Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Thomas B, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Dec 30, 2019, 05:04 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDFjetpilot
Can we stop saying the end of the FRIAs are the end of our AMA fields? It's not true. Once a FRIA expires, then that AMA field's members/aircraft need to comply with the RID requirements.

That being said, I agree the FRIAs should not expire, and new ones should be allowed, to protect the hobby as it is today, without the RID requirements.

Plus, what is stopping anyone from submitting their private flying field, in my case, my farm, from joining a CBO and requesting my farm be a FRIA? Yes, there will be some costs for me to do so, but it does not mean the end of my flying on my private land.

Read the words in the NPRM and don't make assumptions. Having worked with the FAA in the past on NPRMs, they know this may have to stand up in court. Words matter and have legal definitions.

Sean
How about a change to the rules proposed that would allow a CBO chartered flying site to broadcast a general RemoteID for the field as a whole? Would that not accomplish the stated need for RemoteID that the FAA purports to be concerned with?
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Dec 30, 2019, 05:10 PM
Team Futaba
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmors
How about a change to the rules proposed that would allow a CBO chartered flying site to broadcast a general RemoteID for the field as a whole? Would that not accomplish the stated need for RemoteID that the FAA purports to be concerned with?
The FRIA concept is more or less the same thing except the FAA is not requiring any information be broadcast. It will be a recognized location with no equipment RID requirements.
Dec 30, 2019, 05:22 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
The FRIA concept is more or less the same thing except the FAA is not requiring any information be broadcast. It will be a recognized location with no equipment RID requirements.
Yes, what I am saying is that perhaps if there is some provision for broadcasting a RemoteID signal for delivery drones and other aircraft to pick up just as they can for RemoteID equipped individual models, the concept that they eventually want to purposely have all such sites go away might be altered.
Dec 30, 2019, 05:23 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmors
How about a change to the rules proposed that would allow a CBO chartered flying site to broadcast a general RemoteID for the field as a whole? Would that not accomplish the stated need for RemoteID that the FAA purports to be concerned with?
I think that's a good compromise.

However, my concern for my farm or my AMA field would be having to purchase, install, maintain and fund the equipment to do so.

I like the idea of a FRIA and believe the FAA may have given this concession to the AMA on our behalf...and that's why I greatly support the FRIA idea. I also compare a FRIA to a MOA (if you don't know what a MOA is, look it up, it'll probably be on our FAA mandated knowledge test). In short, a MOA lets full scale pilots know the designated area has an unusual amount of military flying activity that could be hazardous to normal flight. A FRIA should do the same for our recreation RC aircraft...to let full scale pilots know we're operating in these areas. It does not change the rules for us RC pilots...we still need to yield to manned aircraft that penetrate the FRIA. And in reality, referencing the OP, the FRIAs meet the FAA's intent for flight safety in the NAS, while letting local law enforcement know we're the good guys.

Thus, FRIAs become part of the NAS Special Use Airspace (SUA) designations, just as MOAs, RAs, WAs and PAs are.

Sean
Dec 30, 2019, 05:27 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDFjetpilot
I think that's a good compromise.

However, my concern for my farm or my AMA field would be having to purchase, install, maintain and fund the equipment to do so.

I like the idea of a FRIA and believe the FAA may have given this concession to the AMA on our behalf...and that's why I greatly support the FRIA idea. I also compare a FRIA to a MOA (if you don't know what a MOA is, look it up, it'll probably be on our FAA mandated knowledge test). In short, a MOA lets full scale pilots know the designated area has an unusual amount of military flying activity that could be hazardous to normal flight. A FRIA should do the same for our recreation RC aircraft...to let full scale pilots know we're operating in these areas. It does not change the rules for us RC pilots...we still need to yield to manned aircraft that penetrate the FRIA. And in reality, referencing the OP, the FRIAs meet the FAA's intent for flight safety in the NAS, while letting local law enforcement know we're the good guys.

Thus, FRIAs become part of the NAS Special Use Airspace (SUA) designations, just as MOAs, RAs, WAs and PAs are.

Sean
Agreed, but at minimum, the concept of not allowing any new FRIA sites to be applied for after 12 months, which would include an existing site that needed to change locations making a new application, needs to be altered.
Dec 30, 2019, 05:38 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmors
Agreed, but at minimum, the concept of not allowing any new FRIA sites to be applied for after 12 months, which would include an existing site that needed to change locations making a new application, needs to be altered.
Concur!

