FTCA FRIA Approval scorecard

[Boxo53]

In the AMA this week email this week they share the AMA 'batting average' for FRIA submissions.

"As of September 11, 2023, AMA has submitted 1,415 FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs); 965 have been approved and 271 have been denied"

Is the FTCA willing to share their FRIA submission information so that we may all better understand the big picture with the FAA approvals?

 

[AIRFORGE]

In the AMA this week email this week they share the AMA 'batting average' for FRIA submissions.

"As of September 11, 2023, AMA has submitted 1,415 FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs); 965 have been approved and 271 have been denied"

Is the FTCA willing to share their FRIA submission information so that we may all better understand the big picture with the FAA approvals?

What did AMA share that would actually be helpful?

 

[Boxo53]

What did AMA share that would actually be helpful?

Well, the obvious answer is what appears to be current, credible factual data on FRIA submissions and approval rate.
This is refreshing in the sea of speculation , griping and non compliance posturing.

Like it or no, those of us who remain in the hobby/ sport of model aviation will be dealing with the FAA going forward.-
The better we understand their decision making process, the better we can determine our best course to retain our ability to fly within the regulations.

So, to that end, FTCA sharing their similar hard data will help with this understanding and charting the best course forward.

 

[AIRFORGE]

Well, the obvious answer is what appears to be current, credible factual data on FRIA submissions and approval rate.
This is refreshing in the sea of speculation , griping and non compliance posturing.

Like it or no, those of us who remain in the hobby/ sport of model aviation will be dealing with the FAA going forward.-
The better we understand their decision making process, the better we can determine our best course to retain our ability to fly within the regulations.

So, to that end, FTCA sharing their similar hard data will help with this understanding and charting the best course forward.

None of that "hard data" is helpful when submitting for FRIA approval. It's more of a "Look what we did!", instead of a "Here's how we did it!"
Why were 271 denied? That would be helpful info.
The FTCA sharing their Approval/Denial "score" would be just as useless.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

The FTCA sharing their Approval/Denial "score" would be just as useless.

I think mixed with all the other CBO it might be reveling but by itself, I agree, no real value.

 

[luvmy40]

Well, the obvious answer is what appears to be current, credible factual data on FRIA submissions and approval rate.
This is refreshing in the sea of speculation , griping and non compliance posturing.

Like it or no, those of us who remain in the hobby/ sport of model aviation will be dealing with the FAA going forward.-
The better we understand their decision making process, the better we can determine our best course to retain our ability to fly within the regulations.

So, to that end, FTCA sharing their similar hard data will help with this understanding and charting the best course forward.

This is the mentality that ushers in totalitarian regimes. "Relax! It's only a little infringement. It's not that bad." We, the people have abdicated our responsibility to hold our ELECTED administration's feet to the fire. They(our elected administrators) have ceded way too much power to the non elected bureaucracy. The longer we, THE PE0PLE let it go on, the worse it will get.

 

[Mr NCT]

Useful or not useful, I'd be interested to see how the applications are going. Does the approval/rejection go straight to the club or person that applied or to the CBO?

 

[Thomas B]

Over on R C G, I moderate a thread concerning how the FRIA approval process was going. The AMA has participated. Many clubs shared the reason for their FRIA rejections.

Here are some takeaways:

1. Any requested FRIA that included roads, footpaths and buildings were quickly rejected. The FAA is using the FRIA approval process to force compliance with FAA overflight separation rules and they assume that including these type of areas meant people could be overflown accidentally. This approach was not made completely clear at the beginning of the FRIA process. My understanding is that this possible overflight of people problem had to do with Edgewater's initial rejection.

Clubs and site owners typically redrew their FRIA layout to exclude these problems and most were granted approvals.

2. The FAA has also been rejecting FRIAs that included water that could navigated upon. Same reason and same fix as above.

3. There have been a few denials involving airspace issues and airport proximity issues. Not all of these details have been made clear, but this reason seems to be the smaller part of the problem.

Many people felt that the FAA was working as fast as possible, after the actual approval process moved forward in early July, and if the FAA found a reason to reject, they did so very quickly to clear the backlog of pending FRIA requests.

That about sums it up.

CBOs have some work to do with the FAA to hopefully work out some methods to get larger and more realistic FRIAs approved, with some other methods to control or mitigate overflight of people.

 

[Mr NCT]

Over on R C G, I moderate a thread concerning how the FRIA approval process was going. The AMA has participated.

Here are some takeaways:

1. Any requested FRIA that included roads, footpaths and buildings were quickly rejected. The FAA is using the FRIA approval process to force compliance with FAA overflight separation rules and they assume that including these type of areas meant people could overflown accidentally. This approach was not made completely clear at the beginning of the FRIA process. My understanding is that this possible overflight of people problem had to do with Edgewater's initial rejection.

Clubs and site owners typically redrew their FRIA layout to exclude these problems and most were granted approvals.

2. The FAA has also been rejecting FRIAs that included water that could navigated upon. Same reason and same fix as above.

