Our Hobbyist Drone Alternative to Remote ID: VLOS ID

[Airborne_Aircrew]

It really won't matter what comment you make. The FAA will "do as it's told" by the major players in the delivery industry, (we know who they are). That will include free flight over any terrain, people and equipment that isn't a permanent "avoid" or temporary via NOTAMs. The "exclusions" in the proposal will not help any recreational owner and the stupidity of _requiring_ internet access in order to fly is a horrible overreach because if you and I can't connect then, technically they can't either so they can't deliver their stuff. But they'll get around that by slaving their drones to satellites in those regions which will squeeze out the hobbyist on cost alone.

Just fly your drones where you can but do it safely... The administrative overhead on the FAA will be so high tracking down "illegal" flights will cripple them and their budget.

 

[sar104]

It really won't matter what comment you make. The FAA will "do as it's told" by the major players in the delivery industry, (we know who they are). That will include free flight over any terrain, people and equipment that isn't a permanent "avoid" or temporary via NOTAMs. The "exclusions" in the proposal will not help any recreational owner and the stupidity of _requiring_ internet access in order to fly is a horrible overreach because if you and I can't connect then, technically they can't either so they can't deliver their stuff. But they'll get around that by slaving their drones to satellites in those regions which will squeeze out the hobbyist on cost alone.

Just fly your drones where you can but do it safely... The administrative overhead on the FAA will be so high tracking down "illegal" flights will cripple them and their budget.

You misunderstood the requirement - the equipment must be internet-capable and transmit to a USS when a connection is available. When not available, broadcast alone satisfies the SRID requirement. Even your conspiracy theory should have pointed you in the right direction on that issue.

 

[Airborne_Aircrew]

You're young aren't you...

I remember a time when they told we sheep that they are requiring you to wear a seatbelt in you car but they will _never_ make it a primary offense. But about three years later it became a primary offense...

But you trust the government to do the right thing... The stupidest thing you can do is trust people who take jobs that give them power over others not to use that power arbitrarily...

 

[sar104]

You're young aren't you...

I remember a time when they told we sheep that they are requiring you to wear a seatbelt in you car but they will _never_ make it a primary offense. But about three years later it became a primary offense...

But you trust the government to do the right thing... The stupidest thing you can do is trust people who take jobs that give them power over others not to use that power arbitrarily...

Were you replying to me and, if so, did you just give up on discussing the technical issues in favor of an ad hominem attack?

 

[JAW]

It"s been my understanding that Limited Compatibiites will allow for big companies to make deliveries. That means the drones will have to fly at night, over people, and FPV.

That would be in the next iteration of the rules. Under the present proposal, flights beyond VLOS are not permitted.

 

[xspwhite]

When not available, broadcast alone satisfies the SRID requirement.

What is the broadcast? Is that thourgh satolite?

 

[sar104]

What is the broadcast? Is that thourgh satolite?

Seriously - please consider reading the proposal that you keep commenting on:

9. Message Transmission​

​

The FAA is proposing in § 89.310(i)(1) that standard remote identification UAS be capable of transmitting the message elements in proposed § 89.305 through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS. Additionally, the FAA is proposing in § 89.310(i)(2) to require that standard remote identification UAS be capable of broadcasting the message elements in proposed § 89.305 using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and radio frequency spectrum in accordance with 47 CFR part 15 that is compatible with personal wireless devices. The FAA envisions that remote identification broadcast equipment would broadcast using spectrum similar to that used by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. The FAA is not, however, proposing a specific frequency band. Rather, the FAA envisions industry stakeholders would identify the appropriate spectrum to use for this capability and would propose solutions through the means of compliance acceptance process. This requirement would ensure that the public has the capability, using existing commonly available and 47 CFR part 15 compliant devices, such as cellular phones, smart devices, tablet computers, or laptop computers, to receive these broadcast messages.​

 

[Airborne_Aircrew]

Were you replying to me and, if so, did you just give up on discussing the technical issues in favor of an ad hominem attack?

No, there was nothing in my response that could be construed by a normal person as being ad hominem. I merely pointed out that you are giving trust where, when trust has been given in the past, it has proved to be misplaced.

If you trust the government to have your best interests in mind you are simply misled.

The FAA will do what it is paid to do despite your protestations that they might be fair and reasonable across the spectrum of people and entities that may want to fly them in the future.

 

[sar104]

No, there was nothing in my response that could be construed by a normal person as being ad hominem. I merely pointed out that you are giving trust where, when trust has been given in the past, it has proved to be misplaced.

If you trust the government to have your best interests in mind you are simply misled.

The FAA will do what it is paid to do despite your protestations that they might be fair and reasonable across the spectrum of people and entities that may want to fly them in the future.

