The closer September 16 gets, the less concerned I am with remote ID. Your several videos on this issue have put many of my apprehensions at rest. Please continue to keep us informed. Cheers from Wisconsin.

About 20 years ago, there was a thriving ultralight/experimental aircraft community in my region of central North Carolina, a semi-rural area with lots of privately owned grass runways, etc. We had lots of fly-ins where folks would gather, tell lies, and eat some good food. It was great! Enter the FAA with a whole bunch of regulations that went into effect Jan. 1, 2008. Now, some 15 years later, the community is gone and you seldom hear about or see such an aircraft. Needless to say, I'm not a fan of the FAA. - Former experimental pilot and Cessna driver.

If civilians are able to obtain remote-id access, they will also have the ability to find and target us for drone theft or harassment.

Well, at the age of 62 the threat of”life in prison” just aint the deterrent it once was. Eagerly awaiting Sep 16th to take my first non-compliant flights.

Maybe the FAA needs 87,000 armed FAA agents for enforcement. 🤣🤣🤣

Unless Bardwell and Blunty were wrong. As of just a couple days ago the FAA has not granted a single FRIA. Not a single ONE! It’s awfully easy for someone who’s a part of a club like AMA to be so cavalier about this. And to that, the rest of us hobbyists who don’t have that luxury are all thinking “F you”.

*** (I have been banned from posting on this channel after this. My reply has been blocked - but you can read it below. )*** I can't wait to hear your response to this........ A few facts: The FAA is not an "enforcement" agency. Local Law Enforcement Officers are NOT Federal RULE enforcement agents. I am a Part 107 pilot since 2016. I've had every type of Karen and Dumb Cop interaction you can imagine. Let me explain to everyone EXACLTY what to do when a drone cop makes contact with you and starts demanding crap. (Unless you live in a stop and ID state or are operating a motor vehicle on a public road) Police cannot demand a darn thing. When cops come up to me and start talking, I make eye contact ask their name and badge number then tell them I want my lawyer present for all questions. (5th Amendment right) Then ask for a supervisor (they are required to get one when asked). After that I refuse to say a word, except to ask "Am I being detained?" and "Let me know when you are done detaining me." You are NOT required to give your Trust Card/Part 107, SSN Card, ID Card, DL, etc to any cop just because they demand it. Cop 101: In order to demand ID a cop must have Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that you are breaking a LAW!!!! Not a Federal Rule. I refuse to show them anything. (4th Amendment right) I have my drones all registered. The number is on the bottom in the same grey color as the drone so tiny its hard to read, but if holding the drone in your hand it can be clearly seen. This is done so they can't take a picture or see the number. Cops are NOT allowed to touch or seize your drone even for a second. Again, that's a 4th Amendment right violation. 100% of the time cops are called on me I leave without giving them anything, ever... period. If a cop has a Remote ID app, and sees you flying and notices your drone is not broadcasting... again, local law enforcement officers are not federal rule enforcement agents. Just ask the cop this, "what penal code violation is "not complying with remote ID"? Done. Now they can and will try to see what car you are driving to ID you that way. Being patient works. I've found that cops get bored and leave after 15-20mins of watching me to see what car I am driving. Keep in mind, I follow every single FAA rule. I even do things above and beyond what they require; marking landing sites with orange cones, having a lipo rated fire extinguisher on site at all times, etc. I will not however comply with RemoteID. That will only make the Karen situation worse. Using your own analogy; Do local cops enforce FDA rules/policies? Of course not. Just like they don't stop people using cellphones to make sure they are FCC compliant. I am not a lawyer, nor to I play one on TV. David Lane (Denver, CO) is my lawyer and we are ready for the FAA. **** the following was my reply to Tim before he blocked it: @Tim McKay NOTHING to follow at all. There is ZERO connection between local law enforcement and federal rules. ZERO! The idea that local cops are going to start busting kids at parks flying toys without RemoteID is never going to happen. Just like local cops don't enforce building codes/rules. Cities are required to have and maintain an entire dept of employees to enforce building codes or even city codes (like your grass is too long). Question - how many people have been arrested by a cop for their grass being too long? Now if they FAA wants to hire rule enforcement agents.... will that ever happen? Nope. One other thing... I've been flying remote aircraft since the mid 80's. Quadcopters since 2013. This isn't "new and evolving". Its OLD and evolving. YEARS and YEARS of dji style drones everywhere. How many have killed someone? Seriously injured? How many people have been arrested by cops for flying a drone (that wasn't in a park where a city has a ordinance)?????? How many drones have crashed into manned aircraft? I know of one. It was a cop flying a drone into a police helicopter. We have this thing called history we can rely on Tim. History has shown us that the FAA is a joke! Let me drop another one on ya Tim. The Federal Post Office!!!! They have their own enforcement division as well. Why is that? Because local cops are not federal rule enforcement agents. Some cities have signed/voted on agreements with their post offices. This is so local cops can enter federal property and enforce LOCAL LAWS. So if I enter a post office and ship a lipo battery without marking that on the box - I just violated a federal rule. I get caught. What happens? Does the post master call local police? Of course not. Even with a signed letter of cooperation between the Federal Govt (Post Office) and local PD only allows the PD to enforce what they are mandated to enforce.... LAWS, not rules. Those agreements are for people breaking local LAWS on postal property (such as disorderly conduct). Meaning even if a city enters into an "understanding" about FAA regulations with the FAA, local cops can still only enforce LAWS. (I mention this because some cities have already tried - right Mayor of Telluride, CO?) Now if pilots choose to waive their civil rights and comply with cops out of fear... I can't help the sheep.

I have not operated a model for several years. I was never into drones or helicopters. I have model rockets and free flight gliders. I do still have one fairly large rc plane. I have had planes as large as 35% and some fair sized gliders that were rc . Seems unfortunate that these new regulations may further discourage people from participating in such a enjoyable hobby.

Love the videos Tim but i will not comply. X jet makes some valid points against it and im 💯 with him

The gov. always uses "safety" as the "in" to create new rules. I can see i.d. tags for drones but I.D. tags for scale rc planes that typically fly at club locations?... Or faa permits to oversee club locations? Places where folks have flown for decades. Why now? What's different in 2023 than in 2003 for the scale modeler and safety? Same kind of people. Same kinds of models. The only thing I can think of,....is lobbying from corporations getting ready to roll out drone delivery and wanting control of most all local airspace up to a couple hundred feet? - and politicians ready and eager to help them. Once the faa has the place under it's gov control - it can take it away for any reason they decree. I find id tags for model airplanes to be another example of gov overreach. Want to make the hobby lose most all of it's appeal? Id tags required to license your styrofoam park flyer. My two cents.

I'll just stay under 250 grams and remain invisible. I fly recreationally for photos and videos, and while I don't live in the middle of nowhere, I am on the outskirts. The only thing that bothers me about RID is the Karen app gives the operators location to the general public. If the location information was available to law enforcement only it would be less of a problem.

On more thing, (like you can't see I'm not a fan of these new rules) if I want to do something bad with a drone, don't you think that I would rip out the Remote I.D. and not have a license Part 107? This is a tax. if it was about safety, they would have written a safety manual online for everyone to take that wouldn't cost an arm and a leg.

remote id operator location is available to anyone, while license plate owner / operator info is available to LEO. Logically this means thefts will increase as hobbyists attempt compliance.

Like so many, my issue is how easy it is for "regular people" to figure out who is flying the drone and where they are. It's a personal safety issue.

02:33 I truly am tired of people calling it a digital license plate. That is so far from the truth. License plates do not transmit gps coordinates, heading, altitude, session etc...

You know what is coming next, they will require everyone to have a special insurance in order to fly.

Do I need to register my beach Frisbee?

Tim, we are only three months away from the there is no viable way for the recreational modelers to comply. Even if someone came out with a five-dollar module next week, he would be very difficult for all of us to purchase one and make sure that it worked before the deadline. You are awfully optimistic to think the FAA is going to be reasonable and postpone the deadline until we have such a module.

Many people including myself disagree with your opinion that the FAA has the ability to write new rules into law. They wouldn't be getting sued in court if this was true. Like other three letter agencies they have been known to exceed their limits.

As a hobbyists I think the government involvement is ridiculous and intrusive, how can children like a 5 year old or 5 to 12 year old be able to test or deal with all the regulations of the drones. Or how can even a young child who wanting to play and learn to build and test different types of drones.

Been flying rc since the late 70s never licensed with faa did ama 1 year... Not a fan of anything government.

We have to fly below 400 feet so what gives manned planes the wright to fly below 400 feet a private small planes.

