(08-Dec-2023, 02:18 PM)iFly4rotors Wrote: What I find curious is that each of the little "sub-categories" of drones
wants their own little exemption or special set of rules. You know, the
RC model airplane (drones) group wants to be excluded totally, then
the FPV folks want FPV quads to be classed different than "camera drones"
(but are they, really?), plus you have all of the various "copters" such as 
helicopters, tri-copters, quadcopters, etc. etc., and now I have even seen 
RC rockets, and who knows what type of "special" configuration in the 
future (anti-gravity propulsion systems?)? Does it really make sense to
have a bunch of special sub-categories? Hmmm. 

But this is the point. The FAA seem to have considered ONLY off-the-shelf consumer camera drones in their rules and regulations with pretty much any other type of UAS having been ignored or side-lined. Authorities in other countries including the UK have done exactly the same thing. You might be forgiven for thinking they are just ignorant and/or blinkered, but the most plausible answer is that they want to slowly kill off any DIY related part of the hobby where they have no power to force manufacturers to build tracking and controls into their products, which they are able to do with consumer products. All of this is just another part of the puzzle which is ultimately about total control and surveillance of populations by governments, just like George Orwell predicted.

(08-Dec-2023, 03:03 PM)drumgod Wrote: I didn't even think about that.  Where does model rocketry fall in all of this? Seems kinda' ridiculous if they're restricting 20g quads from flying around the backyard but still letting you randomly launch unguided rockets.

Don't forget Paramotors. Anyone can just strap a parachute and big fan to their back and cruise the skies with absolutely no training, no license, no regulations, and no ADS-B or Remote ID device required.

Their answer to that is “the pilot will ultimately be held for his actions if a accident occurs ..”. Basically injury or death.. my response “aircraft safety”?!?! Or Publix safety when a idiot buys a crotch rocket and causes a major accident due to his inability ride or understand his equipment ..
It’s all a political agenda.. congress told the FAA have RID in place by a certain time.. and they did.. kinda, it’s a paper tiger at this point.. but at some point that tiger will become a full grown adult with sharp claws, teeth and be HUNGRY… and we will be served up as the first course

(08-Dec-2023, 08:20 PM)Rob Axel Wrote: It’s all a political agenda.. congress told the FAA have RID in place by a certain time.. and they did.. kinda, it’s a paper tiger at this point.. but at some point that tiger will become a full grown adult with sharp claws, teeth and be HUNGRY… and we will be served up as the first course

You hit the nail on the head. The ultimate agenda of congress (and other first world country governments around the globe) is to slowly take peoples freedom away bit by bit until everyone is eventually under complete control and surveillance of the government just like in China and North Korea. All of what we are seeing is unfortunately just the start of much worse things that are to come, and none of it is about safety or saving the planet. That is all just a smokescreen.

Bruce also simply explained it.. I just hope he doesn’t end up a sacrificial lamb..
https://youtu.be/STKRh2vVGTM?si=l9d3quyM-yR3xO6Q

(08-Dec-2023, 04:28 PM)Rob Axel Wrote: I thought maybe because your not “controlling / flying” the rocket… then I thought.. don’t some rockets have controls .. and just use the motors to propel it upward and “glide” to the ground??
 There is a thought .. a FPV ROCKET..

Hi Rob,

I have just seen FC controllers for model rockets. So, this type of "rocket" now becomes an
unmanned aircraft controlled with an RC link. Is that not the definition of a "Drone". Well of
course it is. Essentially, it doesn't matter what the configuration of the aircraft that is remotely
controlled, it is still a UAS and is subject to the law and the regulations. 

Since the FAA's definition of an aircraft is "capable of maintaining flight", just having operational 
motors qualifies. Besides, a rocket or quad simply does not "glide", it drops like a brick without
a propulsion system. If it flies, has remote control, and is flown in regulated airspace; then it
is subject to the law and the regulations. When we quit trying to get around the regulations,
then everything just seems to fall into place; at least for me.  

All,

The all encompassing language of the USA law takes into account ANY and ALL Unmanned 
Aerial systems regardless of configuration. Yes, they did take FPV into consideration as well 
as any not yet constructed type of craft. The type of aircraft is irrelevant. If it flies and is 
remotely controlled, then it is included in the regulations. Consequently, there is no relevance 
to phrases like "Mine is different so the regulations don't apply". Of course they do. The law 
and the regulations apply to ALL, ANY, and EVERY craft that flies and is remotely controlled 
through all time periods including the past, the present, and the future. Yeah, the law does 
not need to be changed for anything new or different that comes on the scene. 

Just in the quadcopter category, what differentiates one from another     Really   

A quad has 4 propulsion units, right? Hence, quadcopter. If it has an onboard camera/video
sub-system then the craft can be piloted using the view from the on-board camera. Piloting 
with a view from the craft. Is this not a First Person View? Now, I realize that "we" refer to
the DJI style of quads a "camera drones" and the ones used for freestyle and those that 
we build as FPV quads, but really, they are more similar than different. In fact, I just learned
that DJI gear can be switched to ACRO mode and flown in a true manual fashion. Who knew.
So, what makes "our" quads different?  From what I can tell, it is that an "FPV" quad tends
to have a higher performance metric...generally, but not always. In fact, the CHALLENGE
was an exercise in duplicating the capabilities of a DJI drone. So, does that make these drones
"camera drones". Conversely, if you replace the motors on a DJI drone with hi-performance
motors (and switch to ACRO mode; although this is not a defining factor), does that make
the DJI an "FPV" drone. Hmmm. Consider that the only real difference is the performance
aspect. However, that is not really a good metric since many FPV drones don't have any
more and some less performance than a DJI drone. So, how does one really differentiate
between one type of quadcopter drone with onboard camera and another? 

Just think about it    

Later, iFly 

… when DJI released their “fpv” (potato).. and most pilots flew it “acro”.. durability quickly surfaced..
They only factor or difference of traditional fpv quads and DJI / camera quads is “control”… use of satellite gps lock, position hold, and can easily be “disarmed” or locked out by a external source…
I am a firm believer RID will eventually go this route…but yes… they are VERY similar in nature..
I believe it’s more of the “over regulation”…that fuels this…and what it takes to be compliant…

(08-Dec-2023, 05:18 PM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: But this is the point. The FAA seem to have considered ONLY off-the-shelf consumer camera drones in their rules and regulations with pretty much any other type of UAS having been ignored or side-lined. 
....

Hi Snow,

Now I am curious as to why anyone believes that the FAA (or Congress really) have ONLY 
considered off-the-shelf drones when it comes to legislation and rule making and why 
would anyone would believe that other types of remote controlled unmanned aircraft 
have been ignored.   

If a remotely controlled, unmanned, drone is being flown in regulated airspace, 
then why should some distinction be made for one configuration over another?

The Recreational Exemption is in place for the truly recreational pilot. The only issue 
that I see is that most pilots are NOT truly flying recreational; they want to do something 
with the video (besides just showing to family and friends because that can be done 
without YouTube) which excludes those flights from the exemption. 

Otherwise, what consideration would one give to say...our home built FPV drones...or 
RC airplane drones...or... any other craft    


You know, the vast majority of the FAA regulations have been in effect since 2018. 
Even the part about Remote ID is in the 2018 statutes. These things are not new. 
Yet, some folks act as if all of the regulations were just put into effect this year. 
Were they not aware?  Did they not read the FAA regulations? 

To be fair, I had not read all of the regulations until it was mentioned to me that
about 95 percent of FPV flights are in violation of the regulations (so what does
one more matter). At that point, I began reading the regulations and watching
videos with FAA representatives; specifically Kevin Morris. 

What the implementation of Remote ID seems to have done is to raise awareness
of some of the other regulations (that have existed for years) that many may have 
been violating perhaps even unknowingly. 


