Thanks for the update, a lot of the ones I have watched make you think that the FAA is coming after us like the ATF!🤪 Good to have a level headed person giving out info. Thanks
Frankly, I don't find the new rule to be even close to the panacea that you present. The only positive attribute of the Remote ID ruling is the length of time to fully implement it. The "Sunday Flyer" pilot has three options to allow them to fly: (1) Standard Remote ID firmware integrated into future receivers. This doesn't exist either in firmware or software (vaporware mentioned by another commenter) and the associated cost is unknown. The FAA has a complete disconnect when comparing the owners of a $300,000 aircraft and a $125 model. (2) Remote ID Broadcast module -- again cost, production and weight are a complete unknown. For models weighing over 8.8 oz (the vast majority of fixed and rotary wing RC aircraft fall into this category), additional electronics will need to be purchased and implemented. Weight, cost and power consumption may well be prohibitive. (3) Fly within the confines of a FRIA. Do you know the physical dimensions of a FRIA? I don't and I have searched fairly thoroughly -- I don't believe the FAA has yet to specify them, other than perhaps height. What if I don't have access to a FRIA and don't want the added expense and weight of a broadcast module, then to be legal, I have got to stop flying. The FAA stated explicitly in the rule their intent to legally block airspace from most individuals who don't want Remote ID on their aircraft (page 183 of the final rule): "The benefits of requiring remote identification generally are undermined if the FAA-recognized identification area eligibility criteria are expanded to a point where every backyard could be a potential site. Permitting private individuals to seek FAA-recognized identification areas would undermine the FAA’s primary goal in establishing the remote identification requirements". Only CBO's and Educational Institutions can apply. In short, if I wished to fly in my 15 acre backyard, I have to equip my models with modules. Park flyers, school yards, parking lots -- anywhere folks have flown without ID are gone. Free flight models and larger rubber models would also have to be equipped with ID transmitters. I'm sorry, but I find nothing in this final ruling to be positive or beneficial to the modeler.
Andrew: We operate with many others in the National Airspace System, so we will eventually come under further rules. FRIAs will evolve, this is a first attempt at it. I do think the cost of remote ID will be affordable . . . I can even see the Spektrums of the world simply building it into their receivers, perhaps like the AS3X technology. Stay tuned! Tim
Thank you for creating this wonderful community resource! I appreciate the time, effort, and detail you put into this. RC modelers, commercial drone users, and the public all benefit from simple language on changes to their airspace, aircraft, hobbies, and businesses.
THANK YOU for your excellent interpretation of the sometimes confusing FAA jargon. Refreshing to get direct unbiased info with out the sarcasm and shameful pleas to subscribe to channels by the other guys.
I'm still upset with the outcome.. Your reporting is amazing, and Clear. I understand a few more things now than I did 20 mins ago. I always try to follow the money I learned this from my wife and past girlfriends who always followed my money and had more knowledge at the end of the day and I ended up with little to none. I would have liked to have seen FIXED WING AND DRONES considered 2 separate worlds. Because they are. I know of ZERO personal injury reports on others from our hobby and like you said the only police at the field are members of the club. I do not think it has anything to do with safety, Even with switchblade drones that have been around for years, I do not think terrorism is a concern either. It may just be the way I see this from my perspective. Ama fields being excluded from RID could bring more rc pilots to the Fields. I just hope they did not stop fighting at this compromise. I am all for AMA and the flying club's growth in members and Finance my worry is the kids that get pushed out. The few that glue a flitetest foamie together to fly at the park may say "IT'S TOO MUCH HASSLE////// It's like pulling teeth to get kids into this hobby already, KIDS, This is what drives me to wake up and come to work every day, and work it is... I strongly feel that whoever owns the airspace wins and this is the prize that Amazon, Starbucks, and other large retailers want to own or control. This is the next talking dog. BUT... low-level airspace, the future of the "Drone delivery hi-way".....NOW! That's the gold!... or do I have this wrong? Low-level airspace that we own as homeowners and or property owners is, or appears these rights will be taken away. n 1946 there was a case. United States v. Causby, military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer’s land and scared eggs out of the rosters, causing chickens to kill themselves by flying into walls. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmer. So we are at least entitled to 83 feet. This is not a conversation to type with the 2 finger skill of mine... but discuss it we must. It would be nice for our Government to help us help kids and our hobby, not attack us with more rules but we will lose too few of us care or see the importance of things like this. Tim, kids have nowhere to go and little to do outside, No place to ride dirt bikes, the land is all fenced and owned Places to fish disappear daily More fences and no trespassing signs just pushing the few kids we can get back to Xbox and inward. This has a huge effect on the type of men and women they become. Keep up the great work thank you for your time. I'm at the end of a 20 hr day so I'm off to sleep Cheers Joe Gotta Know Joe hobbies
Glad i watched this video i am fixing to retire in a few years work as a heavy equipment mechanic for 40 years now and I flew some u controlled Planes as a kid was thinking this would be a good hobby for me to start when i retire to keep active but with all these new FAA rules i don`t think it`s worth the effort i did a Google search for clubs and flying fields near me none with in a 100 miles of me think i keep looking for new hobby
Alex: Thanks for checking in! Maybe check with the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA, www.ModelAircraft.org) on a nearby flying field . . . they keep track of this for a living, are good at it. Also, their magazine, Model Aviation, is the best one out there. If there are no nearby RC fields, maybe consider doing free flight models. There about all under 8 ounces, thus no registration needed. Good luck! Tim
Thank you for the clear explanation Tim. I’m glad you clarified that club fliers need not worry for a while. This rule makes sense for the safety of our airspace.
Thanks Tim for a clear summary of the new rules. I would like to add some things to the discussion and see what your thoughts are. I've monitored the evolution of remote ID since the beginning. It seems heavy handed to demand so much from model flyers that operate with limitations that would make commercial UAVs impossible. For example, drone delivery services would be limited by weather phenomena at any time of the year. A much more more practical way of supplementing parcel delivery would be ground transportation such as autonomous ground vehicles. Even cheaper, delivery by bicycle messenger (no heavy compromised machines falling to the ground). As for making the NAS safer integrating UAVs, I would think that creating buffer zones both in altitude and lateral limits could be a consideration. I don't think that a drone weighing dozens or hundreds of pounds flying over busy streets, tight urban areas and the like needs to be flying in close proximity. Many model flying sites are located in Class G airspace with some in E, D and under B and C airspace. I'm wondering if obstacle and visual clearances( for manned aircraft) were considered? Finally, the tracking and enforcement elements of the rule seems troubling. As mentioned, technology and registration is the core of the entire rule. I think that there will be some very serious hurtles to make a reliable piece of equipment that'll be up to the task. On the subject of enforcement, police and sheriff departments will need meaningful training to add tracking drones to their repertoire. Regardless of the intent of RID, the former exception for model flyers was a much better solution for amateur operators. Crafting an overly complex set of regulations for this segment of aviators also opens up additional rules that may be a detriment to the hobbyist. I look forward to your thoughts on these matters and keep the updates coming! Blue skies.
Triskellian: Wow, very good update! As I discussed in my video, I think recreational drone and RC fliers came out quite well with this new final rule. A lot of the drone operators feel threatened by these rules, but the FAA is laser focused on safety within the airspace, and used to making tough decisions like this. Regarding buffer zones for UA operations, the commercial operators (United, Delta, etc.) are adamant that there be no new restricted airspace for UA operations. That idea just will not get traction. Regarding Part 135 commercial drone operations such as UPS and Flight Forward, that is another whole level of complexity that I do not deal with. I do have an idea from my time flying the B-777 in Part 121 operations. Rules are complex, and most importantly all operators simply follow the rules. Local law enforcement will get more and more involved with drones ops. Just the way it seems to be, as a lot of drone pilots fly away from established club fields. And I think Remote ID will work itself out. The drone designers are a clever bunch, and wifi/Bluetooth connectivity is really not a bit deal. Note as well the FAA back off from internet connectivity before flight, a significant concession. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Thank you for the feed back! I still remain cautious about the recent results of the final rule. I would hazard to guess that there will be interest groups that'll challenge some aspects of RID. I would hope that in the near future there'll be better representation for the hobby. I saw recently that the AMA and FPV coalition are not on the Drone Advisory Committee. This should be rectified so as to protect the hobbyist better. Besides, the amateur flyer has much to offer in experience to the board. Blue skies!
Thank you for this vid. Every one I have seen so far has been just Drone only info. Now I understand better. One question...I have a 380 heli. That is all I fly. I test in the back yard. Would that be a problem later? Or too early to tell.
lrc: Appreciate the feedback. Helicopters are Unmanned Aircraft per the FAA, so if you fly in your back yard, you will need to follow the remote ID rules. Remember, we do not need to comply with the remote ID ruling until Sept 2023, so a lot of time to get questions like this answered. And it may be, by then, that (perhaps). flights, say, under 50 feet are exempt. But, I do think there will be quite affordable remote ID portable modules by then. Tim
At are rc field in Salt Lake a year ago when I logged in before you fly it was not restricted air space but know it is. So I do not even fly there anymore I fly out on the Great Salt Lake beaches which is class g air space which I should be just fine. But I know everyone does not have access to a class g air space which would be a bummer.
I have a 2-channel rudder and elevator (no ailerons) sailplane I built ca. 1978, I’ve not flown since 2001. No motor, no camera in it. Weight 1.75 pounds, six foot wingspan, balsa and monocote. I would like to go back to Bender Park, south Milwaukee. There’s a slope facing Lake Michigan there that I can fly when there is an east wind. No club field there, any day of the week when the winds are right for it to work. Could you please tell me what I need to do and when?
