A Remote ID Solution for Fixed Wing RC

A Remote ID Solution for Fixed Wing RC
In this video I will go over a proposed strategy and plan such that fixed wing radio control aircraft can get relief from the FAA and remote ID. In short, a remote ID solution for fixed wing RC.
The FAA is an organization 100% focused on safety. As RC modelers speak and meet with the FAA on remote ID, they must emphasize that RC pilots contribute to aviation safety.
For now we do not do this as there are numerous flights of RC airplanes, primarily drones, into controlled airspace.
By separating drones from fixed wing aircraft we can show the FAA, after a period of time, that fixed wing pilots are safe operators and that we follow the rules as demonstrated by us staying within FRIA (FAA Recognized Identification Area) boundaries and out of controlled airspace.
Chapters
00:00 - Intro
00:44 - Overview
06:24 - Development of the remote ID rule
10:30 - FAA Mission Statement
11:22 - Next steps on remote ID
15:13 - UAS controlled airspace violations
17:35 - Way ahead on remote ID and fixed wing

[@Coops777]

Good one Tim. Sounds like an opportunity to move forward at this time. As a fixed wing RC pilot, I'm very appreciative of your input and agree with you about our impeccable safety record. In the years I've flown and thoroughly enjoyed the hobby, I have never seen or heard of a single near miss, let alone a collision of fixed wing models with other aircraft. I can't help but be suspicious that congress has been influenced not just by safety and security considerations, but also lucrative commercial interests wanting class G sub 400ft airspaces clear for busy future operations including air taxis and deliveries. Thankyou for an excellent video!

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks for checking in! Congress is busy with a lot of stuff these days, not sure they had much input except to tell the FAA to "do something" on remote ID. The big worry, for now, is any sort of incident with a passenger carrying commercial aircraft. Tim

[@amoreu11]

I agree with your ladder statement. The AMA has proved there great safety record for the past 75 years, but a great safety record will stop Corporate America. Unfortunately it's all about the money that can be made. 😒

[@stevedrake1861]

What about helicopters? They aren't drones but they aren't fixed wing aircraft, either.

[@Coops777]

@TimMcKay56 Thats a key point then, suggesting that the misunderstanding is indeed with the FAA rather than Congress? Anyhow, I think I understand you are saying the FAA will be swayed more by CBOs and Congress than by angry private emails. Lets hope they are in a better position to listen this time around. Unfortunately, during the previous period, FAA media reps like Kevin Morris, when interviewed, gave little to no indication that the FAA would ever negotiate or change its mind. This immediately put distance and emnity between much of the rc community and the FAA

[@Coops777]

@stevedrake1861 Absolutely. They should be immediately considered the same as fixed wing IMHO. Same LOS same flying distance and reason for flight. Racing drones are of no consequence to the FAA and airspace safety too.

[@xjet]

@12:00 you ask why did the FAA want drones and RC planes categorized together? Did you watch the Congressional hearing on Counter UAS which I excerpted from in my last video? It is clear that the call for dumping S336 and the introduction of registration & RID was driven *not* by safety concerns but by a commercial drone industry that simply wants to clear all other unmanned aircraft from the 0-400ft airspace. One of the critical aspects of BVLOS commercial operations is being able to ensure that there are no hazards in that airspace to compromise those operations. The commercial drone industry sees recreational users (of drones and/or RC models) as a hazard and they want them effectively removed from the skies that will be used to generate revenues for those commercial operators. This is also pretty apparent when you look at how the regulations are structured. The default (part 107) is effectively commercial operations and the hobby gets a very limited "exemption" based on some quite onerous restrictions. The NPRM saw that exemption effectively phased out over a short period of time -- and if you believe that isn't still the end game then I have some swamp-land in Florida I can sell you.

[@TimMcKay56]

Lots of comments are said in various Congressional hearings. That's why they have hearings. What matters is what is printed in the final rule. Recreational RC flying will be just fine. Either fly in a FRIA with no worries, or purchase a single RID module . . . and go fly. Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

@@TimMcKay56you only care about yourself which is maddening. Your comments on camera comments and built quads show ignorance, it makes me nuts. Do you know our drones are at max flying 4 minutes? Arghh!!

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

​@@RickLaBancaYou can easily obtain quads that fly for much longer periods of time, just as I can fly my fixed wing slope soarers for literally hours at a time. The flight time arguments are a dead end AFAIC.

[@xjet]

You state that Congress gives orders to the FAA and the FAA just has to follow those orders -- yet you fail to mention that Congress was heavily lobbied BY the FAA to introduce RID. People have repeatedly said that "The FAA is just doing what Congress ordered it to do" but this is disingenuous because Congress would never have given that order unless the FAA had told them that RID is essential to the future of the UAS industry. I published a video recently with extracts from the meeting where the FAA and CDA made strong submissions for the introduction of RID. Do not suggest that the FAA has simply been a pawn of Congress in these decisions, they were the driving force.

[@TimMcKay56]

Xjet: With all due respect . . . I worked in Washington for 7 years (Pentagon). Even the Pentagon has their "Legislative Affairs" section, usually headed by a two star, to lobby/discuss DoD issues to the House and Senate. I can ASSURE you that elected officials know where they stand in the pecking order between an elected official and a government employee. Discussions are had with respect for various opinions. But at the end of the day, do not think for a moment the FAA pushes around a member of Congress. BTW, a lot of those hearings are quite informal and are with staff members of the various members of Congress. Tim

[@xjet]

@@TimMcKay56 Did you watch the hearing? The CDA and the FAA were clearly telling the politicians that RID was *essential* to the future of the commercial drone industry and those politicians were eager to listen. The one politician who went in to bat for the hobby was shut down by his peers -- likely because they were thinking of the huge lobbying dollars that would be involved to their own benefit. Are you saying that those politicians don't listen to federal agencies or lobbyists?

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@xjet You've got to settle down a bit . . . you are about to blow a gasket. Of course politicians listen to all sorts of people . . . voters, lobbyists, industry, other members, government agencies. But you are confused on basic English. The word "tell" means to direct someone to do something. Essentially an order. The FAA would never "tell" the FAA anything. Rather, they are expected to advocate their position or desired outcome and inform of possible outcomes. But they simply cannot tell (i.e. order) an elected official to do anything. Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

@@xjetyea Tim couldn’t have watched. He means well but appears as naive or an apologist. No offense Tim. But you don’t even seem to know there are consumer drones and build quads. AMA had the same disdain for quad builders sadly.

[@xjet]

@@RickLaBanca Correct, and this isn't a fixed-wing-vs-multirotor thing either. Tim says that the typical fixed wing being flown at an AMA field should be exempt of RID because it only has about a 15 minute endurance so can't fly far -- but in reality, the vast majority of freestyle multirotors only have a 3-5 minute endurance so they can obviously fly even less far. As I've said in other comments here... Tim needs to do a little research before making videos like this.

[@user-ns1jj3ks5s]

Thank you very much for this video update. I'm a 75 year old RC pilot with six decades who flies both fix wing and heli's. Have a lot of money invested in my aircraft and never fly more than 250-300 feet away and 100 feet altitude. So, I'm always within line of sight and take this hobby quite seriously in not only keeping everyone safe including myself.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks for sharing! Tim

[@clifffield1]

Forgive me Tim. You have way, way more experience than me in the hobby. I cannot help but feel that you are being hopelessly naive here. I don't believe that the remote ID requirement is about safety at all. There have been so few 'safety' issues that any ruling/regulation is not warranted on the grounds of safety - there is just no statistically significant issue to be found. It seems to me that your strategy here it to essentially tell the FAA that "us fixed wing guys are good guys and we don't do what the drones do". The FAA/Congress (more importantly congress) will not care about that at all, because the issue is not about safety at all. Others say that there are groups lobbying to have the lower altitudes of airspace restricted and regulated for 'pipe-dream' drone delivery services and 'air taxis' etc. I'm very open to being wrong about all this. Thanks once again for your content and I hope you prove me wrong.

[@TimMcKay56]

Cliff: Thanks for checking in! The overall thrust of RID is a starting point for fully integrated manned/unmanned aircraft operations. It is pretty much common sense that the FAA needs to know who is flying in the National Airspace System. Today they cannot do this, and identify the pilot of full scale has always been possible. A bit easier as you can find the airplane at whatever airport it lands at. You'd be amazed at what can be negotiated with the USG if you put effort into it. Key thing with the FAA is safety. We have to demonstrate, with data, that fixed wing (in this case) pilots can be trusted to follow the rules. This simply is not the case, now, with the drone community. FRIAs will be a test. If we can show we stay within the boundaries, this will be most helpful. Tim

[@kf4293]

Don't agree with you Cliff. There wasn't an issue until Quads started wandering into controlled airspace. In particular, far too many GA pilots report Quads dangerously close to the pattern, and Commercial pilots have seen them on approach. That's what put the burr under Congress' and FAA's saddleblanket.

[@xjet]

@@TimMcKay56 Tim, how do you identify the pilot of a paramotor when one flies overhead?

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@xjet Just follow him to the landing site. They do not go that far.

[@xjet]

@@gordonmckay4523 So why do we need RID for drones? Can't we also just follow them to the landing site -- they go even less distance than paramotors!

[@eartag794]

Your premise is based on experience with AMA flying. However, there are those who fly fixed wing that are not AMA members and do not fly around the patch at AMA fields. Examples are FPV and autopilot fixed wing models. The feeling of flying fixed wing FPV is a magnificent experience. The guidelines for safe flying and respect for people and property are a must for any RC pilot. So it is pilot decisions and valuing others over ones personal desires that ultimately drive safety. The AMA as an organization demonstrates how to focus on and teach flight safety. However, assuming fixed wing flying equates to AMA membership misses the mark and does not consider the possiblities of current and future forms of fun flying. One example is flying quads LOS where no camera is used. So perhaps a solution is not lumping any form of RC flight together based on stereotypes and instead focusing on getting safe RC flying in front of the public and quality opportunities for education and training for all ages to keep people and property safe, both those flying and those in the air space where RC flight is occuring.

[@TimMcKay56]

Fair enough. Just working to get something started, this will be solved in stages. Tim

[@martr]

This is a HUGELY important point. I am afraid it is hard to segment RC flying. In the UK the CAA have tried this using the term "autonomous aircraft", which basically tries to separate aircraft with a flight controller and those without. This is missing the point. There are large numbers of fixed wing flyers who fly with FPV and flight controllers. And 99% of those either follow rules directly, or are grown up enough to understand the risks and mitigate them.