Hmmm 

Later, iFly  

…me personally feel that the regulations are just needing a LITTLE bit of tweaking .. and honestly video seems to be the linchpin … if u don’t post any video, there is no real “evidence”…
Having a RID module on a “whoop”.. because you want to fly around your own house. And post video is CRAZY..but according to the FAA it’s required to be in compliance …

Everything in the regulations is to try and make things as difficult as possible for real DIY hobbyists to follow the rules so they eventually just throw in the towel and quit. Only the hardcore few will end up continuing which will make the hobby even more niche than it already is. People need to wake up to where things are heading in general with control and surveillance by governments. This whole thing is much bigger than just drone regulations and Remote ID. Unfortunately too many people just blindly follow the narrative like lemmings until it's then too late to do anything about it. No-one should be putting Remote ID modules on their quads and if they do it means they are just making things worse for the rest of us by fully supporting and endorsing the actions of their government to have full control over what we the people can and can't do. All of this unnecessary government control stuff is a real worry for the future generations to come.

Bruce has the right idea. Throw your Remote ID modules on the fire and burn them all, then follow Bruce's lead.

Hi Rob,

Since, as you suggest, "video" seems to be the linchpin, 
let's take a look at the video situation.

Now, think about it. If a pilot is REALLY flying just for his or her own FUN, then why 
would the pilot even need a video recording of the flight except, maybe, for reviewing 
of his or her own flying or just to re-live the PESONAL experience; FUN.

So, why do most pilots post the video?? Consider that it is for some benefit 
(furtherance) of some entity (business) even it is just to show off and bolster their 
own personal reputation (their personal business). Plus, YouTube is a monetized 
platform with likely the most "exposure" of any public media video platform. People 
want to post on YouTube just for this reason, to get seen, to get heard, to showcase 
their skills in one way or another towards some reward or benefit whether immediately
or setting the foundation to use for some monetary gain in the future (like get a job).

As I understand it, there are other non-monetized platforms for those wanting to 
simply "share" the video with friends and family. As far as I can tell, Facebook, 
Vimeo, and AirVuz are all non-monetized; share on one of these if you must.

Now, what if there was a public, yet pay to play, video platform similar to YouTube 
where folks were charged some fee in order to post videos and the person posting
the video never received any money from the platform providers. Perhaps it would
even require a "code" to view so not quite open to the public at large. With this type 
of platform, a person could share that boring video with friends, yet receive absolutely
nothing in return. Of course, the flight still needs to be just for FUN and not to
provide any benefit (furtherance) for any entity (business). Wonder how much the
site would be used. People post on YouTube to gain something or benefit some one
or some entity somewhere.

Hmmm. The reality is that most people are more interested in collecting video as
a pathway (one way or another) to getting something...money, reputation, praise,
etc. than they are just the experience of flying. It is all about the camera and
the recording of video. If it was impossible to record the flight, them most of the
folks could care less about flying a quadcopter. 

All of that said, a person could just get a Part 107 license and be done with it.
Then post all the videos that you want. Further any entity that you want. Get PAID
if you want. Under Part 107 it is all legit. 

If you are flying under the Recreational Exemption, then you DO NOT Need a RID 
module on a "whoop" or any other sub-250 gram craft just to "fly around your house" 
(yeah, as long as you don't post the video to YouTube). Post it on Facebook next to 
the vacation videos and pics.

As for putting a RID on a whoop...well...I am going to do just that simply to 
prove the point. Not only can it be done, it is really not that hard and really
does not adversely effect the flying as much as some would expect. Ok, maybe
if the whoop is so underpowered to start with that it will barely fly. Again, this
would only be needed if using the whoop to collect some video that will be
used to, in one way or another, benefit someone or gain recognition or some
financial benefit. Only fly a whoop for fun, just have FUN with it.

Although I will be registering as a Recreational Pilot and only need a single
registration number and a single RID module, I now have three (3) different
ones that I want to try. For my own experience, I want to actually install and
use these RID devices. I want to see for myself whether any of the negative
hype has any type of merit at all. I want the real world experience.  Let's see 
if I can attract a Karen. For Real.

