“I’m a certified private pilot and a recreational (for the moment) fixed and rotary wing UAS pilot. I fly FPV exclusively. RemoteID is a solution in pursuit of a problem that for the most part doesn’t exist. The news media has been filled with drone stories, but most of those have turned out to are false, fabricated, or vastly overblown. Most recreational pilots are out there just to fly and otherwise want to be left alone. It is still necessary that all aircraft be able to operate safely in the airspace. For crowded, controlled airspace, keeping UAS vehicles without some sort of identification capability limited is a sensible precaution. The 400ft altitude limit for that is reasonable, but little else in the proposed regulation is. It is abundantly clear that the predisposition of the regulation is to raise barriers to entry for commercial operation to nearly that of a commercial transport aircraft, which on its face is ridiculous. For all other users, particularly recreational pilots, it is a prelude to outright banning of the hobby. It would be more sensible by far for FAA to mandate that for any operator to use non-line-of-sight piloting, that the UAS should have some sort of position beacon, in order for ATC to be able to detect the aircraft and route traffic, at least while operating in congested controlled airspace. ATC communication with the operator should also be required in these situations. For any recreational pilot doing high altitude (i.e., over 400ft AGL) or long range (>1mi from operator) operation in class G airspace, the UAS should have a location beacon, but ATC communication not required, just as it is not required for general aviation aircraft to be in communication with ATC in that airspace. Any notion, however, of publishing the location of a UAS operator for public consumption is a dangerous notion and needs to be set aside with prejudice. The media onslaught against ‘drones’ has made the public irrational about their operation, and providing the location of a UAS operator puts that individual at personal risk. There’s no reason not to make that data available to law enforcement, however, in the event there is a complaint, and an operator making that information available is at least one step in showing he or she is operating in a lawful manner in the first place. The NPRM as written needs to be withdrawn and the FAA go back to the beginning. Even if this regulation were to be applied, there would be plentiful reason to go to court for multiple entities to hold it up there more-or-less indefinitely. Something should be done to remove the NLOS prohibition on commercial operators and to address safety concerns in controlled airspace. This is not it.”