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@martr And that is pretty much my point. Many RC pilots are the proverbial "Sunday flyer" out flying on the weekend. No cameras, no FPV, etc. These planes and pilots could be considered for relief from RID. Others (FPV, cameras, etc.) simply fly with a remote ID module. If you solve this problem in smaller steps, and can demonstrate that you follow regulations, a LOT is possible. Simply take a look at the ultralight community for a perfect example. They've stayed within the boundaries since 1982 and do not even require a license, medical or flight training. A perfect example for the RC community, if anyone is paying attention. Tim

[@russshanks5913]

I like the idea of separating out fixed wing from drones (and I'm a quad pilot) but not about restricting cameras on fixed wing. FPV on fixed wing or just recording your flight on a GoPro or RunCam is a nice way to relive your flight on those days when you cannot fly. FAA should respond to the overall safety that we modelers have and let us fly. Let Homeland Security deal with all of the fringe element doing nefarious activities with flight.

[@TimMcKay56]

Russ: I am in no way restricting cameras on fixed wing. Just, for this very initial discussion, require RID on fixed wing that use cameras. If we can show we follow the rules, then further negotiation. Tim

[@spartan3299]

@@TimMcKay56 Ah, I certainly might be able to live with a remote ID on my 250g Nano Goblin, but it might then be a tad over 250g. I for one really hate the Bluetooth implementation of RID. I already have full telemetry including GS, AS, GPS, Barometer, altitude of streaming from my aircraft at a level that is probably able to be received miles away. and by adding a $15 gps to my RadioMaster transmitter, my location can be transmitted from it with better range than any Bluetooth. My interest in Advanced flight control was not so that I could fly "Long Range." But my interest was peaked , well first by NASA telemetry monitors in Mission control, Space probe, ROV in all their forms. When FrSky supplied reliable telemetry modules with the Taranis transmitter, I returned to the hobby that I loved most which was thermal duration RC gliders . The variometer allowed more accurate detection of lift than visual cues which were still the initial stimulus to stop and circle to find the center via barometer altitude. The added bonuses of return to home if LOS happened to be lost, having gps/baro data to plot on a google map so as to possibly learn what was working and not in my search for lift. A camera on board just was always a hobby that included trying to fly with birds showing me where some lift is, or better yet birds noting my lift and choosing to join me.

[@RickLaBanca]

What do you fly quads or drones

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

Two things make quads fundamentally different than traditional fixed wing: FPV and VTOL. VTOL allows someone to launch from their front porch, whereas fixed wing pilots need to seek out a large open space to take off and land. FPV allows flight out of LOS, which is where they tend to get into trouble (like into aircraft approaches). The combo of the two, while fun for the pilot, makes it trivial to do bad things. Also, the inclusion of a flight computer which makes it easy for a novice to fly with no training means that a quad pilot will not typically have exposure to experienced pilots that will have taught them the proper safety protocols. FPV and Go Pro are entirely different things.

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

Also, while not as common these days, quads without FPV do exist, and they should be considered the same as fixed wing (as they are LOS) in Tim's argument.

[@joshuas2716]

The reason drones and RC planes are grouped together is because, to people outside of this hobby, they are the same thing. They are flying toys. Furthermore, the distinction between them is filled with grey areas and trivial differences that are hard to define for regulation. A few years ago, I saw an RC plane for beginners that had geofencing features to prevent fly-aways. The plane would turn around when it got too far for what it considered good Line of Sight flight. Well that is the same technology used to make a long range fixed wing drone that flies with waypoints. Was that beginner plane actually a drone? No, but it has the functionality, just applied in a slightly different manner. I could hypothetically put a cheap flight controller and GPS module in just about any fixed wing RC plane and have it fly semi-autonomous waypoint missions. I wouldn't even need the camera that you proposed to use as the distinction between drones and fixed wing. While it would be reckless, I could fly beyond-line-of-sight and monitor it completely by telemetry sent back to my transmitter (many OpenTx and EdgeTx transmitters support scripts that can show maps with GPS position, altitude, speed, heading, and artificial horizon on the transmitter's display). With your proposed camera distinction, this RC plane wouldn't be a drone, but it could do many of the things listed at 9:34 that used a justification for Remote ID and things that you say are "what drones do". Meanwhile, my FPV quadcopter would be horrible for beyond visual line of site flight or recording nice stable panoramic videos... the things you say encourage drone reckless behavior in drone pilots. While it has an FPV camera and a flight controller, it doesn't have GPS, it has short flight times, and the range of the control-link is shorter than some of my traditional line-of-sight RC planes. It also lacks the autonomous functions that are in store-bought DJI drones like obstacle avoidance, landing, altitude hold, auto leveling, or returning to home position. This means it is good for acrobatic maneuvers and racing around gates/poles I put up in a field, but all controls are inputted manually, just like a traditional RC plane. That also means I have to practice everything, just like the traditional RC planes. I even had to practice landings, which is analogous to the "touch and go's" you mentioned multiple times in your video, for some reason. Basically, this drone is more like an acrobatic Heli, than what most people think about when saying "drone", with the exception being I use an FPV camera (and a spotter). It doesn't do any of the things that you list at 9:34 in your video, when you list the justifications for remote ID and state those are "what drones do." When you try to differentiate similar things that share technologies, it can be hard to differentiate them for regulations without getting overly specific or stupid regulations, which allows for loopholes and modification. I'd rather have a single, simple set of regulations that applied evenly across all my planes and drones, than to have to follow several different sets of poorly written rules for different models.... especially if the poorly written regulations likely grow as they try to patch holes.

[@TimMcKay56]

So . . . you’ve described the problem. Consider now creating the solution (new regs) so we can take next steps forward. 😊 Tim

[@godzillacat1291]

​@TimMcKay56 he's saying that the solution is that you don't separate multicopters from fixed wing. What he's described is why he doesn't agree with your statements in the video

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@godzillacat1291 That's fine. I have my SkyID on order, so I am good either way. Just offering some pathways for fixed wing to not require RID. Tim

[@JL-hy7ve]

RID would not be so bad if they kept the flyers info private from the public, FAA compares it to a license plate of course if you call dmv they will not release information on a license plate unless your law enforcement or have a court order. That is why I will not be complying, may just stop flying all together.

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@Madmaxx600]

I think the FAA would rather lump everything together. I think they are considering the fact that (as you said) drones couldn't have been imagined 20 years ago.... So what's in store for the future? Instead of them having to rewrite the rules for every new "hobby aircraft" they just lump everything imaginable together and call them a UAS.

[@TimMcKay56]

Best to start now with discussions with the FAA, using data and proposed solutions. Tim

[@Monotoba]

As someone who for years flew over rural alfalfa fields far from any populated area (I grew up in a very rural agricultural area) I would not commit or offer that RC modelers fly only at AMA fields. I do however believe you have the right approach. I believe committing to flying RC models under Visual Line Of Sight Operations is the key factor! Cameras could be used for RC models but not FPV operations or system. I would suggest to the FAA a Commercial Drone flight level of 400 - 600 AGL for commercial drone operators, and sub 400 for model aviation with an exception process for those who need it like model glider pilots. Commercial drones could then operate safely and aircraft could operate safely above 600 feet AGL. Also, I would restrict flights over populated areas or large public gatherings. The model aviation community is not the drone community and I believe our safety record speaks for itself. I would also inform FAA of the differences in the community. If they want to require the model aviation community to build a portion of the aircraft we fly, the way they do experimental aircraft, I have no issue with that. In fact I love scratch building and the few ARF I have purchased over my lifetime tended to be modified to my liking. I believe the emotional investment in building is one driver in the difference in behavior between the model aviation community and the drone community.

[@TimMcKay56]

This is all good, staring the conversation to find solutions. Tim

[@FredHarvey-wp2qy]

Tim, I suspect that a lot of those reported drone sightings are fictitious. You listed one where a pilot reported a drone 500' away. If I fly my drone 500' away I absolutely CANNOT see it. No matter how hard I try. Now someone flying a plane on approach, going at least 100 MPH, probably faster, glances out his window, and not only spots a drone, but is able to determine its distance away? No way! I believe that to be a lie.

[@TimMcKay56]

Fred: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But as a former airline pilot, we are 100% focused on safety. Things like drones flying in controlled airspace, controllers have no idea they are there, this is a big deal. I just don't know of too many Captains who would take the time to fabricate something like this. Tim

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

I agree that the number of reports seem suspicious, as if there is a *_UFO-like_* phenomenon going on (people seeing what they want to see, rather than what is actually there).

[@shadowofchaos8932]

The FAA has encouraged pilots to report ANY unidentified UAS while flying. The pilot doesn't have to prove it is a drone. They just have to report what they believe it was they saw. Not all drone sightings by pilots are drones. They are just getting the blame.

[@SteadyeddieFPV]

So basicly what your saying is if the FAA actually knew what they were doing in the first place they could have created Types or Categories of UAS like (fixed wing, camera front, FPV, etc.) Fixed wing flying is certainly its own separate type of flying, as is FPV Racing & Freestyle with would best be served by a shielded operations regulation, vs your Best Buy or Amazon Christmas gift camera drone which has the biggest potential of being picked up by an operator who has little to no knowledge of rule and regulations and is tempted to answer two questions for themselves (how high and how fast can it go?).

[@TimMcKay56]

The first attempt at something this huge is bound to come up short. Hopefully we can articulate a way ahead that meets the FAA's requirement for safety. Tim

[@jorgea6025]

Hi Tim, your representation of "Best Buy" drones are not what you showed on your video. I think you meant to show the typical DJI drone.

[@TimMcKay56]

Good point!

[@Mountian-Zen]

Curious to know, do we have any AMA board members that are employed by the FAA?

[@TimMcKay56]

No idea, but I would doubt it. Tim

[@mikeg3757]

hi Tim I built a 8 ft tall model crane with 6 -2 wire 12v motors. is it possible it set it up with rc control? thx

[@TimMcKay56]

I cannot see why not . . . good luck! Tim

[@karlschwab6437]

The FAA should have known these differences from their early discussions. I'm afraid as a fixed wing modeler, we're stuck with what has been written.

[@TimMcKay56]

We'll see! Tim

[@xjet]

True.. which is why it is (IMHO) unforgivable that the AMA didn't remaine immovable on the need to draw a distinction. Instead, it got bought-off by the promise of special privilege (FRIAs and CBO status). Everything has its price and we've seen the AMA's willingness to sell out the hobby when there's enough privilege on offer.

