New info from the FAA. Not even published yet but you can download a copy. I wonder if this will affect drones under 250 grams?
Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Looks like they are using the same weight requirements so the mini looks to be safe.

JodyB Posted at 12-26 10:10
Looks like they are using the same weight requirements so the mini looks to be safe.

[view_image]

Thank you for pointing that out. Now hopefully they don't change the rules on the weights. LoL

The Watchman News Posted at 12-26 10:16
Thank you for pointing that out. Now hopefully they don't change the rules on the weights. LoL

I wonder why amateur-built UAS is excluded as well?

Better read again...

Is the MM less than 0.55 lbs,?

I'd say yes.

"Unless they are standard..." It is already on the MM.

I don't really like the direction this is going. What's next, a ticket in the mail every time your drone reaches 401 feet. Remote ID seems to be a lot more than ID, it is tracking by the gov or any other member of the public. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I wonder what existing DJI Pro3 owners will need To do  ?  (About 3Lbs/ 1380g).

Here in Brazil the "ANAC" (kinda brazilian FAA) says that maximum take off weight should be less than 250g, then we have to fill all government papers

Hi, thanks for sharing this informative information that you had provided. Great find! Thank you for your continued support.

Glenn Goodlett Posted at 12-26 10:20
Better read again...

Is the MM less than 0.55 lbs,?

I haven't read the entire document, but yes, the mini is less that .55 lbs and that is what I meant when I said it looks like the mini is safe. At least for the time being. And from what little I have read of it, it looks like only Government entities and law enforcement will have access. But like I said, I haven't read the entire document, so public access could well be there.

Remote ID is already built into the MM and turned on by default.

Glenn Goodlett Posted at 12-26 10:43
Remote ID is already built into the MM and turned on by default.

[view_image]

Even if the general public will have access, I don't care much for it. I think it can cause a lot of issues. Over zealous law enforcement, in the case of general public access someone looking for a mark, someone who just doesn't like drones shows up,  or anything like that. But that's just my opinion.

Yes, here is the text of the e-mail I received from them.

We want YOU to read and comment on the Remote ID Proposal
Get ready for the next exciting step in safe drone integration! The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued the proposed rule for remote identification of drones.
With nearly 1.5 million drones and 155,000 remote pilots registered with the FAA, the ability to provide identification and location is essential to keeping drones safely separated from other aircraft operating in our airspace.  
We encourage drone enthusiasts, and anyone interested in aviation safety, to read our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking now in the Federal Register. In the next few days, a 60-day comment period will open to receive your feedback which can help us develop a final rule that enhances safety and security in our nation’s skies.
“Drones are the fastest growing segment of transportation in our nation and it is vitally important that they are safely integrated into the national airspace,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao.
“As a pilot, my eye is always on safety first,” said FAA Administrator Steve Dickson. “Safety is a joint responsibility between government, pilots, the drone community, the general public and many others who make our nation so creative and innovative.”
Equipping drones with remote identification technologies would build on previous steps taken by the FAA and the UAS industry to safely integrate operations, including the small UAS rule, which covers drones weighing less than 55 pounds other than model aircraft, and the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC), which automates the application and approval process for drone operators to obtain airspace authorizations.
These efforts are the foundation for more complex operations, such as beyond visual line of sight at low altitudes, as we move toward a traffic management ecosystem for drone flights separate from, but complementary to, our air traffic management system.
The proposed Remote I.D. rule would apply to all drones that are required to register with the FAA (recreational drones weighing under 0.55 pounds are not required to register), as well as to people who operate foreign civil drone in the United States.

JodyB Posted at 12-26 10:51
Even if the general public will have access, I don't care much for it. I think it can cause a lot of issues. Over zealous law enforcement, in the case of general public access someone looking for a mark, someone who just doesn't like drones shows up,  or anything like that. But that's just my opinion.

I am of the same opinion, for the same reasons.

This is a NPRM, it's not, yet, a new law we have to comply with.  And while I haven't read the entire proposed rule, it specifically excludes UAS under 0.55 pounds AND pre-existing UAS (anything currently owned).  However it seems like it proposes yo limit operation of that equipment to specific areas.

