franklin_m

Wrong. He may have said that earlier, but he contracted himself. Beginning at 21:32, and I quote: "So if they decided that the ... to remove the provisions that make the .... uh flying areas exempt, if they removed the provision that essentially tries to sunset those ... so that they become a permanent part of the solution ... then that ... that level of change would require that it to go back out for comment again (emphasis added)." - Jim Williams, AMA consultant, in AMA Podcast #23 interview.

He also contradicted his own earlier comments again later, when he talked about how in several places the FAA specifically asked for comments on issues. It's hard to imagine that response to those comments would not require adding SOMETHING. So if indeed what he said at the beginning was correct, that adding required sending it out again, that it would be counter productive for FAA to ask for comments on items.

Mr. Williams would appear to disagree, given that he specifically addressed that change and specifically said it "would require that it go back out for comment again." His words, not mine. Quoted directly.

There's more than than one way to "remove" something, as demonstrated by the actions by Congress to neuter the Affordable Care Act. Defund, add other language that renders the policy unworkable, etc. For example adding language that requires FRIAs to be open to all citizens equally under the law, might well impact decisions to ask for them at all. So while nothing has been "removed" from the rule, and it's still possible for someone to establish a FRIA, the reality is very few will do so if it has to be open to everyone. Which effectively "removes" the concept w/o explicitly doing so.

franklin_m

Which is why multiple redundant methods are required, hence my support for registration AND marking AND Remote ID AND limiting operations at FRIAs to within lateral limits of land set aside for exclusive use of the agency requesting the FRIA. As well as other provisions necessary to keep people on the ground safe from unwanted overflights of both "drones" and "traditional model aircraft"

Not sure how F16 flap actuators are germane.

RCUer75345

At least as germane as mandatory AAA membership to drive an antique car.

The point being: It's easy to put requirements on paper. It's another thing entirely to make it actually happen.

I would think any electronics technician who was unable to figure out how to wire around a "tamper proof" Remote ID module within a couple of hours wouldn't be worth hiring.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

I'm betting it would just be a matter of re flashing the firmware. The same exact thing that guys are doing to their car's ECU. I had it done to my Denali with a 6.0 Vortec engine, got me another 50 HP. If anyone thinks that guys are not going to find work arounds for remote ID is a fool. I'm even betting that they will be able to program to send out bogus registration numbers and/or inaccurate location.


Once again, our Fed loves to implement laws that only affect the law abiding citizens, the bad players continue to be bad players. The FRIA sites are a good solution. The only reason why anyone would not think so is because of their bias against the AMA. The only drawback is that they are destined to go away.

RCUer75345

Franklin's comments (now public record) may be found here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-37771

It will be interesting to see the FAA's response. I do hope they have the good sense to discard this suggestion in full.

RCUer75345

Over 45,000 comments. Should have been more, but not bad. If I persuaded even one individual to speak up for traditional model aviation, it was time well spent.

FUTABA-RC

168,000 Part 107 pilots and the original Part 107 NPRM only got 4,700 comments. This response is not bad at all. And now we wait. 2, maybe 3 years before we hear anything.

FUTABA-RC

He really, really hates the AMA.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

You definitely helped. Thanks

dabigboy

Just to be clear....park flyers are not freeloaders. There is no "free ride". Where do you get the idea that members of the public utilizing a public space are getting a "free ride"? Parks are paid for with taxes, state/federal grants, bonds, etc, for the use of all. We all pay sales taxes, if you own property then you pay property taxes (and if you rent, you're financing the landlord's property taxes), if you make any income then you're paying local and state income tax.

But actually, what you pay (or not) in taxes is irrelevant: enter the concept of a Public Good. A public good has no particular use fee, and is freely available to all. A visitor from out of state who didn't contribute a dime to the park is free to come in and use the park, no fee or tax required. Public spaces are just that: PUBLIC.

In my opinion, it's also wrong of municipalities to charge a fee based on the nature of activity occurring at the park. If the general public is free to go to the park and walk their dogs without a fee, then RC flying should also not require a fee (although specific activities could be banned altogether, at the discretion of the municipality). Just because only a few people partake in a certain activity, that's no excuse to charge for said activity. The guy doing push-ups in the grass has just as much right to a public space as the family on a picnic or the kid with a park flyer.

We must resist the idea that everything is pay-to-play. We could turn into the United States of Everything-Has-A-Price.........

dabigboy

Ya know, I think Franklin is trollin' us. But I do very much appreciate his viewpoint on the FRIA/AMA issue (and his detailed, professional comment to the FAA). Let's face it, the AMA would most likely have a de facto monopoly on FRIAs. And the equal protection and Constitutional issues he raises are very real. I myself do not care for the way the FAA is, in a sense, delegating regulatory authority to a private organization (be it AMA or any other CBO). The FAA is basically throwing FRIA flyers to the mercy of AMA and saying "obey their rules".

