The FAA comes-clean on how RID will work (it's bad news) - FAA video review/critique

[Dmcvey]

Extended BVLOS will be under Part 108 when it rolls out

 

[BroomRider]

I think that it would be more helpful to all concerned if ALL (manned) aircraft transmitted an ADS-B signal.

If 1 of the major concerns is the potential of collision or flight path or flight boundary intrusion by an UAV, then those UAV pilots (except with either nefarious intent or pure stupidity) would do what they needed to use that ADS-B signal to avoid any potential conflict of airspace.

As I recall, Xjet was working on developing a handheld portable ADS-B detector, & I look forward to seeing 1 on the market, especially 1 with some kind of locator screen as Xjet's prototype unit had.

Perhaps, the ability to receive an ADS-B signal in the UAV & enabled via a software upgrade, & the data included in the transmission back to the controller?

Another thought I also have, is that, for those in the USA at least, does anyone recall CB (Citizens Band)
radios?

At 1 point in history, a CB radio operator had to have & use FCC call signs, an FCC-issued license, & much like the Part 107 commercial UAV license, take a test & pay a fee which had to be renewed every so often.

That was similarly true for those with marine VHF radios – the FCC would issue a license, with a call sign, & it had a cost & had to be renewed every so often.

I never owned a CB radio, but in my marine business, I did have & use a VHF radio, & that license requirement was rescinded prior to my FCC marine VHF radio license expiration.

I contacted the FCC & asked if I could get a refund for the time I had left on it, & they said, NO, & were probably laughing as they wrote their reply.

Remembering that, I've since declined to get any other FCC-required licenses for any of my other radios.

Anyway, both the CB radio & marine VHF radio license requirements were dropped after some years, as both types of radios were sold & used in such numbers by those without getting their required licenses, that there was no way the FCC could keep track of, nor prosecute any violators, & they gave up.

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar relaxation from the FAA might occur with UAVs at some future point, & for very much the same reasons.

Aside from egregious, blatantly intentional violations, unless the numbers of agents &/ officers were hugely increased, I really don't think that there's much chance of having any encounter leading to prosecution by any FAA/LEOs to errant technical UAV violators.

Realistically, lawbreakers aren't going to be paying attention to any of them anyway, & I think there's likely an attitude of “well, break 1 law, why not break the rest?”

I also think that there'll surely be some evolution in progress with the FAA regs re: UAVs, such as, for instance, currently, if a Pt.107 commercial pilot were to fly the lightest, tiniest, UAV made, & make a dime from doing it, they'd still need to go through the entire licensing & registration process.

The <250 gm class is deemed to present a minimal threat to anyone or anything, due to its light mass, hence that distinction… & nothing changes in that regard, if a Pt.107 pilot flies that same <250 gm class drone.

The discouragement to Pt.107 pilots flying that <250 gm class drone, I think, will have the unintended(?) consequence of pushing the Pt.107 pilots into flying larger, more expensive, & YES, potentially more dangerous UAVs.

Plus, a Pt.107 pilot is also having to treat, register & tag each 1 of their UAVs, regardless of their mass, or even use.

The more restrictive & Draconian that laws & regs become, the more will just decide to not comply, particularly if there's no logic, reason, or sense behind them.

I'm expecting a bunch of opprobrium, particularly from those Pt.107 pilots, likely based on the concept of “misery loves company” – “WE had to suffer through all that, so we're going to insist that all others do, too.”

For me, & what I do with & use my <250 gm UAV for, I see the Pt.107 as only a trap, a blatant control & money-grab by the FAA.

Since I purchased my UAV prior to any potential future increasingly Draconian restrictions, my attitude will be, those are ex post facto.

 

[truckdude]

Seems the FAA (subtle) intent is to "discourage hobby drone flying". Encourage Karensism. etc.
Under 250g drones will eventually require RID.

Watch the video.

Hard video to watch, the dude keeps interrupting it and talking.

 

[lewisrassee]

Its like a Stock with bad news, it goes down becasue of worry and doomsday thoughts but than doubles it price a few days latter as the Main objective gets closer.

Speed Test​

 

[beroe]

Good video but sombre. Its weird. I never understood why drones are potentially more "malicious" than anything else. Cars are dangerous and can be used "nefariously". Lets not discuss guns. A cell phone or camera can be used to "infringe" on anyone's privacy. Is anyone regulating telephoto lenses?