Your original post was almost entirely incorrect - and I pointed out those errors. In the context of your reply "You're young aren't you..." is an attempt to counter my argument by an unsupported assumption on age. That's an ad hominem argument because it's a snide attempt to discredit my post and ignores the substance of the discussion.

As for the question of whom you do or do not trust- that was not the issue at hand. It's your personal choice of course but, given how badly you misunderstood the proposal, and your non sequitur about seat belts, I don't think your opinion on that is worth much either.

 

[Airborne_Aircrew]

When your business or hobby is decimated by the FAA come back and tell me how my ad hominem attack affected you more than the loss you actually experienced by the government's actions.

You and I are nothing.. Amazon, Fedex, UPS, DHL and anyone else with a lobbyist in DC are about to cripple you and I because they don't want to have to avoid us silly little people having fun...

Now, tell me exactly how I am wrong please.

 

[sar104]

When your business or hobby is decimated by the FAA come back and tell me how my ad hominem attack affected you more than the loss you actually experienced by the government's actions.

Oh there's a surprise - another non sequitur. Why don't you come back when and if your business or hobby is decimated by the FAA, rather than posting unsupported speculation.

You and I are nothing.. Amazon, Fedex, UPS, DHL and anyone else with a lobbyist in DC are about to cripple you and I because they don't want to have to avoid us silly little people having fun...

Do you have any actual facts to support any of this fantasy?

Now, tell me exactly how I am wrong please.

Did you even bother to read post #22?

 

[Airborne_Aircrew]

Instead of reading and fantasizing about how beautifully the proposal is written look at how many times the use of the words "exemption" and such like are used.

Yes, I read #22. You're problem is that you are believing them... Tell me when that has ever gone well in the past... I'm looking back over sixty years of experience... and you are looking back how far?

 

[sar104]

Instead of reading and fantasizing about how beautifully the proposal is written look at how many times the use of the words "exemption" and such like are used.

Ah - so now I know which YouTube video you watched too. So it's bad because it mentions exemptions? Why, exactly, is that bad? If you had read the document you would have noticed those exemptions are defined.

Yes, I read #22. You're problem is that you are believing them... Tell me when that has ever gone well in the past... I'm looking back over sixty years of experience... and you are looking back how far?

Believe them? What's the point of even discussing the proposal if your position is that you don't "believe" even the technical content?

And just stop with the age stuff - you have no idea what you are talking about. So far your experience has apparently told you (a) that seat belt laws prove that the government doesn't have your best interests at heart and (b) that er... everything has always gone badly. Very insightful.

This conversation is entertaining, but so far pointless. Unless you have something pertinent to contribute then I've lost patience to continue it.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

It really won't matter what comment you make. The FAA will "do as it's told" by the major players in the delivery industry, (we know who they are). That will include free flight over any terrain, people and equipment that isn't a permanent "avoid" or temporary via NOTAMs. The "exclusions" in the proposal will not help any recreational owner and the stupidity of _requiring_ internet access in order to fly is a horrible overreach because if you and I can't connect then, technically they can't either so they can't deliver their stuff. But they'll get around that by slaving their drones to satellites in those regions which will squeeze out the hobbyist on cost alone.

Just fly your drones where you can but do it safely... The administrative overhead on the FAA will be so high tracking down "illegal" flights will cripple them and their budget.

I think everyone should have a healthy skepticism about government regulations (given the history of abuse of power) and who they ultimately serve. The bottom line is the corporate "bottom line" and the powers that be are going to fashion the regulations to best serve those corporate interest with the mindset that they ultimately serve the interest of the most people.

We sometimes view corporations as the evil entities but they really are there to serve the needs of people with profit as the primary motivating factor. That profit makes some wealthy while providing services, jobs and opportunity for other individuals.

That said you also hope some goodwill (some allocation of the freedom to use the airspace provided to individuals) would be mixed in as the FAA creates these regulation. Whether there is any goodwill with respect to the hobbyist will be made apparent when the rules are finalized.

The big unanswered questions for those of us that are hobbyist and/or small commercial entities is what are these new regulations going to cost and what freedom will they provided us to continue flying. Those questions haven't been answered. Until those questions are answered the skepticism regarding this rule making process should continue. But even with that skepticism I've submitted comments (concise, to the point, respectfully) and others should do the same.

 

[Airborne_Aircrew]

Ah - so now I know which YouTube video you watched too. So it's bad because it mentions exemptions? Why, exactly, is that bad? If you had read the document you would have noticed those exemptions are defined.


Believe them? What's the point of even discussing the proposal if your position is that you don't "believe" even the technical content?

And just stop with the age stuff - you have no idea what you are talking about. So far your experience has apparently told you (a) that seat belt laws prove that the government doesn't have your best interests at heart and (b) that er... everything has always gone badly. Very insightful.

