If you're like me and feel the proposed FAA regulations isn't hitting the mark, you can now voice your opinion with comments. I would suggest that you voice your opinion on these proposed regulations, but please, make sure that if you do, your comments are professional and considerate. I had to think a little while on my comments just to keep them under control, lol. Here is the link, click the green submit a formal comment button and let your voice be heard!!

Remote Identification of UAS

EDIT: Fixed link

Hello and good day JodyB. Thank you for reaching out and for sharing this link with us. I hope that most of our DJI co pilots will participate with regards to this matter. Thank you.

Just a thought.  I was talking to a friend about this that fly's a different brand drone.  His isn't Geo Fenced like dji.  He asked me, so your upset that your own country might pass rules you don't like but are perfectly happy to let a company in a another country (I won't address all that involves) decide where you can fly your drone?  I'm fairly new to drones but in reading all the hoops folks have to jump through to fly in a Blue Zone, that don't seem to work all the time, I kind of see his point.

I really enjoy flying the Mini but I am glad I am not too invested in the brand to maybe explore another.  I would add to the contacting the FAA maybe we should be contacting DJI for some change also.

Just Bill Posted at 1-6 09:36
Just a thought.  I was talking to a friend about this that fly's a different brand drone.  His isn't Geo Fenced like dji.  He asked me, so your upset that your own country might pass rules you don't like but are perfectly happy to let a company in a another country (I won't address all that involves) decide where you can fly your drone?  I'm fairly new to drones but in reading all the hoops folks have to jump through to fly in a Blue Zone, that don't seem to work all the time, I kind of see his point.

I really enjoy flying the Mini but I am glad I am not too invested in the brand to maybe explore another.  I would add to the contacting the FAA maybe we should be contacting DJI for some change also.

I agree. It comes from both sides of the fence. And yes, parts of what they are proposing is a little concerning to me and I am sure, others. I am merely bringing attention to the fact that the window is open for those that want to voice their opinion and that are under the jurisdiction of the FAA, to do so should they choose too. I know it's a hot topic for a lot of folks. And I think we all know how to voice our opinions to DJI already and I have done so as well. I encourage anyone that feels similar to do so, on both accounts.

And for the record, if your friends un-geo-fenced drone doesn't comply with the regulations, if they pass as is, and doesn't comply with RID, note the initials there, he will be restricted to an FAA mandated field and limited to 400' in any direction. Or fly rogue.

JodyB Posted at 1-6 09:41
I agree. It comes from both sides of the fence. And yes, parts of what they are proposing is a little concerning to me and I am sure, others. I am merely bringing attention to the fact that the window is open for those that want to voice their opinion and that are under the jurisdiction of the FAA, to do so should they choose too. I know it's a hot topic for a lot of folks. And I think we all know how to voice our opinions to DJI already and I have done so as well. I encourage anyone that feels similar to do so, on both accounts.

And for the record, if your friends un-geo-fenced drone doesn't comply with the regulations, if they pass as is, and doesn't comply with RID, note the initials there, he will be restricted to an FAA mandated field and limited to 400' in any direction. Or fly rogue.

You are correct.  Leave it to the government to place more restrictions on a 2 pound drone than a powered hang glider!  But if you think about it, if they tax, I mean place a fee on, drones there are so many more of them the return will be large and worth while to them.  Fly safe and have fun!!

I was waiting on the comment window to open. Thanks for sharing JodyB.  I did also take time to make sure my comments were professional.  Hopefully, the FAA will hear enough to consider changing a few of the proposed rules, especially those that bring about some huge privacy issues.

DowntownRDB Posted at 1-6 12:28
I was waiting on the comment window to open. Thanks for sharing JodyB.  I did also take time to make sure my comments were professional.  Hopefully, the FAA will hear enough to consider changing a few of the proposed rules, especially those that bring about some huge privacy issues.

Fully agree with you DowntownRDB. I hope everyone gets a chance to voice their opinions!!

JodyB Posted at 1-6 12:31
Fully agree with you DowntownRDB. I hope everyone gets a chance to voice their opinions!!

I did notice when I posted my comments that there are over 1,670 comments already entered.  

DowntownRDB Posted at 1-6 13:00
I did notice when I posted my comments that there are over 1,670 comments already entered.

One of them mine.  I hope you don't mind.  I have borrowed your idea and on any drone type videos I watch on the YT I make a comment urging others to go to the link above and write a thoughtful comment.  ATB, Bill

DowntownRDB Posted at 1-6 13:00
I did notice when I posted my comments that there are over 1,670 comments already entered.

