ECHO24

The Malicious Use of Drones section is only 20 pages long. I don't know why anyone would comment on it
without reading it first.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

LOL, the drone that will create the scenario he describes WILL NOT have RID.

ECHO24

Obviously. That's the point of ruling out the others. What part of that don't you get?

*** It's a "she".

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

There are already laws in place to keep UAS away from sports events, concerts etc. A UAS with RID is not going to be a threat to the degree the she implies, a UAS without RID will go unnoticed until too late. It's the same argument as gun control.

franklin_m

And they're working so well right? They continue to be a problem despite the "law in place".

Now wait a minute. Haven't some argued in opposition to RemoteID because of fear that someone might "steal" their ID and use it for harm? In that case, the threat in question WOULD have RemoteID. It would just be someone else's.

Hence the effort to move every sUAS flying to eventually have RemoteID, one of the key reasons the FRIAs are planned to be temporary. Simply put, if you can't fly anywhere w/o RemoteID, it'll speed adoption.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

The bad players will circumvent RID, just like they do gun registration. Another " let's put up speed limit signs do nobody will exceed the speed limit " LOL. All this is nothing more then regulating one of the country's safest outdoor activity ( traditional LOS ) so the uninformed general public feels safe.

ECHO24

You're missing the whole point about remote ID and public safety. You're also off-base saying remote ID is just so the
uninformed general public feels safe. Remote ID is part of the mandate to bring in drones into the national airspace
system. The high profile drone incidents in the interim are the reason various government agencies are now heavily
involved, but remote ID was coming regardless.

R_Strowe

Of course that is what RID is for. I knew that 2 1/2 years ago when the FAA began the latest push for RID.

The pushback from most modelers is not specifically about RID per se; What is really at issue is that, if enacted in it's unchanged form, it will relegate us to flying piss-poor, store bought toys. I personally have something north of $15 grand iinvested in my R/C stuff, and none of it is obsolete. And with the exception of RID (which will render it ALL obsolete), it would be completely, safely flyable for decades. But the DOJ, DOD, FAA, DHS completely disregarded the fact that long-time modelers have substantial investments in equipment, yet chose to design an RID system that is unusable for those modelers.

If the FAA would allow the development of an RID system, that could be retrofitted to current models, and did not have a cellular/wifi requirement, the pushback would be greatly reduced. The problem with many arguments (such as from the NFL) is that the NFL doesn't play it's games out in rural America (with a lack of cellular/wifi coverage); they play in urban centers. So explain to me why we are to be stuck with a system that only allows one to fly in essentially an urban center (where the problem exists), while this system will not allow one to fly in rural settings (where the problem is non-existent).

R_Strowe

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

because they want to be able to "watch" you...

init4fun

Yep , sometimes I agree with Franklin , and sometimes I don't . And this is one of those "DON'T !" times . There is no good reason why we should not be able to retrofit existing models with remote ID , Those of us who DO fly legally would have no problem doing that , and as Speedy so correctly points out , the terrorist ain't gonna be sending any signals from HIS drone unless they are fake "friendly drone" signals .

Feel good legislation , pure and simple , and will do NOTHING to stop the next "911" type attack (Those terrorists didn't follow too many laws in their endeavor , now did they ?????)

And now , where in the Hell is Dennis Propworn , Mr. "minions" himself , to see that not everything Franklin says here is automatically accepted as model airplane gospel

Hydro Junkie

We are all pretty much on the same page at this point so there's really no "pot" to stir to work us "minions" into a frenzy. Granted, we are still talking semantics when we do disagree but we aren't really arguing about the AMA's success or failure anymore as we all know what the results of that are. All that said, IF we start hammering each other on the AMA's results, you can be sure the "worm" will return and with a vengeance

scottrc

Exactly the point, the problem is not me having to equipe my plane with RID, I can do that with a small TX, its the stupid regulation concerning point of manufacturing. Meaning that all UAVs must be from a certified manufacturer and any older models flying will be phased out of the system within three years.

What BS. I have a scale P51 I have been flying for 27 years and was kit built. Under the new regulation, I will not be able to fly it three years after the regulation goes into effect. PERIOD! Unless of coarse I got through Manufacturing Certification.

Then the crap about the FAA designating RC areas for us to fly our traditional models, yet then phasing them out by not premiting renewals?

Its a move to phase out anything that will allow us to be innovative.

And where is the AMA in all this? Not supporting the traditional modeler! The have their head so far into the UAV and Educational rear end of the spectrum that they fell right into the FAA web of entanglement and RC modeling is getting screwed.

EAA is doing a lot more than the AMA to push our case to the FAA, because they feel we tradional RC modelers are getting a bad rap, and are concerned that if the FAA gets their way and forces RC modeling into being obsolete, then they will do it for homebuilt and GA as well.