Ken: Your option . . . good lawyers are not cheap! 😁 I do think this will all work out. Problem solved for any flights at AMA fields. For the drone/RC folks flying elsewhere, I do believe that small and affordable location modules will be developed over the next two years. We'll see! Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Our club non Ama, is comprised of mostly old school airo flyers and will most likely not register and will continue to fly with the pirates. Good luck and have fun flying those sub 250 gram foamys.
This is a disaster, frankly, that depends upon vapor hardware and vapor software. Who is going to enforce this? What good is a wifi/bluetooth solution with a tiny range? Where is there a design standard so a DJI module, say, could work with another module? Who interfaced with the FCC to make sure that the radiation under their jurisdiction is legal? Why are uav implementations under more regulations than FAA's experimental aircraft classification or motorized hang gliders? This is going to be a big mess that will discourage people from participating in the hobby at any level, add another level of unenforceable law for police, add weight and complexity to models, and do nothing for safety and much to encourage people to operate outside the law. Thanks for the explanation, I enjoy your videos, but I feel like this hobby may be doomed.
Eric: I offer a more positive outlook. FAA is charged with one task: Safety. As we are now operation in the National Airspace System, we are a part of this. I truly think manufacturers will come up with affordable solutions, perhaps Remote ID built into the receiver. And FRIAs are a very reasonable approach to a segment of the hobby. But a lot more will follow, best to stay tuned! Tim
@@TimMcKay56 sorry to say I don't share the rosy outlook. The FAA's risk analysis appears to mere broad assumptions that anything in the air is dangerous despite that lack of any such indicators. Providing safety in the skies should involve something that has demonstrated an actual danger. "It could have been worse" is not really a good argument for this ruling. This a a wedeling away of our personal freedoms and invading our privacy and the purpose is to benefit a few players in an unproven industry, i.e., DHL, UPS, and Amazon. My son flying a 16 ounce foamy in an empty soccer field is not a threat to public safety. Bruce from XJET points out pressure cookers were used to kill and maim people in Boston so why not regulate them. The Oklahoma bomber used a U-Haul truck, the Nashville bomber used an RV. What kind of destructive payload can I load onto my Ugly Stick? The threat is there and few acts of drones being used in criminal acts doesn't justify impacting over a million hobbyists who have proven the safety of the hobby. The government is turning the heat up on the frog slowly. We are witnessing a decay in our personal freedoms to benefit corporations who can get the ear of a congressman with a donation to the campaign. We, the people, are the losers in this ruling. Tim, I do enjoy your content and my son might be losing the 16 ounce foamy so I can steal it's components to get my Guillows to break the surly bonds of Earth.
So I can still fly park flyers at the park, and medium to large planes at the club field. In other words, no change. Still not sure about the 400ft limit. I think this doesn't address it, but that's one place where I'd like to fly sailplanes a bit higher in locations other than club fields. I spent my teens flying 2M gliders off high-starts in the local school field, making them tiny with my good eyesight at the time. Guess they were over 8oz too.
Polylight: A lot of info to digest, that is for sure. AMA will likely come up with good FAQ sheets on these items. Recall, pilots do not have to comply with these rules until Sept 2023. After then, if you have to register your plane (i.e. recreational flying and a weight over 8.2 ounces), then you will need remote ID unless flying at your club field. If less than 8.2 ounces, then should be OK at the park. 400 foot altitude still part of the FAA drone registration rules, not sure how that will play out. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 My understanding of the 400 ft AGL regulations is to provide at least 100 ft altitude separation from manned aircraft, which should be flying no *lower* than 500 ft AGL.
@@montithered4741 400 feet AGL is the FAA directed max altitude for UAS, unless the FAA provides an exception. It really has nothing to do with manned aircraft, as the UAS pilot has no real way to determine altitude, and in any event cannot "see and avoid". Manned aircraft can fly lower than 500 ft AGL over sparsely populated areas (Part 91 says 500 feet away from people and structures, not above) as long as the fight is not considered reckless. Tim
The new FAA Drone Advisory Committee apparently has no representation for hobbyists. The largest group of the UAV operators has no voice. This is not going to end well for our community.
If this is good news, why am I not jumping for joy. We are selling the right to fly for free and getting nothing in return. This is just as bad as gun control.
Floyd: FAA looks at this as a safety issue. Airlines, private pilots, etc. have followed these evolving rules for years, with a safety record we can all be proud of. Our turn now! Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Just like gun control, anyone intent on breaking the law won't comply with it. Also a law like this may be too difficult to enforce as I don't think there is enough police to enforce it. In addition to that, this hobby has been around for decades. In all that time there has been no reports of injuries cause by it. This faa regulation is just nuisance regulation and the only ones benefiting from it will be the faa.
