franklin_m

So here's an interesting questions.

Some seem to believe that if a CBO has more FRIAs, that makes it somehow more desirable. But is that the metric one should chase? Or is it members? Or something else?

The major advantage of a FRIA is that you can operate there without RemoteID. And at AMA fields at least, that comes at a cost. It's $85 a year PLUS the cost of the club. For the one nearest me, it's $100 a year, but for the sake of argument let's go with $50. So to use the FRIA one has to spend $135 a year for the privilege of flying somewhere that doesn't require RemoteID.

Now it's quite possible that just because someone lives near a club, doesn't mean it'll become a FRIA. I think it was Echo who dug through one of the FAA documents and said they anticipate 10% will be denied. While it's possible some of those will be in sparsely populated areas (say near critical infrastructure etc.), one could envision the the majority of those denied FRIA status will be near more densely populated areas where there is more air traffic, more critical infrastructure, more property owned by people with lawyers on speed dial, and more businesses that don't want overflights. Unfortunately, these are also the same locations where there's the largest pool of potential CBO members.

What happens to each CBO business model / operational model if the cost of RemoteID modules falls to a point where it's less than the cost of joining the CBO? What's the incentive at that point? And does one see the FRIA as a solution in perpetuity? Which CBO business model is more resilient if say there's pressure to reduce the number and coverage of FRIAs? What happens when knuckleheads operating out of a FRIA start crashing on neighboring land, flying over their livestock, buildings, highways, etc.? Will this draw attention to FRIAs from local legislators and regulators and zoning boards who might otherwise have not paid attention? What happens to each CBO's business model then?

I'm not convinced that more FRIAs is better, especially when it's quite possible not too far in the future that the overwhelming number of sUAS operators - who don't eat live and breathe on RCG or here - will already have RemoteID embedded, or not need them because they're sub 250g. Or, for those that aren't, do we really think that FliteTest and FPV forums won't be full of places to buy modules? At that point, won't FRIAs be relegated to the diminishing number of people who either refuse to participate in RemoteID or have some special "need" to fly at a club field (social, hard surface runway, etc.)? Is that a winning business model?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

to start off, if you are laying out a fria zone, you better be sure to get overfly permission from any one that is under it, property wise.

probably a good idea to remember that our safety code mentions that flying over people and property should be avoided. or at least, last time i read it anyway.

then i apply the McDonalds principal to it:

as in, having the most locations does not equate to the best quality product.

most folk prefer good quality over mass locations. for myself, i NEVER eat mcdonalds.
much prefer to find a local establishment wherever i am.

franklin_m

I agree. What you note above would seem wise to me, but we'll see if those requesting FRIAs are thinking long term or short term. Short term thinkers will try to assert their "right" to fly over farms, buildings, livestock, crops, etc., but in doing so draw negative attention to FRIAs writ large. Those thinking long term will understand that staying under the radar of neighbors, zoning boards, and regulators is the secret to long term viability.

As for the rest, I do think those CBOs requesting large numbers of FRIAs are going to be in for some surprises. I'm thinking here of places where you have several fixed sites in a relatively small area (definition at discretion of FAA). The CBO can avoid being the bad guy and just submit for all the fixed sites, but then which ones get the FRIAs and which don't in that example is up to the FAA. What happens if the FAA says the site with the FRIA is the one that's not accepting new CBO members? Oops. That could get ugly, as why would a potential new CBO member want to join if the FRIA near them won't allow them to join their club? Alternative, if the CBO takes the other approach and they make the decision which to submit and which not, then the CBO is the bad guy. In the case of AMA, they won't enforce their own safety rules, does anything really think they're going to let members see them as the bad guy in choosing haves and have nots with respect to FRIAs?

As for the whole McD's thing, I get you on that one. Chains are great when you just need food, don't want to think and are willing to take consistency over quality. However, that's a problem for AMA, as all clubs are not anywhere close to equal in terms of their "menu." Sticking with the McD's analogy, one site may have Big Macs and cheeseburgers only. Another has a full menu with some exceptions. One serves breakfast, but others don't open until noon. Others serve hamburgers and fries only, nothing else. So I think AMA will even struggle on the consistency model.

franklin_m

And we already have our answer to one of the questions... flyover areas.

On the other site, an EC member is admitting that they misrepresented their flying area on their FRIA application. Here's a direct quote:

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

LOL
You're so clueless.

To clarify, the circle encompasses where we actually fly over, and acres of uninhabited wet lands and a pond unless you count snakes and gators, that are behind our flight line.

franklin_m

Clueless, and LOL? I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

When has it EVER been ok to not be accurate or mis-represent reality* on a document submitted to the federal government?

And it says a lot about the safety culture of the AMA when an EC Member sees questioning the content of an official document sent to the Federal Government as "LOL".

* Especially when done willfully as you've admitted.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Or, counterpoint, I specified an area that we could possibly, but don't routinely overfly. Just as an added safety precaution.

franklin_m

Again, what you're submitting to the US Government, on an official document, you KNOW to be inaccurate.

