SO..... I had a person to person chat with the FAA at the CES show about the proposed new rule changes

[CactusJackSlade]

Yes, a lot have been covered in other threads... not trying to duplicate, but spoke personally to FAA rep at the CES show. What I got from the conversation was the following:

1) As many suspected, this was not written by the FAA, but rather by the "Big Boys" of future drone delivery services. The FAA apparently had very little to do with the writing of this proposal. (I tried to actually pin the guy down about this and make him actually say it and when pressed he just shrugged his shoulders and smiled).

2) The Big Boys are apparently not concerned too much with the recreational flyer, least of all anyone that will not be buying a new drone (or ANY r/c aircraft) that does not have transponder capabilities.

3) He said, and emphasised, this is the current PROPOSAL and if the public desires changes then the public NEEDS TO COMMENT.

4) This system (hardware wise) WILL NOT be implemented by the FAA, but rather they are "leaving it to the industry to figure out".... meaning the frequencies used, how information will be tracked, how to implement on the aircraft, all of that. (To me this means they are leaving it up to, again, the BIG PLAYERS to decide what is "best" for all).

My two main concerns after my conversation:

1) What about ALL my other aircraft, meaning sail planes, 3D electric stunt planes, ANY previous models with no way to add a transponder.The guy acted as if they had not even thought of that, it was like all they are thinking about is all the new (drones) sold in the FUTURE. I said if a transponder is to be added to EVERY R/C aircraft it better weigh and cost next to nothing... and said "Hey, if you could develop something like that, you'd do well!"

2) Also many, MANY flyers do not fly at a sanctioned AMA field or have any type of wifi, cellular or other worldly connection (Yes, out here in the west there are thousands of square miles that no connection of any kind is possible). I fly extremely remote areas all the time.

The crunch is on, I suggest you make your comments as loud, clear and concise as possible. They really need to be flooded if public comment is going to mean anything!

This is the DOCUMENT
This is where you can COMMENT.

One the plus side: 18 months for industry to get it figured out, 3 years to implement.

After flying r/c for over 40 years.... this is, well, a potential big change to the ENTIRE industry of R/C aircraft.

Cheers
CJS

 

[Skywatcher2001]

I think we should help the pilots here since many of us are new and most have no clue what to say. Legally I do not know if we can tell pilots what to say or how to type a response. Most will (probably) not comment simply because they do not know what to say or how to respond . . . it can't be cookie cutter but points to cover so its in the individual's own words.

 

[brettbrandon]

One thing to keep in mind is that the FAA dosen't create any law. They submit proposals (created by the lobbyists) to our law makers and then they make the laws.
Everyone needs to get in the ear of their Senators and Represenatives being as they will be the ones making the final decisions.
The big boys already have their people chewing their ears off, we need to let them know we are here...

 

[jzilla80]

Thx for the post! Its actually quite reassuring that the FAA had little to do w/ this set of proposals.

Im not super adept w/ the European set of Remote ID standards but I believe they have similiar rules for the Commercial side of the Industry, however, they're quite reasonable on the hobbyists, IMO.

The FAA proposals treat hobbyists the same as the Commercial AC, but the EU, on the hobby/prosumer side, they only require BROADCAST ID (as opposed to FAA, Netwrok BS), PLUS the parts to make existing AC complient will be allowed to be purchased and added to your own AC (vs the FAA, making the manufacturers of even the smallest part require certification) so the EU standard makes all those camera drones able to be complient via a firmware update, I think (DJI's for sure), and the hobbyists/diy kit/fpv quad crowd able to upgrade thier own AC with parts. Which might still be crappy but we all knew something would have to change. The EU seems to have not forgotten about the little guys, but is still allowing the big guys to move forward with their big plans.

So, I'd suggest, in your Comments to the FAA, a quick and easy recommendation for the FAA would be to follow. at least in part, the EU Remote ID!

I know there are alot of videos about Remote Id out there by now and I only had the patience to watch about 10 but I found this one by Mad RC to be good and it directly compares the two; EU and FAA, which I found helpful. But it is 30 min, ehh.

GET YOUR COMMENTS IN & SAVE YOUR FRUSTRATION, DONT GIVE THEM A REASON TO CHUCK YOUR COMMENT OUT! ALSO, GET ON THE PHONE & EMAIL WITH ALL THE US POLITICAL REPS YOU CAN THINK OF. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE VOTING THIS STUFF INTO LAW!!!

 

[Blume TMS]

One thing to keep in mind is that the FAA dosen't create any law. They submit proposals (created by the lobbyists) to our law makers and then they make the laws.
Everyone needs to get in the ear of their Senators and Represenatives being as they will be the ones making the final decisions.
The big boys already have their people chewing their ears off, we need to let them know we are here...