[@craigstatham4397]

With our love of aviation there is more that connects us than divides us. Technology advances the human spirit for exploration and learning. Anything that hinders the ability to advance needs solutions that work for all, not a few. I got into this hobby because I wanted to learn, but that was so that I could also encourage others younger than myself to get into the same love of aviation. It doesn’t matter what you fly, together we can be stronger and stand for what we believe. Tim & @xjet - I will say it again… if you guys got together 1-1 (privately or publicly) I think there’s a mix that could find some really good solutions together. Be one team and collaborate.

[@TimMcKay56]

Great post, thanks! Tim

[@xjet]

Be careful if you focus on the "safety" aspect. Unfortunately the traditional hobby has a worse safety record than the recreational drone community. As of the time I type this, there have been ZERO deaths attributed to the recreational use of multirotor drones -- ever, anywhere on the planet, however there have been a number of deaths within the hobby over the years. If you emphasize "safety" the FAA could come back and use that data to destroy your argument.

[@TimMcKay56]

Xjet: You raise an interesting point here. This may seem a bit odd or strange, but when the FAA talks about safety, they like safety, but they are really focusing on the traveling public (on commercial airliners). The FAA, if guess in terms of "personal freedom," gives a tremendous amount of leeway to pilots killing themselves . . . as long as they do not hurt the innocent public. There are around 230 general aviation crashes a year, same accidents every time. This could be fixed easily with, say, a checkride every other year. But the FAA tolerates this, again as long as the public is safe. Don't get me starting on the ultralight safety record. So it seems a tad harsh, but the FAA really "does not care" is an RC modeler get injured flying their Telemaster. Tim

[@Peanutz77]

Yeah. I've don't know of any drone that run on jet fuel and go who know how fast.. but I've seen some model jets. explode on impact when crashed

[@Razor-gx2dq]

It's not in the realm of impossibility that a government agency would bend some statistics to suit there needs.

[@gilbertgauger3380]

There have been precisely two deaths worldwide that are officially attributed to fixed wing model aircraft. It may be possible that more have occurred but predate the current world wide sharing of information. Your point is invalid. The single biggest distinction between traditional hobby model flying and multi rotor operation is the level of personal skill required as a beginner. Since multi rotor UAS cannot be manually controlled, but only controlled by giving commands to the automatic systems onboard, the skill level required is almost zero. This leads to , as outlined in this video, the flooding of the air space by ignorant operators.

[@xjet]

@@gilbertgauger3380 Clearly you are unfamiliar with multirotors. If you were nearby I'd gladly let you *try* to fly my freestyle quadcopter. It has no GPS, it has no self-righting capabilities -- it does *exactly* what you tell it to do -- which, in the case of the untrained, is seldom what you *want* it to do. The reality is that a freestyle quadcopter is far more like a fixed-wing pattern-ship than anything else and requires a *lot* of skill and practice to even hover. You seem to make the assumption that all multirotors are the same -- which would be as ridiculous as suggesting all fixed-wing models are the same when we know there are some that are almost impossible to crash (SAFE) whilst others require significant skill to take off, fly and land. Please research the subject before making sweeping comments.

[@spartan3299]

Mr. McKay, with all do respect, at about 13:50 you are describing what a drone is and what differentiates them from model planes, while the video is clearly that of a freestyle multirotor which doesn’t have a gps, waypoint capability, and doesn’t fly in the navigable airspace and in fact flies below the surrounding hazards to manned aircraft such as powerlines, buildings, and tall trees. Like in the very sensible shielded operations” proposals. Forgive me if I misspeak, but it seems to me that you may not have ever interacted with a fixed wing RC/FPV pilot for one of our most favorite things, although it may not receive must video interest, is just like LOS flying, flying the pattern, making approaches, short finals, aerobatics and the like.. Typically, we are using a very capable HD video system utilizing a 360 deg pan/tilt so as to have our “head” on a swivel that I dare say provides fewer blind spots than a 182 pilot has to deal with. Our FPV vantage point provides a more complete and accurate orientation and special awareness than that of many LOS fliers especially in relation to depth perception. And then we have a spotter as well whether it is actually or practically necessary. Multirotor like the one you showed the on-board video of have the greatest ability to nearly instantly view a global 360 degree view of the surroundings by the very nature of their flight performance as evidence by being able to fly effectively in close “proximity freestyle in every orientation of their craft. You also say the FAA has no experience with home built aircraft, or maybe you said homebuilt model aircraft, but as long as there has been aviation, actually before, there existed model home built aircraft.

[@TimMcKay56]

Good points! Tim

[@dougj8186]

Yesterday Tower Hobbies canceled my order for the Spektrum SkyID RID module. I contacted Tower today and they said it was a system glitch. I have to reorder and there are 2 days left on the pre-order discount. ETA for the module is now late November. It was previously 10/22 which is tomorrow. Not sure what to make of it.

[@TimMcKay56]

I am in the same boat here. I ordered my SkyID from Horizon Hobby on Aug 25, has still not arrived. Tim

[@dougj8186]

@@TimMcKay56 RID is off to shaky start.

[@REDAMISS]

That's the problem with the government why are they in such a hurry to make a law about something they know absolutely nothing about you would think they would take the time to figure out what they're making a law about instead of just thinking they know what it is and just dish it out like it's ridiculous

[@TimMcKay56]

The USG spend four years making the RID regulation. You wish a longer time? Tim

[@xjet]

@@TimMcKay56 The fact that they spent so long and still got things so wrong is clear proof that they are incompetent. Rules made by the incompetent are *NEVER* good rules and therefore non-compliance is inevitable.

[@MrGaborseres]

Thanks again 👍

[@TimMcKay56]

😊👍🏻 Tim

[@joelzwerk4162]

HI Tim, and thanks for the video. Always interesting. My point is that while there's enough "blame " to go around, separating drones from model airplanes should have been done years ago when multi rotor drones became available. I've mentioned this before, but the late Bob Violett warned the ama NOT to back the drone operators. The ama chose to be greedy, in my humble opinion, and saw dollar signs as these drone fliers joined the ama. Well, that didn't happen either. This is the way more than condensed version of how I remember this all happening, and I'm sure I don't have it all correct, but I do remember the warning by Mr. Violett. We're stuck with what we have now, but I think a lot of this could have been avoided. My opinions and thanks again for taking the time to make these videos. And I do appreciate all those folks involved in advocating for the best hobby there is.

[@TimMcKay56]

Joe: Reasonable points. But in the early days of drones, all people (to include Bob) had were opinions. Now, with the UAS Sightings Reports, we have facts. I do think there is merit in separating drones and fixed wing. The only other item on drones is that a LOT of the younger fliers like them for drone soccer, racing, etc. From the AMA viewpoint, this supports STEM efforts and the schools. Tim

[@Graybear78]

As it has probably been mentioned before, there was no problem until the coming of the quads. I began flying fixed wing models since the early 80’s, with a hiatus in the middle. I have never experienced or heard of a problem of any kind with flying fixed wing model aircraft, until the advent of quads. Kinda says it all, doesn’t it!

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@Graybear78 Good point!

[@PhonesandDronesRepair]

@@Graybear78 Yeah, you're an old man who is now literally yelling at the clouds. Let me guess, snowboards also ruined falling down a mountain on top of stuff? Grow the fuck up already. It does the model aviation hobby no justice when there's infighting over who's the scapegoat for the bullshit the FAA is currently pulling at the behest of an overbearing and corrupt government. Drones didn't ruin anything. A few stupid people doing stupid things gave tyrants an excuse to act tyrannically. All drones did was enable a much wider audience to try out model aviation. If there needs to be any clarification made it would be between hobby quadcopters and commercial. Because none of us FPV pilots are out here causing safety problems. It's people with no experience getting their first quad from BestBuy and immediately flying it without any instruction.

[@stevedessert5663]

Thank you for all your hard work!!!

[@TimMcKay56]

No worries!

[@ij2750]

I think we need to look at where we fly more so than what we fly, If we fly within so many miles of an airport or a sports venue or other sensitive places RID may be needed. But if we fly at a designated RC site or within the bounds of our own property no RID should be required.

[@TimMcKay56]

Fair enough! Tim

[@johnw5734]

I wish the AMA was able to draw a line in the sand for the legislators to see the difference between RC planes and camera drones. Maybe in the future the FAA will consider a separation of the two if we can somehow prove our RC planes don't have video gear and are not flown beyond line of site. I'm afraid it'll be much easier for the FAA to just classify all RC UAS as drones. Thank you for fixing the audio, it's super clear and easy to understand.

[@TimMcKay56]

We'll see. Really big projects like this need to be taken in stages. And the AMA just cannot "draw a line" wih the FAA, as the FAA is the "Boss" in all of these discussions. Gotta negotiate. Tim

[@rcenvyyt]

Our FRIA is approved! But went ahead and bought a Sub 250g lineup of UMX planes and foamies. But please everyone FOLLOW the rules! In the long run we will look better.

[@TimMcKay56]

So glad to hear of this! Tim

[@TedB1800]

Thanks, Tim, for your calm, thoughtful approach to the Remote ID issue. I totally agree there needs to be a clean distinction between "drones" and fixed wing RC model aircraft as they are regulated under RID. We're gonna have to live under the present rules for a couple of years to demonstrate to the FAA that we can earn that distinction. Personally, I will have no problem doing so. To make a very long story short, I just hope we fixed wing pilots can continue to live up to our reputation for following the rules and flying safely.

[@TimMcKay56]

Ted: We'll get there, thanks for checking in! Tim

[@FredHarvey-wp2qy]

Tim, do you know where the 250 gram weight limit came from? I think a kilogram would have been a more useful and workable limit.

[@702Wolfi]

Tim wants you to fly rubber band motor models, but only at approved airfields.

[@FredHarvey-wp2qy]

I'm not much of a slave to blindly following rules. Particularly those that I think are foolish. I suspect that there will be massive non-compliance from the general RC community. I have a camera drone built before RID was required. I'm not going to add RID until I see how this mess shakes out. I'm hoping jt will be a non-event, where only idiots doing something egregiously stupid get burned. Everyone else gets left alone. I know...I know, I believe in the Easter Bunny too.

[@TimMcKay56]

Freed: I do not work for the FAA, but my guess is they tried to figure out a light enough weight such that a drone of this weight either hitting an airliner or getting sucked into an engine would cause minimal damage. 1 kilogram may work as well, we'll see. Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

@@TimMcKay56 the origin is not calculated as much as copied. If faa stated the reason that would be nice. The origin seems to be copy/paste. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZm1eY2GbtOVprs

[@JPspinFPV]

Let's be perfectly clear, a heli is not a fixed wing. And cameras are not an issue. A sensible move would be to regulate gps equipped model aircraft.

