FAA recreational UAS operator change for 2020?
 

I was invited to fly at a local field and need to get my paperwork in order- FAA registration, AMA membership, etc. I registered with the FAA, but they now list "pass an aeronautical knowledge and safety test" at the end of the expected rules and conditions in addition to flying under 400', register your drone, etc. From what I read on the FAA page, they now want recreational pilots to take a knowledge test, but have not published anything on content, location, or methods for taking the test. Did someone jump the gun?

Link to similar topic for 2020 renewals-
https://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-discussions-74/11665804-faa-certificate-renewal.html

I believe you are correct.

Worry about it when the test becomes available.

I've been away from flying in the U.S. for a while and have not stayed current on what the latest regs were. I was able to find language from the FAA to disregard until operational, it just looked like it may have already been rolled out after Jan 13. Thanks,

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...anned-aircraft

I can't share the exact details at this time but I can tell you this.

The test will be short, sweet, and easy and a number of places will be available for you take it online. It's not the AMA or even the FAA, it was written into federal law with the FAA tasked by your senators and reps to implement it and its coming probably before the end of this year if not sooner.

Yup, I agree with you. I just hope there is an interactive version online since they mentioned the SCORM packages.

Andy, this is the kind of thing I asked of you in that other thread. If you can do these kinds of posts for us as things progress with the FAA, it would go a long way in getting some to trust the AMA headquarters. Getting some FACTUAL information, even if it has to be limited due to circumstances, is better for all than the silence or misinformation we have been seeing up to now.
THANKS:)

You're welcome. I tuned that out because of that unwashed masses and taj muncie crap.

Just for the record, I've never referred to anyone as "Unwashed Masses"
I have also and will continue to refrain from using the term "Taj Muncie", since our post exchange in that other thread, at least while you're in office.

Taj Muncie

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...934ccff5bd.jpg

Thanks! Yea, I know the "unwashed masses" originated from another source.

I had VP orientation with your new VP last weekend, he seems like a pretty sharp guy that lives RC flying and should be a great addition to council.

If you've never been there I suggest finding a reason for a trip, the museum is fantastic as well as the flying site.

I went there twice, back in 1998 and 2000 for their Grand Event. I wonder how much it's changed since I was there 20 years ago? We gave buddy-box training to 250 people. All there was very friendly and helpful.

I wonder if the drone was above 400' for the photo?

ok guys I have tried to keep up on this B.S. for the FAA and I'm having the hardest time understanding WHY we are having to do this for our planes I can understand this for the people that want to fly the 4 bladed drones, but not for the fixed wing planes like the 3d class , warbirds , trainers , gliders , and electrics. I herd a roomer that amazon had something to do with this
is there any truth in that ? and is all of this set in stone that we all are going to have to have an Faa # on our planes to fly and register our transmitters and receivers with the faa
that would meen that the 72 MHz tx & rx would be no good to use and all of the new systems would have to have a chip in them to send a signal to the faa for use and would they be able to shut down any tx system they wanted
just questions I have can anyone help me understand this ???????????

Probably. Not just Amazon, but lots of other companies that want to use drones for commercial purposes including delivery. Drones can't see, so the FAA wants to create a new Unmanned Traffic System (UTM) to keep them from running into each other. Remote Identification (Remote ID) is needed to make that happen.

Not yet. You can read the whole FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...rcraft-systems

You can also make comments, which the FAA has to review before the rule goes final. The comment period ends March 2 -- so don't wait too long.

If the rule passes as written -- Yes. We'll have to put individual numbers on all our planes (except micros weighing 0.55 lb or less). And that means paying a fee for each plane.

No, only aircraft are required to have registration numbers. But there's a catch: The Remote ID requirements apply to "systems", not just airplanes; and the FAA defines a "system" as including the airplane and everything needed to fly or control it. That means it's not clear whether we can still use one transmitter with multiple Remote ID compliant airplanes.

There is a way you can keep using 72 MHz equipment, and also newer equipment without Remote ID. It's called a Federally Recognized Identification Area (FRIA), meaning a place the FAA knows planes will be flying without Remote ID so drones can be steered around it. If you belong to a model club that has a fixed flying field, the Community Based Organization (CBO) that the club is part of can apply to have the field recognized as a FRIA. If you fly at a fixed site that doesn't have a club, you might want to think about forming one so you can protect your field in this way. You'll only have 12 months to do this after the rules go final.
Without a FRIA to fly in, your old radios and planes can still be used for 36 months after the rule goes final. After that they aren't legal to operate outside of a FRIA.

It's more than "chip". The FAA NPRM says what the FAA wants the system to do, but not how to do it. You can't buy Remote ID equipment today, and there's no guarantee that components you can put in your own planes will ever be available. In fact the FAA is discouraging that -- they want all Remote ID compliant model airplanes to be off-the-shelf complete "systems" bought as a package. If you want to build new planes from kits, you can do that -- but only if you have a FRIA to fly them in.

