Needed - Organized sUAV, Drone Organization - Membership drive, United Voice

[dougcjohn]

Stimulated by the recent discussions on Remote ID and FAA NPRM released to public on Dec 26th.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

A good discussion on the matter...
The Good the Bad and the Ugly Remote ID Proposal

The good, the bad and the ugly- Remote ID Proposal PRM

Good reading...

commercialdronepilots.com

Some YouTubes on the Remote ID NPRM.
Pilot Institute:

Drone U:

Within several drone forum discussions on the subject of the FAA NPRM, and other legal issues there's a consistent variable asked; Why is there no sUAV Organization with a membership body and representative voice?

This is a NEED and it's NEEDED NOW.
Joining the AOPA is a start... but I think an organized "name" representing the sUAV community would have greater impact.

Which Membership is right for you?

Which membership is right for you? Compare and decide which best fits your pilot needs.

www.aopa.org

I'd join an sUAV organized membership in a second... and spread the word for others to do the same!
The question is HOW... WHOM and the variables in the process to reality and make it happen.

Would an establishment with a presence be a quick start avenue... I'm currently not a member (not yet) but would DroneU be a candidate? Others?

I've only been in the sUAV society for a small number of years, but I've been a bit stunned that there hasn't been an organized sUAV membership... especially when it involves aerial and often subject to negative media.

It's been commented it's too late to get into action, I personally don't think it's too late, and if not now, when is It appropriate to begin?
As much and as quickly the recent Remote ID discussions rippled through the Internet, a think a membership drive would get a good start.
I'm probably not the best suited, but I'd be willing to help in some fashion if it would require "manpower" hours.

Per noted at the bottom of the this forum... this is one of many sister sUAV forums that probably gets the attention of the majority of drone readers seeking web information. Why not post at the header of each forum a new sUAV organization, membership drive. That and "word of mouth" passing the info would provide a good start. Many 3rd Party developers of sUAV software, hardware and tools; I'm sure many would be supportive of the sUAV Organization & post the info on their sites too.

Many NRA members are members for the "sole purpose" of protection of gun rights via a unified voice. I would think a sUAV membership would be similar. It would be a central voice, a good exchange society, and could include sponsor incentives & discounts.

Questions to consider:
Focused on USA or include charters for Global membership?
Price of membership?
Personally, my opinion is if this would be a representative voice, with talented representatives; helpful if included legal minds too. I'd gladly contribute $100-200 annually, more if it's political / legal representative voice provided impact.

Anyone have helpful contribution to get a forward momentum... Pipe In!

 

[BigAl07]

It might be too late for the "current" issues at hand but I don't think it's too late for our FUTURE!!

The problem is so many entities have attempted to become the Defacto UAS Group but none of them have been able to get the needed traction. Honestly, I'd like to see the AMA take a stronger stance supporting MultiRotors etc but they are slow to adapt and it may be too little too late.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Forget the AOPA, the exist for manned aircraft only.

 

[PatR]

As it now stands I agree. But if the drone population was to suddenly join the AOPA the membership would suddenly be skewed 3 or 4 to 1 in favor of drones, forcing a shift in focus due to the probable loss in revenue if they didn’t shift.

The AOPA, like general aviation, is dying a slow death from loss of members and participants. The Light Sport class of aircraft and Basic Med came into being through the actions of AOPA, an organization looking for a way to rebuild/expand the pilot population and by extension the AOPA membership. For the same reason they created drone based membership. It’s all about the money, and always will be.

 

[dougcjohn]

As it now stands I agree. But if the drone population was to suddenly join the AOPA the membership would suddenly be skewed 3 or 4 to 1 in favor of drones, forcing a shift in focus due to the probable loss in revenue if they didn’t shift.

The AOPA, like general aviation, is dying a slow death from loss of members and participants. The Light Sport class of aircraft and Basic Med came into being through the actions of AOPA, an organization looking for a way to rebuild/expand the pilot population and by extension the AOPA membership. For the same reason they created drone based membership. It’s all about the money, and always will be.

