While I understand that regulations are created to mitigate potential hazards there needs to be some connection with past/present reality and realistic projections about the future. My understanding is there is no historic evidence of safety issues (property damage, injuries or death) associated with drones. In the millions of hours of flight time there have been few reports of any injuries and no deaths. Drones share a minuscule amount of the national airspace, they are small in size and the impact force if one should fail is a tiny fraction of the force of any general aviation aircraft. I’d be very interested in seeing well researched projections on the future numbers and commercial uses for drones over what timeframe (something more precise than skies “chock full” of drones) that would have an meaningful impact on the safety record of the past. I’ve asked but no one seems to have those projections that compel the implementation of these regulations and spending a billion dollars. It seems to come down to “what if’s”. Given the real accident rates in GA I have a hard time imagining that the time, effort and billion dollars can’t be used more effectively addressing real safety issues in the GA arena.
Here we go Remote ID Cost
- Thread starter Rattydude77
- Start date
Whilst that may be correct, the number of drones being sold is now rising exponentially. In the past you could just wait for serious issues to occur before producing regulations to prevent them. If you tried that now, you would be accused of criminal neglect and sued by the families of victims of the inaction. You can be reactive and produce new regulations when something unforeseen happens but today’s society demands that the authorities are proactive - if you can see the possibility, no matter how remote, of something dangerous happening you have to legislate to prevent it.
The skies are not currently full of drones, but could be in the next few years. You can’t wait for the first death or million dollar lawsuit before making rules if you can already see the possibility of something disastrous happening - that would just be irresponsible. That’s certainly why many restrictive rules in the aviation industry are introduced. All of that said, I would be surprised if the requirement for remote ID is applied retrospectively to drones being used exclusively for recreational purposes - it would all but destroy the model aircraft hobby world.
I hear what you are saying but I'd like to see the research that supports the claim of "rising exponentially". Who is making that claim and on what basis?
There was much talk a year or so ago about the demise of the consumer drone market. I've heard a lot of talk about the commercial use of drones by UPS, Fed-X and other delivery services but do you really see that happening across a large expanse of the country?
There was a article on the Drone Analysis website ask "Where Did the Consumer Drone Market Go?" with a graph showing the growth projections were totally wrong...
Where did the consumer drone market go?
The FAA is creating this all encompassing regulation that will cost consumers a billion dollars or more to solve a problem that is based on questionable projections of growth (numbers) and usage (geography). Is these a situation where the powers that be are using a chainsaw where a scalpel should be used?
There are many things that influenced the slowing of the growth rate. One was regulation. For this year, you have Covid which slowed everything down.
Regulations started in 2016, not just from FAA, but local areas. If people didn't get all uptight about drones, then growth could have continued to grow exponentially.
But those numbers in the article are for sales, not number of birds flying. I didn't buy a new drone in 2017, but I was flying one I already own. I didn't buy one in 2020 and don't plan to. Almost didn't buy one in 2019, but with the new app for the Mini, felt I should get the mini to be more helpful in this forum.
When I first received my P3, I was guilty of flying where I shouldn't have. I didn't realize the runway approach of an airport 3-4 miles away was right over my and my dad's house so I flew 300ft on occasion. Now FAA has rules and helps for controlled airspace where a chart shows I can't legally fly without special permission and although I disagree with the altitude limit designed, I agree there should be a limit.
Regulations started in 2016, not just from FAA, but local areas. If people didn't get all uptight about drones, then growth could have continued to grow exponentially.
But those numbers in the article are for sales, not number of birds flying. I didn't buy a new drone in 2017, but I was flying one I already own. I didn't buy one in 2020 and don't plan to. Almost didn't buy one in 2019, but with the new app for the Mini, felt I should get the mini to be more helpful in this forum.
When I first received my P3, I was guilty of flying where I shouldn't have. I didn't realize the runway approach of an airport 3-4 miles away was right over my and my dad's house so I flew 300ft on occasion. Now FAA has rules and helps for controlled airspace where a chart shows I can't legally fly without special permission and although I disagree with the altitude limit designed, I agree there should be a limit.
I found one line in this article somewhat counter intuitive...
Commercial Drone Market Size...