If I were to "tweak" the regulations, I would like to see the "must have a visual
observer" language removed. It would be nice to legally fly without the need
to have a spotter present for every flight. That would be the tweak that I would
make. 

I also understand the rationale for long range flights being in violation of the
FAA regulations. So, just don't fly that far out. From what I can tell, flying long
range has been a violation since at least 2018. Keep the drone within visual line 
of sight so that the pilot is capable of control should the video and GPS (yeah, 
this takes out RTH) both fail where flying the craft visually is the only way to get 
it back home. The craft needs to be close enough (not some dot on the horizon) 
that it is actually possible to see it well enough to fly it home. That is the rationale 
for no long range allowance (ok, only if you have a waiver). Still, if the video is 
NOT POSTED, then there is no evidence. So, it all comes back to the video. Simple, 
just do not post video (especially on YouTube) and there would be little chance of 
actually getting caught. 

Consider that DJI alone has projected over half a million drone sales in the USA 
for the upcoming year alone and expects that to increase substantially year over year.
Who will be piloting these drones? Will they just go out and do what ever they want? 
Plus, how does the general public perceive the exponentially expanding drone situation?

Perhaps public awareness is one thing that is needed, but the message needs to be
pretty simple so that everyone can understand it, not just drone (or potential drone)
pilots. This message should start with or at least include something similar to the 
following:

1)  All airspace in the USA is regulated by the FAA.
2) All drones of any size or configuration are subject to FAA regulations in all airspace.
    There is no such thing as a "toy" drone. IF it can maintain flight, then it is regulated.
3) Read and follow the FAA regulations regarding UAS (drones).
4) Drones over 250 gram are required to be registered and have a Remote ID module.
5) All drones used in a Part 107 activity must be registered and have a Remote ID module.
6) All drone pilots must have either a Part 107 license or a TRUST certificate.
7) All flights must be within the pilot's controllable Visual Line Of Sight.
8) Posting videos to YouTube requires a Part 107 license.
9) All flights are considered Part 107 UNLESS the flight legitimately qualifies
    for the Recreational Exemption and is purely and only just for FUN.
10) All FPV flights require the presence of a co-located visual observer (spotter).

So, these are the basics, are they Not ???

In the USA, every UAS (drone) pilot or future pilot should know these things 
at the very least.

Anyway, think about it from a logical, unbiased, perspective.

Later, iFly 

Ifly…take YouTube out of it..
after sitting in this presentation.. listing to buzz words and phrases…It’s “aircraft safety” and “pilots need to know what’s in the air”.. and “helicopters can come out of nowhere”..YES, all true and if you are flying out in the open.. several hundred feet up then you should comply.. get a RID module .. even fixed wings.. no argument …
MOST fpv pilots and freestyle.. fly in close proximity to buildings, trees, objects and THE GROUND. Somewhere “aircraft safety” plays no role..
Now being realistic.. chances of being confronted while I’m flying ANY of my quads (over or sub 250) by any federal agency is slim to none..and local law enforcement won’t carry a scale… or be well versed in regulations ..even with burden of proof.. it’s the fact that YOU CAN still be fined. Not charged.. it’s a regulation not a law..
I’m on the Bruce Train, go sub 250, recreational, post no videos.. and continue to enjoy the hobby..
And yes, still fight!! As I stated before.. kids my wife teaches can not enjoy this hobby outdoors without being non-compliant..and my wife is not about to loose her job or chance receiving a fine.. “Gains” is the key word.. not sure what size “whoop” you fly or weight of ur RID module.. there is no way you can convince me HOW adding a RID module to these is beneficial to anyone or any safety issue.
RID still in its infancy.. and at one point all RID modules will have the same capabilities as DJI (gps tracking).so people WILL eventually receive fines in the mail from the government in the future…
Yes, I agree.. there needs to regulations.. but honestly .. this is over regulation ..

