Bardwell Spills The Tea About Remote ID And China Drone Export Ban! - FPV Spill The Tea

Originally Aired Sept 7, 2023 at the link below
• Interrogating Bardwell...
-------------------------------
Uncertain about what to buy? Check out THE ULTIMATE FPV SHOPPING LIST: www.fpvknowitall.com/ultimate...
SUPPORT ME ON PATREON at: bit.ly/2Ep5Sia
THIS IS MY FULL TIME JOB. Here are other ways that you can support me: www.fpvknowitall.com/support-me/
My main channel: / joshuabardwell

[@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqWrq5KXj9mLqNU

[@shadowofchaos8932]

Review the drones outside of the US airspace.

[@JoshuaBardwell]

September 16, 2023 is the date. I kept saying sep 1 by accident.

[@KenJones1961]

I've paid for and was working my way through getting my 107, but have since simply stopped as it's so up in the air as to how useful it's going to be. Experiemental and ultralight have less regulations than drones right now.

[@BoundlessFPV]

I started working on my part 107 last year and got my certificate in January. I decided by June 2023 that I needed to set myself apart and so I spent over 120 hours on a simulator learning to fly FPV. I've since built 3 FPV drones from scratch, swapped parts around, bought 2 BNFs and have gotten several gigs including a big one coming up in a few months. I swear this has to be the worst time I could have possibly chosen to try and change my career path. I have no idea how I could possibly become compliant and continue doing this and I've pumped so much time, money, and effort into doing this the right way.

[@shellbournian]

Honestly, look at the landscape of lawmakers in the US right now. Really think about it - do you think those dipshits have the capacity to build an infrastructure to stop this community from flying drones? Puh-lease. 99.9% of us will (pun intended) fly completely under the radar. The only people who need to worry are the JBs, the Mr. Steeles, the Botgrinders of the world. And if/when they get hit with some ridiculous lawsuit, the community WILL bail them out, and the FAA is going to look really bad. I hope (read: HOPE) that at that point they will start listening to our community. They don't actually have a choice, mind you - because at the root of all of this is fortune 500 businesses wanting the sky clear for whatever ridiculous commoditized UAS they're trying to put in the air. That's always been the INTENT of the rules, and if they can't achieve that, and some of us are out there (unintentionally of course) knocking Amazon delivery drones out of the air, it doesn't matter that the pilot is punished, the stakeholders will still be pissed and the FAA looks even worse.

[@BooToob]

Im in a similar situation as well with the Part 107. I got my drone before September 1st so I think I might be in the clear but im not sure. Edit: Bardwell clarified on a reddit post I made that he meant September 16th 2023

[@fredperry3063]

Yeah, I gave up.

[@cyanmizu]

At one point to you have to provide records of compliance?

[@fpvtv2222]

Come on don't you think if dhs was involved they would make you have a license to buy a drone? This is strictly a money grab and to weed out the little guy so the big player have the sky and the business to themselves.

[@RandyCAstleMPM]

I love JB's analogies, they're so good lol 😆 Smart guy that Bardwell fella 💯

[@TheCablebill]

Joshua - you understand the politics perfectly. You expertly characterize the FAA.

[@scooterdoo1]

This video made me truly understand what Josh is going to have to go through and what this means for the future of the channel. This is truly not fair. We are all very passionate about the hobby and this is not just going to affect you but also our FPV entertainment such as all KZbin’s that do 107 work.

[@gunjafpv]

Insane rules... putting you out of business....

[@solomonhorses]

@joshuabardwelllivestreamclips this is correct information. You are not able to retrofit a brand new “homebuilt” drone with a module for 107 work. FAR 89.501, Applicability, states, “Except for unmanned aircraft designed and produced to be standard remote identification unmanned aircraft, this subpart does not apply to the design or production of: Home-built unmanned aircraft.” However, the definition of homebuilt aircraft in 89.1 states that a homebuilt aircraft is only for recreational or educational use. I have gotten clarification from the FAA on this, and it is true that you can’t fly homebuilt drones for 107 if it was built after September 16, 2022.

[@WestVirginiasBigred271]

I think You and I are both smart enough to realize that anyone who is planning on using a drone to do something like put an explosive device onto it is going to be smart enough to build their own drone and make sure it’s not Remote ID compliant. Nobody’s gonna say hey let me register my drone with the FAA before adding weapons on it and flying it into a structure.

