The truth behind the FAA rules

[moodman]

I just registered with this forum, and hoping to find out the TRUTH about what the FAA proposal is really all about.
Some will say it is all a conspiracy and that the FAA in in the pockets of the lobbyists. Some say it is about making the hobby safer. Some say it is about making hobbyists "play in a restricted sandbox", and some are just trusting the government at their word!

Call me a fatalist, but it seems that flying drones is going to be all about regulation and that the government sees a way to expand their authority and pick on a group that is fragmented and doesn't have much political power. So that is what I want to address in this, my first posting.

Flite Test and FTCA seems to be, by default, an organization that the FAA will at least listen to, evidenced by the recent forum attended by FTCA, the FAA, industry, and the AMA. If you haven't seen it yet, it is on YouTube. Anyway, each representative voiced their opinions and had their say. But where is the followup? I ask because the FAA seems to be running this show, since they are the ones who have the bully pulpit and because their "proposed rules" will probably (if history is our guide) become law with very little change made except cosmetic ones to calm the masses and make it appear that they listened to input.

So, since we the people are "allowed" to make our voices heard and since the FAA is in "listening mode", I am calling for some SOLID evidence that they are actually listening, rather than just making a pretense of it. Plus, I would like to know if there is common agreement within the non-industry drone community (that's us here) about what we actually want to see happen. Is there any REAL agreement on what the drone community wants, or are we just a bunch of rabblerousers who are complaining to make ourselves feel better but who, in the end, will just accept whatever comes out of Washington? Is there anything that can be presented to the FAA on a united front that will make the FAA sit up and listen, instead of lots of noise from individuals? Perhaps a petition?

 

[Merv]

..... who, in the end, will just accept whatever comes out of Washington? Is there anything that can be presented to the FAA on a united front that will make the FAA sit up and listen, instead of lots of noise from individuals? Perhaps a petition?

We are all looking for answers to those questions.

Here are a few who have offered more light than heat.

 

[moodman]

Yeah, but "righteous indignation" won't sway the FAA. I found it ironic that recent rules for GA aircraft now permits, "in the interest of privacy" a new ICAO option for ADSB-out identification. In short, this new rule will allow private pilots the option to trade their tail number normally transmitted in the ADSB-out data to be substituted for an ICAO transponder number that is only discoverable by "authorized parties." Naturally, you have to pay to play for this option. It is aimed for the benefit of pilots and corporations who want to hide from the public who they are.
So, if the FAA allows this rule for GA pilots, why not allow it for drone pilots? After all, according to them, we are indeed "real pilots"!
And, I have always been saying that the infrastructure already exists for drone identification, and it has existed for GA aircraft for quite some time. Its called ADSB and it works really well, so why the sudden emphasis on inventing an entirely separate ecosystem for drones? I think it is bureaucracy run amok. They are doing it because they can, and because private parties are blinded by the promise of yet another lucrative revenue stream so they can soak unwitting drone pilots. Unless and until we get mad enough and go over their heads, the FAA clerks (at the behest of special interest lobbyists) who are really writing this stuff will get away with it. I don't know the right people, but surely somebody listening here does.

 

[Merv]

This just came out. Be sure to look at the description for the specifics. I believe the others will have more suggestions in time.

 

[FDS]

The truth is they don’t care about you, your rights, skills or our hobby. All the regulators want is to drive us out the airspace so they can sell it to corporations.
The only way to stop this nonsense is for every organisation and business in the hobby to refuse to comply with it.

 

[The Hangar]

The truth is they don’t care about you, your rights, skills or our hobby. All the regulators want is to drive us out the airspace so they can sell it to corporations.
The only way to stop this nonsense is for every organisation and business in the hobby to refuse to comply with it.

That’s so wrong of them to do...

 

[FDS]

”Engagement with the process“ has not made a single bit of difference so far. The same is true in many other countries. There is no dialogue from regulators, they have a plan, we are not in it.

 

[Captain Video]

The FAA has yet to provide a shred of evidence that supports the need for these egregious rules. They by rule must submit evidence to support their argument that we are a clear and present threat to the existing airspace. It has not happened! As a group we must contact our representatives and tell them they must get the FAA bully to prove these proposed rules are needed. If our reps do not do their job for their constituents (us) we must let our displeasure be known by voting them out. We need to let our government know we are onto their game and it is NOT acceptable to muscle our hobby into oblivion!

 

[LitterBug]

I have been writing my representatives about a few things lately. Like the guys say in the video above, Form letters to not get much attention, writing as it applies to you does get more. I have never gotten a response by merely forwarding a form letter. I was kind of shocked that I got a response back recently from one that didn't seem to be a form letter from him.

Cheers!
LitterBug

 

[FDS]

Also direct action. Fly whoops outside your representatives office, protest FAA buildings, show up as people not just as a signatory to an online campaign or a letter writer.
The community should take this spring as our season of direct action against regulators. I am all for safe, responsible flying and punishing people who break the already stringent laws protecting aviation and the public, but enough is enough.