Anyways, to Franklin or anyone else who is getting in a hissy fit about safety or national security issues, I must ask: where's your data? I can sit here and dream up all sorts of dire scenarios for any number of activities that the government could further regulate, but if there's no existing problem, more regulation would only restrict freedom without actually helping anything. I know, Franklin talks about the FAA taking measures to prevent accidents before they occur or become a trend, but that does not mean the FAA chases imagined problems or what-if scenarios. When the FAA enacts something like an airworthiness directive, for instance, it's always AFTER a problem is discovered, and oftentimes after one or more accidents. An example is the recent Piper spar AD: an examiner and student lost a wing and were killed, the NTSB discovered unusual metal fatigue on the sheared spar, inspections were done on multiple other aircraft and similar problems were found. That is a clear, demonstrable safety issue. Moreover, it involves an area the FAA already regulates and is heavily involved in: certification and continued airworthiness of FAA-approved aircraft. What the Remote ID NPRM seeks is a massive power-grab into new territory, with little to no evidence or data to justify it.

Anyone freaking out about "drones" probably has no concept of the aviation industry. I flew RC for years...crashed a lot, never hurt anyone or put anyone in serious danger. Now I have a "real" airplane. I'm a far greater risk in the big bird than when I was flying RC. Despite my best efforts, there are times when an engine failure, for instance, would leave me little choice but to aim for something soft and cheap and hope for the best. Most of the airports I frequent near the metro area have houses or businesses right next to them. A slow, sloppy approach, combined with a moment of distraction and just enough windshear at the right moment could result in my little airplane and its spinning propeller dropping into someone's living room. And there are numerous accident reports where something like this actually happened. But, the public doesn't watch a plane overhead and fret that it's not being tracked by the government, or look up the registration to make sure it's current, or worry about whether or not the pilot's training is current and that he's not overly fatigued, has enough gas in the plane, is aware of the weather, etc, even though the data is there to show that all these are real issues and do come up in accident reports, sometimes with injuries and deaths on the ground. That's because it's a risk we're accustomed to. The government here is playing on risks we're NOT accustomed to, or at least have never fully accepted (like terrorists using UASs, or errant drones running into airliners, etc). The rationale for all this new rulemaking is driven by emotion, not by data or logic.

The government has too many of us convinced that it must track and control everything that scares us so that it can protect us. I'm far more afraid of my own government than of an errant drone wandering into my flight path or falling on my house.

What a lot of us in the aviation community are missing is that this isn't really about the FAA at all. This is an avenue for the federal government to usurp property rights. By claiming that anything above ground level is "national airspace" and then asserting that the FAA controls all "airspace", what the government is really saying is that your private property is not really your own, and an unelected bureaucracy like the FAA has full authority over how you use it. This even usurps local and state control of public areas (a city can't ban drone use in parks, for instance, if the FAA disagrees, because "national airspace").

Remember, the original idea behind the CAA/FAA and national airspace is that no on really owns or controls "the sky", so a government agency was set up to handle it. This is a legitimate rationale. By saying your back yard is part of "the sky", what the FAA is really saying is that the only property that's yours is the actual ground.....which makes the concept of private property null and void for most purposes.

tedsander

I never meant to imply "freeloading". I pay for those spaces too. Being pretty old school, I meant that back in the day, we recognized that what we had could do damage. Dependability was very low, and size/speed was comparatively high. So most recreational fliers moved themselves to spaces where they were less likely to cause damage. But that came with costs (field maint., insurance, etc.) With the rise of "park flying", and greater dependability, also came the advent of few/no rules/almost-anywhere-I-want flying, without additional costs (dues, insurance). 99.9999% were/are still very responsible flyers. But the few with poor judgement have ruined it for the many. So, at best, everyone will have to pay-to-play in some version or another. Or, if the majority of the NPRM goes forward, we all won't even be able to play...

As far as the "public good" argument - fine in theory, but long since abandoned in practice. I pay a seperate fee to cross-country ski in my local park. I pay to launch my boat from my local city park. I pay a fee to shoot arrows at a hay bale in my local park. That last is especially highly regulated - I just can't do that anywhere I want (over a public road, in the front yard of my house, etc.).

franklin_m

More correctly:

(1) "I really, really oppose the AMA (or any private dues collecting organization) using law or regulation to compel membership and/or force association"

(2) "I really, really oppose placing any private dues collecting organization in in a quasi-governmental role, where the 'Taj-Muncie' knights of the round table can decide who can and cannot have access to FRIAs, effectively putting unaccountable (to taxpayers) individuals in control of access to and operations in the public airspace."

FUTABA-RC

Got it. A distinction without a difference.