After examining & reading various sites... the AOPA Drone Chapter may be the strongest advocate, 2nd would be AUVSI.
Has their officials taken any position on the current NPRM? Were they invited or attended the construct sessions?

Does the AUVSI get that involved, I'm rather naive on it's offerings... assumed it was more focused on company & new technology offerings... but feel I may have made a poor assessment.

 

[PatR]

The AUVSI, like AOPA, has been a long standing member of the Drone Advisory Committee. The AUVSI is best noted for being self serving, promoting and hiring from associated lobbying groups, has done virtually nothing in support of small drones, and typically pats themselves on the back for jobs never completed. They are quite good at extracting expensive dues and putting on even more expensive glitzy trade shows that focuses predominantly on heavy iron. IMHO, the AUVSI is one of the reasons we have accomplished so little relative to drone regulations and promotion.

 

[PatR]

Copied from the Yuneec Pilots Forum


DCJ,

Just to let you know, three people worked at starting such an organization back in 2014 but their primary focus was the commercial operator. The organization was the ACUAS and their intentions were great but the three staring members were still working for a living and could not totally devote themselves to building and promoting the organization. There was also a bit of an issue with funding everything that needed to be done with a non paying membership. Ultimately they did not complete what they set out to do and went separate ways. The website might even still be active, but I doubt it. ACUAS.org. I know this because I was one of the three, along with the owner of Aerial Alchemy and one other person. Now you know how I became acquainted with Aerial Alchemy.

Be that as it may, I fully agree there is a critical need for a truly representative body for the sUAS operators. I doubt that buy now anyone disagrees. Whatever organization it might be cannot be dedicated to only one sector, recreational or commercial, or primarily represent one sector while paying just lip service to the others. The laws that have been passed, and those that continue to be passed, impacts everyone that flies sUAS, drones, multirotors, RC airplanes, RC helicopters, RC gliders, or anything else that is flown using a remote transmitter. For the purpose of amplifying the previous sentence, sUAS should also include large RC model aircraft that exceed the FAA's 55lb. maximum weight as there are quite a few of them in existence. The descriptions get a bit confusing as all of them are classified by the media and the FAA as "drones".

Whomever and whatever the organization may be, they need to be able to "hit the ground running". There is no time left to be creating a mission statement and organizational structure. They need to already know their cost basis and the fee structure needed to finance their operations. They must have already established their office "footprint" having all the staff and equipment necessary to dive into mass marketing, phone and internet campaigning, and direct mail notifications. They need to be experienced in Washington DC lobbying, acutely knowledgeable with all things aviation, have a strong legal team.

The AMA is absolutely out of the question for a multitude of reasons, the least of which was and is their failure to recognize that what was to impact the commercial operator was certainly going to impact the recreational operator, as has and continues to do. To date, the AMA is more focused on preserving a few flying fields in order to preserve the revenue stream supporting the headquarters staff. Their non profit corporation class prohibits political lobbying, removing them as a potential political force to support sUAS and sUAS airspace access. With a membership of ~195,000 paying dues of ~$75.00/yr it seems ludicrous that, after what unfolded in the original ARC committee, they have failed to organize a sub organization devoted to lobbying for airspace rights and protection for ALL aero modelers. That they failed to support the lawsuit brought by a single individual against the FAA to overturn the registration rule was especially egregious, adding more evidence of their lack of support for the aero modeler.

I just don't see any of the small, new sUAS groups as having the means or the experience necessary to go head to head in DC with the FAA and the FAA's corporate masters. Even established players are going to have to work hard to make headway, and likely have to modify or contradict some of the positions they've previously espoused. The EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) is a group I considered but they are too small of a unified body to take us on in the manner that needs be done. They also collaborate a lot with the AOPA to accomplish some goals, but I just don't feel they are strong enough to get it done. We also need as many people as possible, preferably everyone that flies RC and drones, to join a single organization. Which means it has to be relatively affordable. AT $470.00/yr or $47.00/mo, Drone U falls well outside of the affordable category for a great many people. We are in a situation where united we might stand but divided we will certainly fall, and we can't have what I'll call "elitists" or the wealthy call the shots. In effect, that's what is happening now.

