Thread Tools
Jan 01, 2020, 09:35 AM
A man with a plan
Balsaworkbench's Avatar
titanic in 5 seconds (0 min 12 sec)
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jan 01, 2020, 09:36 AM
Registered User
AA5BY's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahicks
Been in this long enough to know if there is a will, there is a way, and if you look up, clearly the sky is not falling. Refusing to worry about something that doesn't exist yet.
Good point.

From what I've read, most AMA flying sites will be granted Recognized Identification Areas (RIA) and thus will not require compliance of most terms of this proposal for remote identification. Wording in the proposal suggest application for RIA fields may be handled by a single AMA officer who submits the applications for RIA areas to the FAA.

I fear that some flying sites will not be approved.

If a CBO (local club) is not AMA affiliated, they would of course have to make the request individually.

It does appear that this is a serious crunch to flyers not affiliated with a club who can obtain a RIA as they would after a three year period be required to comply with the remote reporting outlined in the proposal.
Jan 01, 2020, 09:47 AM
Registered User
earlwb's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balsaworkbench
Are you talking about package delivery? I keep hearing about this, but it seems like a silly idea that is unlikely to be implemented. Will they deliver packages cross country by drone? Dozens or even hundreds of cross country deliveries can share a ride on one truck. Drones would have to fly a long way with a single package, then come back and do it all over again. Will they deliver packages in cities by drone? That seems just as bad, with crazy wind currents around buildings, kids with sling shots and BB guns, etc. It wouldn't take long for enterprising thieves to jam signals to crash the drones.
It isn't just air delivery drones or freight drones either. Several companies are testing pilotless passenger drones right now too. Not just as air taxis but as a way for the rich owner to travel to and from work by air without needing a pilot. Of course the more modern airliners could fly pilotless at present, but obviously they don't though. I can see them implementing pilotless air freight airliners before they do it for passenger planes though. Think UPS and Fed Ex with pilotless air freighters. Very likely we will see it first for trans-Pacific or trans-Atlantic flights first. The military of course is really into pilotless aircraft of all types not just Predator planes, but fighters, bombers, air ambulances, forward troop resupply or observation or attack drones, etc. Scientists want special pilotless drones for their projects too. Then there are the very long flight, long term pilotless drones that can mimic satellites both at lower and higher altitudes.

Anyway the package thieves (porch pirates) do quite well without needing to shoot down delivery drones. They just wait for the delivery and then steal the packages.
Last edited by earlwb; Jan 01, 2020 at 09:50 AM. Reason: typo
Jan 01, 2020, 10:43 AM
A man with too many toys
Quote:
Originally Posted by AA5BY
Good point.

From what I've read, most AMA flying sites will be granted Recognized Identification Areas (RIA) and thus will not require compliance of most terms of this proposal for remote identification. Wording in the proposal suggest application for RIA fields may be handled by a single AMA officer who submits the applications for RIA areas to the FAA.

I fear that some flying sites will not be approved.

If a CBO (local club) is not AMA affiliated, they would of course have to make the request individually.

It does appear that this is a serious crunch to flyers not affiliated with a club who can obtain a RIA as they would after a three year period be required to comply with the remote reporting outlined in the proposal.
I really don't think that's legal. I expect that the FAA will have to make changes or the courts will throw out the whole rule.

.
Jan 01, 2020, 11:14 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by AA5BY
Yeah, I understand that the rules at present are proposed.

Our club is a CBO and it has the suggested required letter of affiliation with the precinct county commissioner responsible for the property.
A local club cannot qualify for a CBO. With the changes last year a CBO has to be approved by the FAA. I believe the FAA has yet to approve any.
Jan 01, 2020, 11:34 AM
Registered User
Removed video as it does not apply to today's problems with the FAA.
Sorry I missed the date. I thought it was current.
Last edited by JimboPilotFL; Jan 01, 2020 at 04:54 PM.
Jan 01, 2020, 11:53 AM
ƃuıʇɐǝʞ ʇʇoɔs
vulturetec's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by AA5BY
From what I've read, most AMA flying sites will be granted Recognized Identification Areas (RIA) and thus will not require compliance of most terms of this proposal for remote identification. Wording in the proposal suggest application for RIA fields may be handled by a single AMA officer who submits the applications for RIA areas to the FAA.

