FAA Announces 8 Partners in Remote ID Development

[sar104]

This is all way above my 'pay scale' but I do see a fix for those who don't have remote I.D. on their drones... I don't have a clue if my Mavic 2 Pro or Mini, both bought this past late Fall do or not..... from a post on this forum I bought Marco Polos for my drones.... (have never had to use one) but since there is this simple little transmitter that can attach to either drone and does not impede flight... why could a company not develop the same thing with a specific ID code that is programed and then transmits to the controller and ultimately to the internet where possible?

All DJI aircraft already transmit all the necessary data elements (and far more) to the controller - there is no need for any additional hardware. The only remaining detail is whether those transmissions will also be able to be compliant with the direct broadcast requirement. That's just a standards issue, so hopefully it will be incorporated.

 

[geneg]

I have to question why amazon. Speculation from the announcement of remote ID has swirled around amazon and they’re personal interests. Not sure I consider them a tech company. i would rather see a Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman or even a Garmin type company over amazon. What exactly does amazon bring to the table technology wise?

Not a tech company???????

Amazon Web Services offers a broad set of global cloud-based products including compute, storage, databases, analytics, networking, mobile, developer tools, management tools, IoT, security and enterprise applications. These services help organizations move faster, lower IT costs, and scale. AWS is trusted by the largest enterprises and the hottest start-ups to power a wide variety of workloads including: web and mobile applications, game development, data processing and warehousing, storage, archive, and many others.

 

[IShouldBeWorking]

Not a tech company???????

Amazon Web Services offers a broad set of global cloud-based products including compute, storage, databases, analytics, networking, mobile, developer tools, management tools, IoT, security and enterprise applications. These services help organizations move faster, lower IT costs, and scale. AWS is trusted by the largest enterprises and the hottest start-ups to power a wide variety of workloads including: web and mobile applications, game development, data processing and warehousing, storage, archive, and many others.

Yup! The last two companies I've worked for utilized various AWS offerings in our tech products. Amazon has very legit reasons to be a partner. But I kind of wish they could have leaned toward Microsoft, who also offers powerful cloud computing resources but doesn't have the aspirations to be a big player in the commercial UAV space. But maybe Amazon's aspirations will actually improve the tech and standards that come out of this. I don't know and I'm willing to keep an open mind. But I'll be watching the news closely as all of this develops.

 

[scoble08]

Yes - for their own financial gain in supplying that service - not to pay for the costs of developing the entire system and subsidizing large-scale commercial use.

I feel that these fees, and their possible escalating amounts, will, be part of paying for the cost these organizations
incur for R&D and subsidizing. They will recoup their expenditures through any means available.

 

[sar104]

I feel that these fees, and their possible escalating amounts, will, be part of paying for the cost these organizations
incur for R&D and subsidizing. They will recoup their expenditures through any means available.

Okay - well if all you are going to do is engage in rampant speculation then there's not much point arguing about it. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to support those assertions. But if that's your current theory then you might want to think about the consequences. Pricing the hobbyist and smaller players out of the market would, in any case, be self-defeating if that group were the funding source that they are depending on.

 

[scoble08]

Okay - well if all you are going to do is engage in rampant speculation then there's not much point arguing about it. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind to support those assertions. But if that's your current theory then you might want to think about the consequences. Pricing the hobbyist and smaller players out of the market would, in any case, be self-defeating if that group were the funding source that they are depending on.

Wow! Really now! Seems all we’re BOTH doing is engaging in rampant speculation then! Where’s the absolute evidence to your assertions? Maybe you might want to think about the consequences of operating a business where expenses are not realized.
However, I do agree that there’s no point in further discussion.

 

[Texbow]

IMHO this is much to do about nothing in regard to the players selected. I've participated in a very similar process in the Energy sector when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission executed a NOPR in regard to energy business standards. Several energy companies AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE participated for well over a year to present business standards to the Commission. The Commission later utilized the recommendations in the FERC order published soon thereafter. There were business committees, technical committees etc. It was a difficult quest but all the participating companies knew it was in there best interest to put forth the standards rather than have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to decide for them. I suspect this process with the FAA is not much different.

 

[TheRock]

The estimated $5 fee going to the USS RID service providers? That's going to pay for the service perhaps, but I have no idea how you think it is going to fund the entire RID development costs. The big commercial players are going to be the ones footing the bill.

Sure, how benevolent. That's how they always make a lot of money for their stockholders... by footing the bill for government projects. Eventually, drone owners will foot the bill.

 

[sar104]

Wow! Really now! Seems all we’re BOTH doing is engaging in rampant speculation then! Where’s the absolute evidence to your assertions? Maybe you might want to think about the consequences of operating a business where expenses are not realized.
However, I do agree that there’s no point in further discussion.

That's entirely false equivalence - I'm not the one making unsupported assertions.

 

[sar104]

Sure, how benevolent. That's how they always make a lot of money for their stockholders... by footing the bill for government projects. Eventually, drone owners will foot the bill.

Right - you want to be able to fly for free. Most significant government projects are taxpayer funded, especially if they are judged to be of widespread benefit. I'm sure that you would love to have your hobby taxpayer funded, but that doesn't make it reasonable. If there end up being specific costs to drone users for airspace safety then those users should absolutely foot that particular bill.

 

[IShouldBeWorking]

I got a good chuckle just now. The FAA sent out a clarification of the role these 8 partners will have in Remote ID. They're more verbose than @sar104's clarification earlier in this thread, but they were definitely saying the same thing:

"Thanks for the questions we received after yesterday’s press release on the Remote ID Cohort. To clarify, the Cohort is not part of the decision-making process for the proposed Remote ID rule final rule. The Cohort will help the FAA develop technology requirements for other companies to develop applications needed for Remote ID. The comment period on the Remote ID Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closed on March 2, 2020, and the FAA is reviewing the more than 53,000 comments."

