|
|
Thread OP
|
Discussion
FAA Remote ID
I hate to bring this up in this forum but we all need to make comments on the proposed new rule. If it goes through it could be the end for Classic Pattern and most all sport flying.
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...rcraft-systems . |
|
|
|
|
|||
Thread OP
|
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
Yeah... I think most of the modeling community are aware of this. Many emails from the AMA, and hundreds of videos on you tube. I think one big problem is that many feel is all moot, that the FAA and its branches will do what they will regardless. That, coupled with the fact that we are a small group in terms of numbers (even when quadcopter users are included), and also considering the big interests lobbying (i.e. $ under the table ), its hard to argue with that reasoning. Theres only X amount of arguments that can be put forth as to why the proposed rules are not reasonable.
Even if the FAA gets 200k comments, there will probably be about 50 to 60 different angles among those 200k comments. The rest will be repetition. Undoubtedly, some will send replies filled with rage or disparing comments, or accuse the FAA, or even specific individual whithin the FAA, of being corrupt in the face of big money. As much as we all fill disgusted by these developments, comments have to be submitted in a"politically correct" way; we have to bite our lips, and really not say what we would like to say. Unfortunately, many will say the unsayable, and those responses will be tossed aside. Its kind of weird to have to comment to the FAA on why these rules might mean the death of the hobby. Weird because many hobbyists (me included) think that the FAA actually wants to kill the hobby, not because were a problem for them (were not, and they couldn't care less), but because, again, the big companies waving the $$$ in their faces want us out of the way. So complaining that this would kill the hobby is, in essence, confirming to the FAA that the they have us right where they want us... with our backs against the wall. They will know then that its just a matter of pulling the trigger. I have too add that in my opinion, the AMA has done a terrible job defending its members and the hobby from this truly menacing situation. AMA has historically been a very passive organization, more focused on public relations. There is no way they could have been nurtured throughout the years to have the tools to handle a threat like this one. Who would have thought even 10 years ago that this wonderful hobby would come under attack? But to be fair, even if they had better resources and had been better prepared to deal with this sitation, they would have faced an uphill battle. As it is, it might be insurmountable. One last thing... the media has really bought into the trend of "villifying drones". Invation of privacy, reckless flying, airspace violations, etc. Sometimes, these news reports are vastly sensationalized, of course, because they have to sell a product that captures the publics attention. So the general public is sort of against drones, and they dont know enough to distinguish between the quadcopters and the traditional models. Nor is there enough time to teach the public. If only they knew that the real threat to everyones livelyhood and peace of mind is what these big companies want to do with COMERCIAL drones after they've gotten rid of us. |
|
Last edited by RC YEAGER; Feb 11, 2020 at 08:19 PM.
Reason: Typo
|
|
||
|
Quote:
The AMA should never have left the DC area, and they never should have built a huge monument to themselves in a two-bit town in the middle of nowhere, right next to an airport. Guess who is going to be one of the first FRIA's to be shut down as a hazard to full scale aviation... But at least they figured out that they need a traveling aviation program. That's what the Nats was, until they nailed it to Muncie. Andy |
|
|
||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
This is the heart of the problem, we were grouped in with the Walmart and like drones. That perspective is not changeable at this point. I know the EAA is on our side and they hold a lot of weight with the FAA but at this point, I think it's a lost cause, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read an article in the February 2020 issue of Sport Aviation about how the EAA is trying to make an effort to keep the FAA from shutting us down. They referred to us as "Legacy Model Aviation". That's what us non-drone folks are - Legacy Model Aviation. They stated that many EAA members got their initial inspiration from models. To this day, many of them are active with both models and full-scale.
