JTiger
The FAA is going to open a 60 day comment period on their Remote ID Proposal, read it here.

A few highlights:
They want is 3 tiers of sUAS: full remote ID, partial, and none. No remote ID is restricted to fixed operating sites; no BVLOS. Partial requires the location of the operator to be transmitted (but the aircraft must be the transmitter? It's not really clear) And must be flown within 400' bubble from operator; no BVLOS. Full remote ID requires the aircraft to continuously transmit its position/altitude data throughout the flight. All transmission is over internet to a "Remote ID UAS Service Supplier"

All aircraft must have their own serial number. I'm not quite sure how this applies to DIY builds but I think they talk about it, I'm only about halfway through. 

Anyhow, give it a read and send them a comment. I'm currently going through it and taking some notes on a Google doc of what I find particularly concerning or unclear. I'll probably post a few  more comments here after I've finished reading it all. I don't think any of us are surprised they're doing this but it's still unfortunate to see.
Quote 1 0
JTiger
Fortunately by this time there are several blessed people who have read and analyses the NPRM so you don't have to flip through the entire thing.

This video is pretty brutal but he explains the situation extremely well:

A video overviewing the proposal itself:

A good article outlining some major concerns for hobbyists:
https://www.thedroneu.com/blog/faa-announces-drone-remote-id/

An article explaining exactly why and how this proposal outlaws amateur built aircraft: https://www.facebook.com/notes/uav-legal-news-discussion/remote-id-proposal-outlaws-home-built-rc-aircraft/2540175016108538/



I ran across the FPV Freedom Coalition yesterday and I think they are doing a good job helping people understand and respond to the proposal. If we can come together and make enough noise to get some public attention we might be able to make the government think about this a little bit. Check out their website as well as the community on Facebook and Discord.

https://discord.gg/6Qn2tv

https://www.facebook.com/groups/fpvfc/
Quote 1 0
DualDesertEagle
Best of luck to all US RC flyers that u can fight this sh!t off!

Seems like my joke about having to report to the ATCs for every move u make sometime in the future wasn't that far off after all...
Quote 2 0
JTiger
Thanks @DualDesertEagle! 

A few more videos. Nothing regarding what's in the proposal itself. These are people outlining their plans to respond and what we can do.

Followup on xjet's "rant" video above. He's got a plan; it sounds pretty good to me. I'm very thankful he is willing to put so much time and effort for us. Follow him and stay tuned for additional videos on the subject.


FliteTest also weighing in on this a little. Looks like they've been trying to work with the FAA for a while but obviously the FAA isn't playing nice anymore. FT is (imo) uniquely positioned because they run a successful business that grew (and is still focused) almost entirely on the scratchbuilding hobbyist. I hope their connections with the industry will help them advocate; we'll see. Check out their new FT Community Association channel.
Quote 0 0
CrstnJdi
I am hoping for the best here.
Quote 0 0
JTiger
CrstnJdi wrote:
I am hoping for the best here.

We all are!

A little update, now that the comment period is over. There are approximately 53,000 comments on the NPRM. The FAA now has to go through them and respond to the concerns raised by them before publishing a final ruling. Nothing remarkable should be changing for the next 3 to 4 years (possibly longer, depending on legal hurdles).

RaceDayQuads sent an email out this week announcing their intent to challenge the NPRM or any Remote ID rule.
A copy/paste for y'all:
Quote:

Today I'd like to formally announce our intent to challenge the NPRM, or any Remote ID rule which is unlawful or detrimental to the hobby, in court.

This week we will begin the interview process with lawyers who specialize in this area, and begin researching ways in which we can effectively challenge or inhibit Remote ID at this stage. We intend to issue the FAA a Threat of Suit, which will officially inform the FAA of our intention (RaceDayQuads, LLC v. FAA) should they pass any parts of the NPRM which we perceive as unconstitutional.

I am prepared to fight to the death of RDQ to win this, and if we must, we will escalate this to the highest court we can until we get an acceptable result.

I did announce our intention to do this at the UFDA protest in DC this past weekend, and following that many people asked how they can help.

For now, continue to fight the good fight because we can still make a difference before engaging in a costly legal battle. The intent here is to hit them from all sides so that we don't have to go to court with this. We've done well with the comments, now it is time for our committees and letters to our local congressmen to have positive effect. At the same time, we will research the issues and send a Threat of Suit, to clue them into what battles they could face in the courtroom.

Financially, RDQ will bear the brunt of the cost for as long as possible or as long as we think we can bear the total cost of the case. Taking a case to the Supreme Court, for example, will cost well over $1M. Should we get to the point we cannot bear the cost, or we think the overall cost to bring an effective case against the FAA will exceed what our finances allow, then we will start a GoFundMe or provide other ways to donate, and crowd source the effort. I don't think that will be necessary until we get closer to an actual court battle. For now, you can help us financially support the effort by just continuing to support us with your everyday purchases. If you have any connections to people or groups which could be beneficial in this impending case, please let me know.

I have no idea what the outcome of all of this will be, but I assure you we will not go down without one hell of a fight!

 

-Tyler Brennan

Owner, RaceDayQuads

Quote 1 0