, Saratoga Springs

, New York

, United States

Posted on
2020-02-17 10:25:01
“I fly (and have taught my kids to fly) primarily in remote rural areas… quads in my back yard and small RC planes on local agricultural fields when they are fallow. The cell coverage of these areas is poor, and usually there is not a house or another person in sight. My main comments to the FAA were: These proposed rules should allow a greater carve-out to accommodate back yard and rural recreational flyers. These would be situations where solo recreational flyers are flying within visual sight below 400 feet on their own private property in areas beyond five miles from an airport or controlled airspace. Additionally while I don’t object to the 250 grams/.55 pound weight threshold for UAS registration requirements for specifically flying in community or public spaces, I believe this limit is too low for Remote ID requirements since Remote ID will require small UAS to carry additional transmittal equipment and batteries for this equipment. I a l also said that if an area is too remote for good cell coverage in 2020 its too remote for Remote ID. And that there should be an addition option for “Local Only” Remote ID transmission category (I.e. no internet transmission requirement, more like Bluetooth or WiFi local transmission per the FTCA suggestion) however that small planes and drones (more than .55 lbs) should not require any Remote ID when flown within visual sight below 400 over private property Personally, I think there is an extremely solid case for a legal challenge for the FAA’s right and ability to regulate air space below 400 ft over a person’s private property. So that could still happen if the FAA is not more accommodating to the hobby. – James A. PS – I also think your comments with respect to the AMA’s standard FAA comment form was spot on! Trying to read some of the comments on the FAA proposal (which the Federal Register site does not make easy(!) was made painful by seeing page after page of the same boilerplate text.”