So How long do you think it will take, for the big TX company's to come out with new TX and Receivers that will campily with these guidelines?

While being a Futaba guy, I see Spectrum being the first in this, there new TX are basically computers already, I see us needing Sim cards for our TX like a internet capable IPAD , and new revicers that will only work with the new TX, or a Expander that will be required to work, these new revicers will have to have all this Telemetry built in, IE GPC trackers etc.

What you guys think?

I think I am going to be an outlaw.

Actually, I was hesitant to make this point because I think we need to fight for AMA fields and events to be exempt, but IF that doesn't work out, I think that the manufacturers will be able to comply with this requirement relatively easily. We (most jet flyers) already have some form of broadcast telemetry. This would need to be (slightly) broadened and modified to comply with whatever "industry standard" they come up with for the broadcast messages. On the transmitter side, we'd need the capability added to connect to the internet (through our cell phones) and publish the information to the proposed "USS" website.

I think that this is relatively easy to do - especially given the complexity and computing power available in the receivers and transmitters we use these days.

As I've said before, if they give us the altitudes we need, I'll put whatever they want on my jets (if I have to!) to keep flying.

However, let's keep that to ourselves and fight for the exemptions for AMA fields and events.

Bob

I worry about the cell/internet requirement

I have sketchy cell service at quite a few fields, even my home field is in the city limits and not all carriers have great signal

I believe that the rule says that you must publish the info on the USS website *if able*. Industry is not going to create or greatly expand its network capability just for flying sUAS, and the FAA can't (and as I read it doesn't) expect that. So if you are in an area without network access, i.e., no cell service, you can't publish your data - thus the "broadcast" of your telemetry info. that someone else (with the right receiver) can pick up is sufficient.

Bob

probably e a requirement that it stay in active memory until such time as the ground station is in a good signal area...

please note the "outlaw" line in my signature, it has been there for at least 20 years...
wherever i have discussed R/C activities

All,

We had an extended telecon with AMA HQ yesterday where we discussed this *proposed* rule.

The AMA is pushing for AMA fields (existing AND new) to be exempted from the RID requirement AND AMA sanctioned events to be exempted as well - in perpetuity.

The recreational flyer (AMA or non-AMA) flying at a non-exempted location is more problematic. In that case, the AMA is pushing for an extended operating area (larger than the proposed 400' "bubble") with (perhaps) notification via an app or such.

The AMA believes, and I do as well, that these provisions will ultimately adopted in the final rule AS LONG AS the FAA gets enough comments to that effect.

Right now, we NEED everyone to send in comments on the NPRM. See https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/am...uas-remote-id/ for a template to send in a comment. It was emphasized that this is a *numbers* game, so even if you just send in the template unchanged, it will count - much more so than a comment that just says "this rule is stupid."

The previous campaign to send letters to Congress on the altitude limitations has taken hold and the FAA is working with the AMA to get higher altitudes than 400' in controlled airspace and higher than 700' or 1200' in uncontrolled airspace. This shows that our comments and input into the process DO COUNT, so PLEASE comment on the NPRM for Remote ID.

Bob Klenke
JPO President

Thank you Bob! For your efforts and keeping us informed! Received my T-shirts today! Thanks!

Comments submitted.
Thanks for your work on this Bob.

Done.

Great Dan! Sorry for the delay on the t-shirts, it was a hectic holiday season!

Bob

I made a step by step guide on how to comment on the NPRM and sent it to all our club members. I have been trying to educate them on what faces us, did a plot of our field and how the altitude restrictions affect us and will give a talk at our meeting this week. It would be good for every club to have one guy take the lead and navigate the members through this screwed up mess. I plotted some of the other clubs I fly with and some of them are going to be surprised.

Tom, can you post your step by step guide here so we can send it to clubs.
Thanks,
Gary

Modelaircraft.org - enter

At top of page click on red - Urgent message. This will turn to "Government regulations" page.

Click on the blue - "Please submit formal comment".

(For windows highlight the verbage then copy by control C)(Apple, Cmd C)

Back up to the Government Regulations page. 2nd papragaph click on the blue here. ("federal website here")

On the federal website page click on the green "submit a formal comment" .

When new page loads place cursor in comment box and press Control & V( windows) or Cmd B (Apple) The text will transfer the AMA suggested verbage. You may add anything else you want, just dont call the FAA stupid (counter productive to our efforts)

Fill out personal info,check the read and understand box then submit comment.

Thanks for that Tom. Comments sent to the FAA.

Everyone needs to do this.

Do it today to protect our airspace so we can continue to enjoy our hobby!

A member in my club went through the complete document. The AMA is only addressing the flying fields not the future building and purchase of models. Attached is his recommendation for response to FAA.
I have not read the complete document. It would be in our best interest to try to respond to the complete document. I know their is a lot of smart people out their that could create a good templet. Dan

Dan,

That's a good version. I too was wanting to address the "50% rule" and this response does it nicely. I'm going to use this one instead of the standard AMA template.

