Back to Squawk list
  • 7

FAA Denies Comment Period Extension for Remote ID Rule

This is a potentially slippery slope. Read why all pilots should care and comment. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Lee Shuster 2
Personally, Remote ID for UAS is needed and overdue. However -- (and it's a BIG BUT) It's just not realistic to implement it as proposed in the FAA NPRM FAA-2019-1100. AOPA, EAA, and the AMA have all tried to point out serious potential flaws in the NPRM. But the lobbyists from Amazon, Google, eBay, FedEx who want to run commercial UAS operations and the security agencies will kill off hobbyist-led STEM/STEAM education programs that inspire America's next generation of space and aviation experts. It's rather short-sighted and it is being inspired by the FAA manipulating the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of the general public.

I urge every pilot and aviation enthusiast to comment before 01 MAR 2020 here:

Nearly 8,000 others have commented since the NPRM was released on 26 DEC 2019.
Calling it unrealistic or to say it has serious potential flaws is understating the problem.

This is not remote identification, it's real time tracking. Big difference, and if it were easy and/or cheap then FlightAware and the industry they helped create would not exist.

Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with how fleet tracking works (either the software backend or hardware, take your pick) knows the internet connectivity requirement makes compliance a flat-out technical impossibility.
linbb 1
For drones its one thing but for me to do it on my model airplane not one of those quad copter things is where they should have tracking. My model on the other hand is not causing the problems that the idiots flying quads are causing. For me and others just like me the hobby will start to go away as it will cost several hundred dollars to put a transponder on board of mine and could be too large to carry.
If you're serious about not wanting this to happen, you better suck it up and start being best friends with every quad pilot you meet because like it or not, you need them. This is going to be an uphill battle with everyone working together. Working separately against each other and against the FAA? Good luck with that.
Is this a joke?

"Standard remote identification UAS would be required to broadcast identification and location information directly from the unmanned aircraft AND SIMULTANEOUSLY TRANSMIT THAT SAME INFORMATION TO A REMOTE ID USS THROUGH AN INTERNET CONNECTION. LIMITED REMOTE IDENTIFICATION UAS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TRANSMIT INFORMATION THROUGH THE INTERNET ONLY, with no broadcast requirements"
Jim Quinn 1
With all the telemetry transmitted from the sUAS drones, I'm fairly certain that the FAA and other agencies have (and use) the capability of identifying rogue drones. Since registration is required that provides serial number, model number and owner data, it is safe to assume that the serial number and other pertinent data is transmitted which relates to registration which pairs with owner information. I personally do not have any reservations about ATC and law enforcement knowing where my drone is located and other location and identification data being provided to them. What does flag this proposed rule as bad in my mind is that the internet connection in many places does not exist or can be unreliable at best which is a basis for a no-fly situation. I've had my PPL for almost thirty-eight years, and with the sUAS ticket anything stupid that I do can cause serious repercussions including sanctions against my abilities to use my PPL even though I'm not even in close proximity to a passenger-capable aircraft. This added responsibility is does not make me a more careful, responsible drone operator than I already am but it does reinforce my wishes that the uninformed/irresponsible drone operators be forced to clean up their acts. I'm all in for safe operations, security, privacy, etc. but not at the expense of seriously hampering responsible operators who make a living with aerial photography and follow all the rules, regulations and practices. This NPRM is way too invasive for my liking and needs to be pulled back a notch or two but at the same time I believe that efforts to educate newbies should go full-tilt with perhaps FAA funding and reach-out programs to correct some bad situations caused by the ill-informed. The people who willfully violate the regs? Nail them to the wall if they continue the unsafe/illegal practices, especially after they attend and successfully complete a court-ordered training program at their expense.
ADXbear 1
Another way the terrorits really won.
Over reach by our government..

The AMA HAS HAD THE BACK OF OUR SPORT FOR MANY YEARS Great pilots started their flying careers as an AMA member..

Im a licensed pilot and aicraft dispatcher over 60 and really hate the lack of FAA understanding and discussion.. none of our members are flying near airports or a ove 400 feet..

Sad day..
linbb 1
Not a pilot anymore went back to my roots of model aircraft, not the drone style things. Problems are not coming from model aircraft but those drone style that have been causing major problems. Now they are all called drones if there is no pilot in them. They now want us to get a licence to operate our models, have numbers on them to ID who owns them and such. Just like new gun laws are going to fix everything and has not this will be the same. More regs no result as we who do operate safe will have to abide by them not the bad people who will not and continue to. Oh the group I am in operate at a little airport with the proper permission by the way.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.