@@fdameron Are you also opposed to transponders, TCAS, ADS-B In/Out, and altitude and lateral deconfliction? What you fail to see is that safety and accountability must go hand in hand. Without registration or identification, there is little to no way to hold accountable people who DO intentionally break laws and endanger people and property. Your opposition to remote ID sounds like the short-sighted and narrow-minded arguments against license, registration, title, and identification for ground and air vehicles.
@@montithered4741 I see the safety and accountability just fine. The problem is they are trying to apply a fix to something that's not broke. How often do we hear about rc's causing problems with real aircraft or law enforcement or anything, I never have. And if someone wanted to use an rc to break the law, would they register or have a transponder, only if they were idiots.
I think you are missing a big issue here since you do not fly drones. Even flying in remote areas like mountains and such, if a drone operator wants to share the videos on their YT channel they now need a part 107 license. So, I suppose that is OK, but the issue now comes that they will require this remote ID as they are flying, technically, under commercial purpose. Remote ID for these small drones becomes an issue as it adds weight which is critical for such small drones.
John: You are confusing Part 107 (commercial operations) with the requirement for remote ID. They are two separtate discussions. Remote ID is being required for UAS (i.e. RC and drone operations) in the National Airspace System. Remote ID is needed whether you are flying as a recreational or Part 107 pilot, and your plane weighs more than 8.5 ounces (0.55 lbs). And of course this Remote ID requirement starts in Sept 2023. The point of my video is that there is some very good news on Remote ID for RC or drone pilots flying at their AMA club. With the FRIA (FAA Recognized Identification Area), you do not need Remote ID. So, for example, I could make a TH-cam video of a flight at my RC field under Part 107 and not need Remote ID. As an aside, I am 100% certain that we will all be happily surprised at how light weight and affordable the portable Remote ID systems will be. I really believe the entire Remote ID situation will work out well, and in any event is a "must do" from Congress to the FAA. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 I am not confusing it. If you make YT videos then you need a 107 commercial license as you are making money from advertising on YT. Basically a hobbyist is considered commercial just for sharing videos on YT. So, you still need a remote ID, even in a AMA site. Surveys also show that about 80% of hobbyists don't even fly at AMA sites and therefore would make it illegal for 80% of hobbyists to continue to fly. There is already a law suit against the FAA against remote ID and I truly hope they win. Remote ID has many issues with the concept and it is just bad. Think about it again, 80% of fliers do NOT fly at AMA sites. If someone wants to fly in their backyard, local park, or other remote area, why should that be an issue? Especially when flying at low altitudes well below 400ft...
@@KMProtectionServices John, no worries, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. 😊 I’ve flown a lot, most recently with the B-777. There is no connection, that I can see, between Part 107 and Remote ID. If I make a TH-cam video at my RC field covered by FRIA, which I do a lot, just need my Part 107 certificate (which I have). Fully agree that 80+% of drone flights away from an AMA field. Thus Remote ID. What keeps the FAA up at night is a collision by one of the larger drones and a passenger carrying airplane. FAA gets sued daily. They have lots of good lawyers. Will be changes for sure, Sept 2023 is a long ways off. Tim
@@gordonmckay4523 flying within the rules and under 400 ft we never had issues before so why now? Do you realize the privacy issues with remote ID? This is only a small problem. What about flying race drones, which are flown super low, and having weight being a big factor. The remote ID would be an issue. The list goes on with the problems here...
@@KMProtectionServices Very simple: Congress ordered the FAA to implement Remote ID in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act. FAA simply following Congressional direction. Is the old discussion of privacy vs safety. Will be some changes for sure, but if modelers have a problem best to contact their members of Congress. Tim
Don’t be discouraged by the negativity of comments against title, registration, license, and transponders for UAS. Such arguments are short sighted and narrow minded. Such safety and accountability regulations were protested when they were applied to cars and aircraft. Remote ID, much like TCAS, ADS-B In/Out, transponders, two-way communication in controlled airspace, lateral and vertical separation, and airspace types are all about safety and accountability. These changes benefit everyone from the UAS operator, commercial airliners, general aviation, model AC flyer, and public.
Thanks for the update, a lot of the ones I have watched make you think that the FAA is coming after us like the ATF!🤪 Good to have a level headed person giving out info. Thanks
Danny: Remote ID is a fact of life, and I think recreational model pilots came out OK with the use of club fields. Tim
Frankly, I don't find the new rule to be even close to the panacea that you present. The only positive attribute of the Remote ID ruling is the length of time to fully implement it. The "Sunday Flyer" pilot has three options to allow them to fly: (1) Standard Remote ID firmware integrated into future receivers. This doesn't exist either in firmware or software (vaporware mentioned by another commenter) and the associated cost is unknown. The FAA has a complete disconnect when comparing the owners of a $300,000 aircraft and a $125 model. (2) Remote ID Broadcast module -- again cost, production and weight are a complete unknown. For models weighing over 8.8 oz (the vast majority of fixed and rotary wing RC aircraft fall into this category), additional electronics will need to be purchased and implemented. Weight, cost and power consumption may well be prohibitive. (3) Fly within the confines of a FRIA. Do you know the physical dimensions of a FRIA? I don't and I have searched fairly thoroughly -- I don't believe the FAA has yet to specify them, other than perhaps height. What if I don't have access to a FRIA and don't want the added expense and weight of a broadcast module, then to be legal, I have got to stop flying. The FAA stated explicitly in the rule their intent to legally block airspace from most individuals who don't want Remote ID on their aircraft (page 183 of the final rule): "The benefits of requiring remote identification generally are undermined if the FAA-recognized identification area eligibility criteria are expanded to a point where every backyard could be a potential site. Permitting private individuals to seek FAA-recognized identification areas would undermine the FAA’s primary goal in establishing the remote identification requirements". Only CBO's and Educational Institutions can apply. In short, if I wished to fly in my 15 acre backyard, I have to equip my models with modules. Park flyers, school yards, parking lots -- anywhere folks have flown without ID are gone. Free flight models and larger rubber models would also have to be equipped with ID transmitters.
I'm sorry, but I find nothing in this final ruling to be positive or beneficial to the modeler.
Andrew: We operate with many others in the National Airspace System, so we will eventually come under further rules. FRIAs will evolve, this is a first attempt at it. I do think the cost of remote ID will be affordable . . . I can even see the Spektrums of the world simply building it into their receivers, perhaps like the AS3X technology. Stay tuned! Tim
Thank you for explaining this so well. I watched the whole AMA break down and understood more from you in a few minutes than I ever did from them.
Nicko: Appreciate your update, and thanks for watching! Tim 😁
Well stated, right on the money. Thank you for the correct and well researched info...
Bill: Appreciate the feedback. More FAA videos to follow! Tim
Thank you for creating this wonderful community resource! I appreciate the time, effort, and detail you put into this. RC modelers, commercial drone users, and the public all benefit from simple language on changes to their airspace, aircraft, hobbies, and businesses.
Monti: Glad it was helpful! Tim
THANK YOU for your excellent interpretation of the sometimes confusing FAA jargon. Refreshing to get direct unbiased info with out the sarcasm and shameful pleas to subscribe to channels by the other guys.
Adrian: Appreciate your feed back. More FAA videos to come! Regards, Tim
I'm still upset with the outcome.. Your reporting is amazing, and Clear. I understand a few more things now than I did 20 mins ago. I always try to follow the money I learned this from my wife and past girlfriends who always followed my money and had more knowledge at the end of the day and I ended up with little to none.
I would have liked to have seen FIXED WING AND DRONES considered 2 separate worlds. Because they are. I know of ZERO personal injury reports on others from our hobby and like you said the only police at the field are members of the club. I do not think it has anything to do with safety, Even with switchblade drones that have been around for years, I do not think terrorism is a concern either. It may just be the way I see this from my perspective. Ama fields being excluded from RID could bring more rc pilots to the Fields. I just hope they did not stop fighting at this compromise. I am all for AMA and the flying club's growth in members and Finance my worry is the kids that get pushed out. The few that glue a flitetest foamie together to fly at the park may say "IT'S TOO MUCH HASSLE//////
It's like pulling teeth to get kids into this hobby already, KIDS, This is what drives me to wake up and come to work every day, and work it is... I strongly feel that whoever owns the airspace wins and this is the prize that Amazon, Starbucks, and other large retailers want to own or control. This is the next talking dog. BUT... low-level airspace, the future of the "Drone delivery hi-way".....NOW! That's the gold!... or do I have this wrong? Low-level airspace that we own as homeowners and or property owners is, or appears these rights will be taken away. n 1946 there was a case. United States v. Causby, military aircraft flew 83 feet above a farmer’s land and scared eggs out of the rosters, causing chickens to kill themselves by flying into walls. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the farmer. So we are at least entitled to 83 feet. This is not a conversation to type with the 2 finger skill of mine... but discuss it we must. It would be nice for our Government to help us help kids and our hobby, not attack us with more rules but we will lose too few of us care or see the importance of things like this. Tim, kids have nowhere to go and little to do outside, No place to ride dirt bikes, the land is all fenced and owned Places to fish disappear daily More fences and no trespassing signs just pushing the few kids we can get back to Xbox and inward. This has a huge effect on the type of men and women they become. Keep up the great work thank you for your time. I'm at the end of a 20 hr day so I'm off to sleep
Cheers Joe
Gotta Know Joe hobbies
Joe: Thanks for this update! Tim
Nice summary, thanks.
BC: Glad it was helpful! Tim
Thanks for the break down.
