Here is a great synopsis of the newly released NPR for UAS and Remote ID.  


You will defintely be glad you have a sub-250gr drone.  Anything else will require internet connections to fly or connection to a USS, otherwise grounded.  The hobby for >250gr drones is getting a MAJOR change if/when adapted in a few years.  Please don't comment until you view or understand.


Long but you need to view.  Greg a Pilot Institute is great.  I have taken his 107 course.




Bob

Man, you weren't kidding when you said long video.  However, he did a fantastic job of providing a brief synopsis of the key points that will have an effect on drone flyers in the future.  I know some of the information will change but as it is currently proposed it is a huge change with lots of negative effects and only a few positive ones.  Thanks for sharing.

There are a few things that I don't like about this. Being available to the general public is one of those things. I don't like the idea of someone that either doesn't like drones being able to just pull me up doing a legal flight and possibly harrassing me over it. The thoughts of some nafarious type using the information to come and assault me and rob me. Also the thoughts of an over zealous law enforcement officer could cause issues. There are other issues like how to handle dropped cell phone data connection. Requiring a connection to an USS at all times? If your USS server is down, your grounded??? I could go on with a few more but I'll wrap this up by saying we really need to voice our opinions when that window opens up.

JodyB, I'm already working up some rough notes of things I feel strongly need to be covered when I input my comments.  My problem will be keeping my comments respectful in nature.  LOL.  But as you pointed out there are some huge privacy issues being opened up with these proposals. LEOs have enough on their plates without having to be FAA cops also.  Anyway, just my feeling on the matter.

The places with no cell signal is not the problem areas of drone fying. Be ready for the idiots of the general public to litterally go out drone hunting. They will know exactly where to attack. No matter which plan of the three you fall into. This entire mess will only funnel more drones into cell signal areas and creat a bigger problem. They need to exemp obvious areas that are of no threat to anyone. With that and the already 400 foot ceiling. As for the areal only to fly the drones a 400 ft radius, that alone will compact drone fying to several people in one tiny location. then you will have access fees, reservations to fly for said amount of time only. In the end, This will cripple the drone manufacturers. Who in their right mind will buy another 2000 dollar drone when you can only fly it around major metropolitan locations. I read a year or so ago, DJI drones already had the technology in place for this when they were asked about the idea of an ID system.

Old news....

DowntownRDB Posted at 12-27 11:50
JodyB, I'm already working up some rough notes of things I feel strongly need to be covered when I input my comments.  My problem will be keeping my comments respectful in nature.  LOL.  But as you pointed out there are some huge privacy issues being opened up with these proposals. LEOs have enough on their plates without having to be FAA cops also.  Anyway, just my feeling on the matter.

I am 100% with you man. Some of the areas I love to fly and there is no one ever around besides me, has no cell reception. That kind of rules out a lot of places I frequent that are of no consequence to anyone else as well. If this thing passes into fruition the way it is, I won't be able to fly any other drone than the mini. I will have to prepare my statement well in advance to the window opening up or I will be in the same boat with being respectful. I sure don't want it to be a knee jerk statement.

Typical government way of doing business. Put completely insane regulations on something and then tax it to make money.

If, as he says, this stuff is four years or so down-the-line, then I wonder if the building satellite networks a la Space X and Amazon, etc., will bring the wireless connection requirement issue for RID down to a very manageable minority. Once those networks are active, I've read, that really only .5% of the world population will be without access.

Definitely have some ideas though about this so far that I will be volunteering for the NPRM.

Thanks for the post!

The internet connection requirement is pure nonsense, as are many aspects of these regulations. Under the currently proposed rules there would be no legal way for me to fly at 90% of the locations I visit to capture photos and videos. It really just runs roughshod over individuals and small businesses using drones in order to cater to Amazon and other big companies looking to implement large scale automated systems. The internet connection requirement should be scrapped entirely, as should the requirement that manufacturers build the capability into their drones. The beacon should be a simple radio identifier that can be attached to a drone when necessary to enable legal operation in certain circumstances. Everyone really needs to jump on this and get their comments in.

JPilotR Posted at 12-27 13:55
If, as he says, this stuff is four years or so down-the-line, then I wonder if the building satellite networks a la Space X and Amazon, etc., will bring the wireless connection requirement issue for RID down to a very manageable minority. Once those networks are active, I've read, that really only .5% of the world population will be without access.

