There’s a misconception that the FAA’s proposed remote ID rules won’t affect amateur home-built model aircraft if they’re flown at AMA fields or equipped with a transponder. This isn’t true. The proposal will effectively outlaw most home-built models due to its production standards.
The rules separate operational and production standards. While you can fly UAS without remote ID at FRIA sites, the production rules ban building UAS that don’t comply with remote ID, even if not flown. The “amateur-built” exemption requires more than 50% of the UAS components to be fabricated and assembled by the hobbyist. Models using mostly pre-fabricated parts don’t qualify as amateur-built.
The proposal doesn’t clarify how to count components, but most hobbyists use a mix of pre-fabricated parts, so their models likely fall into the pre-fabricated category. This means they’d be considered UAS producers and would have to follow complex production standards, which are impractical for individuals.
The certification process is costly and burdensome, making it nearly impossible for hobbyists to comply. Therefore, the proposal will effectively outlaw home-built RC models, regardless of where they’re flown. The AMA’s reliance on the amateur-built exemption and FRIA sites is misguided and won’t protect hobbyists in the long term. This regulation threatens to end amateur home-built model aircraft.
I came across the OpenDroneID Project, which supports Mavlink data. It seems there are development kits available that offer Bluetooth 5 ID functionality.
I am worried about the 50% or less requirement for amateur-built status. In some of my planes, I only replace the flight controller with a custom one like my current build using a Flip32 with custom code.
It would make more sense to have a cap on the number of units you can produce annually rather than a percentage requirement. If you produce fewer than 500 flyable aircraft a year and don’t sell them for profit or use them commercially, it’s likely for amateur purposes.
The AMA template doesn’t address the 50% amateur-built requirement at all.
As I expected, the AMA overlooked the crucial aspect of the proposed rule that impacts them the most. Their government relations team seems to lack understanding of statutory interpretation and tends to focus only on what aligns with their own interests.
I agree that the current definition of “amateur-built aircraft” is likely to render most model aircraft non-compliant. This definition forces those of us building amateur aircraft into the same category as UAV manufacturers concerning UAV Remote ID systems.
However, having Standard Remote Identification isn’t necessarily a major issue. For example, anyone using Ardupilot with mavlink telemetry and Mission Planner already has a Standard Remote UAV Identification System that meets FAA requirements, though it may lack anti-tamper features. By setting up an Altitude Angel account, you could be fully compliant for your next drone flight.
What we need is a straightforward FAA-approved compliance method, such as a preflight check that’s automatically integrated into Ardupilot telemetry logs.
