“If I could relay a message to the FAA I suppose it would be this. I support RID as a concept in the interest of advancing the industry and improving security and airspace safety. Simply put it needs to get done. Unfortunately, as proposed all of my equipment investment, education, and business relationships will be devoid of value. The NPRM also fails to consider the diverse geographical environments that remote pilots fly (explained below). I am also sympathetic to the FAA, part of my day job includes writing and implementing policy for a large government organization and I understand the inherent challenges of balancing legislated mandates, realistic practices and the interest of citizens. Not a single one of the flights I have made as a part 107 pilot would be permissible under the NPRM due to either the 400″ restriction or the fact that the aircraft I rely on have been built by me. Flying fields are not a realistic option in my state so none of the recreational flights I have ever done would be permissible under the RID NPRM. The flying field in my region is a featureless desert prone to extreme wildfire danger. My car can’t get down the dirt road to access it. Even if I could get to the field, it was designed for and is only suitable for combustion powered aircraft due to the highly ferrous sand that destroys electric motors immediately upon contact or eventually after exposure to dust and that desert wind. the only other flying field in Nevada is an 8-hour drive from my home in Reno to Las Vegas. I don’t like to complain without proposing ideas in the interest of brevity I will save those for my official comment and correspondence with the elected delegation for my state. Thank you considering my perspective. Good luck on the herculean task before you. Charles Rahn Certified Part 107, Member AMA, Member AOPA”