Actually that is not always true... there are many federal agencies that will implement a new policy and such and it will in the end become 'law' if no one has taken them to task about it (court) The BATFE has done this many times.... and still tries to do it. (We here in the U.S.A. even have specific words in our constitution that says they can't and they sill do it.)

 

[sar104]

One thing to keep in mind is that the FAA dosen't create any law. They submit proposals (created by the lobbyists) to our law makers and then they make the laws.
Everyone needs to get in the ear of their Senators and Represenatives being as they will be the ones making the final decisions.
The big boys already have their people chewing their ears off, we need to let them know we are here...

They do, however, create regulations, which carry the force of law as delegated to them by Congress. So the distinction is moot.

 

[Brevanskc]

If what the OP wrote about is true and it very well could be, why wouldn't all drones be included in the proposal not just the ones that weigh more than 250 grams?

 

[sar104]

Yes, a lot have been covered in other threads... not trying to duplicate, but spoke personally to FAA rep at the CES show. What I got from the conversation was the following:

1) As many suspected, this was not written by the FAA, but rather by the "Big Boys" of future drone delivery services. The FAA apparently had very little to do with the writing of this proposal. (I tried to actually pin the guy down about this and make him actually say it and when pressed he just shrugged his shoulders and smiled).

2) The Big Boys are apparently not concerned too much with the recreational flyer, least of all anyone that will not be buying a new drone (or ANY r/c aircraft) that does not have transponder capabilities.

3) He said, and emphasised, this is the current PROPOSAL and if the public desires changes then the public NEEDS TO COMMENT.

4) This system (hardware wise) WILL NOT be implemented by the FAA, but rather they are "leaving it to the industry to figure out".... meaning the frequencies used, how information will be tracked, how to implement on the aircraft, all of that. (To me this means they are leaving it up to, again, the BIG PLAYERS to decide what is "best" for all).

My two main concerns after my conversation:

1) What about ALL my other aircraft, meaning sail planes, 3D electric stunt planes, ANY previous models with no way to add a transponder.The guy acted as if they had not even thought of that, it was like all they are thinking about is all the new (drones) sold in the FUTURE. I said if a transponder is to be added to EVERY R/C aircraft it better weigh and cost next to nothing... and said "Hey, if you could develop something like that, you'd do well!"

2) Also many, MANY flyers do not fly at a sanctioned AMA field or have any type of wifi, cellular or other worldly connection (Yes, out here in the west there are thousands of square miles that no connection of any kind is possible). I fly extremely remote areas all the time.

The crunch is on, I suggest you make your comments as loud, clear and concise as possible. They really need to be flooded if public comment is going to mean anything!

This is the DOCUMENT
This is where you can COMMENT.

One the plus side: 18 months for industry to get it figured out, 3 years to implement.

After flying r/c for over 40 years.... this is, well, a potential big change to the ENTIRE industry of R/C aircraft.

Cheers
CJS

His comments are interesting because, in the NPRM, it is clear that the FAA considered and rejected a number of the committee proposals. I've found before that even information directly from random FAA reps can be wildly inaccurate.

 

[WAXMAN]

I think we should help the pilots here since many of us are new and most have no clue what to say. Legally I do not know if we can tell pilots what to say or how to type a response. Most will (probably) not comment simply because they do not know what to say or how to respond . . . it can't be cookie cutter but points to cover so its in the individual's own words.

Most will (probably) not comment simply because they do not know what to say or how to respond . You hit the nail right on the head.At 76yrs old, I need all the help I can get. I want to get involved but don't know what to say. Please help us older seniors out. I don't want the "BIG BOYS" to control our hobby. Thanks for any comments or suggestions. Chuck

 

[BigAl07]

His comments are interesting because, in the NPRM, it is clear that the FAA considered and rejected a number of the committee proposals. I've found before that even information directly from random FAA reps can be wildly inaccurate.

Agreed!

@CactusJackSlade what was this FAA reps name? I'd love to reach out to him and have a chat.

 

[Gindra]

This is the best info on the topic I've seen yet. Gives actionable advice.

Drone Training, Industry News, & Free Resources | UAV Coach

Join a community of 100,000+ drone pilots. We offer drone training courses, free industry guides, and breaking drone news updates.

uavcoach.com

 

[Thomas B]

Most will (probably) not comment simply because they do not know what to say or how to respond . You hit the nail right on the head.At 76yrs old, I need all the help I can get. I want to get involved but don't know what to say. Please help us older seniors out. I don't want the "BIG BOYS" to control our hobby. Thanks for any comments or suggestions. Chuck

Lot’s of suggestion on the forum... search it. Perhaps most important recommend commenting against the 400’ hemisphere around you, that no contact with monitoring device used required in remote locations w/o cell or WiFi coverage, and that DJI existing technology should be fine to use so older drones are flyable.
Do it here and ASAP:

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

 

[SqFt]

The term "FAA Rep" is extremely broad. Unless the OP talked to an FAA employee that is directly involved in the area of "UAS" then he probably doesnt know any more about drone regulations than anyone else, unless he keeps up with the news and technology for a personal interest (hobby). The FAA is an enormous entity and covers a huge amount of ground in all of aviation. Most everyone is highly specialized in their particular area. Its like asking someone random at Ford about specifics of the tailgate on the new F-150.

 

[DroningOn]

The term "FAA Rep" is extremely broad. Unless the OP talked to an FAA employee that is directly involved in the area of "UAS" then he probably doesnt know any more about drone regulations than anyone else, unless he keeps up with the news and technology for a personal interest (hobby). The FAA is an enormous entity and covers a huge amount of ground in all of aviation. Most everyone is highly specialized in their particular area. Its like asking someone random at Ford about specifics of the tailgate on the new F-150.

If the “Rep“ was attending the CES last week, chances are pretty high that he was there because of drones. Even the secretary of transportation was there hanging out in the drone section of the show and publicly commented on these new regulations.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I go back to an earlier suggestion.

Keep it simple.

A thread.

ONE LINE PER POST with the single most important issue in the NPRM.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

Agreed!

@CactusJackSlade what was this FAA reps name? I'd love to reach out to him and have a chat.

I should have got his card.... I may have taken a photo of the booth, I will look and see, if so I will post, if not sorry :-(

 

[CactusJackSlade]

In my letter (which I am taking my time to construct) I plan on making only a couple concerns and keeping it direct and simple. I do not want it to be difficult or too time consuming to get the point across.

My three main points will be:

1) What about ALL my other (older) aircraft? Are they all now obsolete? (Remember, this will be for ALL r/c aircraft not just "drones").

2) Who is going to pay for the burden of all the infrastructure to implement this system?

3) Why is this a blanket rule (all r/c aircraft) when we have gone 45 years without an incident (local slope soaring, flying r/c at the local park etc). Should there not be some reasonable exceptions or areas that are NOT included in this requirement.

As expressed by others, and I agree, I believe the "Big Boys" want to either clear the skies or make it cost ineffective to have the general public fly r/c aircraft so they have clear "delivery corridors". Just my opinion

 

[CactusJackSlade]

His comments are interesting because, in the NPRM, it is clear that the FAA considered and rejected a number of the committee proposals. I've found before that even information directly from random FAA reps can be wildly inaccurate.

I would say you are somewhat correct, the guy admitted that he had not even read the whole document ;-)

 

[sar104]

In my letter (which I am taking my time to construct) I plan on making only a couple concerns and keeping it direct and simple. I do not want it to be difficult or too time consuming to get the point across.

My three main points will be:

1) What about ALL my other (older) aircraft? Are they all now obsolete? (Remember, this will be for ALL r/c aircraft not just "drones").

2) Who is going to pay for the burden of all the infrastructure to implement this system?

3) Why is this a blanket rule (all r/c aircraft) when we have gone 45 years without an incident (local slope soaring, flying r/c at the local park etc). Should there not be some reasonable exceptions or areas that are NOT included in this requirement.

As expressed by others, and I agree, I believe the "Big Boys" want to either clear the skies or make it cost ineffective to have the general public fly r/c aircraft so they have clear "delivery corridors". Just my opinion

You might want to rethink those somewhat, because all three questions are answered in the proposal:

(1) If the aircraft are not retrofitted to meet the requirements then it will fall under the "no remote ID" category and be limited to FAA-designated identification areas.

(2) The FAA and the USS partners.

(3) The proposed system is intended proactively to integrate sUAS into the NAS for future expanded operations and traffic. It's not trying reactively to fix any specific current major problem, other than perhaps address the increasing number of near misses.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

In my letter (which I am taking my time to construct) I plan on making only a couple concerns and keeping it direct and simple. I do not want it to be difficult or too time consuming to get the point across.

My three main points will be:

1) What about ALL my other (older) aircraft? Are they all now obsolete? (Remember, this will be for ALL r/c aircraft not just "drones").

2) Who is going to pay for the burden of all the infrastructure to implement this system?

3) Why is this a blanket rule (all r/c aircraft) when we have gone 45 years without an incident (local slope soaring, flying r/c at the local park etc). Should there not be some reasonable exceptions or areas that are NOT included in this requirement.

As expressed by others, and I agree, I believe the "Big Boys" want to either clear the skies or make it cost ineffective to have the general public fly r/c aircraft so they have clear "delivery corridors". Just my opinion

Rather than asking the question "what about" you might want to offer a suggestion regarding how they can expanding the places you can fly beyond the currently recognized FAA flying fields. Many areas like state or county parks and beaches where there will be very limited commercial package delivery, etc. There is a huge amount of airspace in the country that I can't imagine will see any commercial use and where the chances of a collision with manned aircraft are remote. Why should these areas be off limits for flying model aircraft that don't have the equipment required for remote ID.