Here we go Remote ID Cost

[Rchawks]

Makes ya wonder

 

[bobshe]

I have only just discovered the pleasure of flying a DJI Mavic Mini and already am beginning to regret it,
I thought drone flying was a pleasurable experience and being able to take photographs from positions that were never available before for an amateur photographer was fantastic. I was really looking forward to this summer to be able to fly my Drone safely in an area where it would not be wrong to do so. If these proposed rules come into force then it would be too expensive and time consuming to check that you had filled in all the appropriate forms and paid all the due fees to all the concerned overloads so as not to be breaking any laws.

 

[old man mavic]

I have only just discovered the pleasure of flying a DJI Mavic Mini and already am beginning to regret it,
I thought drone flying was a pleasurable experience and being able to take photographs from positions that were never available before for an amateur photographer was fantastic. I was really looking forward to this summer to be able to fly my Drone safely in an area where it would not be wrong to do so. If these proposed rules come into force then it would be too expensive and time consuming to check that you had filled in all the appropriate forms and paid all the due fees to all the concerned overloads so as not to be breaking any laws.

dont be worried about things so much,much can happen between now and the future,just stay safe from this virus and concentrate on staying healthy

 

[bdooley]

Thanks for posting this @Rattydude77! I think that FAA’s proposed Remote ID is ridiculous, it would be expensive and annoying to have to pay a monthly fee to fly your drone. It would be more logical for the FAA to require all drones manufactured after a certain date it have a Remote ID built into them. I can see the Remote ID happening a several years from now, but this is too soon. People could easily fly without the ID and not get caught. Hopefully the FAA will listen to the comments on the proposed ID and revoke the rule.

Agreed. I think these unrealistic rules would encourage people to break the laws. More so than all the non-conformists we already have.

 

[bdooley]

I had basically decided to get a DJI Maveric Zoom but will hold off due to all the FAA regulations that are up in the air. Im not willing to pay monthly ID fees on top of other proposed fees. As things stand now I will not be spending nearly 2 thousand dollars on a drone only to face a monthly ID charge, a data plan charge, a annual licence fee and who knows what else (insureance?) the blood suckers will come up with. No drone for me unless FAA backs off.

Go ahead and buy your Mavic. It is going to be 3-4 years before this takes effect - if it takes effect. By then you will e ready for to upgrade to the latest and greatest drone. That is if they don't pass this as written.

Plus you will have a drone that doesn't already have the mandated remote ID built in. Just sayin......

 

[JSmith731]

You would quit doing aerial SAR because of a couple of extra requirements?

A couple? I don't think that you grasp the full meaning of this. You're going to have to pay to fly your drone! You're going to be paying to fly what you've already bought! And then, there are a whole bunch of other rules that you'll have to follow until your up to your kneck.

 

[sar104]

A couple? I don't think that you grasp the full meaning of this. You're going to have to pay to fly your drone! You're going to be paying to fly what you've already bought! And then, there are a whole bunch of other rules that you'll have to follow until your up to your kneck.

Thanks for your concern, but apparently I understand the proposal rather better than you or most of the other people complaining. You already have to pay to fly - you have to pay for registration, you have to pay for Part 107, and either you or the agency under whose jurisdiction you are flying has to pay for insurance. The estimated cost of the remote ID service is $5 per month. If that is a deal-breaker for anyone then I seriously question their commitment to SAR.

Aside from that - which other rules are you complaining about?

 

[OurAngryBadger]

Thanks for your concern, but apparently I understand the proposal rather better than you or most of the other people complaining. You already have to pay to fly - you have to pay for registration, you have to pay for Part 107, and either you or the agency under whose jurisdiction you are flying has to pay for insurance. The estimated cost of the remote ID service is $5 per month. If that is a deal-breaker for anyone then I seriously question their commitment to SAR.

Aside from that - which other rules are you complaining about?

I think what bothers people is the idea of a monthly subscription. The only thing currently that comes close to it is the biannual 107 recertification fees. Insurance in some states is optional not mandatory. And the $5 i think is what the government estimated but DJI said they were wrong and that it would be much higher.

 

[JSmith731]

I think what bothers people is the idea of a monthly subscription. The only thing currently that comes close to it is the biannual 107 recertification fees. Insurance in some states is optional not mandatory. And the $5 i think is what the government estimated but DJI said they were wrong and that it would be much higher.

I agree

 

[OurAngryBadger]

I agree

I think what's the most wrong about this is the government writing a law saying you have to pay a private company a monthly fee to operate a drone. I guess it's no different than states saying you need to pay for car insurance to drive but I don't personally agree with that either. Any government laws that require you to pay fees should go to government provided services. (Imho).

