FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

[dirkclod]

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...

www.federalregister.gov

For those that don't know Round 1 is here.
FAA Drone ID Proposal:

 

[brettbrandon]

A good reason to stay in the sub 250 gram and continue to build my own....

You know, manned aircraft aren't supposed to be below 500 agl and uas not over 400 agl most places.... Just sayin'

 

[Camino Ken]

A good reason to stay in the sub 250 gram and continue to build my own....

You know, manned aircraft aren't supposed to be below 500 agl and uas not over 400 agl most places.... Just sayin'

Manned aircraft fly below 500ft quite often like for takeoff and landings, search and rescue, fighting fires, locating fugitives, crop inspections, building inspections, dam inspections, surveying, installing large HVAC on roofs, etc etc.

 

[Starz]

I’m thinking that the remote part of all this has a second meaning. We will all have to go somewhere very remote to fly all these none communicating fly toys. Probably not a lot of remote area FAA guys hanging around those spots.

 

[deleted member 877]

I’m thinking that the remote part of all this has a second meaning. We will all have to go somewhere very remote to fly all these none communicating fly toys. Probably not a lot of remote area FAA guys hanging around those spots.

?????????

 

[Starz]

Just m

?????????

just my thoughts. Does what I said need an explanation?

 

[deleted member 877]

Just m

just my thoughts. Does what I said need an explanation?

Pretty much all of it if you don't mind.

 

[Starz]

If you can provide some insight as to what you need more information on, I’ll see if I can help.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm going to give EVERYONE reading this who intended to respond to the NPRM.... think ahead be sure to make your response fit into this bubble:

• concise
• specific
• respectful

I've been reading a batch of the current "Comments" and I've gotta say... it doesn't look good so far. Reasoning like:

"FPV isn't a crime"
or
"Freelancers and content creators should be able to perfect their craft and expand opportunities without unreasonable limitations "
or
"This legislation will kill a hobby that isn't actually harming ANYONE. Maybe instead of bothering people that aren't hurting anyone you actually protect people "

is not going to have any effect what so ever. Take the time to give suggestions/options rather than just being completely negative and critical. Details are IMPORTANT!!

 

[deleted member 877]

If you can provide some insight as to what you need more information on, I’ll see if I can help.

So, in other words, do you mean that we'll have to fly illegally in remote areas in the hope that there won't be any law enforcement around to bust us?

 

[Thomas B]

My biggest concern is the 400 foot diameter semicircle they seem to plan for flight where I can’t access internet... Granted it will be at least 3 years to implementation, but I made that comment to FAA/DOT since 88% of Arizona is National Forest or state trust land... some of the best and safest spots are really far from any internet capability in the desert and many canyons, etc.

 

[deleted member 877]

Was @sar104 incorrect when he said that lack of internet connectivity is not a requirement to be able to fly outside of a 400-foot bubble? My understanding from his numerous posts regarding this point was that the drone needs only to be able to broadcast the requisite data elements - a capability that most recent DJI drones already have.

 

[sar104]

My biggest concern is the 400 foot diameter semicircle they seem to plan for flight where I can’t access internet... Granted it will be at least 3 years to implementation, but I made that comment to FAA/DOT since 88% of Arizona is National Forest or state trust land... some of the best and safest spots are really far from any internet capability in the desert and many canyons, etc.

That's not correct - the 400 ft limit is for Limited Remote ID when you can access the internet.

 

[Starz]

Based on what information BigA107 just provided, probably better that I not expand on what I posted previously. I’m going to let him decide whether it should disappear. In short, I disagree with what the FAA is attempting to do. Thanks A, for your guidance.

 

[sar104]

Was @sar104 incorrect when he said that lack of internet connectivity is not a requirement to be able to fly outside of a 400-foot bubble? My understanding from his numerous posts regarding this point was that the drone needs only to be able to broadcast the requisite data elements - a capability that most recent DJI drones already have.

Correct - there is no additional limitation to sUAS operating under standard remote ID if the internet connection goes down - that's why they have the broadcast capability.

 

[Thomas B]

Correct - there is no additional limitation to sUAS operating under standard remote ID if the internet connection goes down - that's why they have the broadcast capability.

Thanks for posting the document and info immediately above!

 

[BigAl07]

Based on what information BigA107 just provided, probably better that I not expand on what I posted previously. I’m going to let him decide whether it should disappear. In short, I disagree with what the FAA is attempting to do. Thanks A, for your guidance.

I might have not stated myself very well... I was reading the actual comments on the NPRM on the Federal Registry website. My apology if I wasn't clear on what I was commenting about:

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...

www.federalregister.gov

 

[BigAl07]

This is a good read with some "Background" and some more details worth reading:

https://kittyhawk.io/resources/Remote-ID-White-Paper.pdf?dl=1

 

[Thomas B]

This is a good read with some "Background" and some more details worth reading:

https://kittyhawk.io/resources/Remote-ID-White-Paper.pdf?dl=1

Definitely worth the read... read it again just now.
Point 5 needs to be sent to local government to prevent passage of local laws that could entail flyers spending a lot on legal defense.

As posted before by me, the state of Arizona has, by law, reserved to itself the right to make these flights laws, beyond those from the federal government... but alas...

 

[cyeung]

So @sar104: Do you think DJI's drones in their current state can easily meet the Standard Remote Identification UAS rules?

I have been thinking about this over the past few days. Here would be my markups:

1. Delete "Limited Remote Identification UAS" rules altogether.
2. "Standard Remote Identification UAS" rules: Range restricted to 0.25 nautical mile (1,519 ft.) radius. From the law enforcement perspective, this should be OK because the home point is broadcasted, right?
3. Create a new category, "Enhanced Remote Identification UAS" rules, which requires:
   1. ADS-B in (e.g. DJI AirSense)
   2. Something that emulates Traffic Collision Avoidance System.

As a pilot, if I were flying beyond visual line of sight, I would want to know about what other aircraft are doing so that I can avoid them, and vice-versa.