Because of their history and lobbying experience, combined with their knowledge of aviation and the National Airspace System, I view the AOPA as the one organization that could get things done in the timeline we have in front of us. To do that we have to kind of understand the AOPA, and recognize their focus for manned aviation will have to be "leveraged" to shift their focus more heavily on drone regulations. The latest AOPA membership numbers I've been able to obtain show them having~350,000 members in 2014. The membership has been steadily decreasing. In 2010 the membership was 414,224. In 2012 that number was 384,915. Membership has been in decline since the mid 1990's, and the declining membership, along with the decline of the pilot population in general, is largely why the AOPA has for the past few years been heavily focused on making it easier to pilots back into the left seat. Basic Med was an AOPA creation. The removal of privatized ATC services for manned aviation from the FAA Re-authorization Act was largely due to the AOPA. The creation of the Light Sport aircraft category was strongly driven by the AOPA. I mention those to establish a very small list of their vast accomplishments in promoting aviation. They get it done!

It's my opinion that much of what the AOPA has been doing has been, perhaps similar to the AMA, is working to assure their own survival. With a long declining membership the AOPA has been initiating programs and legislation that will increase the pilot population, and by extension, increase theirs. This is where numbers come into play as a means of "leveraging" the organization. We might view it like a hostile takeover. Some representative numbers, with links to the data, are noted below.

As of December 31, 2018 there were 633,317 active manned aviation pilots in the U.S.
U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics

As of 12/10/19
There were 160,748 certificated remote pilots. These are all Part 107 operators
There were 1,509,617 registered drones
Of those, 420,340 were commercially registered drones
Of the registered drones, 1,085,392 were recreational registrations. Consider that one registration covers as many recreational drones as you own so that million+ number represents individual operators, not aircraft.
UAS by the Numbers

Playing with the numbers a little, if we add the number of certificated 107 pilots to the number of recreational registrations, we might have a drone pilot population as high as 1,246,140. That number dwarfs the manned pilot population, and by any standard is a significant voting group.

If we look at full scale aircraft registered in the U.S. we arrive at some interesting counts. Our drones seriously outnumber them. From a 2019 AOPA report covering up to 2017, there were:
130,330 single engine aircraft
12,935 multi engine aircraft
9430 turboprop aircraft
14,075 turbojet aircraft
10,805 rotor craft
27,865 experimental aircraft
2,585 light sport aircraft

For a total of ~208,025 registered active manned aircraft.
http://download.aopa.org/hr/Report_on_General_Aviation_Trends.pdf

If we shift our thoughts back to the AOPA, an organization with a basic annual membership fee of $79.00 and a last listed membership count of ~350,000 (2014), a sudden massive influx of new members, all of whom are drone flyers, has a high probability of causing AOPA executive management shifting both focus and view, or at least adjusting their view to be considerably more supportive than they have been. With enough new drone members sending e-mails to the managing director it would quickly become evident that drone operators had just become a very large part of, if not the the largest part of, the AOPA revenue generation stream. Losing the drone members due to lack of official support would incur a massive loss of sorely needed revenue. That's the hostile takeover part, and money is what you use for leverage. The part we need to understand is the AOPA already has everything we desperately need. They are well positioned in government and within the FAA. They are a member of the FAA's Drone Advisory Committee. They have the lobbyists. They KNOW airspace and airspace regulations. They know how to plan and network. That they also have other services we can take advantage is just extra candy.

 

[dougcjohn]

The AUVSI, like AOPA, has been a long standing member of the Drone Advisory Committee. The AUVSI is best noted for being self serving, promoting and hiring from associated lobbying groups, has done virtually nothing in support of small drones, and typically pats themselves on the back for jobs never completed. They are quite good at extracting expensive dues and putting on even more expensive glitzy trade shows that focuses predominantly on heavy iron. IMHO, the AUVSI is one of the reasons we have accomplished so little relative to drone regulations and promotion.

