Print this articlePrint this article


Written by Chad Budreau
View from HQ
Column
As seen in the December 2018 issue of
Model Aviation.


In late September, I posted a video outlining that the U.S. Department of Defense, the FAA, and large corporations were asking for our members to remotely identify their model aircraft. I want to use this opportunity to paint a better picture about what remote identification could mean.

Some have described remote identification as a license plate for cars, but instead the identification is broadcast from our models like a beacon or is transmitted to a central database. The FAA is asking for remote identification to help manned aircraft and airports identify drones and models sharing the airspace.

Law enforcement and defense agencies want to identify operators who are flying in an unsafe manner, such as flying near wildfires. Commercial entities are asking for remote identification so that their autonomous drones can detect and avoid other drones or models in the airspace.

Last year, AMA participated in the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) advisory panel, which made recommendations for creating standards for remote identification of UAS. The ARC identified technologies to allow law enforcement, homeland defense, national security, and air traffic control communities to remotely identify UAS in the airspace.

AMA believes that remote identification for certain models makes sense at some level, depending on their sophistication and capability. One recommendation, championed by AMA, would create a risk-based threshold. It suggested that remote identification should only apply to UAS that have the capability of flying autonomously—by navigating between more than one point without active control by the pilot. This would mean that high-risk UAS would comply with remote identification and low-risk model aircraft that are incapable of autonomous or long-range operations would not have to comply with remote identification.

Traditional model airplanes, helicopters, and similar aircraft that are found at AMA flying sites are only capable of being flown within line of sight of the operator or spotter. Not only do these line-of-sight models pose less risk, but the operators are easily identified. When you see the model, you can quickly find its operator holding a transmitter a few hundred feet away.

Unfortunately, many disagreed with AMA’s approach. An alternative recommendation was proposed to mandate that all models must comply with remote identification, to include toys, traditional model aircraft, helicopters, and sophisticated drones. My daughter once owned a flying Tinkerbell doll that had a lifespan of a few months. Even this toy would be required to comply with remote identification.

Mandating that everything that flies is to comply with remote identification requirements is unrealistic and will create a culture of noncompliance because many operators will ignore the overreaching rule. Additionally, AMA cannot agree to a blanket mandate of remote identification because no one has provided a viable solution. Our members want to be safe and responsible, but how can a rubber band-powered competition model comply with remote identification?

During the ARC meeting, various solutions were proposed for how to implement remote identification, including that UAS must include a beacon or chip to transmit data to a central database.

Since the ARC panel meeting, other solutions that are under consideration could allow operators to remotely identify their location by pushing a button on an app. Before you fly a Cub or heli in your backyard, you would open an app to indicate that you are using the national airspace system for a set amount of time. This would alert manned aircraft pilots and others to detect and avoid your model.

There are also talks that operations at AMA flying fields would satisfy the remote identification requirement and would not require a beacon or app-based solution.

Although these are some of the more viable solutions, AMA will continue to argue that remote identification is overreaching and unnecessary for toys and models not designed to fly beyond visual line of sight.

Let’s revisit the analogy I shared in my second paragraph: Every car on the road must have a license plate, therefore everything that flies must be remotely identified. Although every car on the road must have a license plate, not everything on the road requires a Bureau of Motor Vehicles- (BMV) issued plate.

On my drive to AMA Headquarters, I regularly pass bicyclists, farm equipment, and other vehicles that don’t have BMV-issued license plates. Only more capable and sophisticated vehicles (cars and trucks) require license plates. Likewise, only more-capable, sophisticated UAS should require remote identification.

-Chad Budreau
chadb@modelaircraft.org




48 comments

My line of thinking is commercial entities want remote ID onboard is an attempt to make model flying too expensive for the general public and therefore push them out of the skies. One less problem for them to worry about.

Our AMA flying sites should be marked on aeronautical charts and manned aircraft should be required to fly over them no less then 1000 feet high if they absolutely must fly over us.. I have seen light aircraft divert from their flight path to fly over our field at low altitudes to see what we were doing. This is reckless flying on their part and if they come close to one of our planes they are going to scream that it's our fault. Anyone flying RC models legally over a marked AMA flying field should not be required to carry a beacon on their model.
If they absolutely must have beacons to notify manned aircraft of RC models flying then we need a beacon at our field that we can turn on when we're flying and turn off when we're done flying that way aircraft would know that there are RC models being flown there. The Renegade drone Flyers that are creating this problem are not going to pay any attention to any laws they pass.