3. There have been a few denials involving airspace issues and airport proximity issues. Not all of these details have been made clear, but this reason seems to be the smaller part of the problem.

That about sums it up.

CBOs have some work to do with the FAA to hopefully work out some methods to get larger FRIAs approved, with some other methods to control or mitigate people overflights.

Thomas, thanks for posting that here!

 

[AIRFORGE]

Over on R C G, I moderate a thread concerning how the FRIA approval process was going. The AMA has participated. Many clubs shared the reason for their FRIA rejections.

Here are some takeaways:

1. Any requested FRIA that included roads, footpaths and buildings were quickly rejected. The FAA is using the FRIA approval process to force compliance with FAA overflight separation rules and they assume that including these type of areas meant people could be overflown accidentally. This approach was not made completely clear at the beginning of the FRIA process. My understanding is that this possible overflight of people problem had to do with Edgewater's initial rejection.

Clubs and site owners typically redrew their FRIA layout to exclude these problems and most were granted approvals.

2. The FAA has also been rejecting FRIAs that included water that could navigated upon. Same reason and same fix as above.

3. There have been a few denials involving airspace issues and airport proximity issues. Not all of these details have been made clear, but this reason seems to be the smaller part of the problem.

Many people felt that the FAA was working as fast as possible, after the actual approval process moved forward in early July, and if the FAA found a reason to reject, they did so very quickly to clear the backlog of pending FRIA requests.

That about sums it up.

CBOs have some work to do with the FAA to hopefully work out some methods to get larger and more realistic FRIAs approved, with some other methods to control or mitigate overflight of people.

Thank you, brother! Thank you!

 

[ScottSteward]

What did AMA share that would actually be helpful?

Funny you should ask. I happen to know a little secret. Flite Test approached the AMA asking for help with the FRIA process when they were getting all of those denials.

Edgewater and other FTCA sites are now approved. Hmmmmmmmmm.......... 🤔

 

[AIRFORGE]

Scott, AMA members doing what you're doing right now are the exact reason I don't fly at my AMA field. I'm sure you don't intentionally mean to set a poor example for the AMA. Please, try to get along on this forum without stirring up things more.
Thank you, brother.

 

[Mr NCT]

Alright guys, it's time to dial the discussion back to civil and reasoned posts. This is starting to get way to personal. This forum is not the place for name calling, disparagement or the questioning of intelligence or motives - there are plenty of other places for that. If anything here is making you angry take a deep breath and count to 10.

 

[CappyAmeric]

Over on R C G, I moderate a thread concerning how the FRIA approval process was going. The AMA has participated. Many clubs shared the reason for their FRIA rejections.

Here are some takeaways:

1. Any requested FRIA that included roads, footpaths and buildings were quickly rejected. The FAA is using the FRIA approval process to force compliance with FAA overflight separation rules and they assume that including these type of areas meant people could be overflown accidentally. This approach was not made completely clear at the beginning of the FRIA process. My understanding is that this possible overflight of people problem had to do with Edgewater's initial rejection.

Clubs and site owners typically redrew their FRIA layout to exclude these problems and most were granted approvals.

2. The FAA has also been rejecting FRIAs that included water that could navigated upon. Same reason and same fix as above.

3. There have been a few denials involving airspace issues and airport proximity issues. Not all of these details have been made clear, but this reason seems to be the smaller part of the problem.

Many people felt that the FAA was working as fast as possible, after the actual approval process moved forward in early July, and if the FAA found a reason to reject, they did so very quickly to clear the backlog of pending FRIA requests.

That about sums it up.

CBOs have some work to do with the FAA to hopefully work out some methods to get larger and more realistic FRIAs approved, with some other methods to control or mitigate overflight of people.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't overflying roads etc, if transitory, acceptable? It seems the FAA changes the definitions willy-nilly. After 40+ years of professional interaction with the FAA I can spot departmentalism at the FAA from a mile away. It is one reason why I take the "we won't prosecute RID violations until after April 2024" as so much nonsense. It depends on the local FSDO. Which is another reason why it might be smart to avoid FRIAs for some. Just like airports currently, FRIAs will become sites for what the FAA calls "targets of opportunity."

P.S. I have very good friends who are FAA inspectors and administrators, so my skepticism is focused on the organization rather than individuals at the FAA.

 

[tamuct01]

My FTCA FRIA request for my home was rejected:

This FRIA application is denied because the stated purpose is inconsistent with enabling a community flying site for an educational and/or recreational purpose. As stated in the Remote Identification final rule preamble, the FAA included educational institutions to support educational activities such as STEM programs and the building of unmanned aircraft. Refer to 14 CFR § 89.215(d). Furthermore, establishing a FRIA in an area where people may gather hinders the ability of law enforcement and the public to identify UA that may pose a risk to persons and property on the ground.

This is not altogether unexpected. The FAA has said openly they don't want homes and backyards to receive FRIA status. My application stated that we were homeschooled and as an institution of learning that we should be allowed this. So it appears that the FAA doesn't recognize private or alternative education.

