[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The FAA is moving to drastically change the rights and responsibilities of model aircraft pilots by enacting new rules. This may be one of the most important changes in the history of the hobby.
On December 31, 2019, the FAA published its proposed rule for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the Federal Register. This proposal outlines a system for drones to broadcast their location, the location of the operator, and other related information. Most drones will be required to adopt this system, and non-compliant aircraft will be significantly limited in their capabilities.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”5721″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” onclick=”link_image”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]FAA Press Release: https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24534
Overview: https://www.faa.gov/uas/research_development/remote_id/
Proposed Rule In Detail: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems
Joshua Bardwell’s Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E1aEym-1cQ
DJI Article: We Strongly Support Drone Remote ID. But Not Like This
Pilot Institute: Remote ID Response Guide – How to Submit Your Comment to the FAA
The point of this article is not to be alarmist; remember that this is a proposal and not yet a rule. It is open to comment and can be altered and amended. This is a call to action, we, as a community, need to mount a strong response to ensure the FAA hears our voices. The time to act is now, before the end of February 2020.
This article relates only to the proposal from Dec 31, 2019. Readers finding this article after April 2020 should not use this information as reference for the final implemented Remote ID system.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
What’s Remote ID?
As proposed, the Remote ID system records the position and identity of a drone in flight and its operator. This data may be broadcast from the drone in real-time, and is saved to a remote server for six months.
Unmanned aircraft fall into three categories: “Standard”, “Limited”, and “without Remote ID”.
Standard Remote ID
Standard-equipped drones communicate their location and their operator’s location continuously in flight. The drone broadcasts this information locally over a radio frequency. If internet is available, the information is also sent to a server. These drones have the least restrictions on what they are allowed to do.
Limited Remote ID
Limited drones require that the control station communicate its location continuously in flight. These must always communicate this information over the internet. They are never allowed to fly more than 400ft from the operator. Drones with Limited Remote ID are designed to automatically enforce the 400ft distance restriction and prevent the drone from taking off if internet is not available.
Without Remote ID
Drones fabricated non-commercially by an individual may be flown without Remote ID. To qualify, the majority of the drone must be fabricated by that person, not simply assembled from separately purchased parts. Drones without remote ID must only be flown at FAA-approved flying sites and never beyond visual line-of-sight.
The proposal applies to all drones that are required to be registered. Currently, drones are exempt if they are under 250g (.55lbs) and flown only for recreation. However, the requirements for registration could change in the future to include sub-250g craft.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
How will Remote ID be implemented?
Other aspects of the proposal include:
- Operating drones with Remote ID will require a subscription to a data server. The FAA suggest this may cost $30/yr, but the servers will be privately owned and operated—the FAA will have no control over the actual cost.
- Each aircraft will need to be registered individually for $5. Currently a recreational pilot applies one registration to multiple drones; this would no longer be valid.
- Fixed flying sites may only be operated by a community-based organization (CBO) such as the AMA. Private citizens will not be able to register flying sites on their own.
- Fixed flying sites may only be registered for a period of 12 months after the rule goes into effect. Fixed sites must be renewed every 4 years, and the FAA may revoke a site for any reason.
A lot of the proposal lacks specifics, including the method used for collecting the operator’s location and the broadcast frequency and protocol for the messages. The FAA has intentionally left out other information, such as the cost of the remote database service. The FAA intends for 3rd parties to administer this service, similar to what is done now for LAANC.
What are some of the potential impacts of Remote ID to FPV?
As written, this proposal removes rights to almost all airspace for many existing aircraft.
Some of the effects of this proposal would be:
- Many new costs will be associated with flying. All pilots will pay the FAA for each individual aircraft. Pilots who fly craft without Remote ID will pay dues to a CBO and pay dues to a local chapter that operates a flying site. Pilots who fly with Remote ID will pay a data supplier for Remote ID capabilities, even if they never fly in an internet-connected area.
- RTF/ARF drones will be heavier. 5″ freestyle and race drones, (all of which exceed the 250g threshold,) must be Remote ID compliant and therefore carry position sensors and broadcast equipment.
- If a location has poor internet connectivity, “limited” drones will not be able to fly there. Pilots may be required to subscribe to a mobile data service to fly in many locations.
- FPV freestyle without Remote ID will be illegal except at approved flying sites (which are likely to be flat, open, AMA fields)
- Pilots who wish to fly craft without Remote ID will be required to become members of a community-based organization (CBO) which operates a local flying site. They will not be able to choose the CBO that best serves their needs.
- Only CBO-registered sites will be allowed, negating any sites set up and coordinated directly with local airports and air traffic control.
- No new fixed sites would ever be added. Eventually, approved flying sites may no longer be available.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”5722″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center” onclick=”link_image”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Why is Remote ID necessary?
The FAA states that “The remote identification of UAS is necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United States.” The system facilitates “future, more advanced operational capabilities” such as those that allow drones to communicate with each other and with manned aircraft. This could allow drones to operate beyond visual line of sight and provide better information to air traffic controllers.
The FAA believes that enhancing safety, efficiency, and security with this system would serve the public interest. This system would provide data to national security and law enforcement agencies. The FAA states that real-time use of the data could be used to facilitate compliance, enforcement, and educational actions.
Model flying is a safe activity which does not pose significant risk to people or property. Unfortunately, it appears that decades of history were not enough to persuade the authors of the proposal.
Is this all overblown?
Remote ID could actually improve our ability to fly, possibly opening the door to operations beyond visual line of sight—and there is some hope that the FAA wants to make adoption easy. The proposal includes the line “Nothing in this proposal would prevent a person from building a UAS with remote identification for educational or recreational purposes.” Remote ID might not be a great burden to operators if all of the following are true:
- Small, lightweight, and inexpensive Remote ID equipment becomes available
- Remote ID broadcasts do not interfere with model control and video signals
- Hobbyists are compliant after installing Remote ID equipment into existing models
- At least one Remote ID server is available for free for non-commercial use
It’s important to understand, though, that there are no guarantees and a great many unknowns.
- Remote ID equipment does not yet have defined parameters such as broadcast protocols and frequencies.
- The FAA may make compliance difficult since it requires “tamper-resistance” and “inability to disable”, and the process for compliance is not defined in the proposal.
- Private, for-profit companies will administer the Remote ID servers. While LAANC can be accessed for free, Remote ID services might not.
The FAA is pushing hard for all unmanned craft to be Remote ID compliant. Since a great deal of recreational aircraft are fabricated or assembled for non-commercial purposes, recreational users must have a reasonable means to add it to their systems.
Even if the above all work out in our favor, the proposal requires that each aircraft be individually registered with a certificate of compliance filed. For collectors, the registration costs will add up quickly.
While some blogs and vloggers are providing and reacting to incomplete or inaccurate information, this proposal definitely has the potential to destroy recreational aircraft flight as we know it. It’s critically important to respond to the FAA on these matters.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”5758″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center” onclick=”link_image”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
What can we do about it?
The FAA invites comments on this proposal, which can be easily submitted online. The best thing we can each do is submit a reasonable comment.
To make a convincing response, you must be informed on the details of the proposal. It’s best to read the full text of the proposal. If not, the FPV Freedom Coalition has a FAQ page on Remote ID that breaks it down to essentials, and a longer-form Guide to Remote ID.
As you develop your comment, consider (comments below do not represent GetFPV’s view):
- Adding onerous requirements for recreational users will be catastrophic for the hobby. Compliance with regulations will substantially decline, and many users will simply leave the hobby. This will diminish or eliminate the positive effect in education and innovation that recreational modeling has provided for decades.
- A great deal of recreational aircraft are assembled non-commercially, since parts are selected for many purposes and various control systems are not cross-compatible. The FAA should not underestimate the prevalence of this practice in the model aircraft hobby. The number of model aircraft sold with 100% of the parts needed to fly is extremely limited and confined to a small number of manufacturers.
- The FAA must make adding Remote ID capability to self-built drones easy and straightforward. It is in the FAA’s interest to have more craft using Remote ID. A modeler that voluntarily adds the equipment to a craft has no incentive to tamper or disable it. Complicated compliance requirements to install Remote ID will prevent adoption and should be eliminated for non-commercially produced aircraft.
- The FAA should not cease to consider new fixed flying sites. The proposed system unfairly penalizes recreational pilots and favors commercial usage by allowing political and financial matters to determine the secession of airspace instead of items which actually affect the safety, security, and efficiency, and utility of the airspace.
- A Limited Remote ID craft currently requires an internet connection. This requirement eliminates their ability to be used in many locations with poor coverage, or by operators without expensive cellular data plans. The FAA should consider how limited aircraft could be operated in these areas covering a great deal of airspace.
- The current proposal requires that anyone trying to retrieve Remote ID data must both access the internet and have equipment capable of receiving a local broadcast, because some craft are capable of operating with only one or the other. This is not always possible. For example, the operator of a Limited Remote ID craft may use private, protected WiFi for internet in an area where mobile data is not available.
- Registration and usage of Remote ID servers (USS) for commercial purposes should be held to a different standard than non-commerical users. Hobbyists are unlikely to disrupt airspace in the same way as commercial use, and hobbyists are generally under a greater financial burden than commercial users. Commercial users will benefit most from the system and should bear the cost of maintaining it. The FAA should ensure that non-commercial registrations and use of USS server are available without incurring a fee.
- The economic impact of onerous requirements for modelers will cause a collapse in the model aircraft industry. This will impact pilots, but also many domestic companies that manufacture, sell, and/or repair model aircraft.
- Other countries have successfully implemented “shielded operations” Shielded operations is a common-sense proposal which allows unrestricted drone flights in locations that are unlikely to interfere with commercial operations or manned flight. The FAA should consider how a similar provision would provide modelers with usable low-risk airspace. See https://www.aviation.govt.nz/drones/your-drone-questions-answered/what-is-shielded-flight/ .
If you’re looking for more guidance, the AMA has published a template response, and the FPVFC has a working document with talking points and policy suggestions.
Submitting your comment
Be sure to write your own comment rather than copy and pasting a response you find somewhere. Duplicated responses may not carry as much weight.
Once you’ve written your response, visit the comment page for remote ID to submit it. You have until March 2, 2020.
Conclusion
The FAA is about to write some of the most influential rules about model aircraft in the United States. In these 60 days, we have the opportunity to directly contribute to that conversation. We must remind the FAA that we are responsible users of the airspace, that the airspace can be used safely in the future, and that recreational use is at least as valid as any commercial interest. The more of us that respectfully respond, the more seriously we will be taken. On behalf of all racers, freestyle pilots, and all model aircraft enthusiasts: please submit a comment on this proposal!
Every comment helps.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Great article, but I have a few questions. From what I understand, sub 250 gm quads are legal without these restrictions. Therefore, we could transition to smaller, lighter quads, like 3 in builds. Is this thinking correct?
Lastly, does the weight designated by the FAA include the weight of the quad + battery or quad alone?
Thanks
The proposal covers any aircraft that must be registered. Currently, craft less than 250g do not need registered for recreational use. However, all craft regardless of weight must be registered if used commercially. And, should the FAA decide later on to require recreational registration under 250g, the Remote ID rules would also go into effect.
The weight calculation includes everything attached or being carried. So, yes, you must include the battery weight.
FFA
AMA member for years.
We have already registered our hanger full of our models with the FFA number of each pilots(son & I)fixed winged planes. Our planes may have a life expectancy of one to four years of flight or even shorter. We can only fly one plane at a time and maybe one time of 4 to 5 minutes per charged battery. Then it’s time for another pilot to fly his plane. We might take two or three planes to the field at one given day but fly only one or maybe not even fly at all. That’s why all these extra regulations are null and void for a club flying site. There are some planes in our possession that will never see a “take to the air” flight. They will just be a model to admire, so why would a tracking device need to be attached? If a plane would become disabled do to a mishap, does that mean that device can never be used again on another plane? What a waste of money if that new plane would happen to go down on its maiden flight. You now have lost a plane, honing device and your building time, because it seems every plane has an expiration date.
My planes are ready to fly and some are ARFs (almost ready to fly). I build out of Balsa wood and Dollar Tree Foam Board (plans from Flite Test)to keep the cost down.
I can understand a pilots test, FAA Part 107, at $150 for a pilot flying passenger carrier or Quad copter(or Drone)for making money for a business, because he could be flying anywhere and it might be good to know in that case. On the test, it deals with map location and orientation that is interesting, but a pilot on a given flying site is ludicrous and has no place in this situation. Quad Copters (or Drones)are much easier to fly than RC Planes that take more skill and practice to fly. So you can’t fly without an experienced pilot with a buddy cord connected to you in case you get in trouble, until you learn how to fly (with lots of practice). Drones (or Quad Copters) however, can be flown almost right out of the box by anyone. That is why I don’t think this should be under a blanket plan clumped into one big mess of regulations for all. RC planes were here long before Quad Copters(or Drones) came along.
It is a hobby with model planes that has been around for a long time and didn’t need any regulations at this caliber. I started flying control line in the 50s & 60s. My dad helped me build my first plane. CL planes on a tether of 50 foot or shorter lines and does not fly by radio; so they really can’t be labeled Unmanned Aircraft.
AMA members are all unique, and we fly a number of different disciplines that will be impacted in different ways by this rule. We will be impacted individually if these rules are forced on us into a one-size-fits-all approach.
I urge you to remove the proposed requirement to register each UAS individually. At a minimum, the requirement should be removed for members of a community-based organization like AMA who have operated safely in the airspace for more than eight decades and already register with their organization.
The price of aircraft is already a potential burden, and adding in costly Remote ID technology in the manufacturing process will only exacerbate this problem. Model aviation has been and should continue to be available to all children, young and old, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
The high costs and time commitment associated with a registration effort on this scale is insurmountable for many. Think of the FFA keeping track of 50,000 modelers times 14 models each with a different ID number for each model, that’s 700,000 planes that might not last. Not counting the Drones. What happens to those model numbers? Sounds like a waste of money for the consumer and time for the FFA!
Please consider viewing fixed flying sites as part of a viable long-term solution to Remote ID, and to amend the rule to allow for the establishment of new sites in the future. Why would such a rule even be considered, if not for control on closing a hobby that can even keep youth out of trouble and off of drugs.
I am writing to you today as a modeler, who is deeply concerned by many of the proposals contained within the Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) Remote ID proposed rule making document. I don’t know why a drone has to be grouped with model airplanes(they are a whole different animal).
Sincerely,
Gary Sinclair
Gary: Thanks for your thoughts on this! However, the FAA isn’t going to read comments on this post. You’ll need to submit it to them directly at http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=FAA-2019-1100-0001 .
Great all we need more laws. This is starting to get pathetic. They are allready trying to take away my vaping now my flying. Name me one plane that went down over a drone? They test jet engines by throwing frozen turkeys into them for christ sakes. what do they think the guy strapping a bomb to one is going to follow there rules. I build big drones 6 lbs and up. I have never registered any of them nor will i ever. I also could care less over there altitude cap. I fly at 1200 feet for safety since choppers fly in my area and most areas at 200 to 400 feet. These guys that buy dji out of a box have ruined it for all of us. Running out of battery on top of a crowd of people and dropping drugs over jails. I fly safe and responsible and don’t pay attention to stupid rules. Like a 400ft cap. If i follow the 400ft cap a chopper will definitely destroy my drone. Even at 10lbs my drone is not going to hurt a 20000lbs chopper. They just want to track every one to hold every one responsible first with the registration thing now they want to do it at the hardware level.
I’ve said this before on a couple other sites. We need to ALL stick together and REFUSE to abide by anything the FAA puts forth. The FAA took the special rule for model aircraft, that was to protect us forever, and ripped it in half like it never existed. The rule was there for a reason. It was to protect us from things like this happening. We need to all stick together and rip their rolls up. I absolutely refuse I do my aircraft or to put anything in them that’s going to tell anybody where their aircraft is. I got into this Hobby to help my grandson who is on the autism spectrum have something creative to do outside of the house and a computer. I refuse to allow the FAA to govern that hobby of mine. If everybody sticks together and I mean everybody there’s power in numbers we need to push back on this. The folks at the AMA failed us. They didn’t have the guts to put their foot down firmly instead they went to Washington to negotiate well we know where that got them. Let’s stick together and refused to ID our model aircraft
Oh and one more thing my fixed-wing airplanes are not drones
https://www.mercatus.org/publications/technology-and-innovation/do-consumer-drones-endanger-national-airspace-evidence
Drones don’t kill people, people kill people.