Definitely have some ideas though about this so far that I will be volunteering for the NPRM.

I don't know how mobile those services are going to be, or how expensive. Even if they are as affordably priced as promised, it is crazy to make a mobile internet connection a requirement to fly a UAV.

DowntownRDB Posted at 12-27 11:50
JodyB, I'm already working up some rough notes of things I feel strongly need to be covered when I input my comments.  My problem will be keeping my comments respectful in nature.  LOL.  But as you pointed out there are some huge privacy issues being opened up with these proposals. LEOs have enough on their plates without having to be FAA cops also.  Anyway, just my feeling on the matter.

Suggest you read FAA's actual proposed rules on drone Remote ID "Here"; before sending your thoughts to FAA.  


My take is FAA's regulation plans call for drones to be assigned a unique Remote ID, which would be different from current drone FAA number and pilot's ID.  Only FAA, LEOs, and tasked Security agencies would be able to equate Remote ID to the drone's FAA number or pilot's ID; leading to pilot's private information like name and address.

Any access of Remote ID database by aforementioned Officials would be supposedly logged.  In reality we know several USA agencies would have non-logged access.

On subject of commenting to FAA...

A potential privacy-security concern is Remote ID being sent in clear (not encrypted) and Remote ID being static (does not change based on time or location).  Allowing for nefarious individuals to receive Remote ID via RF transmissions, and use transmission to find the drone's pilot.  A drone pilot who is vulnerable in that he/she is flying by VLOS and concentrating on flying.  Making individual vulnerable to assault (drone hating villigante) and/or robbery.  


As other members have said...
FAA's proposed rule on drone Remote ID is being pushed, even though no one has been killed by a drone.  Setting aside, those killed by Government flown drones.

Paul_IA Posted at 12-27 13:03
Typical government way of doing business. Put completely insane regulations on something and then tax it to make money.

Or...
When there isn't a problem, create a problem, F.U.D. problem into a crisis, get public scared into demanding something - anything be done; then create inane regulations that increase size and scope of Big-brother; justifying need for budget increase; leading to another Tax.

It’s hard to believe that Hedgetrimmer, he’s just been on another thread saying there are no FAA PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION, he has also been on more than 3 threads telling all that there is no point in lobbying the FAA regarding this, in fact he goes as far as to say that all users should ignore FAA and lobby the dji, I can only think he thought dji were bringing these rules out LMAO, however I once again brought it to his attention that FAA HAVE BROUGHT NEW RULES UP FOR DISCUSSION, and the particular part that matters to users is the proposals by the FAA to divulge users information and their insistence on manufacturers to come up with the necessary to apply this.
Mr Hedgetrimmer got this completely wrong when he said on numerous threads on this forum that the FAA ha no intention of bringing this up, it seems strange that he would now turn full circle and agree with all that members video productions and dji were trying to say to him, he just plain got everything wrong , I’m amazed at his turnaround, but if it means he now fully agrees with me that all members users drone flyers lobby the FAA and voice their concern particularly in the event of the FAA PUTTING DRONE FLYERS AT RISK, this would in my mind be a travesty and a clear breech of citizens privacy and I don’t believe any 1st world government agency should be allowed get away with .

hallmark007 Posted at 12-28 00:56
It’s hard to believe that Hedgetrimmer, he’s just been on another thread saying there are no FAA PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION, he has also been on more than 3 threads telling all that there is no point in lobbying the FAA regarding this, in fact he goes as far as to say that all users should ignore FAA and lobby the dji, I can only think he thought dji were bringing these rules out LMAO, however I once again brought it to his attention that FAA HAVE BROUGHT NEW RULES UP FOR DISCUSSION, and the particular part that matters to users is the proposals by the FAA to divulge users information and their insistence on manufacturers to come up with the necessary to apply this.
Mr Hedgetrimmer got this completely wrong when he said on numerous threads on this forum that the FAA ha no intention of bringing this up, it seems strange that he would now turn full circle and agree with all that members video productions and dji were trying to say to him, he just plain got everything wrong , I’m amazed at his turnaround, but if it means he now fully agrees with me that all members users drone flyers lobby the FAA and voice their concern particularly in the event of the FAA PUTTING DRONE FLYERS AT RISK, this would in my mind be a travesty and a clear breech of citizens privacy and I don’t believe any 1st world government agency should be allowed get away with .

