Faa proposed Transponder rules and how/if they change what we do as hobbyists

[Vimana89]

I'll be informing myself studying those specific sections more in depth and looking what I can do to write somebody or get the word out. It won't hurt to check out my local club either, to get together and take this on or at very least have a place to fly nobody can snitch about. I've always had a passing interest in indoor micro flying...maybe now's the time to start getting serious about that. My roof, my air space underneath it.

 

[Merv]

Maybe is time we turn from complaining and turn to suggesting the system we can live with.

IF the system makes it easy to get a flying site, from a phone app OR from home before you fly. Once the area is approved, any number of people could fly there. Make it the responsibility of the commercial guys to avoid our flying site.

@PsyBorg, could we live with such a system? If we can, then we should lobby the FAA for such a system. Plus any other features would we want. As a community of hobbyist, lets work together on this.

 

[KSP_CPA]

Maybe is time we turn from complaining to suggesting the system we can live with.

IF the system makes it easy to get a flying site, from a phone app OR from home before you fly. Once the area is approved, any number of people could fly there. Make it the responsibility of the commercial guys to avoid our flying site.

@PsyBorg, could we live with such a system? If we can, then we should lobby the FAA for such a system. Plus any other features would we want. As a community of hobbyist, lets work together on this.

I also agree with that approach.

I have been looking through some case law and prior precedent about how the FAA can regulate airspace above private property as I believe an argument can be made that these regs overreach onto property rights granted in other law and rulings. I also think it is an overreach to strictly regulate radio receivers in this way as well; similar to how there is no speed limit in this country above 85MPH but every car manufactured for use in this country does not limit their maximum speed to 85MPH, even though it can easily be done.

I think middle ground can be established in these regs. 400 feet line of sight on private property, check-in of recreational flying via an app, and no FPV or cameras without special permission might be that middle ground.

I have not seen the AMA have a press release on this issue, but I can imagine they are preparing a lobbying effort to counter. It would be good to get guidance from an association such as the AMA on what points to make in our "educated response".

 

[PsyBorg]

Maybe is time we turn from complaining and turn to suggesting the system we can live with.

IF the system makes it easy to get a flying site, from a phone app OR from home before you fly. Once the area is approved, any number of people could fly there. Make it the responsibility of the commercial guys to avoid our flying site.

@PsyBorg, could we live with such a system? If we can, then we should lobby the FAA for such a system. Plus any other features would we want. As a community of hobbyist, lets work together on this.

Not really mate. Its ALREADY the responsibility of full scale to be flying over us at altitudes well beyond 400 ft. There should be ZERO chances of incidents with people who have and do fly by the common sense guideline we have always flown by. The problems are with "Those guys" who dont follow any rules and care nothing about the hobby only what they want to do. The other part is uneducated new pilots who have been drawn in by the DJI hype "Anyone can fly a drone"

If this were actually thought out properly in regards to safety and implementation of commercial drones then the simple solution would be We get 0 to 400 ft Commercial UAS get 500 to 700 feet and full scale gets 900 to space. 200 ft of separation between the layers. No need for tracking or more personal intel gathering of the general public. That way the ONLY tracking needed would be for commercial UAS and full scale who would be more closely interacting and need to be identified. Putting more funding into education as well as mandating DJI and similar companies to properly promote UAS use would go further in accomplishing the goals then this BS will.

Sadly it is not and is nothing more then a function of profitability for non hobbyists corporations to extort extra funding and a means for politicians to get more lobbyist funds to pad their retirement accounts.

The joe boneheads are STILL gonna do stupid no matter what. Terrorists already know that there are far more effective ways to do evil then use toys (granted some arent so bright and try) and finally the general population of sheeple will still be manipulated by the media as well as the groups of their dumb a$$ friends on facebook too stoned to grasp reality.

If anyone is worried over terroism.. guess what.. Since the inception of NBC warfare there has always been the possibility AND the probability of its use on general public world wide. Guess what a hobby level drone is sooo far from the top of the list for deployment its not funny. It has been easily doable to simply have someone walk down a city street with an aerosol can spraying what ever it is they want yet we still have unregulated deodorant cans and hair spray... throw away your paranoia and enjoy life before some one does it and stop worrying over if or when they will.

