Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by PaulMN, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Jan 19, 2020, 01:35 PM
It flies? I like it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami Mike
Sorry, newbie, but I checked just to be sure, and fortunately you're not going to be able to do that.
He can, has, and will, to keep the discussion about ideas. Mike, no need to try the insult "newbie", Paul's been around since 2008, he just didn't have much to say until this drove up. We hang together or hang separately.

I am willing to draw the line at BVLOS, to include autonomous or FPV beyond line of sight, but my son racing quads off the the side of the flying field is no different than my balsa or foam airplanes. I, for one, cannot buy into killing his fun to save mine.

As I recall, what went through the side of the GoodYear blimp was a Royal Air Trainer 40, not a DJI Phantom. The problem was there, all along! The "self-flying" stuff allowed more people to participate, without the steep learning curve and multiplied the incidents. If it hadn't been quads, it might have been a future version of SAFE in an airplane or heli... more people = more incidents, there have always been idiots. The presence of YouTube and social media magnifies the *perceived* severity and frequency of the transgressions, pointing out the ones that "could have gone wrong" but didn't. In the old days, the idiots would have kept their exploits to themselves. I wasn't comfortable back when they sent/drove-behind the airplane across America (Liberty Bell) or sent the one across the Atlantic... I think those kinds of demonstrations were ultimately counter-productive but, if not Maynard, someone else would have done it. If the technology exists to do something, someone surely will.

I think autonomous flight controllers should be treated like AR-15 lightning links. Yes, anyone with a piece of metal and a file can make one, but you risk 25 years in Club Fed for making one. The legal ones are registered and transferred under strict controls. I think *that* is what Remote ID should be applied to and ultimately what will enable any commercial application *if* they become viable. Any solution they come up with to "see-and-avoid" a kite string, high-tension power lines, guyed radio towers, a helium party balloon gone rogue, or a goose, will surely avoid a model airplane and I seriously doubt the commercial users will risk the liability of launching widespread service without tackling those thorny problems. Realtime position via the Internet to avoid traffic is a fool's errand and anyone with an ounce of technology sense knows that.

As far as the LEOs wanting to know who is flying that "thing", it's a privacy issue to me. I am not against an APP that makes my phone into a WiFi access point (which would work everywhere, no Internet required) that will give a LEO my FAA ID (personal, not model) and decrypt it (so any Joe going around with his phone can't capture it). It's then up to the FAA to disclose my name and additional information to authorized parties and protect it from anyone else... (OK, that last one made me throw up in my mouth, just a little...).
Last edited by Lomcevak; Jan 19, 2020 at 02:25 PM.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jan 19, 2020, 03:55 PM
Registered User
After reading that this whole thing looks like fantacy. Even if they identify the registered owner of the drone unless they physically follow it back to him and see him land it how would they ever be able to charge the owner. Just like a motor vehicle involved in a crime they can't just go out and arrest the vehicles owner without proving he was operating it. We are going through all of this for an exercise in futility.
Jan 19, 2020, 05:01 PM
Registered User
gwiz's Avatar
I am debating if I should make multiple responses to the NPRM or one singular long itemize list. I am afraid many items on a long list will not be evaluated when the FAA sorts through the responses. I would imagine the FAA will send each response to their local subject manner expert for review and comment. I fear the first subject manner expert would review one item on the list and the rest of the items would not be addressed or forwarded to the next subject manner expert. If we make a response for each item, it will make sure the each item is addressed plus it would increase the number of responses. I hope this makes sense.

What is your opinion? Is it possible for an individual to submit multiple responses to NPRM?
Jan 19, 2020, 05:04 PM
Registered User
Thread OP

Its about respect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by atreis
Moderating a thread means keeping it on the subject the thread was created for. In this case, discussion of the issues with and how to respond effectively to the NPRM. Anything that is not a comment on that seems like fair game to me. Really though, it's up to PaulMN. If you want a thread that you can moderate, create one on a unique subject and convince the powers that be to make it sticky.
^^^ EXACTLY.
This is a thread to help protect our sport. It is to help generate ideas to respond to the NPRM. Posts that contribute positive ideas are welcome. This is clearly stated in post #1.

