n case you don't subscribe to this channel (i.e. 51 Drone).  Russ just put out a great video outlining and summarizing this 319 page FAA proposal.  In short, it's the FAA's plans to require

Remote Identification on all drones and RC Aircraft.      

Here is the link to view the FAA Remote ID Proposal:  

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public- ... .gov/2019-28100.pdf

In short, you can send your commments to the FAA through any of these four (4) methods:  

Identified by docket number

FAA-2019-1100

1.  Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

2. Send your comments electronically.      

Docket Operations, M-

30; U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT)

      1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W12-140      

West Building Ground Floor   
  Washington, DC 20590-0001.

3.  

Hand Delivery or Courier:

Docket Operations in Room W12 -140

of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200

        New Jersey Avenue, SE

       Washington, DC

(Between 9a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday -

Except Federal holidays)

4. Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc4vHj7mPxk


DJI if you value us then Please Please invest in keeping us out of this 400 ft cage

How many of us are actually going to take proper action to respond to this?  I contact my local FAA office on the regular, which is what everyone should be doing that flies drones.

Neo Supreme Posted at 12-30 04:26
How many of us are actually going to take proper action to respond to this?  I contact my local FAA office on the regular, which is what everyone should be doing that flies drones.

I plan to, but you’re right for the most part .most of us become quiet as a church mouse instead of speaking our opinions on matters like this.

Hello and good day Roy Rogers. Thank you for sharing this informative video with us. This thread will make our valued DJI co pilots aware. Great find and thank you for your support.

DJI Stephen Posted at 12-30 12:53
Hello and good day Roy Rogers. Thank you for sharing this informative video with us. This thread will make our valued DJI co pilots aware. Great find and thank you for your support.

Thanks for your support Stephen

Roy Rogers Posted at 12-30 15:25
Thanks for your support Stephen

You are very much welcome Roy Rogers. Have a safe and a Happy New Year ahead. .

Roy Rogers Posted at 12-30 04:56
I plan to, but you’re right for the most part .most of us become quiet as a church mouse instead of speaking our opinions on matters like this.

For those of us who are U.S. citizens, besides commenting to F.A.A. on proposed rule making for Remote ID; suggest also contacting your U.S. Representative and Senators.

Worth mentioning:  We are Taxpayers, and part of our taxes go to fund the FAA.  We should not be required to pay monthly or annual fees for specialized services so Remote ID will work.

You make a great point and I haven’t thought of that .

Well if FAA are proposing to give out users location and flight details as laid out on P116, this must if not be a breech of privacy be stopped on the grounds that it puts user at risk , I still see idiots on this forum telling others to lobby against dji which is bonkers, so there needs to be some structure here, the FAA have definitely lost the plot and just plain don’t care about anyone who flys drones .

Watching through 51 Drones full video, guy mentions flying in rural areas where there is no internet.   Coupling to non-compliant Remote ID drones being limited to approved small flight zones.  With those small flights zones having a limited up-front period to be applied for and approved.  Once that period closes, no new small flight zones will ever be approved.

Together these issues need to be pressed with FAA.
1) There should not be any limiting period for creation of small flight zones, and FAA approving of those zones.
2) FAA's Remote ID rules need to be relaxed in rural areas.  A drone transmitting only it's Remote ID, is more than sufficient.
3) FAA's Remote ID rules should not apply at all, below 400-feet above a person's private property.

We still need to make sure FAA sticks with it's original Drone Remote ID proposal.

1) Drone only broadcasts** the Drone's assigned Remote ID.
2) Remote ID broadcast by drone is sent encrypted*** to where only authorized Law enforcement and Security agencies can determine actual Drone assigned Remote ID.
3) All other information, drone flight data and pilot location information, are sent from R.C. to SmartDevice**; which encrypts data and information to be sent onto secure FAA (approved) flight data storage system.

