Dear members,<\/p>\n
The FAA released its proposed rule on remote identification (remote ID) on December 26, 2019.\u00a0 AMA has been advocating for our hobby throughout the remote ID rule process to include voting privileges as a member of the Remote ID Aviation Rulemaking Committee.\u00a0 We are reviewing this notice of proposed rulemaking on remote ID, however, an early read indicates that some of our proposals were accepted, including not requiring onboard equipage for our members at our flying sites. Please look for future communications from AMA as we review the entire proposed rule. Because this is not a final rule, we will likely ask for our members to help us shape the ultimate regulation by participating and providing comments and feedback to the FAA.<\/p>\n
Q: What is the email the FAA sent out about\u00a0remote ID?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n A: In 2016 the FAA announced plans to remotely track unmanned aircraft.\u00a0On December 26, 2019,\u00a0the FAA published its proposed rule on remote identification in the Federal Register. This is a proposed rule, not a final rule. Please continue to monitor AMA communication\u00a0because\u00a0we will likely encourage members to participate in the rulemaking process to comment and shape the final rule.<\/p>\n Q: What does this proposed rule say for recreational fliers and AMA members?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n A: As we review the 319-page document,\u00a0the\u00a0initial read appears\u00a0to show that\u00a0AMA remains successful in advocating that our members will not require onboard equipage when at a flying field or approved location. The FAA gives flexibility for recognized community-based organizations (CBOs).<\/p>\n Q: What is AMA stance on\u00a0remote ID?\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n A:\u00a0\u00a0AMA has long advocated for a common-sense approach to remote ID.\u00a0Because\u00a0our operations do not pose any new risk to the airspace, the burden of remote ID should apply to unmanned aircraft capable of navigating beyond visual line of sight of the operator or spotter or operations outside our safety programming.\u00a0Some\u00a0AMA\u00a0proposals would allow recreational operators to meet the safety and security objectives of the rule without onboard equipage by operating at fixed flying sites or by using a software-based app solution.<\/p>\n Q: Has AMA had any say in the remote ID rulemaking?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n A:\u00a0AMA has been advocating on behalf of our members from the beginning on remote ID,\u00a0to include as a voting member on the 2017 Remote ID Aviation Rulemaking Committee. AMA continues to serve on FAA advisory committees and safety teams addressing remote ID.<\/p>\n Q: I heard AMA mention fixed flying sites.\u00a0What about members who are not flying at a fixed site?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n A: For members not at a flying field, it’s unknown if members can use a ground-based solution such as an app to satisfy remote ID without onboard equipage.\u00a0We will share more as we read and review the 319-page proposed rule.<\/p>\n