That's what I had originally thought when I looked at them to join a few years ago. Very pricey shows to attend and their content appeared to be not focused on the small business or sole pilot.

So that leaves the AOPA sUAV chapter. That looks most favorable and I agree on your number ratios... but it does give a tingle on the hairs intermixing with maned crafts when their opinion of sUAV class isn't strong.

The AMA has been disappointing in several directions, I've considered letting my membership lapse.

 

[PatR]

I was an AMA member for about 30 years. After a review of their actions relative to drones from 2013 onwards after they increased membership fees in 2017, and considering commercial liability insurance provided primary coverage instead of secondary coverage as is the practice with The AMA’s insurance, I concluded the AMA was benefitting a lot more from my money than I was.

Their subtle scare tactics employed to encourage “droners” to join during the registration NPRM was the “straw” that finalized my decision. Alluding they would be there to help protect drone flyers, which boosted AMA membership considerably, to do nothing to fight the legislation, ended my membership. They raised their rates at the same time.

 

[dougcjohn]

I was an AMA member for about 30 years. After a review of their actions relative to drones from 2013 onwards after they increased membership fees in 2017, and considering commercial liability insurance provided primary coverage instead of secondary coverage as is the practice with The AMA’s insurance, I concluded the AMA was benefitting a lot more from my money than I was.

Their subtle scare tactics employed to encourage “droners” to join during the registration NPRM was the “straw” that finalized my decision. Alluding they would be there to help protect drone flyers, which boosted AMA membership considerably, to do nothing to fight the legislation, ended my membership. They raised their rates at the same time.

I observed and felt similar that benifit and effort towards the sUAV Owners was minimal.
I committed another year on the common grounds of supporting the "RC cause", I had been questioning the value and felt supporting AMA was more established routine than benifit. I'm leaning more to put the member dues to a more focused cause.

 

[dougcjohn]

Another option I'm considering is joining DroneU. I think they have a reputable voice and contacts both in media and small businesses that they may be able to contribute in numbers too. Plus they offer a pretty good value to access their resources and appear to offer some beneficial 3-5 day camps for modeling, mapping and various focuses.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

That's what I had originally thought when I looked at them to join a few years ago. Very pricey shows to attend and their content appeared to be not focused on the small business or sole pilot.

So that leaves the AOPA sUAV chapter. That looks most favorable and I agree on your number ratios... but it does give a tingle on the hairs intermixing with maned crafts when their opinion of sUAV class isn't strong.

The AMA has been disappointing in several directions, I've considered letting my membership lapse.

AOPA (I belonged back in the 70s) is, and has been, an organization by manned aircraft pilots for manned aircraft pilots. It is naive to believe they will devote any efforts to help us. But they do want our $$ for memberships.

 

[PatR]

Luis,

I have yet to encounter a Non profit” corporation intended to represent or help anyone where the primary motivation wasn’t collecting $$. Charity, member service group, whatever, the corporation may not show a profit but the executive salaries certainly make up for it.

If CEO salary exceeds $200k/year they’re milking the membership for a big paycheck.

 

[Dave Pitman]

If you believe Pat Egan, AOPA has actually been lobbying for stricter regulations on suas. We can assume that was to "protect" their interests. It would be interesting to see how that would work out if the membership were to change to a majority suas stakeholders in that coup. I suspect it would be difficult for their lobbyists to all of a sudden reverse their pressure with their contacts which would need to happen if Egan is correct, which is quite plausible.

Regarding what other organization could step up, I, for one, am not too keen to look to any existing for-profit entity to take this on without having a conflict of interest problem. I also don't see 100s of 1000s of part 107 and recreational flyers being concerned enough to get involved, unfortunately. PatR laid it out quite correctly in his Yuneec comment what it would take and I for one am fairly pessimistic, I'm sad to say, that without a lot more concern umungst our ranks that anything will be done. The main-stream media will certainly not be wanting to help, nor joe public. And those are the groups that might get our local representatives attention. Small, uas ops, meh.

