Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65

Thread: Help from the EAA to save the model airplane hobby

  1. #41
    EAA Staff Tom Charpentier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    120
    We're aware of the language too, and it's very similar to what we're asking the FAA to exempt from the requirement. The only issue with hanging our hat on the reauthorization language is that this section only applies to Section 44805, which applies to consensus standards for design, manufacture, and operation of UAS. Remote ID is in this section, but it's also elsewhere in the law. However, it does establish a precedent in the law that model aircraft can be exempt from certain requirements. We are confident that there is enough discretion built into the law that the FAA can, at minimum, relieve traditional model aviation from the RID requirement.
    Tom Charpentier
    Government Relations Director
    EAA #1082006

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Charpentier View Post
    We're aware of the language too, and it's very similar to what we're asking the FAA to exempt from the requirement. The only issue with hanging our hat on the reauthorization language is that this section only applies to Section 44805, which applies to consensus standards for design, manufacture, and operation of UAS. Remote ID is in this section, but it's also elsewhere in the law. However, it does establish a precedent in the law that model aircraft can be exempt from certain requirements. We are confident that there is enough discretion built into the law that the FAA can, at minimum, relieve traditional model aviation from the RID requirement.
    Hi Tom, thanks for answering. Good to finally hear some optimism.

  3. #43
    It's the government's approach to these kind of things that pirates are born of.
    Squeeze me too hard and I become a watermelon seed.
    How does the FAA intend to enforce these rules? Will they rely on local Law Enforcement as I suspect they will?
    Yet when locals attempt to enforce Federal immigration laws they are told it's not their business to do so?
    Arrrgh, me maties, I think I'll be unfurling my skull and crossbones soon.
    But seriously, let me know when the FAA has gotten those Canadians to put transponders on their geese.
    That will be doing something constructive.
    Last edited by Ronald Franck; 02-06-2020 at 09:04 AM.

  4. #44
    A big thank you to the EAA for backing traditional model fliers. After reading EAA’s response to the NPRM, I joined. I am also a member of the AMA. Hopefully enough people and organizations band together to get these over reaching rules put to bed. I just spoke with a representative from my Senator’s office. Although she was familiar with some of our concerns, she was unaware of some of the specifics and promised to take our concerns to our Senator.

    -Jeff
    AMA, EAA, Monroe County(Indiana) RC Club Secretary

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    5
    Some good videos that deserve to be shared:


    A video done by Extreme Flight RC, one of the manufacturers of Almost Ready to Fly model airplanes.
    https://youtu.be/ehJ9gWl50jg

    Definitely geared towards drones and not traditional model airplanes, but here’s a well done video a high-school student.
    https://youtu.be/A5rsfcc8hzs
    Last edited by jack.estes; 02-11-2020 at 10:53 AM.

  6. #46
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,448
    Something else to keep in mind. If the FAA gets away with this, there will be a push to add this or the equivalent to ALL aircraft. It's likely to lead to a requirement for UNIVERSAL ADS-B Out in aviation...whether or not the airplane is to fly in controlled airspace, whether or not the airplane has an electrical system. After all, if a small battery-powered RC aircraft has to have a tracker, why shouldn't a full-scale J-3 Cub?

    Push back on this, hard.

    Ron Wanttaja

  7. #47
    Airmutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    NW. Atlanta GA
    Posts
    243
    Don’t think it’s that sinister; at least I hope. Unfortunately the FAA is in the knee jerk catchup mode to regulate the burgeoning drone industry. With help from the media the word drone has already developed a negative connotation with the general public. Neither the public nor the FAA seem to be able differentiate hobby craft from working drones. In their haste to demonstrate that they’ve got a handle on the situation the rule making committee failed to see the un-intended consequences of their proposal. It’s going to be interesting to see how the FAA reacts to the comments. If they hold fast then I would say you’re right.
    Dave Shaw
    EAA 67180 Lifetime
    Learn to Build, Build to Fly, Fly for Fun

  8. #48
    EAA Staff Tom Charpentier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    120
    We have now published our commenting recommendations for the EAA community. Please share and comment!
    https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...Remote-ID-Rule

    Also, here is a Green Dot podcast episode Hal and I did with Sean Elliott, VP of Advocacy and Safety (and an avid modeler):
    http://inspire.eaa.org/2020/02/13/ea...emote-id-rule/
    Tom Charpentier
    Government Relations Director
    EAA #1082006

  9. #49
    PaulDow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    302
    I just listened to the Green Dot, and I read a bit of the outrageous (and huge) NPRM. Even the FAA document says this will cost over half a billion dollars over 10 years. At a million drones registered, thatís a cost of $500 each. Thatís the end of drones. You would even need a $75 per year AMA membership to fly at an approved site, until those are all eliminated.

    As with any government program, the issue isnít safety. Instead, follow the money. With a declining pilot population, the FAA needs to control more things to justify increasing their budget and high six-figure salaries.

    I would like to know how much corporate input went into writing the NPRM. This sounds like a gift to Amazon to clear the airspace for their delivery drones. They would be one of the few entities that would be able to afford this.
    And since internet based reporting will be required, and wi-fi is scarce at flying areas, guess who coincidentally is launching thousands of satellites to provide internet access in remote areas? This would provide an instant million customers.
    Last edited by PaulDow; 02-16-2020 at 08:24 AM.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Charpentier View Post
    We have now published our commenting recommendations for the EAA community. Please share and comment!
    https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...Remote-ID-Rule

    Also, here is a Green Dot podcast episode Hal and I did with Sean Elliott, VP of Advocacy and Safety (and an avid modeler):
    http://inspire.eaa.org/2020/02/13/ea...emote-id-rule/
    Hi Tom, your answer to my post included, "We are confident that there is enough discretion built into the law that the FAA can, at minimum, relieve traditional model aviation from the RID requirement."

    Wow, after reading EAA's comment guidelines I guess we differ on what relief from Remote ID means. Recomending Limited Remote ID without geofencing is still Remote ID. EAA's plan would still require a network connection to a USS, a subscription, an app, and a cell plan with data. And, of course, it means the operator's (session) ID and their location would be forwarded to the USS and the information retained for 6 months. EAA also describes it as a request for authorization to fly, something I don't believe is even in the NPRM. My idea of an exemption was just that.

    EAA comment guidelines also incorrectly describe Limited Remote ID, "... and the operator must broadcast where they are to the FAA." Both Standard and Limited Remote ID require the aircraft, not the operator, to transmit the operator's location (lat, long and altitude) via the internet (cell connection) to a USS (p.13-15). Removing the 400' geofencing from Limited Remote ID would still mean an aircraft manufactured to comply with the transmission requirement, and a 4th catagory of Remote ID (even if it was an LOS aircraft as the EAA intended). That's DOA.

    I'm also a pilot and aircraft owner (both TC and experimental). Maybe my hopes were too high.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •