• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

FAA Proposals

jsknockoff

Active member
Mentor
#1
I’ve been trying to read my way through this FAA business, in an attempt to actually understand what rules and regulations would be required to fly the airplanes that I specifically enjoy flying. Im about two thirds of the way through and here are a few of my initial knee jerk reactions and questions/ thoughts.

1. Would these rules apply to powered free flight aircraft?

2. If operating as a standard remote identification uas, do any of the altitude or range limitations apply?

3. I know the main concern for operation as a standard remote identification uas is the cost obligation and weight of additional equipment. My thought, I wonder if the equipment could be based off of the existing hardware already available through cellular providers that you can use as a tracking device for pets? They are fairly small and light, and they are relatively inexpensive ($5.00mo).

Just brainstorming here. I hate to say it but I think this stuff is going to be inevitable, it will be interesting to see how we as a community can adapt. I hope it’s not so restrictive as to completely kill the hobby.
 

jsknockoff

Active member
Mentor
#3
I posted my comment to the FAA as well, but I have a pretty good feeling that the proposed regulation won’t be changed a whole lot before being implemented. My approach to this is to understand the rules as clearly as I can, and try to continue building and flying the airplanes that I enjoy as seamlessly as possible.
 

vhandon

Active member
#5
I have read through the proposal. Here are my responses as I understand the rules. If you read the entire thing your brain will be mush by the end but I believe that is by design.

1. Would these rules apply to powered free flight aircraft?
Not clear but I would say yes.

2. If operating as a standard remote identification uas, do any of the altitude or range limitations apply?
I believe line of sight still applies here and with the limited operation tag most older planes will get, the 400 foot perimeter will apply. Anything further would fall under BVLOS (Beyond visual line of sight) rules and additional fees and certifications will apply.

3. I know the main concern for operation as a standard remote identification uas is the cost obligation and weight of additional equipment. My thought, I wonder if the equipment could be based off of the existing hardware already available through cellular providers that you can use as a tracking device for pets? They are fairly small and light, and they are relatively inexpensive ($5.00mo).
The hardware will connect to the internet the way a smartphone does. Wi-Fi if a base is deployed and in range, Cellular otherwise. The capability for it to acquire and broadcast its GPS location is not new either but repackaging it to satisfy FAA is what will warrant the multi billion dollar projected cost to manufacturers and consumers.
 

Willy Nillies

Well-known member
#6
Agreeing to any part of these regulations to our hobby is the end of our hobby. You willingly give the FAA 1 inch and they will take 10 miles. Model aircraft are not a problem and do not require these kind of regulations. PERIOD. An FAR 103 ultralight doesn't have to comply with these proposed regulations. A 1949 J3 Cub or other aircraft of that era with no electrical system doesn't have to comply with these regulations. Why should we?

Compromising with the FAA is a death sentence to our hobby.
 

vhandon

Active member
#8
My comments on the proposed rule. I was going to be polite and courteous but that flew out the window once I started typing.



I have read through the proposed rule for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems and I have several concerns. It would be easy to make a passionate plea to defend the hobby I love but instead I will make a case that the proposed rule lacks due diligence.

I agree that safety is a major concern and one of the benefits of this proposed rule would be an increase in safety. I could not find a study or even a measurement on how this proposed rule would improve safety. I searched for deaths related to hobby level UAS in the US in the past 5 years and I could not find any. I also searched for property damage due to hobby level UAS with similar results. I find it irresponsible to propose rules with a conservative cost of hundreds of millions dollars to manufacturers and consumers without a comprehensive study of incidents and how to prevent them.

I applaud the formation of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee and its efforts to engage with experts to truly understand UAS. I believe they made sensible comments and recommendations. I do not understand why the FAA disagreed with so many of them. Did the FAA perform their own independent research in parallel with the ARC? If so, are those results available to the public? I find it condescending to disregard the suggestions of the ARC and supplant them with sometimes directly opposing suggestions without providing any reason for the dissent.

It would be unjust of me to disparage your rules proposal without providing one of my own. I preface this by clarifying that I am addressing the hobby level UAS. If you want to keep everyone safe, Do Nothing. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” There is nothing to improve upon at this point. There is no need to add rules at this level. I can understand things can change and the need for additional rules may be necessary in the future. My recommendation for when that time comes is to get your ducks in a row. Bring irrefutable evidence that the rule will improve safety. Next time, exhibit due diligence.
 

