Edgewater FRIA application status

[ScottSteward]

I think the FTCA has done the best "carrot and stick" approach possible. This is different than the AMA, who from a public perception has all but rolled over to the FAA like a good boy to get his belly rubbed. The FTCA continued to advocate openly for changes to the proposed rules, knowing that returning to the days of the special rule prohibiting FAA interference was off the table. They also continued to advocate for more hobbies to get involved and fly, to pressure the FAA to make everywhere a FRIA, and avoid the rules by flying <250g. I might be reading too much into it, but I think there's also a subtle "most folks like us won't comply anyway, but we're at least trying to work within the process." Again, these are my words and not the position of the FTCA.

You couldn't be more incorrect. Especially the part about who fought for changes in the proposed rules. It was all AMA that fought for MAJOR re-writes in the proposal. Watch this video and be more properly and realistically informed.

 

[Merv]

Yes, you definitely missed the memo. The FAA was abundantly clear (as surprising as that may be) that FRIAs were for fields used ORGANIZATIONS. Not individuals. And anyone with an ounce of common sense understood that.

Please provide a link to your information.

 

[Mr NCT]

And anyone with an ounce of common sense understood that.

Hmmmm......

The TRUST test has nothing to do with FRIA.

Just for fun I retook the TRUST test. The 'where can you fly' section would be the obvious place to talk about frias IF the FAA wanted the folks who are trying to comply know what the FAA is looking for.

The FAA was abundantly clear

I'm with @Merv, please cite your sources. I'm willing to comply, I'm wanting to comply, I'm waiting to comply. I just need to know how explained in language that a poor product of the public school system can find and understand.

 

[Merv]

... It was all AMA that fought for MAJOR re-writes in the proposal...

I will respectfully disagree with your assertions regarding the AMA. The AMA has been defending their members only & not the whole hobby. Which is fine I suppose, they should lookout for their members. I am just underwhelmed by the AMA's support of the entire hobby.

I suspect the AMA would have been quite happy if they were the only CBO. And AMA fields were the only ones granted FRIA statis.
As I said above, the FAA idea of 4,000 FRIA's is suspiciously close to the number of AMA clubs.

 

[ScottSteward]

I will respectfully disagree with your assertions regarding the AMA. The AMA has been defending their members only & not the whole hobby. Which if fine I suppose, they should lookout for their members. I am just underwhelmed by the AMA's support of the entire hobby.

I suspect the AMA would have been quite happy if they were the only CBO. And AMA fields were the only ones granted FRIA statis.
As I said above, the FAA idea of 4,000 FRIA's is suspiciously close to the number of AMA clubs.

WRONG! As laid out in the video....

- The original proposal demanded that all pilots would have to have a separate ID module for every individual aircraft. The AMA got this thrown out. You only need one.

- The original proposal was going to require a serial number on every aircraft. This would make scratch building illegal. The AMA had this ruling removed

- The original proposal was not only going to require a 400' altitude ceiling but also a 400' horizontal limit, which would make most RC runways out of compliance. The AMA got this removed.

You can "respectfully disagree" all you want, but you're still wrong.

 

[ScottSteward]

Hmmmm......

Just for fun I retook the TRUST test. The 'where can you fly' section would be the obvious place to talk about frias IF the FAA wanted the folks who are trying to comply know what the FAA is looking for.

I'm with @Merv, please cite your sources. I'm willing to comply, I'm wanting to comply, I'm waiting to comply. I just need to know how explained in language that a poor product of the public school system can find and understand.

R.I.D. is not live yet nor is the list official and final on FRIA sites. So, no. It's not going to be mentioned on the TRUST site.

 

[Mr NCT]

 

[FlyingWithRyan]

WRONG! As laid out in the video....

- The original proposal demanded that all pilots would have to have a separate ID module for every individual aircraft. The AMA got this thrown out. You only need one.

- The original proposal was going to require a serial number on every aircraft. This would make scratch building illegal. The AMA had this ruling removed

- The original proposal was not only going to require a 400' altitude ceiling but also a 400' horizontal limit, which would make most RC runways out of compliance. The AMA got this removed.

You can "respectfully disagree" all you want, but you're still wrong.

Yet all these things you mention as a rebuttal are in your opinion "enough" for contributing to the overall hobby. Merv's opinion might be different. It doesn't make him wrong as he is allowed to have his own viewpoint. Your argument here paints you as a dense and ignorant individual.

 

[CappyAmeric]

WRONG! As laid out in the video....

