FPVFC Remote ID Updates and Commentary

FPV Freedom Coalition comments on the state of RID

FPV Freedom Coalition has been involved with Remote ID since our formation four years ago.  This includes being a member of ASTM Remote ID working group which wrote the Means of Compliance manufacturers are using to gain their Declaration of Compliance of Standard Remote ID and Remote ID broadcast modules.

FPV Freedom Coalition is not in favor of Remote ID but continues to work to make flying while being compliant as simple as possible.  A key goal for us is to communicate what is needed to fly and comply with recreational sUAS flight rules.

A summary of the FAA’s deferral of the enforcement and two important interviews is if you can be compliant with remote ID today, you need to be.  From the FAA’s perspective, drone pilots are required to comply with Remote ID now.  For those unable to comply, the FAA may use its discretion whether to conduct an enforcement investigation.

Note:  The comments of Kevin Morris, UAS/AAM Coordinator, FAA Office of Communications have been paraphrased.  This document has been reviewed by Kevin.   Dave Messina, President & CEO, FPV Freedom Coalition.  October 2023

FPV Freedom Coalition reaction to the FAA’s Deferral of Enforcement for Remote ID

1. The FAA felt compelled to make this announcement.  Why?

2. The FAA’s announcement in the Federal Register effectively says the FAA has the discretion to conduct an enforcement investigation.  This is a change in that under normal circumstances, the FAA would be required to conduct an enforcement investigation. 

The FPV Freedom Coalition looks back to the manufacturer’s deferral from September 2022 to December 2022 and sees this deferral has the similarity of not saying anything but striving to communicate the steadfast nature of the RID rule.  In both instances, no change to the rule was made and no Advisory Circular was used which may have provided additional guidance.  Rather, the FAA’s official statements said nothing of substance which changes the efficacy of the rule.  

The FAA cites these reasons for the announcement:

• Lack of availability of RID Broadcast Modules

• Cost of RID broadcast module

• Unavailable firmware updates

• Delays in processing FRIAs

From this, we infer the FAA is providing us with a list of reasonable reasons why a recreational sUAS operator is not using a RID broadcast module.  Viewed from another perspective, the FAA might have said, “If you can obtain a RID broadcast module, you should.  Essentially, the FAA did this on September 13, 2023  https://twitter.com/FAADroneZone/status/1702029446218400186 .  And, if your sUAS has a firmware update that delivers RID function, you should install it.  And, if you are able to fly at a FRIA, you should.”  In other words, as Greg Reverdiau said so well, if you can comply, you should.  Once again, if you choose to comply with RID, that’s your decision.  Our recommendation is if you can comply now, you should.  We also agree you should not wait.

Kevin Morris’ comments on Pilot Institute video - 9/27/2023

Noteworthy:  Remote ID is required for sUAS which are registered.  If you register your sub-250 gram sUAS on the FAA Drone Zone website as part of your recreational fleet and you intend to fly this sub 250-gram sUAS only as a recreational aircraft (44809), because you registered it, you must conform to Remote ID regulations (i.e. you must use a Broadcast Module or fly in a FRIA).  If you want to fly this sub-250 gram sUAS without RID, you must unregister it from your recreational flyer inventory.

Highlights of discussion among Kevin Morris, Greg Reverdiau and Kieth:

• Labeling a RID aircraft:  The manufacturer of the broadcast module or Standard Remote Identification (SRID) must provide the text for a label indicating the aircraft is in compliance with RID.  This may be a pdf provided by the manufacturer or a sticker.

• Bed-time reading:  Part 89 is worth reading as recommended by Kevin Morris.  Here’s a link https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-89

• Flying DIY as a part 107 sUAS:  You build a sUAS and you want to be compliant to fly part 107.  What is required?  You must integrate SRID into the design and apply as a manufacturer for a RID Declaration of Compliance approval from the FAA.  If you are building your own drone to be flown for education or recreation, you are not required to incorporate SRID into it. See 89.501(c): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-89/subpart-F/section-89.501

• FPVFC Commentary:  SRID integration is non-trivial in that a SRID must prevent takeoff in the event of a power-on-self-test of the SRID system and it must dynamically transmit the location of the Ground Control Station (transmitter or controller). While this work is being done, FPVFC suggests it would show an effort to be compliant to use a broadcast module on any manufactured or produced sUAS.

• The cost of registering each sUAS:  Normally, the cost of registering or unregistering a sUAS is $5.00.  The FAA is waiving this fee until December 31, 2023.

• FRIA Listing:  FRIAs will be shown on FAA UAS Facilities maps:  https://faa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9c2e4406710048e19806ebf6a06754ad

• Ramp check for part 107:  This is considered a rare situation but a sUAS pilot would need to show:

• Part 107 remote pilot card

• sUAS registration

• Photo ID

• If flying in controlled airspace, LAANC approval

• As required, a waiver or COA

• Ramp check for 44809:  This is considered a rare situation but a sUAS operator would need to show:

• TRUST certificate

• FAA sUAS Registration

• Proof of which CBO Safety Guidelines the operator has selected (e.g. a pdf on a phone)

• If flying in controlled airspace, LAANC approval

Kevin Morris’ comments on Geeksvana July 14, 2023

What documentation should a part 107 pilot carry when he or she is flying a sUAS with a broadcast module?

§ 107.7 specifics what documentation needs to be carried while operating under Part 107:

• Remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating

• Identification which contains:

• Photograph, signature, and date of birth

• Certificate of Waiver/Authorization or Exemption you are using

• This is because the COW/A or exemption itself usually requires it to be in your possession.

49 USC § 44103(d) also requires that an aircraft registration certificate (paper or electronic) be made available upon request.

 If a part 107 pilot adds a broadcast module to be RID compliant, we envisioned that pilot being asked why they think they are compliant.

You are not required to carry proof that a broadcast module is listed on the FAA’s DOC.

Questions like this are normally reserved for an investigation after an incident/accident. A “ramp check” for a drone pilot should not go into “prove it” questioning with the exception of the documents listed in the answer to your question above.

Any drone MANUFACTURED after 9//16/2022 which is not a home-built sUAS must be built with Standard Remote ID.

“Manufactured” is what the FAA references as “produced” in the final rule. Regardless of the term used, what we’re really talking about is that any drone produced that doesn’t qualify as “home-built” per the definition in 89.1 would need to incorporate standard Remote ID.

 We should focus on the difference between equipment rule and operation rules: 

It’s not a requirement of the drone operator to purchase a drone after September 16, 2022 that has standard Remote ID. It’s a requirement of the drone manufacturer to produce that drone with standard Remote ID. The FAA did issue a discretionary enforcement policy for drone manufacturers that gave them an additional 3 months (through December 16, 2022) to begin production cycles that included standard Remote ID drones. Based on that, it’s entirely possible that there will be drones purchased by operators which do not have standard Remote ID and were manufactured after September 16, 2022. In those cases, an operator may attach a broadcast module to comply with Part 89, even if flown under Part 107.

Remote ID Deferral Background information:

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 89

[Docket No. FAA–2019–1100; Amdt. No. 89–2]

RIN 2120–AL31

Enforcement Policy Regarding Operator Compliance Deadline for Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement policy.

SUMMARY: For noncompliance with the remote identification operating requirements applicable to unmanned aircraft, which occurs on or before March 16, 2024, the FAA will consider all circumstances, in particular, unanticipated issues with the available supply and excessive cost of remote identification broadcast modules and unanticipated delay in the FAA’s approval of FAA-recognized identification areas, when exercising its discretion in determining whether to take enforcement action. 

DATES: This policy is effective

September 15, 2023.

Excerpts from Federal Register document:

• No person may operate an unmanned aircraft subject to the applicability in § 89.101 after September 16, 2023, outside the boundaries of an FAA-recognized identification area (FRIA) unless it is a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or equipped with a remote identification broadcast module.

• Enforcement Policy Regarding Production Requirements for Standard Remote ID Unmanned Aircraft.  https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/12/2022-19644/enforcement-policy-regarding-production-requirements-for-standard-remote-identification-unmanned

• In recent months, the FAA has received significant public feedback regarding remote identification requirements, including multiple requests for an extension of the September 16, 2023, remote identification operational compliance date. Additionally, the FAA has received hundreds of inquiries through emails, phone calls, and in-person questions about the remote identification operational compliance date. Flight Standards District Offices alone are receiving over 10 emails a day related to remote identification requirements. The FAA UAS Support Center has received over 380 inquires over the past 60 days. Their primary inquiry was about the compliance date and the inability to obtain remote identification modules. UAS operators within the Commercial Drone Alliance, the Association of Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, multiple public safety agencies such as the Nebraska Department of Transportation and the Iowa Department of Transportation, as well as FAA Lead Participants in the BEYOND program, have all indicated that they are encountering significant difficulty obtaining remote identification broadcast modules, which would allow continued operation of existing unmanned aircraft instead of purchasing new standard remote identification unmanned aircraft. Those difficulties are primarily related to availability of broadcast modules, the shipping timelines for broadcast modules, and the cost of those modules. Data from the FAA Drone Zone as of August 28, 2023, shows that there are 261,143 operators flying with a remote pilot certificate under 14 CFR part 107 and 328,372 recreational flyers operating under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 44809 who are not remote identification equipped. The FAA has also received feedback from operators, including numerous public safety agencies, about difficulties in obtaining firmware updates to some existing models of unmanned aircraft to activate standard remote identification capabilities and make them remote identification compliant.