An excellent reasoned and low-emotion review of this situation. Reading some of the comments below indicates that there seem to be a lot of very unhappy and sad overthinkers out there looking for things to get worked up about. So much anger, suspicion, and lack of any real-world experience of what it means to live in a place without real freedom. We live in a complex society where our interactions affect others. Mr. McKay keep up the good work. Your content and manner of presentation are professional and would seem trustworthy.

I am not as optimistic as you are Tim. I don't think a reasonably priced module will be available in the next few months. I don't believe there will be enough FRIAs approved by Sept, I also do not believe in the Tooth Fairy.

The FAA, like many other alphabet soup "regulators", are not operating under the purview of the constitution because no such articles exist. Additionally, the legislative branch cannot legally defer law creation to anyone but themselves. That puts them in contradiction to their responsibility, thus violating the oath they took. Notwithstanding, the individual states can address these airspace issues and scenarios, should they want to. That's where these responsibilities lie.

The problem with Remote ID, and this is a BIG problem, is that the way it is being implemented is that it's going to put pilots in danger by revealing their location to EVERYONE, not just FAA and law enforcement. This means anyone who dislikes or distrusts drone flights can confront and perhaps attack a pilot.

As Bruce said - get this information out. Every semi-official representative of model aircraft flying Bent OVER and Took IT. My HOBBY should Not be Regulated by the Government. Government should SHOW CAUSE for this action. NEVER ONCE has this been an issue. Even Australia realized this was not an issue.

Sounds like a politician or 2 were approached by remote ID module manufacturers and are now shareholders.

I'm just an old dude (71yrs. old) recently retired trucker that was looking for a way to kill boredom of having nothing to do. NOW THIS CRAP HAPPENS!

No remote ID, no enforcement, they don’t know who you are. I just review a sectional to verify I’m not in controlled airspace, Class E. P.S. no ADS-B out either, it’s no business of the Government where I Fly

Tim, it really is NOT new that the FAA have been regulating drones (which includes Model Aircraft Drones) since 2016 (I believe), check this if you want. Even though Model Aircraft hobbyists may not consider their craft to be drones, but they are and always have been. A drone being any aircraft without an onboard pilot that is being controlled remotely.

2:30 Remote ID is not like a car license plate. Unless your license plate can report GPS data that is displayed in real time on an app to the public. Then the data can be combined by a 3rd party to see all your flight history... We are talking about a toy lighter than a cell phone, weighed down by an expensive surveillance system. Lets admit the bait and switch.The FAA has not provided FRIAs as promised. Let's also admit the AMA flyers are now a small percentage of the RC community, yet FRIAs are only catering to that group. We don't want to fly in open flat grassy fields next to fixed wing RC. Our signals will interfere and cause loss of control. We want to fly away from other people, in our backyards, through the woods, and across hill tops. The new rules will have no effect on a bad actor, they only criminalize educational and safe behavior.

Hi Tim. I am concerned about RID for recreational drone pilots flying older birds. Also remember the the airspace we are permitted to use is pretty small, from a practical view, class G below 400’. The FAA included older drones in the regulation, under the assumption that a RID module would be under $50. This assumption is preposterous at this time. Not only are modules starting at $100, but they require add on power supplies and antennas and in most cases professional installation. Further they are awkward and heavy for smaller birds. I do accept that drone operations need reasonable regulation. Especially in areas of flying over people, congested areas, and other safety considerations. However, many recreational drone pilots fly in remote areas in that legal airspace below 400’. Its time for the FAA to back off on the RID for existing recreational drones or UAV until such time as a tiny, clip on module is available at a reasonable price. On a different aspect, I also feel that the National Parks should allow drone flights in remote areas of national parks. We drone pilots pay just as much for these parks through our taxes as everyone else and reasonable accommodation shoukd be made for us. That does not mean that we should be flying in crowded or populated areas in the parks. There are plenty of remote areas that should be drone allowed space. BTW, I am a long time PP and recent 107. I support reasonable drone regulations but I am fully opposed to government over reach.

the 250 gram limit is eventually gonna go away b/c there are some quite capable UAS right at 240 grams and RID is not required.

