Needed - Organized sUAV, Drone Organization - Membership Drive, United Voice

[Dougcjohn]

Stimulated by the recent discussions on Remote ID and FAA NPRM released to public on Dec 26th.
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...
www.federalregister.gov

A good discussion on the matter...
The Good the Bad and the Ugly Remote ID Proposal

The good, the bad and the ugly- Remote ID Proposal PRM

Good reading...

commercialdronepilots.com

Some YouTubes on the Remote ID NPRM.
Pilot Institute:

Drone U:

Within several drone forums discussion on the subject of the FAA NPRM, and other legal issues there's a consistent variable asked; Why is there no sUAV Organization with a membership body and representative voice?

This is a NEED and it's NEEDED NOW.
Joining the AOPA is a start... but I think an organized "name" representing the sUAV community would have greater impact.
Drone Membership 2018

I'd join an sUAV organized membership in a second... and spread the word for others to do the same!
The question is HOW... WHOM and the variables in the process to reality and make it happen.

Would an establishment with a presence be a quick start avenue... I'm currently not a member (not yet) but would DroneU be a candidate? Others?

I've only been in the sUAV society for a small number of years, but I've been a bit stunned that there hasn't been an organized sUAV membership... especially when it involves aerial and often subject to negative media.

It's been commented it's too late to get into action, I personally don't think it's too late, and if not now, when is It appropriate to begin?
As much and as quickly the recent Remote ID discussions rippled through the Internet, a think a membership drive would get a good start.
I'm probably not the best suited, but I'd be willing to help in some fashion if it would require "manpower" hours.

Per noted at the bottom of the this forum... this is one of many sister sUAV forums that probably gets the attention of the majority of drone readers seeking web information. Why not post at the header of each forum a new sUAV organization, membership drive. That and "word of mouth" passing the info would provide a good start. Many 3rd Party developers of sUAV software, hardware and tools; I'm sure many would be supportive of the sUAV Organization & post the info on their sites too.

Many NRA members are members for the "sole purpose" of protection of gun rights via a unified voice. I would think a sUAV membership would be similar. It would be a central voice, a good exchange society, and could include sponsor incentives & discounts.

Questions to consider:
Focused on USA or include charters for Global membership?
Price of membership?
Personally, my opinion is if this would be a representative voice, with talented representatives; helpful if included legal minds too. I'd gladly contribute $100-200 annually, more if it's political / legal representative voice provided impact.

Anyone have helpful contribution to get a forward momentum... Pipe In!

 

[DoomMeister]

Please keep responses ON TOPIC. That means regarding the formation of an organized sUAS membership to speak for our concerns in regulatory matters.

Off topic posts will be summarily deleted.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[DroningOn]

I would need to see a clear and concise mission statement of such an organization before I could make a decision to join or not.

 

[IndyRick]

The proposed FAA regulation applies to all UASs, not just quadcopter drones. As such, more traditional model aircraft pilots also have a vested interest in the proceedings. The Academy of Model Aeronautics encourages drone pilot membership, and is already lobbying on our behalf. Here is their most recent drone report.

 

[Dougcjohn]

I would need to see a clear and concise mission statement of such an organization before I could make a decision to join or not.

I'd agree, it'd need to have agreed focus to be beneficial. Although, to get it off the ground, that also means development... which takes time. If no support is collected until it's a functional organization... then basically we have what we have... essentially nothing.

I'd be willing to support a Pilot's organization with donation or dues to assist in a launch... that contribution if advertised successfully and encouraged a good percentage wouldn't need to be a substantial amount.

My concern is looking back over the last 3 years, I've heard numerous times "we need an organized sUAV society"... and 3 yrs has past with zero movement since it doesn't already exist.

 

[Thomas B]

Stimulated by the recent discussions on Remote ID and FAA NPRM released to public on Dec 26th.
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...
www.federalregister.gov

A good discussion on the matter...
The Good the Bad and the Ugly Remote ID Proposal

The good, the bad and the ugly- Remote ID Proposal PRM

Good reading...

commercialdronepilots.com

Some YouTubes on the Remote ID NPRM.
Pilot Institute:

Drone U:

Within several drone forums discussion on the subject of the FAA NPRM, and other legal issues there's a consistent variable asked; Why is there no sUAV Organization with a membership body and representative voice?

This is a NEED and it's NEEDED NOW.
Joining the AOPA is a start... but I think an organized "name" representing the sUAV community would have greater impact.
Drone Membership 2018

I'd join an sUAV organized membership in a second... and spread the word for others to do the same!
The question is HOW... WHOM and the variables in the process to reality and make it happen.