As I take apart their boilerplate language, apparently we are not a "community" flying site. However, my 2 acres is an educational and recreational site. As a private educational institution, I do plan to use my site to support educational activities such as STEM programs. Their last sentence is complete garbage. The point of a FRIA as a "community site" where "people may gather" is so that they are outside the RemoteID rule. Local law enforcement will have no issue identifying anything. I think some lawyer AI wrote this and is, as others have said, "weaponized incompetence."

I'll refile for my FRIA, and point out their inconsistencies. Backyard FRIAs were all but promised by the FAA early on, as Josh has pointed out, and they should be called out on their flip-flopping nonsense.

 

[Thomas B]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't overflying roads etc, if transitory, acceptable? It seems the FAA changes the definitions willy-nilly. After 40+ years of professional interaction with the FAA I can spot departmentalism at the FAA from a mile away. It is one reason why I take the "we won't prosecute RID violations until after April 2024" as so much nonsense. It depends on the local FSDO. Which is another reason why it might be smart to avoid FRIAs for some. Just like airports currently, FRIAs will become sites for what the FAA calls "targets of opportunity."

P.S. I have very good friends who are FAA inspectors and administrators, so my skepticism is focused on the organization rather than individuals at the FAA.

It seems clear that the FAA is overstepping, but they are hiding out behind literal interpretations of the rules.

1. The FAA has stated that drones and RC planes are to be treated the same as real aircraft.

2. FARs require a minimum 500 foot separation from people, vehicles, structures, etc unless you are in the process of taking off or landing. I have never seen anything official allowing “transitory” breaking of these distances. Airshow type waivers might apply.

3. The FAA are saying that they refuse to approve a FRIA where the 500 foot separation rule could be broken inside the FRIA, inadvertently or on purpose.

This makes nearly impossible to actually fly RC “legally” in an FRIA or anywhere. Imagine having to keep 500 foot separation from people to planes at the RC field, or anywhere you are flying RC, unless you are taking off or landing.

My understanding is that the AMA is seriously working on this issue. There WILL be more to come.

One one level, the FAA has tacitly approved the rules of CBOs and obviously the CBO rules do not follow these FAA rules.

The struggle will continue.

 

[ScottSteward]

My FTCA FRIA request for my home was rejected:



This is not altogether unexpected. The FAA has said openly they don't want homes and backyards to receive FRIA status. My application stated that we were homeschooled and as an institution of learning that we should be allowed this. So it appears that the FAA doesn't recognize private or alternative education.

As I take apart their boilerplate language, apparently we are not a "community" flying site. However, my 2 acres is an educational and recreational site. As a private educational institution, I do plan to use my site to support educational activities such as STEM programs. Their last sentence is complete garbage. The point of a FRIA as a "community site" where "people may gather" is so that they are outside the RemoteID rule. Local law enforcement will have no issue identifying anything. I think some lawyer AI wrote this and is, as others have said, "weaponized incompetence."

I'll refile for my FRIA, and point out their inconsistencies. Backyard FRIAs were all but promised by the FAA early on, as Josh has pointed out, and they should be called out on their flip-flopping nonsense.

No, they weren't. The FAA never promised backyard FRIAS. That's where Josh deceived the entire FT community. If the FAA was clear about anything, it was that only community based organizations were going to be considered for FRIA. Not individuals and their home properties. So if anyone needs to be "called out on their flip flopping nonsense", it's Josh and FTCA.

 

[CappyAmeric]

No, they weren't. The FAA never promised backyard FRIAS. That's where Josh deceived the entire FT community. If the FAA was clear about anything, it was that only community based organizations were going to be considered for FRIA. Not individuals and their home properties. So if anyone needs to be "called out on their flip flopping nonsense", it's Josh and FTCA.

Knock it off.

FTCA was established as a CBO precisely to provide an umbrella for individuals. Your continuing to bash Josh, FT, and FTCA is uncalled for, and your contention is clearly false if you have watched any of the PodCasts from FTCA in the few past years.

Although originally it was believed that submitting an application for a FRIA as a FTCA represented individual was permitted by the FAA (because the FAA was actually not sure), Josh and FTCA have been very clear since shortly after the opening of FRIA applications that the applications had to be submitted through FTCA, not simply by individuals merely associated with FTCA as a CBO.

FTCA is doing for individuals and groups that are members of the FTCA CBO what AMA is doing for local AMA groups.

There are major three CBOs: AMA, FTCA, and FPVFC. All three CBOs are submitting FRIA applications for individuals and groups. And yes, some are “backyards”.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

flying an ultralight aircraft that doesn’t require compliance?

I know what what you mean but I feel duty bound to point out that ultra lights have part 103 and it is one full page of rules.

 

[AIRFORGE]

Alex made a current online FRIA Map.
Video:
FRIA Map by Alex Suarez
Link to FRIA map:
FRIAMap.com