I fly models and private aircraft and have for many years. I think line of sight for AMA aircraft has worked well for years with almost no problems. It is the explosion of drone aircraft that has caused the problem. Pilots have enough to know and keep up with without having to worry about model airplanes or drones. Models should be 400 ft. or lower. Most pilots don't normally fly lower than 500 ft. As a model airplane pilot I have always watched for and given right of way to full scale aircraft. As for drone operators who break the law they can be stopped with very large fines and jail time. The word will spread quickly.

This type of regulation will create a new class of criminals or drive individuals from the hobby, either in great numbers. Instituting such regulations is Orwellian in nature and should be resisted by AMA at all cost. In my case and considering I have been in this hobby for over 65 years, I'm not sure which side I will come down on, criminal or driven away.

Fred

I fly anywhere from 10 ft up to 250ft up FPV. I also fly 6 miles from the nearest airport. I struggle with getting a signal from my plane to my goggles at LOS distances even with decent antennas. So you can put all the chips ( a whole bag of chips) you want on a plane but with out antennas, you got nada. Am I going to have to install a third antenna system and power consumer on my plane. These people have to get a grip. It is just not workable in real world electronics.

Couldn't agree more. Where has common sense gone? One would argue in vain to convince me that slope soaring balsa gliders 300-400' in a remote, unpopulated, RARELY flown-over at less than 30K feet requires remote ID. Even if one grants that the FAA has honest intentions, it is still the on the road to the proverbial slippery slope. It is not unthinkable, given the nav technology in automobiles today, that the nation's "road space" is next. Then taxes based on miles traveled, vehicles remotely disabled because of late or missed payments, etc. It is, indeed, a question of lost freedoms.

It sounds like hobbiest RC aviators are on the losing end of this debate and, like so many other things, the days of flying RCmodels for recreation are coming to an end. Government bureaucrats and commercial operators are killing our hobby. How sad.

As an AMA member and scale R/C hobbyist, I enjoy flying at club sites and the Maricopa County parks that allow r/c flight. The club fields have altitude restrictions in-place as part of the oversight by our county parks department. The problems I see with our hobby come mainly from non-members flying irresponsibly. Why not encourage operators to become members of the AMA and let the local authorities enforce any breach of rules and regulations already in-place. I fly with a transmitter, an NOT with an 'APP'...unless of-course the FAA or federal government is willing to provide me free access to the hardware meeting the proposed requirement.

Steve C., AMA 1033501

Drones are what created the problem, and they are what should be controlled. This should first put upon manufacturers like DJI that actively market to those most likely to violate (or be ignorant of) the rules. Such controls as drone geofencing should have been mandated and integrated years ago, and most likely we wouldnt be in this jam. And by drones i mean aircraft that have autonomous capability, and long range FPV.
Once such threats are controlled, some pressure is taken off the traditional RC world. Those who argue otherwise are hiding their heads in the sand, whistling past the graveyard, etc., etc. Where we are nyow is proof of that.

Chad,
This is in addition to my comments to Angie last week which I hope you have seen. While I understand the concerns voiced by the FAA and others that you mention above, I think your approach outlined in paras 5 and 6 above make sense. It is interesting to note that there are many light aircraft that are not required to have transponders and that a transponder operating at less than 400 ft would not even register at the local airport. I do see that quad copters operating commercially and those operating at fire sites would need to be monitored, but those of us flying at a local AMA registered field are hardly a threat!
Our hobby is expensive enough as it is - this would add another burden; and I do object to my detailed scale model being referred to as a drone!
Finally, I really appreciate the effort you and others at the AMA are making to keep our hobby safe and free from government regulation as it has been for some 80 years.
Peter

What FAA tracking system would be used for tracking UAS as small as .5 lbs or smaller, radar/satellite ? What kind of weight and power requirements for the i.d. transmitter for a relatively small UAS would be required ? I already own a DJI UAS that cannot be flown at our club flying site because the DJI geofence does not allow flight within 5 miles of an airport; any class airport.