Would an establishment with a presence be a quick start avenue... I'm currently not a member (not yet) but would DroneU be a candidate? Others?

I've only been in the sUAV society for a small number of years, but I've been a bit stunned that there hasn't been an organized sUAV membership... especially when it involves aerial and often subject to negative media.

It's been commented it's too late to get into action, I personally don't think it's too late, and if not now, when is It appropriate to begin?
As much and as quickly the recent Remote ID discussions rippled through the Internet, a think a membership drive would get a good start.
I'm probably not the best suited, but I'd be willing to help in some fashion if it would require "manpower" hours.

Per noted at the bottom of the this forum... this is one of many sister sUAV forums that probably gets the attention of the majority of drone readers seeking web information. Why not post at the header of each forum a new sUAV organization, membership drive. That and "word of mouth" passing the info would provide a good start. Many 3rd Party developers of sUAV software, hardware and tools; I'm sure many would be supportive of the sUAV Organization & post the info on their sites too.

Many NRA members are members for the "sole purpose" of protection of gun rights via a unified voice. I would think a sUAV membership would be similar. It would be a central voice, a good exchange society, and could include sponsor incentives & discounts.

Questions to consider:
Focused on USA or include charters for Global membership?
Price of membership?
Personally, my opinion is if this would be a representative voice, with talented representatives; helpful if included legal minds too. I'd gladly contribute $100-200 annually, more if it's political / legal representative voice provided impact.

Anyone have helpful contribution to get a forward momentum... Pipe In!

And be SURE to send your INDIVIDUAL comments to FAA/DOT.... numbers count more in this type of thing

 

[dronerdave]

The proposed FAA regulation applies to all UASs, not just quadcopter drones. As such, more traditional model aircraft pilots also have a vested interest in the proceedings. The Academy of Model Aeronautics encourages drone pilot membership, and is already lobbying on our behalf. Here is their most recent drone report.

The problem is a lot drone operators do not want to be subjected to many of the AMA's rules, such as staying within VLOS and staying under 400' AGL. I was even flamed by a few members here when I suggested joining the AMA a few years back. The FAA is simply doing what they (in their opinion) have to do to keep rouge drone operators from flying however they want to. I saw this coming a long time ago. BUT I DO think that they are clamping down too hard on our hobby. I don't want to be paying a fee to tell the FAA where I'm flying although I don't care if they do know where I'm at or have been in the past. Go ahead and black box my bird... just give me a larger zone to fly in. Being subjected to the little 400' radius rule is ridiculous so I would be willing to lobby for a larger version, something many here probably will laugh at because they want no restrictions at all. So the problem I see is everybody coming together to agree on a realistic consensus that the FAA would ever consider. And sorry folks I'm not going the amazon theory route (money orientated).

 

[deleted member 877]

The problem is a lot drone operators do not want to be subjected to many of the AMA's rules, such as staying within VLOS and staying under 400' AGL. I was even flamed by a few members here when I suggested joining the AMA a few years back. The FAA is simply doing what they (in their opinion) have to do to keep rouge drone operators from flying however they want to. I saw this coming a long time ago. BUT I DO think that they are clamping down too hard on our hobby. I don't want to be paying a fee to tell the FAA where I'm flying although I don't care if they do know where I'm at or have been in the past. Go ahead and black box my bird... just give me a larger zone to fly in. Being subjected to the little 400' radius rule is ridiculous so I would be willing to lobby for a larger version, something many here probably will laugh at because they want no restrictions at all. So the problem I see is everybody coming together to agree on a realistic consensus that the FAA would ever consider. And sorry folks I'm not going the amazon theory route.

Great post but it has been suggested that the USS service fee will be something like $2.50 per month. Is that a lot to pay? I would hope that the FAA would try very hard to convince the USS providers to keep their charges to a minimum.

If not then we could reasonably assume that the FAA would prefer for recreational operators to simply walk away and get new hobbies. Time will tell.

 

[dronerdave]

$2.50 per month. Is that a lot to pay? I would hope that the FAA would try very hard to convince the USS providers to keep their charges to a minimum.

If not then we could reasonably assume that the FAA would prefer for recreational operators to simply walk away and get new hobbies. Time will tell.

I'm not worried about a few bucks, it's more of the idea it could open a door for more higher fees down the road. But I'm not much of an entitlement type person so I understand paying for a service charge if it's necessary. I just wonder if they (DJI) could have been able to find a way that works to track our location covering what the FAA's wants and geo-fence us to a larger zone like 3000' radius from our controller giving us a bit more leash. Like I said I really don't care if my flight logs can be read by the government but I kinda do have issues about that data being open to the public.