- The original proposal demanded that all pilots would have to have a separate ID module for every individual aircraft. The AMA got this thrown out. You only need one.

- The original proposal was going to require a serial number on every aircraft. This would make scratch building illegal. The AMA had this ruling removed

- The original proposal was not only going to require a 400' altitude ceiling but also a 400' horizontal limit, which would make most RC runways out of compliance. The AMA got this removed.

You can "respectfully disagree" all you want, but you're still wrong.

As a a FORMER AMA member I think it is safe to say that anything the AMA did was for their own benefit.

 

[Merv]

Hey @ScottSteward, Bruce has a question for you. If all the FAA does is postpone the enforcement of RID, when you fly after Sept 16, outside of a FRIA, with out RID & over 250g. You will not be following the regulation. Just because the FAA is not enforcing a regulation, does not change the regulation.

The question; will your AMA insurance be any good? Or with the insurance company try to weasel out of a labiality claim, saying you were not following the regulation?

 

[ScottSteward]

Yet all these things you mention as a rebuttal are in your opinion "enough" for contributing to the overall hobby. Merv's opinion might be different. It doesn't make him wrong as he is allowed to have his own viewpoint. Your argument here paints you as a dense and ignorant individual.

As a a FORMER AMA member I think it is safe to say that anything the AMA did was for their own benefit.

So....

- Removing the section of the proposal that said you need to have a remote ID for every aircraft....."only benefits the AMA"?

- Removing the section of the proposal that says every single aircraft must have a serial number....."only benefits the AMA"?

- Removing the section of the proposal that mandated a 400 foot HORIZONTAL limit...."only benefits the AMA"?

I think you better back up that truck right now....because YOU'RE WRONG!

If you want to know which org did what it did for it's own benefit, look no further than the "org" that is actually an "LLC" (i.e., "FOR profit") as opposed the the org that is a 501c3 (i.e. "NON profit).

To say nothing of the fact that the LLC org actually put out a "go fund me" page and targeted kids and parents to pay for a "flying field" that the President of the LLC gets to live on.

 

[ScottSteward]

Hey @ScottSteward, Bruce has a question for you. If all the FAA does is postpone the enforcement of RID, when you fly after Sept 16, outside of a FRIA, with out RID & over 250g. You will not be following the regulation. Just because the FAA is not enforcing a regulation, does not change the regulation.

The question; will your AMA insurance be any good? Or with the insurance company try to weasel out of a labiality claim, saying you were not following the regulation?

What a stupid question. If it's postponed, it's postponed. There's nothing to comply with. Bruce sure knows how to conflate things.

 

[Merv]

What a stupid question. If it's postponed, it's postponed. There's nothing to comply with. Bruce sure knows how to conflate things.

That is the rub, the regulation has not been postponed, only the inforcement. The FAA still expects you to comply with the regulation. Here is the FAA statement.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702029446218400186

 

[Boxo53]

That is the rub, the regulation has not been postponed, only the inforcement. The FAA still expects you to comply with the regulation. Here is the FAA statement.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702029446218400186

I concur. The remote ID requirement will go into effect on Sept 16. It would take a literal act of Congress to change that.
The FAA has indicated they will consider the overall circumstances when deciding whether to issue a Violation. Here is their to -be -published word on that: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-20074.pdf

 

[ScottSteward]

That is the rub, the regulation has not been postponed, only the inforcement. The FAA still expects you to comply with the regulation. Here is the FAA statement.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702029446218400186

Read the first paragraph...

"Drone pilots who are unable to comply with the broadcast requirement of the Remote ID Rule will now have until March 16, 2024, to equip their aircraft. After that date, operators could face fines and suspension or revocation of pilot certificates. "

Key words...."after that date" (i.e., March 16th, 2023).

Yes, it is a postponement. Stop listening to Bruce. Bruce is the KING of misinformation and spin doctoring. I wish he would just go away.

 

[scottyorr]

Read the first paragraph...

"Drone pilots who are unable to comply with the broadcast requirement of the Remote ID Rule will now have until March 16, 2024, to equip their aircraft. After that date, operators could face fines and suspension or revocation of pilot certificates. "

Key words...."after that date" (i.e., March 16th, 2023).

Yes, it is a postponement. Stop listening to Bruce. Bruce is the KING of misinformation and spin doctoring. I wish he would just go away.

I wish YOU would just go away.

