I don't see any coherent theme to the objections posted other than "I don't want to be tracked".
I can't speak for anyone else but a few of my objections to the proposed rules as written are: (not in any order)
- Regulations in general should be as little restrictive as possible while getting the desired result. They should result in the most simple and least expensive regulation as practical. Elements of the regulation should actually address what the agency says is reason for the regulation.
- This rule, as proposed, is far more complex and expensive than in needs to be.
- The FAA says we need Remote ID in order to enhance safety, particularly between manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. This proposal does not directly do that at all.
- Laws and regulations exist for a reason. The FAA has not offered any data to suggest such a complicated and expensive system is even necessary. Since they propose that others pay for it all, then I guess they have nothing to loose by trying. There are much simpler and inexpensive ways to enhance safety in the NAS. I propose we try those first.
- The proposal establishes a "Pay for access" to the NAS.
- With a broadcast only scheme, it would place the cost of accessing information about uas flight in the area to those that are interested in the knowing, not the operator. RID is likened to a license plate for uas. But you don't stream your car's location onto a network to enhance safety or accountability on the roadway. Why then do we need to do something similar to make the NAS safer? If someone thinks that a uas in the area is flying where they shouldn't be, they can acquire and check their scope. If they want to record all the traffic in a particular area, they can install equipment to record the broadcasts. Again, it places the burden and cost on the one wanting to know.
- General aviation has fought long and hard against paying for access to the NAS. General aviation does contribute $ to the system through fuel tax. uas could contribute through registration fees. or some other fair system. The FAA expects USS to cost $2.50 per month. But that is simply a guess and they would retain no control over those fees.
- The FAA wants accountability from those flying uas.
- There is almost no way to enforce this proposed regulation. Operation under this proposed regulation would be policed exactly the same as it is now. Almost not at all.
- Broadcast RID would provide the same accountability at little to no cost to the operator.
- Admittedly, a live broadcast only system would not result in a database of all flights in order to be able to look back in time. But the FAA has not offered any data as to why they need such a database.
- The proposal makes no less restrictive allowance for operation in uncontrolled airspace areas,. Not even over private property.
- This is far more restrictive than even manned aviation which actually has a history of killing people.
- Again, before we give up freedoms that we enjoy now, show us the data suggesting it is needed. Spoiler alert; It doesn't exist.
I'm not against reasonable regulation of suas. I am against complex and restrictive rules that go beyond their demonstrated justification.
Last edited: