Trent Palmer appeal

[RandomDroneGuy]

I've already made a bit of coin off enforcement actions. Nothing to it.

FYI: you’ll find the concept of “Remote ID” for UAM has been around for quite some time after the first ADSB trials were performed in the mid-90s. So its nothing new. What I do understand is eventually every aircraft/vehicle operating in the NAS will be tracked regardless of type or purpose as it’s the only way to manage the projected density levels. Unfortunately, the explosive growth of recreational drones along with a number of nefarious drone actions highlighted a different tracking need outside just simple airspace management. So they simply took what was planned and implemented it.

It seems to me that new regulations are being built around companies like Amazon, probably putting smaller commercial operators out of business and all but eliminating the recreational sector. I predict a time when I'll cancel my insurance and say, "Well, that was nice while it lasted," despite living and operating out in the boonies where the only things in the skies besides my drone are birds. I think they'll eventually regulate it to the point of impracticability.

In the meantime, I went ahead and ordered the module a few days ago. It's back-ordered, so it probably won't come in until the middle of the month, at which time I'll figure out how to mount it where it neither interferes with the rest of the RF components nor blocks the optical components or the GPS antenna. I'm thinking about building a bracket where I presently stick the anti-collision light to accommodate the module, with a flat surface on top to accommodate the strobe.

We'll see when it arrives. I have ideas based on the specs, but having the device in hand will make it easier to design and fabricate a solution. Maybe I can use it as an excuse to buy a 3D printer.

 

[rotorwrench]

It seems to me that new regulations are being built around companies like Amazon, probably putting smaller commercial operators out of business and all but eliminating the recreational sector.

Not really. When the concepts of UAM/AAM were updated in the last 20 years or so, Amazon and other current UAS ops were not even in existence. The new Part 89 is simply the result of those original concepts and is similar to aircraft airspace rules but on a different level. Same reason ADSB was mandated for aircraft to operate in select airspace. So just as an old J-3 with no electrical system can navigate the NAS all drones will be able to navigate the same air as well ... just with a new set of rules. What caught everyone off guard was the recreational UAS sector growth. And if half the projections of UAM/AAM growth come true by 2030, you'll see why this move is needed. Interesting things to come.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

Not really. When the concepts of UAM/AAM were updated in the last 20 years or so, Amazon and other current UAS ops were not even in existence. The new Part 89 is simply the result of those original concepts and is similar to aircraft airspace rules but on a different level. Same reason ADSB was mandated for aircraft to operate in select airspace. So just as an old J-3 with no electrical system can navigate the NAS all drones will be able to navigate the same air as well ... just with a new set of rules. What caught everyone off guard was the recreational UAS sector growth. And if half the projections of UAM/AAM growth come true by 2030, you'll see why this move is needed. Interesting things to come.

I hope you're right. It's a nice way to go out and play and be able to call it "work."

 

[rotorwrench]

I hope you're right. It's a nice way to go out and play and be able to call it "work."

I think you're good provided you want to follow the new rules. The ones who should be worried are the weekend warrior Part 91 GA aircraft owners. In my opinion, one of the reasons there's a lack of interested in that sector by the younger generation is the advent of drone technology. IMO, it took the wind out of the private GA sails. Couple that with the passion of the drone clan as shown by their 50,000+ comments on the Remote ID NPRM and I think they can do things GA owners simply can't or won't. For comparison, GA owners didn't even get an 1/8th of the comments for the ADSB NPRM yet they all beeched a lot. Wouldn't be surprised if drone or UAM/AAM airspace starts to eclipse private GA airspace given there's 1.7M+ registered drones and less than 100K private Part 91 aircraft. Time will tell.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

I think you're good provided you want to follow the new rules. The ones who should be worried are the weekend warrior Part 91 GA aircraft owners. In my opinion, one of the reasons there's a lack of interested in that sector by the younger generation is the advent of drone technology. IMO, it took the wind out of the private GA sails. Couple that with the passion of the drone clan as shown by their 50,000+ comments on the Remote ID NPRM and I think they can do things GA owners simply can't or won't. For comparison, GA owners didn't even get an 1/8th of the comments for the ADSB NPRM yet they all beeched a lot. Wouldn't be surprised if drone or UAM/AAM airspace starts to eclipse private GA airspace given there's 1.7M+ registered drones and less than 100K private Part 91 aircraft. Time will tell.

The recreational sector of the drone community is populated largely by young kids who fly FPV and come close to making it a contact sport. Their videos are a lot of fun to watch and showcase pretty amazing skills. Few, if any of these young people would have the money, time, or interest to get into the relatively-boring (to them) Part 91 world.

The cost barrier, of course, is also much lower for drones. The highest barrier for those who want to fly for other than "strictly-recreational" purposes is the knowledge test, and it's not that difficult. It's basically like the SP / RP / PP knowledge test, but without the navigation questions and with drone-related regulatory questions. The airspace, charts, weather, and weather services questions are pretty much the same.

I'd like to see more of the youngsters get Part 107 because it makes them better, safer operators. I'd also like them to become more involved in GA in general. Maybe the manned flying bug will bite some of them.

 

[rotorwrench]

Maybe the manned flying bug will bite some of them.

I've seen the reverse. Go on a discovery flight then get a drone for the view without the work. I think once the e-vtol industry gets certified, provided they don't start killing a bunch of people, there will be an upheaval in how the lower side of GA operates. That is where all the time and money is being spent. And they are purposely keeping UAM/AAM separate from conventional aviation. The EU and EASA are "light-years" ahead of the FAA on this and I think the younger side will latch on to this new industry and take off with it. But thats just what I see. However, I can tell you the interest on the conventional airplane side is not there as it once was on the pilot or mechanic side. Those same youngsters who are flying rec drones and making videos used to be hanging out at the airport. Different times.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

My invitation on the r/drones sub on Reddit to check out this forum got nine upvotes so far, so maybe it can serve as a bridge.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If Ron and RotorWrench and RandomDroneGuy agree, I will move these latter posts regarding the effects of regulation on GA to a new thread titled 'Factors killing GA'. Is that ok with all?

Hearing no objection, I moved them to https://flyersforum.org/threads/factors-killing-ga.295/