Roy

Pettit

, hood river

, Oregon

, United States

Posted on
2020-02-22 13:34:41
“Dear sirs, Thank you for providing the opportunity for drone users to provide feedback regarding the new NPRM for “drones”. I hve been building and flying fixed wing RC airplanes for the last 40 years, and multicopters for the last five years. I understand that there needs to be a system for controlling malicious or uneducated drone operators. However, I am concerned that a remote ID methodology will not be a practical solution. I believe a currently available passive dome approach will be more successful. Here is my thinking. REMOTE ID + Does not provide real time protection. It is only for after-the-fact investigation. + Requires voluntary action and expense by the drone operator. Not totally inclusive. + Has many failure points. + Is not enforceable. + Will significantly have a negative impact on hobby, commercial, government, and beneficial volunteer organizations currently using drones in productive ways. + Does not coincide with solutions being considered by other nations. + Does not consider swarm attacks. PASSIVE DOME + Protects against all unmanned systems, whether remotely controlled or auto-piloted. + Does not require any action, and cannot be defeated, by the drone operator. + Puts the burden of cost at the site to be protected and not at the hobby or commercial drone operator. + Is a real time, always activated system, which provides immediate defense against malicious and/or uneducated drone operators. + Can be implemented in a dome or umbrella configuration over the site in question. This allows for unregulated airspace in other areas. + Can be used not only for airports, but for stadiums, ports, forest fires, and other sensitive sites. + Is a ready to implement solution. Fortunately a passive drone defense system is already developed and ready for implementation at this website: https://www.skylock1.com”
Share on email
Share on print
Share on facebook
Share on twitter