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

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Personally, (while admirable in theory) I think to start an organisation for hobbyist drone flyers (cinematic, not FPV) is probably too big a task to be of any use in this particular legislation proposal.
By the time membership was at a level the group could be sustainable, or have any sort of influence politically, it would probably be way past even the end of the 3 year introduction period !!

Best bet would be to see how groups with interests in such activities as most of this forum would be, could fit in with a group like FPVFC (First Person View Freedom Coalition), and consider joining that group.

FPVFC About Us

I found a good overview video from Joshua Bardwell (FPV guru) talking to the president and vice president of FPVFC, a group that has somewhat more on its plate than our type of drone hobbyist use here.
(They build most of their own aircraft, and this pretty much makes their involvement in the new scheme illegal immediately.)

While the group is obviously keen to get their points across, they are hobbled a great deal in real front line representation with FAA on the proposed changes.
This would likely be the issue with a new hobbyist drone organisation too, for a long time establishing.

FPVFC have a FAA remote ID NPRM FAQ page, and overview page on the FAA proposal, which supports all the other info on the now closed thread (of some 670 posts) that suggests cinematic drone hobbyists won't be too put out by this, apart from the big brother factors and a reasonably small annual fee, at least to start with.

FPVFC FAQ on FAA remote ID NPRM

FPVFC guide for remote ID NPRM

It may be worth considering FPVFC membership ?
After all, many of us fly more or less FPV using our viewing devices, at least most of the time when videoing and photographing while flying.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Personally, (while admirable in theory) I think to start an organisation for hobbyist drone flyers (cinematic, not FPV) is probably too big a task to be of any use in this particular legislation proposal.
By the time membership was at a level the group could be sustainable, or have any sort of influence politically, it would probably be way past even the end of the 3 year introduction period !!

Best bet would be to see how groups with interests in such activities as most of this forum would be, could fit in with a group like FPVFC (First Person View Freedom Coalition), and consider joining that group.

FPVFC About Us

I found a good overview video from Joshua Bardwell (FPV guru) talking to the president and vice president of FPVFC, a group that has somewhat more on its plate than our type of drone hobbyist use here.
(They build most of their own aircraft, and this pretty much makes their involvement in the new scheme illegal immediately.)

While the group is obviously keen to get their points across, they are hobbled a great deal in real front line representation with FAA on the proposed changes.
This would likely be the issue with a new hobbyist drone organisation too, for a long time establishing.

FPVFC have a FAA remote ID NPRM FAQ page, and overview page on the FAA proposal, which supports all the other info on the now closed thread (of some 670 posts) that suggests cinematic drone hobbyists won't be too put out by this, apart from the big brother factors and a reasonably small annual fee, at least to start with.

FPVFC FAQ on FAA remote ID NPRM

FPVFC guide for remote ID NPRM

It may be worth considering FPVFC membership ?
After all, many of us fly more or less FPV using our viewing devices, at least most of the time when videoing and photographing while flying.

For this NPRM, You’re correct and had no intention something would organize to the level needed to present a unified sUAV voice. My post was to indicate we as a body need to have a representative voice and presence.

At the minimum, I would like to see something collectively form, and possibly by year 3 have presence that is showing signs of gaining momentum and membership. Although not a strong unified position, it would display we’re collectively organizing and that might likely give notice to the powers.

Although, as witnessed over the last 3-4 years this diverse community doesn’t appear capable to even attempt or entertain a unified organization. Quite the contrary, I’ve heard more opposition, suggestion to ignorantly dismiss regulations, and disbelief imposing regulations would actually develope... and lastly, it doesn’t effect “me” attitudes.

As initially indicated, I’ve always been amazed for the huge numbers that nothing has been able to organize in previous years.

As with other regulations and controls, this will most likely play out in some degree. I am more hopeful that the UAV industry will speak up. I find it hard to fathom all the dependent business entities would accept the greater majority or their whole business die with a new regulation that clearly doesn’t even address the original intent of the proposal.

The Hobbyist is a major variable, but the commercial side with multiple businesses will experience a large economic hit. Many small shops have substantial investments that is essentially lost and to continue purchase much higher cost replacements. I expect many, such as myself would not.

So no expectations... just hoped it might stimulate a positive direction and sadly it appears only a small percentage sees the value in being organized.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

As initially indicated, I’ve always been amazed for the huge numbers that nothing has been able to organize in previous years.

You're right in that regard, just the DJI consumer / small commercial online presence of forums, like this site, the official DJI forum(s) etc, Facebook groups, there are a huge number of people partaking in this as a hobby or small biz.

Maybe that's part of the problem, modern social media makes it seem like we are a big 'group', we see all the potential issues of legislation, discuss and put forward ways it could affect our chosen interest.
But we aren't organised and at all able to focus that to make a difference.

Maybe the FPVFC is a way to go, they have to focus just that little bit further than we who use drones for cinematic or small business purposes, so if they get some way towards their FPV goals, then at least US based regular drone owners would all benefit too.
US$40 a year, not a big hit, looking through their site they have visions and goals, even the insurance for theft and liability are on the list (not sure how long they've been established, not long I think).