[@TheCablebill]

So the kamikaze drone had remote ID? Very helpful. Who was flying it? Uuuhhh...

[@BluSky1]

Just so we are clear this was never about drones. This is about digital license plates for cars. They are just using drones to ram the rules through so they can track all cars with GPS plates. The following states already have them It voluntary for now… in Arizona, California, Michigan, and Texas. Google digital license plate. They dont care about drones its for tracking cars but if they passed the rules for that they would get far to much push back.

[@bugsy742]

Yup 👍 🤝

[@davidlee8464]

The degree of naïveté on display by everyone but Bardwell is just astounding.

[@apexcrazyful]

Yep, only surpassed by some of the naivety in the comments. Non-compliance seems like an option, now. But it wont be for long. In the long run I suspect that even owning an unregistered/untrackable drone capable of carrying an exp...... device will get you charges similar to an automatic weapon.

[@JakamoJD]

I can’t seem to find documentation to back up bardwell’s claim that one must have “standard remote I’d” to do 107 work. The FAA resources all mention that you’re able to retrofit with a module as well to comply. Am I missing something here?

[@solomonhorses]

I believe this is an incorrect statement from Bardwell. In FAR 89.501 “Applicability” it states, “that the subpart does not apply to “homebuilt aircraft”. That means that you can still fly a home built aircraft with a remote ID module for part 107 work. You just can’t produce a ready-made aircraft for sale to the public without being a standard remote ID aircraft. You ARE allowed to retrofit any aircraft with a module for 107.

[@jacobscoville2044]

@@solomonhorseshe’s wrong about the date. The manufacturer date was a year ago. But he’s right about the concept. When they introduced the final RID rules They changed the definition of “home built”. If your drone is built FOR anything else that isn’t hobby or educational use you need to have it built in. The “loophole” is being that you of course built it for hobby use and then converting it to commercial use.

[@apexcrazyful]

His statement, as I understand it, was that you cant use a drone manufactured after Sept 1st for 107 work unless it comes from the factory prebuilt with non-removable RID. Since virtually nobody makes such a thing yet, you virtually cannot use new drones for 107 work.

[@rjbishop12]

@@apexcrazyful Sure you can... DJI Mavic Air 2s, Mavic 3 series, Mavic Mini 3 Pro, and many more.

[@Loco_Lui]

Where does it say you can't do 107 FPV work with a module?

[@SW-Video]

RID is WAAAAY too complicated. It needs to go away or be scaled way back into a simpler system.

[@shadowofchaos8932]

I registered my freestyle quad pre 2023 so I can use a module.

[@Matraxea]

If you want to review the drones that aren't 107 compliant, you can just get a non-107 volunteer to fly the drone for the review. At that point the volunteer is the pilot for hobby and the only commercial business going on is that you're filming them. You can compensate them for something else, like taking your trash out after you're done filming.

[@JPspinFPV]

We just don't have enough lobbying power to challenge this in Congress.

[@jeffparisse4202]

And the intelligence community that advises / manipulates them. Congress is the middleman here.

[@JPspinFPV]

@@jeffparisse4202 I mean, since it's an HS issue we just need to convince the NRA drones fall under the second amendment. Well never get by on a 4th amendment argument, especially with the kinda cash flow the NRA has to throw at Washington.

[@jeffparisse4202]

@@JPspinFPV What we need to do is to introduce as many people as possible to this rewarding hobby. “Learn to solder” is the rallying cry!

[@user-fc3sr9bo1r]

Ya I agree, the only way to fight this is non compliance.

[@kurtzFPV]

​​@@JPspinFPVmaybe mount small derringers on our drones? Then it's a 2A issue and they are restricting our rights.😅

[@HoundDogMech]

The FAA isn't happy until eveyone else is Unhappy.

[@miichaelhickey]

Good chat Bardwell hope this gets a large amount of views

[@flyntfoster4043]

the gov't you pay for!.....priceless!

