Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Welcome DJI Spark Pilot!
Jump in and join our free Spark community today!
Sign up
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Kittyhawk's idea
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I B Spectre" data-source="post: 110178" data-attributes="member: 18605"><p>You may already be familiar with Kittyhawk from there role in trying to make the FAA's B4UFLY app more useful. They are one of the entities likely to operate as a USS under the FAA's proposals for remote ID, so they have a stake in how the NPRM is implemented.</p><p></p><p>I ran across this article in <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/12/faas-proposed-remote-id-rules-should-make-compliance-easy/" target="_blank">TechCrunch</a> and found it interesting. I don't agree with everything that's said, particularly those things justifying the creation of USSs in general, but they do have a few points worth pondering. I appreciate the fact that they believe the what the FAA has proposed is too broad, unnecessarily complex, prohibitively expensive and needs to be broken down into a tiered system. I like that they emphasize the NPRM requires too much data based on the supposed <em>potential </em>for wrong doing. This is another piece of the information puzzle that can be used for FAA NPRM comment before it closes after March 2nd.</p><p></p><p>Also, DJI posted <a href="https://dronedj.com/2020/02/11/djis-commenting-tips-for-the-faas-nprm-for-remote-id-for-drones/" target="_blank">Commenting Tips</a> for the NPRM a few days ago that are worth considering.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I B Spectre, post: 110178, member: 18605"] You may already be familiar with Kittyhawk from there role in trying to make the FAA's B4UFLY app more useful. They are one of the entities likely to operate as a USS under the FAA's proposals for remote ID, so they have a stake in how the NPRM is implemented. I ran across this article in [URL='https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/12/faas-proposed-remote-id-rules-should-make-compliance-easy/']TechCrunch[/URL] and found it interesting. I don't agree with everything that's said, particularly those things justifying the creation of USSs in general, but they do have a few points worth pondering. I appreciate the fact that they believe the what the FAA has proposed is too broad, unnecessarily complex, prohibitively expensive and needs to be broken down into a tiered system. I like that they emphasize the NPRM requires too much data based on the supposed [I]potential [/I]for wrong doing. This is another piece of the information puzzle that can be used for FAA NPRM comment before it closes after March 2nd. Also, DJI posted [URL='https://dronedj.com/2020/02/11/djis-commenting-tips-for-the-faas-nprm-for-remote-id-for-drones/']Commenting Tips[/URL] for the NPRM a few days ago that are worth considering. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Kittyhawk's idea