, Dallas

, Texas

, United States

Posted on
2020-02-26 18:13:04
“I fly FPV drones in both a racing and freestyle/recreational manner, as well as have recently obtained my first FPV racing wing. I fly almost exclusively at races these days, but do occasionally enjoy going to a remote location or local park to enjoy freestyle flight. Remote ID as proposed would make my current fleet inoperable, require me to spend a ton of extra money for remote data connections that may not even work where I’m flying (sometimes many miles away from any form of civilization), and even prohibit me from building my own craft in a way I prefer. I know I’m not alone in saying that the added restrictions and requirements would not only hinder model aircraft performance, but would also make the hobby inaccessible for many like myself who are already on a limited income and have to use what little money we do have sparingly. However, I have never come across a hobbyist who is not committed to operating their craft safely. Hobbyists are the ones encouraging others to follow the rules and never be a burden or hazard to others. We want the hobby to grow, and being a good ambassador for it involves making sure you’re never causing trouble. I understand the need for improved safety, however most hobbyists are not the ones who are creating safety hazards. The overwhelming majority of safety hazards in regards to model aircraft and multirotors are those who are flying auto-controlled, GPS-enabled camera drones that offer outstanding long-range performance and are so easy to control a small child could do it. These pilots usually do no research before lifting off for the first time and often don’t think twice about what consequences their actions could have. Implementing automatic geofencing to keep them out of restricted airspace, away from potentially dangerous situations, or even to prevent them from going over altitude restrictions would be a far more effective way to limit safety hazards.”