franklin_m

DoJ issued guidance for counter-drone activities in the US. Includes procedures to designate sensitive areas (to include both fixed and mobile areas), authorizations, exigent circumstances, record keep, use of force, forfeiture of the drone, privacy, etc.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...osed-by-drones and
https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1268401/download

Of note, memo discusses national security events. As I'm sure many will recall, this includes major sporting events, NCAA football games, among others. Additionally, we've all seen the growing protected locations list - military bases, critical infrastructure, prisons, etc. - those are all included and suspect this will cause that list to grow dramatically (IMO). For once so designated, this guidance gives authority for counter-drone ops.
IMO, since DOJ requires this information for their counter-drone guidance, I really don't see much in the way of changes to the RemoteID NPRM ... to include gradual elimination of FRIAs over time. Pretty clear, RemoteID for EVERYTHING is the desired end state.

ECHO24

From this footnote in the NPRM, I expect the first thing the FAA will do is require all aircraft with BVLOS
capabilities to operate under standard remote ID at all times, and only allow FPV at approved fields in
tightly controlled closed-course flying like drone racing.

"While this proposed rule does not propose any changes to requirements related to beyond visual line of sight
(BVLOS) operations, the FAA intends for the rule to be dynamic to account for future changes related to line of
sight operations. The FAA specifically notes that this rulemaking requires UAS without remote identification
equipment to always be operated within line of sight."

- and only at FAA-Recognized Identification Areas.

franklin_m

Yep. Pretty clear the walls are closing in on non-RemoteID LOS ops. First drive them all to FRIAs, then FRIAs go away over time, and pretty soon if it flies, it has to have RemoteID.

ECHO24

And nothing in AMA's comment on the NPRM stating they would step up (or begin) efforts to enforce their line of
sight rules. AMA wastes several pages going on about the safety of model aircraft, 80-year history, etc. The rule
is aimed at FPV and drones.

Not once in AMA's comment do they even acknowledge their FPV program, just 2 references to "collocated
spotter" divorced from the subject. Do they really think the FAA doesn't know about it?

"The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV) operations
during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images transmitted from a
camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to provide a simulation of what a
pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s vision, thereby
preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times."

That's a footnote from the FAA's interpretation of 336. Not likely forgotten since AMA sued them over it.

franklin_m

For several years I've been advocating for AMA to develop a credible safety management system instead of the "PowerPoint Program" (note 1) they have right now. FAA is well aware that AMA talks a good game, but delivers little. FAA sees that on one hand, AMA wants to be the BMOC when it comes to managing FRIAs. However on the other hand, they see that AMA takes a hands off approach to safety, operating discipline, etc., saying "It's up to individual clubs." In short, AMA is trying to have it both ways, and the EC is delusional if they think the FAA doesn't notice. I'm certain that some in the FAA are thinking "You're either in control or you're not. What we see is all talk and no action. So that tells us you're not really in control - so we'll have to do it."

AMA would do well to start exercising some control over their clubs and members to show FAA that they're a serious organization. But they won't, because AMA really doesn't want to control anything, because they don't want to be accountable. They just want to sit back, take in the money, and do as little as possible to actually earn it (from member's perspective). Again, for AMA it's all about "Looking good" rather than actually "Being good." Which is why you have EC members attend major public event and know or should know that safety margins are not even close to AMA recommendations -- and doing NOTHING about it. And you can bet that FAA knows about stuff like that. In fact, I'm certain they know.


Yet another example of AMA choosing to ignore the signs in a lost hope of bringing in more money. The fact that they cling to this idea that all these droners are going to join is as foolhardy today as it was back when they tried to use 336 to compel membership. Hey AMA ... PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO BE FORCED TO JOIN SOMETHING.


Note 1: "PowerPoint Program" is a pejorative term used in DoD to describe an acquisition program that exists only on PowerPoint slides and doesn't have money attached to it. In other words, vaporware. Used in this context, it describes a safety program that exists only on paper, as there's ZERO enforcement.

ECHO24

Looks like nothing else can be done now that comments are closed.

Hydro Junkie

What will be interesting now is to see how long it will take before we start seeing news reports about people being busted for flying in unauthorized locations. Any bets we see a quad flyer be first?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

if nothing else, it does tell us who is really driving this stuff forward...

ECHO24

No one yet realizes that FRIAs end off-site insurance. AMA is doomed without those members.

If there are 110,000 paying AMA members and roughl half belong to a flying club, that means AMA's core group
is only 55,000 members. Of the remaining 55,000, the first not to renew will be those who fly off-site and only
joined because of insurance. That includes all the others who thought they had to join AMA to be legal and drone
users who thought AMA was an advocate for drones. That scenario will bankrupt AMA.





.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Nobody said FIRA's end off-site insurance.