Willy Nillies

Well-known member
#9
Anyone that thinks this "proposed" rule will increase safety....... well...... is an idiot. (we mean that with the deepest sincerity!)

BAD GUYS that intend to do harm DO NOT register, DO NOT follow rules, DO NOT follow laws.

DO NOT let anyone brainwash you into thinking any of this makes any sense. BAD GUYS do not follow any rules or laws.
 

jsknockoff

Active member
Mentor
#10
Anyone that thinks this "proposed" rule will increase safety....... well...... is an idiot. (we mean that with the deepest sincerity!)

BAD GUYS that intend to do harm DO NOT register, DO NOT follow rules, DO NOT follow laws.

DO NOT let anyone brainwash you into thinking any of this makes any sense. BAD GUYS do not follow any rules or laws.
I agree with you, unfortunately the bad guys are the ones creating the safety concerns (if that is actually what this is about) by flying over or near people who normally would have no clue that RC aircraft even exist. I had someone tell me that just this week they were attending a funeral in my town and someone was hovering overhead with a multi rotor. In the past bonehead stuff like this would have policed itself by a scolding from a fellow modeler. But with the cheap multirotors available to such a broad new customer base acts like these will create complaints that before would have never existed.

It may be pessimistic but realistically the genie is already out of the bottle. I’m just really hoping that the rules can be backed down to a reasonable level that we can work with. Unfortunately I doubt the amount of impact the suggestions and comments we are posting will really have on the FAA.
 

jsknockoff

Active member
Mentor
#11
I have read through the proposal. Here are my responses as I understand the rules. If you read the entire thing your brain will be mush by the end but I believe that is by design.

1. Would these rules apply to powered free flight aircraft?
Not clear but I would say yes.

2. If operating as a standard remote identification uas, do any of the altitude or range limitations apply?
I believe line of sight still applies here and with the limited operation tag most older planes will get, the 400 foot perimeter will apply. Anything further would fall under BVLOS (Beyond visual line of sight) rules and additional fees and certifications will apply.

I was pretty unclear on the free flight stuff. Not that there would be a whole lot of that kind of thing over the 250g weight limit. The 400 foot perimeter is the real killer for me. I love flying sailplanes and a 400 foot ceiling is a joke.
 

Vimana89

Well-known member
#12
There's a time and place to be ultra civil, academic, and factual, such as the official comments related to the official process...but in the court of public opinion, the gloves need to come off, and we can't let them limit the narrative either. The thing that everyone seems too nice and civil to bring to the table is that these propositions come at a time when the FAA is literally embroiled in scandal for negligence and cutting corners on stuff concerning real aircraft, that has recently ended up actually costing people their lives.

Going after our hobby has nothing to do with and will not change any of those underlying issues that are costing real lives and causing tangible problems with full scale aircraft. If they cared about safety at all they would have a million more pressing concerns to deal with other than hobbyist model aircraft, which are in no way part of these issues that are causing real problems. To anyone with half a brain, it's obvious this has nothing to do with safety, and like with everything else they do, probably leads back to money or expediency or some other underhanded and cynical motives. Some say it's the whole drone delivery thing while others say that will never happen anyway. Frankly I don't care what their reasons are because they haven't provided any good or convincing ones.

Like all authoritarians, these people are actually are our moral and intellectual inferiors, but it doesn't matter, because they hold the power in this situation, and I don't think we are going to get anything done with moral and factual based arguments. These people need to be dragged through the mud and lose some face, have their dirty laundry aired. The only language they speak is leverage and right now we as a community need to get that leverage somehow. I just wish I knew how.
 

Turbojoe

Well-known member
#14
Well March 2nd has come and gone. I wonder when we'll hear if any of the responses us R/C pilots have submitted to the FAA were heard or if they fell on deaf ears.

I for one don't care what they come up with for regulations. I flatly refuse to pay for and hang any manner of electronic location equipment on my airplanes or myself that gives the FAA direct access to me. We unknowingly give up enough of our anonymity as it is. I'll be damned if I'll give it up to them willingly!