Thats awesome, but I think we need more to make a difference.

If you have been involved with the biggest drone-related discussion forum in the world you would know that those screaming the loudest are pretty much the same bozos who have been posting all of their illegal exploits, including “range tests” where they fly BVLOS and boasting about how the VLOS rule doesn’t apply to them.

Facebook and YouTube are a couple of other places that are loaded down with all sorts of rubbish exhibiting just how irresponsible and reckless a seemingly significant proportion of the recreational drone flying community happens to be.
And don’t you dare even remind them about the FAA regulations because you will be instantly branded a member of the dreaded Drone Police. Seriously? The FAA has never seen any of this stuff?

I hate saying “I told you something like this would happen” but now it HAS happened, and the “sovereign citizens” referred to above, one could argue, are significantly culpable. I’m not suggesting that the large stakeholders such as Amazon and Uber are not major influencers but, I believe the proposal would be a different, less draconian, animal if the recreational drone flyers were perceived as a responsible, law-abiding group of enthusiasts. That clearly is not the case.

Now would be a good time to stop opening advertising stupidity and recklessness and start obeying the law. Maybe if we clean up our act the FAA will notice an improvement over the next 2 or 3 years and relax the proposed rules accordingly.

If I perceive everyone as a law breaker, does that make it so? Absolutely not. Makes me think of a television show I watched once where a police officer was in a bar and someone asked if there was something wrong, he said no, he was just wondering what everyone there was guilty of and just hadn't been caught at yet.  There are only parts of the regulations that I would like to see changed for the better. If we don't advertise it, then no one would have a chance to voice their opinions, for or against the regs. The biggest thing I see that I personally would like to see changed, public access to this system of remote identification. I just don't want mugged or otherwise confronted by someone who just don't like drones. Otherwise I do believe there needs to be enforcement. But, the way these proposed regulations read, it may make BVLOS a possibility. That being said, there needs to be regulations, just ones that protect everyone involved.

In regard to one's perception as to the breaking of the law, it's about how the general public and the airspace regulators perceive the recreational drone flying community in general.  The negative press and the rubbish being posted on various social platforms are the main contributors here. We all know that not ALL and not even the majority of drone flyers are at fault here but the old adage, "the few bad apples spoil the barrel" applies well to this situation.

Stop with the posting of videos of 3-mile range tests (without strobes) or ascending through cloud base. Stop with the anti-government rants - have you read some of the submissions so far submitted to the FAA?   It's a total disaster - the guys at the FAA must be shaking their heads in disgust.  Meanwhile, the Ubers and the Amazons are delghted to see the recreational flyers digging their own graves.

Furthermore, DJI should be commended for working with the airspace regulators on stuff like geo-fencing and height-limiting but they are constantly attacked for doing so.

Well you seem to be missing the point of my post. Which is voice “your” opinion. For it or against it. Everybody needs equal opportunity. I applaud your effort to try and sway me and use this post as a platform but that isn’t what this is for. It’s about mine and everybody else’s right to voice their opinion to the FAA. Nothing more. In my original post I never said the FAA is doing bad things speak out against it. I just have issue with a certain few things and I voiced my opinion on those particular things. I’ve said my peace and what comes of it now is out of my hands. You have the right to your opinion and I’m not trying to shove my views down your throat either. Safe flying!!

jodyB, Apologies. Do you know if there is another more general thread related to the FAA proposal on this forum?
Edit: Strike that - I just found one.

crystal-pete Posted at 1-6 14:15
In regard to one's perception as to the breaking of the law, it's about how the general public and the airspace regulators perceive the recreational drone flying community in general.  The negative press and the rubbish being posted on various social platforms are the main contributors here. We all know that not ALL and not even the majority of drone flyers are at fault here but the old adage, "the few bad apples spoil the barrel" applies well to this situation.

Stop with the posting of videos of 3-mile range tests (without strobes) or ascending through cloud base. Stop with the anti-government rants - have you read some of the submissions so far submitted to the FAA?   It's a total disaster - the guys at the FAA must be shaking their heads in disgust.  Meanwhile, the Ubers and the Amazons are delghted to see the recreational flyers digging their own graves.

I just spent about 30 minutes reading many comments on the FAA website.  First, I saw a concerted effort by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) who must have sent out a templated letter for their members to submit because I saw several dozens submitted with identical verbage.  Unfortunately, I saw several comments by AMA members saying that they are being penalized because of "Drone Flyers" indiscretions in flying.  Those few comments told the FAA to leave them alone and not change anything for them but to put it all on "drones".  

