...if you happen to be logged into substack your email will often automatically propagate...





Here is how it works!

STEP 1: Find a few quotes below that represent your concerns and click "add"

STEP 2: Scroll down and click "copy to clipboard"

STEP 3: Add some custom text (so you're not flagged as a bot) and paste your comment on the FAA site to help fight Remote ID

Every comment counts! Thanks for helping defeat this foolish proposal (more info here).

STEP 1: Pick quotes and click "add"

click here when ready to comment!


Issues with rural connectivity will likely present a problem with using drones for agricultural purposes and complying with these regulations.

Bad Information

As the NPRM is written, the FAA should just shoot this horse before the gate even opens. The race is over before the starter even fires his starting gun. No one can even get past the first page of the Executive Summary without realizing that a key component to the success of Remote ID will not happen. There are three parts outlined, first the rule, second the network, and third "“collection of technical requirements that standards-setting organizations will develop to meet the performance-based design and production requirements in this proposed rule". There is no mention of the fourth interdependent part, and one that is crucial to the success of the Remote Identification system: Compliance.
The rule must consider pilots who fly in rural areas with little or no internet connectivity. Unfortunately, some rural areas don’t have adequate cell service creating no fly zones and fail to acknowledge that rural locations are frequently the safest places to fly because they are away from people, other aircraft and structures.
I agree with the EAA's request of an extension of the comment period. The complex NPRM being more than 300 pages in length, 60 days is inadequate for providing a detailed response that addresses all concerns.
This rule is based on an imagined security and safety threat that simply is not proven in relation to traditional modeling. There is absolutely a risk posed by drones operated in proximity to aircraft by poorly informed, careless, and/or deliberately malicious operators, but the same cannot be said for models.


Adding onerous requirements for recreational users will be catastrophic for the hobby. Compliance with regulations will substantially decline, and many users will simply leave the hobby. This will diminish or eliminate the positive effect in education and innovation that recreational modeling has provided for decades.
All scratch built drones and aircraft will, by definition, become FRIA (FAA-Recognized Identification Area) only devices unless 100% of "FAA approved" hardware is used, an impossible task for the hobby and racing flight.
The fixed 12 month FRIA (FAA-Recognized Identification Area) application window will decay overtime and eventually the hobby, sport, and innovation will evaporate because no chance for new locations. Actions like this are an attempt to kill off all non-remote ID flight.
This is a terrible plan. Immediate action is required before big business kills off the ability to fly any type of model aircraft.


The FAA should refrain from biting off more than they can chew. It would be better to focus on locations that need protecting, instead of creating an unwieldy tracking system for the entire United States, would be more realistic
The proposed rule would make law enforcement and SAR flights non-complaint as the drones used will not be able to broadcast location. This rule would cripple the ability fly in rural or mountainous terrain and cost the lives of people in need.
The FAA has not thought this through. The justification for this rule is utter bullsh*t. Show us the bodies. Surely you have better things to be focused on, why is the FAA not focused on the things that kill people.

Security & Privacy

Drones are the safest technology in aviation history. Despite the safety record the remote ID proposal in the first 20 pages states that it will allow for advanced operations, flights over people, or BVLOS or drone delivery. I don't consider the NRPM to be legal because it breaks federal law as a mass surveillance on American citizens via 50 U.S. Code § 1801 "the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States;" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801)
The proposed rule is a threat to every drone related business and restricts where and what craft can be flown. The requirement of needing to use an authorized drone removes all privacy.
Drone flights have been exceptionally safe over the years. Criminal thefts made possible by having access to the public data and system outweigh any perceived safety benefit provided by the remote identification data.

Unfair, Costly, & Unrealistic

As outlined Remote ID is unfair as general aviation pilots are only required to have ADS-B capability in controlled airspace (A, B, C-veil, etc), but UAS per the proposal are required to be tracked 100% of the time for each flight. This is unfair and unjust and considering there are at least 3x more drones than planes we demand fair and equitable treatment and be provided reasonable access to national airspace
We Strongly Support Drone Remote ID. But Not Like This.
We also believe that the FAA can accomplish it’s goals for a safe national airspace without damaging our industry.
The stark reliance on unproven systems could shut down expensive Hollywood productions, complex industrial operations, and even lifesaving rescue missions.
The rule fails to respect the FAA’s own Aviation Rule making Committee in 2017, stating that Remote Identification will not be successful if the burdens and costs to drone operators are not minimized.

STEP 2: Click the "copy to clipboard" button above 👆

STEP 3: Comment on Remote ID: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=FAA-2019-1100-0001

⚠️ Remember to add some custom text to your comment so you don't get flagged as a bot!

Other ways to comment on docket number FAA-2019-1100

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to
Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

All images and content should fall under fair use. If you believe this to not be the case or if you have a comment, point, or correction contact: [email protected].