[@TimMcKay56]

Good input! Tim

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

Cameras ARE an issue, but only when used for FPV. Quad or fixed wing doesn't matter.

[@RickLaBanca]

@@jasonhurdlow6607 why? Fpv offers more control and awareness.

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

@@RickLaBanca Because FPV allows you to fly beyond LOS.

[@jasonhurdlow6607]

@@RickLaBanca and I would dispute that FPV offers greater control or awareness vs LOS. It would depend on the situation.

[@stanpatterson4379]

Hi Tim, I am an avid modeler of many childhood and adult years and AMA member. I totally agree with your approach on addressing our issues to The FAA! In my working years (now retired) I was required to have training for organizing, conducting and chairing meetings. The number one things not to bring to a meeting is chest beating and table pounding! What you DO bring is at least three solutions to problems you are wanting resolved! If meeting members are not familiar with the subject you kindly educate them with interesting facts. Being brief and to the point goes a long way also. In my opinion, the AMA and people like you are doing it the correct way in working together to recommend rather than demanding solutions! All modelers are upset as to what has happened, especially coming from the Government, but now we need plans and patience to fix it. Tim, thank you for your service, the time you spend working for our hobby and the informative videos! Stan Patterson

[@TimMcKay56]

Stan: Thanks so much for your kind words, fully agree! Tim

[@asommer518]

The I Phone sounds great, not muffled like your other solution, it also doesn't capture clothing noise etc. Basically sounds natural as if was sitting across from you. For what you are doing. Id just use the camera mic. BTW I have 30+ years as a video producer. Ditch your mics, they sound cheap. High quality wireless mics start at about $300. IF you want to try again I suggest a mic that has a clip that holds the mic away from the clothing a few mm.

[@TimMcKay56]

Excellent, excellent points. Thanks. I do think I'll take your advice, just use the iPhone audio. Tim

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

​@@TimMcKay56thank you

[@buddyadkins2432]

Consider that it is actually brilliant to group all unmanned aircraft (drones) under one section and the use of terms that are all encompassing. This methodology "future proofs" the law as it now includes all past, present, and future (perhaps yet to be constructed) aircraft regardless of configuration, propulsion, or lifting method. Also, the past has less relevance than the future potential of unmanned aircraft (drones) regardless of the configuration or physical structure. When airplanes have the ability to hover, they will be just like quadcopters and helicopters. Then you have the "Wings" which is technically not an airplane, but neither a quadcopter. Plus, FPV airplanes now have long distance capability and don't even need an airfield. Yes, it is reasonable and even rational to have all UNMANNED aircraft under on section.

[@TimMcKay56]

The evolution of aircraft, to include RC models, is constant. But it is a good idea to start somewhere, establish some ground rules and definitions, then adapt as things change and evolve. Tim

[@buddyadkins2432]

​@@TimMcKay56 And here, I thought the ground rules were established: 1) aircraft is defined as any object that can maintain flight. (regardless of configuration), 2) Unmanned aircraft has NO pilot on board the craft, 3) Unmanned Aircraft (or Aerial) System has a remote control station that is not on board the aircraft. Then there are the UAS rules in the Part 107 section and Recreational Exemption "carve out". The irritation for some is having 1 set of laws and rules for all Unmanned Aircraft. Or specifically, one rule: Remote ID. When you think about it there are more similarities than differences between RC unmanned aircraft; VTOL and hovering being just about it. Now, a Harrier Jet RC airplane would have pretty much the same capabilities as a propulsion only craft (helicopters, quads, etc.). So, that sort of makes everything the same, more or less.

[@user-bd5nh5eb4b]

Thanks Tim for the videos and the actual personal advice you have given me. Being a newcomer I have learned so much from your presentations. ❤ redbaron Chattanooga

[@TimMcKay56]

RB: Glad to hear it, have fun in this great hobby! Tim

[@flyboywbl]

The FAA said in the early hearings that modelers are not the issue. So why did we get lumped into with drone pilots? We are not the problem.

[@TimMcKay56]

As I said in the video, just too much going on with first swing at RID to separate. Tim

[@flyboywbl]

@@TimMcKay56 ​​⁠​​⁠yes. It just stinks we got lumped into the drone pilots. I too have almost hit a drone. I was on final for runway 6 flying into TEB and there was a quad at 1000' agl on the final. Unbelievable. I missed it by about 1/4 mile

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@flyboywbl Yikes, glad you are OK! Tim

[@flyboywbl]

@@gordonmckay4523 yes. Thank you. But it's frustrating to see the recklessness first hand that is restricting our hobby now. We need to team up with the NRA, lol.

[@RickLaBanca]

I fly drones and I’m a modeler. I think you guys are lumping quad pilots in with store drones.

[@DoyleBlevins]

Tim, your microphone is to be one hand length below the chin. You have your mic to low. Your sound will be just fine. If you do not like the sound then check to see if your PC has a mixer to add more bass and treble.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks! Tim

[@yodaiam1000]

Hi Tim, I completely agree. Separating out the two activities goes a long way to fixing the concerns with the new drone regulations and RID. This would help a lot with the STEM concerns. I would also say there are othering defining characteristics like having GPS and IMUs on board of drones. The other change I would like to see with RID is to leave the drone pilot information off the public phone apps and leave it with law enforcement instead. This is for pilot safety. In any case, it is one really good step in the right direction.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks! Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

What two?

[@yodaiam1000]

@@RickLaBanca Separate out fixed wings and drones. Drones and Fix wing ("fixed wing" includes helis but excludes drones with cameras) are the two activities that would be separated out from each other.

[@RickLaBanca]

@@yodaiam1000 no, the point is drones aren’t not one thing. A dji drone is not even close to quads I fly Also fixed wings aren’t either. Field flyers aren’t long distance as nice wing fliers.

[@yodaiam1000]

@@RickLaBanca It is kind of the point. you want to separate out these different activities. He is just saying in the video to separate out the UAS with cameras and those without. It is one step in the process and it happens to be an easy step. If you want to separate it out further, that is good too. You just need a definition to separate it out and the camera and the goal of the activity is a way to do that. If you have a camera but are not in the same airspace as video/picture drones, then take the concept further with the drones that do have cameras. Separate rules out further by weight, altitude, GPS, IMU, sheltered activity etc.

[@RussianThunderrr]

-- Love that Clancy Aviation Lazy 🐝

[@RussianThunderrr]

I'm dreading watching the rest of the video...

[@TimMcKay56]

Me too! 😊 Tim

[@darrensontos1012]

Tim, why limit to one type of airframe, when cameras seem to be the key part of your suggestion? I'd suggest also adding GPS to that list of excluded equipment to further target LOS flying.

[@TimMcKay56]

Perfect! I am just starting the discussion. Tim

[@malinhiles]

I like your approach here. These ideas may be more properly addressed with respect to hardware capabilities, not airframe type.

[@yarsmythe]

The Department of Transportation has no problem categorizing automotive vehicles. No one would assume regulations for an 18-wheeler would be identical for a motorcycle. The FAA needs to separate LOS aircraft from BVLOS/GPS aircraft to fix most of the problems (government overreach) we're dealing with today.

[@TimMcKay56]

Agree!

[@RickLaBanca]

Again this is not a good idea. People here don’t even know the differences, lumping in store drones that fly for half an hour with built models. I’d be much more open to pilot separation as is ham radio vs unlicensed operators. Part 15 radios vs honestly built. Faa could do the same.

[@xjet]

@13:40 sorry Tim, you're way out of touch on this one. You talk about a drone you can buy from Best Buy then go fly in the parking lot -- while showing footage from a freestyle drone. Trust me, if someone gave you the controller for a freestyle drone you would *NOT* be able to fly it without a lot of practice. THOSE are not the drones you are talking about and you insult the freestyle drone community by using that footage as if flying them was a no-brainer and as if *they* were the cause of the issues. Do some research, stop being an FAA fanboi and man-up a bit when it comes to dealing with those in positions of authority and power. Never forget that those in Congress and those in the FAA *WORK FOR YOU* and are paid BY YOU through your taxes. I recall in a recent video you told us that the FAA were doing "a superb job" -- yet in this video you told us that they acted with what amounts to unreasonabl haste and were ill-informed with respect to the hobby. Acting in haste and without proper knowledge are the very things that create hazards... not safety. Perhaps I'm just more objective than you in this case. I fly traditional RC line of sight models. I fly fixed-wing FPV models, I fly FPV freestyle multirotors -- I can speak from first-hand experience in all those disciplines. Clearly, based on your example at 13:40 in this video, you (like the FAA) are ill-informed and should therefore do some homework before making these videos. IMHO of course.

[@TimMcKay56]

The FAA does a pretty good job considering the range of flight activities they have to deal with. Boeing, Airbus, general aviation, gliders, hot air balloons, Part 107, all military traffic and aircraft, air taxi, urban air mobility, Space X and now RC models. And I repeat, zero commercial airline accidents with US carriers in over 14 years. As a general rule in life, complicated problems do not have simple solutions. Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

What about helis? There’s not two part separation.

[@TimMcKay56]

I mentioned it once, my intent was to use helos and fixed wing in same sense. Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

@@TimMcKay56 then why not include quads which might as well be helis?

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@RickLaBanca Well, of course, we could. But the overall idea is to take a very large problem and try and break it into smaller pieces . . . get success and then build on that. The central problem with safety and the FAA are cameras. My assumption is most, if now all quads have cameras. I am not against cameras, it is just that quad pilots with little to no training are out and about flying, looking to get pictures, etc. I am not convinced including quads in initial discussions would be a smart way ahead. Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

@@gordonmckay4523 well the wings are fine on their frias so why not start with who is getting impacted the most…. Freestyle/racing quads that require skilled pilots? A Best Buy purchaser couldn’t even get one off the ground without crashing.

[@thomasjohnson6669]

Agree

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@ericmathisen2825]

This would be a good solution. Lets not forget our friends RC helicopter and autogyro pilots. They fly at the same fields as us fixed wing pilots with the same contraints, i.e. piloted by a human not a microprocessor.