• As a separate matter, as of August 18, 2023, the FAA has approved 412 applications for FRIAs, with 1,206 yet to be reviewed. The FAA has endeavored to review these FRIA applications as quickly as possible but expects a large increase in applications as the mandatory compliance date approaches. This influx is expected to increase the application processing backlog and impair the ability of recreational operators to comply with the rule. The FAA anticipates that the supply of remote identification broadcast modules, resolution of firmware issues, and approval of FAA-recognized identification areas will increase in the next six months.

• Statement of Policy:  The FAA recognizes that it has yet to evaluate a majority of submitted applications for FAA-recognized identification areas. The FAA also recognizes the unanticipated issues that operators are facing related to the availability of remote identification broadcast modules. The FAA has continued to monitor this situation as long as possible before making a determination, but with less than a month remaining until the operational compliance date, the FAA acknowledges that for many operators, compliance with § 89.105 may prove difficult or impossible in the timeframe presented. While some operators, such as those who are using standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or those operating in FRIAs that have already been approved by the FAA, will be able to comply with the rule, the cumulative effect of the current state of the compliance issues reported to the FAA could otherwise cause a cessation of numerous UAS operations, which is not consistent with the FAA’s intent for this rule or its statutory mandate to integrate UAS operations into the National Airspace System. Accordingly, the FAA will exercise its discretion in determining how to handle any apparent noncompliance, including exercising discretion to not take enforcement action, if appropriate, for any noncompliance that occurs on or before March 16, 2024—the six-month period following the compliance deadline for operators initially published in the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft final rule, RIN 2120–AL31. The exercise of enforcement discretion  herein creates no individual right of action and establishes no precedent for future determinations.

FAA website:

FAA Extends Remote ID Enforcement Date Six Months

Wednesday, September 13, 2023

Drone pilots who are unable to comply with the broadcast requirement of the Remote ID Rule will now have until March 16, 2024, to equip their aircraft. After that date, operators could face fines and suspension or revocation of pilot certificates. 

In making this decision, the FAA recognizes the unanticipated issues that some operators are experiencing finding some remote identification broadcast modules. 

Drone pilots can meet this deadline by purchasing a standard Remote ID equipped drone from a manufacturer or purchasing a Remote ID broadcast module which can be affixed to existing drones that do not have Remote ID equipment.

Remote ID acts like a digital license plate and will help the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms:

DoC:  Declaration of Compliance

MoC: Means of Compliance

RID:  Remote Identification

SRID: Standard Remote Identification

sUAS:  Small Unmanned Aircraft System.  A sUAS is greater than 0.55 lbs and less than 55 lbs

FPV Freedom Coalition Comments on FAA Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection

FPV Freedom Coalition comments:

As described in the background section, starting in that paragraph’s 3rd sentence:

These limitations require the FAA to recognize community-based organizations (CBOs), develop and administer an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, establish fixed flying sites, approve standards and limitations for unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds, and designate FAA Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs).

The FAA describes FAA Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs). The burden associated with establishing FRIAs, information requested, and the application process have been dramatically underestimated by the FAA in its Programmatic Environmental Assessment FRIA document, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/03/2023-06805/notice-of-availability-of-the-draft-programmatic-environmental-assessment-pea-for-faa-recognized

In this document, the FAA estimated the total number of FRIAs at 4,000. One of the four CBO’s, the AMA has 2,600 flying sites in the USA and represents 5% of the population of recreational sUAS operators. The AMA’s stated desire is for all their 2,600 sites to be approved by the FAA as FRIAs. If one FRIA were established for every twenty sUAS operators, that would require approximately 79,000 FRIAs, or 19.75 times as many as the FAA has estimated.

The administration of FRIA applications has been and is likely to continue to be a significant resource burden for the FAA and all the Community Based Organizations. As this document (FAA-2023-1480) describes information that will be requested of 44809 sUAS operators, AND, the FAA has mentioned FRIAs, we ask the FAA to revisit this request and add a request for information and add the description and burden of FRIA approval. Given the number of FRIAs approved to date and the anticipated continued backlog of applications going into at least the next two years, significant resources will be required by the FAA as well as all four CBOs.

FAA Source documents:

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. FAA–2023–1480]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Continued Approval of Information Collection: Limited Recreational Unmanned Aircraft
Operation Applications
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to continue information collection. The collection involves information related to recreational flying under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft. The information collected will be used to recognize Community Based Organizations (CBOs), administer an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, establish fixed flying sites, approve standards and limitations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) weighing more than 55 pounds, and designate FAA Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs).

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:

By Electronic Docket:

www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into search field).

By mail: Alvin A Brunner, AFS–830/

SPS, 800 Independence Ave. SW,

Washington, DC 20591.

By email: alvin.a.brunner@faa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Alvin Brunner by email at: alvin.a.brunner@faa.gov; phone: (405) 666–1024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for FAA’s performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB’s clearance of this information collection.

OMB Control Number: 2120–0794.

Title: Limited Recreational Unmanned Aircraft Operation Applications.

Form Numbers: Online collection.

Type of Review: Continued information collection.

Background: In 2018, Congress passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115–254). Section 44809 of Public Law 115–254 allows a person to operate a small unmanned aircraft (UA) without specific certification or operating authority from the FAA if the operation adheres to certain limitations. These limitations require the FAA to recognize community-based organizations (CBOs), develop and administer an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, establish fixed flying sites, approve standards and limitations for unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds, and designate FAA Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs). The information will be collected online, primarily through the FAA’s DroneZone website. The information collected will be limited to only that necessary for the FAA to complete a review of an application under the following statutory requirements:

• Section 44809(c)(1), Operations at Fixed Sites

• Section 44809(c)(2)(a), Standards and Limitations—UA Weighing More Than 55 Pounds

• Section 44809(c)(2)(b), Operations at Fixed Sites—UA Weighing More Than 55 Pounds

• Section 44809(g)(1), Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test

• Section 44809(i), Recognition of Community-Based Organizations

Respondents: Individuals and organizations operating under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft who wish to be recognized as CBOs, administer the aeronautical knowledge and safety test, establish fixed flying sites, have standards and limitations for unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds approved, and establish designated FRIAs.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies depending on the type of stakeholder application. Fixed flying site applications (including more than 55 pound UAS and FRIA) are estimated to take 0.5 hours per applicant. CBO recognition and more than 55 pound UAS standards and limitations applications are estimated to take 1.0 hours per applicant.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: Varies depending on the type of stakeholder application. CBO recognition and more than 55 pound UAS standards and limitations applications are not recurring, resulting in a one-time annual burden of 1 hour per application. However, this number can vary greatly as incomplete applications are quickly denied, but complete application that include over 55 pound UAS can take two or more hours. Fixed flying site applications are required to be updated/renewed annually, resulting in a total annual burden of 0.5 hours per year. The FAA estimates 25 CBO recognition/more than 55 pound UAS standards and limitations applications in the first year, totaling 25 hours. Fixed flying site applications (including more than 55 pound UAS and FRIA) are expected to number around 200 applications per year, totaling 100 hours.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 2, 2023.

D.C. Morris,

Aviation Safety Analyst, Flight Standards Service, General Aviation and Commercial Division.

[FR Doc. 2023–16852 Filed 8–4–23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

Section 44809(c)(1), Operations at Fixed Sites

(c) Operations at Fixed Sites.-
(1) Operating procedure required.-Persons operating unmanned aircraft under subsection (a) from a fixed site within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, or a community-based organization conducting a sanctioned event within such airspace, shall make the location of the fixed site known to the Administrator and shall establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the air traffic control facility.

Section 44809(c)(2)(a), Standards and Limitations—UA Weighing More Than 55 Pounds

(2) Unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds.-A person may operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds, including the weight of anything attached to or carried by the aircraft, under subsection (a) if-

(A) the unmanned aircraft complies with standards and limitations developed by a community-based organization and approved by the Administrator; and

Section 44809(c)(2)(b), Operations at Fixed Sites—UA Weighing More Than 55 Pounds

(B) the aircraft is operated from a fixed site as described in paragraph (1).

Section 44809(g)(1), Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test

(g) Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test.-(1) In general.-Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, other industry stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, which can then be administered electronically by the Administrator, a community-based organization, or a person designated by the Administrator.

Section 44809(i), Recognition of Community-Based Organizations

(i) Recognition of Community-based Organizations. -In collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180 days of the date of enactment of this section that identifies the criteria and process required for recognition of community-based organizations.

Dave Messina, President & CEO, FPV Freedom Coalition
dmessina@fpvfc.org
October 5, 2023

FAA's Request to Update our Safety Guidelines

On March 10, FPVFC President Dave Messina received a phone call from the FAA requesting that we update our safety guidelines.  Specifically to update our night operations and add something for FPV racing.  The request to add guidelines specific to FPV racing are particularly odd as we already have guidelines specifically about racing sprinkled throughout the document.

As a result of this phone call, we sent the following response to the FAA with updated sections on night operations and FPV racing.

In short, we reiterated what the FAA specifies about night operations in the 44809 rules and then copied all the FPV racing guidelines into a new section.

