FAA Interview: The Michael Rollins Show
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2024
- My Patreon: / michaelrollins
Instagram: / themichaelrollinsshow
The gear I use:
FPV Gear
DJI FPV HD Goggles: amzn.to/3AcFzpQ
TBS Tango 2 Pro: amzn.to/2TitA9P
iFlight Full Send 450 mah 4S LiPo Battery: amzn.to/3wdfsMa
CNHL 1500 mah 4S LiPo Battery: amzn.to/3jzTsIY
GoPro Hero 8 Black: amzn.to/3hoqyJ7
Insta360 GO v2: amzn.to/3xdgsBh
4S 450mah iFlight FullSend LiPo: amzn.to/3rwij2i
Tools
LowePro Gear Up Pouch Mini (Tool Bag/Tool Holder): amzn.to/3y8aXUK
Wera Metric Ball Head Driver Set: amzn.to/3ydxeAn
TS100 Soldering Iron: amzn.to/3w9lDkE
Small Pocket Knife: amzn.to/2Titgb7
Reusable Twist Ties: amzn.to/3zyT2XX
Bags
REI Trail 5 Waistpack: www.rei.com/product/168490/re...
(Alternate, ~$20) Outdoor Fanny Pack: amzn.to/2Ua2UIu - Zábava
I wish you'd asked: "Why is it that flying a small 251g RC model of a Piper Cub is now so dangerous as to require registration and Remote ID wheras just a few short years ago it was considered a safe, wholesome, outdoor hobby? What has changed -- or has anything *really* changed at all in respect to the risk profile of such a craft?
As a follow up or tangential line of questions: What makes my 250g(.55lbs)-55lbs(let's not pretend that the 250g limit isn't about number parody; LOL@ "risk assessment") RC aircraft more dangerous than a
I wonder if Kevin would be willing to be interviewed by me? All in favour? I might ask some very hard questions but I'm sure Kevin would be up to the task.
This needs to happen
I’ll ask 😁
I like this "threat" :)
I would very much like you to have such an interview
Hear, Hear!
Although,...you not being located in, or a citizen of the United States, may be totally disregarded due to not having any valid/legal claim to voice anything about American regulations that bars any obligatory consideration at all.
I feel like I'm retarded. I hope I said that understandably.
Oh no... did Mike actually admit to the FAA that he was planning to fly at over 400ft AGL at 30:38 in the video? LOL.
Lol, Yea I caught that too..😂
Me?!?! Noooooo! I would never do such a thing!
@ 48:00 ... how does RID facilitate the integration of drones into the NAS? Remote ID is *NOT* electronic conspicuity (Kevin already clearly stated this in an earlier interview). RID does *nothing* to make it safer to fly drones in NAS. Either Kevin is confused (in which case he's not doing his job very effectively) or he's downright lying (in which case he'll probably get a bonus from his bosses (again, excuse my cynicism).
I agree, the faa's site clearly says remote I'd is a law enforcement tool to locate the ground station when a drone is suspected of inappropriate operations.
Clearly doesn't in my mind facilitate safer uas flight especially for things like mid air collision with crewed air craft.
Those that don't want to use remoteid won't. Doesn't seem to solve much I'm my mind.
calm down Bruce
54:00 Sure, nobody will be excluded but you *WILL* be made to pay for access to the shared resource. It's "pay to fly" -- no pay, no fly (once network RID is implemented). A subtle distinction (aka weasel words) IMHO.
Your on the money Bruce.
I have been an outlaw over 50 years. Have that botgrinder habit. Quit alcohol in the icu 5 days@38,tobacco37.
It was never about safety. It's all about clearing the airspace for economic reasons. If safety was an issue... They would have created a risk assessment. But that would destroy their narritive.
You nailed it!
@@xjet Hi Xjet!
Safety? If it was about safety they'd be frantically investigating why so many light aircraft end up embedded in the side of peoples houses rather than trying to over regulate things that are, to all intents and purposes, just TOYS !
This whole situation would be akin to a strip mine's health and safety department putting extra effort into legislating against kids playing with their Tonka trucks in sand pits, while full sized dump trucks were busy going off unmarked excavation edges like lemmings !
@@Reman1975 Thats right.
Thanks for making this happen!
I know this guy who flys whatever he wants, whenever he wants to while exercising a good amount of common sense around the safety of others. He looks very similar to me. 🤔
Super interview with an FAA representative and thank you for utilizing my suggestion. Although there may have been other’s who suggested this too. Bruce?
Places our minds at ease, more transparency and the availability to reach out.
Thanks Mike. Best wishes from Central Texas.
You can never comply your way out of tyranny.
Lets play a little devils advocate...