 

[FoamyDM]

If this were actually thought out properly in regards to safety and implementation of commercial drones then the simple solution would be We get 0 to 400 ft Commercial UAS get 500 to 700 feet and full scale gets 900 to space. 200 ft of separation between the layers. No need for tracking or more personal intel gathering of the general public. That way the ONLY tracking needed would be for commercial UAS and full scale who would be more closely interacting and need to be identified. Putting more funding into education as well as mandating DJI and similar companies to properly promote UAS use would go further in accomplishing the goals then this BS will.

I have started reading & thinking on this issue, and I think your proposal is simple to remember and implement and police. I would I a requirement that each commercial co have their own Identifiable Light scheme for Easy id. No light scheme, must be private.

 

[PsyBorg]

I have started reading & thinking on this issue, and I think your proposal is simple to remember and implement and police. I would I a requirement that each commercial co have their own Identifiable Light scheme for Easy id. No light scheme, must be private.

Specific light schemes.. Is that for identification or targeting hehe.

 

[tamuct01]

As Capt. Malcolm says:

 

[rockyboy]

As Capt. Malcolm says:

 

[Hondo76251]

As Capt. Malcolm says:

☝️😅
"You cant take the sky from me..."

Fitting...

 

[Grifflyer]

FT made new channel and they're touching on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoDYSpx0Vgh8sZ6UBD7_5iQ.

 

[PsyBorg]

ya beat me to it hehe

 

[FoamyDM]

FT made new channel and they're touching on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoDYSpx0Vgh8sZ6UBD7_5iQ.

Thank you for sharing... Hadn't seen it

 

[Merv]

+1, @Grifflyer, thanks for sharing

Thank you FT for beginning to inform us to this situation. We all need far more information before we can effectively respond to the FAA.

 

[Hondo76251]

As Capt. Malcolm says:

Couldn't find this meme earlier...

 

[French]

It’s been ages since I’ve posted on the forums, but I just saw the new FT Community Association video on these proposed regs and felt compelled to do so.

I look forward to Josh & the team’s suggestions on a coordinated effort. As someone that’s very involved with the legislative and regulatory process, I do have some thoughts and suggestions to personalize our message. This isn’t going to be an easy fight. The commercial companies want to own the sky, and money normally wins in these situations.

 

[Ryan O.]

Like I said,

Always a fan of Bruce...

I do like his rants.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

Well, I trudged through the 300 plus pages and then wrote my first reply which was about 5 paragraphs long so I do feel somewhat better. For all the good it will do but at least I can say I did what I could.

I complained mostly about the exclusionary policies of the proposal toward amateur-built modelers.

 

[mach1 rc]

FT made new channel and they're touching on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoDYSpx0Vgh8sZ6UBD7_5iQ.

I haven't seen that. Thanks

 

[PsyBorg]

this video best explains the whole hobby destroying nightmare so far.

 

[razor02097]

I'm slightly conflicted. In the "Wing" video FT staff appeared in really made them seem in favor of this sort of legislation. Then it seems like maybe not so much anymore? Even if it was just an app to "claim" an area to fly, I don't WANT to claim anything... a lot of the hobby is sharing the hobby. How would "claiming" the area work when you fly with someone? Similarly what happens when someone "claims" the park I want to fly at? Either way, I wish the best of luck to you (FT staff) with FTCA. Trying to get anything done with the federal government has got to be about as fun as subbing your toe in the dark on a broken glass covered bed post then bursting into flames randomly.

While it would be fun to say I will refuse to comply, all it would take is one time to ruin your life. Quite literally. I don't know about the rest of you but a potential fine of tens of thousands of dollars would certainly ruin things for me...That is why I am not going to even joke about it anymore. I have a feeling that not only will this legislation pass and become more restrictive over time, I feel like it would be too easy to tweak it to kill off those precious flying fields so many are still clinging to...I mean how hard would it be? All you have to do is decline an application renewal to continue to be recognized as a sanctioned AMA flying field. Ooops I guess you can try again next year... oh wait... how long can a flying field survive with no renewing memberships? Probably not very long.