The other shoe drops

[Brett Buck]

Preditcable, and predicted:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/26/faa-remote-id-rule-for-drones-would-enable-tracking-identification.html

   This is why you don't want to accept the definition of a drone/UAS for your CL model.

    Brett

   

[Fredvon4]

Dang it Brett, this is my conundrum with your posts on UAS....

You seem to keep saying the FAR Part 103 107 definitions exempt FF   and C/L   but my simple education does not read it as you do......please point out the Control Line exclusion....

IMO two wires and a handle constitute a "ground control station" in english language....You and I, or anyone cogent about control line flight, have no problem understanding what they meant....but it is not what they WROTE

“This is an important building block in the unmanned traffic management ecosystem,” the rule reads. “All UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] operating in the airspace of the United States, with very few exceptions, would be subject to the requirements of this rule.”

BTW Something to ponder.........just because some PAMPA/FAI/AMA contest rule sez max 70 feet.....well thunk on it some ----I certainly can devise a craft to fly on longer than 400 foot wires...not at all practical and drag would be a drag....In my youth I put more than one kite out on 500 foot + line....doubt it exceeded 400 AGL but it could have with more line

point is ----if I was a prosecutor and you are claiming relief because your craft is limited to only a 70' hemisphere....I will ask if your plane could POSSIBLY fly on 100 foot or longer.....yer under oath sir

Yes I know I am a butt head about this....but FCC has fined and confiscated property from guys I know were not scofflaws...just ignorant...they are now Federal Felons and can not own guns due to their ignorance

[Brett Buck]

Dang it Brett, this is my conundrum with your posts on UAS....

You seem to keep saying the FAR Part 103 definitions exempt FF   and C/L   but my simple education does not read it as you do......please point out the Control Line exclusion....

IMO two wires and a handle constitute a "ground control station" in english language....You and I, or anyone cogent about control line flight, have no problem understanding what they meant....but it is not what they WROTE

“This is an important building block in the unmanned traffic management ecosystem,” the rule reads. “All UAS [unmanned aircraft systems] operating in the airspace of the United States, with very few exceptions, would be subject to the requirements of this rule.”

BTW Something to ponder.........just because some PAMPA/FAI/AMA contest rule sez max 70 feet.....well thunk on it some ----I certainly can devise a craft to fly on longer than 400 foot wires...not at all practical and drag would be a drag....In my youth I put more than one kite out on 500 foot + line....doubt it exceeded 400 AGL but it could have with more line

point is ----if I was a prosecutor and you are claiming relief because your craft is limited to only a 70' hemisphere....I will ask if your plane could POSSIBLY fly on 100 foot or longer.....yer under oath sir

Yes I know I am a butt head about this....but FCC has fined and confiscated property from guys I know were not scofflaws...just ignorant...they are now Federal Felons and can not own guns due to their ignorance

    For Christ's sake, we have repeated statements from the people in charge that WE ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS, because we ARE NOT A UAS. That was the intent, that is what it says, the FAA people in charge  - our only representatives - have repeatedly said so. So what "proof" would you accept? No one is ever likely to get a clause added to specifically mention CL, because they consider it unnecessary?

   Or would you just like to shut down voluntarily, just to be safe? Take that to the logical conclusion.

   It is, however, painfully misguided to register anyway, just to get yourself in the database, and then begging the question yet again.

   Brett

[Jim Kraft]

I have to agree with Fred. Until we get an absolute ruling, then there is nothing we can do and they can come to our house and confiscate all our equipment until it goes to court. Then the lawyers will decide. They will say, there was no exemption for control line and therefore we are subject to the law. Thou shalt not fly model airplanes without electronic identification. Period.

Were you in the plane? No. Were you controlling the plane from the ground. Yes. Guilty as charged. There will be law suits until it is resolved one way or the other. UNLESS, FAA exempts control line in writing. Like, CONTROL LINE IS EXEMPT. Simple enough to do. But, they have not done it and so there is no exemption. I have read the rules over and over and have yet to see an exemption for control line. We can say there is, but that does not mean there is.

So, maybe Fred and I are just blowing smoke and do not understand the law as written. Maybe?

[Brett Buck]

I have to agree with Fred. Until we get an absolute ruling, then there is nothing we can do and they can come to our house and confiscate all our equipment until it goes to court. Then the lawyers will decide. They will say, there was no exemption for control line and therefore we are subject to the law. Thou shalt not fly model airplanes without electronic identification. Period.

Were you in the plane? No. Were you controlling the plane from the ground. Yes. Guilty as charged. There will be law suits until it is resolved one way or the other. UNLESS, FAA exempts control line in writing. Like, CONTROL LINE IS EXEMPT. Simple enough to do. But, they have not done it and so there is no exemption. I have read the rules over and over and have yet to see an exemption for control line. We can say there is, but that does not mean there is.

So, maybe Fred and I are just blowing smoke and do not understand the law as written. Maybe?

     You will never get that - beyond the FAA representatives telling us this again and again, that is. If you don't like that, then I don't know what will satisfy you.

    I take it you are no longer flying model airplanes, pending this statement?

   Following that line of reasoning, we should all stop doing anything that is not explicitly stated in law? That turns the entire concept of common law on its head. Most of what you do for anything in life is not explicitly stated as legal, anywhere.

     Brett

[wwwarbird]

 Seems pretty simple to me, if you're flying C/L don't register, and don't worry about it. 

[Ken Culbertson]

   Following that line of reasoning, we should all stop doing anything that is not explicitly stated in law?

Oh no, I can't fly electric using a stooge anymore?  Life as we know it is over.

Ken

[Mike Griffin]

Seems pretty simple to me, if you're flying C/L don't register, and don't worry about it. 

You nailed it in one sentence Wayne.  Brett is correct.  This whole thing has gotten to the point of "the sky is falling" ridiculous.  Do you actually think that the brown shirts from the FAA are going to come to your house and confiscate your toy airplanes?  The paranoia associated with all this is mind boggling to me.  Go fly your damn planes and forget all this crap.  For Christs sake this is getting nuts.

Mike

[Brett Buck]

Do you actually think that the brown shirts from the FAA are going to come to your house and confiscate your toy airplanes?

   To be fair, when they were telling us we *weren't* exempt, then, I might have been in the same frame of mind. But when you do absolutely everything a person can do to get approval from the FAA, they keep saying "you are OK, go ahead", every time, then, at some point, you have to be willing to take their word for it.

       Brett

[bill bischoff]

FAR part 103 is Ultralights.

[Mike Griffin]

I decided the post I made was not pertinent to the discussion so I deleted it. 

Mike

[Perry Rose]

 to read and comment on the Remote ID Proposal

Get ready for the next exciting step in safe drone integration! The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued the proposed rule for remote identification of drones.

With nearly 1.5 million drones and 155,000 remote pilots registered with the FAA, the ability to provide identification and location is essential to keeping drones safely separated from other aircraft operating in our airspace. 

We encourage drone enthusiasts, and anyone interested in aviation safety, to read our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking now in the Federal Register. In the next few days, a 60-day comment period will open to receive your feedback which can help us develop a final rule that enhances safety and security in our nation’s skies.

“Drones are the fastest growing segment of transportation in our nation and it is vitally important that they are safely integrated into the national airspace,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao.

“As a pilot, my eye is always on safety first,” said FAA Administrator Steve Dickson. “Safety is a joint responsibility between government, pilots, the drone community, the general public and many others who make our nation so creative and innovative.”

Equipping drones with remote identification technologies would build on previous steps taken by the FAA and the UAS industry to safely integrate operations, including the small UAS rule, which covers drones weighing less than 55 pounds other than model aircraft, and the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC), which automates the application and approval process for drone operators to obtain airspace authorizations.

These efforts are the foundation for more complex operations, such as beyond visual line of sight at low altitudes, as we move toward a traffic management ecosystem for drone flights separate from, but complementary to, our air traffic management system.

The proposed Remote I.D. rule would apply to all drones that are required to register with the FAA (recreational drones weighing under 0.55 pounds are not required to register), as well as to people who operate foreign civil drone in the United States.
Remote ID diagram

STAY CONNECTED:
Twitter link    facebook link    LinkedIn link    Youtube link    Instagram Link

[WR Crane aka MrClean]

I get to take a test, to prove to the FAA that I know what I'm doing.  Instead of the jerks that go buy a drone at walmart and watch it take off over the airport because Instructions are made for idiots.

[Matt Colan]

You seem to keep saying the FAR Part 103 107 definitions exempt FF   and C/L   but my simple education does not read it as you do......please point out the Control Line exclusion

IMO two wires and a handle constitute a "ground control station" in english language....You and I, or anyone cogent about control line flight, have no problem understanding what they meant....

A ground control station is a means of wireless link between the drone and the operator. A GCS can include a camera system, and the controls to operate said drone, could be a simple as a DJI Phantom or as complex as flying a predator. Everybody who has been working on this refers to a ground control station as something like I just stated. When I was in school, our UAS department flew tethered drones by our airport because it removed one of the provisions for making a drone a drone, so they were allowed to operate it near the airport. Nobody in their right mind is concerned about our aircraft interfering with air traffic. Nothing we do qualifies us under the definition of a UAS and what the regs are being written for

[Dan McEntee]

A ground control station is a means of wireless link between the drone and the operator. A GCS can include a camera system, and the controls to operate said drone, could be a simple as a DJI Phantom or as complex as flying a predator. Everybody who has been working on this refers to a ground control station as something like I just stated. When I was in school, our UAS department flew tethered drones by our airport because it removed one of the provisions for making a drone a drone, so they were allowed to operate it near the airport. Nobody in their right mind is concerned about our aircraft interfering with air traffic. Nothing we do qualifies us under the definition of a UAS and what the regs are being written for