I am a drone pilot, I am part 107 certified but that is 'just in case', so far it's just been for fun. I hate the RID thing, I have a DJI purchased 2 years ago (so obviously not compliant), the part about ANYBODY being able to track me (a female living in a rural area) is a little disturbing, and as you said, so far the aftermarket remotes are expensive for someone just flying for fun, that said, I do understand the why of the regulation. Like anything else, the idiots ruin it for everyone else. Drones can be and have been dangerous to people, animals, and property, there is the whole privacy thing (ie spying and harassing people), and of course people intentionally using them for illegal purposes, it was only a matter of time. Plus, every other moving vehicle has to be licensed/registered, and drones really aren't that different, mine can go 45mph and there are lots that go much faster than that and being unmanned (and hard to see a lot of times) could actually make them more dangerous than a 'real' vehicle in the wrong hands. Hopefully there will be a cheaper remote option by Sept, but either way, I will be getting one, I'm sure even $200 will be cheaper than potential fines, and so far I have lived my life without going to jail, so there's that.

I don't think I'll worry much about it with my rubber band powered model airplanes.

1. I don't fly drones, just mostly gliders. 2. Makes sense for drones ONLY. 3. I wouldn't comply anyway...."I'm a rebel Dotty!". 4. Just more BS government knee jerk reactions to "____ blank line". 5. Yet another reason I'm so glad I was able to escape the U.S!! ROME IS BURNING! Good luck to all the pilots there...Big Brother is watching!

Sub 400ft airspace is impossible to regulate.

There appear to only be about two companies that are offering remote ID modules to add to a drone without remote ID. They named their low-end module the "BS" for those who think that the remote ID rules are total "BS". I love a company with a sense of humor.

Tim, thanks for the informative video. I have mixed feelings about this situation. I kinda doubt that the FAA will have much done in the way of FRIAs by Sept. 16. I don't think they have the staff to do all this. I'd think it would be up to the individual as to whether to follow rid rules or not. My opinion there. But what really kinda ticks me off is that you can build your own light aircraft in your garage, get in the contraption, go out and fly it, crash it, or whatever, and you don't have to do a darn thing with the FAA. No test, no registration, nothing as far as I know. There are a couple fellas in our RC club that wonder about this as well. Just a comment, and thanks again for the videos.

Here is my comment on this matter. To the average drone flyer who is recreational it becomes almost an overwhelming task to determine if they can fly in any given area. It might be that the FAA has classified an area as general, but the town or state has restrictions on flying in that area. This requires the pilot to do a lot of research before they fly and even then they might not find some restrictions in the area they are using for takeoff/landing. There are applications that tell the pilot what the FAA has classified as acceptable for drone flying, but there is no application that tells the pilot if an area is ok to use for take off and landing. So why doesn't the Faa , state , and local communities get together to create an application that includes all of the restrictions in a given area. It would be clean, clear, and concise as a guide for the user to quicky determine if an area is ok to fly in.

a light balsa/tissue RC plane at low altitude will show up in a TFR, if there is even a radar involved (usually there is not), as a bird, or not at all. not all materials give radar returns, especially small objects in ground clutter the mass of birds.

Right off the bat you are wrong. The FAA and municipalities more often are coming up with a solution to a problem that DOES NOT EXIST then creating rules because of “drones where they aren’t supposed to be” the Faa’s motives for regulations is more often to benefit entities who will benefit financially then because of safety. The only thing people often do that they should not is fly over people, but even that is not as dangerous as the FAA would like people to believe. People get upset about because they think they are being looked at, not because of safety.

The real problem is that keeping your model under 250 grams will be out of compliance with the new equipment means that you have to get Part 107. That means paying $175 dollars every 2 years. So if I fly my large kites which are heavier than 250 grams, I have to have a device attached? Hold on, my kites are tethered by wire and or string. It shouldn't apply but it's an interesting question.

I'm not either. I've been flying for nearly 50 years now. Because i used some basic common sense in what and how i fly, it doesn't apply to my style of flying. basic rules, no problem. You know, try to stay under 400 feet, no buzzing the tower at any airport and never fly with full scale aircraft in your area. It's not hard to do. This is about control and nothing else, period. Most of us know this and have seen 'them' yanking all of our rights away as they so choose and usually by unelected people which within itself is totally conflicting to our Constitutional rights here in America.

My problem with these regulations is two fold; the FAA considers RC airplanes, and RC helicopters the same as drones. Many drones can automatically fly themselves, which is why they are able to fly such long distances from their pilots, and at such high altitudes. There are no self-flying airplanes or helicopters that I'm aware of, which means they're typically flown within sight of the pilot. The vast majority of these planes and helicopters are flown at AMA registered flying club sights, which are not located in restricted air spaces. My other problem with these regs is the fact that the FAA website is very much user unfriendly. I just had to renew my UAS permit, and finding which part of the site I had to go to in order to accomplish this was a nightmare. I don't know who sets up these gov websites, but they need to find a new job...

Well, having been a commercial pilot since 1990, here's my 2 cents worth. I've been in and out of general aviation since 1989 when I got my private pilot cert. I have around 660hrs in SEL acft. I am an IFR rated pilot and I was a CFI having taught about a dozen pilots. I currently hold a Part 107 cert for the occasional drone job. I'd like to believe the FAA will be successful in the drone remote ID business. However, I think they will fail in rather spectacular fashion. 1st off, has anyone tried lately to contact a FSDO office lately? I have, and had very little luck getting anyone to return my inquiries. This is still due to working from home for Covid IN 2023! JEEZ! GET BACK IN THE OFFICE! 2nd point is the shear number of drones being sold. There will be so many new remote ID drones that the FAA will be overwhelmed! If the FAA thinks they have a problem, now just wait until Sep 16th. Then they'll learn what real problems are!

$200... Like a NFA tax stamp.

Let me put it this way. If I'm following regulations it's not on purpose. I will absolutely not be using RID. Just not going to happen.

The lowest FAA recommended safe altitude for full size aircraft is 500ft. Even a very large model will be hard to see at that distance. At most RID should only be required for models giant scale or models using POV equipment. For everyone else its an unnecessary burden.

If you flying on your own property and stay under 400 feet, regs should not apply except for basic safety considerations. Look up airspace laws above personal property.

No offense, but your viewer was correct, and you're mistaken. Congress is conferred "all" legislative power in the Constitution. No one else. Contrary to your claim there is nothing about the FAA in the Constitution whatsoever nor is congress allowed to delegate its legislative powers to other entities. This was by design, to prevent the establishment and proliferation of unaccountable bureaucracies, which are a staple of tyrannical states. Everything for which congress has the "power to lay and collect taxes" is listed in Article 1 Section 8. "Federal regulation" is NOT an Amendment to, and does NOT supersede, the Constitution (so citing that means nothing). The Founding precept was that any law at odds with the Constitution was by default nugatory. In order for congress to (legitimately) collect taxes to fund the FAA, it would have to be added to the list of things for which it may tax. Despite your intimation, that was never done. It is, like every other alphabet organization as such, unconstitutional. And no the "general welfare" clause doesn't permit the existence of the FAA. Congress may only pursue the "general welfare" through those means listed in Article 1 Section 8. Anything else is beyond its legitimate purview. "Our tenet ever was [...] that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action." - Jefferson, 1817. "With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - Madison, 1831. Furthermore, any power not conferred to the federal government in the Constitution, remains with the states per the 10A. (This is a federation.) Again, no such power was ever conferred to the federal government in the Constitution. "Advanced countries" adhere to their Constitutions. Disregarding them for the sake of expedience, and employing specious rhetoric to that end, is, again, a staple of tyrannical states. Your basically arguing that our government no longer has to adhere to the Constitution, and may impose whatever regulations it deems necessary, based upon completely arbitrary grounds (being "advanced," for "safety," etc.). "If [...] the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment. [...] But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." - Washington, 1796. Another staple of tyrannical states is defending support of one illegitimate organization/law by citing the existence of other illegitimate organizations/laws. Citing the "FDA" for example, which is also not listed in Article 1 Section 8, doesn't justify the existence of the FAA or confer to it legislative power. THIS IS HOW GOVERNMENTS BECOME TYRANNICAL. The usurpation of power by pretext to the abject indifference or mindless approbation of the people. Personally, I think there should be something like the FAA, but it's an illegitimate organization in its current form. It shouldn't even exist (as congress may not legitimately collect taxes to fund it), much less be imposing legislation of any kind.

Just because congress has authorized the FAA and even because the courts support and uphold the FAA findings doesn’t make it constitutional. This type of regulation was intended (by our forefathers) to be enacted by the states just like drivers licenses. That being said, because the FAA findings are upheld by courts, you have to follow the regulations or pay the consequences. One gray area that still exists from a legal perspective is the airspace above the land that you own. You own that airspace but other aircraft are given a permanent easement to fly through it if they don’t reasonably impact your use of that airspace. What this means for model aircraft flying over your own property needs to be adjudicated in court.

You mentioned DUI. DUI is a criminal offense, not civil but accidental damages are. Right now the ATF is being attached for putting regulations on firearms without a vote and going thru Congress. Do you think the same is going to eventually effect the FAA?

Your perspective comes from a model aircraft background. Your perspective does not take into consideration a very light weight drone where a remote ID would make it too heavy and/or the power consumed from remotely the ID would nullify the available power to fly such a small device.

I have a few friends that wanted to get a drone for the first time and didn't want to spend too much money. They saw these cheap drones that are less than $100.00 dollars. Every one of these drones did a flyaway never to be seen again.

Right now, there is no way to abide by them. There is no remote ID modules readily available. The fact is that most people wont abide by it.

If they can't bring themselves to write sane rules, they can't expect us to follow them.

Now if a club has a frea can the stop some one that is not a member of the club from flying there????

Dronetag makes the only off the shelf R.I.D. module that I am aware of at this time. I'm sure there will be several more in the not too distant future.

The way we understand it Tim is that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not have the authority to make laws. The FAA is an agency of the United States Department of Transportation and its primary role is to regulate and oversee civil aviation within the United States. The FAA is responsible for setting and enforcing regulations and standards for aircraft operations, air traffic control, pilot licensing, airport safety, and other aspects of aviation. While the FAA has the power to create and enforce regulations, these regulations are not considered laws in the sense of legislation passed by Congress. Instead, they are administrative rules that have the force of law within the aviation industry. The authority to make laws rests with the legislative branch of the federal government, which is the United States Congress. Congress passes laws that govern various aspects of aviation, and the FAA's role is to implement and enforce those laws through its regulatory authority. Would you agree with this synopsis Tim? In advance, thanks a million for your friendly and intelligent insights sir! ;-) Much gratitude, T

The FAA does allow a category 1, sub 250 gram, drone to be flown over people if it is fitted with prop guards. Yeah, that might be a bit challenging for Model Aircraft.

Beside a few small quadcopters, I have about 100 airplanes from micro to giant scale. Not really sure what they expect from me, but I DO know that I DON'T need big brother watching over me!

I think the date will be pushed to Jan. 1, 2024 and then there will be a grace period but any dangerous infractions will be addressed. The key word is 'dangerous' since the FAA's primary function is safety.

Unfortunately, all drones manufactured after December 31, 2022 must be equipped with standard ID. RID is necessary for BVLOS and UTM as part of the advanced air mobility and operations under 400’ initiative. BVLOS will be possible through LTE cellular services which will require a networked system which will automatically exclude broadcast ID systems. Like it or not, commercialization of airspace below 400’ which will include traditional quad, hex, and octocopters as well as manned and autonomous eVTOLS is an inevitability.

local police have no authority to enforce airspace regulations. this has been established many times in court.

I'll probably just sell mine. No way am I paying $200 for a remote ID thingy and I only fly maybe 2 times a year. I'm sure the FAA isn't done. Some day if you crash your drone, the NTSB will fly in and have to do a 3 month investigation on it. Next they'll realize you need to have a black box buried in the belly somewhere. Then they'll decide it's not wheel chair compatible. All this is so companies like Amazon can do deliveries and not have to worry some little drone is in their way. If it's not the FAA it's local laws, and there's huge sections of the country that's in classes of airspace, that you can't even take off in. Also I doubt they listen very hard to those comments they ask for.

Most of us who do not fly drones are left out. There is no way we can shell out $200 for a module and there is no way that the FAA cares about the cost of the module. The FAA wants to eliminate all rc flying. This is why there will be no provision for new fria's. Naturally In time all frias will be phased out. The FAA only cares about giving our airspace to Amazon etc. Drone delivery will fail. The public will not tolerate drone delivery. All of this will result in the elimination of the rc hobby for no reason.

I quit flying RC because of goverment involvement. It was a hobby. And I did it for fun. Goverment regulation is ridiculous for this hobby.

That definition from the FAA as to what a pilot is could also be taken to apply to someone hitting a golf ball. I fly FPV and I play golf. In my case, my golf balls flye higher, further and faster than my drone flights.

The Chevron Deference has now been overturned by the Supreme Court. It will be affecting many regulations that many of these Federal agencies have implemented and enforce. According to the AMA some of these regulations now may be in question and are under legal review. It will be interesting to see how this plays out...

The first paragraph of the Constitution makes it very clear that law making is vested in Congress - not in an executive branch agency. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an exception or permission for Congress to give away its law making authority. We certainly understand some benefits of what some of these agencies do. The problem is when Unconstitutional 'laws' are passed and enforced by our government. The 2nd Amendment is absolute and is a target of a corrupt government.

Let's just Ban kites while we're at it!!

According to FAA’s latest video it sure sounds like the RID info is going to be archived somewhere. Who is going to pay for that. Bad enough current devices are $200. Still curious as to why ultra-lights and paraglides are not controlled as well. Have seen video of paraglides at 15,000 AGL no safety rules at all.

The FAA regulates air, local governments regulate ground take off and landings ,but they need local authorities to police drone air flights, sounds contradictory to me.

Hopefully with Chevron Deference gone we can strike down this rule

Tim, you stated the FAA is interested in safety is not exactly correct; the ONLY REASON the FAA exists is BECAUSE OF SAFETY, not interested in it!

Mandatory ADSB for full scale aircraft became law in 2020...as 2020 approached ADSB equipment became more expensive. Prices have come down a little... but not much. I'm not sure why everyone keeps saying remote ID modules will be cheaper sooner than later.

Hi Tim. Thanks for your update. Always a pleasure hearing from an experienced pilot, of everything. I’ll happily comply with RID when it makes sense for me personally. I suppose each pilot will have their own schedule. I’ve a few decision points. Cost, FAA implementation, and privacy. When those things make sense to me, I’ll jump onboard and go RID for my drone fleet. Enjoy the friendly skies. 5253 Whiskey - Out.

Great video! Thanks for a very well thought out, balanced, and informative presentation. One area that I believe is still unsettled law is if who "owns" and can regulate airspace directly above private land and to what altitude.. There are Supreme Court rulings that identify the space above private land is part of the private land up to some altitude that is not well defined. There were two rulings that I recall 1) was a landowner that complained about a pilot that was flying (low) above his land and disturbing his animals 2) I think was a landowner that took action against an aircraft that was above his land in "his airspace" and in both cases the Supreme Court sided with the land owner. Sorry I don't have the specific citations. My point is that there has been discussion that if FAA has the authority to regulate all the airspace then they could authorize drones to fly above people's private land and if so, are there any protections that people have regarding the airspace above their private land and there are people sitting ready to get the Supreme Court to settle this. Certainly this will happen if the FAA authorizes drones to fly above private property (such as for package delivery) without the property owner's explicit permission. Another thing that may be challenged is if the FAA fines someone for flying a drone in the space above their property at a low altitude (below 500 ft). I am pretty sure both sides know this is going to happen and starting in September there will be groups challenging the FAA to settle the issue of "private airspace".

Thanks Tim. Your videos are always very well researched and presented! I'm from Australia, and, no doubt, remote ID will come here at some point. As a recreational full size pilot, commercial drone pilot and recreational RC model aircraft and drone pilot, I have a lot to lose for non compliance. If I do fly my models non RID compliant at some stage, I won't be advertising the fact and choosing the location and time very carefully! There is much to learn about safety and compliance of regulations when you fly full size as you say. I do think model enthusiasts should lobby the FAA for temporary (eg Flite Fest) and private land FRIAS with assurances that NOTAMs and regulations will be observed. Obviously, this would be a difficult process involving consideration of safety criteria, so applications would be handled slowly. One of the safest hobbies in the world with a distinguished reputation throughout its history, deserves some recognition for the sake of the future of aviation.

If they feel that they have to enforce it, then they need to just set the limit to 1Kg, and we fly and stay below 400m, and then no Remote ID, above 1Kg, perhaps yes, as those are quite large?

RemoteID absolutely is a violation of Constitutional Rights. 1st Amendment freedom of speech, 4th Amendment unlawful search (obtaining the exact location with specific date/time of the drone and pilot without probable cause or warrant) and a 5th Amendment takings violation (my liberty AND money for the modules themselves and the time required to install them). I draw the line. I fly safely. I avoid flying around people or property (I fly primarily around TREES in FPV.) Those who fly unsafely and cause injury/damage should absolutely be held accountable, but I'm not going to ask permission every time I change a battery nor advertise my location to any who wish to see it to either 1) assault me, 2) rob me, 3) kill me and 4) anything else nefarious simply because someone can locate me. No. I draw the line. Regulation is a means to KILL this thriving hobby under the guise of "safety" just as the FAA has killed the ultralight and experimental aircraft hobby. Nobody should be complying with RemoteID. The only reasonable reaction is civil disobedience and refusal to comply. Further, RID removes the authority from the pilot to make decisions and gives it to the FAA. I will not comply. I do not authorize this regulation and I do not grant them this authority as one of We the People. As a minority group, we need to stand together against this unconstitutional incursion. In addition to that... I often fly where there is no cell phone signal, which renders the whole thing pointless for the vast majority of the continent. Nope. Giant middle finger to the FAA for trying this.

So the airspace is anything above the ground...wowsers i better not stand on my deck...i am above the ground...i am standing in the air-space...what a joke

hey Tim,, great content,, do you think the reconized sites will be in effect before sept? will there be a grace period for clubs who have sumbitted an application?

I am not following any FAA regulations and before the Wright Brothers first flight the FFA didn't exist and they don't own the airspace.

Only the law abiding citizens will be caught

When the FAA starts prosecuting people who shoot down drones, I'll have a lot more respect for their regulations of model aviators.

Couple of points: 1 - September is only 2 months away, dont expect RID modules to get any cheaper, if anything they will become more expensive at first due to supply and demand. 2 - RID modules will eventually become cheaper but they are still way to heavy for a lot of quadcopters and they are not something that can easily be swapped on quadcopters as they will need to be soldered in to them as an attempt to reduce some of the added weight and quadcopters are built with the components contained inside them, not stuffed inside them like on a fixed wing. 3 - many of us fly without GPS under the tree tops within a 300ft radius of ourselves, essentially a sheilded operation so why is it needed? You cannot say because of safety because nobody on earth heas ever died from being hit by a quadcopter. 4 - I have more but i will make this my final point. Congratulations, you fly at a local feild that will be a fria (maybe, if you're lucky because many applications to the FAA has been denied). What about those that live 2 hours away from a feild, do people really have to drive 2 hours to fly something that weighs less than a football. Additionaly many of us quadcopter pilots dont want to fly in open fields, they are boring and there is nothing there, fields are great for fixed wing craft because they need the space, quadcopters dont.

It’s just so frustrating that planes get looped in with drones. I NEVER even break 100-120 feet on my plane. Ever.

Don't worry it'll get worse also FAAs mission statement is we're not happy until you're unhappy

I have 5 acres in the country seperated by cornfields between the nearest neighbor. I fly around/over my property with my diy quads/hexcopters. I also have some RC planes that I fly over the surrounding cornfields. I followed the rules for the trust certificate and my models are marked. I am not following remote id. If they outlaw kites I won't be following that either with my nephews and nieces. If necessary I'll close the gates on my fenced property so that leos would need a warrant to enter.

The idea of RID isn't repulsive on the basis of safety and catching those who fly in a hazardous manner. What bothers me, and I really believe this must change ASAP, is the ground control station being broadcast to the general public. This is very unsafe. This goes directly against the prime function of the FAA but of course the RC is on the ground and not in the air. It's still very dangerous on the basis of out of control mentally deranged people going after the pilots.

Appreciate this sir - so nice to hear a voice of reason on the subject!

Australian here, sometime pilot, knows little about drones. FWIW the FAA is more logical and responsive than you might think. They have their issues of course but they have long running systems that have helped make world wide aviation ridiculously non fatal. I urge everyone to examine their gut reaction. I bet there is a fair component of "how dare you think you can make me do things differently.?" Which is pretty normal imo but this sport and tech has gotten good enough and popular enough to be a serious threat to people in aircraft. Things had to change and some of the best input won't be heard because those people are excluding themselves.

Personally I feel that if we're flying in 'Uncontrolled Airspace', then the FAA has NO business monitoring or dictating our flight(s). 'Controlled Airspace' is different. But - I think this move by the FAA is totally unconstitutional! I'm also a Pilot and I know airspace! ALL my drone flights are in 'Uncontrolled Airspace'!

Since they know about the trail of stuff above us....they are totally trusting

First RemoteID video I see come up that doesn't have an outright fear-mongering title. Had to leave comment and like just for that. But also to say Sowing despair only plays into preliminary defeat. People should of course be aware of all aspects of this, but at points when little counteraction is possible, least we can do is not spread our cheeks ahead of time and keep our wits. Great balanced video!

The 60 day review and comment period has been expertly skirted Tim. As rules approval differs to CBOs in the future. All the FAA need to do effect rules change they like, they just put the CBO previleges on the line unless the CBO complies. No comments, 60 day period, no hassle for the FAA. The FAA just needs to pull a transport Canada - All flight privileges revoked. That said, I appreciate the video and you spreading the knowledge in a complete way. I would like to know your opinion on the matter

No one I know is going to comply with this.