The expectation is that off FRIA flying will be a simple app based solution.

R_Strowe

AMA insurance currently covers off-AMA field flying, so why would that change? FRIA status is an FAA/government function, and has nothing to do with AMA.

R_Strowe

ECHO24

An app based solution is specifically rejected by the FAA in the NPRM:

"The FAA considered allowing UAS that would not be able to retrofit to continue operating in the
airspace of the United States using software-based flight notification with telemetry."

"The FAA did not pursue this option because it would not meet the mission needs... it relies on
the individual operator to proactively report their location to a USS."

As it stands, non-remote ID RC flying off-site will be illegal and as such not insurable.

franklin_m

Given that FAA specifically rejected the app based solution as pointed out by Echo above ...

You’re an EC member, what is YOUR idea / plan to get FAA to accept what they previously rejected?

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Yes to both

franklin_m

I really don’t see an insurance company covering losses for what would be illegal activity (off FRIA non-RemoteID compliant flying).

Thus no need to join AMA for folks who choose to do this (like flying off own land).

AMA’s latest attempt to force membership by pushing the FRIA idea on the FAA - may well have sowed the seeds for their more rapid demise.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

It says CBO it doesn't say AMA, so any recognized CBO can establish a FRIA

ECHO24

Something we don't know about?

ECHO24

Which has nothing to do with insurance and off-site flying.

jcmors

I think the concept here is that if the nprm goes through as is, non compliant models would not be legal to fly outside of a FRIA. Would insurance cover a model being flown illegally... ANY insurance, not necessarily just AMA's but even homeowner's policies that cover RC activity? I would not necessarily expect that to be the case but time will tell. That said there is still the ability to fly outside of a FRIA using limited RID or Standard RID. The problem there is that unless something changes and RID becomes something we can purchase at a reasonable price and retrofit into our models, neither of those options really work for traditional modelers but mainly only for multi-rotors pre-built with RID like DJI drones. Then there is the concept of needing internet access which, for me, for rural areas that I fly at when I don't travel to my club field, is not going to work.

In short, it's a real mess.

franklin_m

And yet again, it was the FAA that talked about 3000 sites becoming FRIAs. Gee ... I wonder who went to them and said "People can fly at our sites" ... ?

The other thing is that just because other groups CAN establish FRIAs, the FAA and the OMB cannot ignore ONE PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING organization's near monopolistic control of overwhelming majority of FRIA sites. This is particularly problematic in areas where there are literally no other options for citizens to fly UNLESS they join a PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING ORGANIZATION. This is even more of an issue when OMB sees that this provision in the rule results in annual costs of over $60 million that were not considered (probably because AMA conveniently 'forgot' to mention to FAA that to use their fields people have to join).

ECHO24

This bit about other CBOs has been going on since 2012 when AMA invented the term, There have been no other CBOs
since and there will never be. Great for AMA, but they have painted themselves into a corner with their greed and have
destroyed the hobby in the process.

I knew in 2014 that it was insanity to think that real-time cameras on flying platforms would not be banned at some
point. Yet AMA still bought into the idea. It's over. Pick your own version of how the story ends.

franklin_m

I also can't help but notice our esteemed EC member has been silent on two relevant questions asked of him (paraphrasing):
Or is it that AMA silently WANTS all flying confined to FRIAs, throwing everyone else under the bus, in a last desperate attempt to compel membership in the ONE PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING ORGANIZATION that enjoys a near absolute monopoly on likely FRIA sites?

fliers1

Captain Smith ignored seven iceberg warnings from his crew and other ships. If he had called for the ship to slow down then maybe the Titanic disaster would not have happened. ... The belief that the ship was unsinkable was, in part, due to the fact that the Titanic had sixteen watertight compartments.

Hydro Junkie

Did Captain Smith ignore them or did he even get all of them? You have to remember that the guys manning the telegraph room weren't paid unless they were handling personal messages to or from the passengers so ice warnings weren't looked upon as a priority.
As far as the ship having watertight compartments, that is a myth. In reality, the ship had 16 compartments separated by watertight bulkheads, they weren't sealed at the top so, when they filled, the water just went over the top, filling the next compartment that much faster. Had the bulkheads gone higher, as originally designed, or were actually sealed at the top, the ship may not have sunk or at least not as quickly as it actually did

fliers1

Was Captain Smith to blame for the sinking of the Titanic?
Captain Smith
Smith failed the passengers and crew of Titanic. He failed to heed ice warnings, did not slow his ship when ice was reported directly in his path and allowed lifeboats to leave the sinking ship partially filled, unnecessarily adding at least 500 names to the list of the dead.Mar 3, 2011

History - British History in depth: Titanic: Sinking the Myths - BBC

www.bbc.co.uk › british › britain_wwone › titanic_01