I whole heartedly agree. I also don't think it's written like that by mistake/oversight. It leaves a LOT for later interpretation.
The good, the bad and the ugly- Remote ID Proposal PRM
- Thread starter LUIS MARTINEZ
- Start date
I whole heartedly agree. I also don't think it's written like that by mistake/oversight. It leaves a LOT for later interpretation.
The FAA has done some prior investigation into the issue of retrofitting existing drones to meet the requirements but I'm sure this is a best guestimate and will have to be proven out as manufacturers respond to question from the FAA on the subject...
"Based on industry information and market research, the FAA estimates at least 93% of the current part 107 fleet and at least 20% of the current recreational fleet would be eligible for retrofits, thus minimizing the costs for operators and producers.83 This is based on industry information suggesting that small UAS at a certain level of design specification and operational capability would likely have system and connectivity capabilities that could be retrofit through a software update. The FAA reviewed UAS registered to part 107 operators and found 93% of the existing part 107 UAS fleet may have technical capabilities to be retrofit based on information received by industry (i.e., could support software updates through internet)."
There are a series of question the FAA is posing to manufacturers (see starting on page 72490 or page 53 of the pdf) regarding retrofitting and compliance that would answer a lot of our questions. Hopefully manufacturers will begin releasing answers to these questions to the public so we can get so idea of what the future holds.
"Based on industry information and market research, the FAA estimates at least 93% of the current part 107 fleet and at least 20% of the current recreational fleet would be eligible for retrofits, thus minimizing the costs for operators and producers.83 This is based on industry information suggesting that small UAS at a certain level of design specification and operational capability would likely have system and connectivity capabilities that could be retrofit through a software update. The FAA reviewed UAS registered to part 107 operators and found 93% of the existing part 107 UAS fleet may have technical capabilities to be retrofit based on information received by industry (i.e., could support software updates through internet)."
There are a series of question the FAA is posing to manufacturers (see starting on page 72490 or page 53 of the pdf) regarding retrofitting and compliance that would answer a lot of our questions. Hopefully manufacturers will begin releasing answers to these questions to the public so we can get so idea of what the future holds.
I'm shocked there aren't more comments thus far. We're (1) week in and as of right now (keep in mind there could be a slight delay in comments being "posted") there are only 2,766 comments received.
Maybe some people are just waiting to see if others are sincere and comment... I dunno but I would have thought there would be 10X that (or more) by now.
For anyone who is contemplating a comment here are some tips from the FAA (and they are legit so pay them some attention):
Maybe some people are just waiting to see if others are sincere and comment... I dunno but I would have thought there would be 10X that (or more) by now.
For anyone who is contemplating a comment here are some tips from the FAA (and they are legit so pay them some attention):
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
Sadly most of those will be discarded by the FAA. Rants are not looked at. People need to make calm remarks with examples and suggestions of how it should be changed.
Irrational rants do nothing but make us as a group look like a bunch of petulant children.
Irrational rants do nothing but make us as a group look like a bunch of petulant children.
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
I suggest people focus on the actual Rule itself, Part 89. Learn what the proposed rules actual says. Then go back and look at the background and the FAA's alleged justification/interpretations.
Exactly!! I've been reading the comments thus far and unfortunately most of them are junk and shed a very dim light on our community as a whole.
Also it's important to realize the "subtle hints" they've left for us (I highlighted the one KEY one to remember):
Summary
Read and understand the regulatory document you are commenting on
Feel free to reach out to the agency with questions
Be concise but support your claims
Base your justification on sound reasoning, scientific evidence, and/or how you will be impacted
Address trade-offs and opposing views in your comment
There is no minimum or maximum length for an effective comment
The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
A demo with few details and a sales pitch by the presumed USS operators.
The claim is pretty much rainbows and unicorns of course.
With the USS network scheme, how about those wanting to monitor the database, LLE or joe-public could pay a fee to access the USS data. Operators would not be charged?
Notice the RC airplane operator just needs to download an app and they qualify for the Limited category. (it appears)
The claim is pretty much rainbows and unicorns of course.
With the USS network scheme, how about those wanting to monitor the database, LLE or joe-public could pay a fee to access the USS data. Operators would not be charged?
Notice the RC airplane operator just needs to download an app and they qualify for the Limited category. (it appears)
Last edited:
adm_geomatics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 261
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Leander, Texas
- Website
- www.admgeomatics.com
I literally just had a conversation a few minutes ago about this with one of my fellow coworkers who has been an avid recreational airplane flyer for over 15 years. This would be much better since he has probably 20 aircraft!