Hi Ron! Thank you for reaching out to us with your concerns.

Even though the FAA considers remote ID a top priority, we probably will not see a proposed rule for several months or years. There is still time for AMA to make recommendations to the FAA. Model aircraft, under AMA’s safety programming, have flown safely for over 80 years and pose no new risk to the airspace. Requiring a transponder for each aircraft would be expensive and burdensome for our hobby. AMA has requested that NO model aircraft, regardless of weight, be required to be fitted with a remote ID transponder or aircraft equipage of any kind. Our suggestion in that AMA members can satisfy future remote ID requirements in one of two ways.
1. Fly at an AMA/FAA charted fixed flying site, or
2. Use a web/mobile app (press a button on your computer or phone to make the location of the pilot known).

We feel that either of the above options would provide enough information to maintain safety in the airspace. The 1 kg threshold mentioned in a recent AMA blog would mean that neither of the two aforementioned requirements would be needed for aircraft falling below this 1 kg threshold.

The FAA is currently working on the Remote ID NPRM and cannot comment on our proposal, but AMA wants it to be perfectly clear that many aircraft in our community cannot meet a remote ID requirement if it involves equipping aircraft with transponders or equipment of any kind.

This tech should only apply to more sophisticated aircraft.

Just had to endorse drones into our hobby!

Lets try this on for size.....I display my AMA number on all of my planes and helicopters. Also, the detail info about me and my model are attached to the model. That identifies me perfectly well. I have absolutely no intention of putting some type of remote ID transponder in my sport size models, much less one of my park flyer planes or mini heli's. I have been flying model aircraft longer than most of these idiots have even been alive, and will NOT submit to their snowflake, utopian desires.

Those chartered club flying fields that allow only line of sight flying, in my opinion, should be exempt from "remote identification"! On a typical flying day...say there were 30 people sport flying with 6 aircraft allowed in the air at one time...when flying is that when they would have to transmit their 6 identities? And, if you are in the pits do you have to have a way of not transmitting your identity while working on other parts of the plane requiring airplane transmitter on? What manpower is going to be needed to "monitor" these transmitted remote identifications? AMA has always, since I joined in 1957, overcome many challenges, like more frequencies for users. I m confident the AMA will work it out so the one's whom are not in a CBO will be culled out and/or reduced.

After reading the article in this months copy of MA I found it puzzling why the AMA is not asking the modelers to help come up with solutions for what the FAA is asking to be done. After all your average modelers are the ones that have built and paid for the AMA. I think more AMA transparency about what is going on between them and the FAA would be very good for all of us. I would like to see choices not complaints about rubber powered aircraft needing to be identified. I don't feel AMA HQ has all the answers for what the FAA wants and asking for help would be very beneficial to all AMA members.

Hopefully, legislators are not so influenced by the possibility of tax revenue income generated by "remote ID" that they ignore common sense and impose this unnecessary burden on control-line aircraft as well. Sheesh!

I fly RC and CL. I also use commercial air travel. I also know that the proverbial "handful of bad apples" can spoil things for the masses. While I love model flying hobby and I also love to fly safely as a passenger. The same minds that think it's fun to shine a laser at a commercial passenger jet, bounce a drone off the commercial passenger jet windshield or fly drones in the midst of forest fire aircraft could possibly ruin my passenger air travel experience. SO if you don't run red lights you won't have to worry about stop light cameras. If you don't speed you don't have to worry about speed traps. I really don't believe that the FAA wants to control the hobby just for the pure sake of controlling it. I believe that they are responding in a manner driven by the need to ensure public safety. Unfortunately it will cost everyone monetarily and restrictively. All because of the handful who somehow think it's self-aggrandizing to endanger others. If the FAA is moving strictly with safety as their intent them let remote ID roll.