|
|
||
|
Quote:
The guy in the hangar across from me is building a Pitts. Hanging on the wall is a model. They're interconnected and should be, but applying things like the 51% rule and other silliness to the RC model is insanity. |
|
Latest blog entry: 2020 FSS#16 Mixed-TD contest 2020-Dec-12
|
||
|
||
Thread OP
|
Quote:
. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
I am hopeful something will work out in our favor
|
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Aint that how govmt agencies always do it? Some cr@p sticks to the wall, then it dries. Then they throw more and the old cr@p helps the new cr@p stick. After 4 or 5 sessions of this, eventually, the wall is fully covered. This is the FAAs 3rd or 4th cr@p throwing session, so the wall just has a few clear patches left.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
I think that AMA handled things poorly from day one, when "drones" started popping up all over and that small percentage of users started grabbing national attention for being irresponsible. When the FAA decided to start clamping down on small unmanned aircraft as a result, the AMA wanted to start "fighting for the hobby" and tried to separate what AMA members do from everyone else. That's a really fine hair to split for just about all of the general public, and it's impossible to measure the intent of the pilot (recreational, commercial, or reckless) just by looking at the aircraft. Instead, I think the AMA could have used their decades of experience with RC aircraft to show how it can be done safely and work with the FAA to find a solution that was more focused on the actual problem. The AMA created a path of self-preservation for themselves as an organization with all that language about "community-based organization" in the current rules. So in my opinion, we already have a tax on the hobby now as you must be a member of AMA (or another CBO, which doesn't really exist yet) in order to fly recreationally, even if you don't belong to an AMA-sanctioned club. But fast forward to today, and this is a lot more complicated than just "anti-drone" sentiment or even the impact on manned aircraft. Now there's a whole industry of drone-based delivery lobbying Congress to let them have the airspace. So the problem is that the commercial side of sUAS operation needs some sort of assurance that they can avoid mid-air collisions while flying beyond VLOS completely autonomously with no pilot. If the commercial people all agree to some sort of Remote ID technology, then the only problem is the recreational model aircraft who will be in the same airspace without any ID. That's why the proposed solution is either Remote ID for everyone or recreational flying in designated areas (that "CBO-sanctioned airfield" stuff) that can be avoided by the commercial aircraft. This isn't about tracking the tiny percentage of people doing reckless things, although that's a side benefit assuming those people comply with the rules (big assumption). I'm afraid that any general comments about "Remote ID will destroy the hobby", while correct in large part because of both cost of Remote ID and what it does to the manufacturing of more traditional aircraft without GPS and all that stuff, won't hold any water with the FAA. Unless you can offer a solution about how to keep commercial, autonomous sUAS from colliding with recreational model aircraft, your comments won't stand out in the pile. So while it's great to voice your concern, try to do more than just "fight", and instead, offer some constructive input if you can that will give the FAA a way to make as many people happy as possible, including us hobbyists. For example, I think that something like LAANC could be an option anywhere and not just at airports, rather than mandate that every aircraft carry sophisticated electronics. While that may not give another sUAS an exact location of where I'm at in the sky, a fundamental premise of VFR flight is "see and avoid", so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect autonomous commercial aircraft to have some "see and avoid" capability if they can be notified that there's something in the immediate vicinity; the burden for that should not be completely on the other pilots around them. Also, much as I hate the "hobby tax" I mentioned earlier, I think the FRIA flying sites will be an integral part of a long-term solution and not just an interim solution to phase in Remote ID. There may need to be some rules about where to put a new FRIA going forward, such as keeping them out outside of what may be common travel paths for the delivery aircraft. We need to focus on how we can all share the sky - "no" or "leave us alone" is no longer an answer. |
|
|
||
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alert | FAA Remote id! | denis747 | Electric Heli Talk | 42 | Sep 16, 2023 07:20 PM |
Question | How Will Spektrum/Horizon Handle the New FAA Remote ID Rules? | GRW3 | Radios | 154 | Sep 14, 2023 04:22 PM |
Discussion | FAA drone remote ID/Location transmitter. | John Gallagher | Sailplane Talk | 707 | Mar 22, 2021 03:24 PM |
Discussion | FAA to seek remote ID of "drones" | kallend | Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy | 79 | Jul 20, 2017 03:08 AM |