FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

[sar104]

ok then that is another criticism I have of the regs, it takes a nuclear physicist to fathom the fine print!

That's a bit harsh. I know I keep asking but have you personally read the document? Granted it's a bit long-winded, especially in the middle part where it discusses the FAA assessment of all the recommendations that it received, but you can ignore all that and the essential parts are really very plainly written, despite all the best attempts to misunderstand them.

 

[xspwhite]

First, what kind of transmitter is the FAA planning to have us purchase to add to the drones that we currently fly? Secondly, who is going to be monitoring our flights? Will there be a dedicated person sitting there watching for each and every occasional drone flight that might pop up for 15 minutes of flight. It does not sound like it will be part of air traffic control as the ADS-B is for all aircraft. Maybe the whole system will be something that allows identification if there is someone flying where they shouldn't be flying. In that way we will be left alone, an individual does something stupid. At that time they could review records of recent flights. Who knows at this point.

The way I understand it so far is: you won't be able to buy a transmitter for your existing drone. In theory, you could, but the drone would have to be approved and inspected/certified by the FAA.

In a nutshell, approved drone manufactures will make two flavors of drones.

Limited Capabilities - Lower Price = Fly in a 400-foot bubble.

Standard Capabilities - Higher Price = Fly where you want. FPV/over people/nighttime/exc.

 

[Chip]

That's a bit harsh. I know I keep asking but have you personally read the document? Granted it's a bit long-winded, especially in the middle part where it discusses the FAA assessment of all the recommendations that it received, but you can ignore all that and the essential parts are really very plainly written, despite all the best attempts to misunderstand them.

Ok well I guess Im busted...not yet but working through it...with the help of you and the rest of our friends and colleagues here on MavicPilots

 

[sar104]

Most illegal flights will be by those that are not registered. So we are in the same boat as before, except those that do follow the rules will be more restricted than we are now. Sounds like a lose-lose situation.

Which additional restrictions are you referring to?

 

[DoomMeister]

R.I.D. and no grandfathering of our older systems. Being restricted to flying at flying fields on a 400’ geofence.

Call me stubborn if you will, but this whole RID proposal is nothing but a kick in teeth and only serves big business. The hobby flier for photography and videography as well as the small commercial 107 pilot will incur unneeded expense in order to comply with these proposed rules.

I am still at a loss to understand what great benefits the public is supposed to reap from all the BVLOS sorties that will occur in the wake of these proposals becoming part of the FAR’s.

Maybe someone with great foresight can lay it out in plain unvarnished clarity so that I can be enlightened as to why this is so necessary.

 

[paul242]

Which additional restrictions are you referring to?

This is one of the FAA scenarios....
Sam is cleaning out his closet and finds a UAS that he bought a number of years ago. The UAS was purchased before the remote identification rule went into effect and the unmanned aircraft weighs 1 pound. He remembers registering the unmanned aircraft, but knows it does not have remote identification. Sam is aware that some older UAS manufactured without remote identification could receive a software update that makes them remote identification compliant. He checks the UAS manufacturer's website, but unfortunately his model of UAS is not eligible for an update. Because Sam's unmanned aircraft is required to be registered and does not have remote identification, Sam can only operate it at an FAA-recognized identification area.

 

[sar104]

R.I.D. and no grandfathering of our older systems.

Not grandfathered, but much of the DJI equipment will probably be compliant. Not a restriction.

Being restricted to flying at flying fields on a 400’ geofence.

Only if you don't have SRID, which you will likely have.

Call me stubborn if you will, but this whole RID proposal is nothing but a kick in teeth and only serves big business. The hobby flier for photography and videography as well as the small commercial 107 pilot will incur unneeded expense in order to comply with these proposed rules.

$2.50 per month?

I am still at a loss to understand what great benefits the public is supposed to reap from all the BVLOS sorties that will occur in the wake of these proposals becoming part of the FAR’s.

This seems to me to a remarkable case of the FAA attempting to get ahead of the issue so that they are not continually playing catch up. Does anyone really not think that autonomous sUAS are not going to end up being widely used for all kinds of purposes?

 

[sar104]

This is one of the FAA scenarios....
Sam is cleaning out his closet and finds a UAS that he bought a number of years ago. The UAS was purchased before the remote identification rule went into effect and the unmanned aircraft weighs 1 pound. He remembers registering the unmanned aircraft, but knows it does not have remote identification. Sam is aware that some older UAS manufactured without remote identification could receive a software update that makes them remote identification compliant. He checks the UAS manufacturer's website, but unfortunately his model of UAS is not eligible for an update. Because Sam's unmanned aircraft is required to be registered and does not have remote identification, Sam can only operate it at an FAA-recognized identification area.

And Sam must be quite devastated that the UAV that he bought years ago and has sat in his closet is only going to be allowed at FAA identification areas. Or in the closet where it has been living perfectly happily. So yes - even the FAA can come up with contrived cases to get to the "poor oppressed recreational flier" complaint.

 

[CaptHook]

Can I fly under the full Standard remote identification UAS rules with no internet connection?
ie: There is no internet connection at my remote location, can I take off?

There are 2 terms used to determine Standard remote identification:

1) transmit - the data is 'transmitted' over the internet
2) broadcast - the data is 'broadcast' by the aircraft

From the FAA document:
-----------
Page 8: (design and production requirements)

This proposal establishes design and production requirements for two categories of
remote identification: standard remote identification UAS and limited remote identification
UAS. Standard remote identification UAS would be required to broadcast identification and
location information directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit that same
information to a Remote ID USS through an internet connection.'