Shaun: Glad it was helpful! Tim
Glad i watched this video i am fixing to retire in a few years work as a heavy equipment mechanic for 40 years now and I flew some u controlled Planes as a kid was thinking this would be a good hobby for me to start when i retire to keep active but with all these new FAA rules i don`t think it`s worth the effort i did a Google search for clubs and flying fields near me none with in a 100 miles of me think i keep looking for new hobby
Alex: Thanks for checking in! Maybe check with the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA, www.ModelAircraft.org) on a nearby flying field . . . they keep track of this for a living, are good at it. Also, their magazine, Model Aviation, is the best one out there.
If there are no nearby RC fields, maybe consider doing free flight models. There about all under 8 ounces, thus no registration needed. Good luck! Tim
@@TimMcKay56 The AMA is the last place i checked they listed nothing
Thank you for the clear explanation Tim. I’m glad you clarified that club fliers need not worry for a while. This rule makes sense for the safety of our airspace.
Fred: Appreciate your feedback. We'll get through this, AMA is a huge ally in this issue. Tim
Thanks Tim for a clear summary of the new rules. I would like to add some things to the discussion and see what your thoughts are. I've monitored the evolution of remote ID since the beginning. It seems heavy handed to demand so much from model flyers that operate with limitations that would make commercial UAVs impossible. For example, drone delivery services would be limited by weather phenomena at any time of the year. A much more more practical way of supplementing parcel delivery would be ground transportation such as autonomous ground vehicles. Even cheaper, delivery by bicycle messenger (no heavy compromised machines falling to the ground).
As for making the NAS safer integrating UAVs, I would think that creating buffer zones both in altitude and lateral limits could be a consideration. I don't think that a drone weighing dozens or hundreds of pounds flying over busy streets, tight urban areas and the like needs to be flying in close proximity. Many model flying sites are located in Class G airspace with some in E, D and under B and C airspace. I'm wondering if obstacle and visual clearances( for manned aircraft) were considered?
Finally, the tracking and enforcement elements of the rule seems troubling. As mentioned, technology and registration is the core of the entire rule. I think that there will be some very serious hurtles to make a reliable piece of equipment that'll be up to the task. On the subject of enforcement, police and sheriff departments will need meaningful training to add tracking drones to their repertoire.
Regardless of the intent of RID, the former exception for model flyers was a much better solution for amateur operators. Crafting an overly complex set of regulations for this segment of aviators also opens up additional rules that may be a detriment to the hobbyist.
I look forward to your thoughts on these matters and keep the updates coming! Blue skies.
Triskellian: Wow, very good update! As I discussed in my video, I think recreational drone and RC fliers came out quite well with this new final rule. A lot of the drone operators feel threatened by these rules, but the FAA is laser focused on safety within the airspace, and used to making tough decisions like this.
Regarding buffer zones for UA operations, the commercial operators (United, Delta, etc.) are adamant that there be no new restricted airspace for UA operations. That idea just will not get traction. Regarding Part 135 commercial drone operations such as UPS and Flight Forward, that is another whole level of complexity that I do not deal with. I do have an idea from my time flying the B-777 in Part 121 operations. Rules are complex, and most importantly all operators simply follow the rules.
Local law enforcement will get more and more involved with drones ops. Just the way it seems to be, as a lot of drone pilots fly away from established club fields. And I think Remote ID will work itself out. The drone designers are a clever bunch, and wifi/Bluetooth connectivity is really not a bit deal. Note as well the FAA back off from internet connectivity before flight, a significant concession. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Thank you for the feed back! I still remain cautious about the recent results of the final rule. I would hazard to guess that there will be interest groups that'll challenge some aspects of RID. I would hope that in the near future there'll be better representation for the hobby. I saw recently that the AMA and FPV coalition are not on the Drone Advisory Committee. This should be rectified so as to protect the hobbyist better. Besides, the amateur flyer has much to offer in experience to the board. Blue skies!
No worries, will be an interesting few years ahead. 😊 Tim
Thank you for this vid. Every one I have seen so far has been just Drone only info. Now I understand better. One question...I have a 380 heli. That is all I fly. I test in the back yard. Would that be a problem later? Or too early to tell.
lrc: Appreciate the feedback. Helicopters are Unmanned Aircraft per the FAA, so if you fly in your back yard, you will need to follow the remote ID rules. Remember, we do not need to comply with the remote ID ruling until Sept 2023, so a lot of time to get questions like this answered. And it may be, by then, that (perhaps). flights, say, under 50 feet are exempt. But, I do think there will be quite affordable remote ID portable modules by then. Tim
At are rc field in Salt Lake a year ago when I logged in before you fly it was not restricted air space but know it is. So I do not even fly there anymore I fly out on the Great Salt Lake beaches which is class g air space which I should be just fine. But I know everyone does not have access to a class g air space which would be a bummer.
👍🏻 Tim
I have a 2-channel rudder and elevator (no ailerons) sailplane I built ca. 1978, I’ve not flown since 2001. No motor, no camera in it. Weight 1.75 pounds, six foot wingspan, balsa and monocote. I would like to go back to Bender Park, south Milwaukee. There’s a slope facing Lake Michigan there that I can fly when there is an east wind. No club field there, any day of the week when the winds are right for it to work. Could you please tell me what I need to do and when?
