Who's commented on Remote ID?

[cranialrectosis]

Well, if that's the case, we're all up a very dirty body of water without a rowing instrument, and shouldn't bother at all submitting. I refuse to believe that's the case.

I refuse to not consider the possibility, but that is no excuse not to try.

Look before you leap does not mean you don't leap. It just means you take a bit of time to plan out a strategy.

IMO we are two or three moves behind and possibly playing a rigged game. I think it's time to look for ways to change the game.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

IMO we are two or three moves behind and possibly playing a rigged game. I think it's time to look for ways to change the game.

Scratch the word "possibly".

 

[Captain Video]

When I coached my kids basketball and baseball teams, I preached two things: Keep a positive mental attitude and push/pull until the refs say stop. I know I have been pessimistic a bout this whole thing but if you think it will fail, it will. You have to try and think positively to succeed. 100% of the people who don't submit a comment will fail to help our cause and will complain about it. Those who do contribute have the knowledge they tried by contributing their two cents worth.
When coaching basketball I told the kids to push until you get your first foul and maybe your second. Getting those fouls sets the bar height to see how far you can go. Contribute comments, call your representatives, call TV and radio stations talk to friends and family and ask them to do the same. There is no referee to say stop but if you can get someone to say stop then they will remember.
If you don't try you can't complain about it!

 

[Ketchup]

I am currently writing my first comment now. So far I have added in who I am and why the hobby is important to me, and a few reasons for why I will have to stop because of remote ID. I want to add in how to fix some rules so that I can still fly legally and safely without having to pay a lot of money or drive really far etc. Is there anything else that I need to add?

I know that a lot of people are saying that the FAA is just being corrupt, but I hope that if somebody (or me) can bring up a way to make more people happy while still reaching the desired goal, the FAA will recognize it.

 

[flyfree]

I commented. Wrote a lengthy comment detailing issues with the NPRM and suggested changes to make it more compatible with the hobby. I've worked with people in government and have generally found that most are well-intentioned and dedicated, but are also often thrown tasks with tight deadlines that they have no knowledge about or training in (because "someone has to do it" and the person assigned happens to have availability). Helping them to understand what the hobby is and how it works is good. Ranting is non-productive.

A few suggested issues that one could tackle:
* privacy as relates to the information shared for those flying with Remote ID
* FRIAs can only be created for the first year
* no provision for retrofitting legacy aircraft with Remote ID
* no provision for flying over private land in remote areas without Remote ID (Class G airspace)
* the poorly conceived 51% amateur-built rule, which, among other issues, includes the transmitter and other electronic components in the 51% of stuff that potentially has to be fabricated and built by amateurs, and provides no definition around how the 51% is to be measured
* virtually useless Limited RID option - 400 foot radius sphere around the pilot (at 399 feet the aircraft would have just a few inches of vertical space in order to be less than 400 feet away), and of course, what happens to fixed wing aircraft as they approach that distance?
* requirement to individually register each aircraft even if not equipped with remote id, which serves no purpose and provides no useful information to the FAA

 

[Merv]

I just submitted my comments to the FAA.

I live in Macomb IL, a rural part of the state; there are no AMA flying fields within 70 miles of me. I have been flying RC planes for nearly 30 years. I have always built my own planes. The new rules you have proposed will put an end to my ability to build my own planes.

I use RC planes to incentivize young people, who otherwise have no interest in math and science; they have no idea why STEM is important to learn. In building your own plane, considerable math and engineering is used. Not so in buying a prebuilt plane, there is no math, no engineering, it has all been done for you. If you eliminate my ability to build my own planes, many young people will have no reason to learn STEM. At their age, they just cannot see the usefulness. In their world, everything is phones and video games. When I put my plane in the air, the one that I built, their eyes light up. When I tell them why they need to know math and can explain the formulas to them. They begin to understand how useful STEM is, how much fun it can be. Suddenly, they want learn.

My friends and I have been safely flying in parks and practice fields for over 60 years. We fly when no one else is using them. On many occasions, we have moved to another flying site when others came to the site we were at, always yielding to the others who use the area. When one flying site becomes unsuitable due to the trees growing or development, we find another site. Under the proposed rules, we have no way to get our current flying sites approved and no way to approve a new site if our current site becomes unsuitable. Over the years that I have been flying, we have lost 7 flying sites to development or tree growth.

I also need a way to get a temporary flying spot approved. I need a way to indicate I will be flying at a location for these hours on this date. Where cell service is available, a phone app could be used for this purpose. If flying in areas with no cell phone service, use a desktop computer, before leaving town.

I cannot imagine why any commercial user would want to use the airspace I fly in. Even if they did want to use it, how could it be safe to have a remote operator many miles away, flying in a park or practice field?

Please don’t take away my ability to incentivize young people to learn math and science by building and flying my own planes.

 

[basslord1124]

So far I have submitted 2 comments and published a YouTube video on the topic.

 

[The Hangar]

I’ve put my comment in as well.

 

[MCNC]

Added a comment

 

[riasroc]

As I am both an E A A and an A M A member, I am extremely disappointed in the F A A's NPRM concerning their "perceived problem" with model aviation. Therefore, I have taken a few moments to submit two separate comments to them pertaining to this issue.
I am also hoping that in dealing with this issue, that the 80/20 rule does not come into play. If one does not know, the 80/20 rule simply asserts that 80% of outcomes (or outputs) result from 20% of all causes (or inputs) for any given event.
In this case, I am hoping that a whole lot more than 20% of people and or organizations involved with model aviation in any way, shape or form, add their input and will take just a few minutes to put their thoughts into comments and send them off to the F A A.
As of this writing, there is still time!!!!!
Finally, and as we all know, there is still strength in numbers. The more the merrier!!
Thank you.