New Suggested Additions to our Safety Guidelines

Night Operations:

1.      Night Operations - Under 49 U.S.C. Section 44809(a)(3), recreational flyers or VOs must maintain VLOS through the flight, including when operating at night.

a. Night flight is permitted in areas that are sufficiently illuminated so that recreational flyers or VOs can maintain VLOS of the aircraft through the flight and identify potential ground or airborne hazards. 

b. Prior to your flight at night, check for obstacles that may not be easily seen in the dark.

c. Lighting on the sUAS should not pose a hazard or cause distraction to the flyer or VO.

d. Additional background information is available at FAA-H-8083- 3C, Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 11, Night Operations.

FPV Racing operations:

No FPV Race flight operation should take place in an area or manner that disrupts or poses a danger to any of the following:

○ a. Emergency response efforts, to include law enforcement actions, fire response actions, or military actions, unless the operator is actively engaged in the operation with proper clearance from the authorities. 

○ b. Areas where crowds of people gather, to include sporting, musical, or political events. 

○ c. Civil infrastructure, to include power, water, and transportation facilities. 

Set-back distances for FPV racing:

The FPVFC recommends two sets of set-back distances:  One for micro-UAS aircraft and one for FPV racing within an outdoor race course.  Micro-UAS racing takes place both indoors and outside.  These aircraft normally have shrouded props and are under 250 grams All Up Weight.  The amount of kinetic energy these micro aircraft can transfer in a crash is very small.  And, as technology improves, these aircraft are expected to get lighter.  For these reasons, the FPVFC recommends no set-back restrictions for micro-UAS FPV racing.

For larger FPV aircraft which use outdoor race courses and today are typified by 5” propellers, the FPVFC recommends a 25-foot set-back between the race course 

and the pilots, VO’s and spectators.  FPV racing is unlike model airplane pylon racing where the aircraft fly at high speed around pylons and the risk of over-flight of spectators is great due to the courses being made up of fly straight, then turn.  In contrast, a FPV race course is highly three dimensional where a pilot must fly to a gate and for example circle around it or fly up or down the gate.  In other words, a FPV racer spends much of the race maneuvering around a gate and not flying long, straight flight paths toward the pilots or spectators.

In case of emergency at an FPV Race:

Emergencies during a FPV race:  Like other types of racing, if a vehicle can cross a finish line, there is no emergency.  In auto racing, a car must not pose a safety risk to other cars and drivers.  FPVFC considers FPVFC Safety Guidelines for FPV racing states:  If a UA in a race poses minimal threat to pilots, race operation personnel or spectators, no emergency exists.  To be clear, this means if a prop is badly chipped or if a battery is dangling from a FPV racing drone, the racer is encouraged to continue racing so long as only a minimal safety risk is posed to pilots, race operations personnel or spectators.  

Unanticipated people or aircraft entering the area of operation:

FPV Races normally fly no higher than 50 to 75 feet AGL.  Therefore, it would be in the most unusual circumstances that a manned or crewed aircraft enter the airspace volume where a FPV race is taking place.  If that happens, these actions should be followed.

As sUAS, we must give way to all manned or crewed aircraft.  So if a crewed aircraft enters your area of operation, fly away from the crewed aircraft or disarm, whichever is safer, as soon as possible.

If people enter the area of operation, the race coordinators will manage the situation.  Likely, the race will be stopped until the people are cleared from the race course.  

Parts or attachments of the sUAS become lose or break off:

A FPV race is a controlled, very low altitude (less than 50 to 75 feet AGL) operation.  Parts may become loose on a FPV sUAS.  As long as no safety risk is posed to the pilot, race operations or spectators, the FPV racer is encouraged to continue the race.  

Electrical arcing or battery or component fire:

It is highly unusual for a sUAS to arc or catch on fire in the air.  Normally, the most likely time of a fire is if a FPV sUAS is in a bad crash and the battery remains connected.  If the battery is punctured, it will likely catch on fire and it should be handled as if it will immediately catch fire.  Keep a fire extinguisher on hand for such an emergency.

In the highly unlikely event of an in-air fire, the best thing to do is, switch failsafe to ON (assumes you have set failsafe on a switch), or shut off the transmitter to engage Failsafe.  

Alcohol or Drugs and Drones don’t mix:

Crewed aircraft pilots have learned many acronyms to remind them to be extra safe.  The FPVFC recommends not drinking or taking recreational drugs and flying in FPV races.  FPV Racers should not fly while taking prescription drugs if the drug interferes with the racer’s ability to operate the sUAS safely. 

The FPVFC participated in a Drone Advisory Committee Safety Culture Tasking Group in 2021.  One of the major ideas that came out of that Tasking and was agreed to by the FAA is with Safety, One Size Does Not Fit All.  In other words, Safety guidelines should be proportional to the risk.  In other words, the following IMSAFE acronym has a different meaning if an FPV operator is flying a micro sUAS or participating in a FPV race with a 5” propped sUAS.  Common sense is required to understand the operation and what level of IMSAFE is unsafe.

Stress is a normal part of competition.  Like all the FPVFC Safety Guidelines, we encourage a commonsense interpretation.  We include Stress in this section of the FPVFC Safety Guidelines to mean a level of stress that would prevent a FPV operator from controlling his or her UA safely.  We expect and love the stress and excitement of participating in FPV racing.  That said, we recommend that FPV racers not fly UA’s when their level of stress is so high they cannot fly safely.

Another aspect of stress in recreational FPV should be noted.  We have experienced and have FPV community members share with us that a leading attribute of FPV UA flight is stress relief.  This is so profound that individuals with chronic pain or suffering from PTSD convey to us that FPV flight helps relieve stress.  We point this out to again emphasize common sense.  If an individual has had a difficult day and takes a FPV UA flight to relieve stress, we assume this individual is able to control the UA safely.  And,the level of risk is proportional to the safety precautions taken.

Fatigue.  Fatigue is an accepted component in any competition.  Fatigue in FPV racing is no different.  FPV racers should stop racing if they are fatigued to a point of being incapable of racing.  Once again, the level of risk to pilots, people involved in the race and spectators is low at any time in a FPV race.  These are small UA’s flying away from a group.

FAA Response

The FAA then asked us to provide them with a complete copy of the new guidelines, not just the sections that were changed.  As a result of this, they took the opportunity to review ALL the guidelines and provide suggestions for changes, which as you know, were just approved by the FAA back in the middle of December, just 3 months ago.

FAA Comments on Night Operations

Lighting on the sUAS should not pose a hazard or cause distraction to the flyer or VO.

"This is where anti-collision lights need to be mentioned.  Also no mention of navigation/position lighting so as to see and ascertain the direction of flight.  Both of these aspects are critical to safe operations at night."  – FAA

Additional background information is available at FAA-H-8083- 3C, Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 11, Night Operations.

"Recommend this have more firm direction on the physiological aspects of night flight.  Words like members must or should read...  Knowing one’s physical limitations is critical to safe operations at night." – FAA

FAA Comments on FPV Racing

The FPVFC recommends two sets of set-back distances:  One for micro-UAS aircraft and one for FPV racing within an outdoor race course.  Micro-UAS racing takes place both indoors and outside.  These aircraft normally have shrouded props and are under 250 grams All Up Weight.  The amount of kinetic energy these micro aircraft can transfer in a crash is very small.  And, as technology improves, these aircraft are expected to get lighter.  For these reasons, the FPVFC recommends no set-back restrictions for micro-UAS FPV racing.

"Suggest add “additional” before “set back” since you have restrictions for no operations over people, which should include more direct language and add “near” with over people.  My 2₵" – FAA

For larger FPV aircraft which use outdoor race courses and today are typified by 5” propellers, the FPVFC recommends a 25-foot set-back between the race course and the pilots, VO’s and spectators.

"Is there an upper limit?  Should specify one." – FAA

FPV racing is unlike model airplane pylon racing where the aircraft fly at high speed around pylons and the risk of over-flight of spectators is great due to the courses being made up of fly straight, then turn.  In contrast, a FPV race course is highly three dimensional where a pilot must fly to a gate and for example circle around it or fly up or down the gate.  In other words, a FPV racer spends much of the race maneuvering around a gate and not flying long, straight flight paths toward the pilots or spectators.

"Pylon racing long part is parallel to the safe spectator line.  If the UAs are constantly maneuvering, is 25ft really enough for the speeds at which the UAs operate?  If they are moving quickly 25ft is likely not enough.  What about netting?  What else?" – FAA

If a UA in a race poses minimal threat to pilots, race operation personnel or spectators, no emergency exists.

"No additional risk is better" – FAA

To be clear, this means if a prop is badly chipped or if a battery is dangling from a FPV racing drone, the racer is encouraged to continue racing so long as only a minimal safety risk is posed to pilots, race operations personnel or spectators.

"How about no increased risk?  The racers must pose no undue risk to persons." – FAA

If people enter the area of operation, the race coordinators will manage the situation. 

(referring to race coordinators) "Who are they?  How does FPVFC select or train them?  Are they just a person on site charged with race supervision or what?" – FAA

Likely, the race will be stopped until the people are cleared from the race course. 

"Hopefully people are nowhere near the course let alone on it.  What about boundary security to prevent trespass or observers to halt the race should someone approach?"

Then in reference to the section we have called, "Alcohol or Drugs and Drones don't mix", the FAA stated:

"This area is covered in the normal part so does it also need to be here, perhaps other than mentioning all other guidelines apply?" – FAA

FAA Comments on the rest of our existing, previously approved safety guidelines

Guidelines: The Statue for Recreational UAS stipulates that in order to fly legally, a Recreational operator must adhere to the Safety Guidelines of a Community Based Organization. As these guidelines are not statue, they are presented as recommendations.

