astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Model aircraft ARE drones in the FAA's eyes. They make no distinction. That is another harmful consequence of the AMA romancing the drones.

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Out of the hundreds of thousands of flights you can find 4 videos that show unsafe behavior at club sites and you base your opinion on that. When was the last time you visited a club field yourself? Classic example of drinking the Cool- Aid. And if I were to take the time to watch your boat videos I can easily find unsafe behavior.

ECHO24

No on both counts. Look at the drone forums. Droners are already flying BVLOS illegally. They aren't going to start announcing their takeoff location
(one of the broadcast elements) when flying a half-mile away because of some new rule. No flying over occupied vehicles or dwellings? They have
been violating the rules for so long with no consequences they aren't going to start obeying this one. It's totally unenforceable like all the rest.

And the FAA is well aware of it: "In 2019, the FAA alone received an average of six reports daily from people who claimed to have witnessed
unauthorized drone operations." That's from the RDQ decision, 180 reports per month, just the ones they know about.

The FAA made a political decision on Remote ID modules to move this down the road. I give it two years before they scrap it entirely citing
widespread noncompliance.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

On the surface 180 reports in a month sounds like a lot. However the percentage of overall drone flights would have that 180 in the single digits.

So what happens when the FAA requires a piece of equipment that apparently no manufacturer is willing to produce? IMO FAA gets egg in the face.

As far as a module not functioning properly ( if they get produced ), all one can do is turn on your model and verify function with your cell phone. Doesn’t mean that it’s transmitting at the designed range.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

And this is yet another example of how different drones are from traditional model aircraft. We are taught early on to not fly our traditional model aircraft over people and houses. The vast majority of drone flights do just this by nature of the reason to be flying a drone in the first place. Not flying over structures, roads, people would negate the vast majority of drone flights.

It is for this reason, albeit seemingly benign, that it was one of AMA’s biggest mistakes to not clearly advocate for clear separation of drones and traditional models.

By not advocating for clear separation, they have caused many issues for the traditional modelers, who are, and have always been, the core of their membership despite the fact that traditional modeling poses virtually zero threat to any concerns the FAA has in managing the NAS.

Astro

ECHO24

On September 16th, 6 weeks from now, all "Drones" sold in the US over 250 grams are required to comply with Remote ID. Does that include RC planes?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

until such time as a fria is named and operational, yes. it does include R/C planes.

ECHO24

How would it be determined that a plane was going to be flown exclusively at a FRIA when there's no such option for a drone?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

There is NO distinction between planes and drones....They are ALL sUAS now. No distinction. Where have you been?

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

The actual deadline is a year from now.

ECHO24

You're thinking add-on modules. For manufacturers it's September 16, 2022.

Got my first reply on Remote ID, this one from JR PROPO (formerly just JR). Not sure what to make of it. There is also another outfit
I found in Japan that sells Remote ID modules for that market:

"Yes, We are in process of developing our own RC Remote ID device for Japanese Market, since it is required in Japanese Air regulations.
(Totally bull **** but we have to follow this rule which was originally planned in the USA by FAA, ) Anyway, May I ask where are you based ?
Please let me know your country regulations since it may differ from our required items on remote ID.

Thank you

Best regards,
Mooney Takamura

JR PROPO

Konishi Mokei Co., Ltd. (RC DEPOT)
1-3-17 Izumi, Noda-City,

Chiba-Pref., 270-0239
JAPAN
Ph: 81-4-7197-2958
FAX:81-4-7127-8010
[email protected]

scottrc

Doesn't sound like RID modules to make current aircraft compliant by next year is not a high priority. Are there any on the market yet?
Same with all manufactured drones being compliant in a few months, again, not a lot of marketing the fact.

Compliance by modelers to this new rule will be like trying to comply to the "do not tear the mattress tag off". Since is such a low chance of being caught and punished, many will just to continue to fly without any registering, RID modules, or joining a FRIA. Almost everyone I fly with have stopped registering and jumping through the hoops of trying to stay up on the rules, and I am the only one I know of who still keeps his AMA.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

you are aware that,
as the end user of the mattress/pillow/or whatever else may have one of those do not remove tags,
you are allowed to remove the tag, as long as you never try to re sell it later.

init4fun

I'd give this post a "Like" If I could......

