"Hobbyists Got Screwed" Breaking Down The FAA Remote ID Proposal With Kenji Sugahara

In December of 2019, the FAA released a 300+ page document that proposed what they call "Remote ID", which in essence is a set of rules that would allow them to monitor the airspace here in the United States for all remotely controlled aircraft. Basically, this is a regulation that would affect everyone in the unmanned aircraft community, whether you are a recreational Radio Controlled Airplane pilot who flies at the local AMA flying field, all the way to the likes of an Amazon looking to do unmanned package deliveries. To be honest, I sat down and read the document myself but let's face it - most of it just went over my head.
So, I figured it would be best to chat with someone who is an expert on the subject! In a recent interview for my High Voltage Podcast, I sit down with my friend Kenji Sugahara, who is the perfect person to chat with to discuss this matter.
Here's how it would affect you:
Commercial Drone Operators: 09:53
Hobbyists Flying at AMA and Non AMA Fields: 22:08
Aircraft Manufacturers & DIY Builders (FPV): 31:25
Kenji is technically a lawyer who passed the bar exam, but because his passion for flying and operating drones outweighs his passion for practicing law, he now works full time in his business A-Cam Aerials located in Oregon. Instead of sitting in a courtroom or office all day, he and his team spend their days out in the Pacific Northwest shooting movies, TV shows and commercials with drones. As a member of the Federal Aviation Rulemaking Committee, he was involved with providing the FAA with some insight as to some possible rules that would allow drones to operate in National Airspace safely and effectively. Did the FAA take into account the advice he and the others provided for this rule making? Well - no, they didn't.
In this interview, we discuss how the FAA's proposed Remote ID system would affect hobbyists, UAV operators such as himself, and small aircraft manufactures like myself. Just how bad will it be? With these proposed rules, to put it in Kenji's words, "Hobbyists Got Screwed". Listen in and get a sense for how these new proposed rules would affect you, however you are involved with unmanned aviation.
Now, what do we do about it???
The FAA has a comment period that is open until March 2, 2020 (only 25 days from the time this is being posted). So, if you have not commented on the proposed set of rules and explain to the FAA how this would affect you personally, please be sure to do so! Remember, as Kenji states in the end of the video, don't just slam the FAA and tell them how they are ruining your life - be sure to point out both the good and bad. Lastly, DO NOT COPY AND PASTE a comment from the AMA or any other organization! This will be treated as one comment and not help move the needle.
Here is the link for more information and how to leave a comment:
www.federalreg...
Links to more of my podcasts and interviews: highvoltagepodc...
Check out Kenji's company ACam Aerials right here: / acamaerials

[@dougl4680]

Bobby, Thank you and Kenji for doing this video. My eyes glaze over when I see the stuff from the FAA or the AMA. You both make this real and bring the whole "you're totally hosed" message through in a very understandable way. I'd hire Kenji as a lawyer in a heartbeat. Typical government mentality, this makes absolutely no difference to the people they're trying to regulate.

[@BobbyWatts]

Thanks Doug, agreed - this can be super overwhelming! Kenji really did a great job breaking it down into plain English and yes, I'd hire him in a heartbeat :)

[@llamont2336]

26:57 Bobby sums it up about as honestly and concisely as one can. Thanks for this video!

[@timklein8072]

Thank you, Bobby and Kenji for this video. Very helpful for us that haven't been able to read through the full document in its entirety.

[@Lithonion1]

What's sad is there are around 200,000 AMA members. There are over 900,000 registered with the FAA as "drone" operators. The FAA estimated with the AMA, registered operators, and those not registered flying rc craft there are roughly 1.5 million in the US flying. When you look and see just over 11k have commented on the FAA's website it's really quite sad.

[@HalStaniloff]

Great video. Kenji is spot on with his interpretation of the NPRM. If we all don't comment constructively on this, it will be the end of the hobby, the end of small manufacturers like Bobby Watts, and the end of American innovation in an emerging industry. Great going FAA; nice going AMA (Rich Hansen has helped to bury the hobby by capitulating to the FAA). I've never seen anything both suck and blow at the same time. How sad.

[@BobbyWatts]

Thanks Hal. Agreed, it's a bit scary. Be sure to submit your comment!

[@HalStaniloff]

Bobby Watts Already replied. Urging all my friends to do the same.

[@diegos9907]

It is amazing how the hobbyist paved the ground for the industry and its possible drone/aircraft future applications and now they oppress the hobby we love.

[@BobbyWatts]

Diego, I hate to agree with you but as I look at this I feel the same way. Be sure to submit your comment!

[@SnipesHockey23]

Very informative video Bobby! Thanks for doing this and I will definitely be submitting my comments. As someone who desires to have a career in UAS systems it’s pretty alarming that the FAA wants to implement regulations like this that can really hurt the industry. It seems like comments based on pros that could be positives of this Remote ID system and cons will be the most effective ways to provide feedback. I will definitely focus my feedback on the hobbyists, commercial operators and small business manufacturers like yourself. Hopefully, the lawmakers take thought out comments into careful consideration when determining how to move forward with this system.

[@BobbyWatts]

Thanks Blake glad it helped. Yes, be sure to leave a comment and also be sure to spread the word!

[@33rdlatitude49]

No Way !!! Registered my Quad back in 2016 and never again. Was gonna get my part 107 to be able to make some money but there is too much competition to even think about making a living off just that unless you are a big company. Now this bullcrap? There is small airport in my town that does not even have a control tower and I fly 1.5 miles away from it usually around 200 feet. What I know for a fact is that quite a few private manned planes and helis do not squak their ident. Not sure if it's a malfunction or done on purpose, all I know is their ID is not visible as they fly over my house. MY QUAD IS NOT UNREGISTERED, IT IS UNDOCUMENTED !! The only thing the FAA will accomplish with this overreach will be to make alot of hobbyists and part 107 pilots outlaws and as such, the 400' AGL will go out the window for most pilots. If you are already in violation of flying without remote id, what would be the difference of violating the 400' and above airspace. The FAA should just walk away from this and let people enjoy a decades long hobby. Questions, comments all welcomed.

[@BobbyWatts]

I think they have to start somewhere and this first step is a giant leap. Be sure to submit a comment to the FAA!!

[@VicMossPhotography]

Great comments! Thanks gents!

[@BobbyWatts]

Thank you! Much appreciated

[@mkedrones]

The only thing I question is if DJI drones can be retrofitted. There would be 3-4 issues there for DJI to overcome.

[@BobbyWatts]

MKE Drones Good question, I guess it just depends on the exact drone and the exact requirements that they will have to meet

[@Lithonion1]

The NPRM stated all remote ID requirements if this goes through will have to be included in the manufacturing process. No legacy equipment will legal. Maybe DJI can sell a new radio and board to drop in your drone if the FAA approves it. This has been asked by the AMA with RC planes about adding remote ID to existing gear and equipment.

[@mkedrones]

Lithonion1 see page 173 of the draft NPRM. The FAA will allow retrofit, but it’s a matter of whether existing drones can meet the requirement with an over the air update. I know for a fact the remotes from DJI don’t have a barometer on board which is a requirement for altitude under the NPRM. But potentially a phone that is attached could be used for that information. The entire point is that no one knows yet 100% that existing drones can be retrofitted. And manufacturer wants to put too much time into figuring that out since this is a draft and not final.

[@LarscoFPV]

Very informative. Thank you. How about aircraft below 250g? I heard mentioned that these rules apply to that threshold and above. But what about below that threshold?

[@BobbyWatts]

Great question! I'll have to look into that and get back to you.

[@LarscoFPV]

Bobby Watts thank you.

[@Lithonion1]

There is a section in the NPRM about sub 250g. The way it's written they fall under the 400 foot umbrella but it also states later in the NPRM that all "drones" will fall under these regulations eventually regardless of weight. So your limited to 400 foot till the FAA decides they need remote ID as well.

[@mkedrones]

Lithonion1 that’s not true. They are not restricted to 400’. 250G doesn’t need to be registered and is exempt from Remote ID. See page 173 of the draft version of the NPRM.

[@mkedrones]

Also the way I read it drones under .55lbs don’t need Remote ID but can only operate in FRIAs (FAA Recognized Identification Areas).

[@hursto75]

Once again the AMA does nothing for the hobbyists. So if the FAA will be handling all of the rules why do we need the AMA?

[@BobbyWatts]

I think the AMA got out-gunned on this one. As much of a fan of the AMA as I am (as a hobbyist), I am also starting to ask myself the same question.

[@iwontreplybacklol7481]

The remote ID doesn't affect nefarious operators they claim they are trying to catch. They simply won't have remote ID and still do bad things. Only law abiding people are burdened by this.

[@BobbyWatts]

Agreed and disagreed. Something like this had to come into play in order for unmanned aircraft to play nicely in the National Airspace without eventually causing some sort of really bad disaster. Without this, we can't have drones delivering packages, medical supplies, etc. But the problem is that they just took a huge hammer to the hobby without much regard. As Kenji stated, we don't see a huge change from the drone ops world but the RC hobby could really be hurt by this.

[@Lithonion1]

You are correct. This is all do to the commercial drone industry wanting the airspace. If it was about safety why is the system designed to be seperate from full sized aircraft and ATC. So even if this goes through untouched and say someone is legal and has remote ID. If they fly the drone at the airport, the airport won't know as it won't show up on any of their equipment. Full sized aircraft nor ATC will know it's there. The CDA got Section 336 repealed so they could push this mess.

[@mikesecondo2254]

Yeah... everything was fine until those drones and irresponsible people ruined the hobby for us AMA members!!!!

[@andypost1891]

First...Thank you both. I've been trying to gear up for a comment to FAA and as you said, a lot of inaccurate or misleading information out there. Second: I see a lot of encouragement to propose a solution. The problem I see is that everyone, myself included, is fearful (yeah..I said it) of whether or their fleet can indeed be retrofit, and what the cost might be. And I can imagine how little you are looking forward to all the ex$pen$ive compliance verification and documentation. My question then; is if feasible to have a two dongle system, one mounts to your bird, the other just needs to be at your base of operations (on your TX tray, or even on the table next to you). The two widgets talk among themselves and link to your phone (so you dont' have to pay for another monthly connection fee to your wireless supplier). The phone lets the widgets know if it's not connected to the network, and they go into broadcast mode. You would be able to connect your widget to your computer and input the Serial Number of the bird you are about to fly, so you don't need a widget for every bird in your fleet (so you don't need one for the backup vehicle that you hope will never leave the ground. Third: Now I"ll get bitter. It should come as no surprise that this proposal favors the Amazons and UPS's of the world. When the FAA opened the program (don't remember what it was called) to invite people to share innovative ideas, the requirements to participate were extreme at least, including having a representative of your government on your "team". It was a very Mega Business playing field. Share your thoughts. And again, thank you for the well done breakdown.

[@BobbyWatts]

Thanks Andy, hope this helps with your reply to the FAA. Great feedback, agreed- it feels like an uphill battle but we have to at least give it a shot.

[@thestationaryengineer2316]

Looks like another "Do Not Call List" set of regulations. Sounds like it will not be followed. Do you think for one moment that I will not fly my $25,000 RC helicopter in my back yard? The enforcement cost alone will prevent this for becoming actual reality.

[@BobbyWatts]

It's too early in the process for us to just roll over and jump on the non-comply train. Write a comment and make your voice heard! This is affecting so many of us, so you aren't alone!

[@mikesecondo2254]

@@BobbyWatts been there done that..can't win your rights against city hall...that's a fact ..the FAA is going to do what they want and not what we the people want!!! Everything was fine until those drones and irresponsible people ruined the hobby for us AMA members!!

[@terrymoorecnc2500]

Good luck gettng your dongle to work with 2.4Ghz radios. Not happening. The radios that have WiFi capabilities do not allow WiFi at the same time they are transmitting RF.

[@BobbyWatts]

Hey Terry! Good point! I think some of the open source radios with external modules would be a good fit for this type of application. Like the TBS Crossfire used with a Frsky Horus or something. The Crossfire has the ability to transmit by 900mhz to the aircraft, but then has Bluetooth capabilities to communicate with a tablet or something. I have faith that whatever regulation is passed, the RC tech community will rapidly respond.

[@terrymoorecnc2500]

@@BobbyWatts Bobby, it comes back to this,; The FAA are glass breakers, they regulate before they rationalize. In this case the either are willfully ignorant, woefully ignorant or stupid in terms of how the systems work. My cellphone service is not a free commodity that they can just assume I have or just expect I will volunteer to comply; with new regs; that is an other erroneous assumption. If our industry would just fold their arms and not do anything to help these folks these regs would fail of their own weight. It is not our responsibility to jump through our asshole to try to comply with something that does not make sense from a tech standpoint. All the schemes FAA and others are proposing may work for commercial products but won't work for our stuff. As a former developer for the Airtronics/Sanwa FHSS radios I know what the pitfalls are. 900Mhz is a more crowded ISM band than 2.4 Ghz is. BT has no range and proliferation of wireless ISP's are not a certainty. In short, it's not just a simple matter as some have said to just stick a postage stamp size transponder in your model and away we go. Let the FAA make all the rules they want, they're going to anyway.

[@BobbyWatts]

@@terrymoorecnc2500 I hear ya! Be sure to leave your comment and post it on your social channels to spread the word!

[@mikesecondo2254]

Oh well... weekends won't be the same without flying rc airplanes... those nice warm days of flying and. Socialism will dwindle away!! Everything was fine until those drones and irresponsible people ruined the hobby for us AMA members!!!!!..DAM IT!!!!!!!!!

[@dogdipstick]

These regs are so lame.