I'll just continue to fly in the safe manner that I always have for the last 47 years. It's really a no brainer. Don't fly over people. Don't fly next to an airport or ANY full size aircraft. It's plain and simple. Just don't do anything stupid! It has worked so well for so many people in this hobby for so many decades. Why do they now have to implement all these stupid regulations? We all know what segment of the hobby brought all this about but I won't point any fingers. We all just need to work together to fight what is fast becoming "Big Brother" to our hobby. For the young'ens here just look up the movie 1984. It'll explain Big Brother.....

Joe
 

vhandon

Active member
#15
Well March 2nd has come and gone. I wonder when we'll hear if any of the responses us R/C pilots have submitted to the FAA were heard or if they fell on deaf ears.

I for one don't care what they come up with for regulations. I flatly refuse to pay for and hang any manner of electronic location equipment on my airplanes or myself that gives the FAA direct access to me. We unknowingly give up enough of our anonymity as it is. I'll be damned if I'll give it up to them willingly!

I'll just continue to fly in the safe manner that I always have for the last 47 years. It's really a no brainer. Don't fly over people. Don't fly next to an airport or ANY full size aircraft. It's plain and simple. Just don't do anything stupid! It has worked so well for so many people in this hobby for so many decades. Why do they now have to implement all these stupid regulations? We all know what segment of the hobby brought all this about but I won't point any fingers. We all just need to work together to fight what is fast becoming "Big Brother" to our hobby. For the young'ens here just look up the movie 1984. It'll explain Big Brother.....

Joe
Unless I missed it in the proposal I do not recall any suggestions on how to know if someone is not in compliance.
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#16
Unless I missed it in the proposal I do not recall any suggestions on how to know if someone is not in compliance.
Your not going to know if someone is non compliant. Nobody will. The only people you will know about are the compliant ones. The ones that play ball and register, transpond, and fly in a sanctioned fly zone. Other then that its a free-for-all. Which is where you may find me
 

Turbojoe

Well-known member
#17
Your not going to know if someone is non compliant. Nobody will. The only people you will know about are the compliant ones. The ones that play ball and register, transpond, and fly in a sanctioned fly zone. Other then that its a free-for-all. Which is where you may find me
100% agreed! If you don't comply they can't find you and I don't intend to comply or to do anything stupid enough to warrant them trying to find me. Punish the guilty NOT the masses! :mad::mad::mad:

Joe
 

BATTLEAXE

Well-known member
#18
It's funny because I was at the hobby store today killing time and I was talking about looking into different drones for filming my fixed wing flying and they got into the discussions of sub-250 and registration, FAA, and sanctioned fields. I usually stay quiet on those but today I shot it all down. Got tired of hearing the newbie scare tactics they are trying to promote. From what I got they only do that to feel out where the customers position on the matter is. Once I started saying that I fly responsibly, I don't need to be regulated, I am not the problem, and the rules are not separated by commercial vs private hobbyist use, they slacked off and started to agree with me views on the subject. One LHS clerk told me he registered his farm as a sanctioned zone for model aircraft to the tune of $75 for three years. I did a slow clap for the guy. This is my back yard!! :ROFLMAO:
 

TooJung2Die

Well-known member
#19
I listened to most of a recent AMA video on this topic. There were in excess of 50,000 comments. Each comment has to be read by the FAA. It will take up to 18 months for the FAA to compile all the data.

It occurred to me that I can own and shoot a firearm without registering it or letting the government know that I am out and about with said firearm; a lethal weapon. Yet I have three registration cards in my wallet for flying toy airplanes (FAA, AMA, Local RC club) and now they want to track me when I'm flying. I don't get it.
 

Turbojoe

Well-known member
#20
I too am a gun owner. Registered in California 30+ years ago and I now live in Arizona. I can legally carry my .38 concealed but I can't fly my R/C airplane without even more stringent regulations? :confused: That's just stupid. No matter the final FAA decision I plan to continue flying safely as I have for several decades. I'll probably fly more and more smaller aircraft so as not to intentionally draw attention to myself but I still have dozens of aircraft that weigh far in excess of FAA 250 gram guidelines and I intend to fly them without any mandated "Big Brother" tracking devices. Screw 'em.

Joe