"Regardless they must be followed by law.  It does not give one the latitude to do things outside of these guidelines.  Not following safety guidelines is the same as not following the law.  Hence some language should be more directive." – FAA

We have also gained agreement in the submitted and accepted BVLOS Aviation Rulemaking Committee final report that FPV IMPROVES situational awareness. 

"This could confuse some into thinking that BVLOS is OK for recreational flyers.  consider deleting as it does nothing to further the point of VLOS and VOs for FPV. " – FAA

Authorization for Operations in Controlled Airspace:

"So are you saying FPVFC members must follow the AC?  You have copied what the FAA recommends so am I to assume you are including all this as FPVFC guidelines?  If so, then so state for clarity." – FAA

The Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST) requirement

"Same comment here as with airspace.  Could be more explicit as to what FPVFC dictates." – FAA

Appropriate failsafe programming of the FPV aircraft must be in place before any flight.

"Should be expanded to explain what is appropriate failsafe programing." – FAA

Operations over people are permitted under part 107 with equipment and operations restrictions. If your flying requires flight over people, the FPVFC recommends you take the exam to be certified as a part 107 pilot.

"Recommend deleting as it confuses 44809 and Part 107 operations. " – FAA

Flying over people could be dangerous and could be considered reckless.

"Disagree with your use of "could be".  Given untrained or certified operators and aircraft, flying over or near persons is hazardous, even in 107 operations unless Cat 1, 2, 3, or 4 or waiver per 107 is obtained." – FAA

For these reasons, FPVFC’s position on recreational operations over people is that it should be avoided.

"Recommend stronger language such as must be avoided or simply "Do not fly over or near persons to avoid creating a hazardous situation." – FAA

Crewed aircraft pilots have learned many acronyms to remind them to be extra safe.

"So what?  Is this applicable?" – FAA 

Reporting safety incidents:
The FPVFC has been accepted as a member of the FAA-Industry Drone Safety Team in early 2022. On October 20, 2022, Co-Chairs of the DST, Abby Smith and Pete DuMont presented current and planned activities of the DST. One of the activities Pete presented is being led by Dave Messina, President and CEO of FPVFC. The action is an ad hoc committee to recommend changes to the UAS ASRS (Unmanned Aerial System Aviation Safety Reporting System). The UAS ASRS was constituted under AC 00-46F. The UAS ASRS is funded by the FAA and managed by NASA. The UAS ASRS provides an anonymous reporting of safety incidents which are published for the public’s, industry’s and government’s use.

The ASRS was created for manned aircraft in April 1976 to help lower the number of fatalities resulting from aircraft crashes. As electric powered sUAS have had zero fatalities, the FPVFC’s view is a great use of the UAS ASRS would be to create a repository of safety incidents which will provide a better understanding of trends and risks of sUAS operations. As the FPVFC is already engaged in the improvement of the UAS ASRS, the FPVFC anticipates it will continue advocating the use of the UAS ASRS. In particular, the UAS ASRS can be of immediate benefit by providing a repository of best safety practices. For recreational sUAS, the FPVFC considers the following areas where use of the UAS ASRS would benefit the community:

● Battery Safety
● Preflight checklist
● Propeller Safety
● Get authorization to fly
● In-flight best practices
● Post flight inspection

"This whole section is a lot of self promotion and ASRS verbiage.  Why not say use ASRS?  If using ASRS great, but how is FPVFC to know and react to reported incidents?  FPVFC has not stated it has a safety reporting system upon which it can act.  Recommend you put one in place." – FAA

Our guidelines have the following in the definitions section:

Night Flight. As defined by the FAA, it is flight during the period between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight. For us in recreational UAS, a good rule of thumb is just turn on the anti-collision light during dusk, dawn and night time.

"More than a good rule of thumb it should be included in your night section as mentioned in the update." – FAA

Additional Feedback

The FAA also stated that, "This process of coordination is to ensure a minimum level of safety is attained for recreational operations in the NAS."

February 2023 FPVFC Newsletter

It's been a long time since our last newsletter and we have been very busy.  Here are just a few of the highlights.

FPV Freedom Coalition recognized by the FAA as a Community Based Organization

In December, the FAA announced two new Community Based Organizations.  The FPV Freedom Coalition and our friends, the Flite Test Community Association. Being recognized as an official CBO opens many new doors for us, including the ability to apply for FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIAs).  See our BLOG post for more details.

Accomplishments

Curious what the FPVFC has been up to the past few years?  Check out our recently released list of accomplishments.

2023 FAA Reauthorization

Every 5 years congress must reauthorize the FAA.  Back in 2018 the reauthorization of the FAA brought about many changes to our hobby.  We expect this to be true again in 2023.  Therefore it is very important that we share our thoughts and concerns with our representatives that are responsible for the next reauthorization.  See our Congressional Outreach page for more information on how you can help.

Meet our new Core Members!

Please join us in welcoming two new core members to the FPVFC team.  

First up is VP of Governmental Affairs, It's Blunty, who joined us back in September of 2022.  Many of you probably already know him as host of the weekly FPV news program with Joshua Bardwell.  His experience working with government regulations and his passion for technology are just some of the assets he brings to the FPVFC.

In January 2023 we welcomed our newest core member, Rob Robertson.  Rob comes to the FPV Freedom Coalition core team with 15 years of law enforcement experience and aspires to benefit the FPV community with his influence and experience by sharing his knowledge with recreational and professional pilots across the country.  

AAAC Tasking Group Updates

Ever since the last Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee ( AAAC ) meeting in October 2022, we have been hard at work on the two tasking groups that were announced.

Tasking group 14 is working on what the industry can do to move the recommendations made by the Beyond Visual Line of Sight Aviation Rulemaking Committee forward.

Tasking group 15 is asked to make recommendations on lessons learned and best practices related to drone community engagement methods.

Both of these tasking groups will present their findings at the next AAAC meeting in March.

Drone Safety Team, ad hoc Committee on UAS ASRS

As a member of the FAA-Industry, Drone Safety Team, we presented recommendations to make the UAS Aviation Safety Reporting System easier to use and accessible for Recreational operators and part 107 pilots. Reporting and monitoring is a key aspect of aviation safety and the recommendations of the committee make the UAS ASRS proportionate to the safety risks of sUAS. 

Community Meetings

Please join us for our regularly scheduled community meetings.  Every other Wednesday evening at 9pm Eastern, 6pm Pacific we host a community meeting in the general voice channel on our Discord server.  The meetings are also live streamed on YouTube.

FPVFC Welcomes Newest Core Team Member, Rob Robertson

Rob comes to the FPV Freedom Coalition core team with 15 years of law enforcement experience.  Supervising a team of 33 public safety UAS pilots, Rob has his part 107 and an FCC Radio Technician License.  Rob also conducts UAS operations for NFL, MLB, and NCAA events.  Outside of his occupation, Rob builds and flies FPV recreationally!

Rob’s perspective offers insight into the integration of FPV into public safety applications, enhancing safety for both citizens and first responders.  Rob aspires to benefit the FPV community with his influence and experience by sharing his knowledge with recreational and professional pilots across the country.  

Flite Test Community Association and FPV Freedom Coalition Form Partnership

Malden on Hudson, New York. March 18, 2022. FPV Freedom Coalition, Inc. announces a partnership with Flite Test Community Association, reinforcing its commitment to support everyone involved in recreational radio control and first person view small aircraft hobbies. FPV Freedom Coalition has worked since its formation to advocate the FAA for the rights of recreational small Unmanned Aircraft Systems pilots (drones) as well as model RC aircraft. The FPV Freedom Coalition has actively participated in nine FAA Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee tasking groups since 2019, was a selected member of the FAA Beyond Visual Line of Sight Aviation Rulemaking Committee which concluded in early March 2022 and was accepted in February 2022 onto the private-public Drone Safety Team, an organization of public and industry members, dedicated to the furtherance of safety for recreational and commercial Unmanned Aircraft.

“We have built Flite Test to over 2 million passionate people around the world who see model aviation as a way to educate children as well as build life-long relationships. With this partnership with FPV Freedom Coalition, we provide the Flite Test Community Association with an experienced team who has volunteered a lot of their time to ensure we can continue to fly models in our local communities.”, said Josh Bixler, President, Flite Test, LLC.

“We got to know Josh Bixler, Flite Test President, when we both volunteered to work on a FAA AAAC Tasking Group relating to integrating aviation-specific STEM into K-12 curricula across the country.  It was clear that Josh and I share a passion for aviation as well as giving kids an opportunity to try building and flying model aircraft.  We look forward to working with Josh and his Flite Test Community Association team and FTCA members to share the work we are doing with the FAA and to understand and advocate for how they want regulations shaped.” said David Messina, President & CEO, FPV Freedom Coalition.

FPV Freedom Coalition is an all-volunteer,  501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization with a strong reputation for effective advocacy of recreational UAS pilots.  FPV Freedom Coalition was formed in early 2019.

Flite Test Community Association is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization with the objective of supporting their members through education and advocacy, and is designed to be the hub where people can identify with a community that can rally together to promote the future of model aviation.

FPV Freedom Coalition may be contacted at dmessina@fpvfc.org, or (914) 646-5258.

Flite Test Community Association may be contacted at support@flitetest.com.

FPV Freedom Coalition and Pilot Institute Partnership

We are happy to announce that the FPV Freedom Coalition is partnering up with Pilot Institute as a leading provider of training for the growing drone community. Their online courses are geared to help you get the information you need to understand the regulations and into the air safely.  Courses are available for both drones and full-size airplanes to help bridge the gap between the different segments in aviation. Pilot Institute backs their training with a guarantee that users will pass the test the first time.   The Pilot Institute offers dozens of courses for drone users, many of which are low cost or even free! 

We at the FPVFC feel that the Pilot Institute is the best resource for pilots to gain the knowledge to successfully take to the skies, whether for recreational or for commercial operations. 

Dave Messina
President & CEO, FPV Freedom Coalition
Malden on Hudson, New York
dmessina@fpvfc.org

October 2020 DAC Meeting Highlights

On Thursday, October 22nd, the FAA held their Drone Advisory Committee ( DAC ) meeting and live streamed it via YouTube and Facebook.  And while I encourage everyone to go watch the entire event and read the accompanying "eBook", I know that most of you don't have the time to do that, so I'll try to hit some highlights of the meeting for you.

In case you are not familiar with it, according to the FAA, the DAC is “ a broad-based, long-term Federal advisory committee that provides the FAA with advice on key UAS integration issues by helping to identify challenges and prioritize improvements. The committee helps to create broad support for an overall integration strategy and vision.”

DAC charter is here: https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/drone_advisory_committee/media/DAC_Charter.pdf

The actual DAC meeting is basically a formality.  The majority of the work happens before the meeting and in the tasking groups.  So before the meeting even happens they publish what they call the “eBook”.  As I mentioned before, I encourage you all to read the eBook to get a much better sense of what goes on at the DAC.

Meeting Highlights

During the opening remarks, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao mentions there are 75 applications to fill the 6 vacancies on the DAC.  If you look in the eBook it lists the current DAC members and the 6 vacancies, including the "stakeholder group" each vacancy is associated with.  If you look closely, it is stacked very heavily with people from the commercial industry.  Both manned and unmanned.  We will get into this a little more later, but there does not appear to be a category for recreational flyers, nor is there any vacancy for such a group.  The closest thing we have to recreational representation is the AMA and they are in the "other" group.

The FAA then stated that they “hope to have any new members in place for the next DAC meeting” which is currently scheduled for early next year.  Which I take to mean some time around February 2021.

Task Group 8 on Safety Culture

Back at the DAC meeting in February 2020, the FAA tasked the DAC with answering the following question. "What  are  ways  we  can  help  the  drone  community  fully  adopt  the safety culture that is so engrained in manned aviation?"

Given that task, the DAC created 4 subgroups to find answers to that question.  The groups are:

1. Traditional Manned Aviation

2. Recreational/Community Operators

3. Small Commercial Operators

4. National UAS Operators

Manned Aviation Subgroup

First up was the manned aviation subgroup.  They presented 3 recommendations to the FAA, none of which really caught my attention and it was pretty clear they are thinking mainly of large scale commercial operations with their recommendations, not so much the small recreational users like myself.

Those 3 recommendations are:

1. The FAA should develop and adopt a UAS integration strategy that encourages “safety ownership” and a “learning culture” throughout the UAS community.

2. The FAA should develop and adopt a UAS integration strategy that fosters the safety culture tenets of “trust” and facilitates a “systemwide approach” toward ensuring UAS safety

3. The FAA should create a UAS integration strategy that helps to grow the safety culture tenets of “executive level leadership” and “organizational values” into the DNA of the UAS community. 

Recreational/Community Subgroup

Next was the recreational/community users sub group.  This is the one that is most relevant to me, and thus had the most interesting content as far as I was concerned.  This group also admitted they had a lot of cross over and close work with the small commercial operators group which the FPVFC president,  Dave Messina, was a part of.  And I can't help but believe that many of the good things I liked about what this sub group mentioned were influenced by Dave.

The first big noteworthy item that caught my attention was when they stated, “Aside from nefarious acts and outlier incidents, the subgroup could not identify a repeatable history of significant safety issues to mitigate. Therefore, the subgroup’s recommendations focus on how the FAA can educate, reduce potential risks, and build rapport and trust with recreational operators while integrating in the NAS.”

This basically calls out the fact that recreational use of a UAS over the past 100 years has been extremely safe, and thus even the question the task group was asked was a little bit misleading and unnecessary.  I really hope the FAA also takes note of this particular sentence and understands what it is saying.

They go on to say, “The FAA should work with the community, influencers, events, and grassroots efforts to build trust among the drone community. The subgroup strongly recommends FAA’s participation at UAS recreational events”

Here the subgroup is suggesting that the FAA do a much better job of building trust with the community.  I know in the FPV world, there is basically zero trust for the FAA.  The FAA has a lot of work and a long road ahead of them to attempt to gain the trust of these recreational flyers and the Remote ID NPRM released last December did a LOT of harm to whatever trust there might have been.  I'll be very curious to see if the FAA does any outreach to "influencers" like Bruce Simpson, Mr. Steele, Joshua Bardwell, etc.  Or maybe their numbers/influence is not big enough?  

“The FAA should attend events with the primary intent of education and trust building and not to impose their authority on regulatory and policy matters.”  Would also be interesting to see what would happen if the FAA sent representation to events like MultiGP IO.

This group also made this very important statement, “The FAA should further integrate recreational UAS manufacturers, community-based organizations, and recreational stakeholder leaders into its advisory and policy processes, so that this long-standing and evolving segment of recreational aviation has an equivalent seat at the table to segments of manned aviation.” If I wrote this statement, I would add that recreational stakeholders need a seat at the table equivalent to manned aviation and commercial UAS interests.  Right now recreational use of UAS seems largely forgotten entirely in the regulations and as I mentioned in the beginning, there is no group as part of the DAC that represents recreational flyers.  Only the AMA being stuck in the "others" group.  Despite recreational UAS having the largest numbers.  So I totally agree here, the DAC needs to add more recreational representation and the FAA needs to dedicate more seats at all the tables to this group.

This group then reiterated that “One size does not fit all” when it comes to UAS regulations and  again, I completely agree.  Regulations ( based on risk ) for your tiny whoop in your backyard are not the same as a drone delivering an organ transplant to a hospital or someone flying a large scale model aircraft, or someone trying to fly many miles beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS).  Different activities have different risk and thus deserve different regulations.

And finally, this group mentioned that, “The FAA should educate the general public to help promote a culture of safety through a greater understanding and acceptance of UAS.”  Absolutely.  The general public appears to have an unjustified fear of "drones".  If there is anything the FAA can do to educate the population and show drones in a positive light, perhaps many cities and states would not be so quick to create anti drone regulations on their own.

Small Commercial Operators Subgroup

The third subgroup to give their recommendations was the Small Commercial Operators group with a presentation given by Dave Messina ( FPV Freedom Coalition President).  So while not an official DAC member, he has been working hard as a part of the subcommittee trying to give the perspective of a recreational FPV pilot, with some success.  He has also applied to be a member of the DAC.  Hopefully that will happen, but as I mentioned earlier, there is no vacancy for a recreational representative.  But the recreational subgroup did tell the FAA they need more recreational representation.

Dave mentions that there are approximately 1.3 million recreational pilots in the USA, or 7 times more than the number of commercial operators.  And yet there is only 1 DAC member representing a small portion of recreational users?  How does that make any sense?

This group recommended a FRAT or Flight Risk Assessment Tool to be used before every flight.  For example there would be a series of simple questions in your LAANC app that you would read before you fly.  This would be a view only thing.  Not something you would fill out and submit to the FAA.  So really just a quick reminder to help you assess the risk of your planned flight.

One final highlight from this group , posted in the eBook, was the statement, "While the Safety Culture Small Commercial subgroup recognizes the inherent risks of integrating UAS in the NAS, it is important to note Small Commercial UAS operations have had zero deaths in the U.S".  So, like the recreational group, they are pointing out that it is very hard to beat a perfect safety record when it comes to deaths caused by UAS in the US.  So again we ask, what are the risks UAS pose and where is the risk assessment the FAA is required to do to justify increased regulations?

National UAS Operators

This group talked about the fact that complex activities should require more safety policies and procedures and less complex BVLOS and line of sight activities should have a more graduated approach.  To which I completely agree.  Again, one size does not fit all.  There should be much less regulation involved in flying a small model aircraft at an AMA field or recreationally flying FPV in your back yard vs flying a cargo delivery across state lines or inspecting hundreds of miles of railway.

“Risk-based/performance-based safety policies should be leveraged to ensure safe operating requirements are a natural fit with the overall operation and the established safety culture of the organization.”  Again, a good point that I agree with and one more time, where is the risk assessment behind the remote ID regulations?

Thank You Slide

As a hard working volunteer for the FPV Freedom Coalition, it was nice to see the FPVFC listed on the thank you slide.

Q&A For Tasking Group 8

James Burgess from Google’s Wing corporation wanted to bring attention to the fact that there are no existing safety and risk issues with UAS today.  He highlights performance based and risk based regulations quite a few times which gives a glimpse into the thoughts about UAS regulations at Wing.  This also helps explain why the Wing Remote ID response was so positive in my eyes.

FAA Response to Previous Task Group Submissions

The UAS Facility Maps group suggested that the FAA shrink the grids used for LAANC.The FAA agrees and is working on implementing this in late 2021.

What about Shielded Operations?  Why did the FAA not respond at all to that part of the recommendation? If you read the eBook for this meeting you will see that this group made a big deal about shielded operations like is currently in use in New Zealand.  However during the FAA response to this section they completely ignored anything to do with shielded operations.  Why?

New Tasking from the FAA to the DAC

The manned aircraft community believes remote ID is probably inadequate to affect safety, and is mostly security centered, which I also agree with.  It’s not about safety even though that has been what we have been told over and over again.  The manned aircraft community states, “Any solutions should integrate with current avionics (EFB, ADS-B).”  Which is exactly the opposite of what the FAA and the NRPM have stated.

It seems like the FAA didn’t like the responses they got from the manned aviation community so they want to ask the question again.  So they are asking the DAC, “Can Remote ID be used to increase situational awareness between manned aviation that routinely operates at low altitudes away from airports and UAS operating in the same airspace? ” Curious to see if they will get the answers they are looking for this time.

Final Discussion

Near the end, James Burgess from Googe’s WING gives us a glimpse into his history and how model aviation at a young age got him into aviation.  Again, this is possibly the reason that Wing’s NPRM response was very favorable to hobbyists. 

Final Thoughts

What can we do to get more people actively involved with UAS regulations?  I did as much as I could think of to spread the word that this meeting was taking place, yet of the 1.3 million recreational flyers in the US ( and many more around the world ) only about 180 people were watching on YouTube and another 125 on Facebook ( I know, this is during the day and most of you have to work, but a few days later and the YouTube video only has 2k views).  The most common response I got when sharing links to the stream was, "I don't care, I'm going to fly no matter what the rules are".  How can we show the FAA that we exist and in large numbers when possibly the majority of "us" are not willing to let the FAA know we are here?

Drone Advisory Committee meeting - 10/22/20

DAC meeting this week

This Thursday, 10/22/20, the FAA will host a Drone Advisory Committee meeting.  The DAC is a leading body to provide requirements to the FAA on UAS.  This is a formal advisory committee and is guided by the Department of Transportation.

The FAA creates "Tasking Groups" which are problem statements in the form of a question.  The Tasking Group, led by a DAC member and staffed by DAC and non-DAC members from General Aviation (manned) and UAS includes representatives from manufacturers, associations and operators who research the question and create recommendations.  Nominally, these groups meet weekly and each member is expected to research the topic and contribute documents to the team as well as assist in writing up the recommendations.  This normally takes about 10 meetings.

Our philosophy in the FPV Freedom Coalition is to work from within to help shape UAS regulations.  To that end, I've worked on these Tasking Groups since June of 2019 including Remote ID, BVLOS C2 spectrum, UAS Facility Maps, UTM and Safety Culture.  I had the privilege of representing a great team when I presented the UAS Facility Map recommendations on 2/27/20 in Washington, DC.  In addition, I led the sub-group on C2 Spectrum. 

This week, the FAA will respond to the DAC recommendations on UAS Facility Maps and UTM.  I have worked in a company that is ten times larger than the FAA so things don't move quickly and frequently, the responses from the FAA are not what we want.  For example, the FAA's response to our Remote ID recommendations was essentially, "thank you for the comments".  We understood this had to be their position as the NPRM comment period was still open when the response was made on February 27, 2020.  That said, this is the best process we have available to us and we are engaged and optimistic.

This week I'll have the privilege once again of representing another team from General Aviation and UAS manufacturers, associations and operators on the subject of how small businesses may take advantage of manned aviation's safety culture experience to ingrain a safety culture within the UAS community.  I also participated in the recreational UAS sub-group which will be presented by the AMA. 

If you can, check out the live stream of the virtual event.  The info is below.  Also, as noted, the FAA will record the live-stream and post it on their YouTube channel.

The next FAA Drone Advisory Committee meeting will be held on October 22, 2020, between 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

The meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public who wish to observe the virtual meeting can access the livestream from either of the following FAA social media platforms on the day of the event, https://www.facebook.com/​FAA or https://www.youtube.com/​FAAnews. For copies of meeting minutes along with all other information please visit the DAC internet website at https://www.faa.gov/​uas/​programs_​partnerships/​drone_​advisory_​committee/​.

Thank you for supporting the FPV Freedom Coalition.

Dave Messina

David Messina Named New CEO of FPV Freedom Coalition

December 12, 2019, New York.  FPV Freedom Coalition, LLC announces the promotion of David W. Messina to President and CEO of FPV Freedom Coalition.  Mr. Messina had been the President of the FPVFC since its incorporation in December 2018 and will retain his duties of President.  Mr. Chad Kapper had been CEO and Board Chair of the FPV Freedom Coalition and retains his title of Board Chair. These changes are effective immediately.

“Dave has over four decades of business experience and is a passionate FPV pilot.  Working with founding members of the FPV Freedom Coalition, Dave and the team established themselves as a voice for FPV recreational fliers with the FAA and have created educational resources as well.  My position as CEO of Rotor Riot has kept me busy around the clock and Dave has stepped up to lead the FPV Freedom Coalition since we incorporated as a not-for-profit.”, Chad Kapper, Chairman of the Board, FPVFC and CEO, Rotor Riot, LLC.

“We have had success working with the FAA through the Drone Advisory Committee’s Tasking Groups and we are becoming known to many leaders in the drone industry.  Also, as a team we listen to the FPV community as the essence of FPV fliers is to share the experience of flying and we want to ensure we can fly where we want to fly and do it safely.”, David Messina, President and CEO, FPV Freedom Coalition.

Please direct any questions to dmessina@fpvfc.org.

FVP Freedom Coalition, LLC, is a non-stock, 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation with the mission of fostering the freedoms of recreational FPV pilots, enhancing our culture through defined safety guidelines and effective educational resources while protecting the privilege to access the abundant airspace.

November 11, 2019 - FPV Freedom Coalition announcement

FPV Freedom Coalition, LLC
November 11, 2019
Press Release

November 11, 2019. Malden on Hudson, New York, FPV Freedom Coalition announcement.  The First Person View Freedom Coalition, LLC (FPVFC) announces today the promotion of Dan Oachs to Director of Technology and Regulations, FPVFC and David Wallace as Director of Marketing, FPVFC, a new position within the not-for-profit corporation, both effective immediately.

Dan Oachs has been with FPVFC since it’s conceptual stages, before incorporating in December 2018 and before gaining 501(c)(3) status in February 2019.  Dan has provided technical leadership as well as insight into National Airspace regulations for FPV Drones and fixed wing aircraft. Dan is an avid FPV pilot who’s videos may be found with the callsign, “5zero7”.  Dan is also a member of the IT team at Gustavus Adolphus College.

David Wallace has worked as a Marketing professional with online marketing, web design and online marketing strategies for over 20 years with prior experience at FLIR Systems and Entercom Radio.  In 2013, David and his wife founded Musimack Marketing, LLC where they provide professional marketing to customers across the US. David has had a lifelong interest in aviation and radio frequency technology, FPV has provided a joining of these two passions and David is also incorporating drone videography into his firm’s offerings.

I want to thank Dan for all of his contributions to FPVFC.  This promotion recognizes Dan’s constant effort to advocate for the FPV Community as well as create the outstanding web presence of FPVFC.  In addition, Dan has jumped in and helped all of us at FPVFC become subject matter experts in US drone (UAS) regulations.

I’m excited to bring in a Marketing professional to round out the FPVFC team!  With David Wallace’s Marketing experience and his passion for aviation we will be able to extend our reach to the US FPV community which we estimate to be 100,000 Fliers and growing!

The FPVFC mission is to foster the freedom of recreational FPV pilots, enhance the FPV culture through defined safety guidelines and effective educational resources while protecting the privilege to access abundant airspace.

David W. Messina, President, FPVFC

Please direct questions to Dave Messina at:  dmessina@fpvfc.org

FPVFC President, Dave Messina Interviewed by Joshua Bardwell

Our very own FPVFC President, Dave Messina, was recently interviewed by Joshua Bardwell. Have a listen as they discuss who the FPVFC is, where we came from, and where we hope to go in the future.

SkyWatch.AI - FPV Freedom Coalition Announce Joint Marketing

New York, June 5, 2019 The First Person View Freedom Coalition (FPVFC) and SkyWatch.AI On-Demand Drone Insurance have announced plans to jointly market each company’s capabilities.  FPVFC is a U.S.-based nonprofit with a mission to advocate for the rights of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) FPV aircraft pilots within the U.S. to fly safely in the National Airspace.   SkyWatch.AI is creating innovative, easy-to-use tools that allow drone pilots to have personalized, affordable, and flexible insurance plans while also empowering them to fly safely and manage their flights seamlessly.

With the rapidly expanding use of drones in the U.S., both companies encourage safe drones operations and promote recreational drone use as a hobby and educational aid.  SkyWatch.AI also provides on-demand drone insurance for commercial UAS operations.

FPVFC VP, Josh Cook, “Our members ask us for recommendations on what to fly, where to fly, how to fly and how to be safe.  We wanted to find a cost-effective primary insurance that covers liability as well as drone replacement and we feel SkyWatch.AI is a great solution for recreational FPV drone fliers.”

Skywatch.AI Head of U.S. Business Development, Brandon Packman, “SkyWatch.AI was founded in 2016 and has a strong analytic base in drone flight risk.  As we met with drone operators across the U.S., they told us they needed drone insurance and we saw the opportunity to build on our own risk assessment technology and offer both commercial and recreational drone insurance.  We are excited to have FPVFC’s endorsement and offer the U.S. FPV community not only liability but hull (drone replacement) insurance.”

SkyWatch.AI recreational insurance is available via mobile apps on both Android and Apple, as well as from their web portal for monthly policies at https://web.skywatch.ai.  SkyWatch.AI insurance may be purchased on-demand, by the hour or monthly.  And, SkyWatch.AI offers discounts up to 50% for safe flying and insurance experience, meaning the more you fly, the more you save!  Visit http://www.skywatch.ai for more information or search for SkyWatch.AI Drone Insurance on Google Play or the Apple App Store.

The FPVFC is a nonprofit organization created to advocate for recreational FPV pilots, foster the freedoms of recreational FPV pilots, and enhance the community’s culture through defined public safety guidelines and effective educational resources while protecting the privilege to access abundant airspace.  For more information, visit http://fpvfc.org.

FPVFC Response to the FAA's "Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft"

The Breakdown

Earlier this week, the FPV community was privy to a leaked memo regarding direction from the FAA to Air Traffic Control personnel to cease taking calls from sUAS pilots asking for authorization to fly in controlled airspace.  Controlled airspace is designated as Class B, C, D, and E respectively.  This leaves only Class G airspace available for recreational flights.  

The FAA has released the following today: Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft & Recreational Flyers and Modeler Community-Based Organizations

These documents constitute the official published document from the FAA explaining how recreational flyers are to operate under this new development, and what that means for the future.  

What does all this mean?

For now, it means a couple of things:

• 1. Recreational Flyers can not fly in any airspace other than Class G unless conducted under 14 CFR Part 107.

• 2. The FAA is working to get the LAANC (Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability) set up for recreational Flyers. It’s already in place for Part 107 flyers. Until LAANC is in place for recreational flyers, we can only fly in uncontrolled airspace.

• 3. Recreational flyers are required to follow the eight statutory conditions to be able to fly.  If even one of these is not adhered to, the flight might get the pilot into some measure of trouble.

  • The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

  • The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the FAA.

    • Currently, the FAA is not acknowledging ANY organization as a CBO, therefore they have been unable to work with anyone in development of safety guidelines. The FAA affirms that flying under the safety guidelines of an organization that does not conflict with established FAA rulings is adequate.  This includes the FPVFC Safety Guidelines.

  • The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator.

    • Again, this affirms that FPV flight is acceptable, if done so in combination with a Visual Observer or Spotter.

  • The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.

  • In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

    • As of right now, there is no way for recreational flyers to obtain prior authorization to fly in controlled airspace.  The FAA has stated that they are “committed to quickly implementing LAANC” with a rough ETA of this summer.  Once in place, potential access to controlled airspace will once again be open.

  • In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.

    • This has been in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 since the beginning.  For recreational flyers, this is a hard 400 feet above ground level (AGL), unlike for Part 107, which has the capability to fly up to an additional 400 feet above a structure.

    • Additionally, they note that recreational flyers may not fly in any designated restricted zone or prohibited airspace, deemed that way by matter of national security or emergency operations.

  • The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

    • Currently, as the FAA has not yet created the knowledge exam, they admit that satisfying this requisite is impossible.  Once the exam has been created, you will need to take and pass it, as well as keep the document that states a pass with you at all times when flying.

  • The aircraft is registered and marked and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.

    • As released earlier this year, it is now required to place your registration number on the OUTSIDE of your aircraft where it is visible, as opposed to inside a battery case, under a battery, under a component, etc.

What do I need to fly FPV recreationally today?

1. According to this release, in order to fly today within the guidelines of the FAA, you are required to register yourself as a recreational pilot at: https://faadronezone.faa.gov if your aircraft is between 250g ( 0.55 lbs) and 25kg (55 lbs).   It is also advised that you keep a copy of your registration card with you in case it is requested by FAA or FAA designee or law enforcement.

2. Fly using the FPVFC Safety Guidelines as your manual for safe flight.  Bring a copy with you (toss it in your flight bag!) so that if questioned, you have it handy.

3. Follow the above statutory conditions for flight under the Limited Recreational Operations, including having a visual observer / spotter.

4. In order to identify where you can fly in uncontrolled airspace, visit the FAA Facility Maps.  Here, you can locate your area and any area not covered by a grid is Class G airspace.  

What will be required in the near future?

The next several months may see quite a few changes, key among them is the knowledge exam.  Once that releases, every recreational flyer will be required to take and pass the exam to be able to fly.  Once passed, the recreational flyer will need to keep a copy of the document stating that you have taken and passed the exam readily available for examination upon request by public officials and law enforcement.  

The enhancement of the LAANC system to allow recreational use will open up the potentialavailability of more airspace in controlled areas, through prior authorization.  Generally, this approval happens very quickly, and the system so far has been successful for the Part 107 flyers.

With the upcoming community-based organization guidelines, the hobby will see the approval of CBO’s. Through this, the FAA will work together with each CBO to define safety guidelines under which it’s members (or non-members) will fly.  This recognition as a CBO might open doors through which these organizations can collaborate with the FAA to ensure our hobby continues to grow.

Remember we knew this would be rolling out at some point, and it really is as simple as a transition from being able to contact the local ATC for prior approval, to using the LAANC system.  There is going to be some down time in between, as all transitions are not seamless, however as always, we will adapt and overcome.  The FPV Freedom Coalition urges all recreational flyers to show good faith and follow these statutory requirements in order to show that we are willing to collaborate with the FAA to ensure the future of our hobby.

Highlights of the FPVFC’s Public Comments to the FAA

Responses to, “Safe and Secure Operations of Small UAS”

Stand-off distances.  The FAA asked for comments on an appropriate, required stand-off distance to fly Small UAS.  The FPVFC response was for Category 1, no stand-off distance should be required and for Categories 2 and 3, no stand-off distance should be required.  Instead, the kinetic energy limitations of 11 ft-lbs and 25 ft-lbs for Category 2 and 3 should provide sufficient safe operations.

Altitude, Airspeed and other Performance Limitations.  The FAA requested comments about establishing additional performance limitations.  The FPVFC responded the FAA should eliminate the maximum allowable speed of 87 knots for Category 2 and 3 SUAS under Part 107 as the kinetic energy limitations provide sufficient regulation.  For Category 1 SUAS, a speed limit of 87 knots is reasonable. In addition, FPVC requested no speed limit for recreational SUAS as the repeal of section 336, creates a gap of speed limits in SUAS regulations.

Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) Operations.  The FAA requested public comments for SUAS Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM).  FPVFC recommended that any SUAS flying at a designated flying field should be excluded from UTM.  The FPVC recommends for recreational UAS and Category 1 SUAS operating under Part 107, LAANC should be used and no UTM should be required.  The FPVFC recommends Category 2 and 3 SUAS operate under a UTM.

Payload Restrictions.  The FAA requested public comment about rules on SUAS payloads.  The FPVFC responded that Hobbyists, Category 1, 2 and 3 UAS should all be able to carry a video camera without restrictions.  

Small UAS critical system design requirements.  The FAA requested public comment on any technology requirements for commercial SUAS operations beyond visual line of sight.  The FPVFC responded that BVLOS of a Hobbyist SUAS and Category 1 SUAS should require GPS with coordinates transmitted to the remote pilot and no redundancy of equipment should be required.  For Category 2 and 3, FPVFC recommends a Return to Home capability as a requirement.

Responses to, “SUAS Operations over People”

In the proposed rules, the FAA states anyone building or modifying a Small UAS is by definition a manufacturer.  There will be numerous requirements for a Small UAS manufacturer including gaining approval by the FAA to fly the SUAS as well as logs of changes, etc.  much like the requirements for manned aircraft. FPVFC requested the FAA waive the definition of manufacturer for SUAS which are intended for recreational use.

In a similar topic, the proposed rule states adding a camera to an existing SUAS renders the SUAS non-compliant with safety regulations and therefore not eligible to fly over people or at night.  The FPVFC requests the FAA waive this requirement for SUAS intended for recreational use.

The FAA proposes three Category of commercial SUAS:

Category 1

• < 0.55 lbs AUW including cargo.

• Props may be exposed.

• May operate over people and at night with 107 certificate

Category 2

• > 0.55 lbs

• Limit of 11 ft-lbs of kinetic energy ref Section IV.B.4

• No exposed props (no exposed rotating parts)

• Manufacturer FAA certification required

• May operate over people and at night with 107 certificate

Category 3

• Limit of 25 ft-lbs of kinetic energy

• No exposed props (no exposed rotating parts)

• May not operate over people if the craft has a FAA-identified safety defect

• Manufacturer FAA certification required

• No operations over people.  If transiting through an area with people, no hovering

These categories are important to the FPV community if the FAA eventually determines all SUAS should fall into one of these categories.

The FPVFC’s response to this section was to copy text developed by, “Inside Unmanned Systems” where the authors dug into University research performed for the FAA where the FAA used a highly conservative interpretation of energy thresholds for category 2 and 3.  The statement copied and submitted to the FAA follows:

“The kinetic energy transfer figures in § 107.115 Category 2 operations (b) (1) (i) and § 107.120 Category 3 operations (b) (1) (i) are extremely conservative and will cripple the commercial UAS industry if adopted. The FAA should wait for the public release of the Task A14 Ground Collision Severity Study to allow the public and manufacturers to review the findings and make a public comment on the draft NPRM before proceeding. Valuable data will be available shortly that could guide the FAA and the public in addressing meaningful comments to the draft NPRM.

The FAA should remove § 107.105 Prohibition on operations over moving vehicles. No small UAS qualified for operations over people in category one, two and three would cause injury from collisions to occupants in moving vehicles. The FAA should not consider ground vehicle driver reaction to a small UAS collision. Collision with flying objects is a well-known driving hazard that all licenced drivers should be trained to encounter. Failure to remove § 107.105 will make the commercial UAS industry non-viable in this country. It is difficult to envision commercial UAS tasks that do not involve flying over moving vehicles in some manner.”

First Person View Freedom Coalition Announces Non-Profit Launch

Leading FPV pilot advocacy group receives 501(C)(3) approval and will seek Community Based Organization (CBO) status from FAA

New York - April 3, 2019 The First Person View Freedom Coalition (FPVFC), today announced its official launch as a non-profit organization, with a mission to advocate for the rights of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) FPV aircraft pilots within the U.S. to fly safely in the National Airspace. The FPV Freedom Coalition fosters the freedoms of recreational FPV pilots, and enhances the community’s culture through defined public safety guidelines and effective educational resources while protecting the privilege to access abundant airspace.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) recognizes Community Based Organizations (CBO) that represent segments of model aircraft pilots to help the FAA educate and shape National Airspace (NAS) regulations. The FAA requires CBOs to be 501(c)(3), non-profit organizations. The FPVFC incorporated in late 2018 and with its 501(c)(3) status will continue working with the FAA and are now able to seek CBO status.

“With the dramatic growth of drones and emerging industry regulations, we recognized that recreational drone pilots needed an advocate with the FAA. We created the FPVFC with the mission to foster the freedoms of recreational FPV pilots and help define safety guidelines and effective educational resources to protect access to abundant airspace,” said Chad Kapper, CEO Rotor Riot and CEO and Board Chair, FPVFC.

“The variety and adoption of drones across multiple industries is expanding every day. With the advent of innovative on-board hardware and software, we see a great opportunity to increase safety and accountability for commercial and recreational drones, as well as ensure the data and privacy of FPV pilots is kept absolutely secure. One of the efforts I hope to see with FPVFC is the advancement of universal industry standards so improved security becomes more pervasive across the board,” Jeff Thompson, CEO of Red Cat and FPVFC Board member.

To learn more and understand how to participate and help maintain flying privileges for the FPV pilot community visit http://fpvfc.org For questions, please contact Dave Messina, President, FPVFC at dmessina(at)FPVFC(dot)com or (914) 646-5258.

About First Person View Freedom Coalition
The FPV Freedom Coalition is a non-profit organization created to advocate for recreational FPV pilots through education and safety guidelines to protect the community’s access to ample airspace. Through this, the coalition protects the ability of FPV pilots to fly and to do so safely, armed with the knowledge that they need to interact with the general public in a positive and respectful way. Together, the coalition seeks to unite the community into a single voice through which its concerns and needs can be heard. For more information visit http://fpvfc.org.

FPV Freedom Coalition Launch FAQ

Q1:  How does the FPVFC relate to the AMA?
A1:  FPVFC is a separate organization from the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) with a number of common objectives.  The AMA has agreed to collaborate with FPVFC through open communication on regulatory issues, messaging and safety.

Q2:  I’ve read in the AMA magazine that they represent all recreational models including drones (sUAS) with the FAA.  Why did you see the need to create the FPVFC?
A2:  FPV pilots fly at a variety of locations.  That aspect of FPV dictates the need for a focus to ensure FAA regulations support flight beyond designated, permanent sites.

Q3:  Why do we need a FPV Knowledge Exam in addition to the FAA’s Part 107 Exam?
A3:  Assuming we gain FAA approval, our FPVFC Knowledge Exam would be less comprehensive than a FAA Part 107 and it would provide the FPV Pilot the privilege of recreational flight.  It is also a requirement for flight once Section 349 from the FAA Reauthorization act of 2018 goes live.

Q4: Why do you think you can get the FAA to accept any of your recommendations?
A4:  The FAA is required to listen to the public and they have created rules for groups to be able to provide input on rules and regulations.  The FPVFC has done what the FAA requires so we may represent a group. Specifically, in order to represent a group to the FAA, the FAA requires the group to be a Community Based Organization.  To be a CBO, the organization must be a non-profit organization. The FPVFC is now a non-profit organization.

Q5:  Who are the individuals behind FPVFC?  Is there a manufacturer’s agenda in the FPVFC?
A5:  The FPVFC is an independent non-stock corporation operating as a 501(c)(3) non-profit.  The current board of directors have a background of FPV industry, global corporate technology, retail industry and deep FPV experience.

Q6:  Our air space is free why do we need any regulations for drones (recreational sUAS)?
A6:  In the United States of America, the airspace is regulated by the FAA.  Flying in the National Airspace is a privilege, like driving a car anywhere in the USA requires a driver’s license and is a privilege (not a right), the same ideas apply to our national airspace.

Q7: I heard the FAA legislation in 2018 repealed all the recreational regulations.  What happened to the exemption for model aircraft? Are there new rules?
A7:  The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act passed a number of mandates the FAA must now implement.  Within those mandates was the repeal of section 336, the model aircraft exemption. Until the FAA establishes the new rules under Section 349 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, FPV pilots are required to comply with the current rules, for example, Section 336.

Q8:  If I’m a member of FPVFC, do I still need to register with the FAA?
A8:  If you fly a FPV aircraft which weighs more than 250 grams, you need to register with the FAA.  This registration is the pilot, not each aircraft. The FPVFC is a private, non-profit organization.  There is no requirement to become a member of the FPVFC; however, there is a requirement to fly under the safety guidelines of a CBO.  The FPVFC will advocate for FPV pilots with the FAA.

Q9:  Other than working with the FAA, what will the FPVFC do for FPV Pilots?
A9:  In addition to advocating for FPV Pilot rights with the FAA, the FPVFC is working to provide insurance to recreational FPV Pilots, provide and promote its FPVFC Safety Guidelines, create a Knowledge Exam for FPV recreational pilots and more.

Q10:  Will FPVFC be at FPV events so we may meet the FPVFC team?
A10:  Depending on the success of our fundraising, yes.

Q11:  Will the FPVFC be recommending LAANC applications?
A11:  Yes. The FPVFC will reflect the views of the FPV community and its members and will make recommendations to guide newcomers to the hobby.

Q12:  Can the FPVFC help me understand how I may fly legally around the USA?
A12:  The FPVFC will work to provide understandable interpretations of FAA regulations through it’s weekly Town Halls as well as resource documents on the FPVFC website.

Q13:  Will the FPVFC provide insurance for my drone?
A13:  It is the intent of the FPVFC to provide drone insurance for recreational use within the USA.

Q14:  How much does the FPVFC membership cost?
A14:  Annual adult membership is $40 and annual youth membership is $20.

Press Release to DroneLife.com

The FPV Freedom Coalition is still evaluating the full impact of HR302 on the recreational FPV hobbyists, as the most important details have yet to be released by the FAA. They have deadlines, ranging from 60 to 270 days, to produce and publish further policy. For example, they have 180 days to define the knowledge test as well as publish an Advisory Circular describing CBO designation/application.

View fullsize

Although Section 336, Special Rule for Model Aircraft, has been repealed by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, we feel the existing regulation remains in force until struck from the Federal Register. During this transition period, the FAA will phase in new regulation over the next 270 days and may wait to remove 336 until Section 349 is formally implemented.

We will continue to evaluate and interpret the new regulations for the community. Reactions from the community have been mixed so far as they gain the knowledge to understand just what is happening. Overall, we see no "show-stopping" issues but there is plenty of work ahead for us. We view aspects of this bill as a well-thought-out invitation to groups just like the FPV Freedom Coalition, inviting us to get involved and lend our expertise in ensuring the safety of the national airspace. This is a goal we share with the FAA and, more importantly, we eagerly accept the challenge.

DroneLife.com

Response to HR 302 Passing in the Senate

As most know at this point, the Senate has passed HR 302. The next stop is the White House to the desk of President Trump. Now is the time to get your letter to the president written and submitted so the voice of the FPV community can be heard. These are your skies, that should be free to use, to explore, and to enjoy. Protect that right!

While this may be seen as many as a setback, this does not mean that all is lost. We as a community need to come together and keep pushing forward. There are many areas in the FAA Reauthorization Act that have been left for the FAA to put to committee, develop guidelines, and to overall hammer out the details. We need to be the voices in their ear that help to shape those guidelines.

The FPV Freedom Coalition is still developing at a fast pace. We are determined to represent the FPV pilot, and to help raise the volume of your voice and to protect your access to the skies. We will continue to push, to fight, to shout, and to work with the community, the government, and the public to bring our hobby out from the shadows and into the light. We need your help to do that though, because through you, our mission comes full circle.

Our ask of the FPV community is simple…. Write your letters to the President, let him know why this is important to you. Share your stories, share your love of the hobby. Keep shouting from the rooftops if you have to, we are listening. Keep innovating, keep pushing your skills to the next level. Most importantly, keep flying!

We will keep you updated as more information comes out, so stay tuned.

We have a great, immersive, and educational hobby. Help us fight for that. Join the FPV Freedom Coalition!