I did see a lot of valid points about lack of internet/cell service in rural areas being an issue, especially where that is a great place to fly with good scenery and away from most other air traffic.  Many comments dealt with privacy issues. Others with cost and subscriptions.

Not sure which Contractor the FAA will hire to scan through the comments so who know what will become of them.  Hopefully they will consider some of the constructive inputs, especially for those that gave valid recommendations.  I guess only time will tell.

My understanding so far on this NPRM is that it would hurt the industry, violate our privacy, and is technically breaking federal law 50 US Code 1801 subsection 101 (foreign intelligence surveillance act). The collection of radio comms from US citizens is not allowed without a warrant.

Plus a length restriction of 400ft distance, a monthly subscription that we’d all have to pay plus data coverage/charges. Not to mention the cost of FAA approved remote ID tech, especially for all the FPV builders out there.

Why can’t the NPRM use the broadcast based system that DJI has ALREADY designed? It’s a “license plate in the sky” that already exists! We wouldn’t have to pay any more money, most of the drones that we already fly will already work in the system, and it provides pilots with privacy. Instead, the NPRM wants to use network(internet) based which opens up a new can of problems. The NPRM would make it possible for the public to access (maybe even sell your data) all of your information, even your address. You wouldn’t want your car license plate showing your home address for all to see.

People need to fully understand the proposal before submitting their comments. There is a lot of confusion and misinformation floating around in regard to the difference between an Internet connection and the Direct Broadcast option.

For instance, low-flying manned aircraft in remote areas will be able to detect the direct broadcasts (where the internet is not available) - just like anyone on the ground.  And remember that most recent model DJI drones are already equipped with ID Broadcast capability and this could very well be the standard that is eventually adopted.

its common for lobbyists to use generalized templates for people to use. I’ve seen a couple in my email so that doesn’t surprise me. It really doesn’t surprise me that some folks from the AMA are saying such things either. Some of them probably did have bad experience with some drone operators. And I feel that is just what this window provides.
An opportunity for everyone to voice their opinions. If you don’t voice your opinion and it turns out the regs don’t go in your favor, I can’t see as you’d have anything to complain about at that point. Sad to say, with the area that I’m from, if the regs pass the way they are, I would be very selective where I fly for safety reasons.

with comments coming down on all sides of the issue, the government will have no choice but to ultimately ignore them all....which is exactly what is going to happen anyway.  I understand the symbolism behind the comment period but this isn't the first issue + comment period and ultimately I can tell you it means nothing but I guess it makes the public feel better about getting laws forced upon them.  after the comment period is over, will the faa shortly tell you what they are going to do even if it takes them years to do it?

Thank you for the Alert!  
And the Link!

The Saint Posted at 1-6 17:01
with comments coming down on all sides of the issue, the government will have no choice but to ultimately ignore them all....which is exactly what is going to happen anyway.  I understand the symbolism behind the comment period but this isn't the first issue + comment period and ultimately I can tell you it means nothing but I guess it makes the public feel better about getting laws forced upon them.  after the comment period is over, will the faa shortly tell you what they are going to do even if it takes them years to do it?

Suggested this before.   Bring some pressure to bear on FAA.  
Make sure your voice is heard by your U.S. Congressional Representatives as a voter and taxpayer.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 1-6 18:34
Suggested this before.   Bring some pressure to bear on FAA.  
Make sure your voice is heard by your U.S. Congressional Representatives as a voter and taxpayer.

I’ve done that as well!! Very good suggestion!!

The Saint Posted at 1-6 17:01
with comments coming down on all sides of the issue, the government will have no choice but to ultimately ignore them all....which is exactly what is going to happen anyway.  I understand the symbolism behind the comment period but this isn't the first issue + comment period and ultimately I can tell you it means nothing but I guess it makes the public feel better about getting laws forced upon them.  after the comment period is over, will the faa shortly tell you what they are going to do even if it takes them years to do it?

Comment anyways. Worst case scenario is you just wasted a few minutes of your time, best case scenario is that your voice is heard and the number of “no”’s is applied to the ruling. At the end of the day, this new rule will affect a lot of us negatively so your voice against it definitely matters to everyone that agrees with you.

crystal-pete Posted at 1-6 14:52
People need to fully understand the proposal before submitting their comments. There is a lot of confusion and misinformation floating around in regard to the difference between an Internet connection and the Direct Broadcast option.

