For the Love of Radio Controlled Aircraft in the US, New Rules Possible.

[LaserSteve]

If you love to fly RC, please make constructive comments to the Federal Aviation Administration on their Notice of Proposed Rule Making Here:

Deadline is Tuesday. March 2nd.

I'll spare the  political comments, but lets just say RC in your own  backyard or building your own models from scratch is very much dead three years from the date of implementation, if implemented as proposed. Your model will be required to have electronics preventing takeoff without logging into a private pay to play notification, and approval system that provides tracking to FAA, Law Enforcement etc..

For those of you in the rest of the world,  as the US Aerospace rules go, your rules will generally follow, in the name of international harmonization. You do not have to be a US Citizen to comment to our lawmakers.

By the way, if you do not like RC aircraft piloted in real time by a human being without autopilot, I'd understand if you comment too,  and would appreciate your doing so.  Because otherwise this rule was probably  largely written by industry  lobbyists and law enforcement.

If you can't write your own, the Academy of Model Aeronautics in the US has a response letter you can copy and paste.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems

On NPRM replies to the federal government, emotional  comments like "I Love  this new rule you Stalinist Dogs" get filtered out. Comments that offer valid alternatives or constructive criticism get put into a spreadsheet of comments that get read by rule makers.


Steve

[Tomorokoshi]

One more in the same line as the PIRATE Act for radio and removing Net Neutrality rules.

I have too many comments about this that are #defined as not appropriate for this forum, according to Dave and the Mods.

[donotdespisethesnake]

An amazing amount of bureaucracy to control a perceived threat, I'm not even sure what the threat is. Obviously, terrorists might just forget to pay $5 to register their UAS, so can't see how it would be effective anyway.

[helius]

I can imagine the intent is that vehicles that cannot be matched with a registration would gather alerts and preparations for capture/shootdown.
Whether that can actually work in an environment with spoofed IDs is another question.

[Brumby]

I can imagine the intent is that vehicles that cannot be matched with a registration would gather alerts and preparations for capture/shootdown.
Whether that can actually work in an environment with spoofed IDs is another question.

I can imagine the scenario will be: "Shoot down first and ask questions later."

[MyHeadHz]

Despite the rhetoric, these notice periods are really nothing more than a legally-required formality.  This period is to release the rule to the public to see if it has any legal holes in it, so it will stand up to scrutiny in court.  They already know exactly what they want to do and they are going to do precisely that.

It's all a legal equivalent of feature-creep.  It's a bit of a long story, but (from what I understand) some judge a few years ago *reinterpreted* well-established law and miracled the FAA some new powers out of thin air.  They've been running with it ever since.

The only realistic scenario to stop it is the US Supreme Court issuing an injunction for some reason, which would happen after the input period ends.  This is unlikely as they didn't take any action to stop the initial powers when they were first miracled.

[james_s]

I really wish someone would remind the government that they work for us, not the other way around. I really have no idea what they hope to accomplish by hassling a bunch of hobbyists who have not caused any problems. The whole "drone" thing has been blown way out of proportion, for all the hoopla I don't ever recall seeing a drone outside of parks and flying fields and have not heard of a single serious incident. I was actually thinking the whole hysteria seemed to have died out as I don't remember seeing any of the hyperbolic scare articles recently that were everywhere a few years ago.

[BravoV]

Just curious if in part of the process, that somehow the DJI will get "huawei-ed" ? 

[magic]

Terrorism is pack and parcel of life in a ******** society


Obviously nobody is going to shoot down your model 747 flying over your backyard, except once in a blue moon to show it on national TV and make a point.

Your model will be required to have electronics preventing takeoff without logging into a private pay to play notification, and approval system that provides tracking to FAA, Law Enforcement etc.

I bet without reading that this is aimed primarily at banning manufacture and sale of off-the-shelf drones and components which could be readily bought and weaponized by terrorists. Now all of that will need to have tracking built-in, increasing the barrier to entry for criminals.

Oh well

[splin]

There is a body of opinion that this is being driven by lobbying from commercial interests whose agenda is to see low air space cleared for revenue earning operations.

Amazon in particular gets accused mentioned a lot because of its interests in autonomous delivery drones. They wouldn't want them encumbered with heavy and expensive collision detection and avoidance systems and presumably will rely on having clear airspace, directed by remote systems which plan and control all flight paths.

In the interests of balance there are others who "claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys".

Xjet has made some good youtube videos about the threat to the hobby (but not as far as I know about any agendas behind it). I fear it is now pretty much a done deal and the end of the hobby - worldwide - unless a government or two unexpectedly develop a backbone and remember who they represent.

