A place to bellyache about impending FAA doom

[Burkeomatic]

I just thought I would put a place to discuss the impending remote ID. 

How do you all feel about it. I caught myself whining in a thread on RCG about it. 

Here is an example of what they currently look like.... That is a hard pass. 

zephyrsys.com/product/remote-id-module/

Do you all plan to comply with it, or carry on business as usual. 

What do you think enforcement would/may look like, if existent at all. 

[droneflyer200]

Well they haven't announced anything for Canada yet but I'm planing to join M.A.A.C. and the local club which as present exemps you from the RPAS rules even though I have the Canadian equivalent to a part 7. Here as long as you fly at a MAAC sanctioned field and stay below 400 ft your fine.

[Burkeomatic]

Nov 18, 2022 0:27:11 GMT droneflyer200 said:

Well they haven't announced anything for Canada yet but I'm planing to join M.A.A.C. and the local club which as present exemps you from the RPAS rules even though I have the Canadian equivalent to a part 7. Here as long as you fly at a MAAC sanctioned field and stay below 400 ft your fine.

I am surprised they haven't done anything yet, although I don't currently know what your regulations are. I am somewhat surprised the U.S. is ahead in the communism department here. A few places in Europe did it, do the progressives in our government try to emulate Europe when it gives them an excuse to make more rules [and conveniently stops using them as a role model when it doesn't support their agenda]. I guess they forgot that we broke from Europe for that kind of crap, oh well, I digress. 

I think that is what they are going for here, the end game is probably to restrict us to certain areas. 

[taildragger]

Why can't Bezos' drones navigate around the few hobbyists who might fly in their way?
I don't think the laws are going to be very enforced unless you make yourself an issue, don't call attention to yourself by being obviously unsafe in your flying. At least where I live nobody would notice unless you were flying on their private property (without permission) or right up on the airport. I seriously doubt the cops around here know much about drone laws. In a rural place like where I live most people who approach me are just interested. 

The principal of my school came out and watched us fly during lunch break  and suggested we should start a club, so maybe we can at least make a FRIA if need be.

[taildragger]

But yeah, HARD pass on putting one of those on any of my medium sized scale planes. I'm sure I could make room on a big balsa no problem but seeing as a $100 plane is already pricy to me, $315 just to fly the dam thing is definitely not an easy thing to do.

[taildragger]

Shouldn't be too long after the regs go in that I'll be out flying in my full scale homebuilt, as to make the transition to limited RC flying easier. Never gonna give it up though as long as I can

"16 year old arrested for flying toy airplane" certainly makes these things look ridiculous lol

[Burkeomatic]

Nov 18, 2022 4:46:47 GMT taildragger said:

Why can't Bezos' drones navigate around the few hobbyists who might fly in their way?
I don't think the laws are going to be very enforced unless you make yourself an issue, don't call attention to yourself by being obviously unsafe in your flying. At least where I live nobody would notice unless you were flying on their private property (without permission) or right up on the airport. I seriously doubt the cops around here know much about drone laws. In a rural place like where I live most people who approach me are just interested. 

The principal of my school came out and watched us fly during lunch break  and suggested we should start a club, so maybe we can at least make a FRIA if need be.

I really don't see it getting enforce around here as lax as the police are on stuff. I know people who have drank and drove daily for 10 years here and not been caught. But it isn't like that everywhere. I bet the worse places are going to be in small towns where the cops are bored, or if you try to fly in middle of the city. 

The thing that bugs me is the VBLOS thing. I still don't know what that is illegal. The chances of my plane getting sucked into a jet engine are slim to none. 

The way I see it this is just a step beyond asking for a FAA number on your plane. Someone to point the finger at when things go wrong. If you don't have a number, it is that much harder to track down where it came from. 

This is an airborne snitch device and nothing more. However, instead of just directing them to whodunnit when there is an incident, now there is something stating that you are X distance from your origin, or you are at X altitude. So now when I am 600 feet up and 5km away, I should allegedly have a device telling everyone that I am breaking several laws. Umm, no. I am good on that. They also say it doesn't record/report that to anyone but someone watching on a phone, but I don't buy that, and that is the next logical step. 

I also don't think drone delivery is going to be a thing, I will tell you why. Quads are about 10 times more dangerous than planes, and when something goes bad, they are down. 


I know they will probably have a rescue chute, but with that many quads in the air, and that many people out, someone will eventually get hurt, and me flying my plane out a few miles isn't going to stop that, it is a numbers game. 