** No flight data or pilot location information is ever broadcast directly from drone.
*** Reason for encrypting drone's Remote ID is for security / safety of pilot.  Realizing pilot is on ground, preoccupied with flying drone and keeping VLOS on drone, making pilot vulnerable to criminals, vigilantes, or radical protestors which could tie drone's Remote ID to drone pilot by reception and observation.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-31 18:47
Watching through 51 Drones full video, guy mentions flying in rural areas where there is no internet.   Coupling to non-compliant Remote ID drones being limited to approved small flight zones.  With those small flights zones having a limited up-front period to be applied for and approved.  Once that period closes, no new small flight zones will ever be approved.

Together these issues need to be pressed with FAA.

I agree with all you say , and I plain on rewording and using those points when I speak my mind to the faa the 4 . If you have any other good talking points I'll be more then happy to echo them.

As for the faa making the uav pilots location public that's illegal . A law has already been passed making it unlawful to use technology to track someone .

I don't understand why anyone would boycott DJI they're the biggest company on our side .

Overall, I do believe 51 Drones guy hit upon the real push behind drone Remote ID.  Which is mass use of commercial drones or almighty Billions of dollars in profit.

FAA's call for drone Remote ID has almost zero justification from Safety aspect of Recreational or Hobby flying.  As noted by several forum members here, you are far more likely to be injured by other risks.  Like morons texting while driving.

Roy Rogers Posted at 12-31 19:11
I agree with all you say , and I plain on rewording and using those points when I speak my mind to the faa the 4 . If you have any other good talking points I'll be more then happy to echo them.

As for the faa making the uav pilots location public that's illegal . A law has already been passed making it unlawful to use technology to track someone .

Previously I voiced my concerns to FAA when I contacted them via their comment / email response page.  Problem was, FAA was not taking comments on their proposed rule-making for Remote ID at time.  Thus trash canned.

Do plan to make several comments to FAA, once process is open.  However, before doing so, like to read other people's ideas or comments on what they are going to say to FAA.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-31 19:11
Overall, I do believe 51 Drones guy hit upon the real push behind drone Remote ID.  Which is mass use of commercial drones or almighty Billions of dollars in profit.

FAA's call for drone Remote ID has almost zero justification from Safety aspect of Recreational or Hobby flying.  As noted by several forum members here, you are far more likely to be injured by other risks.  Like morons texting while driving.

I completely agree with that too . I think a great example is these guys breaking the vlos rule and doing range test . youtube has over 10000 videos of this and I've yet to see anyone get hurt or and other air craft put in danger . I saw one the other day where a guy flew a M2P or a MP 11 miles .

uav's use to be the bottom of the feeding chain but now it seems we're scape-goats . The news saying a drone swarm of up to 30 , spotted in 5 counties and 2 states 6' a crossed and having a flight time of 6 hours ( bologna ) give me a break . All that does is misinform the public about drones capabilities and instill fear .

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 12-31 19:19
Previously I voiced my concerns to FAA when I contacted them via their comment / email response page.  Problem was, FAA was not taking comments on their proposed rule-making for Remote ID at time.  Thus trash canned.

Do plan to make several comments to FAA, once process is open.  However, before doing so, like to read other people's ideas or comments on what they are going to say to FAA.

Same here . if you find a good thread please PM it to me

Roy Rogers Posted at 12-31 19:24
I completely agree with that too . I think a great example is these guys breaking the vlos rule and doing range test . youtube has over 10000 videos of this and I've yet to see anyone get hurt or and other air craft put in danger . I saw one the other day where a guy flew a M2P or a MP 11 miles .

uav's use to be the bottom of the feeding chain but now it seems we're scape-goats . The news saying a drone swarm of up to 30 , spotted in 5 counties and 2 states 6' a crossed and having a flight time of 6 hours ( bologna ) give me a break . All that does is misinform the public about drones capabilities and instill fear .

In regards to those swarm drones, guessing those belong to a company working for/with a government agency.  The long flight time may be result of using hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries.  Publicly, flight times of two hours for a drone which looks slightly larger than Inspire.  

