Overwhelming Interest Shows That The FAA Is Going To Have It's Hands Full With This...

The FAA's Remote ID NPRM has caused quite a ruckus, especially with the unmanned hobby segment, with the support of EAA and other entities doing their best to fight off what many people see as altogether ham-fisted rulemaking. The feelings have been magnified as many affected parties thought the FAA's refusal to accede to an EAA request for a deadline extension seemed too much like the FAA trying to put their thumb on the scale.

Regardless of all that, the interest and response to the Remote ID NPRM has been HUGE! As of early Sunday morning, the current tally shows the comment roster totaling and astounding 10,628... and will no doubt be a good bit higher once you read this.

EAA noted that the rule would require most UAS, no matter whether they are “drones” or traditional model aircraft, to carry equipment that identifies the device and broadcasts its location. Additionally, many would be required to be equipped with “geofencing” systems that autonomously contain the craft within a defined altitude and lateral boundary.

Among other concerns was the contention that this rule is based on an imagined security and safety threat that simply is not proven in relation to traditional modeling. There is absolutely a risk posed by drones operated in proximity to aircraft by poorly informed, careless, and/or deliberately malicious operators, but the same cannot be said for models.

The rule would require every modeler to uniquely register every aircraft they own. Models come and go from modelers’ collections on a regular basis, which would necessitate frequent changes to the registry. A prolific modeler could easily own more than 100 models – a truly unwieldy number to maintain valid registrations, especially if there is a per-aircraft fee involved.

The rule also mandates technology that is not available in large numbers and is not yet fully mature. In the case of the ADS-B mandate, for example, extensive testing took place prior to the 2008 NPRM that mandated its use (and the mandate was not in effect until a decade after the publication of the rule).

There were a number of other concerns, but honestly, the list is a bit too ponderous to mention them all in this article... so if you have a few spare days (grin), we invite you to check out all the comments... hundreds of pages of them, that have been filed in response to the FAA's ill-conceived NPRM.

FMI: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems?fbclid=IwAR0xuTPOS54BA4ShZgwqCMdKaqDWslmGamWMXH_0ckwkYWjiuKTUtljcnng