The majority probably won't give a dam because they aren't interested in the hobby; but let them wait till their own hobbys come under threat....

[Tom45]

DJI, a major maker of drones, is dead set against the FAA's proposed rules. They believe in remote ID, but a different approach than the FAA's. The DJI approach is more in line with the ADS-B used by manned aircraft.

You can learn more about the subject and the two approaches at: https://content.dji.com/we-strongly-support-drone-remote-id-but-not-like-this/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=edm&utm_campaign=comment_submission&sc_src=email_3347439&sc_eh=2ac6ea2a7be1ad871&sc_llid=758013&sc_lid=166239926&sc_uid=EiFuztT5Ie

I have a DJI drone which I use for photography. Essentially a really tall tripod. If the FAA gets their way my drone would be obsolete.

[SiliconWizard]

I really wish someone would remind the government that they work for us, not the other way around. I really have no idea what they hope to accomplish by hassling a bunch of hobbyists who have not caused any problems. The whole "drone" thing has been blown way out of proportion, for all the hoopla I don't ever recall seeing a drone outside of parks and flying fields and have not heard of a single serious incident. I was actually thinking the whole hysteria seemed to have died out as I don't remember seeing any of the hyperbolic scare articles recently that were everywhere a few years ago.

I fully agree with all this. This is very sad.

Besides, if the drones mania has actually triggered all this, it's even more sad, as the typical RC aircraft hobbyist (the serious one) usually doesn't care about drones, that they see as toys mostly. So that's a double punishment.

It's all the more a punishment for hobbyists that drones themselves are bound to be used in an increasing number of commercial (and probably military) applications. Which all means that as very often, those regulations will only cause problems for hobbyists and "small" users. Large companies and organizations will have no problem getting approved and paying for all this. With the end result that, even with all the security additions you can imagine, the sheer potential number of them will be statistically much more of a hazard than RC aircrafts ever were, by far. You always have to take a look at the big picture.

[magic]

DJI, a major maker of drones, is dead set against the FAA's proposed rules. They believe in remote ID, but a different approach than the FAA's. The DJI approach is more in line with the ADS-B used by manned aircraft.

The FAA system has an obvious advantage of being either pre-equipped or easily retrofittable with means of remote shutdown when a drone is caught being naughty. You aren't going to call F-16 strikes every time a quadcopter is spotted carrying some unidentified package in the vicinity of a school or getting in the way of legally operating aircraft, but revoking its credentials by a phone app is a piece of cake.

[TheHolyHorse]

Even if all this goes through, they're not really preventing anything, except ruining things for the good guys. The bad guys will load a bomb on a drone anyway, it's not like some law or regulation will prevent people from doing bad.

But this is pretty standard behavior for people who are clueless of how the real world work, ie politicians etc.

[SiliconWizard]

Even if all this goes through, they're not really preventing anything, except ruining things for the good guys. The bad guys will load a bomb on a drone anyway, it's not like some law or regulation will prevent people from doing bad.

Yup.

But this is pretty standard behavior for people who are clueless of how the real world work, ie politicians etc.

I'm not sure this is all as clueless as you think, but it's certainly more political than practical (meaning: more of a strategic step). As I hinted in my other post, I think it may just be a preliminary step to prepare for a world where drones (and otherwise flying devices) could become much more ubiquitous than they currently are - not to address the current situation, which indeed doesn't pose any significant problem at the moment.

You can't per se blame politics to try and address future problems - that's even what politics is about. But you can certainly not agree with the way those potential problems are being addressed, and what kind of future it's preparing for us.

[edy]

As I hinted in my other post, I think it may just be a preliminary step to prepare for a world where drones (and otherwise flying devices) could become much more ubiquitous than they currently are - not to address the current situation, which indeed doesn't pose any significant problem at the moment.

So how far up do you "own" the airspace above your house or land? If an Amazon drone decides to fly over my property to fulfill a delivery, do they have to pay me? Do I have the option to use it for target practice? 

[angrybird]

Let me make sure I understand this.

This data would be required to be transmitted through an internet connection?

What about the vast areas of the USA which will never have real internet access?

What about people who cannot afford, or do not want an internet connection on their premises?

[angrybird]

Ooh, but I am already seeing one benefit here.

In rual areas of the USA, most people don't want any sort of unmanned vehicle flying over their property and infringing on their privacy.  These are routinely shot down when people fly their drones over private property, and this even sometimes makes the news.