[@CDRaff]

Speaking to Limon's point about speaking to someone at the FAA; right now they are being tight lipped and won't even comply with legal requests like FOIAs. I have requested all their info on RID and they keep falling back to "It's still COVID protocols here so no one can help you right now". Edit: I also think Bardwell is right on the money with how the FAA feels about having to regulate drones. They don't want to do it and in my opinion they are using "weaponized incompetence" to show their disdain for having to do it.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

They rely on people not realizing that at the heart, this is a 2A issue.

[@Qwarzz]

Are you sure the reason for RemoteID isn't commercial uses pushed by corporations rather than how dangerous drones could be?

[@cllgscreative]

Someone that wants to do a certain thing to another person or group of people wouldn't install Remote ID anyway so this is just jamming up law abiding citizens.

[@randall1959]

Since when has govt ever cared about law abiding citizens?

[@richdavis9789]

JB's coolness factor just climbed for me with his BCC shirt!

[@felixruiz2838]

RID not going to work 😂😂😂

[@christopherleveck6835]

Imagine building airplanes for 40 years. I have nearly 3 dozen large scale mostly scratch built airplanes. To continue flying from my own 40 acre property, i need a part 107. That means i need a SEPARATE MODULE for EVERY SINGLE AIRPLANE..... The closest FRIA to me, IF IT GETS APPROVED, is OVER 100 MILES AWAY.

[@ericapelz260]

Something I'm still not seeing anyone talk about is that as a hobbyist, I can have one module and 10 drones. If I go part 107 with one DJI drone, now I can't share that other module on my recreational drones. The same way my registration number is the same for all my hobby drones, but if I get a 107, now every done must be registered separately even if I only fly it recreationally.

[@MCsCreations]

Yeah... It's not an easy issue to deal with.

[@henrywight4057]

My air 2s was made before 2023 and it has standard remote ID

[@Charlie1776_]

In my country of Switzerland, we have no registration, no remote I.d we just use common sense to fly in freedom. I do not like what America is becoming.

[@MindRiderFPV]

Cars can be weaponized too, they have been, and they just have a number. It will end like that. So they can trace it back if something happens?

[@SwellDrone]

RID is a joke! I’m 107, insured, and compliant with a RID module ( micro flight db120 ) on my registered Bob57. And now … wtf!? What do we do?

[@ododargo]

hopefully we dont get it in the uk but just incase i got a dji mini 3 i ditched huban

[@ShaneInseine]

Unless you fly drones professionally in a very public way, there is no good reason to get your 107 certificate the way the government has this set up now. It just opens you up to a ton of problems.

[@buddyadkins2432]

Good Video. You are spot on. This whole thing is bigger than the FAA; DHS does seem to have a large influence. Yes, the drone community is very tiny, miniscule in fact, when compared to the 331 Million people in the United States. Consider that "they" have to start somewhere. Remote ID will improve. Yes, there will be growing pains, but these will all get worked out. This is an evolving process. The first step is getting Remote ID implemented. In a few years, most pilots will not even care much about it. A solution for some folks is to buy old drones that were manufactured prior to the requirements.

[@larryboyce]

What do you mean when you state that China will not incorporate Remote ID into Chinese drones? Aren't DJI drones manufactured in China?

[@Jack__________]

The end reminds me of 2a arguments. Criminals don’t follow the law so more laws don’t fix anything. Enforcing the laws that already exist does.

[@bradpierce]

Hi Guys, great vid! thanks.... So tell me, I wasnt aware that 107'ers needed to use ''standard'' RID... Can you point to that language in the 107 doc?? thanks

[@kellyklaask7su990]

Interesting listening to this and I agree with you all. This is the same logic people use to register/confiscate guns. The bad guy isn't going to register or put RID on his drone the same as the bad guy isn't going to register his gun. Our government keeps trying to regulate things that are not regulatable. Evil people do not follow the rules and the regulations just end up hurting the ones trying to follow them and do the right thing.

[@UNLOCKEDANDOVERCLOCK]

Another thing the government's trying to put a stop to they don't like people to be able to fly around and see stuff😂

[@bojangles5226]

I now feel like my drone flying adventure died before could even get it started. Just bought a controller to run sims before I buy the drone too. Big sad.