  I would go along with what Matt has stated here. He's probably one of the very few that have had recent and updated school classes on this in reference to his chosen occupation as an air traffic controller.I think the segment of the hobby that needs the most attention to separate themselves from the public perception  of what a drone is, would be the average R/C enthusiast who just wants to fly his Kaos pattern ship, or the guys like Jim Kraft that are into R/C guided vintage free flight models. In other words, the pure hobbyist. And I still believe one of the greatest separating tools is to regulate and license the GPS technology and the forward point of view camera systems. With out those, what have you got? Just another R/C toy. Almost any commercial use of a quad-copter should have a transponder and be in communication with the local ATC. I think the use by the general public is beginning to wain just a bit. Our local Craig's List is full of quads of all sizes u for sale, especially the Phantoms.
   HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!
  Dan McEntee

[Ken Culbertson]

Nobody in their right mind .... is concerned about our aircraft interfering with air traffic.

Matt - it is that statement that has those of us who have experienced bureaucratic insanity worried.  I am with you on the absurdity of considering a CL plane a UAS.  Our RC friends however should be afraid - very afraid. 

You used the word "Wireless" to describe the control link.  Unfortunately the 107 rules don't and that is what has us/me worried.  Personally I think all of this is a tempest in a teapot for CL but if we are not careful as to how things are defined we may find ourselves facing local bans that include us only because the definitions don't exclude us.  Once regulations are in print it is very difficult and time consuming to change them.  You are in the thick of things with this and probably know more than any of us what is really going on.  All of you involved probably think in terms of wireless.  Just get them to add that word to the definition of a Control Station and we will find some other dumb thing to argue about in the winter.

Let me add my personal lesson in bureaucracy.  In 1974 I was in the Air Force and in charge of training the weapons crews at our base.  One of the things they had to learn was testing the weapons release electronics for all of the weapons they may be exposed to - everything from "bottle rockets" to hydrogen bombs.  For the higher end weapons, there was a box that you plugged into the weapons umbilical that simulated the weapon and you would step through the arming sequence all the way to launch/drop.  This included testing the emergency override switch.  We would routinely introduce situations where we would cause the test to fail for training purposes yet the Override never did.  I asked the electronics shop if they had a schematic of the test box circuits and they showed that the override would only "override" if the main circuit failed.  Now here is where I learned my lesson.  The test checklist did not have a step to turn off the Master (to simulate failure) in order to test the Override.  We submitted this "error" to the folks that wrote the procedures and they agreed.  We added that step to our checklist with their blessing.  Were the official checklists ever updated - no.

Later that year I represented our base in a professional competition.  In the final matching, and well into 1st place,  my cockpit person put the Master Arm switch in the off position to test the override and we got busted.  I appealed and lost.  Even though the other crews had preformed a major safety and reliability error, one that would have gotten them decertified and maybe caused a mission to fail. Even though I was able to to document the change,  we lost.  When it was over my CO (a pilot) took me aside and thanked me for looking out for him.  I asked what happened and he said he found out that we were set up.  When the opposing team's judges saw your checklist they knew there was an extra step.  He was sorry but the other crew's CO outranked him.

This is all that scares me.  Right now everybody involved is working with the spirit of the new rules.  Once they are finalized it will be the ones enforcing them that scare me.  How simple it would be now to add Matt's words to the definition and "have the step in everybody's checklist".
 
By the way, thanks for the RWO video's.  I have spotted the reason that maneuver was being dragged into the abyss.  How to correct it may involve electro-shock therapy.

Ken

[Matt Colan]

I agree with Mike. What I think is going to happen in the future with Amazon, Google and every other company that wants to operate drones, is there will be specific routing routing they have to follow through congested airspace like the DFW metroplex class B. Those routes would help keep the drones separated from other IFR aircraft on SIDs or STARS into and out of the area. For them to have that capability, they would have to have a transponder, ADS-B and maybe some form of TCAS. I wrote research papers on this subject in college and a lot of what I wrote is not terribly far off what I wrote about, and control-line would never have been able to be regulated under the rules. The last thing I would ever pay attention to on my radar scope, or something I would never pick up on my radar is somebody flying a flite streak on 52ft lines 20 miles from any airport. We wouldn’t be able to see it and it’s not a concern for the flying public.

[Matt Colan]

Anytime Ken! I’ll bring the cattle prod next time I make a trip up 

Maybe I’m just naive, but in the training I’ve done at work, what I read and studied in school, I don’t see any concern for us to be worried about UAS application to CL

[Ken Culbertson]

Anytime Ken! I’ll bring the cattle prod next time I make a trip up 

Maybe I’m just naive, but in the training I’ve done at work, what I read and studied in school, I don’t see any concern for us to be worried about UAS application to CL

Couldn't agree more.  The problem is not the FAA, or the intent of the FAA but you are seeing it almost entirely from the inside.  I am trying to put myself in the position of some local city council that has a small airports trying to craft a regulation.

