Help from the EAA to save the model airplane hobby

[jack.estes]

I’m here asking for the EAA’s help in saving the model airplane/radio control airplane hobby. I’ll explain:

Without going into all of the details, the FAA has released the NPRM regarding remote identification of drones, or UAS as they’re officially referred to. While we can all agree that drones need some regulation/framework to ensure an RV-8 doesn’t have a play date with an Amazon delivery, this NPRM is not the answer. The problem is that the model/RC airplane hobby is getting caught in the crossfire and would cease to exist if the NPRM as written goes into effect. I’ll include a few bullet points along within some links for reading. Here are the major problems:

- Most model/RC airplanes are either built from literal sticks of wood, or at least assembled from many different parts. Under the NPRM, these would be effectively banned due to certification requirements. Imagine if your Experimental pride and joy was subject to the same certification requirements as a C-172. https://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/remote-id-proposal-outlaws-home-built-rc-aircraft


- Most model airplane hobbyists fly at dedicated clubs affiliated with the Academy of Model Aeronautics. The NPRM does allow for non-remote ID model aircraft to be flown at specific sites without remote-ID compliance, like dedicated AMA clubs, but it provides a very narrow window to approve these sites and no ability to renew them later. The NPRM even specifically says that the FAA wishes to see these sites phased out rapidly. https://uavcoach.com/remote-id-nprm/ and: https://www.thedroneu.com/blog/faa-announces-drone-remote-id/

- There are other problems as well, but the two above are the first two major ones.


I know many of you may have gotten your start with model aviation. I did. I wanted to be a veterinarian when I was a kid and then my retired Memphis Center ATC Grandfather took me to an RC club and the rest was history. I’m now a former 121 pilot and current Lear 45 captain. Once my wife and I move, I’m planning on a wheels up restoration of a J-3. I know the EAA is at least supportive, but I’m hoping our two groups can band together and stop this FAA overreach. https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/11-27-2019-EAA-Prioritizing-Safety-Freedom-of-Legacy-Model-Aircraft-in-FAA-Panels?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTTJOaE9HWXhOamxoTkdJeiIsInQ iOiJSQW5ZT1h4WTBQNnA0ZVpqUEtKUk1qdkVmRzRcL3E5ZkJSR m93NGpzcUR2N1kxY0pkbDVRVG9USkRCSFBaWExxQXNVMm1CcUk yb0pUbVdINkZIalRwYzRWUm52QTN3N2RUbnBSdEZDUHFvTmFWU ysrYjBwNzQyV2ZIa2wxdEtHRmIifQ%3D%3D&fbclid=IwAR2dY6PNdnr3F1fcOk0fwdoKkeIZrxurftevSXZ-ulOxtFxy43GI31pICUc

[Tom Charpentier]

Hi Jack, and all-

We are absolutely going to do our utmost to defend legacy/traditional model aviation from this proposed rule. The first official action we took on this NPRM was to file a request to extend the comment period from 60 to 120 days, which we did Wednesday. 60 days is too short adequately evaluate a 300+ page document.

We're keenly aware of the many problems with this rule. While we certainly are concerned of the safety issues that semi-autonomous "drones" pose to manned aircraft in the airspace, it should be plainly obvious to everyone that traditional modeling has been a safe hobby for the better part of a century and completely undeserving of this level of scrutiny. As you point out, many pilots, including quite a few of us in Oshkosh, got their start in modeling and/or are still active in the hobby. We even have a new youth program for building and flying RC models at EAA chapters, in partnership with the AMA.

When we have had more time to carefully evaluate the NPRM and develop feedback, we will share our talking points with EAA members so that they may add their own comments.

Thanks for reaching out Jack, and don't hesitate to contact the advocacy department directly if you have any more questions. You can reach us at 800-564-6322 or govt@eaa.org.

[saber25]

It'll be interesting if EAA will provide more pushback on this issue than they did with the ADS-B implementation. AOPA and EAA welcomed this additive with open arms and devoted much time to promote the concept to pilots with free weather info and collision avoidance. Now that your every move will be recorded if ADS-B equipped, it's only a matter of time when the Fed's will send you a bill for ATC and airspace utilization.

[Tom Charpentier]

It is a mischaracterization to say that we welcomed ADS-B with open arms. Quoting directly from our comments to the 2008 NPRM,

“EAA is deeply concerned that that FAA is proposing mandatory equipage of a technology largely developed for use by commercial turbine aircraft without also developing practical and economical equipment necessary for the vast majority of the general aviation fleet. … The only ADS-B equipment available today is far too costly for the average general aviation aircraft and can exceed the value of the actual aircraft in the instance of older and/or smaller aircraft. This is not a realistic expectation on the part of the FAA…”

While we acknowledged the safety benefits of ADS-B, we were clear in our opposition to a broad mandate.