 

[deleted member 877]

Can someone please explain how the new rules coming out of this proposal are going to adversely affect commercial drone operators? Won't they still be able to do Real Estate photography? Won't they still be out there inspecting power-lines and doing all of the other stuff from which they are currently making a living using their drones?

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Can someone please explain how the new rules coming out of this proposal are going to adversely affect commercial drone operators?

They'll have to comply with the remote ID same as hobbyists.
After whatever grace period is put in place, any of their equipment not complying would have to be upgraded.

Hobbyist aren't terribly affected by this, PROVIDED the goal posts aren't gradually moved further away x years after it all becomes fact.

 

[deleted member 877]

They'll have to comply with the remote ID same as hobbyists.
After whatever grace period is put in place, any of their equipment not complying would have to be upgraded.

Hobbyist aren't terribly affected by this, PROVIDED the goal posts aren't gradually moved further away x years after it all becomes fact.

But is that going to be a really big deal? The costs may not be significant because of the likelihood that the existing ID Broadcasting technology in most recent model DJI drones will be the standard decided upon. In any case I figure that commercial operators would be turning over their gear every three years or so as it is written down for tax minimisation purposes.

If the hobbyists aren't likely to be terribly affected then why is there such a massive hue and cry going on not only here but everywhere else like YouTube, Facebook etc?

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

If the hobbyists aren't likely to be terribly affected then why is there such a massive hue and cry going on not only here but everywhere else like YouTube, Facebook etc?

Probably that this is in proposal stage, and knowing most GOVCOs, they either tend to stuff things up / over regulate / red tape, or start something in a way not to create too much furore, then as they want more control / cost recovery / stealth drone tax, gradually hike the prices to the end user.

Primarily I see the main reason for this ID thing is getting piloted hobbyist / commercial users into a system to work with big $ autonomous commercial flights, the piloted UAV/S are going to get dragged along into the requirements of the higher needs of the autonomous system to work with manned flights.
Couple this with overall dramatically increased numbers of piloted consumer / light commercial drones, and (especially) autonomous UAVs in the air in the coming years, you can see why this is probably needed in the eyes of the FAA (and likely other airspace authorities worldwide).
Autonomous industry is driving this, make no mistake.
Many autonomous drone use now in some places, trials here in Australia even.

But, I feel the move to true autonomous commercial use will be a long time coming in, lots of things to overcome, mostly to do with the human factor in drone deliveries.
The autonomous delivery won't be the issue in say the next 3 - 5 years, it'll be the human factors in between and at the end that cause a lot of headaches.

 

[Dougcjohn]

You're right in that regard, just the DJI consumer / small commercial online presence of forums, like this site, the official DJI forum(s) etc, Facebook groups, there are a huge number of people partaking in this as a hobby or small biz.

Maybe that's part of the problem, modern social media makes it seem like we are a big 'group', we see all the potential issues of legislation, discuss and put forward ways it could affect our chosen interest.
But we aren't organised and at all able to focus that to make a difference.

Maybe the FPVFC is a way to go, they have to focus just that little bit further than we who use drones for cinematic or small business purposes, so if they get some way towards their FPV goals, then at least US based regular drone owners would all benefit too.
US$40 a year, not a big hit, looking through their site they have visions and goals, even the insurance for theft and liability are on the list (not sure how long they've been established, not long I think).

Actually we are a big number... just in the USA alone, assuming non-USA total is about equal or greater.

In USA alone..

UAS by the Numbers

www.faa.gov

1,509,617 Drones registered
420,340 commercial drones registered
1,085,392 Recerational drones (Owner 1 Reg)
160,748 Remote Pilots Certified

Increase drones understanding Recerational is 1 Registration and possibly multiple drones.

Globally, easily double that number.

That said... no organized membership.

 

[Dougcjohn]

But is that going to be a really big deal? The costs may not be significant because of the likelihood that the existing ID Broadcasting technology in most recent model DJI drones will be the standard decided upon. In any case I figure that commercial operators would be turning over their gear every three years or so as it is written down for tax minimisation purposes.

If the hobbyists aren't likely to be terribly affected then why is there such a massive hue and cry going on not only here but everywhere else like YouTube, Facebook etc?

Actually that is a big deal to small business shops. Some platforms exceed $20-25k, other platforms $8-12k and carry a payload exceeding $12-20k. Several shops have multiple units for backup. A small shop can easily have over $90k in business with all equipment: UAV, Batteries, Cameras, Lenses, Sensors, and specific hardware for a specific platform.

Changing every 3 yrs is not a small shops procedure. Myself, goal is to own platform without associated debt and maintain pricey equipment. Tax deduction doesn't approach the cost of platform, it's useful when needing to purchase but not a reason to purchase. Similarly, Farmers, Construction, Photgraphers, etc don't replace pricey equipment very often if still functional.

If this goes through as current written, it will impact many small commercial shops. This level of control is much higher than manned crafts.

The "current" system on DJI is not functional with the current proposal. The proposal does not focus on the original intent of Remote ID: increased safety for air traffic and Homeland Security Threat.