[@TimMcKay56]

I mentioned that in the video, when I say fixed wing include the helo folks. Tim

[@godzillacat1291]

What about all of the "acro" fpv drone pilots? It seems everyone thinks that fpv drones you just buy off the shelf and suddenly you can fly, when in fact most are custom built and require 10+ hours of practice in a simulator before you can fly without constantly crashing. The barrier to entry is extremely high in both cost and skill (both piloting skill and build skill) It's unfair/misleading to show a clip of fpv drone footage and in the background talk about how anyone can easily go buy a drone and fly it.

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@godzillacat1291 But that is pretty much my entire point. Drone pilots tend to fly on their own away from organized clubs field . . . and to watch the interesting video. Let's face it, part of this flight is to see afterward the video. It is this type of "let's fly anywhere" approach that is causing a lot of heartburn, and makes is hard for the FAA to grant flight permissions without RID. Tim

[@godzillacat1291]

@@gordonmckay4523 as long as they're flying legally, whats wrong with that? All of the drone races where I live occur at club fields by the way, and all of the fpv pilots I know are very cautious about where and how they fly. Fpv drones are for acrobatics by the way, not "pictures" as you stated in your video. The drones you are talking about are photography drones like those made by dji.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

Drones were required to operate at 30 GHz, they would have to be operated line of sight because that doesn't go through any obstructions, and the range would be severely limited because of the power requirements to go far.

[@TimMcKay56]

Interesting point! Tim

[@richardjohnson2331]

I fly primarily LOS airplanes and I'm an AMA member. Like it or not, to the FAA we all fly drones. All of these arguments were made during the comment period when these RID regulations were proposed. The AMA made the same proposal thowing quad pilots under the bus then. The FAA ignored them then. Why would they listen now? Like there are different ways to fly planes there's different types of quad flying. Racing drones and DJI camera drones are two very different animals. Racing drones stay within a coarse the size of a basketball court and under 20ft. Pattern planes fly between 600 and 1500ft? Which is more of a danger to manned flight? There is a lot more nuance here than quad bad, plane good. Throwing one branch of the hobby under the bus for another part isn't the solution.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks for this update! Tim

[@jeffs7915]

It is hard to make this case to the FAA, when the AMA ran to embrace the quadcooter flyers when they became popular. The AMA should distance itself from any flyer not using an AMA or specifically dedicated flying fields. That includes schools, concerts and parks where the public may be present. Sorry RC flying is not compatible flying over or near the public, doesn't matter if the vehicle is big or small. The AMA screwed up, what can you discussed that relieves RID, flying at an isolated field, that's the distinction. VLOS is the boundary that makes all FAA rules superfluous. Well Tim you've finally come to your senses after a long time.

[@TimMcKay56]

Any organization or person can change their minds as events develop. I think this is fairly normal. I certainly cannot speak for the AMA. I do know from reading their magazine that youth outreach is a huge part of what they do, so they are pretty much going to be involved with drone RC activities. My point with all this is that the RC hobby is evolving so quickly in so many ways, it would be a very wise idea to accept this and form some strategies/relationships with USG agencies that are for sure going to get involved. Lead the conversation, not just follow it. Tim

[@xjet]

@21:00 Sorry Tim but let's face it... all the ego-stroking, safety-talk and cozying up to the FAA that the AMA did produced virtually nothing -- and, as one of the smartest men in history was once alleged to have said _"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"_ . SMART people learn from their experiences and it is abundantly clear that the FAA will listen to the likes of the AMA forever -- and still do exactly what the FAA wants to do because they know that they are wimps that will ultimately be bought off by some trivial concessions and privileges (such as FRIAs). The reality is that when you look through the history of any nation, many of the most important changes were bought about by people taking a stand and refusing to bow to unreasonable tyranny and government over-reach. The AMA has had its chance, it played soft-ball and got virtually nowhere -- hell, they couldn't even convince the FAA to draw a distinction between the traditional hobby and GPS-guided-no-skill-required camera drones. That was their most epic fail. In fact, this very video shows how much the AMA failed. If you think (through this video) that the distinction is possible why did you accept that the AMA's failure to stand firm on this was somehow acceptable? The syncophants and apologists have had their day and failed. Now it's time for those affected to weigh up the facts and decide for themselves how they will move forward. Some, like yourself, will comply with RID. Others, who perhaps do their own risk analysis and place more emphasis on safety than blind obedience, will choose to be non-compliant. This is a choice each must make according to their beliefs, their principles and their situation. However, in the worlds of one of WW2's most respected pilots (Harry Melville Arbuthnot Day, GC, DSO, OBE) *_" You know my views about some regulations - they're written for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"_*

[@TimMcKay56]

Xjet: One thing is crystal clear . . . you have never flown commercial airline operations. You might have a slightly different view on these matters and the FAA. FAA is not perfect, but helping things out. Tim

[@xjet]

@@TimMcKay56 You're right... I've never flown commercial airline operations -- just as you've never flown drones. The difference is that I'm not commenting on commercial airline operations but you are commenting on drones.

[@747Max]

@xjet What a load of tripe...You give great advice, instead of supporting an organization with 200,000 like minded people, listen to me, an old man screaming into the wind. Tim is exactly correct on how the hierarchy of Washington works. How did your video effort to organize a letter writing campaign to Congress go? If you want to be seen or heard by Congress or any government agency be part of a large group that speaks with one voice. You keep putting AMA down, but they seem to be the only game in town. While you think AMA did a poor job, it could have been a lot worse. There was a lot of pressure to completely shut down "private" drones. Or do we need to talk about the 9mm pistol and flame thrower mounted drones again. I worked for the FAA for 32 years and I can tell you for sure, the dumbest idea is to spew non-compliance. If and when there is an aircraft accident and a non-compliant UAS is even tangentially involved, it will be "Katy Bar The Door". You think you're over regulated now, HA HA HA! I hope someday you wake up and realize that you're NOT fighting tyranny, you're fighting bureaucracy. It just takes patience and organization to EFFECTIVELY fight bureaucracy.

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@747Max Thanks for this insight from "inside" the FAA! Tim

[@imikewillrockyou]

The first time I saw one of those drones fly into my backyard I thought, THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE TROUBLE! I never thought fixed wing RC pilots would get dragged into this, kind of random really, no fixed wing RC pilot would ever do that, we need a runway to land on that is free of cars and other obstacles.

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy, agree!

[@boostaholic9174]

I will put money down that the FAA will put limitations on ultralights now with the news from overseas…

[@TimMcKay56]

We'll see. Tim

[@apburner]

The same thing was happening with High Power Rocketry. We had to get a waiver to fly and it took as long as 6 months to get it. and if it was raining you were out of luck. But the national organizations negotiated with the FAA and now it is just a Notam we have to call in. We are still limited by them to a max altitude. But we self police and if you break to rules you will be banned.

[@TimMcKay56]

Great recap of the rockets, thanks for sharing! Tim

[@MartinVenter371]

Great video and fully agree with you opinions and way forward!

[@TimMcKay56]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@stevendegiorgio3143]

We also have the BMFA.British model flying association,they should be able to do something.There the British version of the AMA.

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@bmpowellicio]

The BMFA is already occupied with the CAA, our equivalent of the FAA.

[@spartan3299]

Simply put, It isn't what you fly. We already have to get waivers for above certain weights of aircraft. If you fly a camera drone at your FRIA , and follow all the rules under AMA, what does it matter what I fly, within the guidelines of AMA and the FAA. Your trying to add additional restrictions that don't improve safety. If, probably DJI drones are routinely being seen in conflict on approach/take off, That is a person operating a drone in a reckless and dangerous manor. That operator must be found quickly and processed appropriately. If, like I have done, fly at a park within about 2 miles from the end and a mile off the approach corridor of a busy city airport, LAANC approval, and I stay below the allowed altitude , 200ft for this spot I go, it is a non issue.

[@TimMcKay56]

Roger all! Just trying to start the conversation. One needs to begin somewhere, simplify a bit to get the first step done. Tim

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

It is like Citizens Band radio and Amatuer radio. The Hams are serious hobbyists who have a massive, and long standing, interest in advancing the art and science of radio. The radios and antennas can, and do, cost tens of thousands of dollars+. The yahoos are generally hated, and except for some bands where the "bad" people hang out, it is somewhat of an orderly hobby that takes place worldwide between enthusiasts. _The Hams must take an FCC exam to operate their radios!_ CB is a monkey zoo, but there are serious users of the medium (truckers generally-I rarely listen to CB). No exam is required for CB (the radios are licensed by the manufacturer), and it shows in the patrons. GMRS doesn't require an exam, but there is a modest fee for a license ($35/every 10 years). _The FCC recently has been ramping up enforcement!_ _Big fines and seizing equipment._ The whole thing reminds me of when CB exploded in the 1970s. Eventually sUAS will all settle down I guess. As you pointed out, in the 1970s, model flying had a large $$$ barrier to entry (certainly I could not justify the cost in the 1970s). China has made Ham radios cheap, compared to the premium Japanese stuff. However, the Hams seem to be policing their territory still, especially given that the VHF bands are dead compared to what I was hearing in the 1980s. Remote ID is the means for the model flyers to take back their hobby.

[@RickLaBanca]

And unlike the faa, the fcc and hams have always worked together. I agree I’d rather separate class of pilot instead of class of craft. No remote id for a licensed hobby pilot. Remoteid for store bought. This is like part15 radios for consumers vs home brew which is legal only for hams.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

I will point out that my FAA Part 107 exam cost $175, and I bought some training software that cost $54. _The exam was proctored by a commercial outfit, PSI Services who received the $175._ My FCC Part 97 licenses were proctored by Volunteer Examiners authorized by statute. The first two cost $15 each, and the third was free because the club that offered it doesn't charge. Thank you @@RickLaBanca

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@berndm9743]

Great video. Thanks Tim. I started my RC flying in 1970. IMHO, fixed wing RC planes basically fly in their flying field's pattern air space. This is basically an area not much larger than 100 to 200 yards beyond the the ends and edges of the runway.

[@TimMcKay56]

Agree! Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

As do… freestyle quads and racing quads. Y’all have no idea about quads.

[@yodaiam1000]

@@RickLaBanca Are you saying that fixed wing pilots can't have relaxations of the rules if you can't have relaxation of the rules for the type of flying that you do?

[@RickLaBanca]

@@yodaiam1000 no I’m saying why wings only.

[@yodaiam1000]

@@RickLaBanca I don't think anyone is saying wings only. He is saying split into camera/non-camera. However, it can be split further. GPS/IMU controlled/stabilized and non-stabilized can be split up. I think the main thing is that video/picture drones are the ones that have incursions and not the other UAS. This is how manned aviation works. They different rating and regulations for different configurations.

[@wolfpack4694]

Point of order. Congress (not the FAA) defined what a UAS is in Public Law 112-95, Section 331 back in 2012. Unfortunately the law didn’t distinguish between RC and quad copters. There is no distinction between FW RC and RW RC in the law either. It’s unfortunate that drones have negatively impacted the RC community by the irresponsible flying by some drone flyers.

[@TimMcKay56]

Good point, thanks! Tim

[@crystalclearwindowcleaning3458]

Thanks for continuing the discussion of RID. But you yourself stated thst that thr motivator behind RID is control the airspace to make it easy for commercial drine flights. Its not really a safety issue. Dont throw the fixed winged vuys who like to put cameras on their planes under the bus. No amount of rules will make dishonest or reckless RC pilots less so. Rules will only restrict those who want to fly safely.

[@TimMcKay56]

My point on all this is to start a discussion. Many, many RC pilots, with zero experience in government, want an all or nothing approach. If you take this path, you will for sure get nothing. My idea is to notch a win somewhere, anywhere and build from that. Getting certain fixed wing RC planes relief from RID is a possible, achievable goal. We are not "throwing anyone under the bus," rather getting a win and building on that to get further wins. Tim

[@aja9469]

Its rough, im trying to get into the hobby but cant help but feeling like its gate kept everwhere you turn... I have my TRUST Cert. and everything, and obviously wouldn't do anything to endanger anyone near where Id be flying at and chose my flight site accordingly, but it seems it just HAS to be another 100 bucks, or AMA club membership away being able to actually get involved in this hobby. Like if the Wright brothers had similar regulations, we wouldnt be here....

[@TimMcKay56]

Things change in life. For example, to fly RC in 1936 you would have had to have been essentially a radio engineer. Now ALL supplies are a mouse-click away via the internet. This is a great hobby with any number of ways to enjoy it. Don't sweat the small stuff! Tim

[@CentralPaRcFlyingDays]

Honestly, the AMA opened a door with the Park Pilot Program, encouraging people to fly at schools and parks without the structure of the Club Field and process. This enhanced these people to use Quads in the same manner as they came out in retail stores. Problem 1) The first FPV rigs were "Fixed" wing and I remember members flying them BLOS back then. Problem 2 ) The AMA will not want this broken out, FRIA gives them hope to maintain membership. Don't take me wrong, I am happy to see your approach and thought process.

[@dereksflying]

Yea but that doesn’t fix the problem of the clubs and the giant scale RC pilots. The ama is forgetting the core of their members

[@CentralPaRcFlyingDays]

@@dereksflying I am not sure I understand RC Giant scale applies. My point was the AMA encouraged people to fly in public places, which lead us where we are with the light fixed wing aircraft (2lbs and under) and Quards / Drones.

[@TimMcKay56]

It is a complicated issue. We need to start somewhere to get initial steps approved. Too many moving parts to keep everyone happy at the same time. Tim

[@CentralPaRcFlyingDays]

@@TimMcKay56 Agreed.. Fixed wing "Drones" at the FAA already knows has the longest time and distance reach, as why I mentioned it. The caveat to you point of no fixed wings with camera is I fear where the battle will be. The military has their own nice collection of these.

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@CentralPaRcFlyingDays And I've got to be clearer, I am discussing recreational flying and not Part 107 or the USG. Tim

[@Loochy808]

Disagree. Lumping all UAS together DOES make sense. The separating factor should be anyone flying anything BVLOS at altitude or long range should require remote ID. Regardless of method (looking at phone screen, FPV goggles, Waypoints, etc). Anyone flying VLOS, regardless of UAS type, needs no remote ID. No VLOS flights in controlled airspace (without approval) or above a determined safe altitude. Complex area is FPV freestyle pilots and racers. They shouldn't be regulated to Remote ID either. They fly low altitude FPV. You could argue they pose a danger to others (folks on ground, property, etc) but thats not the FAA's purview. Another grey area might be RC soaring who DO fly at very high altitudes VLOS. But I'm sure there's a reasonable way to manage that. I just dont know enough about that aspect of the hobby to comment.

[@TimMcKay56]

Fair enough, just staring the discussion! Tim

[@Loochy808]

@@TimMcKay56 that is appreciated!

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@Loochy808 Thanks! Tim

[@independentdronechannel170]

🙂👍

[@shadowofchaos8932]

That's what I was going to say, lol. 😆

[@TimMcKay56]

😊👍🏻 Tim

[@thomasnewton9818]

There are three categories of flying objects. Two are hobby model airplanes and multirotor aircraft. The third are drones operated by the military. There in is the whole crux of the problem. Even multirotor commercial aircraft should've been regulated. I enjoy some of your videos. We are having regulations shoved down our throats daily. This is just another government overreach. We can agree to disagree.

[@TimMcKay56]

TN: Thanks for checking in! I do need to be more specific, as I am talking about recreational drone and RC model flying. I think the Part 107 pilots do understand and follow the rules. The certificate is not an easy test. Tim

[@747Max]

Well said again Tim. I will say that you do have an uphill battle trying to get the FAA to separate fixed wing models and drones. My guess is by lumping everything into UAS it simplifies rule making. I agree they painted with a bit too wide of a brush. You are 100% correct about which type is causing the problems. I worked in a FSDO for 32 years and never saw a complaint or issue with model aircraft, until about 2015. It started with people ratting out KZbin posted drone footage and morphed into 8-9 citizen complaints a month. One thing you might emphasize is that most fixed wing (or Modelers) belong to clubs/CBOs. The drone guys seem to be more lone wolf types.

[@TimMcKay56]

7-Max: Again, great insights from the field and thanks for checking in again! Tim

[@stevendegiorgio3143]

My planes are just too small for a Camara and I don't even own one.The only Camara I have is on my smart phone and I don't even use that one.

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@amoreu11]

Yes Tim you are 100% correct ! We that are flying fixed wing aircraft should not be lumped in with Drone pilots. The FAA hopefully will take into account the AMA 75 years of a great safety record.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks for sharing! Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

Why not? It seems many fixed wing filers have no idea what a home build quad is.

[@anthonystownsend]

The multicopter safety record is way way safer than fixed wing

[@RickLaBanca]

Divided and conquer eh? Well you’re not exactly dividing in a logical way yourself. Fixed wing and quads are more similar than consumer drones. But ama also snubbed quad fliers which is why I dropped out.

[@TimMcKay56]

In complicated situations like this you have to start somewhere. FRIAs are acknowledgement from the FAA some of us follow the rules. Why not use that as a starting point? Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

The vast majority of us follow the rules, field or not. They won’t even let us fly on our own property which shows how out of touch they are.

[@stevendegiorgio3143]

My planes don't even fly that long.I have one plane that flys for 5 minutes and another one that flys for 4 minutes.There high speed sport/pattern planes.

[@TimMcKay56]

Roger that!

[@MarkCroucherRC4fun]

As I watch you spouting nonsense I stuggle to understand your motivation...... The FAA pushed for the current rules, its not about safety at all its about the dollar. Simple minded or simply in denial I can't decide.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks for checking in!

[@scottmc4850]

Tim it's a hobby ?and a very safe hobby its business that's making this happen money not safety.?

[@TimMcKay56]

Yeah . . . but we share the airspace with a lot of other people to include the traveling public. Times change and this is part of the adaption process. There was a time on 1910 or so when no one required a car driver license. Pretty sure that has since changed, same complaints likely back then. Tim

[@AdamJohnson-hv3xe]

Line of sight, no GPS and no cameras should be a good enough reason to exclude fixed wing aircraft from remote id.

[@TimMcKay56]

Makes sense to me, let's see what the next steps are. Tim

[@Razor-gx2dq]

However this plays out, i think that only Law Enforcement should have UAS data in real time to prevent harassment, but i could be wrong.

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@craigstatham4397]

Although it might be much harder for congress or the FAA to swallow, the idea of a 400-land-air right (act) might give back freedoms that are otherwise being lost. Whoever owns and/or controls the land should have the right to designate how the free air up to 400 feet is used for unmanned flying craft. You should be able to designate the air as open, open with remote ID, or closed. The default for uncontrolled airspace where the land owner/controller has not registered intent would be open with remote ID. I think everyone would like to have a say in how the low level air space above their heads is being used. The FAA would be responsible for issuing the designation with a rarely veto for certain “safety related” circumstances. Ready to fly UAS over 250g that only require the addition of batteries, receiver, and/or transmitter, and less than 60 minutes build time, MUST be fitted with remote ID by the manufacturer, and must be registered with the FAA before flying by the owner. Remote ID may only be disabled, not used, or not fitted, when flying in 400-land-air areas designated as open. The FAA will likely say that this is too much to manage without additional resources, but that’s where they can negotiate with government to ask for more budget. The NextGen ambitions of the FAA are not altered by this scheme.

[@TimMcKay56]

Interesting approach!

[@slembcke]

Drones and airplanes are separate communities? I mean... given that you talked about buying a prepackaged drone like a Mavic at a big box store WHILE showing a freestyle/race drone... Surely you know the difference right? Of the people I know, there is a HUGE overlap between the drones and fixed wing. In my club, we fly everything that flies. We put cameras on some of our fixed wing aircraft, and when we put flight controllers on some of them we literally use the same hardware from the drones. You are (intentionally) conflating camera drones with hobby drones, and they more different than fixed wing and hobby drones.

[@TimMcKay56]

Yes, is a complicated discussion. At the end of the day the flying community that is viewed as following the rules will be given more slack on the FAA leash. Tim

[@sigh_of_the_times]

Tim I said it all along FPV I understand why they would want I'd but fixed wing's should not need I'd I like where dot is going with this. Thank you again for your show or videos.

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@shadowofchaosfpv4683]

I have over 20 freestyle fpv quads in my fleet of all sizes. I can't get any quads or parts from Best Buy or a electronics store. Camera drones and fpv drones are as different as a fixed wing craft is from a waypoint survey craft. You need more experience in FPV to criticize the whole hobby to defend your fixed wing AMA pastime.

[@TimMcKay56]

Will do!