Lets assume the FAA has skipped the Risk Analysis because congress mandated "Remote ID", and they assume that congress did it. Why didn't the FAA do a feasibility study, asking for public input, and present it congress before proposing regulation? They obviously didn't, because they admit that they didn't know the network requirement was impossible before proposing it. Not to mention no one has ever heard of one, ever.
Also I notice he said he would make sure to get links to their info but I don't see them. Did Michael forget to pop them in the description, or did Kevin not follow up like he promised?
Also, Also, I find it amazing that it took a year after the final rule for him to notice the FPV community has a well established safety community. We have been screaming it at them for a couple years now...
Hi Michael and Kevin. I still would love to see the risk assessment for these rules that the FAA keeps coming up with. I have been flying RC Airplanes since 1971 , I never had a problem with anything, until big business wanted to do package delivery. Kevin I don't trust you. You don't know anything about FPV because if you did you would know just how ridiculous some of them are.
I am concerned with the statistics - again. Mr.Rollins was very polite and caring with Mr.Morris ( Michael, I have overwhelming respect for you on this because you handled it like the champ you are. I could have never stayed that calm. ) and only asked for the FAA's risk assessment prior rulemaking at the end of the video. And Mr.Morris agreed to provide it "later on". If it had been a thoroughly thought through process he could have recalled the valid data immediately by heart and did not have to cite the drop tests for the 250g limit that were done in Europe more than a decade ago. All other agencies worldwide simply copied the results and implemented them. Mr.Rollins also said that he handed his questions in prior the interview to get them greenlighted by the FAA. If Mr.Morris was aware of that, and you can bet your pants on that, how can it be possible he hadn't had that data immediately available ? Is it because there simply is no risk assessment like Bruce states ? Or is it because the risk assessment data is so overwhelmingly clear that there is absolutely no evidence that makes the rules now in place necessary ? I proposed to get the guy on the Inav Fixed Wing Group wing talk to put him through his paces. And together with an EASA guy and Bruce at best. I'd prepare a barrel of popcorn ! I want to ask the real questions. I want to ask for solutions. I want to ask for consequences for manned aviation. I want to talk about how US Congress developed the need to get rule making into action. I want to hear the EASA's answer to why they simply copied 85% of the FAA's proposal and made it a law. I want to talk about the future of aviation in general when flying your model plane at a grassy field in the middle of nowhere is more or less criminalized to the point where parents look at different hobbies for their kids and hypocritically park them in front of the internet instead. I want to talk about Gatwick. I want to talk about operator's security. I want to talk about the real benefits of remotely operated fixed wing aircraft in SAR missions or in the prevention of large scale forest fires. This interview was kind of a prelude for me. If they want to talk to us I am all ears, give them a platform. But they better have their facts straight. And they better prepare to change their course.
Just an FYI, the FAA received approximately 60 comments on the Advisory Circular related to recreational flying and Community Based Organizations. Way less than I had hoped. :(
Perhaps people have decided that they are being largely ignored anyway so there's little point in banging one's head against that wall time and time again. Or perhaps people have decided that they will operate to their *own* standards and that this means the FAA's rules are becoming less relevant by the day.
Great job. I fully support RDQ and their case to make sure we are treated fairly and taken into account. I also fully support people like you, hosting these perspective widening conversations. I always learn a lot.
Also why are foam fixed wing aircraft? They should be separated. 500g of foam is not the same as 500g of carbon fiber.
Yes, this shows that the claim the 250g threshold is based on impact tests is flawed. 250g of feathers dropped on your head does nothing but 20g of lead fired from a rifle will certainly kill you. Mass/weight alone is a meaningless measure of lethality.
@@xjet If you have not checked out the "ebook" for the upcoming DAC, you should. The DAC tasking group 11 is trying to tell the FAA that risk based solely on weight is the wrong approach.
@@xjet Bruce frickin Simpson left a comment agreeing with me. (LIFE VALIDATED).lol. That really did give me a omg moment.
The sad part is in the interview the guy still came across as smug and condescending. Like a " we know what's best for you" , although they don't even understand the hobby.
@@philaell I'm just editing up a video in which I analyze Kevin's answers and point out just how full of untruths and disingenuous statements they are. Stay tuned for that one 😀
If he's in Minnesota and wants to experience FPV, there are certainly enough of us that he could drive minutes in any direction to find some. Especially in the metro area.
Where was this guy four years ago? Because the FAA had no problem wishing the UAV hobby to the cornfield as recently as last year. Two kilos (AUW), two meters (wingspan), two kilometers, BVLOS, 200 meters up no registration. That's my opening offer. Until then, we'll continue flying under the radar.