"North America accounted for the largest market share in terms of revenue in 2018 and is anticipated to continue leading over the next six years owing to favorable government initiatives regarding the advancement in drone technology coupled with the growing demand from businesses for drone-acquired data. Moreover, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the U.S. has released new regulations to provide more coherent and consistent guidelines concerning the legal and safe operation of UAVs in commercial spaces. Such rules and regulations are expected to reduce entry barriers and increase regional product adoption."
I think the where and/or how of commercial drone use for package delivery suspect (it will be limited to relatively remote areas) and a lot of sky is going to be put under the umbrella of remote ID that has little to no relationship to commercial use of drones or issues of safety and security.
The billion dollars is a conservative estimate. The analysis by DJI puts the cost a $5.6 billion over ten years...
"DJI’s filing includes an independent economic study that concludes the FAA’s Remote ID proposal would prove nine times as costly as the FAA’s estimates, imposing $5.6 billion worth of burdens on society over the next decade. The analysis finds many of those costs could be obviated if drone pilots could choose between two different methods of compliance, rather than doing both as the FAA proposed."
The FAA put the cost at ~$500 million but every independent estimate I've seen has it much higher. Given the history of cost overruns and low ball estimates of government projects I would be VERY suspect regarding the government's estimate.
Thanks for that. However, statistic produced by organisations with a vested interest usually tend to significantly over or underestimate costs depending on their point of view and the agenda they’re pursuing.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reactions
- 2,477
I’ll accept that so let’s slice it down the middle to $2.5 billion. That’s still a tremendous amount of money. There were 987 non-fatal and 233 fatal general aviation accidents in 2019 in the U.S. I have to imagine the physical damage had to be in the tens of millions of dollars. There were zero fatal drone accidents in the U.S. and as far as I know no injuries that required a hospitalization. Do you think there just might be a better use for the billions that are going to be spent on drones could be better allocated to address problem in GA?
Are you suggesting that the government is going to pay for drones to be equipped with remote ID?
Last edited:
The government and private sector will be paying for this. And since the government has no money whatsoever it spends will be private sector money.
Really? So the drone manufacturers won’t be including the technology if future drones? People with existing drones which are affected won’t be expected to retro-fit them with remote ID equipment to make them compliant?
The term "private sector" includes the end users. Whatever the drone manufacturers include in the drones to make them compliant will be paid for in whole or in part by the users and general public. My main issue is why the money is being spent on making UAS operations safe.
I compared the safety issues, injuries and death that occurred in GA in 2019 versus drones, in a prior post. All the speculations about a sky "chock full" of drones doesn't fly based on a comparison of what really took place just one year ago. Address the real problem. Don't manufacturer a problem to find another way to spend money, man hours in an effort to gain control.
Someone mention we can't wait for the first multi-million dollar lawsuit as a result of a drone accident. We don't have to wait for the next multi-million dollar lawsuit related to a GA accident. I'm 99% sure there is one or more making its way through the courts as we type.
UAS_Dude
Well-Known Member
I didn't really want to jump back into this thread but someone needs to try to make you understand how the system actually works, It's all well and good for you to carry on about how the FAA must base regulations on statistics but that is not how it works. Just because you believe in something it doesn't make one iota of difference if you can't be heard by anyone who has any influence and can work towards actually making the changes you desire.
The fact of the matter is that, based on the heavy hitters in the commercial UAS industry clamoring to be granted rights to operate in urban areas, the FAA has mandated that a Remote ID system be implemented; end of story - no need to go back over the blindingly obvious reasons why this is non-negotiable - the topic has been done to death in numerous other threads.
So why not do some actual research instead of constantly whining and pretending to know what you're talking about - start with this document:-
FAA Integrated Oversight Philosophy
... and then type strings such as "FAA UAS Risk Mitigation" into google and go from there. You'll find tons of content about how the FAA operates based on risk and predictions, NOT SIMPLY STATISTICS.
There is obviously no actual data on what things will look like in a few year's time - you can't obtain data on the future, you can only make predictions and that is what the FAA is trying its best to do. And again, sorry to confront you with what happens in the real world, the FAA will always err on the side of safety even if that means overkill.
