Sorry, any tone of humor in your original post went under the radar.
As to ADS-B; while it is correct that it doesn't play a role in the NPRM it is indicative of DJI' proactive stance. Additionally, the FAA's NPRM isn't the only (or even the first) game in town. DJI has been working with the Swiss and EU aviation authorities on the issue of remote ID for over a year and will certainly bring considerable expertise to the table as this rule-making goes forward.
Quite true, there is no "unified voice" for the entire unmanned flight community, and AMA may represent only a fraction of that entire community. But, the AMA community is far better organized than the Part 107 community in this respect; they have a sizable membership; they have decades of experience at the Washington lobbying "game"; and, if anything, their membership (many of whom currently fly without even the most basic GPS hardware installed) face an even higher cost per unit if additional hardware is mandated - not to mention those AMA pilots who currently fly aircraft weighing well over 55 lbs., participate in aerobatic competitions (which may take them above 400' AGL for safety reasons), and/or fly with turbine authorizations. And, as any politician knows, a highly vocal voting block with a unified focus can and will trump a larger, less organized, less committed segment of the population. So, as of now, they're probably in a far better position to make their voices heard on this issue than the 107 community - and have a longer track record of achieving results.
We're on the same common track... we all desire the same end-game, to enjoy our sUAV, business or hobby.
On DJI being proactive... I couldn't agree more. Other's may feel it was a control or self-serving of DJI, but I'd agree they've made several attempts to address the upcoming ID issues over the last few years. I can understand how the NPRM doesn't want the ADS-B due to the density of sUAV & flooding of the airwaves that would result... I still feel it addressed the focus of the original intentions: air traffic safety and Homeland Security threats. Personally, I think there is a solution using ADS-B with maybe additional technology or boradcasting. The FAA basically led the trail, and globally the FAA was roughly duplicated. I think the same on sUAV, the Remote ID has been a discussion point for well over 3 years and as the technology addressed the new requirements for BVLOS, the Remote ID direction was constructed & modified to focus on Corporate BVLOS as primary. That will probably be the focus globally as the large corp BVLOS industry matures and other countries will probably adopt a similar methodology, if for anything else to be compatible with developing hardware.
I find it extremely frustrating they're (NPRM constructors) attempting to propose a method that makes backward compatibility or an economical upgrade path for existing sUAV a challenge to accomplish. That simply shouldn't be a block, for the massive number of existing crafts of various scale platforms. They've proposed this NPRM, in my viewpoint; on the false premise & mind-set that they are effecting only sub- $1000 crafts used for hobby & pleasure... which based on that premise would not be a big concern to the "mass" when you consider how quickly many upgrade anyway. It totally lacks inclusion of larger scale or premium priced hardware that may easily continue stable operations for 6-plus years. I also feel there will be a wake-up on the price of standard remote ID certified crafts... it certainly won't be a low cost add-in, new craft cost will stun many and prevent new Buyers.
I supported the AMA for years, although the AMA isn't a reliable voice for sUAV. They primarily now and will continue to operate at fields that if not already, will be recognized as FAA authorized zones. I do see the AMA addressing the parameters of certain flying fields to address the needs of their large scale, but again within sanctioned ground. Those that currently enjoy flying off these sites, would be prohibitive like the sUAV's... but in comparison to sUAV density that's an insignificant number of little concern to the NPRM. Over the last several years, the AMA has basically done zip for sUAV industry or Pilots.
I'm hopeful the construct of the Remote ID does receive major modifications. But in my mind it'll need to be voiced by multiple businesses and industries within & serving the sUAV. All the manufactures, I can't see loosing a huge percentage of their income / sales. The sUAV skills training sites, PT107 training, 3rd party hardware developers, Insurance, radio, parachute, and various payloads: Ag, SAR, etc.
The loss of income for these businesses will be great, and that should carry a strong voice for the needs to maintain existing crafts and provide a desire to purchase new craft. The belief and dependency on PT107 or AMA Pilot organization when no current organization clearly represents; I think the current NPRM would esenitally go unchanged... big business has no concern on airspace being used by any hobby or small business. Realistically, I think the voice of sUAV business entities will push some welcome modifications.