 

[WM4MM]

Can someone tell me where (in general I can fly without club membership or AMA membership) I cannot afford the cost of these memberships.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

Can someone tell me where (in general I can fly without club membership or AMA membership) I cannot afford the cost of these memberships.

Right now (in general) just stay 5 miles away from airports. There are big changes on the horizon though, and we won't know all the details until the final ruling comes out.
Situations like yours make me super sad. The only good news is that it is likely to be three years before these changes are fully in effect.

 

[Merv]

The time to comment is running out. Monday March 2nd 2020 is the deadline.

Here is the link to FT website on the issue. Take the survey and follow the link to comment to the FAA
https://ftca.flitetest.com/

 

[cranialrectosis]

Can someone tell me where (in general I can fly without club membership or AMA membership) I cannot afford the cost of these memberships.

Mind your local rules.

The FAA coming after someone flying locally in a safe and sane manner is probably EXTREMELY rare at this point. But local PD called by a neighbor of a local park may be an issue especially for a loud model or rowdy pilot (not saying you are, just saying politeness matters tons on public property).

Mind the local rules and FAA flight rules closely and have both with you if you are stopped by PD.

 

[CarolineTyler]

Even you are not in the USA, you need to make a comment, mine below...

Radio control (RC) has a long history going back many decades with no issues of safety. Model flying of free-flight extends back even before manned aviation. The wide variety types of model RC flying coves everything from a rubber powered balsa simple flying model through to micro turbine powered planes and helicopters with multiple types in-between.
Most radio control vehicles are flown line of sight but many include real-time video transmission placing the pilot in charge virtually in the aircraft’s cockpit.
So many amateur RC models are hand built with care and attention form a variety of materials, and using a host of building techniques.
Companies throughout the world have built a livelihood in supplying materials for these amateur builders.
Many schools use model aviation to teach science and technology utilising such cheap materials as foamboard and glue to create a capable airframe which inspires so many young people.
The NPRM for Remote ID would effectively destroy this long history of SAFE and INSPIRING flying.
Many people do not have the transport or money to be able to join an established model flying club, the ability to fly in a park, field etc. with absolutely no danger to other vehicles in the airspace.
The limitation of only allowing such planes to fly in incredibly limited locations is simple taking control to untenable levels.
The existing limitation of 400 feet and line of sight horizontally is completely fine for the majority of model flying. In fact most model flying occurs in the airspace that no manned aircraft should ever be in.
The existing LAANC system would be the preferable method of defining a location for model RC flying, providing a simple and effective method of advertising to other aircraft that that very low altitude model flying is occurring.
I do not believe that the additional controls the FAA are proposing will actually provide any additional safety, indeed no additional safety is needed as RC model flying has an unblemished record of safety. Indeed the transmission of operator location to any member of the general public would make their personal safety worse, opening them up to someone taking umbrage and attacking the RC flyer.
The simplest and most effective method is to strictly enforce the lower limit of altitude for general aviation to the 500 feet that is already in place except in the locality of an airport or helipad for take of and landings. This should lower limit should include any commercial non-manned aircraft. Time and time again the danger to life has come from manned flight, especially general aviation and I believe that better control of this area would be most beneficial to the public.

 

[MCNC]

Very well written, thank you.

 

[CapnBry]

I put mine up too. There was only 5000 characters allowed so I had to just cut it down to just a couple major points I feel most strongly about, the cost burden (of equipment and licensing) and lack of places I'd be able to fly. I included a couple ideas to meet the intent of some of the sections as well.

Let's hope this opens their eyes to how the airspace is actually being used currently, I can't imagine what my house would look like if I couldn't fly any more. What would I have on every table and chair in the entire house if not for a fuselage here, a pile of ESCs and motors there, a couple wings, sacks of batteries...

 

[BATTLEAXE]

Just submitted mine as well. It wasn't that hard to write about and I too had to cut mine down to fit the 5000 character space. Happy I did it though. However it turns out it still won't stop me from flying what I want where I deem feasible and responsible.

 

[sprzout]

Mind your local rules.

The FAA coming after someone flying locally in a safe and sane manner is probably EXTREMELY rare at this point. But local PD called by a neighbor of a local park may be an issue especially for a loud model or rowdy pilot (not saying you are, just saying politeness matters tons on public property).

Mind the local rules and FAA flight rules closely and have both with you if you are stopped by PD.

Yep. I went across the street to the local ball fields and was flying my quad one morning. I had a sheriff pull in and spot me, and he came out of his car, saw me, and said, "Sir, I need to make you aware that there's a park rule that says you are not allowed to fly model aircraft. Were you aware of this?"

"No, sir, I wasn't aware of that. Let me just land, and I will be glad to pack up."

"Ehh, I don't really care. You're flying when NOBODY else is here, at 7 in the morning, you're not doing anything harmful, your aircraft isn't noisy; I'd just as soon let you continue flying. But there is a rule posted that says you can't technically fly model aircraft here, so I just wanted to make you aware."

He was actually really polite, and he could've written me a ticket; I'm glad I didn't have him giving me a hard time. But he was right; I needed to be aware of where I could safely fly without violating established rules.

 

[flyfree]

There was only 5000 characters allowed ...

Just so everyone knows: There's no official length limit to comments. If your comment doesn't fit in the form, you can attach it as a Word document or PDF. (Mine was a 26 page Word document. )