Joke aside, I wonder if FAA is inspiring from regulations in other countries. I tried to get a permit to fly a drone in Spain last summer. Forget it. Supposedly is easy and free even if you are not in the EU, but it didnt work. Unimaginable red tape, including the need to send a hard copy document by mail (!) to the Spanish agency for signature, because the web based authentication does not work outside EU. Anyone successful on that side of the ocean? Apparently in Iceland they are still very permissive, lets see until when. Trying to fly a drone in an African country? Tried to do it in Namibia a few years ago. You even have to tell them in advance where, when and why you want to fly, a detailed calendar and location. And they never respond to requests for application forms or instructions. There they are probably afraid of poachers looking for game animals, probably has nothing to do with safety. So yes, its rough out there and it may become rough here too ?...

This is just my novice take and from my very limited experience, apologies if out of line.

 

[mavic3usa]

Good video but sombre. Its weird. I never understood why drones are potentially more "malicious" than anything else. Cars are dangerous and can be used "nefariously". Lets not discuss guns. A cell phone or camera can be used to "infringe" on anyone's privacy. Is anyone regulating telephoto lenses?

Joke aside, I wonder if FAA is inspiring from regulations in other countries. I tried to get a permit to fly a drone in Spain last summer. Forget it. Supposedly is easy and free even if you are not in the EU, but it didnt work. Unimaginable red tape, including the need to send a hard copy document by mail (!) to the Spanish agency for signature, because the web based authentication does not work outside EU. Anyone successful on that side of the ocean? Apparently in Iceland they are still very permissive, lets see until when. Trying to fly a drone in an African country? Tried to do it in Namibia a few years ago. You even have to tell them in advance where, when and why you want to fly, a detailed calendar and location. And they never respond to requests for application forms or instructions. There they are probably afraid of poachers looking for game animals, probably has nothing to do with safety. So yes, its rough out there and it may become rough here too ?...

This is just my novice take and from my very limited experience, apologies if out of line.

The world simply isn't ready for consumer drones. There was a time when the world was not quite ready for mobile phones either. It took some time. I recall a time where the only way to make a mobile phone call in South Korea was using a local mobile phone on the local cellular network which I didn't have. So I took out my Iridium phone. Mistake.

I like to compare to mobile phones because it's a trend that we would like to emulate. It went for being suspicious that you had one not for business purposes to where we are today which is everyone has one or two and you can use it anywhere in the world without asking permission, without registration, your mobile phone activity is complete private (more or less), and there is nothing prohibited about where it is used (for the most part). But I wasn't always that way.

Unless and until there are more "ordinary" people adopting consumer drones *and* actually using them for something productive, the acceptability rate will be slow and painful. Eventually the entire world came to my rescue as we adopted mobile phone technology that everybody could use and enjoy without restrictions; maybe money with, entertain, and enrich your life in just about every way imaginable. We aren't even close within the drone community as we have fellow flyers who have no desire to expand or enhance the hobby or make it more widely available to everyone let alone the masses backing us up. The challenges and roadblocks we face are significant unless and until we have adequate support from outside the community; that's just the way it is in the 21st century. I don't imagine anything will change significantly in my lifetime with regards to drones. The Mavic 8 and 9 will just be a super version of the Mavic 3 but nothing much more than that.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I think that it would be more helpful to all concerned if ALL (manned) aircraft transmitted an ADS-B signal.

If 1 of the major concerns is the potential of collision or flight path or flight boundary intrusion by an UAV, then those UAV pilots (except with either nefarious intent or pure stupidity) would do what they needed to use that ADS-B signal to avoid any potential conflict of airspace.

As I recall, Xjet was working on developing a handheld portable ADS-B detector, & I look forward to seeing 1 on the market, especially 1 with some kind of locator screen as Xjet's prototype unit had.

Perhaps, the ability to receive an ADS-B signal in the UAV & enabled via a software upgrade, & the data included in the transmission back to the controller?

Another thought I also have, is that, for those in the USA at least, does anyone recall CB (Citizens Band)
radios?

At 1 point in history, a CB radio operator had to have & use FCC call signs, an FCC-issued license, & much like the Part 107 commercial UAV license, take a test & pay a fee which had to be renewed every so often.

That was similarly true for those with marine VHF radios – the FCC would issue a license, with a call sign, & it had a cost & had to be renewed every so often.

I never owned a CB radio, but in my marine business, I did have & use a VHF radio, & that license requirement was rescinded prior to my FCC marine VHF radio license expiration.

I contacted the FCC & asked if I could get a refund for the time I had left on it, & they said, NO, & were probably laughing as they wrote their reply.