The FAA and members of local and national legislation should be invited out to events like MultiIO and Riot Rampage to see what we do. Now if Kevin was at Rampage he would of got a great experience of flying and to talk to people who fly.
Instagram/Facebook/Twitter/etc.
And for those of us that don't use social media? What is our option for notification from the FAA?
You can sign up to be on an email list and get some notifications from the FAA that way, but it is not all the same info as you would get from their social media.
And now we know who's been writing their press briefs he quoted one of them verbatim although it could have just been on his teleprompter.
The next DAC ( Drone Advisory Committee Meeting ) is coming up THIS Wednesday, October 27th. Please tune in if you can.
Why ? To listen to their lies ?
@@steve_beatty To remind them that we exist, that recreational operators are the biggest user of the airspace, that we care, and we need representation. It also lets you see who is pushing for what, and gives a glimpse of how these regulations get made.
Also @xjet will be there ( in the chat), so you know it will be a good time! :)
@@5zero7RC I already know who is on that committee..NONE are the friends of the FPV community.. All self serving crooks... I know how regulations and code changes are supposed to be approached..I've been involved personally in those things albeit not in the FPV realm...I filed one of if not the first FOIA requests for any semblance of a Risk Assessment since it was glaringly absent from any documents I had read...none to be found suspiciously....It's now in the hands of RDQ's lawyers to help bolster their argument and back up their own FOIA request for same..resist together or fall separately...
@@5zero7RC But Vic Moss (currently sitting on the DAC) said that I am simply engaged in a _"charade of superiority"_ and _"you aren't even in the U.S. so your opinion doesn't matter"_ . A few people did voice reservations that Vic took a "hobby" seat on the DAC, given that he's actually a commercial drone operator. It seems he doesn't like it when I challenge the veracity of the FAA's claims or fact-check them. Why is that?
Wish CASA here in Australia would even take the time to listen to us...Americans have it so good compared alot of other countries. Just to do commercial work here cost like 3k American to do licence to be taught by people that know less than I do...
I've always been baffled by the FAA's concern for "safe integration of drones and manned aviation". Full scale aircraft are not allowed to fly under 500', and drones are restricted to 400'. They don't fly in the same airspace! Unless altitude rules are broken, it's impossible for them to collide! So why is the FAA working to implement new regulations to achieve "safe integration"?
So how can we go about rounding up a few of these faa guys and take them for a fpv ride? Hopes they get a better idea and get more lenient with some decisions 👌
Working on it every chance we get. I am not far from Kevin and will see if I can get him in some FPV goggles and try to get some other FAA employees in the DC area under some goggles. The same person that put Secretary of Transportation Pete under some FPV goggles is willing to do the same for anyone in the DC area too.
Round em up and take them for a drive, convince them to get up off our backs...
I wish you had asked why there isn’t much if at all any restrictions for paragliders who fly at much heavier weight and fly over people at any altitude. Things can go wrong with their chutes
unwilling to address the concern of having the members with a monetary interest.
Yeah, damn right! It's real damn hard to stay under 250 grams with a 75-150 gram RFID module attached to your shit. I mean hell we already have flight times of commonly three to 10 minutes (usually closer to 4).
Not being able to utilize any of that 75-150 grams for battery capacity, shortens the hell out of a already very short flight time as it is. I mean that shit ain't making the quad fly easier or better.
I dont believe you can fly a drone into a flying helicopter, unless you come at it from the top but then youll be shreaded before hitting the fuselage. The Rotor Wash is incredible in a Helo, If you stood under one while it took off yould be knocked to the ground by a thousand lbs of pressure. Surely even a DJI or Race Drone cant overcome the RotorWash of a Helicopter, let alone a Blackhawk. A simple test could be done with a teathered remote operated Helo and a drone underneath it. My money is on the helo
The FAA needs to get after the small planes instead of drones. There has been a bunch of small plane crashes including plane helo crash. Apparently the plane didn’t see the helo
FAA dudes, you are allowed to do exactly what we do. I am old and computer illiterate. I have to fly stupid drones. I hacked my second bugs 3 with a runcam eagle, an aomway omni annt. An akk vtx that works just fine with my used fat shark goggles.this junk less than $400. I just cruise low altitude in mountains with wife observer.start here or throw $5000 @ it. You are free to see what a bird does like me. Remember, c4 could be put on an rc car, boat, truck, robot, you name it. I am an old machinist. I was making military ordinance at 19 first career. I can make anything
The FAA issues false statements to the press. I am more technically advanced operating "Drones", like my elders, than the risk the FAA portrays to aviation. The FAA are keeping a safe distance from scrutiny.
Hey Kevin, there are plenty of people in your area (including me) that would be happy to take you out and put you in a pair of FPV goggles for a ride. Just let us know when and where, and we can make it happen!
