Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by skydve76, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Mar 01, 2020, 11:57 PM
More jets than a carburetor
skydve76's Avatar
Thread OP
Discussion

How I interpret remote ID and why I think its not that big of deal


I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH THE FAA, Im just saying if it goes into effect my hobby wont be affected that much. I fly drones, helies, turbines, park flyers, everything except gliders. This is based on my interpretation of it and for certain there are some questionable areas as the documents I read are not well written.

For my park flyer stuff they fall under "Limited Remote Identification UAS":
It clearly says the Remote ID is for the CONTROL STATION ONLY (in bold so I used caps).
Log into an app on my phone, which logs my GPS coordinate. My plane does not (and cannot) broadcast via transponder therfore does not need a transponder. In reality nothing really changes for me. However the 400 foot limit is a bit small, I think 1000 feet with a 400 foot ceiling would be more than anyone could use with a park flyer type planes. Later in the doc it talks about "self test" and Im not sure if that applies to Limited UAS or not.

For my large stuff, which really should only be flown at AMA fields (or private property):
My field will be a FRIA.


A few key issues in which I included in my comment to the FAA:

For some reason possibly an error, the FAA documents say that CBOs must apply within 1 year of the rule being passed. So what this means is there cant be any more CBOs after 1 year. Well, really there is only the AMA anyways so its not a big deal. However Id like to see this 1 year restriction removed. It does say the CBO approval could be rescinded and they need to ensure due process exists for this.

Why 400 feet, why not 800? 800 would be enough for most park flyers that are safe to fly at parks.

In terms of the FRIA, we assume they'll grant enough space to fly big planes but of course that is assumption.


I spent a lot of time in STEM development. Honestly, very quickly we'll see transponders at hobbyking that utilize the same technology as our telemetry and utilize our cell phones. We can adapt to this.

I do wonder, the FAA cites public safety in all this. And yet in my area there are small airports in the middle of populated areas where real planes have crashed and killed people. I guess this isnt on the FAA's radar.

I dont want any of these rules to apply to my hobby, but Im not selling out over this. The rules are not that restrictive. In the end someone has to to enforce these rules and no one enforces the current BS the FAA has put on us.
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 02, 2020, 12:26 AM
More jets than a carburetor
skydve76's Avatar
Thread OP

My comment on the NPRM


I fly all types of UAS from small .25 meter up to large turbine engine powered jets. I have flown these models for 15 years.

The 400 foot limit for "limited remote ID UAS" is completely arbitrary. However I feel that and 800 max distance from the control station coupled with a maximum of a 400 foot altitude is more realistic and less intrusive. The rules must be clarified as to the self test aspect and if this applies to the limited UAS. If it does, this is not realistic due to costs and technology. If it does not apply then an app on a cell phone that is FREE would serve the purpose of remote ID.

There is no reason to limit CBOs to applying within 1 year of the rule going into affect. What is the harm in leaving open the possibility of additional CBOs? FAA approval of CBOs should follow due process of the law if revoked.

The FAA should not stand to profit from these rules by charging subscription fees. The worry is that these fees could be prohibitive.


For the FRIA please be reasonable in allotting the space. Many clubs are over crops and flood planes and there is not need to limit these to a small size.

The FAA cites public safety as justifications for these rules. However there are many small airports among populated residential areas that pose a far greater risk to public safety. Perhaps if the FAA wishes to seem legitimate, it should first address this far more serious threat to safety and take action before going after a cause which has no history of endangering the public.

It is true that most aircraft disasters involve small private aircraft. Perhaps this is a far better cause for the FAA to take up.
Mar 05, 2020, 12:46 PM
rip
ripacheco's Avatar
How "you" interpret it doesn't matter.
What matters is how "they" see it.
Just saying.


Quick Reply
Message:
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion I know it's not a big deal, but..... davecee Life, The Universe, and Politics 10 Feb 14, 2018 07:37 PM
Discussion Why didn't I think of that? patmat2350 Dock Talk 8 Feb 22, 2017 11:22 AM
Question Interpreting the Specs of a Motor and How That Applies to Choosing a Power System jajefan Power Systems 4 Nov 25, 2016 11:26 PM