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

[Vegasdad]

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.

They had a booth.

 

[KS-6]

(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.

So how do they expect to do enforce this? Especially if one is using a closed loop system that never connects to the internet like mine now does?

For example, I have fully stopped any and all updates to both my M2P and Smart Controller and will keep it that way. I also never power up my smart controller near any wifi signals. Part of the reason for this is that everything is working absolutely perfectly, can't take the chance to have something go south like so many have had with this newest SC update.

The other reason is I strongly believe each update can have some hidden framework that could further limit my tools down the road if I have updated to it.

 

[Endeavor]

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...

Here is the key in all things in our government, lobbyists bribe politicians who then vote for their own best interests. The question is who will be the beneficiary? If Amazon, Walmart or manufactures will profit then that will be the new law.

 

[scoble08]

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

If I'm not mistaken, Apple has joined the "Big boys."

 

[Hawkwind]

I have not commented yet, but plan to put together an informed, concise response and hope many others on this forum will do the same.

So we should per one line per post, which means multiple posts?

I have no issues with broadcasting my information as long as I’m not required to connect to the internet even when it is available or have a service provider to convey this information for VLOS flights.

 

[DJI27]

There's only "ONE" chance that the FAA's proposed Remote ID regulation won't get pushed through in its current form.

Since we as pilots have no ability to vote them in or out of office the FAA can pretty much do as they want.
We ALSO need to post our concerns to our congressmen.

Whatever eventually happens will have to become law through congressional votes so our best chance of getting meaningful laws is to ALSO flood our congressional offices with our concerns.

For anyone willing to take this extra (and probably more meaningful step) here's a link to all congressmen by state:

Members of Congress | Congressional Chronicle | C-SPAN.org

www.c-span.org

 

[mdmd23md]

I don't see the problem with non personal cookie cutter letters.
NOT that i am capable,
but i have seen them with links to the applicable state reps once you select a state that you reside in.

would be nice if DJI could put some time and $$ into it.

too expensive / transponders
general public interfering w flight IF they can view live and "react"
regardless flying VLOS, unlike the big boys, is a pretty great safeguard to start w

(( and thank y'all for writing personal letters ))

 

[Cdcolt]

This paragraph sheds some light on the aircraft and persons targeted in the proposed rule making.

“All UAS operating in the airspace of the United States, with very few exceptions, would be subject to the requirements of this rule. All UAS operators would be required to comply regardless of whether they conduct recreational or commercial operations, except those flying UAS that are not otherwise required to be registered under the FAA's existing rules. All UAS produced for operation in the airspace of the United States would have to comply with the design and production requirements established in this proposal with exceptions for amateur-built UAS, UAS of the United States government, and unmanned aircraft that weigh less than 0.55 pounds”

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

 

[RussOnTheRoad]

TheDroneU seems to be taking a lead position in helping people know what to comment on and how to go about it. A good place to start might be here.
(How to get RID of the FAA’S Proposed Remote ID RULES. - Drone U™)

 

[Thomas B]

TheDroneU seems to be taking a lead position in helping people know what to comment on and how to go about it. A good place to start might be here.
(How to get RID of the FAA’S Proposed Remote ID RULES. - Drone U™)

One great comment in the article is the instruction not to use the initial phrase they have in the guide as this will cause FAA software to count all these as just 1 comment. Be original!

 

[BigAl07]

One great comment in the article is the instruction not to use the initial phrase they have in the guide as this will cause FAA software to count all thes as just 1 comment. Be original!

Exactly why we've all suggested to not use "Canned Replies". They get lumped into one. The FAA learned this a good while back during the Section 333 days....