With this rule, you could simply register yourself a unmanned vehicle, and simply broadcast it as operating over your expanse of property 24/7/365.  This should keep other vehicles away as they generally prefer to avoid collisions 

[rdl]

Minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification UAS
Standard remote identification UAS would have to meet minimum performance requirements related to the following:
    • Control station and unmanned aircraft location.
    • Automatic Remote ID USS connection.
    • Time mark.   
    • Self-testing and monitoring.   
    • Tamper resistance.   
    • Connectivity.   
    • Error correction.   
    • Interference considerations.   
    • Message transmission requirements for broadcast and Remote ID USS transmission.   
    • Message elements performance requirements for broadcast and Remote ID USS transmission.   
    • Cybersecurity.

Seeing how we have entire cities in the US lacking "cybersecurity", can't see how this will ever happen.

And yeah, the whole "internet required" part is ridiculous.

[magic]

Even if all this goes through, they're not really preventing anything, except ruining things for the good guys. The bad guys will load a bomb on a drone anyway, it's not like some law or regulation will prevent people from doing bad.

They will have to build this drone themselves in the first place.

Regulating "bad guys" is futile and even politicians aren't dumb enough to think otherwise. What such regulations really target is manufacturers of off the shelf solutions. I bet it's going to become illegal to sell drones that aren't backdoored by the government.

See WiFi - the FCC got tired of hunting people who modify their gear for higher TX power and instead banned devices that accept modified firmwares.

[LaserSteve]

I filed my comments. I also noted the cellular packet data  idea is really BAD. I also mentioned that there is a reserved band at 5 Ghz for transportation communications that is 1. International in two of the three ITU  world regions, , and 2. Currently Unused.    However in the US, cellular companies are lusting and lobbying for that spectrum  to be reassigned.

In my case I argued for a STEM education exemption as I work at a University that has a model aircraft design  competition  team.  I'd hate to see students loose access to  any kind of pre-professional competition, as many of them really benefit from an exposure to actual design and hands on skills. 

I also suggested a  separate rule  for models that do not have a  INS, GPS, or Camera, basically for the old school types like me..   I also argued for flight on private property for models at 400 feet max altitude and 1000 foot LOS radius.  With the opportunity to request a waiver for larger/higher.  The way I read the proposal was restriction to a 400 foot cube.

Thirty four thousand comments, mostly against new rules  from what I have read,  and climbing.  Just now the NPRM is getting generic press notice.

Getting 34K people to mostly agree on anything other then pizza or Chinese takeout is tasty is amazing.

Steve

[beanflying]

As I hinted in my other post, I think it may just be a preliminary step to prepare for a world where drones (and otherwise flying devices) could become much more ubiquitous than they currently are - not to address the current situation, which indeed doesn't pose any significant problem at the moment.

So how far up do you "own" the airspace above your house or land? If an Amazon drone decides to fly over my property to fulfill a delivery, do they have to pay me? Do I have the option to use it for target practice? 

The simple answer in most countries you don't own any airspace.

Rules for overflying private property are a country by country thing but in Oz providing you conform to the relevant ANO (Air navigation order) for the R/C aircraft or Drone (I draw a real distinction between the two and I own both) it is absolutely ok to do so. HOWEVER what is not OK is to invade the privacy of people in that property and that is where the rise of Drone usage in particular idiot owners of them has caused the need for increased regulation. In Oz my Drones or R/C aircraft are LEGAL so shooting one down would be illegal not that we generally have that sort of issue. Even if one of my airframes came down on private property it remains mine and 'legally' I can retrieve it and if the property owner refuses then they would be effectively at fault. But the simple answer is you shouldn't be over private property if you can't clear that property if it goes wrong and it does.

Way back in time well over thirty years ago when I started flying R/C usage was in the main constrained to registered flying fields and was very much a Hobby as the airframes were scratch built from plans or 'sometimes' from a kit for those who could afford them. The exception to this was those of us who flew Gliders as we tended to hang out on Hills and Cliffs ridge soaring. Come forward 30 years and MOST now buy ready to fly or maybe screw the gear in airframes and almost no one builds from plans or from scratch and unassembled kits are as rare as rocking horse poop and cost more than prebuilt RTF airframes.