However, the main issue is having enough responses to the NPRM that the FAA realizes that its a problem for modelers and needs to be modified - its a numbers game more so that an actual comment game.

You may have seen it, but AOPA and EAA have also weighed in that the response time for the NPRM is too short and that the rule, as written is too restrictive. I think that the FAA is going to take those comments from traditional users of the NAS, as having more weight than the "this is great, let's go" comments from the Commercial Drone Alliance and the AUVSI...

Bob

Thank you for this. I was starting work on composing my own, similar response. Yours makes many of the same points I will include, and a few others that I had overlooked. Between the crushing of the existing model industry with the "amateur built" definitions, and the "let them die" methodology to FRIA's, the NPRM just can't be allowed forward in it's current state!

Any feedback from the AMA connected readers of this thread about what, if anything, the AMA is doing to address the "amateur built" problem?

I read this, the problem I would have is that it still supports the notion of FRIAs ( non RID model jail ). I live on acreage, I mostly fly my helicopters under 100 feet, perfectly safe and not an issue. Anything that supports the notion of FRIAs would take this away from me. I would not care if I could buy a single RID device and put it in what ever I'm flying, but the proposed rules have that notion totally locked out. Basically our models are being given more strict rules than full sized aircraft.

There is nothing good about any part of these rules and they don't solve a problem. Those that menace airports and fly into restricted areas will continue to do so. These proposed rules will only severely impact those that are not a problem and do nothing to those who are.

That would be truly tragic if you gave in so easily. It would take five years at a minimum for any of this to have serious impact. I've been flying for over 45 years, and I have every intention of flying until somebody has to pry my discharged transmitter from my cold, dead hands. I'd rather go out at the flying field than almost anyplace else and I won't allow some overreaching government oligarchs and their commercial interest cronies to end the party. I'll fight this to the bitter end...

Sadly, with the existing 400' rule in place most of the SIG flying is essentially "illegal": Pattern and IMAC, Sailplanes, Giant Scale. Sport and foamies are less impacted... for the moment but the new rules put the kilbash on nearly anything that can take to the sky. How are we losing our right to the sky in favor of commercial drones? Model aviation existed before manned flight - the Wright Brothers and many before them were modelers first - and has an outstanding safety record. So many fellow engineers, scientists, and aviators honed their skills by literally making their dreams take flight. Even without the regulations, the hobby is challenged by disinterested youths who find their passions take them elsewhere. But becoming a victim of government overreach is not the way I saw the hobby being killed off.

Just a point on the amateur/homebuilt built rule
This is taken from the fullsize standard of what is classed as a homebuilt or amateur built aircraft and is the norm for permit aircraft all over the world, we would know it better as the 51% rule meaning the builder has to of done 51% of the work, to complete the aircraft, The engine, instruments etc are not taken into these figures, 51% is generally in regard to the airframe construction itself.
I have through all this in the past having been involved in certifying 3 UK homebuilt aircraft, from putting together approval paperwork, load testing to writing the assembly manuals.
These particular aircraft were really prefabricated kits, with all tubes etc pre-drilled etc but after the main build and covering you still have to wire everything up, install the fuel systems, engine, drill the instrument panel for gauges etc, which can be time consuming work, as construction time, even reading the manual all comes into account in what is classed as you doing 51% of the work.

Conventional model building i.e.taking a sig 1/4 scale piper cub kit and putting it together, fits the FAA amateur built rule the fact you didnt make the engine and the radio gear wont have any bearing on that.
Buying a hobbyking foamie and sticking together the wings and glueing on the tail wont come close, but as I said the amateur built rule line is grey, so a jet kit with fiberglass fuse and foam wings that needs gluing in formers, covering, painting etc could also comply.

i will follow what i must to join in with fellow flyers at sites i currently visit and as for the private sites i shall fly as if i have in tha past with safety first and fun second.. guess i will hang onto all my current tx and rx's just to wait out the possible changes mfg's may make within those units to conform to faa rules. i find that ama is going to see a down turn in members due to this mess and hope to find ama standing firm and getting results that help members continue to fly as we have with little change and if changes happen they be at the expense of mfg's, ama, or faa not more cost to the flyers

Just a membership drive campaign. The AMA just needs little bit more money. Once I get my IRS refund, I will send them 50%. Ain't worried at all.

Guys, haven't been involved much in modeling lately... can one of you provide some text of a response so we can use as boilerplate to submit a response thru the AMA portal, thanks. Don't understand all the detail, but it sounds about as bad as I've always feared. On the bright side: looks like scrtach builds are back in fashion!

I guess when you crash and rebuild, you automatically qualify for the 50% self-built exemption. RID does not have to be a hobby killer as long as enough lead time is given to develop it. Sounds like the FAA is totally over their skis given they are requiring RID without any developed standards being specified. That said, there is no way around RID: it is what is needed for RC model to co-exist with full scale in the NextGen airspace.

I agree with those who say that prohibiting all autonomous flight systems would sove the problem cleanly and for good. Unfortunately, this will fall on deaf ears at the AMA, who continue to blindly cast their lot with the DJI crowd.