The FAA’s Remote ID Proposal for Drones is Here!
 

Just got the email. Looks like they are moving forward with having Remote ID for all "drones" including our LOS airplanes. However, look closely at the bottom diagrams. When flying at an AMA sanctioned field, no remote ID required. Thats a good sign for us who fly at an AMA field.

Want to try that again?

Yep , his link doesn't work .....

I would like to call all of your attention to one particular portion of paragraph 6 of the Email , the exact wording as follows ;

"Equipping drones with remote identification technologies would build on previous steps taken by the FAA and the UAS industry to safely integrate operations , including the small UAS rule , which covers drones weighing less than 55 pounds other than model aircraft , and the low altitude authorization and notification capability (LANNC) which automates the application and approval process for drone operators to obtain airspace authorizations ."

Specifically , does anyone else take the "other than model aircraft" language to mean that the FAA does indeed intend to recognize LOS model aircraft as a different regulatory device VS a BLOS drone , and that the remote ID would pertain to only that craft which is being flown beyond it's operator's line of sight ?

:D ... I do ....

PS , please remember , I posted paragraph 6 of the Email in it's EXACT form , those ARE the FAA's words , and not mine ..... ;)

that link is a part of the posters signature, not a link to the FAA action...

he gave no link to the FAA action.

no i do not take it that way,
i take it to mean that they will do whatever they want to do without regard to what we traditional line of sight modeler aircraft folks want.

Yes , looking at his post again your right , that's not intended to be a link to the Email . My bad .

Time will tell , but the wording in paragraph 6 still looks pretty encouraging to me :)

www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=89404

Now I have to read the 'unpublished' document....all 319 PAGES!!!!

My understanding is the FAA has designated BLOS is a completely different animal than LOS and has established TWO different scenarios for LOS operations.

1. BLOS operations must have drone broadcasting Remote ID using RF
2. LOS operations at a Federally Recognized Identification Area (FRIA) requires no remote ID device of any kind. ONLY CBO affiliated sites are eligible to be a FRIA (ie. AMA club sites).
3. LOS operations in uncontrolled airspace which is NOT a FRIA is limited to 400' vertical 400' horizontal (park flyers) (probably using cell phone for remote ID)
4. LOS operations in controlled airspace which is NOT a FRIA is subject to and limited by LAANC approval(probably using cell phone for remote ID)

What's not yet clear to me (or I have not found it in this monster document) is what the ceiling will be for FRIA sites. Presumably there will be different for those in controlled Airspace and Class G (uncontrolled airspace).


Also in similar news -- Today I learned the 4 sites that have received some sort of exemption from their 400' ceiling. (What their altitude limits are I don't yet know).
All 4 sites are straddling the border of the controlled airspace.
They are:

• Brookfield in Clarence, New York, (is partially in Class C airspace)
• Fying pilgrims in MI, (is in Class D controlled airspace)
• Music City Aviators in Nashville, (is partially in Class C controlled airspace)
• Brunnerville PA. ((is partially in Class D controlled airspace)

Didn't have access to a way to post the bottom of the email, and wasn't about to give y'all my email login. :)


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...4499c0c096.jpg

Maybe a bit optimistic but in the FRIA ( AMA Club Fields) there is no mention of altitude limits, simply says maintain line of sight. I'm also aware that it could mean that altitude limits could be assigned on a case by case basis. Looks like we are back to " wait and see ". I did hear that the FAA was willing to give us 700' to 1,000' in class G at one point and the AMA pointed out that those altitudes would not work for all members. Could this be the FAA making an effort to integrate traditional R/C aircraft into the NAS instead of handicapping it?

Read the NPRM. It makes clear that compliance with all conditions, etc. is required. Clearly the FAA will review each site and decide what limits will be allowed.

The RID NPRM does not look like anything but bad news for legacy RC operations. Relegated to CBO associated FAA-approved flying sites, all models to be registered individually, and zero additions to the approved list after the initial year, only deletions. Lose your field and too bad, so sad for you. Even if you find a new one you will not be able to get it added to the FAA approved list.

Of course we still have a long ways to go. I strongly encourage people to read the actual NPRM and send in comments during the 60-day comment period.

probably gona take a whole lot more than the 110,000 adult paid members of the AMA, to even get what we want looked at in the comments section...

So does all this mean that a kit-built Sig Four-Star will have to have a serial number and ADS-B, while being confined to an established flying field under a CBO? And will the operator have to be licensed as well?

if, i read the proposal correctly, we, as recreational users are PROHIBITED from using ADS-B

Can someone explain why the FAA can't just scan the ID numbers that our 2.4ghz signals all have? Granted that's from the transmitter instead of the drone, but it would serve the purpose just fine if the point is to be able to identify who's flying a drone that causes a problem.

The biggest problem I see with this proposal is that there is apparently only a 12 month -- one time opportunity to establish FRIA sites.



https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...259b3c3d21.png

The FAA has said recently and in the past that any RC controlled vehicle should be considered a weaponized delivery or surveillance system. Those that have dealt with the feds can see where this is going. The problem is that they are right. Off the shelf RC vehicles are currently being used by some very bad people in regional conflict areas.

Yes, that is bad news and I have a tough time thinking that would fly. That would mean that once a site is gone the club can't replace the site. I'm a member of the Portland Soaring Society and I know that they have lost at least one site over the last couple of years. This also would mean no new clubs/fields. The FAA has to come to the realization that if they impose too strict of limitations that they will be creating a situation where many of us will become outlaws. I am certainly not going to just mothball 10K worth of models and I am pretty much a lightweight compared to what some other guys have invested.

It seems the FAA anticipated some degree of resistance to this proposal.

See the text from page 46 under "4. Compliance and Enforcement"

If an operator is unwilling or unable to comply with, or is deliberately flouting regulations, the FAA could employ legal enforcement action, including civil penalties and certificate actions, as appropriate, to address violations and help deter future violations. Civil penalties for violations of the federal aviation regulations range from a maximum per violation penalty of $1,466, for individual operators, to $33,333 for large companies. In addition, Congress granted the FAA authority to assess civil penalties of up to $20,000 against an individual who operates a UAS and in so doing knowingly or recklessly interferes with a law enforcement, emergency response, or wildfire suppression activity. The FAA may take enforcement action against anyone who conducts an unauthorized UAS operation or operates a UAS in a way that endangers the safety of the airspace of the United States. This authority is designed to protect users of the airspace as well as people and property on the ground.

Yeah. Some were playing petty reindeer games and collaborating to shut down things they didn’t want to hear. Meanwhile, at the adult table, those specific actions did nothing but confirm the already held perception that many fear transparency and are actively working to squash any “inconvenient” facts that challenge the politburo narrative. And look what came out. Go figure.

Hope the ban was worth it. As some contemplate whether to reverse the ban or continue along the ban/squash/silence path, consider one action sends a signal of willingness to be open, transparent, and confront issues - and the other reinforces the silence/opaque/hide issues. And of course never forget that “There is no problem that cannot be made worse” and doing nothing is an action.

According to the rules, model aircraft registration has not changed. Those that fell under the former section 336, are still the same, the "modeler" registers and puts the FAA number on the aircraft. From what I have read so far, which is bits and pieces, specifically to the former section 336, now section XV, only UAS that cannot have Remote ID, such as our model aircraft, and drones that don't have the capability to be upgraded to Remote ID, can only be flown from a FRIA. UAS that are manufactured and can be upgraded via software to use Remote ID can be flown outside of FRIA provided it is registered.

You guys know what that means, no more park flying! No more flying one in your back yard. No more flying at the school football field.

Something like this one would possibly fall under the Register ID capable drone.


Makes me wonder though what 7 regulations the FAA has to kill in order to add this one.

to be clear, Section 336 of the FRMA of 2012 was replaced and repealed by Section 349 of the FRMA of 2018. This new Remote ID rule has nothing to do with that.

ALL sUAS are prohibited from using ADS-B. I think the FAA is trying not to swamp the system.