All other posts are judged on whether they are helpful or not. The top of every page states that the moderator (me) has the discretion to delete posts.

Please respect that this thread is a purpose driven place to gather real ideas to help save our sport. If you can't respect that, please don't post your bs here.

And, a big THANK YOU to all the great contributors here who "get it". I appreciate your support and help!
Last edited by PaulMN; Jan 19, 2020 at 05:26 PM.
Jan 19, 2020, 05:18 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomcevak
I am willing to draw the line at BVLOS, to include autonomous or FPV beyond line of sight, but my son racing quads off the the side of the flying field is no different than my balsa or foam airplanes. I, for one, cannot buy into killing his fun to save mine.
In my latest comments to the FAA I've been using the transmitters power as a means to separate "drones". Most of the transmitters we are using are 100mw (Spektrum, Futuba, etc). Meanwhile, DJI uses 400mw and long range transmitters like dragon link can hit 1000mw.

By separating this way racing quads fit into the same group as fixed wings but the long range stuff does not.
Jan 19, 2020, 05:21 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwiz
Is it possible for an individual to submit multiple responses to NPRM?

Yes, you can submit multiple. I've lost count on the number I sent. Just don't cut and paste and send the same exact thing over and over again as they ignore duplicates.
Jan 19, 2020, 05:49 PM
Registered User
miclacom's Avatar
I have as good friend that is a top dog in the FPVFC and he also informs me that the FAA is being driven buy home land security.
What bothers me the most and this will be submitted to the FAA..... is what all this RID crap is going to do to stop a person hellbent on killing people.
Do you really believe they are going to notify you that I’m flying my drone next town airport and buy the way I have a 5 pound payload surprise attached to it.
I personally. Am totally disgusted with government and its polices. We as a group have to come together to defeat this nonsense and then vote the bad eggs out.
I’m 55 yrs old. I started modeling with my dad when I was 7. It’s a long time and these idiots are not gunna take it away from me without our a balls to the wall fight.
����
Jan 19, 2020, 05:57 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krinaman
In my latest comments to the FAA I've been using the transmitters power as a means to separate "drones". Most of the transmitters we are using are 100mw (Spektrum, Futuba, etc). Meanwhile, DJI uses 400mw and long range transmitters like dragon link can hit 1000mw.

By separating this way racing quads fit into the same group as fixed wings but the long range stuff does not.
Why then didn't they stage the level of restrictions based upon a transmitter's output? It seems like a much better approach to place higher regulations on those devices that can be operated in a much more remote scenario. This shows that safety and law enforcement doesn't take precedence over clearing the airspace for the commercial concerns that are steering them.
Jan 19, 2020, 06:44 PM
Registered User
miclacom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy52
Why then didn't they stage the level of restrictions based upon a transmitter's output? It seems like a much better approach to place higher regulations on those devices that can be operated in a much more remote scenario. This shows that safety and law enforcement doesn't take precedence over clearing the airspace for the commercial concerns that are steering them.
Then we now start to get another government agency involved
Iím sure the fcc has there ears glued to all of this bs
Jan 19, 2020, 06:49 PM
Registered User
kingwoodbarney's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krinaman
In my latest comments to the FAA I've been using the transmitters power as a means to separate "drones". Most of the transmitters we are using are 100mw (Spektrum, Futuba, etc). Meanwhile, DJI uses 400mw and long range transmitters like dragon link can hit 1000mw.
I like that comment a lot. It does harken back to the 1970's when we had FCC licenses.

Its simple and effective. If the agency was addressing this issue with good faith they might have considered this approach.

But Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Transportation, has no control of the FCC. I don't know if the DOT can regulate power output. It seems like its outside of her lane.

Her "crack down" tools are deterrent regulations, aka harassment, "to clear the skies of drones".
Jan 19, 2020, 07:28 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
We need to advocate for seperate regulations from BVLOS operations. We got lumped in with them (same as commercial drones) after the ANPRM.

This is the real heart of our problem now. The ARCs were asked if recreational flyers (VLOS) should be catergorized seperately from BVLOS, somehow that was rejected.

Much of the security concerns have been caused by FPV operators flying illegally BVLOS. I'm not opposed to FPV or multirotors, but I think packaged FPV multirotors should have geofencing enabled as a default. If you can show a part 107 license, the manufacturer could unlock it. Aftermarket range extending hardware should require a license to buy.

The FAA has always had many categories for differing license operations, such as IFR, VFR, Ultralight, LSA, etc. I can't see why differentiating between BVLOS and VLOS is a problem. If you go to the ANPRM, it was an open question then, less than a year ago.

I think trying to negotiate the NPRM details as they are is a path to disaster. There is nothing in the FAA rule making procedure that says any element or concept of the NPRM is a given. That is the whole point of having the comment period - to gather more input before the rules are made.

If we can get VLOS recreational flying regulated under its own category, we stand a chance of having sensible, rational regulations instead of regulations designed for BVLOS commercial operations. This is what our goal should be.
Jan 19, 2020, 07:38 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krinaman
In my latest comments to the FAA I've been using the transmitters power as a means to separate "drones". Most of the transmitters we are using are 100mw (Spektrum, Futuba, etc). Meanwhile, DJI uses 400mw and long range transmitters like dragon link can hit 1000mw.

By separating this way racing quads fit into the same group as fixed wings but the long range stuff does not.
Some people like to fly long-range receivers/transmitters at close range because of the additional reliability such a stronger signal brings. For example, TBS Crossfire is very popular with FPV free-style pilots.

Personally, I think imposing limits based on technology is counter-productive as it also eliminates certain avenues for future improvements and technology.
Jan 19, 2020, 08:00 PM
Registered User
Paul, I totally support your approach of differentiating between BVLOS and VLOS operations and believe it follows the traditional approach taken with full sized aircraft. As it is important for all segments of model aviation to work out common ground and reasonable compromises it is just as important that we develop common ground and understanding with full scale aviation so our position is better appreciated and recognized.
Jan 19, 2020, 08:06 PM
Registered User
Thread OP
I really don't think we have a problem with full size aviation. The EAA's support is a great help.

It looks like its all about commercial UAS, law enforcement and homeland security. The FAA was tasked to do something, and these are the groups that made up the advisory committees (ARCs).

Please do look at tbe ANRPM I referenced earlier today. Its all in there. Currently post 1208, but that will change as I clean out irrelevant posts.
Jan 19, 2020, 08:18 PM
Registered User
Quote:
the advisory committees (ARCs).
FAA didn't take the recommendations & made its own version of the remote ID requirements, so not much chance that the NPRM will listen to hobbyist input


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion What are we going to do about all the illegal Asians invading our country? rockyboy2 Life, The Universe, and Politics 4 Jul 06, 2018 03:13 PM
Discussion So a Wall to keep out the Mexicans...what are we going to do about the dang Asian's ? rockyboy2 Life, The Universe, and Politics 1 Nov 04, 2017 04:18 PM
Discussion So, what are the libs going to do when Ankles steals the nomination~ Super Delegates? Dave Campbell Life, The Universe, and Politics 22 Feb 12, 2016 12:45 PM
Discussion Looks like the Russians are going to do what Obama wouldn't or couldn't about ISIS. Dave Barrow Life, The Universe, and Politics 17 Sep 25, 2015 03:37 AM
Discussion So, what are you going to do if the FAA... Tappet Fuel Jet Talk 9 Mar 04, 2012 06:45 PM