Three months ago I posted a video review of the Dronetag Mini Remote ID module. On that review video I received a lot of feedback — some good, some really bad. Initially I had no plans to respond broadly to that feedback because it expends more energy than it is usually worth for a creator of my size following-wise.
Then the trend began of getting new comment after new comment, message after message, and downvote after downvote and I just could not let it go by without addressing this reaction to my stance on compliance (or non-compliance) with Remote ID.
It was at the end of last month that I created a response video to all of that negative feedback I was receiving. Surprisingly I received a lot more understanding and support in the response to that video than I expected. Yes, some of the commenters still stood on the idea that I was a “corporate shill” or “sheep,” and some yet upped the ante by telling me I was of low character (ouch). All-in-all though I received a largely positive response to my stance — even from those who did not agree with me on the whole. If you’d like to watch that video, please feel free to do so below:
It has been two weeks since I posted that response video and in that time I have inundated myself with all things Remote ID. During my inundation, our FPV lord and savior, Joshua Bardwell posted a video that resonated with me and made me realize that maybe I need to be even less rigid in my stance on Remote ID and how it impacts the community. I will link Josh’s video at the bottom of this blog if you would like to watch it, but in the meantime if you have any vested interest in how it changed some of the nuances of my stance on Remote ID, keep reading…
FAA Reauthorization of 2023 is Doubling-Down on RID…
The initial document titled H.R.302 was presented in 2018 and outlined ideas for implementing Remote Identification. Every 5 years the FAA and similar entities are required to be reauthorized in their statutory authority. If you are capable of simple math, you’ll see that this year the FAA is up for reauthorization.
In H.R. 3935 Remote ID is outlined for continued implementation and expansion in the future. It appears the FAA is, indeed, doubling-down on Remote ID, which may come with additional (over)reach by the administration. Details on this are unclear at this point beyond that from what I understand, but it does appear the FAA has no intention on stopping at Remote ID when it comes to direct reach into pilot data and operational information.
The Time for Talk Has Passed…
The level of disappointment I felt when I realized that just 6% of all drone pilots in the United States had taken the opportunity to provide feedback to the FAA during the Remote ID comment window was sobering. That feeling still sticks with me as we look down the barrel at Remote ID because we could have done so much more, but did not. That complacency has put us where we are today.
In Josh’s video, he lays it out plainly and simply — the time for writing the FAA and writing our congressional representatives is over. The moment has come and gone and now we’re “down 3 in the ninth inning,” to steal his analogy.
What about organizations like the FPV Freedom Coalition and the Flite Test Community Association? Nada. While these two organizations have been helpful to lessening the “blow” of Remote ID and the initial plans for an Unmanned Traffic Management system, they will likely only ever provide that service — lessening the blow. As Josh stated in his video and as I will state now, these organizations have done what they could to protect the hobbyist community and so they still deserve our support — we just cannot hang our hat on them at this point in the game.
Josh mentions “public awareness campaigns” in his video as well, associating the term with videos such as his own, where drone content creators and “influencers” take to their platforms in an effort to raise awareness about Remote ID and the perils we as remote pilots potentially face in light of it. Josh suggests that the tone of these “public awareness” pieces must change and I completely agree with him.
These pieces are largely (including some of my own) scaring people out of entering into or sticking with the hobby of flying drones. We sit in front of our cameras and microphones and we tell you about all of the awful things that will happen with Remote ID and, right now, THAT is what is killing the hobby and the public’s general interest in it. The tone of these videos needs to shift from an “oh sh!t” kind of vibe to something more like, “well, it’s not convenient, but it’s not the end of the world.”
Unless we stop the unintentional (or maybe intentional) scare tactics in the awareness content we create, we stand to potentially drive people away and out of the community all together — which is not good for anyone.
Does Any of This Matter?..
No, which is a major pivot off of my previous stance taken in the video I posted 14-days ago. But it is still nuanced and it is still not quite that straight forward for me and many other people like me.
While I, as a Part 107 drone operator, will continue to stay within compliance of ALL regulations set forth by the FAA, I can say that in the end Remote ID is largely destined to fail as it is structured now. The overhead on the technology is cost-prohibitive, the data being shared to the general public is too sensitive, and quite frankly the FAA’s (in)ability to enforce existing regulations is extremely sad.
There are too many factors working against Remote ID being successful for it to stay as it is now and non-compliance IS going to be one of the driving factors for change in the future. That does not mean that it needs to be willful non-compliance though.
In fact, I don’t think a majority of the non-compliance that we will see will be out of anger or disdain for the FAA. Largely, as Josh said in his video, most pilots won’t even feel the effects of Remote ID because…the FAA cannot feasibly police it at scale.
Sure, there could be instances where somebody reports somebody else for not transmitting during flight; and sure, there could be instances where one particular law enforcement officer who has enough resentment against drones to study up on the regulations and laws in place for them could bust somebody flying without transmitting it; but I would be willing to wager 99.99% of all drone flights will be conducted without transmitting Remote ID and will go completely unaddressed by the FAA after the September deadline.
Here is how I see this going now that I have taken a couple of weeks of looking into things for myself and for basically ripping off the content of Josh Bardwell’s video in this article (sorry, Josh, but you just explain things so well):
- Remote ID will be protested against by die-hard hobbyist pilots flying FPV and model aircraft without transmitting Remote ID.
- New remote pilots/operators will practice non-compliance ignorantly due to the complexity and nuance of the system.
- Part 107 operators who are forced to comply with every letter of the law put into place by the FAA will go from willfully compliant to unwilled compliance after putting up with the bugs and hiccups that will inevitably plague commercial drone operations in the interim.
- Corporations responsible for funding much of the drone industry, including the very people responsible for the implementation of Remote ID will begin making noise because of its impact on productivity and efficiency. This noise will call for an overhaul or complete elimination of Remote ID.
Is that a perfect timeline? Probably not, but I believe firmly those events will play out in some magnitude and order that will eventually lead to, at the very least, change in how Remote ID conducted. Here are some goals that I believe to be attainable in the pushback against Remote ID:
- Prohibiting civilians from seeing sensitive flight information such as pilot location within the confines of Remote ID. The only parties privy to a pilot’s location are the crew responsible for overseeing the flight operation and law enforcement/emergency responders if necessary.
- Relaxing Remote ID obligations for pilots conducting flights with aircraft incapable of long ranges or flight times.
- Creating tangible benefits that go hand-in-hand with Remote ID for both commercial and recreational pilots (i.e. flying above 400 feet, flying in controlled airspace without waivers, flying in restricted airspace with automatic waiver approval, etc.).
- Making Remote ID optional in Class G airspace.
There are many possibilities for this discussion to evolve. The important thing is to remember that this is just that — a discussion. We need to continue to be civil in the way we work with the FAA in the future and for the love of all things good, please use comment windows opened by the FAA. If we have another opportunity at a comment window in the future, we need a much better turnout than 6% to make any kind of a difference in the thoughts of the FAA.
For me, things largely will not change. I fly Part 107. I am a growing drone content creator. And quite frankly, if the FAA did decide to implement some kind of enforcement arm, I don’t have the money to pay fines. That is why I will continue with my plan to comply with Remote ID for hobby and for work. What the last two week has brought to me was not change in my stance, but a better understanding of how people who are not walking the same paths that I am walking are affected by Remote ID and why non-compliance is a feasible choice for them to protest its implementation.
I never looked down on those folks as I have no room to judge anyone for how they live their life, but I CAN say I now better understand them and my mind is open to their plight more than ever. And I apologize if at any point I have ever come off as insensitive to that plight.
So, thank you, Joshua Bardwell. You have, once again, provided me a guiding light…I guess I really did learn something today.