 

[rmbayer]

We are all looking for answers to those questions.

Here are a few who have offered more light than heat.

I just registered with this forum, and hoping to find out the TRUTH about what the FAA proposal is really all about.
Some will say it is all a conspiracy and that the FAA in in the pockets of the lobbyists. Some say it is about making the hobby safer. Some say it is about making hobbyists "play in a restricted sandbox", and some are just trusting the government at their word!

Call me a fatalist, but it seems that flying drones is going to be all about regulation and that the government sees a way to expand their authority and pick on a group that is fragmented and doesn't have much political power. So that is what I want to address in this, my first posting.

Flite Test and FTCA seems to be, by default, an organization that the FAA will at least listen to, evidenced by the recent forum attended by FTCA, the FAA, industry, and the AMA. If you haven't seen it yet, it is on YouTube. Anyway, each representative voiced their opinions and had their say. But where is the followup? I ask because the FAA seems to be running this show, since they are the ones who have the bully pulpit and because their "proposed rules" will probably (if history is our guide) become law with very little change made except cosmetic ones to calm the masses and make it appear that they listened to input.

So, since we the people are "allowed" to make our voices heard and since the FAA is in "listening mode", I am calling for some SOLID evidence that they are actually listening, rather than just making a pretense of it. Plus, I would like to know if there is common agreement within the non-industry drone community (that's us here) about what we actually want to see happen. Is there any REAL agreement on what the drone community wants, or are we just a bunch of rabblerousers who are complaining to make ourselves feel better but who, in the end, will just accept whatever comes out of Washington? Is there anything that can be presented to the FAA on a united front that will make the FAA sit up and listen, instead of lots of noise from individuals? Perhaps a petition?

 

[rmbayer]

Warning there my be a bit of language I don't like to usein that youTube. I think we must somehow be a collective of Industry, AMA, Clubs, STEM stakeholders, and hobbyist who can have representatives participating in public meetings like this Guy. We have rarely had the opportunity to meet in a public forum for debate or to present our experiences within the airspaces and locations we use to fly. Josh gave great examples at CES, and one or two FAA reps spoke and answered questions at UAS on the West coast. There may be more but what I remember worst were the closed meetings in Washington that were taped where someone, not our representative brought up 103 and hobby flying and was promptly quieted. This guy represents small businesses who repair electronics who are being vilified by Apple Co. lobbyists. I know we need to respond strongly by this written effort. But will anyone be able to tell how they analyze our concerns? Or will this be another closed room meeting. I thought these meetings were open to the public which is represented by these officials. I know this is a hobby and that is one thing. But what else is being settled by lobbyist and policy makers behind closed doors. The service our representatives are called to do is nearly impossible, sometimes it is impossible. But we and they have to try. I pray that we/they and them apply the Golden rule , I know I am selfish in many ways wanting this or to do that. But I do hope to be a good member of my community and Nation and be willing to sacrifice when called to. Also, the air above my head should not be owned by industry except briefly as they pass over. Public use, Public service, Open to the public still means something! If there is need, for instance a TFR, our club announces it we have the notice in order to comply. And we comply. But then it is lifted. This Club I fly was started by my Dad and his friends nearly fifty years ago. It first occupied a plot of land next to the police shooting range, but also was located 5000' from the end of a fairly busy main runway of an Airforce base. We loved flying there. Never had one incident in the 20 or so years it was located there. The Tower knew we were there. Planes flew the pattern around us. If some Huey cut across the field, we knew what to do and they rarely flew below 500' minimums at that point. Fast forward 10 years and the club moved down the road to a field 14,000' from the end of a much less used runway of same but now joint Municipal/Reserve airport and closer, 13000' from the end of a runway to a small community airport that has flight training. Again, we have had no issues, no close calls. Except now it is normal for aircraft to fly over our well marked AMA field. Most are above 500'. We always see them well before they arrive. We always and easily remove our craft by wide separation of vertical and horizontal spacing. No sweat to either us or them. Learned it, Live it.

 

[Captain Video]

I just watched a video of a Brendan Schulman Vice President of Policy & Legal Affairs at DJI "explaining" the remote id plans from the FAA. This guy was explaining it in lock step with the FAA. Clearly DJI is positioning itself to be a prefered provider, authorized to sell the remote hardware and other gear if the FAA gets its way with our hobby. High powered manufacturers like DJI are in the pocket of the FAA to be the market share provider for the future. DJI is playing "a long game plan". Don't let DJI fool you into thinking they will be hurt by the FAA ruling. They won't! DJI is not an friend of our family friendly hobby. Don't let the jerks like DJI destroy our hobby. Express your opinion, be heard, fight back with all appropriate tools at our disposal!!

 

[Captain Video]

Additionally, It might be worthwhile to go over
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ion-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems#open-comment
and explain all the less than obvious fields and how they should be completed so the comments get to where they should go and not get mis-directed.

 

[ScottSteward]

This just came out. Be sure to look at the description for the specifics. I believe the others will have more suggestions in time.

This is the absolute best video on the subject. Period.