Paul: Just check B4UFly app for FAA controlled airspace. Do triple check your electronics. 21 years is a long time, electronics do age. Tim
Pirate flyers organization with lawyers on retention is on order?
Ken: Your option . . . good lawyers are not cheap! 😁 I do think this will all work out. Problem solved for any flights at AMA fields. For the drone/RC folks flying elsewhere, I do believe that small and affordable location modules will be developed over the next two years. We'll see! Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Our club non Ama, is comprised of mostly old school airo flyers and will most likely not register and will continue to fly with the pirates. Good luck and have fun flying those sub 250 gram foamys.
👍🏻🙀 Tim
This is a disaster, frankly, that depends upon vapor hardware and vapor software. Who is going to enforce this? What good is a wifi/bluetooth solution with a tiny range? Where is there a design standard so a DJI module, say, could work with another module? Who interfaced with the FCC to make sure that the radiation under their jurisdiction is legal? Why are uav implementations under more regulations than FAA's experimental aircraft classification or motorized hang gliders? This is going to be a big mess that will discourage people from participating in the hobby at any level, add another level of unenforceable law for police, add weight and complexity to models, and do nothing for safety and much to encourage people to operate outside the law. Thanks for the explanation, I enjoy your videos, but I feel like this hobby may be doomed.
Eric: I offer a more positive outlook. FAA is charged with one task: Safety. As we are now operation in the National Airspace System, we are a part of this. I truly think manufacturers will come up with affordable solutions, perhaps Remote ID built into the receiver. And FRIAs are a very reasonable approach to a segment of the hobby. But a lot more will follow, best to stay tuned! Tim
@@TimMcKay56 sorry to say I don't share the rosy outlook. The FAA's risk analysis appears to mere broad assumptions that anything in the air is dangerous despite that lack of any such indicators. Providing safety in the skies should involve something that has demonstrated an actual danger. "It could have been worse" is not really a good argument for this ruling. This a a wedeling away of our personal freedoms and invading our privacy and the purpose is to benefit a few players in an unproven industry, i.e., DHL, UPS, and Amazon.
My son flying a 16 ounce foamy in an empty soccer field is not a threat to public safety. Bruce from XJET points out pressure cookers were used to kill and maim people in Boston so why not regulate them. The Oklahoma bomber used a U-Haul truck, the Nashville bomber used an RV. What kind of destructive payload can I load onto my Ugly Stick? The threat is there and few acts of drones being used in criminal acts doesn't justify impacting over a million hobbyists who have proven the safety of the hobby.
The government is turning the heat up on the frog slowly. We are witnessing a decay in our personal freedoms to benefit corporations who can get the ear of a congressman with a donation to the campaign. We, the people, are the losers in this ruling.
Tim, I do enjoy your content and my son might be losing the 16 ounce foamy so I can steal it's components to get my Guillows to break the surly bonds of Earth.
So I can still fly park flyers at the park, and medium to large planes at the club field. In other words, no change. Still not sure about the 400ft limit. I think this doesn't address it, but that's one place where I'd like to fly sailplanes a bit higher in locations other than club fields. I spent my teens flying 2M gliders off high-starts in the local school field, making them tiny with my good eyesight at the time. Guess they were over 8oz too.
Polylight: A lot of info to digest, that is for sure. AMA will likely come up with good FAQ sheets on these items. Recall, pilots do not have to comply with these rules until Sept 2023. After then, if you have to register your plane (i.e. recreational flying and a weight over 8.2 ounces), then you will need remote ID unless flying at your club field. If less than 8.2 ounces, then should be OK at the park. 400 foot altitude still part of the FAA drone registration rules, not sure how that will play out. Tim
@@TimMcKay56
My understanding of the 400 ft AGL regulations is to provide at least 100 ft altitude separation from manned aircraft, which should be flying no *lower* than 500 ft AGL.
@@montithered4741 400 feet AGL is the FAA directed max altitude for UAS, unless the FAA provides an exception. It really has nothing to do with manned aircraft, as the UAS pilot has no real way to determine altitude, and in any event cannot "see and avoid". Manned aircraft can fly lower than 500 ft AGL over sparsely populated areas (Part 91 says 500 feet away from people and structures, not above) as long as the fight is not considered reckless. Tim
still cant hear you all other videos i can!
Clement: I purchased a new microphone today. Should fix the issue! Tim
The new FAA Drone Advisory Committee apparently has no representation for hobbyists. The largest group of the UAV operators has no voice. This is not going to end well for our community.
DB: There are no perfect solutions on something like this. AMA is 100% involved and is a perfect advocate for the RC hobbyist. Tim
If this is good news, why am I not jumping for joy. We are selling the right to fly for free and getting nothing in return. This is just as bad as gun control.