I'm a Ham Radio operator, and see NPRMs from the FCC frequently.  Many of those are modified after their comment period(s), and some never become rules.  One advantage Ham Radio operators have is a national organization that lobbies Congress and watches the FCC.  Is there such an organization for drone flyets?

IndyRick Posted at 12-26 11:06
This is a NPRM, it's not, yet, a new law we have to comply with.  And while I haven't read the entire proposed rule, it specifically excludes UAS under 0.55 pounds AND pre-existing UAS (anything currently owned).  However it seems like it proposes yo limit operation of that equipment to specific areas.

I'm a Ham Radio operator, and see NPRMs from the FCC frequently.  Many of those are modified after their comment period(s), and some never become rules.  One advantage Ham Radio operators have is a national organization that lobbies Congress and watches the FCC.  Is there such an organization for drone flyets?

If there is, I'd like to know about it. I get that there needs to be safety and rules, but the safety and rules should be built to protect everyone. I personally don't want someone showing up to a location where I am flying legally and either want to rob me or cause a confrontation because they don't like drones all because they found my location as a result if this passes.

JodyB Posted at 12-26 11:12
If there is, I'd like to know about it. I get that there needs to be safety and rules, but the safety and rules should be built to protect everyone. I personally don't want someone showing up to a location where I am flying legally and either want to rob me or cause a confrontation because they don't like drones all because they found my location as a result if this passes.

To answer the question for both of us (at least):

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2019/12/26/ama-update-on-remote-id-proposal/

IndyRick Posted at 12-26 11:32
To answer the question for both of us (at least):

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2019/12/26/ama-update-on-remote-id-proposal/

Thanks so much for that information!!

JodyB Posted at 12-26 10:29
I haven't read the entire document

What do you mean you haven't read all 319 pages.  Why not?  Just kidding.  I was having a hard time staying awake while reading parts of it.  Reminds me too much of law school.  

here we have an example of where the weight it determined by aircraft model and not by payload, is that correct?  i'm not an expert so please help me understand.  will this rule depend on how your individual drone is personally configured, mm current has it already notwithstanding.

DowntownRDB Posted at 12-26 15:19
What do you mean you haven't read all 319 pages.  Why not?  Just kidding.  I was having a hard time staying awake while reading parts of it.  Reminds me too much of law school.

That’s exactly why, I’d end up asleep and just as stupid about as before I started, lol.
Plus I have a time with all the jargon too

Think about this: Once every SECOND the drone MUST send to the ground station, Latitude, Longitude, Pressure Altitude not GPS and it must be with in 20 feet of the exact Altitude, registration ID, Speed, Direction, all of this must be transmitted 1 every second in the clear, so the local listening station can pick it up! Then the Ground  Station MUST retransmit that data adding the ground station location, operator name, FAA ID to the internet. IF you can not transmit the information to the internet your restricted to flights of 400 feet. While reading this I decided we need to replace the FAA. Their excuse was 'safety

READ the specs for this bureaucratic expansion. The amount of data they want each drone/ground station to transmit, the $700 million a year price tag, the technical requirement of pressure altitude reporting (not certified but that will be next), the bandwidth of transmitting where the drone is, where its going, where the operator is, all the FAA Ids every second, from drone to ground, from ground to the internet. And all this for drones that can not fly in aircraft air space due to height restrictions and line of sight rules. They try to justify this government enlargement effort  by talking about the 'safety' of drones and commercial aircraft knowing where each other are... When I see a 747 flying at 400 feet I'll land.

this is going to be nothing short of a full-on disaster.

Government is going to make lots of $$ out of this once it goes into effect.  At this time if you have 3 drones under one registration its only $5. New law would require each drone to have a specific ID at $5  each.  Just another way for the government to get into your pockets.  

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"     

So far there are two things I get from all of this.
1) Older drones will be considered more valuable, if the grandfather clause stays in effect.
2) In the next few year I am going to have to start building my own drones.