 

[PatR]

Dave,

I am truly sorry in having to agree the greater problem with accomplishing anything positive resides within the drone operator population.

In popping back and forth between different forums I’m just not seeing the level of involvement in Remote ID threads the issue deserves. It appears the apathy “droners” have demonstrated towards any kind of “self help” organization still runs rampant.

For now, we have a couple months to review and compile our individual responses to the NPRM. In not having an organized group to present a “member body” response I’m afraid the individual comments will be for naught, with all the arguments for adoption taking precedence. The AMA response is predictable. They’ll tell everyone that if they join the AMA they will be exempted from the rule at AMA flying fields. The places drone people rarely want or are allowed to fly.

I agree that forcing a group like AOPA would be difficult, but I don’t believe it impossible. Money talks, a lots of money gets heard quickly. The greater problem is organizing and coordinating the herd of cats that fly drones into doing something, regardless of what that might be.

There’s more than enough people pounding keys here, on Facebook, RC Groups, Yuneec, Inspire, Phantom, Anafi, and Heaven knows how many other drone forums to get the word out and get things done, but that word has to be consistent across of of the social media forums.

We should not look to DJI as a corporate entity to help as they helped craft this bill in a manner that promotes their products. Just as the AUVSI and AOPA has done. The difference is the membership of one organization can be overwhelmed by a new influx of drone memberships. If presented with valid reasons actions that benefitted drones AND manned aviation, simplified the ATC side, while increasing safety even with minor changes manned aviation rules, along with a truck load of cash, I’m confident it could happen.

From my experience with the ACUAS, it requires a tremendous effort in time and expense to stand up a new organization, and even more of both in developing a lobbying team and establishing government contact points of useful value. Positioning is a very difficult thing to accomplish.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Luis,

I have yet to encounter a Non profit” corporation intended to represent or help anyone where the primary motivation wasn’t collecting $$. Charity, member service group, whatever, the corporation may not show a profit but the executive salaries certainly make up for it.

If CEO salary exceeds $200k/year they’re milking the membership for a big paycheck.

Of course, otherwise membership would be free.
My point is that AOPA has about as much an interest to advance UAS as MADD is interested in advancing the rights of the beer and wine industry.

Supporting AOPA "hoping" they will take up our cause with the feds is a pipe dream.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Pat, We are clearly on the exact same page.

To put together a group voice in a short time to supply an initial group response to this NPRM with a meaningful voice to follow in the future is doable with a commitment from enough of our ranks. A crowd-source campaign that could start collecting monetary commitments from us but would hold them in escrow to ensure there was enough to make it happen before anyone's $$ would be taken.

It would involve some trust, and the ability, if that minimum commitment goal was reached, to hire a skilled attorney or 2, hopefully from within our extended ranks, to get started.

50,000 commitments of $75 = 3.75mil,$ There are at least some of us willing. Another $75 toward this adventure is insignificant at this point. Enough of us willing though???

If we could reach the commitment, who or what mechanism could be put in charge in order to be trusted with that commitment? In a short time? Without the ability to trust, the commitment won't happen. Tough questions.

 

[PatR]

The only person I know that has enough vision, industry and government contacts, with the brilliance to always be 5 steps ahead of everyone else is Chuck Spaulding. I seriously doubt he could take enough time away from his company to put something together with the right people to run it. But if he could...

 

[Dave Pitman]

Haha.
FAA Issues Proposed Rule For Remote ID

 

[PatR]

I wasn’t aware you knew of Chuck. That is funny.

haven’t spoken with Chuck in at least three months, with the last him sending me a text link to their latest in services. That he could be coerced, err, willing to undertake this with the right association of people is encouraging.

I remember too well how people thought we were loony in our projections. None of them worked where I did, where some of the people on the ARC and DAC came by often, where planning for the future of UAS started in 2007. I’m still saying we have yet to even see half of what’s coming. You won’t like it.

If desired and asked, I could get involved again. Being retired I have the time to devote to it. My only concern is one of self, hoping to be up to the task.