While I understand the pushback on remote ID, here’s the concern from a “full scale” pilot. While flying into Muncie (kmie) in the summer of 2017 I was about 2 miles south in a shallow decent doing a little over 170 mph. I looked over at the AMA flying field to see if anything was going on then looked the other way (head on a swivel as they say) and was alarmed to see a pretty large drone (maybe 2 ft dia) at my altitude about 50 feet away!!!. It was way past line of sight from AMA HQ so must have been from the Ball State campus.The point of this is if that had hit my airframe it may have caused enough damage to cause me to crash. If it had gone through the prop and hit my canopy, I’d be dead. Even your daughters “tinker bell” doll hitting my 1/8” thick windscreen at 170 mph would kill or incapacitate. So the larger point is really about not killing people. Even if some guy is flying line of site, if he’s in my airspace (500ft and above in unpopulated areas) and that drone goes through my windscreen, I’m dead or gravely injured. I know quite a few RC hobbyists and they are responsible people that know better. Joe blow that goes out and buys a drone, slaps it on the charger for a while and goes flying is ruining it for everyone (and is most likely going to get somebody killed).

Quads and other RC aircraft don't "share" the same airspace. The FAA is on a shut down conventional RC format to allow commercial drone people unobstructed use of our airspace. The folks who fly DJI and similar craft are the fruitcakes who are responsible for this, the expense and complexity not to mention weight make this foolish alternative unacceptable to those of us who are responsible pilots.

What I see is going to happen is that the FAA IS going to implement remote ID to all UAS no matter what! They are not going to want to separate types of UAS into categories because that would cause too much work for them to write out separate or special exception by-laws. It is much easier for them to put all the eggs in one basket which will destroy my desire to fly. Flying should be fun and not burdensome if you are already following the common-sense guidelines. Also, who knows how much it will cost us to RF ID each aircraft and will this open up the doorway to monthly or yearly charges for using the FAA detection system just as we pay to use DATA on cell-phones. This is a can of worms for our hobby and they are not going to see it our way. This is also a way for the FAA to govern and monitor everything that enters the airspace, which once again costs money that they can charge us for.

Once again, if you want to screw something up, get the gov't involved. Yes there is a problem with the improper and illegal use of UAS however, those who purposely abuse the privilege of r/c flying will simply disconnect the "chip". If the purpose of this rule is to police the misuse of UAS, the only ones they'll be tracking are the honest, responsible individuals who agree to comply. This won't solve the problem, only increase the cost of hobby flying, and discourage new participents.

The proposed remote identification system is not like vehicle license plates; it is vehicle tracking. Under current FAA rules, model aircraft operators are required to mark their model aircraft with the operator's FAA-issued identification number, which is just like having a license plate for an automobile or other vehicle.

Modellers are already required to put a "license plate" on their aircraft - the AMA Numbers on the wing. Calling a transponder a license plate is a gross understatement. Transponders that might be suitable for large model use exist, and they are expensive, in the $1500 US range. Because the data from these devices are going to go into the full size aircraft safety systems, the transponders are going to have to be certified with RTCA certifications like DO178, DO254 and DO160. These certifications are complex and expensive to do. The cost of the certifications will over shadow the cost of manufacturing by a huge factor. Technical issues like antenna size and power consumption will place a practical minimum on the size aircraft that they can be placed on.
I hope to be proven wrong on this, but from where I stand, it does not look good.

Did the proponents of remote ID consider the compatibility problems with existing RC equipment? Would an ID transmitter interfere with the RC receiver, or, since 2.4gHz receivers are actually transceivers, would they disrupt the ID transmission? How about 72mHz, 27mHz, and Ham band equipment? Or, does this airspace grabbing plan arrogantly expect all existing equipment to instantly become obsolete?

I told my friends drones would kill this hobby. and it is coming fast. I have sold,given away, and just plane thrown away airplanes engines. I have kept a few gliders and small electrics. I fly at local parks when allowed. Been doing this since 1963. I will not be renewing my AMA membership or UAS license. Not worth the heart burn to keep up with it. I plan on dinking around at parks and open areas till they throw me out. But I figure this hobby is going the way of 11 meters. I am just too old and cranky to worry about the problem. I think the AMA is great and doing all it can but I see it as a loosing battle not worth fighting for. Good luck in the battle. Jim

Transponder.

I have flown model airplanes for years. I am 81 years of age. I also carried a private fixed wing licence for several years. I never felt uncomfortable as a model pilot or as pilot of full sized aircraft in the respective airspace.