 

[American Gypsy]

I agree, some sort of organization and representation is needed. I would gladly donate cash, but I would be hesitant to openly join. The FAA regulations are good and necessary - the more stringent, the better, in fact. But it's like the 70mph speed limit on a freeway. If you own a Ford Taurus, it's definitely the law. But buy a Porsche, and suddenly its more of an option than a rule. You didn't buy your flying machine because you wanted to live in a 400ft box. You bought it because you wanted to be free. So... Be free.

 

[Dougcjohn]

The current NPRM is not acceptable for several reasons... but regarding the distance and internet requirement.
Ag work, often in an area not reachable by internet or cellular... as it's written, not flyable and in violation.

Essentially all existing crafts don't meet the requirements and specified as NOT upgradable unless performed by the original manufacture... and that isn't going to happen. Some say a FW update... sorry, that isn't going to make it either and DJI's system doesn't coincide or meet the specifications either.The new systems will have additional electronics the current crafts lack. The cost to acquire new craft will be much more than current, anytime you have aerial components that meet specifications that adds to the cost of the components and the craft.

That equates to all existing platforms and crafts would be contained to a playground of a 400 foot sphere.
A Inspire 2 rigged with a X7, lenses, etc... a $20K package not useable and justified because it's older and time to stop using the platform. The manned aircraft has less specifications on electronics and what's on the aircraft than the NPRM does for sUAV.

You'll probably see more, but currently the only consumer craft that would be able to fly is the Mavic Mini because it's under the "current" weight limit to be included.

Ignoring the current regulations is ignorance now but after the system is functional would be difficult to play dumb when a LEO can clearly see the craft he's watching in the air is not indicating it's existence.

Returning back to the membership organization... the NPRM isn't written with much consideration of the current drones or the individual pilot, it's currently written for industry profit and control. We do need a stronger voice and sadly that most likely isn't going to happen in the short time frame.

 

[Dougcjohn]

I'm not worried about a few bucks, it's more of the idea it could open a door for more higher fees down the road. But I'm not much of an entitlement type person so I understand paying for a service charge if it's necessary. I just wonder if they (DJI) could have been able to find a way that works to track our location covering what the FAA's wants and geo-fence us to a larger zone like 3000' radius from our controller giving us a bit more leash. Like I said I really don't care if my flight logs can be read by the government but I kinda do have issues about that data being open to the public.

I hear ya on your points...and agree in some fashion. The 400 foot sphere is at a FAA established site only, that means a flying field... not your yard, a park or a place of your choosing. You drive to a FAA site, play & fly and go home. To fly outside the FAA 400 ft sites, you have to meet the specifications... and that will require a new drone at a much greater cost to you.

 

[waylander]

Hi Guys

I know the FAA only applies Stateside, and that the CAA is responsible for the control of airspace in the UK, but Brits wake up, what happens in the US will influence manufacturers and authorities worldwide, Big Brother needs to watch you, otherwise BB has no point, regulators have to regulate, that's their raison d'être, it will come.....( new year rant over )

However Happy New Year to all OP's from Waylander

 

[Ben F]

Stimulated by the recent discussions on Remote ID and FAA NPRM released to public on Dec 26th.
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...
www.federalregister.gov

A good discussion on the matter...
The Good the Bad and the Ugly Remote ID Proposal

The good, the bad and the ugly- Remote ID Proposal PRM

Good reading...

commercialdronepilots.com

Some YouTubes on the Remote ID NPRM.
Pilot Institute:

Drone U:

Within several drone forums discussion on the subject of the FAA NPRM, and other legal issues there's a consistent variable asked; Why is there no sUAV Organization with a membership body and representative voice?

This is a NEED and it's NEEDED NOW.
Joining the AOPA is a start... but I think an organized "name" representing the sUAV community would have greater impact.
Drone Membership 2018

I'd join an sUAV organized membership in a second... and spread the word for others to do the same!
The question is HOW... WHOM and the variables in the process to reality and make it happen.

Would an establishment with a presence be a quick start avenue... I'm currently not a member (not yet) but would DroneU be a candidate? Others?

I've only been in the sUAV society for a small number of years, but I've been a bit stunned that there hasn't been an organized sUAV membership... especially when it involves aerial and often subject to negative media.

It's been commented it's too late to get into action, I personally don't think it's too late, and if not now, when is It appropriate to begin?
As much and as quickly the recent Remote ID discussions rippled through the Internet, a think a membership drive would get a good start.
I'm probably not the best suited, but I'd be willing to help in some fashion if it would require "manpower" hours.

Per noted at the bottom of the this forum... this is one of many sister sUAV forums that probably gets the attention of the majority of drone readers seeking web information. Why not post at the header of each forum a new sUAV organization, membership drive. That and "word of mouth" passing the info would provide a good start. Many 3rd Party developers of sUAV software, hardware and tools; I'm sure many would be supportive of the sUAV Organization & post the info on their sites too.

Many NRA members are members for the "sole purpose" of protection of gun rights via a unified voice. I would think a sUAV membership would be similar. It would be a central voice, a good exchange society, and could include sponsor incentives & discounts.

Questions to consider:
Focused on USA or include charters for Global membership?
Price of membership?
Personally, my opinion is if this would be a representative voice, with talented representatives; helpful if included legal minds too. I'd gladly contribute $100-200 annually, more if it's political / legal representative voice provided impact.

Anyone have helpful contribution to get a forward momentum... Pipe In!

The article on the link below gives a great overview of the rule and how it can impact drone users. It also has the link to leave comments for the FAA so they can hear our voice!

The FAA Proposed Rule On Remote Identification Will Kill Drone Flying

 

[DoomMeister]

**********ATTENTION**********

This thread is already starting to stray from its intended topic of forming a coalition of sUAS owners and pilots (akin to the AOPA) to combat the outlandish regulation coming, as well as future developments along those lines.

This is something that is needed and has been needed for quite some time. The AMA is obviously not a good choice for most recreational pilots as the vast majority are into the videography aspect of UAS ownership and small commercial pilots don’t do business at an AMA flying field.

Please keep the topic on track. Cost of the proposed USS system has nothing to do with forming a coalition. Nor do openly flaunting beyond legal flight limits for your aircraft.

Keep your post on topic or it will be deleted in its entirety. We will not take time to edit

 

[Dougcjohn]

Hi Guys

I know the FAA only applies Stateside, and that the CAA is responsible for the control of airspace in the UK, but Brits wake up, what happens in the US will influence manufacturers and authorities worldwide, Big Brother needs to watch you, otherwise BB has no point, regulators have to regulate, that's their raison d'être, it will come.....( new year rant over )

However Happy New Year to all OP's from Waylander

I agree with you... and a membership voice would be highly suggested.
Actually, I think a few efforts in UK were heavy media hitters with negative impact globally... despite not being accurate.

 

[DroningOn]

The last 30 minutes really demonstrates the challenges of organizing an “Advocacy“ group for drone operators. As I alluded to in post #3 above, I would only involve myself in a group that was fully committed to recreational users only. I would never join a group that was advocating ever increasing regulations. This thread has clearly demonstrated That many, if not most, people on this forum are looking for a “regulation advocacy“ group. This is fine of course, I am all for open discussion on such things but deleting content and quelling debate clearly shows that’s not the goal here.
Your site, your rules but please be open and upfront about it. That’s ALL many of us are asking for.

 

[dirkclod]

Your site, your rules but please be open and upfront about it. That’s ALL many of us are asking for.

Correct and the forum is upfront about it it’s in the guidelines
so reread them and if any more question moderation after
this post they will be deleted also. Anyone that don’t understand that message any of the staff and it and your concern will be answered.

 

[DoomMeister]

The last 30 minutes really demonstrates the challenges of organizing an “Advocacy“ group for drone operators. As I alluded to in post #3 above, I would only involve myself in a group that was fully committed to recreational users only. I would never join a group that was advocating ever increasing regulations. This thread has clearly demonstrated That many, if not most, people on this forum are looking for a “regulation advocacy“ group. This is fine of course, I am all for open discussion on such things but deleting content and quelling debate clearly shows that’s not the goal here.
Your site, your rules but please be open and upfront about it. That’s ALL many of us are asking for.

We have had and at this point in time still have fairly reasonable rules in place for recreational and commercial (107 cert) use of UAV’s. That said, due to abuse of those rules and the major corporate deep pocket take over of low altitude airspace coming in the near future. Things are definitely changing as seen by the NPRM. Open debate about the topic is encouraged, but side tracking into other topics will be for another thread. Maybe you should start it up.

This thread will stay on topic and all other posts will be deleted. Stay on topic or be deleted, it is that simple.

 

[DroningOn]

if any more question moderation after
this post they will be deleted also

That is very clear and concise, thank you