I've been "Doing R/C" since 1974 and most of us have a fairly decent "Fleet" of aircraft. I honestly don't think it's going to be as hard on the "Traditional" RCer as most make it out to seem.
adm_geomatics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 261
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Leander, Texas
- Website
- www.admgeomatics.com
Awesome! 1974! That's when I was born, lol. Luckily for me when I became an "RC'er" in 1989 all my stuff was one the ground!
I had a stadium truck that looked identical to that. Can't remember the name but it came with same tires & wheels as the chasis in the pic. Fun times
- Joined
- May 30, 2019
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 335
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Website
- www.dronesar.info
LOL. The fact that there are more then twice as many dislikes than likes for the video tells me far more people recognize it's a fairy-tale fantasy than swallow it hook, line and sinker. (This appears to be limited flight - i.e., keep the drone uselessly within 400 ft.) And I'm one of 'em. If it was as easy as this video (with the cartoon lollipop music to lull you into wonderland) portrays, it could be implemented virtually overnight - not the projected several years the FAA is estimating.
Great propaganda.
Last edited:
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
I disagree. It is clear that the FAA has no understanding of traditional RC model aircraft. In addition, they clearly intend to phase out "FRIA" sites, they state exactly that in the NPRM. I am not clear how they view an RC modeler with one, or perhaps two, radio transmitters that operate anywhere from 1 to 20+ different aircraft, including different types. In my case I have electric powered pattern airplanes, large gasoline powered planes, small and large foamy planes, electric helicopters from micros to 800 sized, and both electric-powered and unpowered thermal duration gliders.
All are normally flown at known fixed site locations with exception of times I attend a contest which are often held at special venues only used intermittently for larger contests. I have around 20 ready to fly models. Given the fact that all of these are flown from the same transmitter I am curious how the FAA sees eventually having remote ID to cover that widely varied type of aircraft along with the areas and differences in operation.
In addition, several regular fixed sites I fly at have unreliable Internet service and no cellular service to speak of. My gliders are designed to minimize weight and any added equipment would be very difficult to find a place for and would diminish the performance.
Overall I am at a loss to see how the FAA expects to require RID for many types of models. Their concept of only allowing a 12-month window to apply for recognition of a FRIA site combined with no allowances for new sites, which are an all too often required situation for RC clubs, shows me that the FAA has zero understanding of the traditional RC modeler, what we fly, how we fly it,, and where we fly.
In addition, the NPRM will result in a ban on the extremely popular RTF/Bind-n-Fly/ARF aircraft. It will also ban most available kits since they would be required to meet the standard or limited categories since they will not have 100% of the required parts to build a complete sUAS. Most kits have parts for the airframe, but then lack the engine/motor and radio. The NPRM would clearly require a modeler to build the radio itself since that is part of the sUAS.
As it sits right now I see the NPRM as intended to phase out and end quickly the hobby of building and flying traditional radio controlled model airplanes.
FWIW, I have been an active RC modeler since 1968.
adm_geomatics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 261
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Leander, Texas
- Website
- www.admgeomatics.com
My thoughts as well. How are they going to handle recreational craft that have no OS, internet connection or flight software? Plain-old transmitter and receiver action!
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
The video suggests that special equipment on the aircraft or controller will not be needed for the Limited Category. The operator must:
- Inform the USS of your flight and info. This, according to the video, can be accomplished with an app on your connected phone.
- Keep your flight within 400' of the operator who has the phone that reported the coordinates of the flight.
adm_geomatics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 261
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Leander, Texas
- Website
- www.admgeomatics.com
So I guess they will just take their word for it which model they are flying and whether or not it is registered?
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
We don't know the details, but that is how the demo presented it. App on the phone only.
The whole thing will be the honor system. There will be no way to enforce compliance, just like now.
adm_geomatics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2019
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 261
- Age
- 50
- Location
- Leander, Texas
- Website
- www.admgeomatics.com
That's what I thought. Not that it will affect anything we will be doing since we still pay attention to their airfields. ?
60 days open comment...
from there it's a question mark because it depends on how "seriously" they take the comments. If they toss them out the window then the wheels could start rolling later this year. If they create a new NPRM then the process starts all over again (60 day comment period...)..
Either way it's estimated we are looking at least a 3 year window to this being REAL and then the actual requirements of it going into effect sometime after that. Remember there will be a lot of infrastructure needed to make this happen and that will take time.