I feel the need for a transponder and squawk code is unnecessary for line of sight model aircraft.

My question relates firmly to the FAA's impending desire to force aeromodelers to use "remote ID transponders" for all UAS aircraft (as mentioned by the AMA very recently, here ), likely to be required, even for those strictly hobbyist-flown RC aircraft that have NO cameras aboard, AND those that have no form of autonomous flight capability needed for beyond visual line-of-sight flight. None of my model aircraft will ever have such a "BVLOS" capability. Even though I MIGHT use an onboard, separate video camera "someday" for in-flight video while always in sight of the model, my vintage-style "knobby" or "single-stick", owner-built Ham band radio transmitting gear - which WILL usually be used on the six-meter VHF band, and 70-centimeter UHF band (in the future) with my four-decade old Ham license - will never have any sort of "built-in remote ID transponder" in them. The stated "one kg limit" for some sort of "software-based solution which marks the location of the operator" does NOT state what sort of hardware would be used to operate the "software" with, and for a good many conventional RC fliers, any such "hardware" might indeed be too heavy to use in any manner. IF it needs to be partly or totally installed in the model.

As for my own Federal registration to even be able to fly RC in the first place, I'll be waiting until I can get my name-change back to my birthname done first. The FCC would be among the first agencies of the US government (and most likely, THE first!) that I would do such a name-change with, after I get in touch with Social Security to start such a process. In fact, I'm much MORE likely to place my "already Federally-issued" FCC Licensee ID number (starting with an "L", immediately followed by a eight-digit number), and the similar "FRN number" (itself a ten-digit number), both directly associated with my Ham license as assigned by the FCC, on my models, along with my AMA license number...before I'd ever have an FAA "registration number" displayed, all INSIDE the model, especially for RC Scale/Giant Scale models. As virtually ALL my own RC flying IS going to be done on either amateur radio's long-established six-meter VHF FM for RC flying, or 70 cm-band UHF Spread Spectrum Ham bands, the twin numbers that make up my FCC identification designator info, that IS directly linked to my existing FCC General Class Ham license, WOULD seriously challenge any "FAA registration" needs for display anywhere on the model for my own situation, outside of the AMA license number that would already be on a sport RC model's exterior, or an RC Scale/Giant Scale model's interior.

It's mostly the NEED to do my "family name-change" back to my birthname as soon as I can early in 2019, and NOT knowing how "easily" that would be to accomplish with FAA registration (especially concerning doing a legal name change AFTER doing an "FCC registration") that's firmly prompting the preference for using ONLY my already-issued FCC General Class Ham license's "Licensee ID" and "FRN" identifiers in their place.

Please, do whatever you can to get the expected "remote ID" requirement from the FAA to ONLY be applicable to Part 107-flown, public service and commercial UAS platforms, and not to recreational UAS hobbyists' RC model aircraft...remember, places like Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome DO have well-attended "special" RC aeromdeling events twice a year (the AMA has recognized ORA previously at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahU... , from 2016) and NONE of us wants to see the FAA mess around with "remote ID transponders" in ANY of our hobbyist-flown RC model aircraft, and ruin great events that the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome has safely hosted for over half-a-century.

Thank you and Yours Sincerely.
Dave from New England

If the AMA does not lobby hard and fast in DC against this, this will be the end of our hobby.
Get to work please. Letting UAS enter the AMA was a mistake. We represent MODEL aviation, that means copying an airplane or helicopter, a UAS is not a MODEL. It requires no skills what so ever. You broke it AMA, fix it!

I am in complete agreement with your article.
I have flown almost every type of model airplane since building the first stick & tissue at age 6 in the 1940s. The phase now is close local FPV airplane fun flying....it makes you Superman...a bird...a free spirit. I take the responsibilities for this and all hobby flying seriously. Likewise, I take my freedom as an American male foremost above any bureaucratic encroachment on my freedom.
That said, I believe we are seeing the fruits of social change after the 1950s which gave welfare to women for producing babies without marriage nor a husband to be a role model for the young boys. Sad to say, I see no easy or quick solution to so many irresponsible males and the government powers gathering social control.
I'm off the soap box....
Jim

Only the law abiding will comply with this mandate .... The people that fly out side of our CBO don't give a (fill in the blank) about the law, and therefore are outside of this ridicules idea. Must have been dreamed up by persons with out a clue.