"Wireless" anywhere in the rules completely clears us because WE USE WIRES!  I think there is going to be some real push back when these commercial drones start landing in peoples trees or get pounced on by the cat as they drop their loads.   I just don't want us getting swept up in some local ban because things weren't clear.  From your standpoint there is no problem and there probably never will be but from mine, I see a "gotcha", one that probably will never happen but why take the chance.

Ken

[Gary Dowler]

Seems pretty simple to me, if you're flying C/L don't register, and don't worry about it. 

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one, NO ONE, from the federal government is going to come grab you for flying your CL airplanes.    If you feel the need to protect yourself, print off the letter from the FAA representative that's been published on this site, laminate it and attach it to your flight box so you can show it to anyone who might possibly question you.  Otherwise, QUIT WORRYING ENDLESSLEY OVER STUFF THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, NOR IS THREATENING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Brett has, on numerous occasions, explained why this is not a pending threat, but some just cannot grasp this and accept it.  Oh well.  There's a saying somewhere about horses and water........


Gary

[Dan McEntee]

  The one thing about all of this that still amazes me is that in these modern times they are going to just drop what ever it is that you ordered  and you have to hope that they are hovering above your front lawn! Forget all of the legalities and the politics behind it, it's just the absurdity of the idea of just dumping the cargo for literally any one or anything to just pick up and walk away with! Would I want my pizza dropped from any kind of altitude? Or my order of expensive medications from Walgreen's!!?? I don't think so! Porch pirates are ban enough alone to deal with, and he we will have goodies falling from the sky!! While it may be technically possible to deliver something by a drone, the logistics of doing it in any kind of acceptable volume to make it profitable is what I find doubtful, and that doesn't even begin to take other factors into account such as weather, and I mean even just a sunny day with high winds could make things difficult. I still think Amazon brought this all up just for the free publicity and boy have they vastly succeeded at that!
   Type at you later and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
     Dan McEntee

[Ken Culbertson]

No one, NO ONE, from the federal government is going to come grab you for flying your CL airplanes.

Your local city council has just as much control over your ability to fly as the FAA does, perhaps more.  Do you seriously expect local politicians to give a lusty crap about out interests if they have to deal with the "Drone" issue?  Maybe when they go to ban everything someone might read 107 and only ban *wireless* but if that word is not in there they will probably just do it all.

Look, I am very much on the side of this never happening and maybe we all have our panties in a wad over nothing but if 8 letters inserted into one definition fixes it then why not do it?  That is what I don't get.

Dan - I think you are right on.  As far as this goes will be commercial delivery between fixed delivery pads.  Office building roofs, construction sites, etc.  maybe survival supplies.  It will be a very long time before we see anything more than token residential delivery.  Frankly the whole idea scares the hell out of me.  Bad guys through out the world are probably doing high 5's as they figure out how they can use this technology.  Drug cartels already are.  Drones are cheaper than mules, can see at night and don't talk when captured.

Ken

[EricV]

  The one thing about all of this that still amazes me is that in these modern times they are going to just drop what ever it is that you ordered  and you have to hope that they are hovering above your front lawn! Forget all of the legalities and the politics behind it, it's just the absurdity of the idea of just dumping the cargo for literally any one or anything to just pick up and walk away with! Would I want my pizza dropped from any kind of altitude? Or my order of expensive medications from Walgreen's!!?? I don't think so! Porch pirates are ban enough alone to deal with, and he we will have goodies falling from the sky!! While it may be technically possible to deliver something by a drone, the logistics of doing it in any kind of acceptable volume to make it profitable is what I find doubtful, and that doesn't even begin to take other factors into account such as weather, and I mean even just a sunny day with high winds could make things difficult. I still think Amazon brought this all up just for the free publicity and boy have they vastly succeeded at that!
   Type at you later and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
     Dan McEntee

I've never had much good drop on me from the sky, (got my flying hand and handle once while I was flying in a contest. Show's ya what he thought of my flying)...
... and yes, I'm still glad cows don't fly   

[Bob Lafayette]

Dear Members, 
On Thursday, December 26, the FAA released its proposed rule on remote identification (remote ID) in the Federal Register. AMA is still reviewing the 319-page notice of proposed rulemaking; however, an early read indicates that we were successful in efforts to shape the proposed rule including not requiring onboard equipage for our members at our flying sites. We will continue to advocate for our members and the hobby by addressing the concerns in the proposal.  We will share our full analysis in the coming days.
When the FAA announced plans to remotely identify unmanned aircraft a few years ago, the Academy immediately began advocating on behalf of our members, including shaping decisions during the 2017 Remote ID Aviation Rulemaking Committee. AMA recommended a common-sense approach to remote ID that would be quick, cost-effective and easy for the recreational UAS community to comply.   
Please keep in mind that this is a proposed rule, not a final rule. While AMA was successful in shaping elements of the proposed rule, we will continue to address unnecessary burdens for both manufacturers and the recreational community in the final rule and during implementation. AMA will soon ask our members to participate in the process by providing comments to the FAA.
The FAA will begin reviewing comments and feedback in March 2020. The comment review process could take weeks or months to complete before FAA publishes a final rule and begins the lengthy implementation process. We encourage members to look for future communications from AMA for the most current information regarding this proposed rule.
In the meantime, you can read Frequently Asked Questions on our blog. As always, please contact AMA Government Affairs at (765)287-1256 or amagov@modelaircraft with any questions. You can read the entire proposed rule and FAA's announcement here.
Thank you, 
Academy of Model Aeronautics 
 

[Ted Fancher]

Until they develop a means for the Amazon, etc. drones to ring your doorbell when they make a "delivery" there should be a law specifically stating unmanned drone deliveries are illegal!  That would solve the problem for the foreseeable future, I would think!