[Burkeomatic]

Speaking of numbers games. I did a calculation today to see what percentage of flights have some sort of UAS incident.

I saw that the FAA claimed there were about 100 UAS sightings per month. Seems like a lot, doesn't it? 1200 per year. However here being the government organization that loves to brag about their numbers as all government organizations do, they deal with 16.5 million flights annually. If you do the math, there is a .007 percent chance you will see a UAS in any given year or about 1 in 13,670. You are more likely to die by choking on your cheeseburger than to see a UAS while flying a plane.

Ok, so how much money are the taxpayer spending, and the FAA asking you to spend to stop a .007 percent chance of a manned plane seeing your rc plane.

Oh, and most of those are sightings by the way.... no evasive action required, not very close to the plane, and certainly no strikes.

Go look yourself.

www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public_records/uas_sightings_report

There was never any risk in 99 percent of these. Pull up one of the spreadsheets and look. The manned aircraft rarely ends up giving way to the UAS, and for all we know, it could be the other way around. If I were where I weren't supposed to be and saw a manned aircraft, I would absolutely give way. No one is dumb enough to want to hit a plane, right. Also most of these reports happened in restricted airspace or about 2000 feet or more. There was one that happened at 17,000 feet, but that is just impressive. It would take the RDV2 9 minutes of climbing pulling about 25 amps to achieve that.

Anyways, I get the idea is to get out ahead of things for the FAA. But looking at the reports, as long as you keep it below 1000 feet or so, which I usually do, and as long as you keep out of controlled airspace, the chances of you getting reported would be minimal to none. Oh, and all of that coupled with, if I am going to buzz an airport, or blast up to FL170 I will not affix remote id, and I don't think it will stop those things from happening.

[droneflyer200]

As far as I'm concerned the safety issue is a red hairing . Any properly done risk assement will show this.This is about commercial interests wanting exclusive use of the airspace and lobbying for it because they smell the possablity of big profit.So they buy government and push for it.

[Burkeomatic]

Nov 24, 2022 0:50:49 GMT droneflyer200 said:

As far as I'm concerned the safety issue is a red hairing . Any properly done risk assement will show this.This is about commercial interests wanting exclusive use of the airspace and lobbying for it because they smell the possablity of big profit.So they buy government and push for it.

Well, it is hilarious some people that drank the kool-aid when you hear them argue about it. 


It goes something like this - 

The amazons of the world just want to have rights to the airspace. 

No it is about air safety, think of all those drones that stopped firefighting aircraft. 

There is a very small and rare chance of a UAS interfering with an active manned flight. 

It can still happen and it is dangerous. 

Then why can't aircraft pick up the drones, and the drones don't communicate with the aircraft, and the aircraft don't communicate with the drone. 

Well that was never in the requirements, it is really so law enforcement can find out who is responsible for a flight so they can hold whoever did it accountable. These things aren't powerful enough to do that. Plus, the all great and knowing AMA fought hard to get us FRIAs and you should be grateful. 

So you are saying it is a snitch device people doing illegal things won't use anyways, so if I someone who isn't trying to cause any trouble accidentally slips, the FAA will bring the hammer. 

No, it is about drone safety, so the drones don't run into each other. It was never about aircraft and drone avoidance. 

So it is so the Amazons of the world can have free reign of the airspace. 


REPEAT PROCESS. 


It is a vicious cycle of indefensible arguments that is perpetuated by diverting from the original question. It is like arguing with a socialist.  

[droneflyer200]

Amen brother !

[ratcheeroo]

I am just completely ignoring it all and doing my thing. Which as of late has been nothing, LMAO! Not sure how they can even enforce anything here or there for that matter. Methinks the PO-PO have other things to worry about LOL.

[Burkeomatic]

I have the answer...

[foamieninja]

There's an easy way to deal with this. Treat it like the CB guys did back in the day when they were pushing to license the band.

I'm just ignoring the whole mess. Been ignoring it for years. No one has as much as lifted a finger in my direction.
i'm bordering the approach path of a military airfield (barely within 5nm) to boot. though, to be fair... I think the 172nd is gone, and they're only using it for UAV ops now.

This should be some sort of testament to... something. It's all unnecessary nonsense.

The only exceptions are when I get a visit from the guys that dust the crops in the area. I usually have my camera out for that, though... so this is irrelevant.