I fear that some flying sites will not be approved.

If a CBO (local club) is not AMA affiliated, they would of course have to make the request individually.

It does appear that this is a serious crunch to flyers not affiliated with a club who can obtain a RIA as they would after a three year period be required to comply with the remote reporting outlined in the proposal.
All that sounds like a possible "out" for clubs. Long-term it isn't. It's my opinion that the entire FRIA concept is nothing less than a con game by the feds to make the traditional hobbyist to think their club field will be a safe haven from these absurd rules.

The applications for FRIA status will be accepted within a 12 month period. After that they won't accept applications again. Ever.

This poses problems after that 12 month period:
* if a club loses it's flying site and needs to move they will not be allowed to apply to be a new FRIA.
* if a new club is formed somewhere, they can't apply for their site to be a FRIA
* if a FRIA is shut down by the FAA for any reason, the FRIA is gone. Forever. No chance to reapply, no chance to move the site. It's gone.

This isn't speculation at all either. The FAA has made it clear that they plan for FRIAs to slowly disappear over time.

None of this means a club can't have a flying site. It just means that without FRIA status everyone there will have to comply with all the other rules associated with remote ID - the details of which are hideous and often go far beyond just throwing a micro-transponder in a model airplane.
Latest blog entry: Sagitta 600 build 2018
Jan 01, 2020, 11:57 AM
ƃuıʇɐǝʞ ʇʇoɔs
vulturetec's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimboPilotFL
The AMA and several other organizations are sueing the FAA

Flite Test | AMA vs FAA - Lawsuit Update - worth watching.
Important to note, that's a 6-year old video discussing topics that were in flux long before the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the repeal of section 336, and the latest remote-ID rule NPRM.
Latest blog entry: Sagitta 600 build 2018
Jan 01, 2020, 12:30 PM
Registered User
AA5BY's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulturetec
All that sounds like a possible "out" for clubs. Long-term it isn't. It's my opinion that the entire FRIA concept is nothing less than a con game by the feds to make the traditional hobbyist to think their club field will be a safe haven from these absurd rules.

The applications for FRIA status will be accepted within a 12 month period. After that they won't accept applications again. Ever.

This poses problems after that 12 month period:
* if a club loses it's flying site and needs to move they will not be allowed to apply to be a new FRIA.
* if a new club is formed somewhere, they can't apply for their site to be a FRIA
* if a FRIA is shut down by the FAA for any reason, the FRIA is gone. Forever. No chance to reapply, no chance to move the site. It's gone.

This isn't speculation at all either. The FAA has made it clear that they plan for FRIAs to slowly disappear over time.

None of this means a club can't have a flying site. It just means that without FRIA status everyone there will have to comply with all the other rules associated with remote ID - the details of which are hideous and often go far beyond just throwing a micro-transponder in a model airplane.
Yep... the FAA proposal is overall draconian for modelers and as you say, is clearly designed to ultimately cause all modelers to be subject to electronic ID and the cost associated with it.
Last edited by AA5BY; Jan 01, 2020 at 12:50 PM.
Jan 01, 2020, 12:38 PM
A man with too many toys
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimboPilotFL
The AMA and several other organizations are sueing the FAA

Flite Test | AMA vs FAA - Lawsuit Update - worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtFJjWt_hH8
Very interesting video. It does say right there in black and white that it's illegal for FAA to regulate recreational aircraft. Maybe 2020 is the year that we cal all finally tare up out FAA cards and take those stupid numbers off out airplanes.

.
Jan 01, 2020, 01:13 PM
ƃuıʇɐǝʞ ʇʇoɔs
vulturetec's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man
Very interesting video. It does say right there in black and white that it's illegal for FAA to regulate recreational aircraft. Maybe 2020 is the year that we cal all finally tare up out FAA cards and take those stupid numbers off out airplanes.

.
That's incorrect.