This conversation is entertaining, but so far pointless. Unless you have something pertinent to contribute then I've lost patience to continue it.

You're right mate... When your hobby or business crashes under the weight of onerous regulation in what 3.5 years, come back and tell me how much you understand the "process"...

PS: I think Heron is a bit of a (deleted by moderator) but he actually is calling this one about right....

 

[Airborne_Aircrew]

I think everyone should have a healthy skepticism about government regulations (given the history of abuse of power) and who they ultimately serve. The bottom line is the corporate "bottom line" and the powers that be are going to fashion the regulations to best serve those corporate interest with the mindset that they ultimately serve the interest of the most people.

We sometimes view corporations as the evil entities but they really are there to serve the needs of people with profit as the primary motivating factor. That profit makes some wealthy while providing services, jobs and opportunity for other individuals.

That said you also hope some goodwill (some allocation of the freedom to use the airspace provided to individuals) would be mixed in as the FAA creates these regulation. Whether there is any goodwill with respect to the hobbyist will be made apparent when the rules are finalized.

The big unanswered questions for those of us that are hobbyist and/or small commercial entities is what are these new regulations going to cost and what freedom will they provided us to continue flying. Those questions haven't been answered. Until those questions are answered the skepticism regarding this rule making process should continue. But even with that skepticism I've submitted comments (concise, to the point, respectfully) and others should do the same.

I'll start by saying that I am a solid capitalist and slightly right of Attila the Hun.

Things tend not to go the "little people's" way. The FAA is "looking for comments"... I've participated in the HIPAA process of "comments" as an IT Manager for a $25M/year non-profit... You'd think that $25M/year organization backed by the experience of an IT Manager with 20+ years experience in the Healthcare industry would be somewhat "important". It isn't, period... It's a tiny spit in a huge ocean.

But there are people here that think that their comment will matter when going up against Amazon/Google/Fedex/UPS and all the other "interested parties"... I like a beer or three but those people are drunk...

 

[sar104]

You're right mate... When your hobby or business crashes under the weight of onerous regulation in what 3.5 years, come back and tell me how much you understand the "process"...

PS: I think Heron is a bit of a turd but he actually is calling this one about right....

No, he isn't. He blatantly misrepresents the contents of the proposal, and adds rampant speculation on top of that. And then you parroted his assertions without any attempt at fact checking. Nice work.

 

[Robbyg]

Instead of reading and fantasizing about how beautifully the proposal is written look at how many times the use of the words "exemption" and such like are used.

Yes, I read #22. You're problem is that you are believing them... Tell me when that has ever gone well in the past... I'm looking back over sixty years of experience... and you are looking back how far?

I agree with you. After my 35+ years of dealing with multiple governments in different countries I have been sent to, I have noticed the pattern is always the same.

A regulation comes out on a sensitive subject and the first instance of the new regulation is always a soft approach that won't rile up to many people. Then they wait a few years and they come back and tighten it up several notches and then a few years later they tighten it the point were it's draconian.

In the 1980's you could open a small business with almost zero paper work. Over the years it has slowly become such a regulation nightmare that it's virtually impossible for someone with a good idea and very little cash to start a company. They now need to find investors just to higher lawyers to get the paper work done to conform to all the regulations. Steve Jobs could have never started Apple in this environment.

I have a friend who just lost everything he owned because he had a brilliant idea and tried to make it work. Now venture capitalist own his idea and have shoved him out of the company.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I agree with you. After my 35+ years of dealing with multiple governments in different countries I have been sent to, I have noticed the pattern is always the same.

A regulation comes out on a sensitive subject and the first instance of the new regulation is always a soft approach that won't rile up to many people. Then they wait a few years and they come back and tighten it up several notches and then a few years later they tighten it the point were it's draconian.

In the 1980's you could open a small business with almost zero paper work. Over the years it has slowly become such a regulation nightmare that it's virtually impossible for someone with a good idea and very little cash to start a company. They now need to find investors just to higher lawyers to get the paper work done to conform to all the regulations. Steve Jobs could have never started Apple in this environment.

I have a friend who just lost everything he owned because he had a brilliant idea and tried to make it work. Now venture capitalist own his idea and have shoved him out of the company.

Another strategy used by government is to make the regulations so convoluted you need an army of lawyers and accountants to break it down into plain English so that the average person can digest it without spending a month reading it and every other document referenced in it.

A lot of the proposal is geared toward commercial users. I think there should be a summary of the proposal made available that only deals with the hobbyist side of things that the hobbyist can focus on and address those issues that are primarily their primary concern.

 

[BlackTR48]

A lot of the proposal is geared toward commercial users.

It might be for now Meaning there's a lot more to do, to turn fun to ( Mod Removed ) for hobbyists