[@billflynn6903]

Josh - Interesting flying around and seeing new things; Josh Biz and Josh Part 107. I guess Compliance is in the $$

[@andresdelgado6778]

Bardwell nail it. In the eyes of the FAA our community and this technology are an inconvenience. We are like a pest with our questions because we all have a legitimate interest and investment in the use of drone technology for recreation and business and the FAA is just responding a mandate from Congress that it is for something they are not fully prepared.

[@LIFPV]

I'm confused. if I'm 107 cert, and build from scratch, I can or cannot add a remote ID module in order to be compliant? FAA website says I can add a module but Bardwell seems to say differently.

[@solomonhorses]

You can retrofit a drone with a module. Homebuilt drones are not part of the rule. Bardwell is incorrect on this.

[@jacobscoville2044]

@@solomonhorsesthe FAA changed the definition of “home built” years ago. If you built it for commercial use the FAA does NOT recognize that as actually “home built”. Only drones built by yourself for hobby or educational uses are homebuilt in the FAA’s eyes

[@windwalkerfpv]

Thats insane, I didn't realize the bit about std remote ID after Sep 1.. Also, how does it work if you're inside with no gps/cannot disable remote ID?

[@JoshuaBardwell]

It's sep 16 not sep 1 that's my bad. If you're indoors the FAA has no jurisdiction.

[@windwalkerfpv]

​@@JoshuaBardwell Right, but you said standard RID would prevent you from taking off without a gps lock. I'm wondering if FAA is going to allow you to bypass it for inside flights.

[@eyespy1415]

What license and what RID do you need for a microlight aircraft?

[@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips]

Manned aircraft are under a different ruleset. The FAA's position is that if a human pilot is on board, the pilot has a very strong incentive not to do dumb risky shit. And if they do dumb risky shit, they will only make a "problem" once before they take themselves out.

[@eyespy1415]

@@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips They also don't have an ADS-B or any transponder or radio...Tell me who is safer

[@perfectflow]

Can you link to the Rule language that requires Part 107 Operations to use standard Remote ID? What is the point of the language saying that you have to use a different RemoteID module for Part 107 Drones vs moving module with recreational? There was a summary of RemoteID that the FAA put up in July which does not mention Standard RemoteID being required for Part 107.

[@rjbishop12]

Agreed... JB is dead wrong on this point. You can retrofit any drone manufactured prior to Sept 16 2023 and use it for Part 107 work. I don't know where he got his info.

[@oziumentisis]

@JB, screw the FRIA, just put up 399foot poles around your property and netting... then you're now flying in your very own indoor drone range, sort of like Topgolf in San Antonio! You're welcome!

[@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips]

I can do that. It will cost literal millions of dollars.

[@oziumentisis]

Ya, not to mention impractical. But would be a lovely middle finger to certain Agencies if it could be done.

[@hellawacked]

I can fly a ultralight airplane with nothing but I need remote I’d to fly in my backyard

[@TimsDrones]

The FAA has choices. Lots of em. But just like with the 2nd Boeing max that went down, the FAA is too political these days - to make choices based solely on safety. I know - everyone says that these days - but how else do you explain that our FAA was one of the last institutions to ban the Boeing Max from flying. Two Boeing Max go down - and our FAA wanted to keep em in the air. Countries across the globe had banned those planes - but our FAA, had to be forced, to do the ban.

[@nerys71]

And any footage about nefarious usage of drones is completely irrelevant because absolutely none of that stuff will be impacted in any way shape or form by any of these rules only law-abiding citizens will be affected by these rules

[@rjbishop12]

@JoshuaBardwell - I've poured through all the FAA regs regarding Part 107 and Remote ID. Can you please point me to the regulation that stipulates you can only do Part 107 work after Sept 16th with drones outfitted with Standard RemoteID?

[@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips]

The RID Manufacturing rules stipulate no drones can be produced/manufactured by anyone without Standard Remote ID after Sept/Dec of 2022. The exceptions to this only include a few things, one of them is "Homebuilt". However, "Homebuilt" is defined as a drone for recreational use only. So this means that if you assemble a drone for commercial work, you're in violation of the manufacturing rules even building it at home, unless it's standard remote ID. You can still add a module to a drone without remote ID, but this is technically only legal for drones manufactured before Sept/Dec 2022. However, there are no real records that make this assembly/manufacturing date clear and there is no indication of what documentation or proof would be used if a case went to court involving this stuff. Use your own discretion but it's likely you will not get in trouble for running only a module for 107 work for a while at least. -Itsblunty

[@rjbishop12]

@@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips - This reply deserves a follow-up question. You stae that a "Homebuilt" is defined as a drone for recreational use only. Here we differ as well- I have never seen any rule, regulation, or statement by the FAA that states this. Can you please point me to where this definition resides?

