Drone not compliant? A lot of guys I have talked to have either A) no clue about Remote ID and don't know what it is, or B) say rules be damned they are just going to fly anyway and the government isn't going to tell them what to do
Remote ID Requirements starting Sept 2023
- Thread starter majordomain
- Start date
-
- Tags
- enterprise
Yeah a few folks have posted that. However there's no documentation from the FAA that actually backs it up and the latest docs from only a week ago that were posted state Sept 16th.
While they are likely correct, without an actual posting by the FAA we have to assume Sept 16th is it. Tho they may just post on the 15th a new date
There's this:Yeah a few folks have posted that. However there's no documentation from the FAA that actually backs it up and the latest docs from only a week ago that were posted state Sept 16th.
While they are likely correct, without an actual posting by the FAA we have to assume Sept 16th is it. Tho they may just post on the 15th a new date
This video makes a very compelling argument for a 6 month extension!
Only 3% of the pilots needing a module have already received them!
97% still can't get one in time. The six FAA approved manufacturers cannot possibly produce all the needed units, even by the end of 2024!
Last edited:
Those non RID drones were discounted a ton, mostly because they are just older. So many have saved around $1400 on the drone kit, so buying a module should still be better price than competition with RID added in firmware. I still think many companies are gouging the drone community with those RID module prices. Its basically a small pc board, usb connector, and plastic shell. $300 is laughable so I hope FAA decides to push back well into next year. Those $60 modules the FAA claimed as an avg cost are just not there, and the ones even for $300 are backordered.
Agreed. I ordered a DroneTag Beacon as I wanted to be compliant with my V1. I later tried to CX the order and found that even cancellations....before the item has shipped....are liable for credit card fees. So, I left it on order.
For those wondering, yes this fee is shown in their disclosure and I simply missed it. Of course, they charge your card the moment you order - not when it ships. (Which I think is BS considering they are out of stock)
Officially, yes. It was announced by the FAA on Tuesday in Las Vegas at the Commercial UAV Expo. However the decision on the duration of the relief is expected within days, and certainly before the 16th. Likely 3-6 months.
RID is suspended until March 16, 2024
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-ex...t-date-six-months?ck_subscriber_id=1126658452
Cheers
3Fees
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-ex...t-date-six-months?ck_subscriber_id=1126658452
Cheers
3Fees
Not exactly. Only enforcement is suspended, and only for those unable to comply because of a delayed FW update or awaiting an ordered module.
One is technically still in violation, which might affect any insurance claims in the interim, and/or make it impossible to compete for any jobs requiring full compliance with all FAA Rules, and/or prove insurance coverage, which may now be voided by not being in full compliance with all FAA Rules.
If a FW update is available and you have not installed it, you are still in violation, and enforcement against you is not suspended, after September 16th. Enforcement will be discretionary on a case by case basis!
Last edited:
I tend to agree with you but you gotta understand, if you get to make assumption about what the notification means then others will be able to do the same. Specifically, show me where it says this:
"If a FW update is available and you have not installed it, you are still in violation, and enforcement against you is not suspended, after September 16th."
Are we free to just dream up what are reasons for non-compliance are and basically claim were are covered for an exemption? Because my reason is not one of the popular "reasons" why one cannot comply, I'm in violation? I can't get a module because they closed my bank account last week, does that count?
Technically, nobody has to comply and there won't be any enforcement against anyone. But honestly, we surely cannot expect the FAA to come out with that statement.
"I tried to download the latest sw update to make my drone standard RID but the update failed because my WiFi keeps disconnecting...."
Legally they won't be able to successfully enforce RID against anyone. But yeah I get it when they come out and say RID is still *on* LOL; way to save the program!
That's not what I stated.
If you are noncompliant, you are still in violation.
Enforcement is discretionary.
I stated that if there is a FW update available to broadcast RID, and you have not installed it, enforcement against you is not suspended, but is discretionary. You have no acceptable excuse acceptable to the FAA for non-compliance.
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-
20074.pdf
"As such, the agency has decided it 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. But Marshall has further clarified that the exercise of enforcement discretion will neither create any individual right of action nor establish a precedent for future determinations."
Last edited:
The only acceptable reasons for noncompliance are need a module and no module available, no FW update yet available but promised, or your FRIA's application hasn't yet been approved. You are still required to be in compliance as soon as you receive your module, as soon as your RID FW update is available, or as soon as your FRIA's application is approved or denied.
As I stated above, the real concern is insurance related. You are still in violation of an FAA Rule. If you fly at your as yet unapproved FRIA, your AMA insurance may be void. Your business drone insurance may be void. You may be ineligible to compete for commercial drone jobs that require you not fly in violation of any FAA Rule, whether currently enforced or not.
Last edited:
pedals2paddles
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Messages
- 257
- Reaction score
- 167
- Age
- 43
Doesn't matter how easy or hard it would be. Autel has stated verbatim they are not doing any of that. The current model (v3) has it. The older ones do not and will not, nor are they producing external modules.
Yup.
Only the three I referenced in Post #35 above.
No others.
Thanks for publishing the rule; the rule that everybody knows about. However, that wasn't my question, I didn't ask for the rule. I asked for where in the rule does it list that these are the only 3 conditions. I read the whole rule and I didn't see where it listed those as the only 3 conditions. Could you please put a point on in the rule where the three you referenced in post #35 are the only three conditions that are covered? Please tell me specifically where it is mentioned or better yet, just post the exact text from the rule for those 3 sections and then we are done. If you cannot post the exact text and you have interpreted the rule to mean covering those conditions, please indicate this is your interpretation of the rule; that's fine too.
BTW, I agree those 3 conditions are covered by the rule. Just want to know where in the rule this is specifically mentioned.
Similar threads
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Are Autel EVO II Pro Enterprise V2 and V3 rear Arms/Motors Compatible?
- Started by mapman97
- Replies: 3
Members online
No members online now.