Yes, this is why the FAA produced this document. It is an NPR at the moment. A window of time will be open to allow us to voice our opinions. That includes folks like us that believe it needs to be changed from it's current status to something that protects drone flyers as well to those that think it should be tighter. Everyone will have an opportunity to have a voice and we better take advantage of it unless we want only fly drones like the mini for the time being. I say that because at this rate, the <250 gr mark will probably change to encompass any kind of drone no matter how little it weighs. Just my opinion on the latter but I feel that anyone and everyone that is able, voice their opinions when the window is opened.

JodyB Posted at 12-28 01:11
Yes, this is why the FAA produced this document. It is an NPR at the moment. A window of time will be open to allow us to voice our opinions. That includes folks like us that believe it needs to be changed from it's current status to something that protects drone flyers as well to those that think it should be tighter. Everyone will have an opportunity to have a voice and we better take advantage of it unless we want only fly drones like the mini for the time being. I say that because at this rate, the

I fully agree, I think as dji have said the FAA has changed its mind on proposed rules and hopefully they will again .

I have watched him often, he has a wealth of knowledge particularly regarding the FAA and I know he will try to get as many to lobby FAA as possible .

hallmark007 Posted at 12-28 01:14
I fully agree, I think as dji have said the FAA has changed its mind on proposed rules and hopefully they will again .

Yes, the FAA has been known to change things with enough public out cry

hallmark007 Posted at 12-28 00:56
It’s hard to believe that Hedgetrimmer, he’s just been on another thread saying there are no FAA PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION, he has also been on more than 3 threads telling all that there is no point in lobbying the FAA regarding this, in fact he goes as far as to say that all users should ignore FAA and lobby the dji, I can only think he thought dji were bringing these rules out LMAO, however I once again brought it to his attention that FAA HAVE BROUGHT NEW RULES UP FOR DISCUSSION, and the particular part that matters to users is the proposals by the FAA to divulge users information and their insistence on manufacturers to come up with the necessary to apply this.
Mr Hedgetrimmer got this completely wrong when he said on numerous threads on this forum that the FAA ha no intention of bringing this up, it seems strange that he would now turn full circle and agree with all that members video productions and dji were trying to say to him, he just plain got everything wrong , I’m amazed at his turnaround, but if it means he now fully agrees with me that all members users drone flyers lobby the FAA and voice their concern particularly in the event of the FAA PUTTING DRONE FLYERS AT RISK, this would in my mind be a travesty and a clear breech of citizens privacy and I don’t believe any 1st world government agency should be allowed get away with .

Hard to believe you are allowed to continue Troll forum members with your repeated  false accusations, blatant lies, and person insults; in clear violation of forum rules.

hallmark007 Posted at 12-28 00:56
It’s hard to believe that Hedgetrimmer, he’s just been on another thread saying there are no FAA PROPOSALS FOR DISCUSSION, he has also been on more than 3 threads telling all that there is no point in lobbying the FAA regarding this, in fact he goes as far as to say that all users should ignore FAA and lobby the dji, I can only think he thought dji were bringing these rules out LMAO, however I once again brought it to his attention that FAA HAVE BROUGHT NEW RULES UP FOR DISCUSSION, and the particular part that matters to users is the proposals by the FAA to divulge users information and their insistence on manufacturers to come up with the necessary to apply this.
Mr Hedgetrimmer got this completely wrong when he said on numerous threads on this forum that the FAA ha no intention of bringing this up, it seems strange that he would now turn full circle and agree with all that members video productions and dji were trying to say to him, he just plain got everything wrong , I’m amazed at his turnaround, but if it means he now fully agrees with me that all members users drone flyers lobby the FAA and voice their concern particularly in the event of the FAA PUTTING DRONE FLYERS AT RISK, this would in my mind be a travesty and a clear breech of citizens privacy and I don’t believe any 1st world government agency should be allowed get away with .

hallmarkk007 - "but if it means he now fully agrees with me that all members users drone flyers lobby the FAA and voice their concern particularly in the event of the FAA PUTTING DRONE FLYERS AT RISK,"

Oh please, DJI fanboy.  Knock off the hollier than thou B.ellowing of S.moke.  


Anybody reading FAA's proposal can see FAA is concerned about drone pilots privacy, and are not trying to put drone pilots at risk.  Why do you continue ignore (or conviently bury); FAA's original call was for Remote ID to be avaiable to FAA, Law Enforcement, and Federal agencies charged with Security, and FAA said nothing about making drone pilot information avaiable to public?