So now we sit and wait for at least a couple of years for the FAA and Federal Government sausage factory to grind away on this. They are prohibited by law from talking about it now until they issue the Final Proposed Rule NPRM. Consider this, ADS-B for manned aircraft was first proposed in 2007. It only just this year became fully required. Our best hope now is Congress. They can change laws, and is what it will take to ultimately save the model airplane hobby.

franklin_m

Well, here's how I see it. We know that FAA uses software to detect form letters or inputs that are substantially identical (i.e. clumsy cut and paste from form letter). So a vast majority of the 50K comments are going to land in the same "buckets", effectively diluting their impact.

My comments on the other hand are completely independent, and likely not duplicated elsewhere in a way that will trigger the software. Which means each of the summary points I made are their own "bucket", each of which requires them to be considered. As such, they won't be diluted in the same way as other comments. And there are some out there who may well have also commented about the forced association thing. And since they're not "form letters" or extracts from same, they carry increased weight.

• We know FAA was stung by the Taylor case, having a rule thrown out, so one can expect they'd be wary of things that could result in a court tossing out a rule - and nothing better than Constitutional issues like forced association, equal protection under the law, etc.
• And of course we know agencies like power, so things like ceding inherently governmental authority are surely to garner notice (btw, that was quoted DIRECTLY in FAA response to registration rule comments).
• And finally, OMB pays attention to costs that weren't considered, especially when they're several times larger annually than the highest single cost considered (annual web app membership) - and even more so when the overwhelming majority of the money goes to ONE private group (i.e. no meaningful competition ... unlike the app)

As I said earlier, I support the FAA's efforts to provide safety and security, and this rule is necessary (though I'll argue not sufficient in and of itself - needs to be other policies added). But also I vehemently oppose a private dues collecting organization using rule or law to compel membership and/or force association. And I also vehemently oppose an unaccountable (to taxpayers) private organization acting in a quasi-governmental role. So long as AMA (or any other CBO) stays in its lane, and doesn't run afoul of either forced association or quasi-governmental, I could care less what they do. But cross either of those bright lines, and I become active. Just like I would oppose AOPA trying to require membership to fly from private airports (or operate some types of aircraft) or requiring AAA to operate on some roads (or some types of vehicles).

franklin_m

Yep. That's the rule making process. Meanwhile AMA's membership revenue will continue to decline as (1) the demographics continue to catch up with them and, (2) they fundamentally cannot find ways to provide tangible value for folks who see membership as rational economic decision.

Not true. They can talk about it all they like so long as it's done in a public forum. And I suspect that includes things like online postings etc. to public sites.

Yep. And why? In part because of significant costs imposed on aircraft owners. And darned if I didn't mention a significant cost not considered as part of the FRIA proposal.

You mean the same Congress that was unswayed by AMA's efforts to use AMA number in lieu of registration? Or the same Congress that when registration was thrown out immediatly gave FAA explicit permission? Or the same Congress that was unswayed by AMA's efforts to preserve 336? Or the same Congress that was unswayed by AMA's arguments to not impose altitude limits? Or the same Congress that was unswayed by AMA's efforts to prohibit FAA from imposing Remote ID?

And all the while, demographics and declining revenue will continue ... because AMA's fundamental business strategy has not kept up with the times and changing hobby landscape.

FUTABA-RC

Just going by what Jim Williams, a long time FAA employee with extensive experience in the FAA rule making process and former head of the sUAS Office, said recently. Clearly he is not as well informed as you are.

franklin_m

What you said:
What I replied:
What you said then:
This is an example of what I think happens with AMA and their meetings with FAA, Congressional staff, etc. You know, the meetings where AMA comes out and talks about how FAA/Congress etc. is saying really positive things ... only to later get something completely different. I think what's happening is they hear something they want to hear, and then they are so busy thinking about what they wanted to hear that they don't bother to listen to the REST OF THE SENTENCE. It's even more likely when you're inclined to believe your own rhetoric about how effective you are ... you tend to hear what you want and are blind to the other messages. Sooooo ..... Here's what Williams ACTUALLY said on AMA Podcast #23, starting at 1943:
So let's remind everyone of the snide comment you directed at me ...


As it's not an issue of him not being as informed as me. It's a case of ME actually listening to the entire sentence ...

mach5nchimchim

Well well, it's crickets no longer as our resident aerospace faa expert has returned to ripple the pond again...

franklin_m

It’s trivially simple. Just listen to the whole sentence.

FUTABA-RC

Then I look forward to their updates and announcements in "public forums" as they move forward. Glad I was wrong. It will be nice not to be in the dark until they day they drop the final rule on us.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

...and, apparently, our resident multiple-personality troll!

Astro

mach5nchimchim

You better go back and read all my prior posts Porky, I haven't trolled anyone, unless they threw the 1st stones; so unless you want to wind up roasted Luau style, if trouble aint looking for you, then you best not be looking for trouble capisce

init4fun

Chill out Francis .....

mach5nchimchim

ok boomer...