[@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips]

@@rjbishop12 Part 89.1. Right at the top. "Home-built unmanned aircraft means an unmanned aircraft that an individual built solely for education or recreation. "

[@vicewize]

As a manufacturer with all documentation this blows, but in a horribly selfish way for me personally I’m like “pheww” like for myself (I know I’m horrible) just going through all the tons of paperwork and going down that rabbit hole is a nightmare, had standard remote ID for a bit. It’s a HUGE problem tho as you are a business and we know how the FAA has responded in the past with just VIDEOS. F-ing videos! Fining people. We have been doing some stuff with forked bf (our own stuff but honestly the rid module is running other software I just don’t want to say right now)

[@gregorycoogle7621]

The FAA rules go too far… It’s a mess! 🎉 They need to simplify and condense the rules to drones only… and for commercial use only! 😮

[@jlarson42]

Remote ID is a load of dung. But the worst of it all, is rules against fpv part 107 holders. 😢

[@Loco_Lui]

I guess I missed that part... No chance that will fly long term. We're just going through a phase of stupid.... it'll pass

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

@@Loco_Lui Unfortunately, the next phase will probably be just banning all remote controlled vehicles with a camera feed

[@guillaumerinfret3252]

"The only people who are gonna be affected are lawful people." That argument does not stand; the same is true for every legislation. Exemple; why should I get a licence and have inspections for my bulldozer. The raging bad guys that use bulldozers to flatten their mayor's home won't be affected.

[@crystalclearwindowcleaning3458]

This whole RID thing is a terrible imposition on the hobby and the professional pilot. Especially since it will have no positive effect.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

it's a 2 A issue and here's why, the point of the second amendment was to ensure that people could resist the government. With this new technology the government realized really early on how this could be used to resist them, and before anyone could prevent it, they wanted to nip this in the bud. Consider for instance how much harder it is to cover something up, when the general public has access to literal flying camera. Don't be surprised if they begin to crack down on the ability to live stream in the near future

[@glenmiller1437]

Josh, ignoring your specific situation... can you have two flying identities with the FAA? Can I be a 107 pilot and do commercial work? And also be a hobby pilot and fly for fun? And when flying for fun, would I need to follow 107 rules?

[@nuddin99]

You can. But he just cant make content with his hobby identity. Thus, we are back at square one where he would need to be a 107 pilot to make content.

[@glenmiller1437]

@@nuddin99 Right, I understand Josh's situation. At a minimum, anything he does for KZbin is 107. The reason I'm asking is because I was considering getting a 107, mostly just to learn about it. I don't imagine doing much commercial work. However, I don't want having a 107 messing up my recreational flying (i.e. make me have to get a separate RemoteID module for every UAV I have, etc). So you're saying I can have two FAA UAV identities, 107 and recreational, correct? I'm asking because I have not seen that specifically spelled out.

[@miichaelhickey]

Here you go FPV Freedom Coalition only has 796 subscribers on YT.

[@Clickmaster5k]

"We" are not just "drone" pilots. Any RC aircraft is affected. Not just quad copters. I think all of RC aviation is not that small of a group. Not as small as just multicopper.

[@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips]

Until we get enough money to start lobbying congress, our numbers are not really relevant.

[@KanHazKat]

Would it be better to have a division created within the FAA that only deals with drone related matters? We could staff it with a mix of hobbyists and non-hobbyists so our point of view could be represented but also fulfill the requirements of the Re-authorization act.

[@paulbrouyere1735]

It’s not because you can make explosives with kitchen and garden materials that most people are going to do that. So it all depends on the intention. People wanting to use drones for weaponry will not comply with remote ID. Hobby flyers shouldn’t be burdened with this garbage. I can use a car to hurt someone. Am I going to do that? No.

[@cyanmizu]

Black market drone videos are going to be a thing.

[@Bri3051979]

you can weaponize a RC car.. so why stop at a drone lol ..