Thank you for posting .

seeker_ktf_ Posted at 12-27 05:59
So far there are two things I get from all of this.
1) Older drones will be considered more valuable, if the grandfather clause stays in effect.
2) In the next few year I am going to have to start building my own drones.

Not to sure about your first observation. Since they won't be remote id compliant, you'll have to take them to an FAA approved flight field and be limited to 400' altitude and distance. I don't find that very valuable to me. Might be to some just not for me.

I'm inclined to agree to your second observation. amateur built drones don't have to participate as they wouldn't have a serial number to register.

It will be very interesting how all this plays out thats for sure. And all this is just a proposal at the moment. I'm sure there will be changes before it is finalized and all the legal mumbo jumbo gets put into action.

hallmark007 Posted at 12-27 06:00
Thank you for posting .

You're very welcome.

JodyB Posted at 12-27 06:07
Not to sure about your first observation. Since they won't be remote id compliant, you'll have to take them to an FAA approved flight field and be limited to 400' altitude and distance. I don't find that very valuable to me. Might be to some just not for me.

I'm inclined to agree to your second observation. amateur built drones don't have to participate as they wouldn't have a serial number to register.

It's only a matter of time before they change that about the amateur-built drones. I can see them do the same thing as they do with guns. They will likely make you register the frames and the flight controllers will likely be coded and the numbers will have to match in their database. We shall see but I'm generally pretty good at calling this stuff out.

The Watchman News Posted at 12-27 06:39
It's only a matter of time before they change that about the amateur-built drones. I can see them do the same thing as they do with guns. They will likely make you register the frames and the flight controllers will likely be coded and the numbers will have to match in their database. We shall see but I'm generally pretty good at calling this stuff out.

That sounds about right of them uugghhh

JodyB Posted at 12-27 08:42
That sounds about right of them uugghhh

That's the sign of a man that works hard. I'm still working, my job is both physical and mental. It's taking it's toll, but I've still got a few years in me yet!!

IndyRick Posted at 12-26 11:06
This is a NPRM, it's not, yet, a new law we have to comply with.  And while I haven't read the entire proposed rule, it specifically excludes UAS under 0.55 pounds AND pre-existing UAS (anything currently owned).  However it seems like it proposes yo limit operation of that equipment to specific areas.

I'm a Ham Radio operator, and see NPRMs from the FCC frequently.  Many of those are modified after their comment period(s), and some never become rules.  One advantage Ham Radio operators have is a national organization that lobbies Congress and watches the FCC.  Is there such an organization for drone flyets?

Yes, there is it's call Academy of Model Aeronautics or AMA. Visit their web site and become a member. You get free liability insurance with membership.  

Maxi3D Posted at 12-27 08:51
Yes, there is it's call Academy of Model Aeronautics or AMA. Visit their web site and become a member. You get free liability insurance with membership.

I've been thinking about it personally. There is a club I had no idea existed not far from me. They don't meet very often though. But still worth checking out in my mind.

It sounds like this AMA is an organization worth supporting.

As a ham, I'm a paying member of the ARRL, and feel that their lobbying efforts on behalf of the ham community is well worth the membership dues.  The same may well be true of the AMA.  I'll have to look into that.

Keep in mind that the FAA, like the EPA, NRC, FCC, etc., is a government agency.  Their administrators are not elected directly by the people.  Instead, they're appointed.  With all a president has to do, they may not get around to scrutinizing who has been appointed already to oversee the various agencies.  So one never knows if those administrators are always looking out for the best interests of the people of the US, or may have other motivations.  So it's worth keeping an eye on who is doing what to further whichever agendas may be entrenched in such agencies or motivated by various lobbyists, etc.  So we need to be our own lobbyists and be watchful for corruption, etc.

At the least, we need to read these proposed new regulations and comment.  And further, we may need to bring things to the attention of our elected officials so they can do whatever is possible and also scrutinize these appointed agency heads, and even replace them, etc.

If bad rules get made, and we haven't bothered ourselves to read the proposals and at least comment on them, then we're part of our own problems.

