More jusitfication for RemoteID
 

And yet another reason for DoD to support RemoteID.

https://www.thenewsherald.com/news/f...6aaa623bd.html

Blue Angel 6 was very lucky. I know they were flying slightly further apart than their usual 36" between aircraft but the only pilot looking forward was the flight leader in #1. That said, had he seen the drone, there wasn't:
1) time or room enough to take evasive action as a formation
2) time or room enough to take evasive action as single aircraft
Since all of the pilots are keying off of either #1 or, in the case of solos 5 and 6, slot plane #4, not one of the pilots other than the lead would have been able to see, warn of or avoid the drone. That could have resulted in at least one plane damaged with varying degrees of losses up to all six planes going down if the leader in plane #1 had hit the drone and been unable to maintain control. Had the planes gone down, being over a city at the time and even with the stay home order in effect, there still could have been civilian casualties as well as the chance of lost pilots since there really isn't room for a safe ejection from the delta formation

All of which is true. No argument.

But please tell me again how RID would have:

- prevented this, since there was no TFR in place, only a NOTAM

- prevented the operator from obviously violating the 400’ rule

- prevented the operation of a drone in close proximity to full-scale aircraft

Listen, I was as appalled at this as any of us. That could have been me in a B767, at roughly the same speeds and closure rates. But RID will do nothing to prevent this sort of thing. The only thing RID will do is maybe allow for easier identification of the operator. That is if they even have it onboard.

I wonder if the better system would be to bank on the narcissism of the operators, and their insatiable need to post this stuff on YouTube.

R_Strowe

Very simple. When the Blues or T-Birds fly in any type of show, which this was, THE AIRSPACE IS CLOSED TO ALL OTHER AIRCRAFT! In fact, when the Blue Angels fly during Seattle's Seafair Celebration every August, the only flights allowed at all are other airshow aircraft or commercial flights out of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, and those flights are routed out to the west, over Puget Sound and the Olympic Peninsula. Even Lake Washington(under the air show center area) and the I-90 floating bridge are closed to all traffic for a period of not less than three hours to allow time for the Blue Angel's airshow, the lake being closed from early morning until after the Blues fly. To take it one step further, ATC knows that H1, the organization that runs the unlimited hydroplane racing over that weekend, has drones up over the course during the racing and they have to follow ATC directions given, just like any other aircraft. With all that said, had there been a RID system on the drone in the video, ATC would have known it was there, even if it didn't know the exact location and, with that knowledge, would have been able to warn the Navy pilots of the hazard so they could have taken appropriate action.

The reason people do things like this is it's fudging; a little farther, a little higher, etc. Some of the comments: "Was
he over 400 feet?", "Was it uncontrolled airspace?" - as if it makes a difference. It was careless and reckless, 91.13.

AMA's defiance of the FAA has turned hobbyists into mini-lawyers always looking for a loophole. Remote ID ends
that. Take off without it, it's an illegal flight, period. It will weed out all but the most hardcore drone fanatics.

Actually no.

As I understand it, these fly overs don't carry a TFR, they are flying VFR with B/A 7 acting as a spotter. I could be wrong but I know for a fact they aren't dropping TFR's for every fly-over.

Actually yes. You can't park a drone in the air in the path of an aircraft. Another AMA mini-lawyer.

**** § 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation.
No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Not a good look for an AMA Executive Council member to say that drone flight wasn't a violation of 91.13.

... as well as AMA's own Safety Code:

• I will not fly a model aircraft in a careless or reckless manner.

• I will not interfere with and will yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft using
AMA’s See and Avoid Guidance and a spotter when appropriate.

• I will avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied structures.

From what I understand there was no TFR for this Blue Angels flight. There was a NOTAM issued. TFR or not this drone was illegal. It is obvious they were way over 400', over a populated area and not only were they not practicing see and avoid, they were PURPOSELY in the area to be close to the Blue Angels in order to obtain sensational video footage. Their flight was against the regulations TFR or not.

This DRONE pilot was reckless, careless, stupid, selfish and a host of other terms I hesitate to use. This person could have caused a great deal of carnage and in my opinion isn't intelligent enough to be trusted to run loose in society! I hope that he is found through his (now deleted) FB and other online accounts, arrested, prosecuted and locked away where he will no longer be a danger to himself or anyone else.

