This writ up is from the AMA website
On December 26, the FAA released a proposed rule for remote identification of UAS. There are several areas of concern with the proposed rule that AMA will be pushing back on and we need your help advocating for change.
While the proposal does include AMA’s request to exempt flying sites, the rule should also provide community-based organizations (CBOs), like AMA, more flexibility to establish and maintain fixed flying sites that satisfy remote ID compliance. Second, the rule should create a pathway for remote ID compliance at AMA events and competitions, which may not take place at fixed flying sites. Third, the rule should account for situations where there is no internet connectivity, as many safe places to fly are in rural areas with little or no service. Finally, the rule should not require modelers to register every aircraft individually.
The FAA is accepting comments on the remote ID proposal until March 2, 2020. We have also requested an extension on the comment period to give everyone more time to weigh-in. To help us achieve the best possible outcome on the final rule, it is critically important that everyone submit a comment.
Please submit a formal comment to the FAA as soon as possible.
To submit a comment, go to the remote ID proposal page on the federal website here. Click on the “SUBMIT A FORMAL COMMENT” button at the top of the page. You can copy and paste the template in the blog below into the comment box, edit it to include your personal experience, or create your own message entirely. Complete the form and click on the “SUBMIT COMMENT” button at the end. Please note that comments and information provided are public knowledge.
Thank you in advance for your advocacy. If you are interested in reading a more detailed summary of the FAA’s remote ID proposal, visit our blog here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May I recommend holding off on submitting your comments until the FPV Freedom Coalition comes out with their talking points for addressing the key issues in this proposal. It is imperative that specific aspects of the proposal be referenced in your comment to aid in it effectiveness.
For more information on Remote ID visit:
Also the article references AMA as a CBO which it is not one yet. The FAA has used the term CBO but has not officially created a definition defining what aspects are required to be a CBO. It is assumed AMA will be the first official CBO and AMA likes to tout that they are one since they have a seat on the drone advisory committee (DAC). The only two modeling “groups” on the DAC are AMA and DJI. It is questionable as to whether DJI is in our favor or not on this issue.
It should also be noted that we only have a 12 month window for us to apply for our field to be an FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA). After 12 months or if we are denied, there is no petitioning that can be done. My speculation is that since we are within 5nm of Watsonville Municipal Airport and on property we do not own, we may not be granted a FRIA. Reguardless of AMA, the FAA has final authority on granting FRIA’s since some AMA fields are within 5nm of an airport.
Another good video on discussion about Remote ID:
Thanks for this input it is very helpfull. I was reading the FPVFC guide and I see this section
UAS WITHOUT REMOTE IDENTIFICATION
UAS without the Remote ID capabilities of the above two systems would only be allowed to fly under two circumstances.
Within visual line of site of the operator of visual observer and within the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area (I.E. A fixed flying site approved by the FAA)
Or with approval from the FAA Administrator to operate the UAS for use in aeronautical research or to show compliance with regulations.
Research and Testing of the UAS, control systems, onboard equipment, flight profiles, or development of specific functions and capabilities.
Must be authorized by the FAA.
If I understand this correctly we could fall under the visual line of site operations and could be exempt from the remote ID?