The current proposal was designed and written for the large corporations and large UAV traveling BVLOS. How it impacts small business or Recreational isn't really a concern... actually they would like to limit which is clearly indicated with the FAA zones and Limited 400' sphere.

If intent was as orinally declared, the addition of a transponder and a little electronic/ FW would meet the design and provide a path for existing platforms. Most commercial operatives have no objections to the original intent... but this new proposal is terrible.

Cost of new hardware will most likely be much greater than current products. To add is not just adding the hardware, it's meeting all the specifications and certifications... that adds substantial costs.

Purchasing a replacement for a Mavic 2 isn't a major expense... and most consumers would consider it about time. Although if that replacement was a healthy margin above the M2P and marked as Limited Remote ID... is it worth the cost to fly in a 400' sphere? To obtain Standard Remote ID platform may be more than a hobbyist cares to spend.

Predictions, Costs, etc are unknown and won't be fully known until companies can react. Although with intent of proposal to limit drones in open airspace, it won't be similar to current costs.

Personally as expressed elsewhere, I would be surprised if companies providing drones and all the associated companies: training sites, software vendors, accessories, insurance, etc. would sit back and watch a good percentage of their business drop off. I'm hopeful they might provide more resistance than the Users.

 

[IndyRick]

I agree that a national organization would be helpful in dealing with the kinds of legislation/regulation issues we face now, and will face in the future. Perhaps it's not surprising that no organization currently seems to exist that directly the needs of recreational and commercial sUAS (i.e. drone) pilots. After all, organizations like the NRA (National Rifle Association), AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics), AMA (American Medical Association), ARRL (American Radio Relay League), etc., likely all originated to help individuals learn about their hobby or profession through the use of old media (magazines & newsletters). I expect that any legislative lobbying efforts can along later. On the other hand, drone pilots learn through new media online. Since we don't have the need to pay someone to produce educational materials, that someone does not exist that needs to otherwise increase their membership (to increase their revenues) by offering ancillary services like regulatory oversight. As individual drone pilots, we don't need anything beyond our equipment in order to pursue our hobby/profession. BTW: The same applies to my photography as I am not a member of a national photographers association (does one exist?).

However, we do not necessarily need a national organization to have an impact on FAA regulations. As a Ham Radio operator (Advanced Class license – Lifetime ARRL member), I have fair experience in watching the actions of a federal regulation bureaucracy (FCC). These bureaucracies do not make law. They were created by congress to regulate specific, usually technical, areas that congress has neither the time nor expertise address. Congress can overrule any regulation created by the FAA, but usually doesn't. That doesn't mean that they won't. I have often seen petitions, brought by individuals, acted upon positively by the FCC, and I've seen the weight of comments to FCC NPRMs have an effect on the regulations proposed.

I believe our action, in this circumstance, would be to use the forums from which we get our information to spur individuals to write comments to the FAA, and their members of Congress. Our forums, and YouTube channels, could make available suggested text for us to use in formulating our own comments to send individually. We don't have to agree with what someone else thinks, but if enough individuals post their NPRM comments then others can choose the arguments that they want to emphasize to the FAA. Their NPRM document is quite large, and they are looking to make many regulations from it. It's probably more effective if you comment on one aspect, rather than taking on the whole document at once. There's nothing preventing you from sending several specific comments, both to the FAA and you members of Congress. Even if we had a lawyer/lobbyist in Washington right now, we would likely be advised to send our own personal comments. As soon as I am finished with the draft of my comments, I'll start a discussion, or post them to a discussion, for everyone to critique.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

**********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

I think the first step in forming a coalition is having a specific common goal. It can't be nebulas like "stop the FAA". Maybe have each person write ONE line that is their top priority with respect to changes in the proposal.

I'll start with expand the 400' limit to something closer the realistic distance you can see and judge the orientation of a drone...2500'.

 

[DoomMeister]

2) Commercial BVLOS missions must be flown at 450’ AGL to 650’ AGL until within VLOS of the operator and have ADS-B in/out to be seen by manned aircraft and ATC. Delivery points must be away from residential neighborhoods at approved sites similar to AMA field status and must appear on sectional charts with approved flight paths similar to restricted military training routes.

Next person please add to this.

 

[Dougcjohn]

Improve LAANC requirements to outline a more specific flight zone and incorporate requested zone into the upload broadcast. When requesting a LAANC approval, once approved, push that GPS / Positional zone up to the SSA Servers and make available to systems verifying the sUAV location. Essentially removing the need of the "Internet Transmitting" Drone, and providing the the same upstream data. The 2nd component "Per craft", add a firmware section that requires the LAANC authorization number and Craft ID to authorize flight... performed On-Site or uploaded prior to flight for planned missions on or off the cellular / internet grid.
Omitted... include the LAANC positional data with LAANC data to drone's FW... and if needed make it the GeoFence for the mission.

 

[franklinskite]

DJI – We Strongly Support Drone Remote ID. But Not Like This

DJI – We Strongly Support Drone Remote ID. But Not Like This

Brendan Shulman DJI wants governments to require Remote ID for drones, but the FAA has proposed a complex, expensive, and intrusive system that would make it harder to use drones in America, and th…

www.suasnews.com