[@IvanEfimovLimon]

Don't give them hints! Lol

[@thomasnewton9818]

Dirty Harry movie!

[@kurtdobson]

More expensive than many of the rc planes, and there's no ability to enforce. Most likely outcome will be yet another huge agency that will never solve a problem because it would negate the reason for their existence. Huge costs and destruction of a hobbies sport. It's what happens repeatedly when the government can't differentiate criminals from law abiding citizens.

[@ruuster83]

i've been out of the loop. these rules suck. where's Blunty? love that guy

[@joerocket1977]

Automobiles 🚗 can be weaponized. We aren’t gps tracking every automobile (yet 😢)

[@jeffparisse4202]

Absolute TRUTH at 18:00. Monarch, Inc’s genesis was former NAVIAR. I was lucky to see all this coagulate between 2012-2016 and the fix was in ever since. The best counter is rapid proliferation.

[@Kevin-ib4gv]

I know right! How can I possibly do Part 107 work with my Ginzo 720p drone anymore. I can't even use my Chinease 1080p because it dosent have built in RID and I can't find ANY drones (even with 480p) under $200.00 with RID built in so how can I possibly run my Part 107 aerial mapping and photography business? Damn that FAA! Put me right under. Now my family will starve!

[@HoundDogMech]

A box truck truck can be used as a bomb a big big bomb ask Oklama city.

[@flyinfilm90]

And an F35b don't need one 😂😂😂

[@independentdronechannel170]

😁👍

[@ocb647]

Myself and I suspect a huge group of other hobbyists have just said to heck with this whole mess and hung up the hobby. I'm out of it until this crap is hammered out, with reasonable common sense.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

From the FAA's perspective, "even better"

[@mhe0815]

How about having the RID module integrated onto the FC PCBs as a UART device? Maybe talk to SpeedyBee about it? That would at least make it not a module.

[@vicewize]

It has to be in a tamper resistant enclosure with say (what we’ve been experimenting with, torx security screws or pentalobe security screws) then have a way of the system being able to lock down the drone from taking off, we’ve experimented with certain microcontrollers (ESP based) with certain full RID that go in between ESC with special code we made that locks out arming. All in one huge ass box. Plus lots of other stuff I haven’t mentioned. Hard serialization, you have ti get a RID approval and special serial that’s conforms to ASTM something like manufacturer name (3 a-z digits then 1 digit saying how long the following serial is going to be usually 20 characters 0 through 9 and A to Z) and that’s just the surface of the bs it’s insane man

[@mhe0815]

@@vicewize That is pretty much impossible to comply with. If I can build it, I can definitely tamper with it. I mean there are people out there who decoded the whole software stack of DJI (and also proved that their whole product line is based on GPL violations). So "tamper-proof" is kinda out of the window in the DIY scene. Which would effectively kill everything above 250g - and the 250g limit is also complete bullshit as JB has explained in his vid on the matter.

[@wam7484]

I wonder if you can legally circumvent the rules by somehow not performing 107 work for your reviews. For example, what if someone else is flying a drone for recreation and you're just reporting on what you see and discuss? Wink, wink.

[@not-alot-of-options]

lmao the video format could be you just show up in a random field and the same guy always "just happens" to be there flying a different drone, and he's more than happy to have a chat about it.

[@HansBaier]

The obvious solution would be to move to a free country from the global south.

[@BNIRc]

They don't care you are lumped in with race , freestyle they just care about industrial. We are peanuts to them 😅

[@bass3587]

I've been in the FPV/RCMODEL Flyer hobby with foam gliders, RC cars/planes and the FPV drones for over 18 years. There is always a way to weaponize almost anything we do, however when does restricting someone from enjoying something that when used responsibly harms no one. in fact for some disabled individuals this hobby this is the one thing that they can do that is actually therapeutic for them. This whole Remote ID is a bit heavy handed. Maybe we need something like a 2nd Amendment for FPV Hobbyists and Part 107 operators.