When the FAA nevertheless pushed ahead with a broad mandate, we have fought for flexibility in the rule and cheaper equipment whenever possible.

[saber25]

Tom,
I'm glad you pointed out EAA's vigorous opposition mounted in 2008. I suppose my mind was on financial matters having been forced out at age 60 a year earlier from my bankrupt airline and being deprived of a retirement.

As a former U-control pilot while still in grammar school, I've always enjoyed the building, flying and sometimes crashing my handiwork. I was an adult when I took up RC flying for several years while furloughed from the airline and participated in the freedom of that hobby. Then more than thirty years ago, I started an RV4 and could not devote resources to both interests and finished the RV.

I empathize with Jack and what's another overreach by the government. Perhaps the silver lining in modelers being forced to comply, is a small unobtrusive unit, movable from model to model while transmitting anonymous. I would consider equipping my aircraft with such a unit and bet others seeking a cost effective solution would also. Best of luck to the AMA and its members.

I applaud the organization in joining with the AMA to encourage young membership. I always thought learning to walk before running was a logical step.

[Airmutt]

Hey Jack, Like sport aviation there are many versions of RC flying. I belong to an informal bunch of flyers and we all have electric powered foam aircraft ranging from backyard flyers, motor gliders, 3D acro types to ducted fans.

We are very lucky. There is a county park that was created by the donation of farm land that included a grass strip. Fortunately the county left the grass strip relatively intact. Due to our low noise footprint we are not hassled at all. In fact we get trail walkers who stop and watch and talk with us. We all try to fly responsibly so no one feels threatened. In the five years I’ve been participating there has not never been a complaint.

There are are airports that GA and sport aviation friendly and then there are those that are not.

Bottom line, whether you’re into model aviation or sport aviation it’s getting harder and more expensive to participate.

[Kyle Boatright]

We are very lucky. There is a county park that was created by the donation of farm land that included a grass strip. Fortunately the county left the grass strip relatively intact. Due to our low noise footprint we are not hassled at all. In fact we get trail walkers who stop and watch and talk with us. We all try to fly responsibly so no one feels threatened. In the five years I’ve been participating there has not never been a complaint.

Dave, where is this park?

BTW, try finding a big enough public space within 20 miles of here where you are welcome to launch a model rocket.

[Airmutt]

Hey Kyle......Can’t think of the name of the park but ya got to go west on Rockmart Hwy like your heading out to Paulding Cnty Airport or Cedartown. Go south on the Villa Rica Hwy. Turn left on Mustang Dr. the park is on your right.

[Kyle Boatright]

Hey Kyle......Can’t think of the name of the park but ya got to go west on Rockmart Hwy like your heading out to Paulding Cnty Airport or Cedartown. Go south on the Villa Rica Hwy. Turn left on Mustang Dr. the park is on your right.

Thanks, Dave.

[Airmutt]

Hey Kyle it’s White Oak Park.

[jack.estes]

Thanks Tom and everyone else! That’s great to hear the EAA is wanting to get involved. I mean no disrespect to the AMA by asking, just that more friends are always better, especially in a case like this where the EAA has extensive experience dealing with the FAA.

It’s funny you mention the youth program in partnership with the AMA. Some club members and I were just talking about that! We have some ideas to promote the club, hobby, and aviation in general and this is on the list.

I’ll keep an eye out for the EAA’s comments. Please let me know if there’s anything I can contribute.

[Yellowhammer]

Mr. Jack,

I agree with you 100 percent sir. I am 42 years old and I STILL build remote control aircraft. I still build static model airplanes too. As a kid, it was the only way that I could get my aviation fix. Currently, I am building my on airplane from a kit.

If anything the FAA needs to be promoting R/C model programs instead of regulating them. Just think where the majority of us would be without the R/C aircraft world. I know it inspired me and many many others.

So what your saying is that if I own a plot of land and decide I want to make a landing strip on it to fly my R/C planes, the FAA will not allow without some red tape involved?

Thank you for your advocacy sir. We must never let the government take the R/C community!

Sincerely and Respectively,

Yellowhammer

[Bill Greenwood]

Have you ever noticed that all the line control model planes, also known as U control, have the line attachment on the end of the left wing, therefore they only fly in counterclockwise or left circles. This has been a long time indoctrination program by the libs behind all this to get our school children used to turning left. Same way as all the cowboy movies show mounting a horse from the left side. And if airplanes have a fold down door like a T-6 or Spitfire, its always on the left side.
Finally, someone in the FAA or the GOVT. has ferreted out this devious practices and is about to regulate them. How much of our tax money will this diligence use?

[lnuss]

Hmmm... I'm curious what U-control (shouldn't be regulated, since it's tethered rather low) has to do with regulation of R/C models.


Same way as all the cowboy movies show mounting a horse from the left side.
That goes WAAAY back, long before even model aircraft.

[rwanttaja]

Hmmm... I'm curious what U-control (shouldn't be regulated, since it's tethered rather low) has to do with regulation of R/C models.


That goes WAAAY back, long before even model aircraft.
That's one of my favorite routines, when I run kids through the cockpit of my Fly Baby.

"Now, you always get into an open cockpit airplane from the left side. Do you know why?"

[wait for kid response]

"It's because you always get on a HORSE from the left side."

I then wait a few beats, and ask, "Now, why do you get on horse from the left side?"

And that answer is...because your sword won't tangle. Right-handed folks wore their swords on the left hip, and if they tried to get on a horse from the right side, the sword would be between them and the saddle.

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

Not to mention most folks are right handed, so using their dominant hand and arm to pull themselves up usually makes more sense.

Dale "You take all the fun out of things" B.

[Airmutt]

And we enter Cubs and Champs from the right...why? Because that’s where they put the door. Ba dum bum. ;)

[Bill Berson]

I think EAA will need to contact Senator Inhofe directly. The people have no sway or authority over the deep state directly.

[jack.estes]

So what your saying is that if I own a plot of land and decide I want to make a landing strip on it to fly my R/C planes, the FAA will not allow without some red tape involved?

Thank you for your advocacy sir. We must never let the government take the R/C community!

Sincerely and Respectively,

Yellowhammer


Yessir, that’s exactly it. They want all unmanned aircraft to be able to identify themselves remotely. That sounds like a decent idea on the surface, but they aren’t leaving any leeway for planes built from kits or partially assembled ones. They appear to be making a small carve-out for fixed flying sites, but after one year they won’t accept any new applications for these sites and renewals are at their discretion.

So so if a few years from now you buy some land, build your retirement home with a nice grass runway, you won’t be able to fly an RC airplane you built yourself.

The NPRM is so poorly written that it’s difficult to understand why they’d even release it. Maybe they wanted to get something out there before the new year and rushed it through.

[malexander]

Yessir, that’s exactly it. They want all unmanned aircraft to be able to identify themselves remotely. That sounds like a decent idea on the surface, but they aren’t leaving any leeway for planes built from kits or partially assembled ones. They appear to be making a small carve-out for fixed flying sites, but after one year they won’t accept any new applications for these sites and renewals are at their discretion.

So so if a few years from now you buy some land, build your retirement home with a nice grass runway, you won’t be able to fly an RC airplane you built yourself.

The NPRM is so poorly written that it’s difficult to understand why they’d even release it. Maybe they wanted to get something out there before the new year and rushed it through.


I live on a private airpark, and we regularly fly R/C. So, are we considered a "flying field" and, I guess you'd say "exempt" or will we not be permitted to fly there anymore?

[Bill Greenwood]

Well, it's not like there are any larger or more important or real pressing issues than model airplane flying for the FAA to concentrate on, like maybe the Boeing Max.
Let's all go the meeting with the administrator at Airventure and ask him if the FAA really is going to hassle model airplane flyers.

[Kyle Boatright]

Well, it's not like there are any larger or more important or real pressing issues than model airplane flying for the FAA to concentrate on, like maybe the Boeing Max.
Let's all go the meeting with the administrator at Airventure and ask him if the FAA really is going to hassle model airplane flyers.

The problem is the FAA trods around these things like an elephant. It doesn't even recognize when it is stepping on a bunch of ants. It doesn't matter much to the elephant, but to the ants, it is life or death.

[Samuel]

It is a mischaracterization to say that we welcomed ADS-B with open arms. Quoting directly from our comments to the 2008 NPRM,

“EAA is deeply concerned that that FAA is proposing mandatory equipage of a technology largely developed for use by commercial turbine aircraft without also developing practical and economical equipment necessary for the vast majority of the general aviation fleet. … The only ADS-B equipment available today is far too costly for the average general aviation aircraft and can exceed the value of the actual aircraft in the instance of older and/or smaller aircraft. This is not a realistic expectation on the part of the FAA…”

While we acknowledged the safety benefits of ADS-B, we were clear in our opposition to a broad mandate.

When the FAA nevertheless pushed ahead with a broad mandate, we have fought for flexibility in the rule and cheaper equipment whenever possible.

Tom, I am glad to see that the EAA tried to stand up against the ADS-B mandate. Looking at recent history and aside from the cost burden that it places on GA, it seems to be one of the biggest privacy violations in aviation. All in the name of safety.

Really hope that EAA can make some progress preserving the RC hobby. It is really a bummer that everything has RC has gotten lumped under the title "drone" and everything that represents.

[Tom Charpentier]

Here is the latest update, outlining our present concerns:
https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/01-16-2020-Proposed-Remote-ID-Rule-Contains-Concerning-Requirements

[michaelj2k]

Here is the AMA's government affairs web page which has a template that you can send to the FAA. https://www.modelaircraft.org/about-ama/advocacy

[T Rabon]

Hello,
I have been involved in model aviation since the age of 5. I love aviation of all types, it is my passion. Model aviation has been under attack by the FAA
because they refuse to recognize the difference between traditional model aircraft and drones. The danger to full scale aviation from Joe Blow who buys a drone
and flies it into the landing pattern of LAX is horrifying to those of us in the model aviation community and agree that some regulations to prevent this needs to
be applied to drones. Model airplanes are not drones and we are not the problem, never have been and never will be.

I joined The EAA to show my gratitude for the recent support of Model Aviation. The ridiculous regulations and the fact that the FAA has lumped traditional
model aircraft in to the drone category will effectively erase the hobby. Again, THANK YOU EAA for your support. We need all the help we can get and
who knows, maybe I build something I can sit in and fly around the cow patch....if that's OK with the FAA.

[michaelj2k]

Hello,
I have been involved in model aviation since the age of 5. I love aviation of all types, it is my passion. Model aviation has been under attack by the FAA
because they refuse to recognize the difference between traditional model aircraft and drones. The danger to full scale aviation from Joe Blow who buys a drone
and flies it into the landing pattern of LAX is horrifying to those of us in the model aviation community and agree that some regulations to prevent this needs to
be applied to drones. Model airplanes are not drones and we are not the problem, never have been and never will be.

I joined The EAA to show my gratitude for the recent support of Model Aviation. The ridiculous regulations and the fact that the FAA has lumped traditional
model aircraft in to the drone category will effectively erase the hobby. Again, THANK YOU EAA for your support. We need all the help we can get and
who knows, maybe I build something I can sit in and fly around the cow patch....if that's OK with the FAA.

Great! Did you send your comments to the FAA?

[T Rabon]

Great! Did you send your comments to the FAA?

Yes. I sure hope common sense prevails although they have already shown a complete lack of knowledge or common sense
or a will to address the real problem...

[fliers1]

I will be joining EAA in the near future to support the EAA and the fixed wing portion of the hobby/sport. To do my part, I am on-call to give anyone free RC flying experience on my trainers.
I am available 7 days a week when the weather warms up. We have two beautiful flying fields that due to the aging of most members, it is mostly deserted all flying season.
You don't have to join any organization or pay a dime to anyone. Just show up and I will give you 20-30 minutes of stick time. Just trying to give back to this great hobby/sport.
Me and a local club may be creating an aeromodeling program at our new local YMCA in the near future. There are several acres of open area in back of the Y.

[Travis Moyer]

I have been an EAA member since 1995. Just getting registered here on the forum though. I would like to personally thank EAA for their support of the model aviation community. There is no question that we are in for a real fight to retain the hobby anywhere close to what it is today should this proposal go into effect as written. Sad indeed.

Model aviation was the spark that lit the fire for me that eventually led to a career in aviation. I still enjoy the hobby to this day and my two sons are involved as well. About 4 years ago I got back into flying GA and it has become an enjoyable pastime for my sons and I as well. We attended Airventure 2019 and my boys cannot wait to go back again this year. My point here, is that it all leads back to model aviation, where it all began for me.

Once again, thank you EAA for standing in our corner in protest of the FAA Remote ID NPRM.

Travis

[bruceleach]

I just joined the EAA because they think enough of model aviation to speak up for it. I am the president of an R/C club in Rockland county New York and we operate with a heliport across the street. This will be our 12th year with no problems to date. We do an annual air show for the community for which the town supplies free hot dogs and snacks. They give out between 1500 and 2,000 hot dogs each year. Getting people involved in model aviation isn't easy, but people love to come and watch. We also have a separate flight line with buddy boxing and flight simulators. It would be a shame to see all of that go away for no good reason. https://www.hvrcc.com/

[T Rabon]

Fantastic post bruceleach! loved the pics and vids. A great representation of what the hobby is all about.

[Travis Moyer]

In 2019, my flying club (the Buc-Le Aero Sportsmen) which I am the president of, relaunched our annual giant scale fun fly after a couple of years on hiatus. We reformatted things a bit and designated all proceeds to benefit local charitable organizations. We chose our local fire company, Trumbauersville Fire company and the Bucks County SPCA. Total for the weekend we raised over $1400.00 that was divided evenly between the two organizations. The event was very well received and appreciated by all in attendance. Attached is a pic of two of our instructors buddy boxing with a few of the fire fighters. Next is or donation area, one of the fire trucks the fire company made available all weekend and a piano of the pilot pit area.
Travis

www.buc-le.org (http://www.buc-le.org)

[Travis Moyer]

For the past several years, the township in which our flying facility resides has invited us to their community day event. We take a bunch of members and a bunch of airplanes and helicopters to display and we also fly some small electric powered park flyer type aircraft off the soccer field for the attendees. This is a very positive community based event and we always get a lot of interest. The first pic is of me flying on the soccer field, but it is not about me, it is about the audience looking on. A great group of kids! This is what is sorely needed, not only in model aviation, but all of aviation! The second pic is of our club member group in attendance that day. A great group of guys. So that everyone is aware, a community event like this will be illegal to fly at if the FAA proposal for Remote ID goes into effect as currently written. Our aircraft have no pathway for equipage and the only place we will be able to fly is in an FAA Recognized Identification Area (FRIA).
Travis

[FlyingRon]

Not to mention most folks are right handed, so using their dominant hand and arm to pull themselves up usually makes more sense.
.
You don't ride much, do you? If you do, think about how you get on the horse again.

[jack.estes]

Those are some good stories/posts/pictures! We're in a very similar boat. We were asked to participate in a county fair back in September and got a TON of great feedback as well as doing our part to introduce some kids to aviation in general. We did a flying demo and had a simulator setup for kids to try. The club member who spear-headed this is a longtime EAA member. Two pictures of the kids on the sim are below.

Also, to the EAA in general, your efforts have not gone unnoticed. Click this link and start reading at post 262: https://www.flyinggiants.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271251&page=18

[DougJ]

I joined the forum after reading the EAA's preliminary response to the FAA's NPRM on Remote ID, becuase I haven't hear anyone anywhere bring up the exemption for small unmanned aircraft (line of sight RC aircraft) in the 2028 FAA Reathorization ACT (UAS Safety):

‘‘(j) EXCLUSIONS.—The Administrator may exempt from the
requirements of this section small unmanned aircraft systems that
are not capable of navigating beyond the visual line of sight of
the operator through advanced flight systems and technology, if
the Administrator determines that such an exemption does not
pose a risk to the safety of the national airspace system.’’.

This is not the 3rd tier of Remote ID, it is an exemption in the statute. In light of the FAA's proposed new rules, it seems to me that this exemption is the only way to keep model aircraft hobby from going extinct. I was wondering if anyone at the EAA is interested in persuing it.

[DougJ]

As a follow up, I had also reached out to AOPA's web editor, Jim Moore, after reading his AOPA article on the NPRM on remote ID, and asked about the exemption for modelers. He wrote back and said that the AOPA was aware of the exemption and expected that it would be referenced in AOPA's formal comments on the NPRM and in future stories.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/february/03/aopa-seeks-to-improve-drone-tracking

[michaelj2k]

I joined the forum after reading the EAA's preliminary response to the FAA's NPRM on Remote ID, becuase I haven't hear anyone anywhere bring up the exemption for small unmanned aircraft (line of sight RC aircraft) in the 2028 FAA Reathorization ACT (UAS Safety):

‘‘(j) EXCLUSIONS.—The Administrator may exempt from the
requirements of this section small unmanned aircraft systems that
are not capable of navigating beyond the visual line of sight of
the operator through advanced flight systems and technology, if
the Administrator determines that such an exemption does not
pose a risk to the safety of the national airspace system.’’.