Ted

[Ken Culbertson]

Until they develop a means for the Amazon, etc. drones to ring your doorbell when they make a "delivery" there should be a law specifically stating unmanned drone deliveries are illegal!  That would solve the problem for the foreseeable future, I would think!

Ted

Who needs laws when you have an attack cat deployed on your roof.

Ken

[Mike Griffin]

I was a drone technician and pilot for the Civil Air Patrol.  They furnished us DJI Phantom 4 machines. They have a battery life of 25 minutes.  They are going to have to go a long way to improve battery life for these things before they can deliver anything for any distance.  Once they sense the battery is low, they automatically return and land in the exact same spot from where they launched.

Mike

[Bob Lafayette]

FAA is BS'ng us!

[Dave_Trible]

Got an email from Chad.  He says they are having another meeting with the FAA today.  I sense he is still a little nervous about even CL and FF in regards to this tracking issue.  I told him our group is looking for a clear wording that exempts CL.  We will take part in another SIG webinar about it next week.

Dave

[Brett Buck]

Got an email from Chad.  He says they are having another meeting with the FAA today.  I sense he is still a little nervous about even CL and FF in regards to this tracking issue.  I told him our group is looking for a clear wording that exempts CL.  We will take part in another SIG webinar about it next week.

   It should be made perfectly clear that if the "tracking" requirement is implemented for CL and FF, that is literally The End, we will not be able to comply in any practical way.

     Brett

[Bob Lafayette]

TEOSAWKI

“The End Of Stunt As We’ve Known It”

[Ken Culbertson]

   It should be made perfectly clear that if the "tracking" requirement is implemented for CL and FF, that is literally The End, we will not be able to comply in any practical way.

     Brett

Just picture the FAA monitors tracking a combat event.

[Dennis Saydak]

This matter sounds pretty ridiculous to me. It won't be long before some child is charged with a felony for flying a kite in  their front yard. 
IMHO I'd be very surprised if the feds would permanently issue an exemption for C/L but I sure hope I'm wrong. If they do it will likely come with more restrictions. I'm in Canada but as we know what happens in the USA can happen here.

[TigreST]

Never mind

[Dave Hull]

Well, Dennis, you'd have to look up the laws to see what the city/county has on the books. In Los Angeles, they passed an ordinance in 2015 regarding drones the violation of which is a misdemeanor with fines of up to $1,000 and/or 6 months in jail. And, there were already laws on the books (FAA) regarding kite flying within a few miles of an airport. So yes, if your house is close to the airport and your kids are flying kites in the front yard, they might be doing something illegal in the USA.

That is how it's been for a long time, and to continue your hyperbole, to the best of my knowledge, no child has been given hard time or had his allowance garnished for hoisting their Jolly Roger Malay kite....

And, I disagree with Brett regarding tracking. As I said before, if it came down to it, we would simply erect a pole in the pit area between our two circles. The top of the pole would be at 75 feet or so and house our ADS-B antenna, etc. When you want to fly, you simply flip on the switch and fly. If they require us to have a code, so be it. We input an individual airplane's code and then flip on the switch. Of course, this would all be a colossal waste of money, since the ATC radar operators will immediately enable filters to suppress any "clutter" we create. Because they know, just as we know, that if that Gulfstream 550 came screaming thru our circles at less than 100 feet some 3 miles from the runway where we might actually have a midair, it's already going down, and going down hard. The modelers will be the first rescue personnel on site.

Not conjecture, but from actual experience with the FAA ATC this past summer:  they do not want phone calls asking for clearances from modelers of any type for permission to fly in their Class C airspace. They don't have time for it. The LAANC system is supposed to relieve them of that burden, and they are probably hoping they won't have to deal with it at all. I think there may be a good bit of friction between the ATC division (AJO) and new UAS directorate, and the AMA is caught in between two large government organizations...or at least one large one and one new one with significant new regulatory authority.

Dave

[Dwayne]

This matter sounds pretty ridiculous to me. It won't be long before some child is charged with a felony for flying a kite in  their front yard. 
IMHO I'd be very surprised if the feds would permanently issue an exemption for C/L but I sure hope I'm wrong. If they do it will likely come with more restrictions. I'm in Canada but as we know what happens in the USA can happen here.

Not always, don't worry not going happen up here. 

[Dennis Moritz]

Anyone here use a cellphone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John Lindberg]

I was out flying a 24 inch-a Jimmy Allen design-free flight one warm day. Because of the slight wind drift I was launching near a Coast Guard administration office (thanks to Robert "Sheets" Byrd) in one of the only open fields around. Someone in the Coast Guard facility called Homeland Security, a officer pulled up, he told me I could not fly there because it was in FAA space. He said they were having problems with drones in the area. My P-51 (Easybuilt) 28" wingspan free flight (which I was also flying) does not look like a Drone! The Officer did not know where FAA airspace began and ended. I am located in the Harpers Ferry area of WV, where the first person killed in the Harpers Ferry raid on the Armory (John Brown) was a freed slave from the North, who was running down the tracks to warn the Union Troops coming in on the train. The freed slave was shot in the back by John Brown's soldier. The Officer that threw me out took my drivers license, checked me out on the computer, he had a big gun on his belt. 

[Chuck_Smith]

I have to walk in both worlds on this issue.

As a model flier I could be selfish and only worry about my model flying and see everything as a threat to my ability to enjoy my hobby.

On the other hand, as a full-scale pilot I'm constantly looking out for drones anytime I'm on approach or takeoff.  Since these are far and away the highest workload mission segments it's another stressor/distraction to consider and as such reduces flight safety as it takes my attention away from where it needs to be.

For example, one of the things we look out for now are cars parked where they usually aren't near the end of the runway. 

Also be aware that once I'm below 400' and in landing configuration there probably isn't a damned thing I could do about it in time if I saw a drone in my path. About all I could do is push the throttles up and start a go-around, and if I think I'm going to collide with something going around isn't necessarily the best option that close to the blue line.

On takeoff it would be very hard to see one, and again, I have other tasks that need to be attended to (pitch, power, heading, trim, gear, flaps, traffic and radios and transponder after getting my handoff from departure control, to name a few.)

Something needs to be done, and fast. As I mentioned previously, just the added threat of a drone collision reduces flight safety. Flight safety will - as it should- always take precedence over a hobby.

As far as the FAA and local law enforcement cracking down on controline - not something I'm going to lose sleep over. In the end all of this may be the best thing that ever happened to CL since the invention of the bellcrank. Who knows? Maybe some RC-only fliers may decide it's not worth the hassle and come join us.

Chuck

[phil c]

You nailed it in one sentence Wayne.  Brett is correct.  This whole thing has gotten to the point of "the sky is falling" ridiculous.  Do you actually think that the brown shirts from the FAA are going to come to your house and confiscate your toy airplanes?  The paranoia associated with all this is mind boggling to me.  Go fly your damn planes and forget all this crap.  For Christs sake this is getting nuts.

Mike

Well it is a Federal agency.  They can do some strange things.  Not too many years ago, 2009 maybe, a couple in CO I think, bought some property, leveled out a spot for their house and built it.  A year later EPA ordered it torn down, since the fill was in an intermittent puddle that was deemed a "navigable waterway".  They lost appeals and a ton of money.
Now, at least that "navigable waterway" has been rewritten to eliminate sporadic water as a navigable.

I personally don't care what the FAA does because if they ever come after me for flying a CL plane I know several lawyers who would love to take them to court.  Very unlikely though since the President has reorganized the EPA, downsized it, and gotten in many new people.

[Dave_Trible]

Although the AMA thinks it will take at least three years for all the litigation to be settled I wouldn't be surprised if we do end up with very small transponders in our airplanes.  I know the FAA is consulting with a private developer of such things.  The light becomes clear what will happen when you see the purpose: to prevent collisions between your airplane and other delivery drones while your neighbor 's Krispy Kremes are being delivered.  I doubt they will be complicated.  There are locating devices now in use to find lost Free Flight airplanes.  I'd expect they might be more like short range avoidance devices.  Time marches on.....

Dave

[pmackenzie]

What they are proposing are not just simple transponders for collision avoidance.
They have to be internet connected, and you have to subscribe to a private data recording service that keeps records of your flight for 2 years.
This won't be free of course, the data recording companies will charge for this service. No internet connection = no fly.

Every model you have must have a unique serial number, so you can't simply move the transponder from one model to another.

C/L, if it is covered by these rules, could make use of "limited" type. The transponder talks to your cell phone, and your cell phone is connected to the data recording service.
You are limited to 400' from the connected cell phone. Again, no internet connection = no flying. And all the serial number and individual model registration rules apply.

Final category is flying with no transponder. But this is only possible from sites registered by a recognized CBO ( community based organization, i.e. AMA), subject to FAA approval.
Only the CBO can apply to register the site. And only in the first year after the rules are finalized. After that no new sites will be allowed. Ever.
As sites are lost they will not be replaced.
This plan is for this to allow existing models without RID to continue to operate. But eventually all will move to some form of RID, as they are phased out of service.
Showing how clued out they are, the FAA assumes that the typical operator has 2 models in a 10 year period!