So, to operate under Standard remote identification, the aircraft must be EQUIPPED to both transmit and broadcast data.

-----------
Page 22: (Operating Requirements)

'Standard remote identification UAS
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.'

So, if the aircraft can BROADCAST the data, internet is not required to fly.
---
'In-flight loss of broadcast capability:
A person manipulating the flight controls of a standard remote
identification UAS that can no longer broadcast the message elements
would have to land as soon as practicable.'

So, if the aircraft loses its ability to BROADCAST, it should land ASAP.
-----

So, yes - if the aircraft is Standard remote identification qualified (page 8),
an internet connection is NOT required to fly. (page 22)
---

 

[badaxed]

And yet they are all incorrect. Have you read the document? It's perfectly clear that internet service is not a prerequisite for flying under Standard Remote ID, quite apart from the obvious point that it would be completely self-defeating if it were.

Maybe all these people who are incorrect cannot interpret the language.
Language can have more than one meaning. example:
I saw a man on a hill with a telescope.
It seems like a simple statement until you begin to unpack the many alternate meanings:
There’s a man on a hill, and I’m watching him with my telescope.
There’s a man on a hill, who I’m seeing, and he has a telescope.
There’s a man, and he’s on a hill that also has a telescope on it.
I’m on a hill, and I saw a man using a telescope.
There’s a man on a hill, and I’m watching him with a telescope.

 

[djaco]

What about my homebuilt multi rotors that do not have any kind of data transmission, only video feed and occasionally altitude and low battery warnings.

I'm still not sure why the FAA is involved with small plastic toys, especially if the rules are followed, 400ft or less, within sight. I have a private pilots license, you don't fly below 500ft, so the two will never meet.

 

[xspwhite]

And Sam must be quite devastated that the UAV that he bought years ago and has sat in his closet is only going to be allowed at FAA identification areas. Or in the closet where it has been living perfectly happily. So yes - even the FAA can come up with contrived cases to get to the "poor oppressed recreational flier" complaint.

I think what you are not seeing is the fact that buying a drone with Standard Compatibilities might run $20,000, leaving them for only big companies to buy.

Regular Joe Consumer might pay $2000 for a drone that just has Limited Compatibilities, which would leave him to fly in a 400-foot bubble.

Also, the $2.50 a month would be for each drone you own.

 

[wco81]

So how many here have submitted comments and concerns officially to the FAA?

Or will do so?

 

[sar104]

I think what you are not seeing is the fact that buying a drone with Standard Compatibilities might run $20,000, leaving them for only big companies to buy.

No - that's definitely not the case. The current DJI range of aircraft already has the necessary hardware for SRID - an internet connection via the mobile device and a wifi radio for broadcast data.

Also, the $2.50 a month would be for each drone you own.

No - that's also not correct - it's per account, not per aircraft.

 

[xspwhite]

No - that's definitely not the case. The current DJI range of aircraft already has the necessary hardware for SRID - an internet connection via the mobile device and a wifi radio for broadcast data.

If that's the case then I don't mind. We will basically just be giving up our privacy for more freedom with our drones I suppose.

 

[wco81]

More freedom?

Sounds like less freedom.

 

[AMann]

I know a lot of off-the-cuff recreational flyers are not happy with it, but I don’t think it’s as big of a deal for casual flying I do and for 107 commercial flights because our Mavics already can do this, and it would be fairly simple as well to use an approved app like Airmap to do the preflight notifications:

5. MINIMUM DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOTE ID AND TRACKING
The ARC recommended a set of minimum data requirements for remote identification and tracking of UAS. Under the ARC's recommendation, availability of the following types of data related to the unmanned aircraft or associated control station would be required: (1) Unique identifier of the unmanned aircraft; (2) tracking information for the UAS; and (3) identifying information of the UAS owner and remote pilot. Availability of the following types of data related to the unmanned aircraft or associated control station would be optional: (1) Mission type; (2) route data; and (3) operating status of the unmanned aircraft. The ARC also recommended that the specific data elements to be provided by the UAS operator should vary depending on the nature of the operation. Finally, the ARC recommended that some data elements be provided prior to flight (e.g., via the internet), while other data elements be provided in real-time while the UAS is in flight.

 

[paul242]

And Sam must be quite devastated that the UAV that he bought years ago and has sat in his closet is only going to be allowed at FAA identification areas. Or in the closet where it has been living perfectly happily. So yes - even the FAA can come up with contrived cases to get to the "poor oppressed recreational flier" complaint.

I'm sure he is, but the point being made is if your drone is not equipped with remote ID, you won't be able to fly it. I know these proposals are a few years away, but it means if they can't be retrofitted, you're not flying it legally anywhere but FAA sanctioned areas.

 

[AMann]

I'm sure he is, but the point being made is if your drone is not equipped with remote ID, you won't be able to fly it. I know these proposals are a few years away, but it means if they can't be retrofitted, you're not flying it legally anywhere but FAA sanctioned areas.

I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of options for that for the DIYer. They may not all be that cheap, but heck, you could even attach a small cell phone to it with the right app.

 

[xspwhite]

I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of options for that for the DIYer. They may not all be that cheap, but heck, you could even attach a small cell phone to it with the right app.

One connection is a frequency connection, the other is data. You have to have both to fly SRID. If you only have data, then you can only fly Limited Remote ID, tethering you to a 400-foot bubble.