The FAA has ended its discretionary enforcement policy on remote identification for drones.
That means pilots who operate drones that are required to be registered must comply with the Remote ID Rule.
In September 2023, the FAA issued a policy for exercising discretion in determining whether to take enforcement action for drone operators who were not able to comply with the Remote ID rule. That policy ended on March 16, 2024.
Drone pilots who do not comply could face fines and suspension or revocation of their drone pilot certificates.
Remote ID lays the foundation of a safety and security groundwork needed for more complex drone operations, according to FAA officials.
It acts like a digital license plate and will help the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies locate the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it isn’t allowed to fly, agency officials explain.
For more information: FAA.gov
I have always found the FAA’s head in the sand approach to the risk posed by drones incredibly frustrating. Over the past 10 years I’ve had several unnerving encounters with drones: 1) descending on approach into Carlsbad CA out of 1,200 ft. The drone passed us going the opposite direction at our altitude less than 50 ft off our wing (three passengers to witness!). I reported to the tower and filed a NASA report – never had any feedback from the local FSDO. There was a NOTAM that day for drone ops supposedly limited to 400 ft !!!; 2) at the hold short line at 28L Monterey MRY – a drone popped up just in front of me within 100 ft and then hovered – very distracting. I reported the incident and the sheriffs went out – nothing found.
If people think the risk is overplayed, they should take a look at photos of a 172 that collided with a drone in the pattern – smashed the cowling right in and miraculously missed the prop. A few feet higher and it would have penetrated the windscreen!! It turned out the drone was being operated by the local police.
Drones have no place anywhere near any airport period – try 5 miles min. Unfortunately, the bad actors that I encountered will take no notice of any new regs – no different than lasers.
1.5 nm East from the runway heading of the preferred runway at my airport SMX is a small RC airport. It’s there because there are no houses, only AG and rodeo grounds. Never had a problem until one day when I had to extend my downwind putting me close to the RC airport. Upon tuning base I saw a large drone just a few feet off the side on my windscreen.
PA at my airport is 1800′ and I thought drones had to stay below 400′ and below ???????
As a GA pilot, I agree with the comments from Bob Hearst. I also own a drone and have used it very safely for over four years. The FAA ruling is just more unnecessary government regulation, from the Liberal side of politics.
I can’t shed a tear for those required to spend $100 or $300 to help avoid killing someone by bringing down a manned airplane. That’s peanuts, and barely adequate. In my opinion, they are putting the flying public at risk of death due to airborne collision. If (when) that happens, they will lose a few hunderd or thousands of dollars while others lose their lives.
A few words before I get off this subject. The following words used by drone enthusiasts that stick in my throat and choke are these: Airplane, Pilots, Safe , Rights, Drone Air Space, Drone Operations , Overly Restrictive Rules. No matter if these drone toys are legal or not, these flying vermin over my back yard with camera rolling become “SKEET” to me.
Not a lot of sympathy here from the General Aviation pilots that spent 40-80 hours and upwards of $10,000 getting a Private Pilot certificate to fly safely. In addition, I had to spend $4000 to upgrade my plane so everyone can track me (probably the best money ever spent from a safety aspect for ADS-B In/Out). I had a near miss with a drone operating out of its airspace and the consequence are a lot higher for me. I and any passengers with me die and you lose your $1k drone. I understand it is frustrating seeing the cost of your toy go up, but look at it from my perspective.
If this technology allows me to see your drone on my Ipad (through ADS-B In) and avoid it when you are doing something illegal, I applaud the decision.
We legal pilots of real aircraft have put a lot of time and money into the legal right to fly “OVER THE PUBLIC’S HEAD”. Drone operators think they have entered into that privilege for comparative nothing but enthusiasm. Except for Military purposes or professional photography, drones are a really bad idea, not to mention a real Pain in the A at my airport and town.
Congratulations for yet another overreach of the FAA making millions of $1,000 drones unusable or illegal for drone pilots who went through the extra BS of getting a Part 107 license only to be grounded for an asininely expensive and heavy $300 device to add to a drone that can barely keep its own weight airborne for more than 10-15 minutes at a time. Equally hampering the reduced distance attainable for what was safe operations even according to the already overreaching FAA requirements. You apparently don’t get that the people who violated your rules previously will continue to violate them, and this unreasonable ruling will not make their flying any more ‘illegal’, the skies will not be any safer for having hampered the millions of operations of paying, law abiding drone pilots.
Congratulations for making it equally unsafe for drone pilots to be hunted down despite performing safe operations within the already overly restrictive rules in place. Drone pilots will either refuse to follow your Draconian, asinine govt overreach which provides zero safety (criminals who wish to violate airspace intentionally for nefarious purposes will still do so) and for which the FAA must have personal and business interests in the companies providing this overreaching RFID technology. I hope they are held equally responsible for any of the assaults on pilots as they follow the myriad of established rules that the “Karens” and other anti-drone public who wish harm on drone pilots, as has already resulted in violent encounters, felony destruction of property, etc.
Shot gun fodder !!!
Wrong,
T Boyle said “RC Airplane” not Drone. An RC Airplane is an AIRPLANE. Just smaller. And using the term Drone to describe an Airplane, even if remotely controlled, is borderline insulting and probably etymologically incorrect. Multirotor UAS may be what people think of as Drones (because of the sound they make).
BTW, if you do live in a populated area the proper way to enjoy the RC Airplane hobby is to join a flying club anyway. Most clubs are obtaining FRIA exceptions so you don’t need a transponder to fly there. However, the cost of joining a club (AMA, club fees, model, etc) far exceeds the $300 mentioned, yearly, and this is keeping a lot of young enthusiasts from joining one of the best ways to get started in Aviation or the Aerospace Engineering field.
Our loss. Too bad.
Chris
T Boyle, You are of course a Drone guy. You UNDERSTAND the cost of a module to be 300 bucks. So you don’t have the facts yet either. This rule is late in coming and is one of many I hope. Also, a drone isn’t an AIRPLANE.
Hi Joel,
Not a Drone guy. Occasional model airplane and model glider guy. The models I fly tend to weigh about 1-2 lb, so they require RemoteID modules, according to the FAA, which defines everything as a Drone if it is radio controlled (free flight and Control Line models – which I used to fly as a kid – are exempt).
The $300 number comes from uAvionix’ web site. The $100 number comes from Hobby Zone’s website. The $50 was what the FAA used in justifying the rule.
And the term “pilot” does not apply either. They are operators plain and simple. A Pilot has some skin in the game, an operator does not. They can call themselves whatever they want but that does not make it true.
The FAA, in justifying this rule, said the modules would cost approximately $50.
I understand the cheapest available modules are something like $100, and they go up to at least $300. That’s a lot of cost to add to a hobbyist’s $150 airplane.
Does the FAA, or its analysts, face any consequence – any consequence at all? – when it justifies a rule using alternative facts?
The FAA in fact does NOT face any consequence in aviation. It is simply one huge tax sucking machine protecting their lifeless jobs . . .from drones to major airlines. Abolish the FAA as it is!