RCU Forums - View Single Post - For my NPRM response - how "big" is this hobby?
Old 03-10-2020, 07:31 AM
  #37  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by dionysusbacchus
Read enough of the BS on here from those with an agenda, DJI actually posted an awesome response based on facts, something a certain individual on here purposefully avoids because they don't serve his purpose. These are amazing, thoughtful responses:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51823

And Google depended us, the traditional line of sight modeler:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51456
Pretty encouraging to see Google come out in favor of relaxing the ID requirement so the need for FRIAs is reduced. By my count, there are four lines of reasoning to say FRIAs, as written, don't work:
  1. "Constitutional" : forced association for 800,000 non-CBO members
  2. "Permission" : puts CBO in position of granting permission to fly from their sites; law prohibits FAA from requiring permission
  3. "Capacity" : not enough FRIAs to support over 1 million non-CBO members
  4. "Time out" : not in perpetuity

It will be interesting to see how FAA resolves these comments. The easiest thing would be to expand option to fly w/o equipment retrofit. That would solve all three issues. Then the AMA folks can continue to go their fields, and those who are largely not going to them now can continue flying as they've been flying - perhaps with some operational limits. On the latter, I'd support no autonav, "LAANC-like" notification, and below 400 in class G or permissive altitude in controlled.