FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

[xspwhite]

No - 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.

Where did you read this because I can't find it?

 

[AMann]

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.

What do you mean by “frequency connection”? It may only need to broadcast the drone’s and remote PIC’s ID information, location, etc., from the drone.

 

[Drgnfli]

i like this comment from an experienced pilot from the comment section of the federal register on drone Id rule.

Comment from Brett Tossell

The is a Comment on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Proposed Rule: Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems For related information, Open Docket Folder Comment As a 10,000+ hour ATP, former flight instructor, and Part 107 certificate holder this proposed NPRM is poorly reasoned, based on fallacy, harmful towards an emerging industry, and a detriment to education and our future. As a professional pilot, aircraft owner, and UAS operator - I fail to see the unsolvable safety risks posed by UAS operation. I've not been able to find the accidents, the fatalities, or the damages caused by UAS. This burdensome regulation punishes, and inhibits the growth of an emerging industry by onerous, overreaching regulation. Flying in my private aircraft, or in the jets at work - I wouldn't fear hitting a UAS any more than I'd fear a bird strike. See and avoid seems to be working. Altitude segmentation and separation works. I don't fly my UAS above our current limits, nor do I expect to see aircraft flying at or below treetop height. We already have exclusion around airports by regulation - and requiring transponders won't stop someone from operating nefariously by intent. The technology that is UAS is rapidly developing. No doubt commercial interests will earn huge profits by capitalizing off this market - in delivery of goods and services, and the sales, operation and service of the UAS themselves. However the garage tinkerer, the students, and amature engineers that experiment and play with these technologies should not be inhibited in their pursuits. Mandating transponders (or other means of electronic ID) will be a burden of compliance that only raises the barrier to entry. FPV, drones, Remote Controlled aircraft and the like are a tremendous draw for young people. They excite kids about science, math and engineering. They're open and accessible to kids, and something that really engages students well - capturing their minds and perhaps helping to shape their career choices. Locking these hobbies down to only certain areas closes the door to this opportunity. I can speak from experience - as my local AMA flying field is fenced in, closed off, and only open to those that have gate access, not the general public. Kids can't even come spectate. However when I fly my FPV and model aircraft at the local park, I get asked daily by children and adults about the hobby, and how they can become involved. Closing the door to this opportunity will do to UAS what product liability did to General Aviation in the mid 1980's. You'll kill it, and lock it out to the general public leaving it only for the corporations and the wealthy. I think you're potentially closing off opportunity for the organic growth and development of a burgeoning technology. You're taking the hobby away from children and hobbyists, and citing threats that have never materialized and can be addressed by other technology. Leave a door open to the tinkerers. Let the garage innovators build, test and fly things in their backyards, the local parks, and at schools. Put the burden on commercial operators to fly higher, above where the amature builders and student projects fly. Internet access isn't everywhere - and those places where networks haven't yet reached shouldn't be off limits to the general UAS flying public - they're our skies too. I hope you take these thoughts into consideration, and don't simply bow to the commercial interests and lock out the general public citing risks and threats that are being used to close the door on an exciting field of innovation.

Your words could not have been better on the subject! Thank you for speaking your mind...!

 

[sar104]

Where did you read this because I can't find it?

You aren't aware that DJI aircraft can communicate with the internet via the controller, or you aren't aware that DJI aircraft have wifi radios?

 

[Drgnfli]

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!!

I searched for the word "hobbyist" in the above new info on Remote ID - not there! What does that mean for us? Care to elaborate? Sounds like #36 is correct in his thoughts about our hobby... IMHO...

 

[xspwhite]

You aren't aware that DJI aircraft can communicate with the internet via the controller, or you aren't aware that DJI aircraft have wifi radios?

No, I was unaware of this. How does the controller connect to the internet?

 

[sar104]

No, I was unaware of this. How does the controller connect to the internet?

Via the mobile device. That's how it get's real-time updates on TFRs etc.

 

[xspwhite]

Via the mobile device. That's how it get's real-time updates on TFRs etc.

Yes, I knew about that, but the aircraft itself has to have its own broadcast connection to the USS in order to fly SRID. Otherwise, with just the phone"s connection, you can only fly LRID.

For SRID, you have to have a duel broadcast so that one is a backup.

 

[sar104]

Yes, I knew about that, but the aircraft itself has to have its own broadcast connection to the USS in order to fly SRID. Otherwise, with just the phone"s connection, you can only fly LRID.

For SRID, you have to have a duel broadcast so that one is a backup.

No - the broadcast method isn't talking to the USS - the internet connection is the communication with the USS. The broadcast is just a broadcast - not a connection to anything.

9. Message Transmission​

The FAA is proposing in § 89.310(i)(1) that standard remote identification UAS be capable of transmitting the message elements in proposed § 89.305 through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS. Additionally, the FAA is proposing in § 89.310(i)(2) to require that standard remote identification UAS be capable of broadcasting the message elements in proposed § 89.305 using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and radio frequency spectrum in accordance with 47 CFR part 15 that is compatible with personal wireless devices. The FAA envisions that remote identification broadcast equipment would broadcast using spectrum similar to that used by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. The FAA is not, however, proposing a specific frequency band. Rather, the FAA envisions industry stakeholders would identify the appropriate spectrum to use for this capability and would propose solutions through the means of compliance acceptance process. This requirement would ensure that the public has the capability, using existing commonly available and 47 CFR part 15 compliant devices, such as cellular phones, smart devices, tablet computers, or laptop computers, to receive these broadcast messages.​

 

[xspwhite]

No - the broadcast method isn't talking to the USS - the internet connection is the communication with the USS. The broadcast is just a broadcast - not a connection to anything.