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

An argument could be made that drones are covered under the second amendment. The second amendment doesn't say 'guns" it says "arms". Arms can be argued as anything that supports fighting. A gun without sights isn't very effective for instance. In the modern fighting space, the ability to provide air recon and support is just as critical as having the firearm itself. A first Amendment argument could also be made, as you can't really speak if you don't have information, I guarantee part of this is that the government doesn't like the idea of the civilian population having access to flying camera. a 5th Amendment argument could be made, in that they are de-facto taking property by preventing you from using or having property that you already own. A argument could be made that for this rule to be constitutional, the FAA would have to either pay to make every older drone compliant, replace it with one that was equally capable and compliant or pay you for the purchase price adjusted for inflation of every drone. a 4th Amendment argument could be made that the requirement to broadcast your exact location at all times amounted to a unwarranted search. Basically you are treated as guilty without having evidence of you doing anything.

[@JohnDroningAround]

Build into betaflight as open source drone flights and we all share with each other? Before the government.

[@paulbuswell6566]

This whole thing is a clusterf@uk. I have 6 freestyle fpv drones, 2 phantoms (1 and 2), plus drawers full of flight controller, esc's, camera's and gps modules. I also own a 3d printer. It's a trivial matter to make new drones, which can be fully autonomous, without remote id. Even if they try to ban the sale of flight controllers, like Bruce said on his channel, we can still buy micro controllers, imu's and gps modules. It's impossible to stop now

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

Welcome to the 2A community

[@unixb4coffee]

Leaving this up to the FAA in the long run is probably not the answer. Bardwell is right about how much it wants to deal with drones in this manner, apropos of piloted aircraft. The potential for weaponization could be a very serious issue, and with the DoD using off the shelf parts for its experimental drones, the FAA can't do anything about it. Think of cars - they can be weaponized, too. We are in a phase similar to the proto-NASCAR drivers running along backroads, when any sherriff could pick them off. I think the FAA does at least need to facilitate FRIA's, and if the AMA thinks it can use its "special" status as a CBO to avoid being thrown under the wheels also, I think they're very sadly mistaken.

[@MrBumbles2]

lol the new micro guy, 250 g n under vids from now on lol. but you have 107 not good

[@atw98]

I'm not complying, sooooo

[@joemck1235]

Yep pretty much sounds like youtube guys and 107 guys are screwed and posting flight videos

[@Charlie1776_]

America is finished.

[@not-alot-of-options]

Regulation. Coming to ruin a hobby near you!

[@nerys71]

Bingo the host nailed it this thing is annoying This is why hobby aviation was exempted from the FAA authorization act to begin with because the people who wrote that law knew that the government doesn't want to be nagged by drones and hobby model airplanes so the easiest solution for the government is to simply ban it and that's exactly what they're doing

[@garypeterson9083]

Cars can be turned into weapons very easily. Does that mean that all vehicles will need RID next? Good luck with that, by the way. The point is where does it end. How many freedoms are restricted? This will never provide protection from attacks anyway. The government needs to worry more about countermeasures than regulation. That's where real benefits are to be realized.

[@rjbishop12]

Any cars driven on public roads need to be registered, and as such have a license plate. Umm... that's pretty much what RID is right? Although I agree RID is poorly implemented, your vehicle argument is moot.

[@garypeterson9083]

@@rjbishop12 Your license plate does not broadcast your location to anyone with the phone app. I don't think people would be comfortable with that, do you?

[@keithvigil7820]

Well! What The Next Hobby? GOD DAMN U.S. GOVERNMENT..

[@bigdatapimp]

I disagree with Bardwell in that, if "All this footage was being showed to congress" RID would have been a thing 10-15 years ago when XJet made is missile. I agree that BS fearmongering is how RID was forced into the FAA Re-Authorization Act. Ivan is right that the FAA has very broad discretion on how they could implement RID and they have chosen do it in the lamest ways. Bardwell may be right in that the FAA didn't originally want to deal with UAS, but then all the money from Amazon and Google Lobbyists started coming in. That is sadly also why us being such a small community means, since we did very little to stop it in the 1st place, it will never go away. UTM is coming and things will only get worse.

[@BluSky1]

1:25 I disagree if you are using Tiny Whoop in doors it dont need remote id most of my commercial work is Tiny Whoops indoors and the FAA cant really do shet about that...ROFL

[@redcobra1246]

I wonder who's the genius that thought RID would be effective

[@SilverStarHeggisist]

Same one who thought gun free zones would work

[@fpvtv2222]

First off the fpv community waited to long to do anything about RID. Fpv should have had lobbyist working for them before congress passed the law. After it's passed it's a little late. 2nd the whole part 107 thing is out of control. If I'm home and flying a mobula 7 that is under 250 grams and dvr the footage post on youtube and it happens to make money I need a part 107 plus remote Id. That doesn't make sense. It's not a commercial drone. It's a toy! Not to mention it's impossible to put rid on!

[@ShaneInseine]

If a person does not monetize their KZbin channel, then can they can go ahead and review anything they want? I imagine the answer to that is "for the time being."

[@JoshuaBardwell]

If you're not monetized and you buy the drones with your own money then I wouldn't think you'd need a 107.

[@Clickmaster5k]

Combat RC aircraft have existed for a very long time. No regulation was needed to make sure civilians didn't use them for bad things. Normal RC aircraft have existed almost as along no RID needed. RID has nothing to do with safety or security. RID was devised to allow simple cheap and citizen policing of things that annoy the general public but are not actually threatening or important enough to do something that would actually have an impact about. So yes, RID is partially here because of youtubers. Not just FPV but all the other channels that just used them as flying cameras. You can tell when the FAA puts out false info like "if it doesn't have remote id its illegal" to the public that its all a feel good quell the masses move. Any place where a done could actually be a threat has already had actual effective equipment in place for many year to harden them from UAS. These security measures that actually work do not require the voluntary cooperation of perpetrators. The problem is it cost money like everything else so its not worth installing anywhere people just feel a little worried but there is little actual risk. RID is all for public perception and nothing to do with safety or security. Its a PR stunt.

[@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips]

You've got some things right, and some things wrong. "Combat RC aircraft have existed for a very long time. No regulation was needed to make sure civilians didn't use them for bad things. Normal RC aircraft have existed almost as along no RID needed." There are lots of reasons why we are seeing a big uptick in weaponized RC aircraft today. Things have changed about the RC landscape, including the rise of cheap multirotors, cheap and easy-to-deploy fixed-wings (foam board and foamy builds, vs. balsa-wood), and widely available long-range control links. This is part of what is driving the sudden desire to regulate drones. "RID has nothing to do with safety or security. RID was devised to allow simple cheap and citizen policing of things that annoy the general public but are not actually threatening or important enough to do something that would actually have an impact about." Agree. "So yes, RID is partially here because of youtubers. Not just FPV but all the other channels that just used them as flying cameras." The only way to make this argument is to say that the popularity of FPV on youtube drove the changes in the RC landscape listed above. RC became more popular and accessible, and as a result, was easier to weaponize and more ecnomically beneficial to weaponize. But if you disagree with that logic, then you disagree with the growth of FPV and RC as a hobby, since all of those developments were a function of the growth and popularization of FPV and RC flight. "Any place where a done could actually be a threat has already had actual effective equipment in place for many year to harden them from UAS. These security measures that actually work do not require the voluntary cooperation of perpetrators." So wrong. Very very wrong. The risk is real, and we are incredibly lucky that no bad actor has actually taken advantage of our vulnerability. That doesn't mean that RemoteID is right, but just because RemoteID is wrong doesn't mean the risk it is trying to mitigate is not real. "RID is all for public perception and nothing to do with safety or security. Its a PR stunt." Basically agree.

[@Clickmaster5k]

@@JoshuaBardwellLivestreamClips There is zero data that I have seen to shot there is any sort of uptick of non military drone use as weapons. You are wrong about hardening against weaponized or even spying from RC planes. Its already being done all over. Its extremely easy to detect and interfere with hobby RC equipment and lots of places its already done. There are things that target DJI specifically but there is also a lot of way to just defend against normal RC too. Its not common because its expensive to implement and requires special licensing for the radio gear. Fact, RC aircraft of the type used and sold for general hobby use are objectively and statistically not at all dangerous in anyway. If safety was a concern bicycles would be required to have remote id.

[@gwizard12]

Why just drones what about Planes why is it all about drones?

[@HansBaier]

The US...land of the free....

[@JaredAdams-qb6cj]

Man after extensive dealing with the ATF, it's funny how many of you are giving the FAA the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they will do the right thing.

[@dogstar7]

Boo hoo