[@christopherleveck6835]

I've been building and flying my own airplanes for 45 years. I have a barn full of 1/4, 1/5 and 1/6 scale airplanes. I've got 2 cycle, 4 cycle, electric and gas turbines. I fly off of 20 acres. I'm surrounded by farms. The closest airport is a dozen miles away. And it's a gross strip with a single hanger and no services. The closest almost certified FRIA is a couple of hours away. I don't shoot KZbin videos. I don't get paid to fly. I was told I have to get a commercial drone license in order to fly on my own property. But now guess what? I have to have a separate remote ID module for more than 30 airplanes.... and yeah, I really fly ALL of them. As a "commercial drone pilot" I have to have a module for every airplane. And that's not the only rub in all of this. ANYBODY who posts a flying video on KZbin..... whether it's monetized or not, needs a commercial license too. Because KZbin will monetize YOUR video. Even if you don't. I have mentioned both these things on your channel before. And I've been treated really badly because of it. But I was right it's all true and it continues to be true. The biggest problem here is that us old-timers got lumped in with everybody else. Even though we've never had any problems. And the AMA COMPLETELY sold us out. Once it was clear that their existence was threatened, they folded like a bunch of playing cards. If you doubt anything I'm saying here, you need to look it up. BEFORE you tell me I'm wrong. Because I've hired a couple of attorneys, and I've fought this thing as far as I could. When I go on the website to register my models, I have to enter a SEPARATE NUMBER FOR EACH OF THEM. And how do I know about KZbin monetizing your videos and the need to have a commercial drone license? Because I has 2 videos of my airplanes being flown. After making comments on this channel, several people reported me to the FAA..... No good deed goes unpunished.

[@TimMcKay56]

Christopher: Thanks so much for checking in, but essentially EVERYTHING you have written is completely wrong. Completely. First, you are a recreational pilot. This means you do not make any money with your RC flight activities. Recreational pilots need to get a simple registration number from the FAA. Done on line, I think the cost is $5 for three years. This one registration number is used for ALL of your models. All of them. As a recreational pilot you need one remote ID broadcast module, just swap between your models like you do a lipo battery pack. It is a very big deal to get money from KZbin. I think 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 hours view time in the past year. Plus you have to apply for it. If you just make KZbin videos you do not need a commercial pilot license. Tim

[@Daniel_Callie]

Wise and thoughtful strategy. It seem rational legislators when aware of the distinction would reinstate exemption 338(?) in part.

[@TimMcKay56]

Daniel: Many thanks! Tim

[@svinevitable]

Tim, I thoroughly enjoy your content. I respect your experience and knowledge. However, on this subject I must disagree on several points. RID can't be separated out from "drones" and fixed wing. Cameras are not the real issue. Terrorism is. The first Catch 22 is that a terrorist is not going to RID. The second Catch 22 is that any attack will happen below 400ft AGL. A "drone" will never have the carrying capacity of a fixed wing. This is all being discussed as "air traffic safety". It's truly underneath about national security. If we demonize "drones" we are going to appear to be arrogant, spoiled, and whiny adults with our expensive toys. They see all of them as a UAS. It matters not how it takes off. Yes, cameras can be used to invade privacy or compromise secure facilities. But, the MUCH worse possibility is a swarm of high speed, low flying fixed wings hitting a soft target like a stadium or open air concert on preprogrammed GPS controlled flight path (with no or minimal control input after launch). I think it would be great if the world worked in ways that would allow us to separate FW R/C from multirotor drones... but those lines are blurry, too. Convergence, HeeWing VTOL, and any V-22 model just name a few. I hate any more government oversight... and I don't think RID will truly help the things it needs to, for the above stated reasons. But, if "they" don't do SOMETHING (even if it's incomplete, ineffective, and invasive) the public would scream that we should done that "SOMETHING "... Rant over, keep up the great content creation! C.T. Boats Woods

[@TimMcKay56]

Great points, thanks for checking in! Tim

[@IO_Darren]

Hi there Tim! I really do appreciate the thought that you've put into this. You definitely bring up some salient and cogent points, but I really do think that there are some areas where you're not seeing the whole picture, and some in which you're being somewhat naive. Let's start with the first thing. You say, verbatim, that the "The FAA is an organization 100% focused on safety." I'm sorry but I just can't even remotely agree with that. Practically very single component of our government is also, even if it's not said outright, tasked with helping maintain and administer the security of the United States of America. Safety and Security are not the same things, even though Security measures can, and often are, masqueraded as 'safety' measures. Yes, the FAA is absolutely concerned, and tasked with, the Safety of the airspace in the united states. Much of their resources, time and effort goes into that, and it's an admirable and laudiable task. But they are also trying to help keep our airspace secure, through means that are not applicable, feasible, or possible with the resources of the US Military. How do you keep something secure.... you control access to it. ALL access to it. The FAA wants to know about EVERYTHING flying in the sky, for both safety and security reasons. Your ideas and thoughts well address the safety aspect, but you are absolutely not seeing the whole picture in regards to the security aspect of it. Safety and Security are step siblings. They go hand in hand. As a drone AND RC pilot I can certainly say that the Fixed Wing contingent has a FAR better track record in it's operations, but it's a touch disingenuous to imply that all Fixed wing pilots are pillars of virtue upstandingness and all the drone pilots are operating as if it's Dodge City in the Wild West. Quote with emphasis added. "I would say to ***all*** the fellow drone Pilots you've got to stop violating controlled airspace before you're going". I have never flown my drone where I am not allowed to. I have diligently only ever flown in areas where flight is allowed. In the few, rare times I have flown in a controlled airspace, i have ONLY flown where I can get LAANC authorization. Just how you don't feel it's fair that RC pilots be all lumped together, please don't lump all of the rulebreaker drone pilots in with those who are actively trying to follow all of the rules and regulations. In addition. I have seen, as someone who has worked in the retail hobby store industry for almost 3 decades, some HORRIFIC abuses by fixed wing pilots. I've heard of shit that would make your hair go white. Yes, RC Fixed wing pilots are being punished by not only the actions of bad actors, but also by the potential actions of bad actors. In a world where every day we trade freedoms for security, this is the inevitable progression. You make the argument that RC fixed wing pilots, in their FRIA's and with model planes that do not go BVLOS pose no threat. You are likely absolutely correct in that. But it's not nescessarrily the pilots that the FAA is concerned about. It's the technology. It's the technology that could be weaponized by a bad actor that they are concerned about. It's the technology that is growing more user friendly and accessable every single day. That is the march of technology. The very same RC fixed wing that you and your grandchild fly for fun at a FRIA could be used to drop or disperse an airborne biological weapon, or something equally horrific. I guarantee you that this thinking is also happening at the FAA. That your hobby is falling victim to this is truly unfortunate. It truly is. The remote ID rules are the first step in giving the FAA the control they need to, in their minds, give us (them) the security they want, under the guise of friendly safety. I don't mean to sound conspiracy theorist, as I truly and genuinely dispise most of those people, but I am also trying to be a realist in the modern world.

[@TimMcKay56]

That is one long post! Thanks for checking in. Tim

[@xjet]

You said _"could be used to drop or disperse an airborne biological weapon, or something equally horrific"_ Surely then the emphasis should be on making sure that bad actors can't get their hands on such things - the very things needed to turn a harmless toy into a weapon. Remember, it's not just drones that can be turned into weapons... the Boston Marathon bombings proved that even something as every-day as a pressure-cooker can be weaponized so instead of chasing our tails trying to regulate *everything* that could possibly be used as a weapon -- why not focus on regulating the stuff (explosives, etc) that are the common element in all such weaponizations? That would be the *smart* thing to do, surely?

[@IO_Darren]

@@TimMcKay56 Was hoping for some kind of dialogue, not a dismissive response of "you typed a lot of words".

[@TimMcKay56]

@@IO_Darren DJ: Apologies, I am just getting so many comments no way to respond to every one. 😖😟 Tim

[@parvo101]

Throwing someone under the bus. That is what you are proposing is called.

[@TimMcKay56]

So . . . getting back to the real world for a moment. What you are saying is "Give me everything I want or else." This is not negotiating, rather making demands of the FAA that will never, ever be realized. Here is an idea: Achieve a "win" on something like fixed wing with no RID. Show the FAA we are reasonable, can follow the regs. Leverage this to help the drone flyers who have an increasingly hard time following regulations. This not throwing anyone under the bus, rather helping a community that needs help. Tim

[@bmpowellicio]

Its the perceived danger, not the actual. Populations react to reports and raise their concerns with governments who pass on those concerns to regulatory bodies who delgate to the likes of the flying association. If those associations sit on their hands, the matter goes back to legislators who forces action. Gliding associations, full-size that is, have been very pro-active because they are concerned about mid-air collisions. They have promoted the use of radio beacons to make each pilot aware of the location of other aircraft, and that is in the process of expanding to other aicraft types. Gliding Associations around the world are respected and generally allowed to supervise their own with little regulation from outside. The perceived dangers of quads, jets, and over 10cc high performance models have been here for a dozen years or more. We even have 400mph gliders!! But the hobby associations have done very little, if anything. They prefer to wait until they are pushed, and then try to push back. Its too late, governments around the world have set the beacon identification system in place, and it will come in. Its an international business and all the countries will be following the pioneers so that if a tragedy does occur they can point to the action they have taken. Even Bruce at XJet knows this, he was obliged to listen into aircraft frequencies at his airport in case a Piper or Cessna is due to arrive. We all need to do the bisteringly obvious sometimes.

[@TimMcKay56]

Interesting points! Tim

[@joepellissier2091]

Tim, well done and I completely agree with your approach to solving this issue, however I don’t think we can simply separate out fixed wing aircraft. I come from the utility sector and fixed wing remote aircraft (drones) are being used for utility inspections. In Nevada, the legislature passed drone laws for economic development perspective. They are currently testing long range beyond the line of site fixed wing drones for line patrols. In the event of an outage, the utility can remotely fly a drone for tens or hundreds of miles with a camera with qualified personal on the transmitter end to inspect the line for damage. Frankly, I think the word drone is the root of the problem and we need to separate the industry having commercial and private operator, fixed wing and rotors.

[@TimMcKay56]

Joe: Fully agree, and I need to make sure I emphasize that I am discussing recreational flying and not Part 107 or a US government operations. The latter will follow whatever the rules are. Tim

[@Tammy-un3ql]

👍👍👌👌

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks!

[@malinhiles]

Hey Tim, I appreciate this point of view and coverage of this topic, especially as a fixed wing pilot myself. However, as much as I'd like to keep remote ID out of my aircrafts, I'm not sure that I fully agree with you on this one. I don't believe that nature of an aircraft being a fixed-wing recreational model is enough justification for an exemption to remote id. While the track record of model aviation safety with fixed wing UAS is favorable, it may be unfair to the knowledgeable and safe single rotor and multirotor pilots to exclude their practices and similar track record. Often by association, they are unfortunately grouped as one with unknowledgeable and unsafe( knowingly or knowingly) new pilots that are attracted to the modern accessibility and ease of use with a multirotor platform. Cameras and other sensors may be more common on multirotor platforms, but they certainly aren't exclusive to multirotor. Modern fixed wing and VTOL UAS for last mile and remote delivery are a great example of this. I think it may be a step in the wrong direction to focus on the type of aircraft, instead of the aircraft's capabilities, or the operator's responsibility to aviate safely. Curious to hear your thoughts!