Excuse my cynicsm but _"talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk"_ springs to mind. Kevin, prove me wrong, follow through with accepting this offer!
Connecting with DRL is literally 12/13 pilots several of which are outside of the US. You need to connect with the broader community as well.
Laws of self preservation. Lie.
Yeah but without a suitable fpv hobbyist representative(s) on the dac/dak/dack/daq/deck board, the other representatives and consultants could, theoretically, influence a decision that is specifically in the (Possible Only) best interest of their(s') company's interest. While full well knowing that, along with their resources, gives them a "controlling-interest" in whatever area that decision covers. Also while full well knowing that it would further eliminate interference from the possible general population of people that may have had become pilots prior to the desicion, but won't bother to after. Therefore lessening possible future expense costs to the their company.
That, due to their own experience, fpv hobbyist representative(s) would quickly surmise and be able to eliquate how such a desicion would be only directly positive for the company of those that implanted the seeming good reason(s) to decide as such. While also being able to communicate exactly how that would be very damaging to the general population of, future possible, fpv drone pilots. As well as those that already are.
That the FAA would deem (unknowingly) inconsequential, even harmless (in regards to) the FPV community, without someone experienced in FPV bringing attention to the not yet considered points of interest. Or the negative ramifications not even mentioned to be aware of, of said suggested decision. All the while, because the FAA doesn't have the experience with the FPV niche of the hobby, without an FPV representative, the FAA might not even know that they're being played. It's happened before. And I promise you, it's still in the playbook. Strategically.
As far as y'all wanting to make sure it's safe. Why not make sure it's unsafe(or regularly done unsafely) at all, (In a more than statistically anomalous way) First. Instead of just ASS-U-MEing that it definitely is. And yes I know that's not how you spell "Assuming". For those of you that don't know what I was doing there.
Any FAA representatives in the surrounding Atlanta area (Preferably the East-Northeast side. Or willing to travel to said areas.) that feels like Kevin M. here does about experiencing Quad-Mounted FPV in any capacity, Hit Me Up. I'll go as far as allowing you to attempt to test drive my own rig (CLOSELY supervised, of course.), if so desired after a ride along or two. Seriously. If I can help show how harmful it would be for the FAA to have too much of a hands-on stance in regards to (at very least) Freestyle, & Race FPV, i am more than adamant about doing so.
Personally I'm willing to travel as far as West side of 285 area. (Myself coming from the very East-Side of Gwinnett County.)
Seriously, do not hesitate.
(That being said, when we do meet up I will need official identification to know that I'm not just showing some yahoo that has absolutely no influence with the FAA at all.
Not that I'm unwilling to let the average citizen experience this as well. Battles are just fought better with understanding from both sides. Double-edged sword kind of thing you know. Regular citizen; a bit lower on the priority pole.)
But Seriously! DO NOT Hesitate to Hit Me Up, Atl-Area-Accessible-FAA-People!
Is anyone else annoyed by how often the FAA ( and Kevin in this video ) uses the term "industry". I know the FAA considers recreational flyers as part of the "industry" to me, and I assume others, it just makes us think of the commercial interests and commercial industry. NOT recreational use of the airspace. Or maybe that's just me? I would like to propose that the FAA stops using that term and find something better.
But Dan, it's only "the industry" that really matters in the FAA's eyes because as a community, recreational flyers won't have the money to make a difference.
They probably have a reason for using the term. The same as they had a reason for branding any model aircraft as a "Drone". The word drone still had negative cogitations after the news stories of the military occasionally hitting the wrong targets with the predator drones several years back (I think one news outlet mentioned that an orphanage was once hit, Though TBH, I wouldn't automatically trust a journalist's statement if he told me the sky was blue these days !), so it made it easier for members of the general public to decide that they were against letting RC enthusiasts fly anywhere near their towns or cities.
Encrypt pilot location except for police and emergency personnel. Drug grower across the street has no need to know where pilot is standing.
Reinstate section 336. That easy. Oh, but their budget to do this moronic dance has already been approved.
I honestly agree that this *IS* the way forward. I've already made a video on this very suggestion (it should be up next week).
@@xjet You're a treasure Bruce.
That would be great. The hard part is that it was congress that did away with section 336, not the FAA. So getting congress to put that back would not be an easy task.
@@5zero7RC yeah, it was stolen in the night...
@@5zero7RC in that situation, in congress, only the financial backers had a voice. Not us.
Still sounds like mostly BS. I hear the "we want to make sure it's safe" but making things so confusing and complex is ridiculous.
The Bruce has struck again ! Good call ! czcams.com/video/zfmgjDyD69w/video.html
"Killing conspiracy theorys..." Fail.