RemoteID would be one more policy component that drives formalization of recreational sUAS operations. The more specific operations become harmonized, the easier it is to reinforce through training, education, and enforcement. As I said before, good public policy is simple to message, simple to execute, and simple to enforce. That's why I'm a fan of the 400 foot blanket in class G and elimination of special cases. It's one thing to expect that licensed full scale recreational flyers understand sectionals, that they need to pay attention to varying pattern altitudes, procedures, etc. But since recreational folks have resisted licensing, the only other practical tool is to simplify and harmonize the rules.

Heck, the AMA all but encourages the mini-lawyering. Simple example: they have YET to tell members that until it's change in law, the limit in class G is 400. They have YET to tell their CDs to require compliance. They have YET to incorporate it into their safety code.

And that's law, exceptionally clear and unambiguous law. Law that AMA ignores.

NOWHERE did Barracuda say that. 91.13 has NOTHING to do with NOTAMS or TFRs.

What that drone pilot did was irresponsible, reckless and certainly a violation of 91.13.

And RID would have stopped him how, again? Last I checked, a NOTAM was not a condition under the NPRM to shut down airspace. And a TFR was not filed.

R_Strowe

Not sure what your point is. You can't park a drone in the path of an aircraft, TFR, NOTAM, or otherwise.

As for remote ID, the majority of casual flyers will not fly if it's illegal to take off. This guy is exactly the type of
flyer remote ID would stop. He isn't a criminal or a skate punk, he own a property management company.

He also has a lot of guys like you and BarracudaHockey trying to minimize what he did by throwing out red
herrings about what the FAA did or didn't do. All that nonsense stops with remote ID.

Franklin , if remote ID was as simple as a little transponder that identifies with me , that I could put into whichever RC aircraft I was flying at the time to identify the aircraft as mine and be within the law (just as the "Easypass" device does with road tolls , your little transponder on your windshield identifies you when you go through the tool booth and bills you accordingly) and of course only under penalty of law would anyone be flying without it , of course I'd be all for it ! Because law abiding people like me will be fitting the little transponder to my plane VS the drone idiot near the Blue Angles who I'd bet wouldn't under any circumstances (law or not) be sending any identifying signals from his already lawbreaking operations (He's purposefully flying too close to full scale , which should be the #1 most punishable offence , think he's gonna be deliberately identifying himself while he's doing it ?) ..... ;)

@ init4fun. Here's what the FAA has to say about that:

" ... it relies on the individual operator to proactively report their location to a USS."

That refers to a phone app. Same with a module, you have to plug it in or turn it on. The FAA is done with voluntary compliance.

ECHO, agree with your assesment that basically Remote ID will deter otherwise law abiding citizens in some cases from doing something stupid. That said, what makes you think, even after the ruling, that there won't be people with older DRONES bought before RID or who have the ability to build their own drones from parts (It really isn't all that hard) that will purposely fly without the required RID in order to do idiotic things just like this?

The complete and total idiots who want to do things like this will not fly their RID identified drone in most cases.

Don't trust me enough to allow me to retrofit RID into my model because it is the law, but trust me not to fly those models that are not equipped, or not to build a non RID model to do stupid things, or find a way to register an RID with someone else's name, or disable the RID in a sealed equipped model... etc etc etc....

:) , Yep , this was the general point of my post , the law abiding will fly legally and the rogues will break whatever laws they feel like breaking ...

For years I've heard these same arguments over and over again. It's the general attitude of the RC community toward the
FAA (thank AMA), not the drone scofflaws, that makes the FAA's case that the RC hobby should just be banned outright,

"The FAA considered not allowing FAA-recognized identification areas."

Don't put words in my mouth.

I think it was stupid and ignorant and arrogant.

What I said was they were flying VFR without a TFR.

Personally I think they should track the guy down, slap him with 100k fine and make an example of him.
Edit: And after a lot of research I've yet to find evidence this guy was an AMA member

To be clear, not saying that RID isn't necessary in some form or that there isn't good reason or a use for it, just that the implimentation of it is flawed and could be djusted in such a manner as to give the same benefits with a greater ease of compliance.

Don't answer immediately below my comment with "Actually no" then if you think you're taken out of context.

*** It appeared you were contradicting my comment that the drone flight was a 91.13 violation. I'm assuming you
were answering Hydro Junkie's post, one above. Including the quote makes it clear who you are addressing.

Granted I probably should have quoted.