 

[Mr NCT]

According to this document (https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-20074.pdf) the FAA isn't necessarily postponing enforcement. They're reserving the right to enforce at their discretion. So in true bureaucratic fashion postponing isn't really postponing. We'll still be violating the reg.s but the FAA at it's discretion will enforce them or not.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 89
[Docket No. FAA-2019-1100; Amdt. No. 89-2]
RIN 2120-AL31
Enforcement Policy Regarding Operator Compliance Deadline for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notification of enforcement policy.
SUMMARY: For noncompliance with the remote identification operating requirements applicable to unmanned aircraft, which occurs on or before March 16, 2024, the FAA will consider all circumstances, in particular, unanticipated issues with the available supply and excessive cost of remote identification broadcast modules and unanticipated delay in the FAA's approval of FAA-recognized identification areas, when exercising its discretion in determining whether to take enforcement action.

 

[Merv]

Read the first paragraph...

"Drone pilots who are unable to comply with the broadcast requirement of the Remote ID Rule will now have until March 16, 2024, to equip their aircraft. After that date, operators could face fines and suspension or revocation of pilot certificates. "

Key words...."after that date" (i.e., March 16th, 2023).

Yes, it is a postponement. Stop listening to Bruce. Bruce is the KING of misinformation and spin doctoring. I wish he would just go away.

I'm not so sure. Bruce is talking about labiality insurance. You are talking about FAA enforcement. These are two completely different topics.
Just because the police won't give you a ticket for exceeding the speed limit, doesn't mean that your insurance company will not try and weasel out of paying for the accident that you caused by going too fast. I have been on some interstates in Florida where the just police don't care until you are going at least 30 mph over the speed limit. I'm not sure any labiality company would have the same attitude.

I hope you are correct. But so far you have provided little to no evidence to backup your statements. You have repeatedly told us that we were wrong. I'm sorry, I'm just not going to just take your word for it, I need some kind of evidence. Who knows maybe you are somekind of authority, you claim to have information about the FAA & AMA that nobody else knows about. What are your credentials? Where you in the room as these things were discussed?

Until then, I will ask again. Please provide a link that says "The FAA was abundantly clear (as surprising as that may be) that FRIAs were for fields used ORGANIZATIONS. Not individuals." And another that says the AMA insurance will still be good after Sept 16.

 

[CappyAmeric]

According to this document (https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-20074.pdf) the FAA isn't necessarily postponing enforcement. They're reserving the right to enforce at their discretion. So in true bureaucratic fashion postponing isn't really postponing. We'll still be violating the reg.s but the FAA at it's discretion will enforce them or not.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 89
[Docket No. FAA-2019-1100; Amdt. No. 89-2]
RIN 2120-AL31
Enforcement Policy Regarding Operator Compliance Deadline for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notification of enforcement policy.
SUMMARY: For noncompliance with the remote identification operating requirements applicable to unmanned aircraft, which occurs on or before March 16, 2024, the FAA will consider all circumstances, in particular, unanticipated issues with the available supply and excessive cost of remote identification broadcast modules and unanticipated delay in the FAA's approval of FAA-recognized identification areas, when exercising its discretion in determining whether to take enforcement action.

FAA weasel language. For instance, if they nab someone on December 1, 2023, and the supply chain has adequate stock by then, they may decide to enforce.

Bottom line, this is not a true delay, it is how the FAA can comply with the congressional mandate in the last authorization bill, while trying to get congress to agree to this authorization bill. The FAA is not doing this for our benefit, they are doing it for their benefit. Typical.

 

[CappyAmeric]

So....

- Removing the section of the proposal that said you need to have a remote ID for every aircraft....."only benefits the AMA"?

- Removing the section of the proposal that says every single aircraft must have a serial number....."only benefits the AMA"?

- Removing the section of the proposal that mandated a 400 foot HORIZONTAL limit...."only benefits the AMA"?

I think you better back up that truck right now....because YOU'RE WRONG!

If you want to know which org did what it did for it's own benefit, look no further than the "org" that is actually an "LLC" (i.e., "FOR profit") as opposed the the org that is a 501c3 (i.e. "NON profit).

To say nothing of the fact that the LLC org actually put out a "go fund me" page and targeted kids and parents to pay for a "flying field" that the President of the LLC gets to live on.

Reading comprehension problem? I said, "anything the AMA did was for their own benefit." You added "only benefits the AMA". I stand by my opinion. The AMA sold the hobby out. When they did that, they simply hoped the FAA would kill them last. It does not work that way.