 

[sar104]

I think what bothers people is the idea of a monthly subscription. The only thing currently that comes close to it is the biannual 107 recertification fees. Insurance in some states is optional not mandatory. And the $5 i think is what the government estimated but DJI said they were wrong and that it would be much higher.

I think what's the most wrong about this is the government writing a law saying you have to pay a private company a monthly fee to operate a drone. I guess it's no different than states saying you need to pay for car insurance to drive but I don't personally agree with that either. Any government laws that require you to pay fees should go to government provided services. (Imho).

You don't have to pay the monthly fee, any more than you have to pay the Part 107 fee. The latter also goes to private organizations in exchange for the service that they provide. You just don't get to operate under the relevant provisions if you choose not to. Federal and State governments contract out plenty of services, and those services would either be taxpayer subsidized or simply much more expensive if they didn't.

You don't think that auto insurance should be a legal requirement to drive on the roads? You must be aware of the significant financial burden caused by uninsured drivers - can you imagine how much worse that would be if insurance were optional?

 

[Hegemone]

You don't have to pay the monthly fee, any more than you have to pay the Part 107 fee. The latter also goes to private organizations in exchange for the service that they provide. You just don't get to operate under the relevant provisions if you choose not to. Federal and State governments contract out plenty of services, and those services would either be taxpayer subsidized or simply much more expensive if they didn't.

You don't think that auto insurance should be a legal requirement to drive on the roads? You must be aware of the significant financial burden caused by uninsured drivers - can you imagine how much worse that would be if insurance were optional?

Currently, legally required insurance still has a choice attached to it and opens it up to the free market to control prices. Having the government name one private company to receive the all premiums would be a much different situation as it would eliminate choice for the taxpayer as well as competition for the privately-owned insurance company the government names.

Government services that are contracted out are still exposed to competition through the bidding process. I am not sure if that happened in this case. I am only commenting on the idea of government-mandated insurance vs government-mandated insurance and mandated provider. Since my money is going directly from my pocket to a private entity I would like some input on who that money goes to and some transparency as to how my data will be handled.

Not arguing just stating my own point of view.

 

[sar104]

Currently, legally required insurance still has a choice attached to it and opens it up to the free market to control prices. Having the government name one private company to receive the all premiums would be a much different situation as it would eliminate choice for the taxpayer as well as competition for the privately-owned insurance company the government names.

Government services that are contracted out are still exposed to competition through the bidding process. I am not sure if that happened in this case. I am only commenting on the idea of government-mandated insurance vs government-mandated insurance and mandated provider. Since my money is going directly from my pocket to a private entity I would like some input on who that money goes to and some transparency as to how my data will be handled.

Not arguing just stating my own point of view.

The proposal hasn't been adopted yet, but it did indicate that multiple companies would be able to provide the required web service - presumably a bit like the LAANC service. I'd like to see it follow the LAANC model closely, and not charge at all for the service.

 

[Jpmavic1969]

The FAA is going to take my baby away, the FAA is it going to take my baby away. Just a little spin on a Ramones song.

 

[dronerdave]

My issue is they are defining DRONES as a general term...I have over 30. The rules need to be tweaked.

 

[douglas_in_philly]

True to a degree....But I guess that might also depend on where you live/fly. I live in Philly...You never know WTH kind of craziness will emerge in this city. Given the "Killadelph's" deserved reputation, I would not be surprised to see people using the app to rob/jack drone pilots and their equipment. After all, why steal/rob for peanuts when you can get thousands worth of equipment and technology with an application that will literally be like a treasure map for low life jacker's? You might think it's far fetched, but mark my words...Here in Philly, it will definitely become an ongoing issue.

We're the city that killed hitchbot, after all!

 

[Damomerlin]

I'm in UK hobby flier. Don't need nothing here. Just common sense.

 

[TheRock]

I don't live in CONUS and actually fly a lot in foreign countries. I also fly in many remote places. The last area didn't even have internet or cell service. Hard to muster support to pay the FAA for, well, what??

 

[sar104]

I don't live in CONUS and actually fly a lot in foreign countries. I also fly in many remote places. The last area didn't even have internet or cell service. Hard to muster support to pay the FAA for, well, what??

$5 for registration - that's all you pay the FAA.

 

[TheRock]

$5 for registration - that's all you pay the FAA.

Yes the one-time $5 paid now id the law. But when the new rules come out, what good does all this tracking and registration do me? I don't even fly in areas the FAA has jurisdiction yet it wants me to fork over roughly $120 annually (per drone???) according to that article. DJI's approach certainly makes much more sense.... which means the government will probably not adopt it.