Instead of the hyperbole how about sticking with the relevant facts. Industry heavy hitters are pushing their agenda with nothing more than gross speculations about the commercial use of drones or the “real” safety implications of those numbers or that the implementation of RID in the fashion being proposed is necessary. One of the heaviest hitters in the industry (DJI) refutes the claims regarding cost and the need for the all encompassing system being proposed. The history record of drone safety gives no indication that these pervasive system is needed. And finally there are much more pressing needs with the NAS, like improving the real safety issues in GA that are costing lives a tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in damages versus expending billions of dollars on drone “safety”. I’d like to see a comparison of “risk predictions” between drones and GA over the next 10-20 years that indicates that time and money is better spend in the under 400’ airspace occupied by drones. I’m about 99% sure it doesn’t exist.
UAS_Dude
Well-Known Member
OK, so there it is, explicit proof that you have done nothing more than cherry-pick the most paranoid material you could find. All you have done with your latest post is copy and paste from your earlier misguided blurb.
You have no original or insightful ideas or suggestions to make because, I dunno, maybe you don't have the attention span to read something longer than a couple of paragraphs. Where did you get the idea that RID was to be implemented to address issues related to risk predictions between drones and GA in the under 400' airspace? It was never about that.
The heavy hitters I referred to are mega-corporations such as UPS, Amazon Prime Air, and Project Wing (Alphabet). For them to carry out their drone delivery activities whilst sharing the under 400' airspace, some sort of technology that would enable autonomous coordination of the associated unmanned air traffic will need to be implemented.
Don't worry your pretty little head about how much taxpayer money is going to be spent. Do you believe that there has never been a government initiative that didn't turn out exactly the way things were planned or predicted and that lots of money wasn't wasted? AGAIN and AGAIN, THAT IS HOW THINGS WORK IN THE REAL WORLD !!!
In terms of DJI's opposition to Remote ID, who knows or even cares what's going on there. Given that company's sub-zero standing with the US Government, any input coming from that direction is likely to go straight into the round file.
Last edited:
By “general public”, do you mean drone users?
How could the money which may (or may not) be spent on remote ID possibly be used to improve GA safety issues? It’s not government money. The government won’t be paying drone users to install remote ID on their drones - end users will either buy a drone with it fitted or will retro-fit it at their own cost. Either way, if remote ID was scrapped, the money saved would not be available to use for GA safety issues.
First, you have no idea how much I read in the subject from multiple sources so your “attention span” comment is nothing more than so much hot air. The heavy hitters are going to say whatever they need to say to push their agenda right or wrong. Second, someone else mentioned risk predictions (how many drones will be in use for package delivery in the foreseeable future) as an element use to determine the RID requirements to keep some predicted number of drones flying safely in the NAS. The FAA used this predictions to determine cost. My point is their predictions of cost and regulatory requirements favor their business model based what they are hoping they can accomplish. We’ve had past predictions by government regarding need, ability and cost the turned out to be grossly inaccurate and a waste of time and money. My point is spend the dollars and man hours on areas in aviation where we know there are problems rather than speculations about drone use that may never occur.
DJI may not have standing but they do have experience not only in the U.S. but all over the world. Their sole focus is drones and drone safety. They are closer to the potential issues than UPS, Federal Express and other packaging delivery companies. They are as aware if not more so of the potential safety issues facing an increasing number of UAS flight operator.
I’m a taxpayer and a drone pilot so yes, I will worry my pretty little head about projections of spending which are typically much higher than projected, and why the money is being spent on projections about a problem that doesn’t exist today instead of real problems in other areas of aviation, areas where hundreds of deaths and hundreds of millions of dollars in damages are actually taking place.
Some of the infrastructure for RID will be paid for with taxpayer money. The cost of monitoring regulatory compliance will be paid for with taxpayer dollars. One of the stated reason for enacting RID is to enhance GA safety as more drone occupy the National Airspace.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
Mini 4 Pro Wales the lonely tree, The Ugly House, Penrhyn Castle and Ardal Mills Quarry- Started by Markony
- Replies: 1
-
3 Sailing this handmade Traditional wooden ship (NO ENGINE).
- Started by Vernon
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