Floyd: FAA looks at this as a safety issue. Airlines, private pilots, etc. have followed these evolving rules for years, with a safety record we can all be proud of. Our turn now! Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Just like gun control, anyone intent on breaking the law won't comply with it. Also a law like this may be too difficult to enforce as I don't think there is enough police to enforce it. In addition to that, this hobby has been around for decades. In all that time there has been no reports of injuries cause by it. This faa regulation is just nuisance regulation and the only ones benefiting from it will be the faa.
I have over dozen helicopters all exceed 225grams. I can't fly at empty soccer field without a transponder ?
@@fdameron
Are you also opposed to transponders, TCAS, ADS-B In/Out, and altitude and lateral deconfliction?
What you fail to see is that safety and accountability must go hand in hand. Without registration or identification, there is little to no way to hold accountable people who DO intentionally break laws and endanger people and property. Your opposition to remote ID sounds like the short-sighted and narrow-minded arguments against license, registration, title, and identification for ground and air vehicles.
@@montithered4741 I see the safety and accountability just fine. The problem is they are trying to apply a fix to something that's not broke. How often do we hear about rc's causing problems with real aircraft or law enforcement or anything, I never have. And if someone wanted to use an rc to break the law, would they register or have a transponder, only if they were idiots.
👍🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Enjoy! Tim
I think you are missing a big issue here since you do not fly drones. Even flying in remote areas like mountains and such, if a drone operator wants to share the videos on their YT channel they now need a part 107 license. So, I suppose that is OK, but the issue now comes that they will require this remote ID as they are flying, technically, under commercial purpose. Remote ID for these small drones becomes an issue as it adds weight which is critical for such small drones.
John: You are confusing Part 107 (commercial operations) with the requirement for remote ID. They are two separtate discussions. Remote ID is being required for UAS (i.e. RC and drone operations) in the National Airspace System. Remote ID is needed whether you are flying as a recreational or Part 107 pilot, and your plane weighs more than 8.5 ounces (0.55 lbs). And of course this Remote ID requirement starts in Sept 2023.
The point of my video is that there is some very good news on Remote ID for RC or drone pilots flying at their AMA club. With the FRIA (FAA Recognized Identification Area), you do not need Remote ID. So, for example, I could make a TH-cam video of a flight at my RC field under Part 107 and not need Remote ID.
As an aside, I am 100% certain that we will all be happily surprised at how light weight and affordable the portable Remote ID systems will be. I really believe the entire Remote ID situation will work out well, and in any event is a "must do" from Congress to the FAA. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 I am not confusing it. If you make YT videos then you need a 107 commercial license as you are making money from advertising on YT. Basically a hobbyist is considered commercial just for sharing videos on YT. So, you still need a remote ID, even in a AMA site. Surveys also show that about 80% of hobbyists don't even fly at AMA sites and therefore would make it illegal for 80% of hobbyists to continue to fly. There is already a law suit against the FAA against remote ID and I truly hope they win. Remote ID has many issues with the concept and it is just bad. Think about it again, 80% of fliers do NOT fly at AMA sites. If someone wants to fly in their backyard, local park, or other remote area, why should that be an issue? Especially when flying at low altitudes well below 400ft...
@@KMProtectionServices John, no worries, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. 😊 I’ve flown a lot, most recently with the B-777. There is no connection, that I can see, between Part 107 and Remote ID. If I make a TH-cam video at my RC field covered by FRIA, which I do a lot, just need my Part 107 certificate (which I have).
Fully agree that 80+% of drone flights away from an AMA field. Thus Remote ID. What keeps the FAA up at night is a collision by one of the larger drones and a passenger carrying airplane.
FAA gets sued daily. They have lots of good lawyers. Will be changes for sure, Sept 2023 is a long ways off. Tim
@@gordonmckay4523 flying within the rules and under 400 ft we never had issues before so why now? Do you realize the privacy issues with remote ID? This is only a small problem. What about flying race drones, which are flown super low, and having weight being a big factor. The remote ID would be an issue. The list goes on with the problems here...
@@KMProtectionServices Very simple: Congress ordered the FAA to implement Remote ID in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act. FAA simply following Congressional direction.
Is the old discussion of privacy vs safety. Will be some changes for sure, but if modelers have a problem best to contact their members of Congress. Tim
Don’t be discouraged by the negativity of comments against title, registration, license, and transponders for UAS. Such arguments are short sighted and narrow minded. Such safety and accountability regulations were protested when they were applied to cars and aircraft.
Remote ID, much like TCAS, ADS-B In/Out, transponders, two-way communication in controlled airspace, lateral and vertical separation, and airspace types are all about safety and accountability.
These changes benefit everyone from the UAS operator, commercial airliners, general aviation, model AC flyer, and public.
Monti: I am former USAF like yourself, understand where you are coming from! Tim