 

[CactusJackSlade]

This is all way above my 'pay scale' but I do see a fix for those who don't have remote I.D. on their drones... I don't have a clue if my Mavic 2 Pro or Mini, both bought this past late Fall do or not..... from a post on this forum I bought Marco Polos for my drones.... (have never had to use one) but since there is this simple little transmitter that can attach to either drone and does not impede flight... why could a company not develop the same thing with a specific ID code that is programed and then transmits to the controller and ultimately to the internet where possible?

I asked this very question to an FAA representative at the 2020 CES show - he said "If someone can do that they will make a lot of money"

My concern, is, as presently written, a Remote ID beacon is not enough. It must integrate with the control system to basically "force an action" of the aircraft given a certain set of circumstances... at least that is the way I read it.

This presents a pretty much impossible challenge for older aircraft and radio systems. Hope fully a small transmit only device will be allowed under certain flying conditions.

 

[sar104]

I asked this very question to an FAA representative at the 2020 CES show - he said "If someone can do that they will make a lot of money"

My concern, is, as presently written, a Remote ID beacon is not enough. It must integrate with the control system to basically "force an action" of the aircraft given a certain set of circumstances... at least that is the way I read it.

This presents a pretty much impossible challenge for older aircraft and radio systems. Hope fully a small transmit only device will be allowed under certain flying conditions.

Except that's exactly how the RID proposal is written - there is not requirement for any kind of forced action.

 

[Kelpfish]

Aside from the complexity of pulling this off, I still cannot understand why they would shut down the ability to fly remotely where there is no Internet/cell connection. I fly out over the ocean (way out there) where we don't have any connectivity for days. If I have to have a cellular connection, I will never be able to shoot that way again. There has to be some work-around on this by the time this gets deployed in a few years.

 

[Terry63]

Aside from the complexity of pulling this off, I still cannot understand why they would shut down the ability to fly remotely where there is no Internet/cell connection. I fly out over the ocean (way out there) where we don't have any connectivity for days. If I have to have a cellular connection, I will never be able to shoot that way again. There has to be some work-around on this by the time this gets deployed in a few years.

The work around is written in the proposal. If you have no internet or cellular connection then you can fly using only the broadcast if I understand it correctly. I have a similar situation as I fly in remote rural locations with no internet and spotty cell phone coverage.

 

[sar104]

Aside from the complexity of pulling this off, I still cannot understand why they would shut down the ability to fly remotely where there is no Internet/cell connection. I fly out over the ocean (way out there) where we don't have any connectivity for days. If I have to have a cellular connection, I will never be able to shoot that way again. There has to be some work-around on this by the time this gets deployed in a few years.

That would have been a bad idea, which is why it is not what the proposal says, and there is no requirement for an internet or cellular data connection.

 

[Kelpfish]

What I've read says the opposite. I'll try to locate the specific FAA piece I found and we can dissect what it means. Thanks for the input.


EDIT:
Standard Remote Identification (SRI)
The Standard Remote Identification (SRI) is the top category. It requires drone operators to use drone(s) and control station(s) of high quality with consistent internet connectivity. This option would allow the drone to send its Remote ID message to a provider that shares it with every stakeholder in an operation. The Standard option allows drone pilots to conduct normal operations under Part 107.

Limited Remote Identification (LRI)
The Limited Remote Identification category is for drone operators who do not have a reliable internet connection. Under this category pilots can operate on a limited basis, so long as the drone can constantly transmit the identifying message. The LRI category only allows for operations within 400 lateral feet of the control station. If something prevents the drone from sending the message it will not be allowed to fly.

FAA Recognized Identification Area (FRIA)

The FAA Recognized Identification Area category is for the recreational drone pilots who do not want to deal with Remote ID and just want to fly. The catch is that they can only operate in specific areas and must stay within 400 feet of the control station.

1. If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, the standard remote identification UAS would not be able to take off unless it is broadcasting the message elements.

2. If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, the limited remote identification UAS would not be able to take off because, unlike a standard remote identification UAS, a limited remote identification UAS would not be able to broadcast the remote identification message elements in § 89.305 or § 89.315.

So according to the FAA's own proposal, the only place you'd be able to fly without connectivity is in a FRIA zone.

Unless I am interpreting their own language incorrectly, we would not be able to operate our drones without connectivity.

 

[sar104]

What I've read says the opposite. I'll try to locate the specific FAA piece I found and we can dissect what it means. Thanks for the input.

Then you haven't read the actual proposal, which is perfectly clear on that issue. There were lots of really bad blogs, articles, YT videos etc. that claimed exactly that.

Directly quoting from the FAA NPRM, 89.110:

Remote identification:​

​

If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft.​

​

If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.​

 

[Kelpfish]

The work around is written in the proposal. If you have no internet or cellular connection then you can fly using only the broadcast if I understand it correctly. I have a similar situation as I fly in remote rural locations with no internet and spotty cell phone coverage.

According to the FAA you need an Internet connection to broadcast message elements in the LRI class, which is the class we'd need flexibility to fly remotely.

 

[Kelpfish]

Then you haven't read the actual proposal, which is perfectly clear on that issue. There were lots of really bad blogs, articles, YT videos etc. that claimed exactly that.

Directly quoting from the FAA NPRM, 89.110:

Remote identification:​

​

If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft.​

​

If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.​

If you look at what I put in directly from the FAA site, you must have an Internet connection to broadcast message elements. Perhaps their wording is misleading, but that's how I interpret their language.