I personally think we need to "Fight for the FRIAs". And maybe even pursue pushing the FAA to designate them similarly to SUA. SUA are defined, they can be created, they can be dissolved, they can be redefined...granted, all subject to FAA approval. I don't think we'd want the FRIA to follow the exact SUA approval process, because I seem to recall an Environment Impact Statement is required and we don't want to go anywhere down that route. I just use the SUA process as an example for designating our FRIAs...that they are living airspace.

Sean
Dec 30, 2019, 05:50 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDFjetpilot
Can we stop saying the end of the FRIAs are the end of our AMA fields? It's not true. Once a FRIA expires, then that AMA field's members/aircraft need to comply with the RID requirements.
Said compliance being impossible or extremely expensive, in terms of retrofit, subscription fees, and fines issued.

Quote:
Read the words in the NPRM and don't make assumptions. Having worked with the FAA in the past on NPRMs, they know this may have to stand up in court.
Chevron deference says what the FAA says goes unless specifically contradicted by the statute. Congress gave them the inch of Remote ID, they took the mile of ending RC aviation over 0.55 pounds, and they're legally allowed to have it.
Dec 30, 2019, 05:54 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Said compliance being impossible or extremely expensive, in terms of retrofit, subscription fees, and fines issued.
Not to mention that a site that would be in a location that is least likely to be in the way or interfere with commercial drones or manned aircraft, out in a rural area of the countryside, is also one of the places that would be least likely to have reliable internet and cell service availability, which is a requirement for the operation of the RemoteID!
Dec 30, 2019, 06:29 PM
Cox Engine Hoarder
Jason_WI's Avatar
Private pilots have set up thousands of private airstrips throughout the country. They work with their local zoning and state transplantation board for approval . Once approved the FAA really doesn't care if they are registered on the database or not. Its best to have it registered but not required. The only requirement is if its going to be abandoned or re purposed for them to be notified. The FAA pretty much left it up to each states transportation authority for approval.

Why can't I set up my own private FIRA site on my farm if the FAA really doesn't care about private full scale airstrips? Why is a CBO the only authority to be able to file for a FIRA site. This seems like we were sold out by AMA for them to grab more membership dues. This is unfair and puts restrictions on my land that I did not have prior to this mess.
Dec 30, 2019, 06:49 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_WI
Private pilots have set up thousands of private airstrips throughout the country. They work with their local zoning and state transplantation board for approval . Once approved the FAA really doesn't care if they are registered on the database or not. Its best to have it registered but not required. The only requirement is if its going to be abandoned or re purposed for them to be notified. The FAA pretty much left it up to each states transportation authority for approval.

Why can't I set up my own private FIRA site on my farm if the FAA really doesn't care about private full scale airstrips? Why is a CBO the only authority to be able to file for a FIRA site. This seems like we were sold out by AMA for them to grab more membership dues. This is unfair and puts restrictions on my land that I did not have prior to this mess.
I'd say the difference between a private airfield and a FRIA is the airspace. As we used to say in the business, an airport without airspace is a parking lot. So once you get into the airspace, you get into the NAS, which is managed by the FAA through rules. Airfields/airports (i.e. the ground) are not managed by the FAA until they reach certain thresholds (i.e. based aircraft, commercial ops, etc.).

Nonetheless, I agree that I should be able to establish my own private FRIA. However, I'm guessing the FAA wants/needs a CBO they have approved to hold accountable for the operations in that FRIA, just like SUA has a designated user (DoD, DoE, DoS).

And guys, obviously a lot of these are my personal thoughts garnered from my experience working with the FAA as a former, now retired, USAF Airfield Operations Officer. So take my comments as you see fit.

Sean
Last edited by EDFjetpilot; Dec 30, 2019 at 06:53 PM. Reason: Added.
Dec 30, 2019, 06:59 PM
Cox Engine Hoarder
Jason_WI's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDFjetpilot
I'd say the difference between a private airfield and a FRIA is the airspace. As we used to say in the business, an airport without airspace is a parking lot. So once you get into the airspace, you get into the NAS, which is managed by the FAA through rules. Airfields/airports (i.e. the ground) are not managed by the FAA until they reach certain thresholds (i.e. based aircraft, commercial ops, etc.).

Nonetheless, I agree that I should be able to establish my own private FRIA. However, I'm guessing the FAA wants/needs a CBO they have approved to hold accountable for the operations in that FRIA, just like SUA has a designated user (DoD, DoE, DoS).

And guys, obviously a lot of these are my personal thoughts garnered from my experience working with the FAA as a former, now retired, USAF Airfield Operations Officer. So take my comments as you see fit.