One thing to remember is that these agencies have the power to make rules (regulations) which have the force of law.  Those regulations are not voted on by congress just as the administrators of these agencies are not voted on by congress.  In other words, the voters have no direct control over what effectively end up having the force of laws.

Further, many agencies are now expected to be at least partially "self funding".  Which means that they are not elected, but have the power to create what are, effectively laws, AND they have a profit motive!

This may sound OK at first, but imagine this:  These agencies, whose administrators and employees now have a personal interest in enlarging the attgencies' budgets, can simply create rules and regulations that will bring in more money for themselves.  Wouldn't you love to have a company that could make law?  You could set up regulations and impose fines for violations.  You could make licensing requirements and set license fees.  And you could investigate "violators", take them to court, and fine them or reach "agreements" with them, etc.  Hmm.

Not to get into the dirty details, but as someone who has personally had their life altered drastically, and been put through years of torment by rogue agents of the EPA, whose misdeeds were then backed up by a corrupt DOJ, I am EXTREMELY wary of "agency rulemaking" and the virtually unlimited power these agencies can have.

Just beware folks.

And if you'd care for some "light reading" on this subject, read particularly chapter 2 of this:

https://s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.c ... /WLF%20timeline.pdf

And as you read that document, imagine how this could all apply to someone flying a drone.

Glenn Goodlett Posted at 12-26 10:43
Remote ID is already built into the MM and turned on by default.

[view_image]

So the FAA are proposing general public have access to some or all of pilots information.

I wonder where HT is now he claimed the FAA would not follow this course although all information pointed towards this happening.

It’s only a proposal just now so maybe it’s time for users not happy with this to lobby the FAA about this .

The Watchman News Posted at 12-27 06:39
It's only a matter of time before they change that about the amateur-built drones. I can see them do the same thing as they do with guns. They will likely make you register the frames and the flight controllers will likely be coded and the numbers will have to match in their database. We shall see but I'm generally pretty good at calling this stuff out.

you obviously don't live in the united states re: guns

JodyB Posted at 12-27 06:07
Not to sure about your first observation. Since they won't be remote id compliant, you'll have to take them to an FAA approved flight field and be limited to 400' altitude and distance. I don't find that very valuable to me. Might be to some just not for me.

I'm inclined to agree to your second observation. amateur built drones don't have to participate as they wouldn't have a serial number to register.

i think the idea is the non-compliant drones have a capability of flying illegal (w/o remote id) and getting away with it which makes them valuable.

i laughed when i read that part, no way in hell people are going to restrict their flying to an approved field with limited range.  that's a dream and a mistake and it will go to court if any local leo tries to illegal enforce it.  but i digress...

this is lining up to be a s.s. no matter how you slice it.  once again, we need amazon/google to come in and change the game because it's going down hill.  ama is a good org to join but they are weak and they don't care as long as they can fly in a straight line on a small stretch of field given permission from the government.   i'm not trying to be dramatic but who in their right mind thinks amateur drone makers are going to register and comply with government laws, this is america, that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

The Saint Posted at 12-27 10:44
i think the idea is the non-compliant drones have a capability of flying illegal (w/o remote id) and getting away with it which makes them valuable.

i laughed when i read that part, no way in hell people are going to restrict their flying to an approved field with limited range.  that's a dream and a mistake and it will go to court if any local leo tries to illegal enforce it.  but i digress...

I don't think you're being dramatic at all!! I feel the same way you do. I think it's a bunch of hoohaw if you ask me. Something to create jobs and generate revenue for the government. Nothing in it that I've found so far offers any protection for the pilots that I fear will start happening if the public actually gets access. Not to mention over zealous law enforcement. I know all to well about over zealous law enforcement. Long story there but it happens and it isn't pretty when it does.

The Saint Posted at 12-27 10:37
you obviously don't live in the united states re: guns

I don't know where you figure that. I most certainly live here. I own a news organization so I am aware of things that go on and how the system works. So aside from homemade guns and 80% lowers receivers are not required to have a registered serial number? They are working on getting rid of the 80% receivers as I type and for the most part no one builds guns at home from scratch. Just wait, the big push for gun control just got started and our president is in full support of it.