For instance, low-flying manned aircraft in remote areas will be able to detect the direct broadcasts (where the internet is not available) - just like anyone on the ground.  And remember that most recent model DJI drones are already equipped with ID Broadcast capability and this could very well be the standard that is eventually adopted.

Did you read that the system that the FAA plans to use doesn’t work with our DJI’s current broadcast remote ID? It will be a big hassle for all of us here except for people with the Mavic Mini. That also includes monthly subscriptions that we will have to all pay for.

Also they are imposing a restriction of 400ft distance on top of our already existing 400 ft elevation restriction.

Thunder_Rob64 Posted at 1-6 18:55
Did you read that the system that the FAA plans to use doesn’t work with our DJI’s current broadcast remote ID? It will be a big hassle for all of us here except for people with the Mavic Mini. That also includes monthly subscriptions that we will have to all pay for.

Also they are imposing a restriction of 400ft distance on top of our already existing 400 ft elevation restriction.

Can you please refer to the page number where you read that? My understanding was that no decision had been made in regard to the ID Broadcast technology to be used. It's far too early. It was suggested that the monthly fee would be in the order of $2.50.

Also, everyone has got at least 3 years before needing to do anything. If one is a hobbyist and the hobby means a lot then buying a new compliant drone in 3 years time is no big deal. As others have suggested the biggest problem for a lot of drone flyers is that they will no longer be able to fly illegally - it will be too easy for law enforcement to catch them. And again I'm not saying that is you or anyone in particular but it is obvious what is going on. Just read through the forums, especially the ones about Range Tests - you'll see.

The 400ft distance limitation is only if your drone cannot perform direct broadcast - it's not a blanket restriction. This whole thing is a storm in a teacup with too many people seemingly incapable of understanding the proposal - either that or they are too lazy and just believe some YouTuber who was also too lazy to read the proposal and just went with the diagram that actually doesn't properly tell the full story.

crystal-pete Posted at 1-6 19:39
Can you please refer to the page number where you read that? My understanding was that no decision had been made in regard to the ID Broadcast technology to be used. It's far too early. It was suggested that the monthly fee would be in the order of $2.50.

Also, everyone has got at least 3 years before needing to do anything. If one is a hobbyist and the hobby means a lot then buying a new compliant drone in 3 years time is no big deal. As others have suggested the biggest problem for a lot of drone flyers is that they will no longer be able to fly illegally - it will be too easy for law enforcement to catch them. And again I'm not saying that is you or anyone in particular but it is obvious what is going on. Just read through the forums, especially the ones about Range Tests - you'll see.

I think you will get a flavor of this in video below, FAA have completely ignored djis white paper and ARC’s recommendations obviously with a view to going down a different road .

hallmark007 Posted at 1-7 04:31
I think you will get a flavor of this in video below, FAA have completely ignored djis white paper and ARC’s recommendations obviously with a view to going down a different road .

https://youtu.be/nReRPwwneus

Good find hallmark007.  Thanks for sharing.

hallmark007 Posted at 1-7 04:31
I think you will get a flavor of this in video below, FAA have completely ignored djis white paper and ARC’s recommendations obviously with a view to going down a different road .

https://youtu.be/nReRPwwneus

Why wouldn't a DJI firmware update take care of the requirement to broadcast the drone's serial number? This guy often gets it wrong - just another YouTuber with a big ego really. And he's another tosser bitching about having to pay a subscription fee to a USS. That's really going to break everyone's bank - NOT.

Again if you're serious about the hobby then the worst-case scenario is that you'll have to buy a drone that is compliant with the new regulations in about 3 years' time. If not then get a new hobby because none of this knee-jerk doom and gloom whining is going to make any difference to the outcome.

crystal-pete Posted at 1-7 16:30
Why wouldn't a DJI firmware update take care of the requirement to broadcast the drone's serial number? This guy often gets it wrong - just another YouTuber with a big ego really. And he's another tosser bitching about having to pay a subscription fee to a USS. That's really going to break everyone's bank - NOT.

Again if you're serious about the hobby then the worst-case scenario is that you'll have to buy a drone that is compliant with the new regulations in about 3 years' time. If not then get a new hobby because none of this knee-jerk doom and gloom whining is going to make any difference to the outcome.

Because we now know because dji has published their white paper and FAA have rejected ARC’s proposals which also advocated using technology that already existed.
Are you honestly saying that everyone on YT is reading this wrong and you are the only reading it right ?