Just read your December article and agree with your standing 100%. I'm a retired FAA Aviation Safety Inspector - 2018, and 30+ year professional airline pilot and I find the idea of requiring model aircraft, of all types, to have remote "transponders" ridiculous and far over-reaching by the FAA! I can see some benefit to UAV's capable of flight into controller airspace beyond the view of the operator being required to have an onboard "transponder" but certainly not any others! I applaud your position and I encourage you to continue fighting for a practical solution to a trumped-up issue.

Your line of sight reasoning is reasonable. Let's hope the FAA is in a reasonable let mood.

I think they would be better off to put remote identification on cell towers, radio and TV towere, high voltage transmission towers, tall bridge structures, etc. Then a banding/branding/location project for birds. There are far, far more of these things to be hazardous to full scale aircraft than there are model aircraft/UAV’s.

Question would this be for each plane you have?? Or for your person?? This will drive out people from the hobby..My wife and I both enjoy flying..And does this include indoor planes??

The FAA and commercial interests are gonna do whatever they want. I haven't been in this hobby that long, and when it gets too much of a hassle, I'm just getting out. It's not far from that point now. The hobby is being destroyed.

AMA members do have license plates on our aircraft (AMA#, FAA# and address) on all models. Aircraft beacons are not realistic to implement on a lot of models, but if needed, the APP idea is the only rational way to do it. No cost, flying sites would need one APP, not 50 beacons.

Its unfortunate that a "few bad apples" have made the hobby less enjoyable for the majority who are responsible model aviators. Even more regrettable is that so many in government believe that more rules, regulations, and laws will "fix" the problem. Time and again we rediscover that making something a crime doesn't deter those who would be criminals. Laws require a drivers license and insurance but some get neither; background checks are required to get a handgun but criminals don't apply. The same people that point lasers at aircraft will fly their drones in flight paths without "remote identification"... Go figure.

Remote ID of toy airplanes we fly including Quads Turbine Jets ect at sanctioned Model Air Flying sites should not be subject to any remote ID requirements. In lue of Remote ID I propose that all Sanctioned Flying sites have a 2000' Radius up to 2000' AGL listed on all Sectional and Electronic flight mapping devices. These areas should be listed as Alert Areas so as to warn All Aircraft as to their location so said aircraft can avoid these areas.
Right know if there as many as two people at a flying site aircraft are required to maintain 100' Above the highest object within 2000' Horizontally of )bthe aircraft. per FAR 91.119 (b)

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a)Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b)Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c)Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d)Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

This FAA, NTSB, AMA fixation on regulations of a great sport is well out of hand. I've been building and flying models of all sorts for 60 years and never have I seen such. Seems the AMA and FAA back and forth has exasperated this further away from reality than I could ever imagine.

In the 60s and 70s I flew control line and evolved into RC soaring into the 90s. Never once did I think I'd have to equip my planes with transponders. Things were simple before AMA allowed the new technologies into the simple sport that was. Bad guys and irresponsible modelers are in the drivers seat leaving the rest of us having to tolerate more government involvement in my hobby.

I've 1/4 and 1/3 scale planes that I seldom fly anymore as the closest club with enough airspace is near 40 miles away. Another club site is 80 miles away.

At 70 years old, Hand Launch gliders is a bit too painful but catapult launch is doable. Maybe returning to ball fields and school yards but that can be debatable too.

I'll yield to the absolute silliness of whats going on with the back and forth and go back to simpler times and build more model boats.