[Sean McEntee]

For those fretting about CL and FF models requiring some sort of tracking, you are missed one thing that Matt point out.  The key language is WIRELESS.

Security agencies wanted to use drones for surveillance during the last Superbowl, but the FAA wouldn't allow it due to the TFR over the venue, and for safety concerns of flying in close proximity to spectators.  Due to these, the drones were teathered--still operating wirelessly but essentially "dummy corded" to prevent flyaways into crowds and to shrink their exclusion zones.  Anyone can easily point to this practice as why CL models should not be considered in all of these regulations. 

As for Free Flight, I would opt for the "come and get me" approach.  Pretty much all large fields where serious FF modeling occurs are well away from any controlled airspace.  There is also, to my knowledge, no way to track a balsa-and-tissue model, even the big D Gas ships.  "Wireless GCS" also does not accurately describe FF because there is no link, wireless or mechanical with the ground except for RDT.  Several buddies of mine are into high altitude ballooning, which consists of a  non-transmitting camera e.g. Gopro, a large helium balloon, a recovery chute, and some sort of GPS tracking (typically an old phone or something)to aid in recovery.  With proper helium expansion calculations, some guys are reaching altitudes of 150,000MSL before the balloon bursts and the rig parachutes back to Earth.  These are, by definition, free flight models.  The FAAs only guidance to this crowd is that they be launched 50NM or greater from controlled airports, and it is RECOMMENDED (not required) that a strobe or some sort of anti-collision lights be affixed to the balloon.  If the FAA isn't worried about these things, which are easily reaching Class A airspace, then FF models as we know it are safe as well.

Matt:  From the moment I first heard about the ins and outs of ADS-B, I recognized that this was the FAAs answer to sUAS's inability to carry transponders, TCAS systems, and so on.  It's all too heavy.  ADS-B is also much more accurate than radar which allows tighter sequencing.  I concur with a lot of your assessments.  Speed limits (imagine that...speed limits in the sky) combined with commercial UAS corridors and short-range collision avoidance devices would make the takeoff and enroute phase of UAS delivery systems very doable.  Like dad pointed out, the problem is all of the potential hazards associated with landing and delivery.  The only thing that I could think of is some sort of recog software that can detect a space (front lawn, driveway, ect.) that meets predetermined size and grade needs for a landing zone.  Word on the street is General Atomics is working on similar software for Gray Eagles that, using the FMV camera, can essentially "see" the runway and judge its distance and position in the approach path.  This will eliminate the ground-based radar system that we use as a backup to DGPS.  The ground system is...difficult to emplace on larger airfields.  If we can build software to put a 3200lb, fixed wing aircraft flying at 120kias on the numbers of a 7000ft runway, getting a drone to select an LZ and land safely shouldn't be too tough, right? 

[Matt Colan]

Matt:  From the moment I first heard about the ins and outs of ADS-B, I recognized that this was the FAAs answer to sUAS's inability to carry transponders, TCAS systems, and so on.  It's all too heavy.  ADS-B is also much more accurate than radar which allows tighter sequencing.  I concur with a lot of your assessments.  Speed limits (imagine that...speed limits in the sky) combined with commercial UAS corridors and short-range collision avoidance devices would make the takeoff and enroute phase of UAS delivery systems very doable.  Like dad pointed out, the problem is all of the potential hazards associated with landing and delivery.  The only thing that I could think of is some sort of recog software that can detect a space (front lawn, driveway, ect.) that meets predetermined size and grade needs for a landing zone.  Word on the street is General Atomics is working on similar software for Gray Eagles that, using the FMV camera, can essentially "see" the runway and judge its distance and position in the approach path.  This will eliminate the ground-based radar system that we use as a backup to DGPS.  The ground system is...difficult to emplace on larger airfields.  If we can build software to put a 3200lb, fixed wing aircraft flying at 120kias on the numbers of a 7000ft runway, getting a drone to select an LZ and land safely shouldn't be too tough, right? 

ADS-B is great! We can get the callsign of a VFR target, and practically get realtime data on our scopes as to where the aircraft we're working are located.  I never worked traffic with STARS before FUSION came along, but waiting for radar sweeps and returns almost seems like it would have been agonizing (to me at least) compared to what we see now.  I could see the FAA adding a route structure like Victor airways, J routes, Q routes etc but called something else like a U route for unmanned aircraft.  Controllers would know where the routes are and manned aircraft (VFR and IFR) would be worked at least 1000ft above those routes while Amazon drones deliver your next set of brass coated steel lines to your doorstep.  It's one semi-educated guess where I can see how the integration would go.  These routes would pose no bearing on us with WIRED links and only getting to 75ft AGL, which is FAR below any Minimum Vectoring Altitude for an IFR aircraft to be concerned about...and not very many VFR pilots will be flying that low, and certainly nobody legally can in urban environments.

