Big Brother will be watching ... Unbelievable, and hopefully will not be implemented!

[Rich Sugden M.D.]

For those of you, like me, with an interest in drones for photography … take a look at what is coming.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf

Unbelievable … 319 pages !!

If they’re going to require ADS-B out for drones, why not make it for any drones flying above 400 ft., or those applying for waivers to fly in controlled airspace …

Imagine what your TCAS will look like when all drones have ADS-B out ??

And what about the problem w. limited numbers of ADS-B towers and little low-altitude coverage .. thousands more towers??

After 12/31/19 you can ‘comment’ on the proposed rule here: Public Inspection: Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

I urge you to pass this around, and consider commenting …

 

[CactusJackSlade]

Same thread a few down

 

[sar104]

You obviously didn't read that very carefully at all. The rule specifically prohibits the use of ADS-B. It instead proposes a requirement for drones to broadcast readable position and identification with their existing telemetry.

 

[zocalo]

My take was that they're proposing (it's not a done deal yet) something along the same lines of the UK's CAA; it'll be a way to eavesdrop on the RC-drone comms using some kind of DJI Aeroscope type tech, possibly with the drone's position provided from the RC or periodic broadcasts from the drone in a known - but non-ADS-B - format. Presumably these would be picked up with a suitably sensitive omnidirectional receiver on the nearest cell tower or whatever that could have a much greater range than needed for bi-directional comms since it would only need to grab any locational broadcasts in the area.

FWIW, ADS-B transmission still seems to be a few years off being technically feasible on all but the largest drones, but I'd expect that'll be coming along soon enough once it can be done at reasonable cost in terms of both dollars and performance, and will trickle down to ever smaller models over time. The real issue with using ADS-B probably isn't the transmitters though; it's figuring out how to integrate it into ATC systems without all those delivery drones swamping controllers with the locations of countless additional aircraft.

I guess if you're flying in an area where location receivers are not available then the chances of a collision are much lower, so they're assuming that won't be as much of a problem, or that they can use NFZs can cover any high-risk areas like military low-level flight training routes. At least that seemed to be the CAA's reasoning when the topic of the UK's similarly appalling rural cellular coverage was raised. Well, either that or they're living in FCC/Ofcom delusion-land where there will be ubiquitous 5G coverage in place across huge swathes of the rural landscape in a suitably timely manner...

 

[aWingnut]

I may be mistaken, but It looks like the actual proposed rules won't be public until 12/31 and then comments will be taken...We all need to be sure to make our "comments" known.

 

[BigAl07]

This topic is ALIVE and WELL over at:

FAA Drone ID Proposal:

Legal precedents and laws are quite clear, especially in transportation issues, that increased regulations such as safety etc are not retroactive. Correct as far as mandating new requirements on old technology, but the government CAN limit where those UAVs can be used without ID.

mavicpilots.com

Let's keep all the discussions in that thread.

Thank you for your contributions!!

**** Thread Closed****