The reason why is immaterial. You're just rationalizing false official statements.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I might agree with your assertion if the only reason to be a member of a club was to fly at a FRIA without an RID module. I have been a member of several local clubs since long before any of this FRIA madness began and will likely remain a club member in the future. I have no problem paying for club membership because it gives me something that I find value in, a well maintained place to fly with smooth runways and amenities (along with softer benefits derived from the social aspect of being a club member). Clubs tend to be very transparent with their budgets, so I am confident that the money I am paying is not going to waste.

So FRIA or not, I will remain a club member because I want to have access to fly at location that is suited to the purpose and have a place to gather with others who also enjoy the hobby. In the near term, at least, those clubs require AMA membership in order to have flying privileges. I consider that to be a necessary fee (like a hunting or fishing license). Maybe someday, some other CBO (FTCA or FPVFC or even someone new) will emerge that provides the insurance and administrative benefits (like FRIA application) and provide local clubs an alternative to the AMA.

franklin_m

My deep, profound, and most humble apologies if in any way I omitted the exhaustive list of benefits of club membership. I was merely trying to capture the major one as it relates to the fundamental question: Are more FRIAs the right metric? I personally have no problem if people choose to join clubs for paved runways, golf-course level grass, social, or even because you like the color of the buildings. So long as it's a choice.

As for the other benefits mentioned above, insurance and FRIA application. There are now three CBOs that can ask for FRIAs, and there could be more (I hope so). But there's a sizeable part of the potential member population that may not require an area to fly w/o RemoteID. And as I noted above, are the CBOs that are more heavily reliant on a FRIA model resilient enough to survive on those who "need" a FRIA either for RemoteID reasons or the exhaustive list of other benefits above.

I will make one additional observation. While it frequently comes up in these and other forums, and on some CBO websites, there is nothing in Federal law or FAA regulation that REQUIRES insurance.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I am genuinely not trying to be argumentative here, but I really don't know what your point is. I thought you were saying that if RID is cheap and easy then we don't need FRIAs or CBOs, but maybe I was mistaken. I do not understand is how are you using the "metric" of "more FRIAs". What decision are you proposing is being made based on that metric? What purpose would it serve?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

That is another "Urban Legend" propagated by the AMA and its' loyal (sometimes ignorant) minions.

With that being said, in todays' litigious society, I don't know many who would want to fly without some kind of insurance coverage. I've gone round and round with one member here regarding insurance, and he denies that one can get affordable coverage somewhere other than AMA, despite posting pictures of a policy that one group I belong to has. Also, as has been mentioned before, AMA is secondary to one's own personal (homeowner's) coverage. While many homeowners' policies do not cover our activities, I have known MANY who have been able to add model specific coverage to their existing policy for very little $$.

Now that the FAA has officially recognized multiple CBO's, presumably with many more to follow, insurance will only become more common, more readily available and even more affordable.

As far as more FRIA's being better, I am in the camp that says, the more, the better (for the hobby in general), assuming the users of those FRIA's adhere to the established rules and work with the FAA as good stewards, instead of digging their heels in every time the FAA speaks.

Astro

franklin_m

There are some that say one particular CBO is a better choice than others because they have (or expect to have) more FRIAs. I am questioning whether that is sustainable long term. If RID modules drop to such a low level, one may not need FRIAs at all. Regulatory schemes are likely (based on history at least) to become more restrictive, perhaps eliminating FRIAs as an option. So I question whether (a) it's a representative metric for deciding (on a non-individual basis) and (b) if a CBO built on a stable need for FRIAs is a sustainable business model.

aymodeler

My Feedback: (3)

I think the problem with this is the assumption that the CBO and FRIA status is the reason for being a member of a club. For me personally (and I suspect if it came right down to it for most people who are club members) the club is the priority and the CBO (typically the AMA, at least today), is simply a means to an end. My belief is that the club model will ultimately prevail because that is the best place to fly (at least for many/most of us). Historically, the AMA provided the clubs the structure and organization (and yes the insurance) needed to help them and the hobby to grow and thrive. How that will play out in the future is still TBD but I am not sure that FRIAs will be the determining factor, it will be whether or not the clubs themselves provide benefits that attract and retain members (regardless of CBO affiliation).

p.s.; In case it wasn't clear, I will make my judgment about being a club member not based on CBO affiliation but based on what the club offers. Ultimately, I don't care if one CBO is better than another (unless that allows the club I join to offer me more of what I want). I suspect most others will end up feeling the same once this all plays out.

franklin_m

And yet the FAA says it does matter.
FAA Response: FRIA Lateral Limits - RCU Forums (rcuniverse.com)

ira d

The AMA will be the only CBO to have FRIA sites for the most part because the other CBO's don't have many if any flying sites. The FAA got this remote ID thing wrong and the way it should work
is that RID would be required if you fly near sensitive places like prisons and stadiums and airports.