Scott

Hydro Junkie

I would hit the "LIKE" button on Scott's post, if there were one

jcmors

Agree 100% that it isn't the concept of RID in and of itself that we all disagree with. A retrofit RID solution would be much more acceptable. Perhaps (extremely wishful thinking here and I don't actually believe this is the case) the FAA proposed draconian pre-built models and measures that will kill the hobby so that when they adjust things and allow some sort of retrofit solution we will all breath a sigh of relief and accept it much more widely! Maybe? Could be? Probably not but...?

jcmors

Indeed, so would I!

ECHO24

Remote ID is not "feel good legislation" it's part of the mandate (2016) for integrating drones into the national airspace.
National sercurity agencies became more involved because of high profile drone incidentst like the drone assassination
attempt in Venezuela in August, 2018.

Mainly, though, it's because drone flyers are basically idiots. There were 77 no-fly drone incursions at the Super Bowl this
year and 74 last year:

"If you’ve never been to a Super Bowl, it’s more than just the game itself. It’s 10 days of events in about 26 different
venues. On game day, there was an entire team of people to mitigate any drones that came into the airspace. We
had the ability to track drones up to 50 miles out, and on game day our no-fly zone was 30 miles out. And they could
mitigate a threat within a one-mile to three-mile radius.

There were 74 drones observed in the days leading up to the Super Bowl. They were running after drones constantly.
There were 10 drones observed on game day, and in fact the Blue Angels flyove was disrupted by a drone. The Blue
Angels actually had to elevate their altitude because of a drone."

Remote ID will at least allow security officials to focus on actual threats:

"This will help the law enforcement agents distinguish drones properly registered under Remote ID as belonging to
hobbyists from drones that are potential threats operated by criminals. If a drone approaches the event without this
automatic identification system, it will alert the agents that the drone is not registered, which can be considered a
factor in determining whether the drone constitutes a threat."

jcmors

ECHO, understood about the use of RID as one of the factors used to determine a drone as being a potential threat. In the case however of drones at the Super Bowl. There should be NO drones flying at Super Bowl activities, therefor, RID equipped, or not, ANY drone flying within the 1 to 3 mile distance is unauthorized to be there and should be dealt with accordingly. In this case, RID or not shouldn't even be a factor in determining that there is a problem. Once RID is in effect, even an RID equipped drone is not legally allowed to be flying over the superbowl, or over a fire or emergency situation or.... many other sensitive areas where sUAS flight is not allowed.

Hydro Junkie

True, but a RID equipped drone would tell the local LEOs who's drone it is and where to go to arrest the person that flew/allowed the drone to fly in the restricted airspace, that is unless the address is "counterfeited" and that would lead to a whole other can of worms

jcmors

Very true, good point Hydro.

ira d

I think we are going to find out very quickly after the RID system is implemented that many modelers will defeat it especially by people with ill intent. IMO the
FAA has things backwards instead of trying to keep track of all models in the sky they should only require RID to operate in certain locations or near
sensitive area like power plants or stadiums.

ECHO24

I think you ansered your own question. Once RID is in effect a drone flyer would know if their drone was equiped
with remote ID they'd get caught, meaning fewer nusiance drones the authorities have to worry about.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about RID narrowing the actual threats security officials have to worry about.
It's the consensus of top security experts that RID is critically important for that very reason, to identify the non-threats.

R_Strowe

It’s not about understanding why RID is needed, it is more about how the NPRM states that RID needs to be a complete system, and that retrofitting of existing systems will not be allowed. Additionally, requiring either cellular or wifi is a non-starter, as many safe, rural flying sites are not covered.

R_Strowe

jcmors

Exactly this! So without being able to retro-fit an RID device on existing models or amateur built aircraft, what happens to those who buy these completely built RID enabled packages after a crash (not that I would even be interested in buying one to begin with)? I have had instances where my model heli or plane needed repairs to the extent that it was very nearly a complete re-kit. I don't get the impression that we would be allowed to rebuild a model around the RID unit afterwards. So these will be what? Disposable? You buy the complete RID equipped model as an entire unit and if something happens you just throw it away and buy another complete package?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Echo, I think the root of our disagreement is that you think RID will,be a deterrent whereas I do not. Keep in mind that the same government that think we need RID is the same that thought stricter gun laws was going to reduce the number of shootings in Chicago, and the same that want to budget millions of dollars toward RID while Flint Mi. still has undrinkable water. Those 8 companies currently developing RID, who is funding that? I don't see them self funding as developing apps for just 1M perspective coustomers does not make much financial sense. With that said, off to the flying field I go.

ECHO24

It's not me that who thinks remote ID will be a deterent, it's the nation's top security officials. Your dissagreement is with
their expert opinion. And it's not a deterent per se for secrity officials. For the umteenth time, it's to identify non-threats.

It's the FAA who sees remote ID as a deterent:

"Unmanned aircraft operators who know they cannot easily be identified are more likely to engage in
careless, reckless, or dangerous behavior because they believe they will not be caught.

Your gun analogy might work if guns had remote ID. They don't.