Roy Rogers Posted at 2019-12-31 19:24
I completely agree with that too . I think a great example is these guys breaking the vlos rule and doing range test . youtube has over 10000 videos of this and I've yet to see anyone get hurt or and other air craft put in danger . I saw one the other day where a guy flew a M2P or a MP 11 miles .

uav's use to be the bottom of the feeding chain but now it seems we're scape-goats . The news saying a drone swarm of up to 30 , spotted in 5 counties and 2 states 6' a crossed and having a flight time of 6 hours ( bologna ) give me a break . All that does is misinform the public about drones capabilities and instill fear .

This kind of negative press feed right into the FAA's proposal :
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/its-creepy-unexplained-drones-are-swarming-by-night-over-colorado/ar-BBYwMD8?li=BBnbfcL&OCID=AVRES007

triumph_tech Posted at 1-2 06:43
This kind of negative press feed right into the FAA's proposal :
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/its-creepy-unexplained-drones-are-swarming-by-night-over-colorado/ar-BBYwMD8?li=BBnbfcL&OCID=AVRES007

  Fake  news

Roy Rogers Posted at 1-2 09:58
Fake  news

Maybe so but still not good for drone operators.

I submitted my comments to the FAA on the Proposed Rule this morning.   Although highly critical, I kept it productive, professional and concise.   It's clear to me this proposal has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with commercial positioning.   

If you're a small Part 107 commercial operator, or use your drone ancillary for your business, why would you bother maintaining your license or purchasing any new drones (without Remote ID) knowing they are shortly obsolete?

This guy is right!

I was glad to see Ken make this video . He released a very different one a couple of days before this . It had what looked like a panel of guys telling us to be ok with it . I unsubscribed to Ken it upset me so much . Then It looks like he got around to reading the I.D Report and made this video .  

Roy, a simple hardware fix for the “400 foot cage” (something that’s especially limiting when one flies regularly in a mountainous area - as we both do constantly due to our home locations), would be the implementation of a laser that measured the true distance from the drone to the ground. That would enable a users to easily stay under the 400 feet threshold, no matter the drone’s current location and changing ground level altitudes due to geography.   
I'm sure there would be other ways without new hardware to implement such an idea, say by using map data and real time gps.

LUX.aerial Posted at 1-9 12:36
Roy, a simple hardware fix for the “400 foot cage” (something that’s especially limiting when one flies regularly in a mountainous area - as we both do constantly due to our home locations), would be the implementation of a laser that measured the true distance from the drone to the ground. That would enable a users to easily stay under the 400 feet threshold, no matter the drone’s current location and changing ground level altitudes due to geography.   
I'm sure there would be other ways without new hardware to implement such an idea, say by using map data and real time gps.

Your laser ideal is great ideal . You should suggest it to one of the many
drone manufactures .   It would need to be ultraviolet or infrared though

LUX.aerial Posted at 1-9 12:36
Roy, a simple hardware fix for the “400 foot cage” (something that’s especially limiting when one flies regularly in a mountainous area - as we both do constantly due to our home locations), would be the implementation of a laser that measured the true distance from the drone to the ground. That would enable a users to easily stay under the 400 feet threshold, no matter the drone’s current location and changing ground level altitudes due to geography.   
I'm sure there would be other ways without new hardware to implement such an idea, say by using map data and real time gps.

BTW I am glad your back in action !! I have missed the quality videos you bring to the table !!!

tjd-arizona Posted at 1-2 13:29
I submitted my comments to the FAA on the Proposed Rule this morning.   Although highly critical, I kept it productive, professional and concise.   It's clear to me this proposal has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with commercial positioning.   

If you're a small Part 107 commercial operator, or use your drone ancillary for your business, why would you bother maintaining your license or purchasing any new drones (without Remote ID) knowing they are shortly obsolete?

Good job tjd . 1500000 registered drones in the US but so far only 2300 commits  . We all need to speak out we will not get another chance .  

Roy Rogers Posted at 1-4 11:09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nReRPwwneus

This guy is right!

I agree with you he is right, and he spells it out as it is, FAA always had these intentions , we see these set out in NPRM and these were known in late 2017, dji had drawn up a white paper as well as ARC producing a very similar document that would have given great protection to drone users increased ability to fly and much greater privacy than what the FAA are now proposing.

Everything we need to use REMOTE ID is already in most drones so no extra cost needs to apply, the new EASA rules we will see from July next will allow for more open access to flying throughout Europe for those who choose Remote ID and for those who don’t , no change for the life of the craft .

It looks like the FAA are more concerned with big business than hobbyists so yes for them it’s about money and greed .

hallmark007 Posted at 1-17 07:10
I agree with you he is right, and he spells it out as it is, FAA always had these intentions , we see these set out in NPRM and these were known in late 2017, dji had drawn up a white paper as well as ARC producing a very similar document that would have given great protection to drone users increased ability to fly and much greater privacy than what the FAA are now proposing.

Everything we need to use REMOTE ID is already in most drones so no extra cost needs to apply, the new EASA rules we will see from July next will allow for more open access to flying throughout Europe for those who choose Remote ID and for those who don’t , no change for the life of the craft .

Agree with all you say

A proposal and actual laws are 2 different things.  People need to make proposals so they can fill their quotas on making the job they got hired or elected for show importance.

If UUIDs were implemented on all the Minis, tracking down the people who had their drones cause damage would be easy.  Also, drones with wear and tear that fail, it would make it easy to track down the users.  A main problem is, those who have drones that have UUID are screwed but the other manufacturers who have no UUID or any tracking will remain undetected.  They can slip under the radar because they don't have to go through customs and others laws that make it allowed to conduct business in the US.  The other thing is that the other drone manufacturers made in the US have UUIDs already built in that the user has no idea about.  It just makes it look like it doesn't like how the brightness drops when the screen starts to overheat on Smartphones but the user sees 100% brightness even though it definitely got dimmer and you can see it step down dim in the hot summer heat.

There are a lot of things that aren't truly presented to us.  There are a lot of things that look like nothing changes on the metrics and the statistics but is changing.  I'm not saying with drones but in nearly everything in life tech and non-tech related.

I've seen people argue about things according to what they see but deep down things did change, they just don't know.  A lot of things can never be known or it would destabilize the world.  A big example is what happened to the MH370 flight.  When ships were trying to locate the place where the blackbox is, they were getting black box ping readings from something that looked exactly like it but wasn't.  Basically, they were being masked away from what is really going on.  It's all just a speculation of course and that's how things should be kept.

You might want to check out this FAA PDF  contiained in my post which is a change in the NPRM. I believe it is a game changer. Definitlely not perfect but FAA is heading the right direction.

I meant to point to just the PDF instead of my post which has a link to the PDF but to lazy to chnage this. My apologies. I really hope what is in the PDF is true.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 2019-12-31 11:18
For those of us who are U.S. citizens, besides commenting to F.A.A. on proposed rule making for Remote ID; suggest also contacting your U.S. Representative and Senators.

Worth mentioning:  We are Taxpayers, and part of our taxes go to fund the FAA.  We should not be required to pay monthly or annual fees for specialized services so Remote ID will work.

Your Comment Tracking Number: 1k4-9fb3-6lns

I just submitted my ten cents worth of comments.  It really is our civic duty.

JohnK48 Posted at 3-1 12:45
I just submitted my ten cents worth of comments.  It really is our civic duty.

I agree . Thank you ! That’s all we can do for now . Next will be our congressmen and senators

Roy Rogers \\ Posted at 3-1 14:00
I agree . Thank you ! That’s all we can do for now . Next will be our congressmen and senators

my tracking number is 1k4-9fb8-49yt