When it was DJI who demoed, before any rules were proposed by FAA, a Free to Public App that would provide drone flight information and pilot location information.  


Seriously, why do you keep misleading people and lying about people?

In the last 24HRS Bruce Simpson (RCModelReviews and Xjet) has uploaded a rant about this with some counter arguments.



Regards

Nidge

It looks like somebody didn’t watch the the OP’s video, but will comment anyway , it’s clear from what dji have said and the video author has very clearly explained that indeed it is the FAA who are proposing to implement divulging users information.
Is hedge trimmers calling the guy in the vide A LIAR .
I think most will see these rules are coming from FAA and not dji as is being portrayed .

It beggars belief that anyone would come on here and say the FAA is out to protect users given the extent these rules are going to directly effect all users, it’s actually insulting to all users to say anything even close to that, and although hedge trimmers is asking not to lobby FAA but lobby dji, this would be a mistake.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-28 00:15
Or...
When there isn't a problem, create a problem, F.U.D. problem into a crisis, get public scared into demanding something - anything be done; then create inane regulations that increase size and scope of Big-brother; justifying need for budget increase; leading to another Tax.

Amen to that brother. Well said.

Hello and good day Bob. Thank you for reaching out and for sharing this informative video with us. These information/video will be very big help to all of us drone enthusiast and thank you for your support.

I think this equivocally clears the matter regarding whether the FAA intends to give out users information. page 116 ......

hallmark007 Posted at 12-28 15:55
I think this equivocally clears the matter regarding whether the FAA intends to give out users information.[view_image][view_image] page 116 ......

Read what is below what you squared out.  Then read proceeding couple of pages to understand and comprehend context of what you squared out.

Especially where FAA makes it clear, that personal / private information of drone Pilot will not be made Public via Remote ID.

"The FAA envisions it would facilitate near real-time access to the remote identification message elements (paired with certain registration data, when necessary) for accredited and verified law enforcement and Federal security partners."

Accredited and verified law enforcement and Federal security partners is not the Public.


As I stated in another post, suggest even drone's Remote ID should not be sent in clear to where general public can read it.  

Could anybody take this guy serious, even in black and white he can’t accept he’s wrong , I think myself it’s the drink, he says in above post there is no mention anywhere in this document that mentions public and yet I’ve shown him and he is still denying it’s there OMG what does it take to shake this guy off incredible .
Show us where it says public will not see any information show me where it says exactly this not your BS above which refers to something totally different .

From pilot institute. Are these leading everyone astray and lying .

I think Hedgetrimmer has consistently said that divulging users information was beneficial to dji and it was dji that were pioneering this , well he’s completely wrong , this was all at the behest of the FAA , dji have just recently published their white paper proposals they offered up in 2017 and it’s very clear they were clearly on the side of their customers and protection of their customers privacy was foremost on their agenda, in fact if you read this white paper and compare it with this rubbish FAA document you will see that dji was firmly trying to support their users, it a document that’s worth reading simply because it makes perfect sense and offered a much more sensible approach than the FAA new NPRM proposals.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4lkyr ... %203-22-17.pdf?dl=0

hallmark007 Posted at 12-28 18:32
I think Hedgetrimmer has consistently said that divulging users information was beneficial to dji and it was dji that were pioneering this , well he’s completely wrong , this was all at the behest of the FAA , dji have just recently published their white paper proposals they offered up in 2017 and it’s very clear they were clearly on the side of their customers and protection of their customers privacy was foremost on their agenda, in fact if you read this white paper and compare it with this rubbish FAA document you will see that dji was firmly trying to support their users, it a document that’s worth reading simply because it makes perfect sense and offered a much more sensible approach than the FAA new NPRM proposals.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v4lkyr ... %203-22-17.pdf?dl=0

There you go again, putting words in other people's mouths.
And there you go again, attacking forum members with made up B.lowing S.moke.

While ignoring DJI's News release: "Using a simple app, anyone within radio range of the drone can receive that signal and learn the location, altitude, speed and direction of the drone, as well as an identification number for the drone and the location of the pilot."

Question is why do you keep defending DJI, which went further than what FAA suggested broadcasting Remote ID;

while attacking FAA for staying with what they suggested?

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-28 19:45
There you go again, putting words in other people's mouths.
And there you go again, attacking forum members with made up B.lowing S.moke.