9. Message Transmission​

The FAA is proposing in § 89.310(i)(1) that standard remote identification UAS be capable of transmitting the message elements in proposed § 89.305 through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS. Additionally, the FAA is proposing in § 89.310(i)(2) to require that standard remote identification UAS be capable of broadcasting the message elements in proposed § 89.305 using a non-proprietary broadcast specification and radio frequency spectrum in accordance with 47 CFR part 15 that is compatible with personal wireless devices. The FAA envisions that remote identification broadcast equipment would broadcast using spectrum similar to that used by Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices. The FAA is not, however, proposing a specific frequency band. Rather, the FAA envisions industry stakeholders would identify the appropriate spectrum to use for this capability and would propose solutions through the means of compliance acceptance process. This requirement would ensure that the public has the capability, using existing commonly available and 47 CFR part 15 compliant devices, such as cellular phones, smart devices, tablet computers, or laptop computers, to receive these broadcast messages.​

I'm really confused at this point. So then, what are the drones that will only be able to fly LRID? Both have to have an internet connection.

 

[sar104]

I'm really confused at this point. So then, what are the drones that will only be able to fly LRID? Both have to have an internet connection.

No - SRID and LRID equipment has to be capable of an internet connection to transmit data to a USS. The difference is that an SRID aircraft can also broadcast directly, and so can still fly if no internet connection is available. A Limited Remote ID aircraft will only be able to transmit data via an internet connection to a USS - they will not have the direct broadcast capability - and so without an available internet connection they cannot take off.

 

[xspwhite]

No - SRID and LRID equipment has to be capable of an internet connection to transmit data to a USS. The difference is that an SRID aircraft can also broadcast directly, and so can still fly if no internet connection is available. A Limited Remote ID aircraft will only be able to transmit data via an internet connection to a USS - they will not have the direct broadcast capability - and so without an available internet connection, they cannot take off.

What do you mean by directly? Look at these two pics. It looks like there is a satellite involved.

 

[sar104]

What do you mean by directly? Look at these two pics. It looks like there is a satellite involved.
View attachment 90261View attachment 90262

Are you referring to the blue thing that looks like a satellite comms dish? If so then no - that's just a representation of a ground-based receiver. A really bad representation and, in fact, both those graphics are really poorly done, but that's what it is supposed to be.

Again - you really need to stop looking at third party attempts to make money by pushing these videos. Just read the document.

 

[xspwhite]

Are you referring to the blue thing that looks like a satellite comms dish? If so then no - that's just a representation of a ground-based receiver. A really bad representation and, in fact, both those graphics are really poorly done, but that's what it is supposed to be.

Again - you really need to stop looking at third party attempts to make money by pushing these videos. Just read the document.

Alright, I guess I can take a look at it.

 

[Thomas B]

Alright, I guess I can take a look at it.

And then be sure to comment to FAA/DOT on this webpage:

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

 

[Chip]

Are you referring to the blue thing that looks like a satellite comms dish? If so then no - that's just a representation of a ground-based receiver. A really bad representation and, in fact, both those graphics are really poorly done, but that's what it is supposed to be.

Again - you really need to stop looking at third party attempts to make money by pushing these videos. Just read the document.

Wouldnt that be great if we knew someone who understood these proposed regs inside and out and was really good at making color graphics to help regular people understand? ? Oh wait, I can think of someone who would be perfect....

 

[dirkclod]

And then be sure to comment to FAA/DOT on this webpage:

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

Think all should and all the sarcasm stop as well as this just
going round and round like Round 1. It continues I see a
Round 3 in the future.
Not directed at you Chip but many here.

 

[djaco]

I am still at a loss as to what kind of retrofitting can be done to a homebuilt using Naza M controllers that currently have no data output, or at least has not been connected to a data link transmitter.

 

[wco81]

So here's a thought.

If this proposal or any other regulations lead to strict enforcement of VLOS, I think a premium would be put on battery life or at least more affordable batteries.

Because people might be flying in a small footprint, then land, then move on about a kilometer and fly again and move on, etc.

That's assuming they don't restrict where you can take off and land to tiny spots in a given area and force you to fly VLOS from them. In that case, maybe flight time/battery life becomes less important.

 

[DoomMeister]

So here's a thought.

If this proposal or any other regulations lead to strict enforcement of VLOS, I think a premium would be put on battery life or at least more affordable batteries.

Because people might be flying in a small footprint, then land, then move on about a kilometer and fly again and move on, etc.

That's assuming they don't restrict where you can take off and land to tiny spots in a given area and force you to fly VLOS from them. In that case, maybe flight time/battery life becomes less important.

It won’t just be strict enforcement of VLOS, it will be a strict geofence of 400’ from the controller unless the system qualifies as standard RID. In other words the system will not allow you to fly farther than 400’ from the controller, and if you have no connection to an RID USS you will be restricted to a FRIA (possibly an AMA flying field).