FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

[Cybernaut]

Based on comments from DJI, I understand that all Mavic Pros already have the remote ID feature built-in. Is that true?

Does anyone know if there is a list of all drones that meet the requirements? I've been looking, but have not found one.

 

[Muddiver]

Here's more on drone to phone....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BigAl07]

Based on comments from DJI, I understand that all Mavic Pros already have the remote ID feature built-in. Is that true?

Does anyone know if there is a list of all drones that meet the requirements? I've been looking, but have not found one.

The "Requirements" aren't even finalized yet (still in Proposal) so there isn't a list because the requirements are still undecided.

 

[Muddiver]

If you look in your Go4 app Remote ID is already in there just not turned on (pilot's choice). I've seen it on my SC. DJI can already get drone info from DJI drones using their Aeroscope system (DJI product). