HEY FAA! Will Remote ID be postponed?

#remoteid #remoteidmodule #dji #faa #mavic2pro @FAAnews

Is it a sign that the FAA is about to postpone the FAA Remote ID broadcast requirement? In this video I share the message from the FAA that has me thinking that it is a possibility. I posted a video a few days ago on the topic and then decided to take a little more civic action...and I did get a response from the FAA so let's hope that this means that there is some form of FAA relief coming in the near future with regards to Remote ID Broadcast Module Compliance.

Again: the facts are nothing has changed, but there is at least a signal that relief may be coming.

DJI (Firmware update Confirmation/Press Release July 2023)

FAA Drone Zone (Register your drone)

FAA Drone Zone Contact/UAS Support Center

FAA Remote ID Video Referenced Above

Documentation of Final Rule

[triskellian]

Thanks for sharing your experience with communicating with the FAA. Before retirement, I had flown as a commercial pilot for many years and had communicated with our local Flight Standards District Office a number of times. For the most part, they were quite helpful. However, these were things that they had much experience with ( airman certification, aircraft inspection, ect) .

The agency now being charged with overseeing unmanned aircraft, especially hobby machines, don't seem to be up to the task. A typical hobbyist may have dozens of models and many don't last for a season. The new regulation just makes operating models for amusement more complex, expensive and doesn't make the national airspace safer.

We'll see how this very expensive venture with UAS regulation pans out after a few years.

[DroneSyndrome]

Great information. Thanks for sharing this. I just shared your video on my channel. 👍🏻👍🏻

[james_]

Thanks for all your information. If we are to read anything into this it’s that the ball is in the FAA court and we are to wait for their next move.

[xjet]

Come over and join the fight against Remote ID

[MontanaMedic]

My wife and I have a small photography company and we are not currently able to afford to purchase a new drone or remote id module. We have always worked to comply with part 107 rules. I used the FAA link you provided to present my concerns. We are using a Mini 2 as a temporary backup as our Mavic 2 was damaged during our last move. It seems silly the anyone can fly the mini 2 recreationally without remote id (since it's less than 250g) but the minute we fly it as professional, safe, trained part 107 operators that it has to have an expensive module attached to it. I think you are right that the remote id rule is too broad and puts the same requirements on some huge delivery drone as it does one that can fit in my pocket. Hopefully if nothing else they will give us a little extra time or maybe some temporary waiver process. Thanks for the video.

[FlyingBuzzard]

NON Compliance is the ONLY way forward and because WE ALL break the rules the moment we leave the ground regardless of what we fly or where we fly with or without RID . Most can not fathom that fact BUT go back and read the rules the FAA has laid out and see YOU indeed break almost everyone of them all the time. The First rule fly LOS and then it says YOU MUST keep your aircraft in LOS throughout the entire flight a action ( if flying safe ) no One can do. Now IF using a spotter/observer the exact same thing the spotter/observer MUST keep the aircraft in LOS throughout the entire flight also a fact IF the spotter/observer is doing their job can NOT DO and be doing that Job ( well if safety is the cause for the rule ) for even IF the spotter kept that aircraft in LOS at all times, they are NOT flying safe, not at all...that is just ONE example of the nonsensical rules the FAA has created
RID is a surveillance tool and NOTHING else. Our Own Government grounded their drones because they to had GPS tracking and data collecting and sharing abilities, now the very SAME thing they demand all citizens to be under while flying a TOY . And here is the real reason fro RID, it is a tool so they can Know WHO, WHAT and WHERE drones are flying so the Commercial Drone Alliance ( which is multiple Companies wanting to use drones ) can know, Who, What and Where so they can have them MOVED and pr REMOVED from the NAS and they have before Congress demanded the airspace from 400 ft AGL to the surface and have lobbied Congress to obtain that space. Forbes said it was over $23 BILLION now and by the year 2030 it is estimated to be $ 58.7 Billion.
THAT is the main reason we are here.
NOW the AMA which once stood for the hobby was in great decline so their scheme was and still is to get FORCED membership and FORCED Club field flying ONLY ( now known as FRIA's ) and they to along with the Commercial drone Alliance lobbied to have section 336 end ( the rule that stopped the FAA from over regulating and ruling the Hobby ) and because of that and the Dollar$ section 336 ended and has allowed the Government bureaucracy the FAA to now regulate and rule this hobby out of the skies. The AMA's plan was to get authority as a CBO to make ALL recreational operators to have to be AMA members and fly ONLY in their club fields ( and the last FAA Reauthorization 2023 Act they had an amendment that said just that ) even back in 2018 the AMA's own Rich Hanson in an Op ed in the Hill said just that. They agreed with the Commercial Drone Alliance and unless you were a AMA member and flying under their "programming" you were flying illegally and were a criminal and a rogue and you needed punished. Then he went on to say IF you were not a AMA member you HAD to Fly under Part 107 and have a Part 107 license to fly legally anywhere outside their club/membership/programming .
SO again here we are
many various scenario's are being dealt with, but let me say that a SCOTUS case of Carpenter v US it was a cell phone case that has similar ( the exact same as a matter of fact ) acts as RID.
The Court ruled because GPS tracking and data collection and sharing violated a cell phone owners private life under the 4th Amendment .
The Chief Justice stated, "" As with GPS information, the time-stamped data provides an intimate window into a person’s life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his “familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.” These location records “hold for many Americans the ‘privacies of life.’” . . . A cell phone faithfully follows its owner beyond public thoroughfares and into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales. Accordingly, when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user. "
just again to take note the Court ruled such actions violated every persons 4th amendment rights
Now RID does the exact same thing when anyone flies a drone ( a drone defined as EVERYTHING that flies with a remote control )
The same accusations was addressed by the GAO and they had issues concerning them and the most noted was the privacy issues such as, "UAS detection methods could collect personally identifiable information, such as information about the operators or camera images of bystanders"

