FAA Issues Proposed Rule For Remote ID in Regulations Discussion Posted Monday at 08:52 PM · Report reply On 1/8/2020 at 2:01 PM, Av8Chuck said: It was founded on a simple premise that it wasn't up to the operator to prove that it was legal to operate commercially but the FAA to prove that it wasn't. That's a powerful statement. On 1/8/2020 at 2:01 PM, Av8Chuck said: I hope this is something you would be interested in helping with. Really appreciate you sharing the backstory. Yah, interested in helping to push forward, keep me posted. We're putting together some talking points to help folks more effectively comment on the NPRM, will share those here when complete. On 1/7/2020 at 12:12 PM, Jason Kovacs said: This whole issue is really fascinating to me. At first blush, the NPRM sounded like an intelligent plan, but it's the nuance of its implementation that make me pause and consider it more critically. Yes, well said. You raised some really good implementation questions in your original post. If we assume that 80% of the flights out there are already compliant under the existing Part 107 rules, LAANC airspace authorization and Waiver processes, I don't understand why there isn't more of an attempt in this NPRM to acknowledge that and to let those folks continue to fly without too many additional hurdles to jump through. I understand that we have to regulate for the other 20%, and to mitigate fears around counter UAS / drones showing up at airports and penitentiary systems, but when the overwhelming majority of both hobbyist and commercial drone operations are being conducted safely and responsibly each and every day, the proposed framework makes little sense on SO many levels.