Mr NCT
Site Moderator
I don't have a dog in this fight other than that the local AMA clubs are far away and I can't find an in stock RID module. I'm curious what the correct approach would have been?
Edgewater FRIA application status
- Thread starter joelspangler
- Start date
Flying Monkey fab
Elite member
Okay, it's possible that you have a point but we can't tell because you have not said anything specific. Could you perhaps expound on what you think they have done wrong and what would have been the right way?
Flying Monkey fab
Elite member
And you base this on?
tamuct01
Well-known member
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.
ScottSteward
Active member
Sure. Glad you asked. Flite Test is encouraging people to submit their backyards for FRIA approvals. Then Josh comes on and says "FRIA submissions are getting denied at an alarmingly high rate".
Uhhhh....duuuhhhh YEAH! Did you really think that was going to fly? (Pardon the pun)
ScottSteward
Active member
People who I have spoken with that were actually IN the FAA meetings and said "delivery drones" were never even brought up as a reason.
Flying Monkey fab
Elite member
While there definitely is a disagreement on what should be approved as a FRIA I think you are exaggerating what the FTCA has suggested.
Mr NCT
Site Moderator
So, do I understand your approach as 'The FAA doesn't want lots of FRIAs so therefore don't apply'? If that's what you're suggesting then it's a self fulfilling approach. If the FAA doesn't get many applications they can conclude that there isn't much interest and the airspace can be restricted even further. That's not the outcome I'd like to see.
ScottSteward
Active member
No. That's not even close to my implication.
What I AM saying is that FRIAs were never intended for people's personal backyard property. The FAA was clear that only sites where multiple people fly on a frequent basis were going to he considered for FRIA status. Flite Test lied to you.
ScottSteward
Active member
Not at all. FTCA told literally THOUSANDS to submit their personal property for FRIAS. They mislead you.
scottyorr
New member
It seems to me you have a real axe to grind with Flite Test. I don't understand it, but in any case, it's a real downer to keep reading your remarks. I'm guessing that Flite Test has done much more for getting people exited about this hobby than you have.
ScottSteward
Active member
The truth of the matter is that I have been a FT supporter since my first day in the hobby. However, they have now officially turned me off due to their approach and posturing in the midst of this R.I.D. mess.
I am extremely disappointed in them. Not only for their misleading encouragement to submit sites that will NEVER be approved for FRIA (which has now cluttered the system and is making it longer to sift through approvals), but also for the division they have created in the hobby. They have made it "Flite Test against AMA" and have indirectly thrown the AMA under the bus with a few of their statements. Which is something I NEVER thought FT would stoop to.
I'm sure it IS a downer to keep reading my post. It's a downer to keep MAKING them. I have always LOVED Flite Test but I'm sorry, I cannot support how they are approaching the new regs.
Mr NCT
Site Moderator
Perhaps what we have then is 'failure to communicate' (thank you Cool Hand Luke). I didn't see anything from the FAA on their selection criteria in their drone zone or during the TRUST test. I can totally see that that was their intention but it would have been nice to let the average schmo, me, know what they were thinking.
I'm still against the whole idea in principle since the farmer down the road can fly his ultralight with no registration, test or remote ID. But I'm sure that will all happen somewhere down the line. The more sensible approach, in my non-bureaucratic anti rule making opinion, would be to identify areas, altitudes and modes of flight like beyond line of sight where RID is required and everywhere else be class G airspace for us.
Sorry this issue has soured you on FT. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good.
ScottSteward
Active member
The TRUST test has nothing to do with FRIA. As for "being against the whole thing", we ALL are. Nobody thinks RID is a good idea. But it's here. And now that it IS here, we need to do this thing right and be realistic with regards to the sites we submit for FRIAS. Backyards aren't going to ever be approved and the fact that FTCA is telling you they will is grotesquely deceiving.
I must have missed that memo. From where I sit, the FAA have been, and still are, totally cryptic in what they want.
Have you considered possibility that the FAA mislead the FTCA? My recollection, it was late spring in 23, that the FAA announced they only wanted 4,000 FRIAs in the whole nation. A number that is suspiciously close to the number of AMA clubs.
I have delt with many government agencies in my career. The IRS, Farm Service Agency, Soil & Water Conservation & EPA. I have never seen anything even close to the absolute mess the FAA has made with RID. Time after time the FAA has drug their feet. First, who was allowed to be a CBO. Then with the specs of the RID, what the broadcast format would be. They took forever to publish the specs. Now with the FRIAs, what they are looking for. I have still not seen any clear guidelines from the FAA. All of the agencies above have clear publications. You can go to their websites and download example after example. Not so with the FAA regarding FRIA. Either they intended to deceive or they are totally incompetent. Who knows.
Sometimes it is impossible to determine the difference between malice & incompetence
Last edited:
ScottSteward
Active member
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.