Sean
Understandable but I don't see the difference. These private airstrips show up on maps. A private FIRA site can show up on a map. I can designate an 80 acre field boundary with a 400' ceiling and be done with it. No difference than a private airstrip boundary. The private airstrip owners sometimes carry insurance for the airstrip and some do not. Maybe its state mandated but no reason this shouldn't be allowed. Package delivery drones would have to avoid crossing a private airstrip that same as a FIRA site anyway. I want to add this is for flying strictly LOS. Biggest plane I have is a SIG Kadet Senior. It that thing hits anything its just a pile of 1/4 square toothpicks and an OS FP40.
Last edited by Jason_WI; Dec 30, 2019 at 07:04 PM. Reason: Added what the field is for.
Dec 30, 2019, 07:31 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_WI
Understandable but I don't see the difference. These private airstrips show up on maps. A private FIRA site can show up on a map. I can designate an 80 acre field boundary with a 400' ceiling and be done with it. No difference than a private airstrip boundary. The private airstrip owners sometimes carry insurance for the airstrip and some do not. Maybe its state mandated but no reason this shouldn't be allowed. Package delivery drones would have to avoid crossing a private airstrip that same as a FIRA site anyway. I want to add this is for flying strictly LOS. Biggest plane I have is a SIG Kadet Senior. It that thing hits anything its just a pile of 1/4 square toothpicks and an OS FP40.
The difference right now is what the FAA has proposed in the NPRM. Plus I'm willing to bet package delivery drones will not avoid overflying private airfields, but instead will avoid other RID drones or ADS-B (squawking) full scale aircraft. I then expect RID drones will avoid FRIAs as they should SUA.

Thus, I'm not arguing against you and what you say makes sense and would work for me as well. I'm just making a point that FRIAs need to continue to exist in such a way SUA does. Furthering my point that we need to fight to keep the FRIAs well beyond what's currently proposed.

Sean
Dec 30, 2019, 08:38 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_WI
Private pilots have set up thousands of private airstrips throughout the country. They work with their local zoning and state transplantation board for approval . Once approved the FAA really doesn't care if they are registered on the database or not. Its best to have it registered but not required. The only requirement is if its going to be abandoned or re purposed for them to be notified. The FAA pretty much left it up to each states transportation authority for approval.

Why can't I set up my own private FIRA site on my farm if the FAA really doesn't care about private full scale airstrips? Why is a CBO the only authority to be able to file for a FIRA site. This seems like we were sold out by AMA for them to grab more membership dues. This is unfair and puts restrictions on my land that I did not have prior to this mess.
100% correct and also the FAA knows than when the FRIA sites dry up many modelers will not want to bother with installing
remote ID equip on their models. The FAA is intent on killing of the hobby even though it may take a few years.
Dec 30, 2019, 08:38 PM
Electric Coolhunter
Thomas B's Avatar
Thread OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDFjetpilot
I think that's a good compromise.

However, my concern for my farm or my AMA field would be having to purchase, install, maintain and fund the equipment to do so.

I like the idea of a FRIA and believe the FAA may have given this concession to the AMA on our behalf...and that's why I greatly support the FRIA idea. .....

Sean
My FAA contact stated that he knows for a fact that the AMA fought very hard to get that concession. The restrictions on the FRIA are proof that the FAA is not in love with the concept.

The FAA guy said, and and I quote: “The NPRM is better than he expected. The AMA influence was huge.”
Latest blog entry: RC events for 2019!
Dec 30, 2019, 08:56 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas B
My FAA contact stated that he knows for a fact that the AMA fought very hard to get that concession. The restrictions on the FRIA are proof that the FAA is not in love with the concept.

The FAA guy said, and and I quote: “The NPRM is better than he expected. The AMA influence was huge.”
Thomas,

Thanks for posting some of this FAA "inside" information. Having represented the USAF in the past with the FAA, I know there's a give and take among the major stakeholders.

I believe the AMA is fighting hard for us...and I also believe they're the smallest stakeholder at the table. We can't lose sight that we fly toy airplanes for pleasure, while those other stakeholders are concerned about flight safety of manned aircraft, national security and improving our inter/intrastate commerce.

I do think we're lucky to get the concession we did...now I just don't want to see us lose it later based on a "sundown" clause.

Sean


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion due to Larry not wanting to produce this fan any more. Due to cost and safety factors Air Head Large EDF Jets 18 Jun 30, 2016 07:28 PM
Discussion FAA Approves Commercial Delivery by Multirotor Aircraft Oldgazer Commercial UAV/FPV 3 Jun 22, 2015 01:48 PM
Discussion FAA to allow Commercial Drones(new law)! glmccready Multirotor Drone Talk 19 Nov 08, 2013 12:53 PM
Discussion FAA Approves Commercial Drone Use philip frank Aerial Photography 14 Aug 12, 2013 11:44 AM