Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 68

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

  1. #51
    EAA Staff Tom Charpentier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    121
    Hi Doug,

    You are correct on the point that under the FAA's proposal, the device must transmit to USS. Our comment guidelines were somewhat simplified and we did not make that point clear.

    For Limited Remote ID, we are proposing a simple notification directly to the FAA of when and where you will be flying a traditional model aircraft (TMA). This can be on-site with an app or beforehand on a website, with no need for any sort of continuous broadcast during the flight. Absolutely no on-site connectivity or onboard equipment would be required under our proposal. We used LAANC, which is an authorization tool, as an example of the FAA already having the infrastructure to handle this sort of notification.

    As far as "authorization" goes, we meant a simple verification that a UAS is not in restricted or controlled airspace. If we are asking the FAA to forego on-site RID for TMA away from FRIAs, they are going to want to verify that the soccer field you are about to fly at isn't under a TFR through a simple automated process. Whether the FAA has focused on enforcement or not, flying models in restricted or controlled airspace without authorization has never been OK. With several drone incursions over the past few years interfering with Defense and Homeland Security interests, there is tremendous pressure on the FAA from those agencies and Congress to ID and regulate a broad spectrum of UAS operations.

    We did our best in this process to propose an alternative that the FAA will accept and that has minimal impact on the model aircraft hobby. We feel that protecting RID-free TMA at fixed flying sites into perpetuity, allowing new and temporary ones to be established at will by anyone (not just CBOs), and allowing anyone away from a fixed site to fly a TMA anywhere with a simple notification to the FAA and verification that the airspace is clear, constitutes considerable “relief” vs the FAA’s current proposal.

    We’re still shaping our final comments to the FAA. Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly if you have further input – govt@eaa.org or 800-564-6322 and ask for myself or Lily Johnson.
    Last edited by Tom Charpentier; 02-18-2020 at 02:02 PM. Reason: Clarity
    Tom Charpentier
    Government Relations Director
    EAA #1082006

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    8
    Hi Tom, thanks for the clarification. I agree there are so many moving parts to all this it's hard to condense it down to a page.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    8
    Hi Tom, Someone posted details on a forum (RCGoups) about a system similar to what you are describing called "Non-Equipped Networked Participant". Is that what EAA is going for?
    Last edited by DougJ; 02-18-2020 at 10:59 PM.

  4. #54
    EAA Staff Tom Charpentier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    121
    That appears to be a term used by the forthcoming ASTM standard on Remote ID, and it's in a Drone Advisory Committee recommendation on voluntary RID participation. Based on the limited information available, I'd say it's more restrictive than what we want to see, as it may require continuous broadcast from the user's mobile device and more information given than is necessary.

    What we're envisioning is that if I want to fly my eFlite Taylorcraft at the nearby Winnebago County park, I log onto my computer shortly beforehand and tell the FAA that I'll be flying from 6:00-7:30 PM at that location, and the automated system quickly sends me back a verification that I am not in controlled airspace and no TFRs are active (if I'm in controlled airspace, that's not a problem either as long as I have authorization). I would provide a minimum of information about the model(s) I am flying, if at all (perhaps just a self-certification that what I am flying is VLOS-only). Then I go fly my unequipped model exactly as I do today. Or I could go to my local model field, which would be registered as a FRIA, or if I had enough land, maybe even my own backyard, which I could register as a FRIA or operate from in a similar manner to the county park.
    Tom Charpentier
    Government Relations Director
    EAA #1082006

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    8
    Thanks Tom, that sounds like something most of us could live with.

  6. #56
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Charpentier View Post
    TWhat we're envisioning is that if I want to fly my eFlite Taylorcraft at the nearby Winnebago County park, I log onto my computer shortly beforehand and tell the FAA that I'll be flying from 6:00-7:30 PM at that location, and the automated system quickly sends me back a verification that I am not in controlled airspace and no TFRs are active (if I'm in controlled airspace, that's not a problem either as long as I have authorization). I would provide a minimum of information about the model(s) I am flying, if at all (perhaps just a self-certification that what I am flying is VLOS-only). Then I go fly my unequipped model exactly as I do today. Or I could go to my local model field, which would be registered as a FRIA, or if I had enough land, maybe even my own backyard, which I could register as a FRIA or operate from in a similar manner to the county park.
    So as long as you remember every single time you feel like flying your RC T-craft to log into a website ahead of time and let someone know you're going to be at the park doing circles at 50' AGL, you haven't violated any laws... maybe...

    Or you hop into your full scale Taylorcraft without a radio, transponder, or ADS-B, take off whenever you please, fly whenever and wherever you please (as long as you stay out of Class C airspace and Mode C veils), land wherever you please, at whatever altitude you please up to 10,000 MSL, without telling a soul anything about it, and still be just fine.

    But if you unbox your new electric park flyer, disregard the paperwork that people generally disregard, take it to the park and fly it around without notifying the FAA about it first... now you're breaking the law. Sounds like we're creating a new class of criminal.

    Is it April 1 yet?
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. Building a Fisher Celebrity.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    711
    I am 100% certain that an actual law on the books as described in this post WILL be followed with even less participation in the R/C hobby flight world than Prohibition kept people from having a drink - LOL - further IMHO there isn't an enforcement agency in the free world that would even make a half-hearted attempt at going after anyone in violation. Sheer lunacy as it applies to model planes/helicopters. Commercial drones are a separate issue. What's next? License plates for R/C cars?
    "Don't believe everything you see or read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

  8. #58
    PaulDow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    312
    Just a bump on this thread to remind everyone that the deadline for comments is Monday March 2 at 11:59 PM EST.
    https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...rcraft-systems

    As of now there are 34134 comments posted that will be ignored.

    There's an article about the topic at:
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/new-faa-drone-rule-is-a-giant-middle-finger-to-aviation-hobbyists/

    Edit: Five and a half hours before the deadline, and there are now 45468 comments!
    Last edited by PaulDow; 03-02-2020 at 05:29 PM.

  9. #59
    EAA Staff Tom Charpentier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    121
    EAA's final comments are here: https://eaa.org/-/media/Files/EAA/Ad...moteIDcomments

    The final tally is 51,006 comments. Thank you to all who added your voice!
    Tom Charpentier
    Government Relations Director
    EAA #1082006

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,124
    Why was EAA excluded from the ARC?

Posting Permissions

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