Add to this ease of access has seen a major decline in numbers joining these formally peak national bodies so by number they clout with National Governments is in decline.  This apart from cheaper access came about with the increase in Electric Aircraft has made it noise friendly enough that you could drop down toy your local park and have a fly without upsetting the noise sensitive ears of the neighbors. That said I have had a noise complaint and the Police dropped around when I was flying an Unpowered Glider from a Bungy launch

This get online and buy a cool thing because you can afford it doesn't give the numpty allegedly in control any clues on weather or what happens if or how should I behave around people, buildings etc so Governments who in the main used to reply on input from the R/C bodies have decided to go draconian whenever possible. Canada was last year brought in one of the most kneejerk set of dumbass regulations in the World not sure if it has been moderated at all since?

Like a lot of things in this world banning or tightly controlling them is easier than seeking a workable compromise or extending a former compromise that is/was decades old 

The excuse of it will stop the bad guys is more than ever  you can buy a RTF unit already built that is not DJI or GPS locked strap an exploding rock to it and off you go. If you are really serious about doing harm from a distance you would use fixed wing (much higher speed and payload for way less $) and fly line of sight with that rock. 100MPH+ 2-3kg of exploding Rock and accurate at 500-1000m for a few hundred $ without a GPS on low frequency AM or FM and no where near the current Drone jamming gears range. This is where some of the fear and smear merchants and media just don't get it. This sort of device is decades old and harder to stop than a 'Drone'.

Sorry for being a bit long winded but why we are now here is the result of where we used to be and so called 'progress'

Good Luck to the USA mob if it passes I am sure our turn will come soon after 

[LaserSteve]

So I spend much of the night realizing my 7400 word essay was overkill, although the proposal within was very logical except for the backhaul.  I read about thirty pages of the comments.   I even came up with a term for non INS/GPS based models  vs over the horizon capable drones. My term was "Traditional Model Aircraft".   Imagine my surprise when I came across the attached Gem of a comment from a former FAA employee...

Enjoy...  Its a public document by nature of being submitted...

Steve

[SiliconWizard]

As I hinted in my other post, I think it may just be a preliminary step to prepare for a world where drones (and otherwise flying devices) could become much more ubiquitous than they currently are - not to address the current situation, which indeed doesn't pose any significant problem at the moment.

So how far up do you "own" the airspace above your house or land? If an Amazon drone decides to fly over my property to fulfill a delivery, do they have to pay me? Do I have the option to use it for target practice? 

The simple answer in most countries you don't own any airspace.

Yup...
This is a very nasty topic actually, a HUGE can of worms.

If your neighbour flies a drone over your house, neither of you owns the airspace, but you can have them stop it for the annoyance: noise, potential risk, and invading your privacy if the thing has a camera.

Now if a private or public company has gotten official authorization to fly over your house, there's probably very little you can do about it.
You can probably try the same as above: sue them for the annoyance - if you can prove it's really an annoyance, which may not be that easy to do once some laws have changed - but not for violating your property.

As to exactly how much height above ground you "own" (that is considered part of your property), I guess it depends on local regulations, and I admit I have no clue. Is it the top of your tallest tree if you have trees? Is it the top of your roof? Dunno.

[angrybird]

Actually, not even a company can fly over your house if they are using a camera (and better yet, a microphone) that can see more than the naked eye can easily see from a commercial aircraft as this would fall under privacy and eavesdropping laws.  The only reason we haven't seen (many) lawsuits over the satellite imagry available online is because the resultion is poor enough that the argument can be made that anything visible in those satellite pictures would be visible from a commercial aircraft in controlled airspace to the naked eye.  There won't ever be any "satellite voyeurism" with google earth, looking into people's windows and backyard fenced in pools.

Mark my words, if the industry blindly moves forward with this pipe dream and commercial drones start flying over private property, they are going to have so many "drone shot out of the sky" cases to investigate and attempt to prosecute that they will be busy for decades.  People will quickly wise up to the fact that Amazon drones have "stuff" on them, and the criminals who are shoplifting now will be knocking drones down later. 

As far as private property, you don't fly a drone or any other UAV over private property without permission from the owner.  You just don't.  If you do, next thing you're liable to hear is BANG and your UAV is falling out of the sky.  Does the UAV have a camera?  You have likely violated reasonable expectation of privacy and can be charged with both criminal and civil crimes over this.  Don't make the argument that "oh, I think it is is illegal to shoot down drones" because people don't care - At least half of us are wise enough to understand what tyranny is and I'm pretty sure half of the USA is about read to start shooting over it!

While it is true that Americans have given some leeway to utility companies to run power/water/etc lines over/under their private property, the drone thing is a different situation and we are already at (and even past) the "enough is enough" level.  Politicians won't even try to address the out of control costs in the healthcare industry, yet they want to legislate for drones over your home?  Ha!  This is a comedy