Hiram Webster, AMA 2737

Once again a government overreach, instituted by people who haven't a clue. Their goal is to appear to be doing something to correct a problem when in reality they only create more ineffective bloat in government. There is no way that remote ID would hold up in court to prosecute a supposed offender unless that person was standing near the aircraft. Ever get a spoofed caller id on your phone? Of course you have -- probably multiple times a day. Does the government actually believe that a remote model ID can't be spoofed? Does the government actually believe that those proposing to do harm with a UAV will be inclined to even put a remote ID in their aircraft? The only people that will be subject to detection and fines will be those individuals flying their craft within line of site of the craft who for one reason or another fail to be using the remote ID while some useless entity monitors known flying sites.

reading the article, and trying to think through to what might be the next logical step, in the event that FAA/DOD get their wish for blanket remote identification; and that some sort of viable technology or chip becomes available that could work an any model. That would mean that there would be a lot of data being created, transmitted and (presumably) stored every day, each time a model is flown. Given that most if this data is going to be non-issue (if someone is flying safely and in a area where legal and permitted) who is going to monitor all this real time data? Who will monitor it as to it's content and meaning? Presumably, if a law breaker or bad drone operator is identified via this data, is someone gong to jump into a car and drive to the last known location to try to locate the offender? Or would that be handed off to local law enforcements? All told, this sounds like an idea where people are impressed by the possibility of future technology, but give no thought to how it would be practically implemented or enforced. Unfortunately this is not an uncommon theme with Federal level legislation and regulation.

I agree that unmanned aerial vehicles should have some type of communication device. But I also agree that a line of sight model of any sort should not because it is under the control of the operator Anything that leaves to control the operator or is no way to prove its origin does alleviating liability should require an identifier IFF. Identification friend or foe worked for many years in the military thus preventing from shooting down civilian aircraft and still works today in the private sector. Unfortunately these identifiers are of a mass larger than most model aircraft can carry. This is why we put identification tags inside and numbers on the outside of aircraft. I’ve never seen a drone with an AMA number on it ever. And I think the industry should keep these two hobbies separate And the AMA should separate itself from them.

{remotely identify their model aircraft}: you are asking pilots/modeler/operator to install a simple IFF transmitter {friend or foe} {which does not exist}in their model at additional cost to them. as of now no one provides them in their product line. what kind of transmission range is required and the power needed from the onboard battery. Is a second antenna needed for this function.
if it becomes required per DOD FAA, the manufacture of the onboard receiver needs to comply with this at no additional cost to the consumer after purchase.

No model aircraft flying within line of sight and under 500 FT AGL more than 3 miles from an airport should be required to be identified remotely. Period. I will be one of the non-compliant pilots flying on my own land.

NOT everyone has or even desires to have a smart phone. Forget the APP idea. This whole issue is the result of the commercial
Mikeout of control drones guys. The airplane guys are getting screwed. Back to CL, I guess!

Our Federal Government DOT in all aspects has the responsibility for public safety on our highways, waterways, and in the airspace. Laws and regulations that are currently approved and enacted have not prevented ALL human death and injury, however without laws there would be chaos, so to that end they have had a positive result. This current FAA remote identification has already passed into law. Our hobby has been perceived to be a danger (mainly to those who have never been a part of this hobby). Because we are collectively a very small voter base (follow the dollars for our politicians) our voice which is the AMA will have little impact on changing this new regulation when other wealthy interests are lobbying against us. Therefore, let us develop some commonsense solutions. I believe we should share the responsibility and the cost to comply with this regulation with the general (full scale) aviation community. A possible solution might include use of a small hand-held transmitter like a "walkie-talkie" transmitting on a non-interfering frequency. There are many of these radios with five mile transmitting ranges. There would only be a need for one such device at any active rc field; or hand-held by any independent pilot/operator . This transmitted signal would be received by an appropriate matching receiver installed in every full scale airplane, strong enough to receive that signal. This could give the full scale pilot advance warning that he/she was approaching (within a designed distance) an RC pilot and then be able to safely divert if necessary. Some electronic engineering and manufacturing business should be able to make such a devise at a reasonable cost, and that cost would be the responsibility of those affected. This would take this remote identification regulation out of the realm of perceived invasion of privacy by the FAA identifying each operator. If the FAA is truly interested only in "safety", this should be a reasonable solution. Identification of every rc pilot would only provide law enforcement a target should there be a collision with full scale craft, and would not prevent that collision. The responsibility to operate safely rests with each rc pilot, and with each full scale pilot. We (as a SIG) can't be responsible for the idiots who have no regard for anyone else's safety or well-being, or for the law. Of course the ideal situation would be to rely on "common sense" as we have for so many years and regulate ourselves, but times (and people) have changed, so we are again the "dog chasing its tail" and we seem to be the tail again.

Add new comment