RCU Forums - View Single Post - AMA letter to FAA, have you READ IT?
View Single Post
Old 02-29-2020 | 04:18 PM
  #23  
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
Hydro Junkie
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 10,629
Received 139 Likes on 132 Posts
From: Marysville, WA
Default

Originally Posted by grognard
The NPRM requires no such thing.

- In general, flying non-compliant UAS in public airspace is prohibited after the grace period expires. Such aircraft will be restricted to FRIAs.
- A FRIA operated by a private entity (such as an AMA chartered club) is analogous to a PRIVATE airport. Only the owner, and others invited by the owner, have the right to operate there. This is true NOW (without Remote ID) and will be the SAME with Remote ID. "The public" cannot reasonably claim to have lost privileges it never had in the first place.

If "the public" would like to continue to fly outside FRIAs without Remote ID, it would be better to lobby for higher weight thresholds for registration for fixed-wing UAS flown within VLOS for "limited recreational" purposes. That's a change I could support - and included in my comments.
The problem isn't the FRIA being operated by a private entity, it's the AMA chartered club part. The AMA is thinking that new flyers will be required to join their ranks if they want to stay in the activity and the regulations that are being proposed will force it by law.