Garmin has an autoland system in the works to be put in use in Piper's M600 and the Cirrus Vision Jet. The little bit I read about it is it seems like if the pilot is having problems, they can push a button and the airplane picks the best suitable airport for landing, configures itself, and lands safely

[pmackenzie]

The proposed rules prohibit SUAS ( drones , which include recreational model airplanes)  from using ADS-B

ii. Prohibition against the Use of ADS-B Out and Transponders
The proposed rule also prohibits use of ADS-B Out and transponders for UAS operations
under 14 CFR part 107 and part 91 unless otherwise authorized by the FAA. The FAA is
concerned that the potential proliferation of ADS-B Out transmitters on UAS may negatively
affect the safe operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The projected
numbers of UAS operations have the potential to saturate available ADS-B frequencies, affecting
ADS-B capabilities for manned aircraft and potentially blinding ADS-B ground receivers. The
FAA is therefore proposing that UAS operators, with limited exceptions, be prohibited from
using ADS-B Out or transponders. The prohibition against the use of ADS-B Out and
transponders is discussed in Section XVI of this preamble.

[Guy B Jr]

Wonder what the Feds will do when they see me flying a stunt kite on 85' lines, practicing stunts.

[Dave Hull]

Pat,

That is what I suspected. Good find, digging that out.

A friend of mine used to work in the LA Tracon. I got the delux tour. One of the biggest things I came away with was that they needed to be able to suppress clutter to be able to make overall sense of the traffic, and to be able to isolate the specific aircraft they were working at the moment. You simply can't do that if there is too much clutter. I haven't been back to see what it looks like with ADS-B. That would be interesting, I'm sure.

After working a bit with radar during my career, I know that having software settings and selects that did things like set range gates and velocity limits (filters) were features that were really necessary. My Dad tells a funny story of crossing the inland waterway near the San Juan Islands in a sailboat in heavy fog. They actually have a controller, just like for aircraft. On the boat, they are using radar and are on a pretty much set course. They have contacted the controller for traffic. He says they are clear after a freighter passes in front of them. Then their radar lights up and it looks like something coming straight at them. Momentary concern (panic?) until they realize that its not likely that a speedboat would be going full tilt in the fog. And then the helo blasts overhead, still unseen in the fog. An example of why suppressing non-relevant velocities can be useful.

Imagine a zillion sUAS transponders all on, and basically not moving at any relevant velocity, just laying down a huge amount of symbology on the operators display. They're going to suppress it most, if not all of the time.

Dave

Dave

[Sean McEntee]

The proposed rules prohibit SUAS ( drones , which include recreational model airplanes)  from using ADS-B

Yes, interesting. I know Gray Eagle IFF already is equipped with a Mode 6 for ADS-B out operation. I imagine the FAA will integrate UAS over time. Good news for us modelers in the meantime.

[Norm Faith Jr.]

ADS-B is great! We can get the callsign of a VFR target, and practically get realtime data on our scopes as to where the aircraft we're working are located.  I never worked traffic with STARS before FUSION came along, but waiting for radar sweeps and returns almost seems like it would have been agonizing (to me at least) compared to what we see now.  I could see the FAA adding a route structure like Victor airways, J routes, Q routes etc but called something else like a U route for unmanned aircraft.  Controllers would know where the routes are and manned aircraft (VFR and IFR) would be worked at least 1000ft above those routes while Amazon drones deliver your next set of brass coated steel lines to your doorstep.  It's one semi-educated guess where I can see how the integration would go.  These routes would pose no bearing on us with WIRED links and only getting to 75ft AGL, which is FAR below any Minimum Vectoring Altitude for an IFR aircraft to be concerned about...and not very many VFR pilots will be flying that low, and certainly nobody legally can in urban environments.

Garmin has an autoland system in the works to be put in use in Piper's M600 and the Cirrus Vision Jet. The little bit I read about it is it seems like if the pilot is having problems, they can push a button and the airplane picks the best suitable airport for landing, configures itself, and lands safely

We have installed several of the ADS-B systems (by uAvionix) in the tail nav light locations, on Bonanzas, Cessna 172 etc. even in a T-50 Bamboo Bomber. A bit of a bugger to program, but a great system.
Norm

[Dave_Trible]

Last night I took part in another webinar from AMA with Chad and the other special interest group presidents.  It was about an hour long.  Virtually all of it concerned R/C, of course since it most affects them.  Chad made it a point to say that his position remains that free flight and control line are simply exempt since they are not UAS.  I hope he prevails.  He laid out that in their meetings with the FAA and the other interested groups there has developed two camps-the big corporations vs. the rest.  My take is that while they address this Remote ID issue in terms of airspace and national security,  this is a thinly disguised cover to allow them freed airspace for unhindered  commercial operations. 
What 'THEY' want:  Toys under 250 grams exempt
                                Designated model flying site exempt with a 400 ft. 'bubble'-thats altitude AND horizontal distance. 
                                Anything flying outside these areas must have Remote ID
                                EVERY individual UAS registered
                                Vague to no answer about events/contests anyplace other than a designated model site

More negotiations and meetings to come.  Chad asks everyone to be a pain in the arse to your lawmakers...........my words not his.


Dave