[@TimMcKay56]

Fair points! I am just trying to jumpstart the conversation, give the FAA something to work with instead of a laundry list of complaints. I do think cameras on any RC aircraft are an incentive to go out and explore. I can go either way as my SkyID will suffice fine when I am not in the FRIA. Tim

[@AlToneTech]

Hey Tim, there are some modelers that build fixed wing rc planes flown autonomously and beyond visual line of site. I'm sure they follow the rules associated but I believe that will not make the FAA drop the RID requirement for fixed wing. It can be relaxed because it's different from a drone, but I am sure there would still be some exceptions. The FAA response may be FRIA. Thank you for continuing to educate the public on this subject. I see the need for safe model flying as well, Quad and Fixed wing.

[@AlToneTech]

I just heard the camera explanation for RID on Fixedwing aircraft and waypoint flights.. Thats Perfect.. I had not thought of that!

[@TimMcKay56]

FRIAs are a really big deal, as the FAA is saying "we trust FRIA pilots to stay within the boundaries and follow the rules with zero RID hardware." So this is a test. Key item is to demonstrate, with data, to the FAA that fixed wing aircraft can follow the rules, thus provide a safe operation. Tim

[@eartag794]

"Follow the rules" is a personal decision, not based on the model flown or club membership.@@TimMcKay56

[@RickLaBanca]

Bvlos is illegal

[@staticguy5554]

Get mic closer to neck

[@TimMcKay56]

Wilco!

[@OregonMotorcycle]

A government agency does not have the right to change definitions.

[@TimMcKay56]

I think they can. Tim

[@koolthingrc1644]

You say that drones can be purchased, taken to the parking lot and flow without instruction, inferring that it’s not possible with fixed wings, but we all know that’s not true. We understand that you want to distance yourself from the evil drone people but you’re overlooking the fact that the only fatalities have been by fixed wing and helis. What really has the AMA crowd torqued is the fact that the number of rc pilots keeps increasing as AMA membership keeps shriveling. It’s decisive attitudes like this that will ensure that trend continues.

[@TimMcKay56]

We'll see. Reality Check: The point I am trying to make is that the "world of RC flying" in 2023 is very different than from 1980. More aircraft in the sky and the entire unmanned aircraft industry is set to explode with growth. This really cannot be stopped, and there will be more regulations and oversight of the RC hobby. If we do not organize and work together, to include having a meaningful Washington DC presence, we will be crushed. Just the way the game is played. AMA is very helpful on this, and I would encourage the drone community to organize a similar effort if they do not like the AMA. Tim

[@ThatwillleaveaMark]

I dropped AMA after 30 some odd years because in my opinion they did nothing for the hobby. Separating the drones from the fixed wings should have been done from the beginning.

[@TimMcKay56]

Copy!

[@Nogill0]

Here's a left field type of approach-- nobody proposes to hang remote id on birds, like hawks, eagles, whooping cranes, migratory ducks and geese, and these obvious and numerous hazards to commercial aviation have characteristics in common with fixed wing aircraft-- their flight patterns and behavior are not at all "drone-like". Obviously impractical to control birds! But nobody seems concerned, as birds are a familiar hazard with known flight envelopes. Apply the same reasoning to fixed wing RC: familiar objects with well-known aerodynamic and flight characteristics. If birds aren't being shot out of the sky, captured and tagged with beacons, why sweat RC fixed wing? After all, aren't there many more migratory birds flying around than RC aircraft?? And I don't think birds even have sense enough to be aware of aircraft in their vicinity. They certainly aren't going to be conforming to community safely guidelines.

[@TimMcKay56]

You correctly point out that birds do not respond to controlled instructions. Got that. But a lot, I repeat a lot of planes get damaged by birds, some quite seriously. Thinking logically for a moment, if RC planes, flown by humans, can follow certain regulations for airspace safety and security, would it not be a wise choise to follow that path? Tim

[@Nogill0]

Oh, of course, since we have a human brain behind the RC aircraft. And it might be well to point out the obvious: fixed wing aircraft need SPACE! The bigger and heavier the plane the more space is required. Take off! Landing! And even if you can hand launch, there is still a pattern required for the landing, due to wind direction, and that requires open space. Quad copters can be launched just about anywhere and land just about anywhere and that means that they can be flown just about anywhere in a congested urban environment. Not so for fixed wing. I'd submit that this alone makes fixed wing RC inherently safer than a quadcopter like device. Not so long ago a bird brought down a B-1, but I don't think that any fixed wing RC has done that. And I hope it NEVER HAPPENS!@@TimMcKay56

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

If I had money, I'd spend the rest of my time alive flying a Hughes 500 everywhere. Wires, and now sUAS, would be the two dangers I'd have to mitigate. Corralling models onto a FRIA would do a lot to ease my concern (especially when electronic sectionals highlight their location). I have seen guys flying models on their own acreage, both domestically and abroad. I understand FRIAs are not going to corral everyone, unfortunately. I agree with the other commentor. If you buy an RC radio, you have to show proof of FAA certificate (aka operator's license), but when you buy a 'drone' - it comes with Remote ID that you can't disable.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks for this input! Tim

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

@@TimMcKay56 I think the TRUST certificate is a step in the right direction, but with a biennial flight review.

[@offaxisfpv]

Tim, you do know the difderence between a fixed wing and a drone BUT, you obviously dont understand the difference between fpv freestyle drones or camera drones. You are soooo out of touch of the hobby, your views make me laugh. Try to do better

[@TimMcKay56]

No, you are correct, I know very little about drones. But I do know that are around 100% of the airspace violations. Airspace violations are a very serious issue to the FAA and affects all RC flyers. Tim

[@RickLaBanca]

@@TimMcKay56 as I listen more I think it’s so irresponsible you posting these without any knowledge of aircraft outside fixed wing. I know you mean well but why don’t you educate yourself?

[@malinhiles]

​@@TimMcKay56 Hello Tim. I think it may be important to point this out here. It may be true that most or all airspace violations in your data are from multirotors, but it's important read between the lines here and be more discerning with the data, so that we all can address the actual issues. It should be clear that those airspace violations aren't attributable and inherent to the multirotor platform itself. The FAA cares about safety in the NAS. This in mind, it's also clear that the safe practices of knowledgeable multirotor modelers isn't represented if you're only counting airspace violations like this. There's far more to this picture as i'm sure you can imagine. I know the discussion needs to start somewhere, but let's start it off on the right foot. To address the real issues, we'll need a more-than-surface-level approach to the data. A knowledgeable and safe model pilot should have the privilege to aviate safely, no matter the platform. Thank you for your time. Curious to see how this develops in the future. Malin.

[@gordonmckay4523]

@@malinhiles Malin: Good points. I will say that airspace violations are a very big deal with the FAA. My fear is that if, someday, there is a serious accident between drones and commercial airliners, RC pilots will really, really not like the outcome. Tim

[@spartan3299]

Not just fixed wing, here you go again kicking fpv to the curb....It really isn't the type of aircraft, it is the type of flight operations. I do and since 2016, I have flown advanced systems flight controllers on board fixed, wing, camera drone, and freestyle multi-rotor RC aircraft at my AMA club, now FRIA approved, in Class B airspace, with agreements with the Coast Guard, Air force, NASA, and flight ops in a large metropolitan area. We have co-existed in harmony, except for one very low pass of a UH-1, back in the 70's directly over our runway and determined to be the manned aviator’s fault. We have flown every category of RC craft. We no longer allow jet powered craft. We often have manned aircraft cross our well-marked on aviation charts field, only a very few over a long time have been suspected of being below 500 feet, but never the less we go beyond reasonable measures to practice deconfliction to avoid any possibility of collision. Again it doesn’t matter whether I am flying my Twin motor balsa beast of an Ugly Stick, my Mavic Mini 2, or my Nano Goblin running elrs, INAV, FPV in loiter mode at 100ft while I transition from FPV to LOS or back to fpv again. It is the altitude, airspace, weight, should be a bit more than 250g, and location that should dictate RID, and other special restrictions. Also, in class G airspace, the FAA may never be aware of or be able to pursue regulation offenders. It is a whole other world if the same type of flying is done under Class b. Class Bravo Airspace is positive controlled airspace that surrounds the United State's 'busiest' airports. They do and will respond, to your location, provide education and or cite you.

[@TimMcKay56]

Good points. I am just trying to start the discussion. Key point is if pilots can demonstrate they follow the rules, you can work various issues to your benefit with the FAA. Tim

[@Graybear78]

Tim, you are becoming our "go to guy" for up to date and accurate information, with a healthy dose of common sense on the RC aircraft field. A hearty thank you for your efforts. No need to apologize. Lee

[@TimMcKay56]

Lee: Many thanks! Tim

[@shadowofchaosfpv4683]

You do realize that you are targeting DJI's primary marketing strategy. The largest camera drone maker in the world and a multi BILLION dollar a year industry. You won't win and the FAA is being paid to clear the airspace for commercial use. Billions will take your hobby away.

[@TimMcKay56]

Seriously?

[@shadowofchaosfpv4683]

@TimMcKay56 read the rules for FRIA'S. They can be revoked at anytime by the FAA. If the next president lives next to your flying field, bye-bye FRIA. What will you do if all the fields are closed for a 30 mile radius? FRIA's are a band-aid to keep AMA happy.

[@stevendegiorgio3143]

The FAA doesn't know the difference between a drone and a model airplane.They fly totally different then one another.Drones can fly pretty much autonomously while model airplane require consent control inputs and learned skill from the pilot.

[@TimMcKay56]

Yup.

[@nateteator3901]

How you build them is what makes the difference. Someone could easily remove the VTX and GPS from a quad. What's left is line of sight with no guidance.

[@koolthingrc1644]

I would love to see either of you “skilled pilots” keep one of my drones in the air for over a minute. 😂

[@TimMcKay56]

@@koolthingrc1644 👍🏻🤔 Tim

[@mikenadler7118]

No "first person video", stays under 400', Stays within sight of take-off point.

[@TimMcKay56]

Thanks!