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.
Yes it does. In your full scale example of private airports, you neglect to note that there are ample alternative sites from which to operate. One owner of an individual private airport saying "no" has a de minimis impact on an individual part 61 operator. Not only are there other private airports, there are a plethora of public airports. There are no such alternatives to FRIAs, for a singular organization will control the overwhelming majority of sites where a citizen can fly non-compliant equipment. The FAA even admits as such, in their discussion of the 3000 AMA fields. So for your analogy to be accurate, it would require that ALL private airports be controlled by one person or organization. That is clearly not the case, so the analogy fails. And because one organization will enjoy near monopolistic control over access to FRIAs, one is in fact compelled to become a member of a PRIVATE dues collecting organization in order to operate non-RemoteID compliant equipment in PUBLIC airspace.
As to losing privilege they never had in the first place, you omit that the government in law and rule making is required to ensure equal protection under the law. That means that you cannot grant privileges to one group based on membership in a PRIVATE dues collecting organization that are not available to ALL citizens that are non-members. With the overwhelming majority of sUAS registrants NOT members of a CBO (by at least 4:1), the rule as written creates two classes of citizens operating non-compliant equipment : those who can afford membership in one or more private dues collecting organizations and those who cannot. It would be like requiring AOPA membership in order to fly from public airports. Or requiring AAA membership to operate on public roadways. If government establishes FRIAs as a way for ALL citizens to operate non-compliant equipment, they cannot as a matter of policy condition that on membership in PRIVATE organizations.
No, the only way to ensure equal protection under the law is to require FRIAs allow operations by ANY citizen without regard to membership in a private dues collecting organization. If insurance is used as an excuse, then under the law they are limited to what members pay for insurance on a pro-rata basis (about $13 of your AMA dues). If membership is required in a local club, then there will need to be due process protections as the club will enjoy ability to limit access to public airspace if petty club dynamics take over.
So you see, there are multiple problems with the FRIA concept, Constitutionally, legally, and administratively. A point I will make to the FAA in my comments in the hopes that they stick a fork in the concept.