The whole drone community are basically up in arms about this, well apart from you, I could present you with at least another 10 videos explaining exactly the same thing, in all honesty mate your pis#ing against the wind here, this is not good for a single person flying a drone .

^^c-p has one thing correct:  "...none of this knee-jerk doom and gloom whining is going to make any difference to the outcome."

hallmark007 Posted at 1-7 16:53
Because we now know because dji has published their white paper and FAA have rejected ARC’s proposals which also advocated using technology that already existed.
Are you honestly saying that everyone on YT is reading this wrong and you are the only reading it right ?

Ok so go to the mavicpilots forum - a thread called "FAA Drone-ID Proposal Round 2" and read the content posted by sar104. This guy is probably the most respected member of that forum and always puts a lot of effort into his research.

What is happening there is that the people whose arguments he is shredding simply resort to personal attacks or go off on irreverent tangents. The smart ones are taking on board what he is saying.

Whatever Direct Broadcast technology the FAA eventually decides upon - the drone manufactures WILL adopt it. That's just common sense for cripe's sake.

crystal-pete Posted at 1-7 17:12
Ok so go to the mavicpilots forum - a thread called "FAA Drone-ID Proposal Round 2" and read the content posted by sar104. This guy is probably the most respected member of that forum and always puts a lot of effort into his research.

What is happening there is that the people whose arguments he is shredding simply resort to personal attacks or go off on irreverent tangents. The smart ones are taking on board what he is saying.

I don’t need to go to MP I’m a member there and have read many comments but I have also read most of the proposed document as well as reading djis proposed document white paper and ARC’s proposal . Your entitled to your opinion I just don't agree as most don't either .

hallmark007 Posted at 1-7 17:16
I don’t need to go to MP I’m a member there and have read many comments but I have also read most of the proposed document as well as reading djis proposed document white paper and ARC’s proposal . Your entitled to your opinion I just don't agree as most don't either .

So you're not willing to read sar104's posts?  Wow, that's amazing but also very sad!

crystal-pete Posted at 1-7 17:19
So you're not willing to read sar104's posts?  Wow, that's amazing but also very sad!

It’s called having your own opinion, and there’s nothing amazing about that and as I said I have read many comments on Mavic pilots .

hallmark007 Posted at 1-7 17:28
It’s called having your own opinion, and there’s nothing amazing about that and as I said I have read many comments on Mavic pilots .

No, it's called putting your head in the sand. You've read many comments on Mavicpilots - so read some more posted by a guy who has read and also ACTUALLY CORRECTLY INTERPRETED the proposal. What harm would that cause you?

Are you afraid that you might learn something factual that differs from the opinion you have formed based only on reading negative commentary?

I don't think that is anywhere near putting your head in the sand. Putting your head in the sand is doing exactly what you are doing. No matter how well respected this gentleman is, I don't think he could correctly interpret this proposal. The FAA is just like any other government entity. They use ambiguity in order to be able to manipulate it to mean what ever fits their needs at the time. You could take that proposal to 10 different lawyers and probably get 10 different interpretations. Don't put all your eggs in one basket and do not put blinders on to only see one direction.

crystal-pete Posted at 1-7 18:20
No, it's called putting your head in the sand. You've read many comments on Mavicpilots - so read some more posted by a guy who has read and also ACTUALLY CORRECTLY INTERPRETED the proposal. What harm would that cause you?

Are you afraid that you might learn something factual that differs from the opinion you have formed based only on reading negative commentary?

Indeed it’s not putting your head in the sand, I have read what SAR has said and much of what he says is without any basis, for instance he says FAA will use existing dji REMOTE ID but any idiot who reads the proposal will see absolutely nothing pertaining to that, so he’s guessing and hoping this will happen, so let him hope but my guess he’ll be hoping on his own .

I look to Europe and see how they have managed this remote ID and it is so much better than what the FAA are proposing, so I think everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, including you and I’m not accusing you of burying your head in the sand, so respect people’s opinions and move on .

Exactly, we have to respect everyone's opinions and move on.

OK taking a step back, a lot of people are saying that it won't be possible to be able to fly their drones outside of the 400-foot bubble in remote areas where there is no internet.  In the table below (taken from the FAA Proposal) the blue-colored text to me and sar104, indicates that you can fly outside of the 400-foot bubble when an internet connection is not available.



I am going to put together some questions to submit to the FAA. I will use example scenarios that will hopefully elicit clear answers. I will post the questions here prior to sending them to the FAA.