I think so many comedians have milked the ol "I cut the tag off , , , and the mattress police were at the door 5 minutes later" joke to the point that some people actually believe it's illegal to cut it off.

ECHO24

speedracerntrixie is right though, there is some risk flying outside a dedicated field. A big one for me, apart from hitting someone or something,
is confrontation. Certain people get annoyed at anything flying, not just drones. And now with Remote ID anyone with a cell phone will be able to
tag your ID - or not and confront you over not having it.

I'm working on a 50" sub-250g plane. If anyone complains it's "Show me your scale."
https://lemon-rx.com/index.php?route...product_id=246

ECHO24

No rely from any other radio manufacturer about Remote ID modules. I sent emails to a few more, same
question, "Does [company] plan on selling Remote ID modules for RC model aircraft?"

Radiolink
FlyskyRC
VolantixRC
HobbyKing, Turnigy and Orange
Horizon Hobby (E-Flight) directly. I had sent an email to Spektrum but now have a HH support ticket.

Although RDQ lost the lawsuit other issues could have derailed Remote ID. Namely, who has authority over low level airspace below
a tree line or a fence, the FAA or local governments. RDQ and their lawyers were criticized (by AMA's infamous former lawyer Brendan
Schulman and others) for arguing that the FAA did not. Any decision questioning whether the FAA was the controlling authority would
have resulted in endless litigation on where up starts and down begins. RDQ lost that too. But the uncertainty may have slowed things.

No modules because of no clear guidance or manufacturers see no market for them. What's the difference? The hobby is toast.

ECHO24

Radiomaster was first to reply:

"Hi,

Thank you for choosing Radiomaster

As for the product you mentioned, we have plans to sell it in the future. Currently, we are still studying it and have not received any other information for the time being

You can follow us on FB/IG for updates

Here's the link"

https://www.facebook.com/radiomasterrc

https://www.instagram.com/radiomasterrc/

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

With the exception of Spektrum all the manufacturers you query have low market share. I would have asked Futaba, JR and Jeti as there is more saturation in the US market.

I think though the obvious answer is the FAA have not furnished any specifications to the manufacturers. The question is why.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

such as they are,
here are links to ASTM standards to be used in compliance.

https://www.astm.org/f3411-22a.html
https://www.astm.org/f3586-22.html

not for free,are they.

"What IS true is that the FAA has not declared any intention to CERTIFY "means of compliance". Anyone can submit a RID device to the FAA, and if the FAA determines it's acceptable then it may be used. The Government is not assuming liability, so the FAA apparently has no plans to do their own independent testing or analysis of these devices."

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Interesting, I’ve read answers from two manufacturers ( Radiomaster and JR ) who claim the FAA has not furnished enough info for them to manufacture.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Sounds like Clinton, “I did not have sex with that woman”

LOL

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

FWIW to the original topic, despite a couple of the heavy hitter drone lawyers thinking otherwise, I pretty much assumed the RDQ arguments were going to get squashed like a bug.

init4fun

Ah the ol "eatin ain't cheatin" defense, , , , , I couldn't believe he tried that with a straight face. Takes a well seasoned liar to look a grand jury in the eye and play cutesy with words like this.....

" Aug. 17: Clinton testifies to the grand jury for more than four hours on closed circuit television. He admits to “inappropriate intimate contact” but also says that he had given accurate evidence in January, arguing that, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

init4fun

The classic "Ya can't fight City Hall" on a slightly grander scale......

ECHO24

I did ask Futaba, JR and Jeti in the first batch companies I emailed.

Reply from HobbyKing (Turnigy and Orange). Short and to the point.

" No. We do not have any remote ID modules available to provide.


Best Regards,

James Bauer
Product Specialist
Customer Service Team
HobbyKing.com