The video is from 2014 when Section 336 was in place. It's old and mostly obsolete. All the references to the FAA not being able to regulate model airplanes was based on that Section 336 - and that's where the lawsuits were directed. The FAA reauthorization act of 2018 pretty much negates all the arguments put forth in that video and the lawsuits (at least as they applied to the now-obsolete section 336).

In addition to requiring the numbers on the airplanes they also can (and are going to ) require us all to take a test in order to fly model airplanes. They can also institute the remote ID rules they're pushing - and more. All of that is also in black in white, unfortunately.
Latest blog entry: Sagitta 600 build 2018
Jan 01, 2020, 02:52 PM
A man with too many toys
I found this statement on another RCG thread.

However, there will be certain UAS including amateur built aircraft and previously manufactured UAS that might not have remote identification capability. A person operating a UAS without remote identification equipment would always be required to operate within visual line of sight and within an FAA-recognized identification area.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...5&postcount=17

Is this really true? All my old airplanes and those I build from kits in the future are exempt?

The sky in not falling and 2020 will be a ID free year!

.
Jan 01, 2020, 03:02 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
When flown from a FRIA.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Jan 01, 2020, 03:09 PM
ƃuıʇɐǝʞ ʇʇoɔs
vulturetec's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC Man
Is this really true? All my old airplanes and those I build from kits in the future are exempt?
Not necessarily.

There are other threads discussing the specific language in the new rules that define what would be exempt. The FAA uses the term "amateur built" and by the new rules that means the entire aircraft system (radio and power plant included, possibly) needs to be more than 50% fabricated by the builder. In those cases the builder can - for lack of a better term I guess - "self certify" and go fly at a club field without remote ID.

The problem is how the "amateur built" stuff gets interpreted. Building from a kit, with a store-bought radio and power-plant, it might not be considered "amateur built" to the 51% rule according to the FAA (to be clear, there's just speculation on how that's going to be interpreted). In those situations you may not be able to fly it as an "amateur built" aircraft, so other rules crop up regarding remote ID.

That's a lot of details to try to weed out, but there's another glaring con-job on the part of the FAA that needs to be recognized: ...and within an FAA-recognized identification area.

The FRIA ("FAA-recognized identification area") seems like an easy-out for most of us. Unfortunately the FAA has made it clear they intend that FRIAs (ie: club fields free from remote ID) will eventually disappear. There's only a limited window to request a site be recognized by the FAA, and after that there won't be any more FRIAs. What's more, there's no guarantee your club field will be a FRIA. Depending on the location and configuration of the flying site the FAA may refuse the application or arbitrarily close your local FRIA (again, nobody knows) - then what?
Latest blog entry: Sagitta 600 build 2018
Jan 01, 2020, 03:46 PM
A man with too many toys
The problem is 51% of what? The FAA would have to define the percent contribution of each component. Maybe the final wording will be more specific.

You could argue things like installing servos, linkage, wiring, and programming the radio make the entire RC system 100% amateur built.

What's the rules for home built aircraft? FAA was probably thinking of that when they wrote that - it would be a good reference. I know they can be guilt from kits.

I do quite a bit of scratch building and a few of my own designs - I would have a strong argument that they are amateur built. The big question will be ARF, ARC, RTF, and bind and fly airplanes. The last two would probably not qualify.

.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article I Passed the FAA Remote Pilot Knowledge Test with UAVGroundSchool.com Jason Cole Multirotor Drone Talk 10 Feb 12, 2019 03:32 PM
Discussion Not really my sort of thing, but I thought some of you guys might appreciate these leccyflyer Life, The Universe, and Politics 21 Jun 10, 2016 02:16 PM
Alert FAA requires a bill of sale for models! X30PILOT Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 15 Jan 19, 2016 10:25 PM
Discussion The Mentality on which we may all be judged! The FAA and our Model Aircraft dag214 Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 26 Jan 05, 2016 11:24 PM
Discussion I.D. Cards Required For Re-Entry To Palm Beach! Libelle201B Life, The Universe, and Politics 22 Aug 01, 2011 07:05 PM