Hi Rob,

You know, I am confused as to how PUBLIC LAW 115–254—OCT. 5, 2018
is not a law. Is it, or is it not? This law contains the language for which the 
FAA is merely enacting through regulations including Remote ID.  Is that not how 
it works in the USA? First, congress passes a LAW. Next, some agency or agencies 
in the Executive branch enacts through regulations and enforces. (Congress does
not actually do the enacting and enforcing which is the burden of the Executive
branch agencies). Finally, the courts determine whether or not the LAW is just or 
not. So, what am I missing?

Best that I can tell the LAW is still the LAW and the FAA regulations are what they
are regardless of how any particular agent or representative views them. I am 
sure that not all agents understand all aspects and perspectives. This does not 
change the law nor the regulations. The consideration here is the LAW and the
FAA regulations. It is not about safety, not about security, not about perception,
not about what one might be told, and certainly not about what we believe to be 
fair or just or rational. This is about what is, not why it is. 

I totally agree in that the best approach is to stay in the sub-250 gram, FAA
category 1, classification, fly just for fun, and don't post the videos to YouTube.
This has always been my focus even from the beginning. 

That said, I do have one heavy quad which I could likely fly and get away with
it since I am pretty careful about where I fly and I don't post videos. However,
I have done a lot of research while watching the RANT videos and now believe
that Remote ID is not the devil that some say it is. 

Yes, RID is just getting started, but you have got to start somewhere. This
is the beginning. The 2023 revisions to the LAW appear to have the possibility 
of legitimate beyond visual line of sight flights when connected to the "network" 
with a network Remote ID and properly logged in to the UAS Air Managment 
system. There also appears to be changes for educational programs. This LAW 
has not yet been passed, but it will at some point. 

Now, I have been thinking and I am curious. At the school the drones are all
sub-250 gram, correct?  The kids fly just for fun, right? Videos are not posted
to YouTube, right? So, from my perspective, these flights appear to legitimately
qualify for the Recreational Exemption, Correct? The quads are not required to
be registered and not required to have remote ID, right? The only other thing 
would be the TRUST certificate, but that is easy to get; it is very basic. While a 
FRIA does allow for no Remote ID, I believe that a TRUST certificate is still 
required for the pilot, but no big deal, right? So, why does the school need 
a FRIA?

Later, iFly  
 

Yes, that is a law.. I am speaking of regulations where fines can be imposed without any burden of proof and don’t have to be LEO.. Code enforcement doesn’t enforce laws.. but you sure can bet they can levy a fine.. just like the “no smoking” regulations .. If a business was found “non-compliant” city hall would fine them and possibly not re-issue one of their business permits ..
As for the school.. the program receives funding.. not just from BOE but other avenues (gains) My wife’s kids class (Tinyhawks) are sub 250 yes. If they fly outside the school can’t list “Drone Program” as any course.. the school would receive “gains”.. . IF they brought their own quad and flew it for fun .. no issues.. Bur since the quads belong to “the school” bought with grants.. the school has the final say… I’m not sure how much you have dealt with local government (board of education) and how they deal with “liabilities”…They will cut something / someone loose if it may pose a issue for them..
.other educational Drone programs / competition (STEM) are not sub 250.. and other schools that would like to continue this program would have their hands tied.. and require a FRIA OR all the other hoops to be jumped through….and kids will move onto another “project”.. people purchasing Mavics at Best Buy are NOT gonna do it either.. they “just want to fly”..
What I am saying is there should be other avenues, possibly a “educational exception”… or make FRIAs requirements little less restrictive .. and not so “locked down”
Having a classroom of kids being transported to a FRIA, to fly a “experimental” build may SOUND easy.. trust me it’s not.. They should be able or walk it out to the football field and do a maiden without any recourse..

Hi Rob,

All good points.

I will go back through what I have found on the 2023 version which
there was something specific about educational programs, however,
being old, I don't remember what it was. I will look again.

Later, iFly