Remembering that, I've since declined to get any other FCC-required licenses for any of my other radios.

Anyway, both the CB radio & marine VHF radio license requirements were dropped after some years, as both types of radios were sold & used in such numbers by those without getting their required licenses, that there was no way the FCC could keep track of, nor prosecute any violators, & they gave up.

I wouldn't be surprised if a similar relaxation from the FAA might occur with UAVs at some future point, & for very much the same reasons.

Aside from egregious, blatantly intentional violations, unless the numbers of agents &/ officers were hugely increased, I really don't think that there's much chance of having any encounter leading to prosecution by any FAA/LEOs to errant technical UAV violators.

Realistically, lawbreakers aren't going to be paying attention to any of them anyway, & I think there's likely an attitude of “well, break 1 law, why not break the rest?”

I also think that there'll surely be some evolution in progress with the FAA regs re: UAVs, such as, for instance, currently, if a Pt.107 commercial pilot were to fly the lightest, tiniest, UAV made, & make a dime from doing it, they'd still need to go through the entire licensing & registration process.

The <250 gm class is deemed to present a minimal threat to anyone or anything, due to its light mass, hence that distinction… & nothing changes in that regard, if a Pt.107 pilot flies that same <250 gm class drone.

The discouragement to Pt.107 pilots flying that <250 gm class drone, I think, will have the unintended(?) consequence of pushing the Pt.107 pilots into flying larger, more expensive, & YES, potentially more dangerous UAVs.

Plus, a Pt.107 pilot is also having to treat, register & tag each 1 of their UAVs, regardless of their mass, or even use.

The more restrictive & Draconian that laws & regs become, the more will just decide to not comply, particularly if there's no logic, reason, or sense behind them.

I'm expecting a bunch of opprobrium, particularly from those Pt.107 pilots, likely based on the concept of “misery loves company” – “WE had to suffer through all that, so we're going to insist that all others do, too.”

For me, & what I do with & use my <250 gm UAV for, I see the Pt.107 as only a trap, a blatant control & money-grab by the FAA.

Since I purchased my UAV prior to any potential future increasingly Draconian restrictions, my attitude will be, those are ex post facto.

Very well made point, but manned aircraft min. ceiling (in the UK) is 500 feet. MAX. altitude for a drone is 400 feet. That means a constant buffer zone of 100 feet in free airspace away from airfields, helipads etc. even with ADS-B, unless it's an emergency or a rapid response air ambulance landing or takeoff, manned vehicles should never be low enough to be threatened by sub-400' UAV's.
I think that there are just as many yeehaw's flying light aircraft nap-of-the-earth as there are idiots deciding they can hoik a drone up to 1640' with impunity. Simple solution. Hardware limit drones to 400' AGL and then do the same for private light aircraft from the other direction with a limiter that stops flight below 500' unless for emergency or take off/landing. That takes the Idiot Factor out of the equation straight away. With that solved.... what exactly is the reason for RID at all?.... apart from surveillance.

 

[Zbip57]

Hardware limit drones to 400' AGL...

Nice thought, but, unless drones are fitted with radar altimeters (or only ever flown in flat landscapes), there's no hardware currently on drones able to measure their actual Above Ground Level operating height, at least not up to 400'.

Setting a hardware limit of 400' Above Takeoff Location makes no sense when flying out over valleys or up mountain slopes.

 

[Dmcvey]

Very well made point, but manned aircraft min. ceiling (in the UK) is 500 feet. MAX. altitude for a drone is 400 feet. That means a constant buffer zone of 100 feet in free airspace away from airfields, helipads etc. even with ADS-B, unless it's an emergency or a rapid response air ambulance landing or takeoff, manned vehicles should never be low enough to be threatened by sub-400' UAV's.
I think that there are just as many yeehaw's flying light aircraft nap-of-the-earth as there are idiots deciding they can hoik a drone up to 1640' with impunity. Simple solution. Hardware limit drones to 400' AGL and then do the same for private light aircraft from the other direction with a limiter that stops flight below 500' unless for emergency or take off/landing. That takes the Idiot Factor out of the equation straight away. With that solved.... what exactly is the reason for RID at all?.... apart from surveillance.

In US when flying within 400' of a structure, you get the height of the structure + 400'. 1000' cell tower can fly 1400' unless other airspace considerations.

 

[mobilehomer]

In US when flying within 400' of a structure, you get the height of the structure + 400'. 1000' cell tower can fly 1400' unless other airspace considerations.

ONLY if you hold a Part 107. Recreational pilots - no.