. I think they have done a pretty good job so far. And while you say "as restrictive as they appear they’re going to be to the average hobbyist", I don't see the restriction. If the technology is implemented as proposed then there will be no additional recreation-specific restrictions on actual flight.

 

[Matriculated01]

If the government is going to take away more of our freedoms at the behest of their corporate benefactors and implement yet another mass surveillance scheme, at the very least it should be done through the legislature. Legislators are at least theoretically responsive to public pressure and at least we’d know who to hold responsible. Implementing a massive scheme like this through unaccountable bureaucrats is unacceptable. There are going to be many conscientious objectors and non-compliance will be an issue. I suppose the blunt force on tap to the government will eventually stamp out the stubborn, but the way they are going about this is all wrong.

 

[IDPhoto]

I agree the FAA will go through the motions and then just enact the regs in accordance with instructions from their principals and sponsors ie ? But, they do have legal obligation to respond to public comments on the record and its worth forcing the FAA to go through as rigorous a process as possible in order to create a record that may support a legal challenge.

Exactly but i have a feeling its a lost cause yet it doesn't hurt to try. I will wait for those who do nothing to complain first ?

 

[Brian_MavicPro]

Be very concerned in about 18 months. That is the time it will take to implement/publish and then you will see the gradual enforcement take place over an additional two or three years. Everything that flies remotely beyond 400 feet distance will require both active WiFi connectivity (controller smart device) and broadcast RFID from the drone. If your drone does not meet that requirement, your flights will be limited to areas that the local community has pre-authorized for hobbyists and received FAA approval to fly (like a sanctioned flying field) or vacant swampland. So you are NOT grandfathered but you will be allowed to fly about 1.3 football fields (400 feet) in community designated areas. Good luck getting your community to agree to let you have your own designated drone fly area in a place that you would like to film, lol.
Next scenario, you're in a remote area, canyon, desert, lake, etc. if you don't have WiFi connectivity but your drone can broadcast RFID....too bad, it wont take off without WiFi connectivity too.
To be crystal clear, this does not appear to be something to worry about ....YET! By the time you need to worry, you will have ditched your drone and purchased one with an RFID Standard System or given up the hobby (3+ years) from now.
If you enjoy this as a hobby, you did not have an advocate for the current proposal. The commercial market wins hands down $$$. So, if you want the FAA to listen, you better give them constructive/problem resolution solutions starting January through February. They are taking your suggestions. Complaining does nothing, offer solutions that can work or kiss your hobby goodbye.

 

[sar104]

If the government is going to take away more of our freedoms at the behest of their corporate benefactors and implement yet another mass surveillance scheme, at the very least it should be done through the legislature. Legislators are at least theoretically responsive to public pressure and at least we’d know who to hold responsible. Implementing a massive scheme like this through unaccountable bureaucrats is unacceptable. There are going to be many conscientious objectors and non-compliance will be an issue. I suppose the blunt force on tap to the government will eventually stamp out the stubborn, but the way they are going about this is all wrong.

The legislative branch doesn't have time to get into this level of detail - that's why they instructed the FAA to do this in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. These "unaccountable bureaucrats" are just doing their jobs, and are accountable to Congress. But surely you knew that...

As for the "conscientious objectors" - that's pure fantasy. It's not a thing.

 

[Greg Smithski]

It's the beginning of the end for hobbyists my friends.

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.

 

[Chip]

Legal challenge? Seriously? I'm trying to think of how that would be funded and by whom?

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.

 

[Matriculated01]

The legislative branch doesn't have time to get into this level of detail - that's why they instructed the FAA to do this in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. These "unaccountable bureaucrats" are just doing their jobs, and are accountable to Congress. But surely you knew that...

As for the "conscientious objectors" - that's pure fantasy. It's not a thing.

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

 

[sar104]

I wonder who's gonna pay the 500 million for this system?

Or you could read the proposal cost analysis summary starting on page 227 - then you wouldn't need to wonder.