This is not the 3rd tier of Remote ID, it is an exemption in the statute. In light of the FAA's proposed new rules, it seems to me that this exemption is the only way to keep model aircraft hobby from going extinct. I was wondering if anyone at the EAA is interested in persuing it.

I think the word "may" is the catch. By using "may" the Administrator is not empowered to enact the exemption. Replace "may" with "shall" or "will" instruct the Administrator to incorporate the exemption in the rule. I'm no lawyer but I've had a few classes on aviation law and these catch words are emphasized.

[DougJ]

I think the word "may" is the catch. By using "may" the Administrator is not empowered to enact the exemption. Replace "may" with "shall" or "will" instruct the Administrator to incorporate the exemption in the rule. I'm no lawyer but I've had a few classes on aviation law and these catch words are emphasized.

"May" means the Administrator can either grant the exemption or not. As Jim Moore from AOPA put it, "... while it does leave discretion about safety to the administrator, it does line up well with our fundamental argument.

[Tom Charpentier]

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.

[DougJ]

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.

[Ronald Franck]

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.

[JMSnodgrass]

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

[jack.estes]

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

[rwanttaja]

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

[Airmutt]

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.

[Tom Charpentier]

We have now published our commenting recommendations for the EAA community. Please share and comment!
https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-13-2020-EAA-Releases-Guidelines-to-Comment-on-Proposed-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/eaas-the-green-dot-the-proposed-uas-remote-id-rule/

[PaulDow]

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, that’s a cost of $500 each. That’s 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 isn’t 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.

[DougJ]

We have now published our commenting recommendations for the EAA community. Please share and comment!
https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-13-2020-EAA-Releases-Guidelines-to-Comment-on-Proposed-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/eaas-the-green-dot-the-proposed-uas-remote-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.

[Tom Charpentier]

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.

[DougJ]

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.

[DougJ]

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?

[Tom Charpentier]

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.

[DougJ]

Thanks Tom, that sounds like something most of us could live with.

[DaleB]

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?

[CHICAGORANDY]

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?

[PaulDow]

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/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems

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

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/

(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!

[Tom Charpentier]

EAA's final comments are here: https://eaa.org/-/media/Files/EAA/Advocacy/03-03-2020-RemoteIDcomments

The final tally is 51,006 comments. Thank you to all who added your voice!

[Bill Berson]

Why was EAA excluded from the ARC?

[Tom Charpentier]

There was no specific reason given, we simply inquired about participation and was told the ARC was full. FAA determines ARC membership at their discretion.

[Bill Berson]

Then I think EAA needs to bypass the FAA and go to a higher level, like Senator Inhofe, the President and others.
It's supposed to be "We The People", not "We The Governed". You have my permission.

[Tom Charpentier]

While we've been focused on sending a clear message directly to the FAA through the commenting process, all options are certainly on the table moving forward, including enlisting legislative support. We should have an update on the next incremental step we're taking next week.

[Bill Berson]

Glad to hear that Tom, thank you.

[Travis Moyer]

Tom, Sean and everyone at EAA, thank you for all that you have done in helping to defend traditional model aviation.

Travis

[Samuel]

Old RC hobby video. Hopefully together we can keep this great segment of aviation going!


https://youtu.be/XcXGJ0s0630

https://youtu.be/XcXGJ0s0630

[2ndsegment]

My model aircraft exposure began in the late 40's when my father built a sheet balsa Piper Cub replica with spring rod landing gear and rubber band powered propeller. I was moving from the living room to the dining room when this contraption came skittering across the floor and twisted a bit and ran into arm chair to sit on it's tail dragger gear with the carved balsa wood propeller winding down. I was a toddler at the time.

[2ndsegment]

My first experience with drafting an opinion about a regulation for a certification authority came in 1965 when I was asked by some Advance Design Engineers at Douglas Aircraft to help demanding any Executive jet conform to regulations on windshield bird strike.

This came partly from vulnerability while licensing the Piaggio Douglas 808 and mostly from the same forces that have led to RJ time not being mainline time.

After my former roommate came and joined Engineering Laboratories as a employee and described tests using live anesthetized chickens shot from air cannons while enclosed in ice cream cartons at DC-10 windshield samples I no longer heard about Learjet.

I had seen and listened to a LEAR 4 track tape player as used on the airplane and later had a MUNZ 8 track in my truck I listened to James Taylor driving down to Miramar for "TopGun" graduations. It was driving past the Ann Arbor airport in Pittsfield township that a pheasant flushed and came trough the passenger side of my 1948 Ford windshield and landed expended on my back package shelf. My roommate was learning to fly there.