Probably can't shut it down, but one purpose of Remote ID is to make the data available for law enforcement. So if you're flying a Remote ID compliant plane at an illegal altitude, or an illegal location, your signals are creating a record which law enforcement can track or which can be used against you in court.

Hope this helped some. We're all going to have lots of questions as this shakes out.

IMO the best thing you can do right now is read the NPRM and make comments.

thanks for unraveling some of the mess what I cant believe is this is what our relaxing fun time has come to before we know it we will all be going to our flying fields just to hang out
and think of the day when we could fly a plane
I have been building for 37 years and there is a lot of guys out there that have been building a lot longer I wonder how many people will get out of the hobby because of this ?
:(

And it is worth keeping mind that the FAA itself says it will take 2 to 3 years before a Final Rule is published. Then there is an implementation period of between 24 and 36 months after that. So we are at a minimum 4 years out from this and more likely 6 years out. Worth keeping an eye on making a comment on it to the FAA, but not worth panicking over.

Beg your pardon, but where does the FAA say that? I'm under the impression that the NPRM could go final as soon as the comments received are reviewed. In this case I'd be happy to be wrong.

I'll be 60 years old the end of February. I've met several guys in their 80's who are still enjoying flying model planes, and I hope to be one someday. Maybe your time horizon is 6 years, but mine is 25 or so...

The FAA has stated this publicly in several open forums. In addition, most rules, except emergency rules, which this is not one, take at least 2 years or more to get to a final rule. For example, the original ADS-B NPRM for manned aircraft was issued in 2010. The rule finally went into effect just recently.

Age had nothing to do with my comments. But the breathless clutching of pearls is premature right now. This is not happening in the next week, and it is not a done deal it will as written. So we need to make comments and work to influence our elected representatives, but it is wrong to give the impression this is happening right now.

Again, I hope you are right; but I have seen no such statement.

Yes, but in this case we have a commercial drone industry pushing for rapid implementation.

But -- as you yourself noted in another thread -- the public comment period ends March 2; and the FAA has rejected requests for an extension.
Surely you agree that's what we should be focussed on right now?

Can't find the link right now, but one place the timeline to a final rules was mentioned was in the video of the DAC that was making the rounds earlier in December. FAA rep plainly stated 2+ years to RID final rule AFTER the end of the comments. If it is faster than that I'll eat my shoes.

I wish it were as simple Amazon, but it is more than that. There is considerable pressure from DHS and other security concerns, real or imagined. The FAA wheels grind very slowly. The RID ARC first met in 12/17, it's taken 3 years from there and 2 years from their report to get to the NPRM. It took them 19 months to get the Part 107 rule done and they had virtually no negative comments on that.

And yes, make your voice heard. Submit comments. Work on your Congress reps, etc. But don't panic. We have some time to enjoy before things change too much.

Commercial drone industry is back peddling, they are finally realizing that if they manage to kill the hobby they are cutting themselves off at the knees by disrupting the pipeline of future engineers and pilots that will be flying commercial drones.

That is goood to hear. However, I do not think Amazon, etc. are somehow trying to "buy" airspace for their delivery services as some have indicated. Nor do I think that most of what the FAA is doing with sUAS is influenced directly by those concerns. The FA is simply trying to meet their mandate to protect the safety of the NAS. Unfortunately they really have very little idea what sUAS do, or how they do it. Plus the legal lumping of models with "drones" has made it more difficult for the FAA to parse one type from another.

I do believe that the heavy hand of the DHS and other security driven concerns is present, even if the FAA maintains they are all about safety as Job One. They are simply overwhelmed with pressure to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING due to the hysteria in the media and the members of Congress along with the public.

Reminds me of Jesus saying "Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do". With the exception of the forgiveness part. The FAA seems unwilling to take the time or listen to actual stakeholders in their headlong rush to act. So they are acting with haste and ignorance. But one thing we have going for us is they take a long time in human years even when moving quickly in bureaucrat years.

I see it a bit differently. The preamble section of the NPRM makes it clear that Remote ID is needed for the new Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) system. If drones are going to operate BVLOS (which the commercial operators are desperate for) they have to be able to "sense and avoid" each other. Not just where they SHOULD be, but where they ACTUALLY are.

This is the fundamental reason FAA wants Remote ID; it isn't really about safety at all. "Safety" (in their minds) is about keeping UAS below 400' and away from critical airspace via LAANC.

I agree they are responding to media hysteria (and law enforcement pressure) by making the data available for security purposes. They also don't want to spend money they don't have on "drone controllers" and ground stations - so they try to make an Internet-based system work.

I think some official must have said, "Give me a system by the end of the year, and make it pay for itself". This is the result. Well, if you want it real bad, that's how you get it: REAL BAD.

Being that anyone with some technical experience should be able to see that with current technology and even technology that may come available in the foreseeable future that drone delivery may never become economically feasible. Sure I can see time sensitive legal documents being drone delivered, medical or rescue supplies maybe even human organs but never a pizza or everyday goods. This is about keeping ALL model aircraft out of the pathway of manned aircraft. Sad thing is we already have laws on the books for such idiots, all this does is supposedly make it easier to catch the idiots.