I showed you djis statement, the built an app at the behest of the FAA,

I will post again extract from statement where FAA URGED MANUFACTURERS TO DEVELOP VOLUNTARY ID SYSTEMS.
So pretty simple FAA asks dji to build a system that they can use to work with there arbitrary rules, they then print their rules for proposals with exactly what dji said would be in them.
Your defense of the FAA on this is laughable in the face of all proof that’s staring you in the face.

You said FAA wouldn’t bring in this and I have clearly pointed that they did .

Aviation regulators in many countries are moving to require remote ID systems for drones as a solution to concerns about drone safety and security. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has said it will release a mandatory remote ID proposal by the end of this year. The rulemaking process will take more than a year to complete, but an FAA industry committee has URGED manufacturers to develop voluntary remote ID systems in the interim. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) will impose remote ID requirements in July 2020. The app and the associated drone firmware updates used for DJI’s demonstration this week are NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE, pending further direction from AVAITION REGULATORS  and final publication of the ASTM International standard.

Regardless of being FAA or DJI, broadcasting pilots info is not cool, unless is certain areas and by "security" agencies.

InspektorGadjet Posted at 12-29 02:08
Regardless of being FAA or DJI, broadcasting pilots info is not cool, unless is certain areas and by "security" agencies.

I fully agree, but it looks like a done deal if lobbying the FAA doesn’t work, dji has already said it would not divulge any information about users unless requested by FAA .

hallmark007 Posted at 12-29 06:22
I fully agree, but it looks like a done deal if lobbying the FAA doesn’t work, dji has already said it would not divulge any information about users unless requested by FAA .

Privacy in Europe is a more delicate subject than other areas, I hope laws like GDPR will protect at least some of us, but I may be wrong... We have already given enough privacy away.

InspektorGadjet Posted at 12-29 09:29
Privacy in Europe is a more delicate subject than other areas, I hope laws like GDPR will protect at least some of us, but I may be wrong... We have already given enough privacy away.

I think bringing in GDPR Was a big step for Europe and it will serve us well .

hallmark007 Posted at 12-29 09:38
I think bringing in GDPR Was a big step for Europe and it will serve us well .

Yep, I must say at first was a real pain... I make websites and it is a big deal most customers dont wanna hear... but is here to stay and I must say is a good thing.

hallmark007 Posted at 12-29 01:49
I showed you djis statement, the built an app at the behest of the FAA,

I will post again extract from statement where FAA URGED MANUFACTURERS TO DEVELOP VOLUNTARY ID SYSTEMS.

Why did you conveniently leave out what FAA said needed to be sent and to whom vs. what DJI demonstrated?

FAA rejects recommendations from ARC and dji to opt for much stricter rules including giving out users location and flight details, you can read djis white paper above and video here explains all, the FAA have clearly dumped on the drone community and it needs all members here to object in the strongest terms from 1st of January.
I think everyone can makeup their own mind who pushed what on who. Go to the FAA and make your feelings known.

Waste.Of.Time.

The Saint Posted at 12-29 11:34
Waste.Of.Time.

Well they have been forced to change their minds before, I wonder why those who obviously don’t care want to try bring things down to their level, get behind something , you just never know how people power can change the minds of officials .

hallmark007 Posted at 12-29 11:49
Well they have been forced to change their minds before, I wonder why those who obviously don’t care want to try bring things down to their level, get behind something , you just never know how people power can change the minds of officials .

of course i care, probably too much.  but my fellow pilots didn't care enough in the beginning and now i believe it is too late to fight from a position of disadvantage.  there is no organization to help promote or advance the cause, there is no law or amendment to protect your rights, and there is division about the pilot community that effectively prevents a united front.  time and time again we are told flying is a privilege and you shall do as you are told.  in a democracy, we call that a total loss when it comes to winning the war; you might win a few battles here and there but when you allow national security and safety, privacy, and the rights of the majority to enter in the equation, you stand no chance.  you're on the winning side if you believe registration = confiscation, you're on the winning side if you believe flying still have rights, and you're on the winning side if you demand the people tell the government what to do and not the other way around.  this is what it means to be a free american and right now, we don't have that; we're not even close.  hate to bring this up but take a page from the gun rights group, see how it's done.  but as long as we have people that don't mind caving in on the principles and compromising on their rights and aren't interested in keeping their government accountable, maybe it's better to live to fight another day.