Letter From DJI About Remote ID

[MMMark]

Wow I was on a totally different link than you supplied and it had this in the disclaimer:
You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.

I sure hope I'm sending to the correct site. I did go ahead and post to your link. I also backed out of this link:
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Hope this is the correct move.

I pulled the link for DJI’s email message. I chose to put in my info (was optional).

Today’s the last day for comments.

Please people submit your comments to help keep the fun alive ?

Mark

 

[lookout]

I pulled the link for DJI’s email message. I chose to put in my info (was optional).

Today’s the last day for comments.

Please people submit your comments to help keep the fun alive ?

Mark

They have been trying this remote id idea for at least the last three years. Have they gotten any closer?

 

[Thomas B]

They have been trying this remote id idea for at least the last three years. Have they gotten any closer?

Read the proposal from FAA. Looks like what ever form is used will be implemented per FAA in 2 years max.

 

[dronerdave]

You can be anonymous if you don't fill out your name (which it does for you). Notice what other comments are on there. Wait that is a different link. And it has a ... which one is the right one?

Not sure. You might be able to leave all your personal data blank, but I didn't mind adding my name and address. I did see that there is a link to start over. I reset and left those questionable categories blank and was able to send it off. As far as which one is the real McCoy, I don't have a clue. Perhaps one is suited more for the 107 crowd.

 

[lookout]

Look at this LEO telling them...

Regulations.gov

This comment is in response to the FAA proposed rules for remote ID for UAS. Im in law enforcement and we are prohibited from electronically tracking private citizens movements on the ground without a warrant as you are proposing by locating a person operating the controls of a UAS and making such data publicly available. You cannot simply surveil someone just because they might do something wrong at some point. There needs to be specific and significant probable cause BEFORE this is legal and a court must decide this, not an edict from the government. Publishing a citizens location to the general public violates their right to privacy and is not acceptable. If these rules are enacted as written, I can foresee the first time someone is tracked and located by such illegal means, even if a felony crime is committed it will be challenged in court and any convictions will certainly be overturned. Officers will spend all their time in court enduring endless dismissals, until such a time we will no longer waste our time on these fruitless endeavor. I submit that if you want to locate aircraft in the sky feel free to do so, but the FAA has no jurisdiction to propose preposterous requirements as this on the citizens on the ground in our communities.

 

[xspwhite]

Look at this LEO telling them...

Regulations.gov

This comment is in response to the FAA proposed rules for remote ID for UAS. Im in law enforcement and we are prohibited from electronically tracking private citizens movements on the ground without a warrant as you are proposing by locating a person operating the controls of a UAS and making such data publicly available. You cannot simply surveil someone just because they might do something wrong at some point. There needs to be specific and significant probable cause BEFORE this is legal and a court must decide this, not an edict from the government. Publishing a citizens location to the general public violates their right to privacy and is not acceptable. If these rules are enacted as written, I can foresee the first time someone is tracked and located by such illegal means, even if a felony crime is committed it will be challenged in court and any convictions will certainly be overturned. Officers will spend all their time in court enduring endless dismissals, until such a time we will no longer waste our time on these fruitless endeavor. I submit that if you want to locate aircraft in the sky feel free to do so, but the FAA has no jurisdiction to propose preposterous requirements as this on the citizens on the ground in our communities.

I bet there will be some attorneys challenging this whole thing.

 

[Fly Petaluma]

Here is what I wrote (below). feel free to copy paste any part of this in your comment.

Cheers,

Phil

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It helped me collect my thoughts and formulate my own response. Let's hope the FAA is listening!

 

[xspwhite]

50,847 comments. Not too shabby! ?

 

[lookout]

Even AOPA, and EAA aren't agreeing with the way that FAA is going with this remote id.

If we have a mavic and it has a way provided by its' manufacturer DJI already in place to be identified...let's go fly.