Fact is the 4th Amendment protects not only property interests but certain expectations of privacy as well. Thus, when an individual “seeks to preserve something as private, ” and his expectation of privacy is “one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, ” official intrusion into that sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause A majority of the Court has already recognized that individuals have a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements."
That is unlike what the Dc Circuit Judge ruled in the RID case RDQ v FAA where the Judge stated no one has an expectation of privacy while flying a drone in the air" that was her entire ruling which went against every other courts ruling on such matters . She simply was a paid bias judge and had RDQ appealed she would have been over ruled because also in the upper DC Circuit they ruled a few years ago that the FAA registration was illegal and violated the Constitution and yet the Drone lobbyists had it slipped into a defense bill that was signed into law and why we still have registration
SO non compliance is all we have because we can NOT Comply as the rules are written because IF we did we would be flying unsafe and illegally anyway. The FAA needs to clean up their rules and make them reasonable and safe, not as they now are doing which violates the Constitution and makes the NAS Unsafe. They also need to allow Hobbyist to set in the rule making process so this fiasco will get straightened out !!!
Spread these FACTS Out so others can see the REAL truth of the matter
Ur Welcome

[SnowProductions]

Thank you for the information. I am also a DJI Mavic 2 owner. It is hard for me to justify spending almost $5, 000.00 for a Mavic 3 when I am still very happy with the pro model I already have. I would pay for a software upgrade that would transmit a remote ID as apposed to purchasing a module for my Mavic 2 pro. Maybe DJI can give us that option. Let's keep all our aircraft safe foe everyone.

[soaringvisionimages]

Went and opened an inquiry and received the same canned response from the FAA server. Went and asked them directly just so they could see VOLUME of 107 pilots that are experiencing the same issue. No problem with RID, but there has to be a practical approach to make it work. Seems a 4-6 month extension would accommodate most commercial pilots unless the bottom falls out on modules for those drones that can't gain the functionality via firmware. We'll see.

[stevendegiorgio]

I really have no plans to comply with remote id.I fly foam and balsa fixed wing aircraft.They are electric powered and they only stay in the air between 4 and 5 minutes.After that, there back in my car stowed away for another week, or until I feel like flying them again.Also, these planes are small and cant fit a module in them.For your information, Spektrum just came out with a module that costs $69.99 and simply plugs into the receiver and its compliant with the current regulations.But that device is not going in my 2 electric aircraft anytime soon.But, thank you for your video update.

[TomInGulfBreeze]

They responded at 3:45 am? They must be getting a lot of questions. Thanks for your work on this.

[krunchy]

Most creators are brushing over or skipping one important factor regarding remoteid. That is the lack of availability of modules especially affordable modules. You are either paying $300 or they are not in stock or back ordered.

[buddyadkins]

Hi Hopscotch, how do you use your drone and do you have a Part 107 pilots license? Are we having fun yet??

[sUASNews]

It is a system designed by DJI and Airmap, it is nothing to do with scaling air operations.

[DroneUpp]

Thanks for your efforts in reaching out to the FAA about the upcoming Remote ID. I hope that it is delayed until things are laid out to protect the community and the hobby. I am only against the blatant disregard for drone pilots who follow the rules and respect people and property! I also hope that these modules will be sold at a reasonable rate as opposed to the ridiculous hundreds of dollars that makers are already trying to capitalize on. I have over 2K views on my stance against the current remote ID layout. Thanks again.

[Braddeman]

All of my drones are remote id capable and am disappointed I can’t shut it off. I don’t want to comply with it. It has so much potential to integrate in with adsb and allow other pilots to be aware but they didn’t. Our police departments will not be looking for it and there is no plan to train them. Only thing it will seem to do is let Karen’s and Kevin’s to find us while we fly to harass us creating an unsafe situation or even worse robbed of our drones.

[x.Design]

My DJI Mini 2 will be a paperweight! Un led DJI make a firmware update with remote I'd...

[mattalford]

Anybody that flies a drone is a pilot, according to the FAA. Part 107 only makes you a commercial drone pilot.

[ednafronkelbarger]

Yes, it looks like the rollout of RID will be postponed. It has nothing to do with the FAA not being ready; it has nothing to do with "confusion" due to a change in administrator (that's not how leadership transitions work. The FAA has a whole lot more on its plate than RID, and none of it is subject to "confusion" because there's a new administrator); it has nothing to do with local law enforcement not being trained. It's simply because there are not nearly enough RID modules available. Modules have been on back order at the manufacturers for some months now. You can't require compliance when the means of compliance is not available. When the bottlenecks are resolved and the supply becomes widely available, then RID will go into effect.

[cantsleep]

Thanks to the Drone pilots who couldn't keep there drones away from planes and airports 😠😠😡😡

[buddyadkins]

Once most of the drones are fitted with operational Remote ID, there will be a method to "snag" that information if someone is actually close enough to do so. Now this might not sound like much, however, consider that a person could "snag" the information of a questionable drone. They could then submit that with a complaint to the FAA who will investigate and contact the pilot if needed. The RID information will include sufficient information to reasonably determine if the flight was within Visual Line Of Sight as ALL drone flights must be within VLOS unless they have a waiver. So, you don't really need all that network stuff just yet. All you need is information from the drone. In some respects, this is opportunity for companies to produce products.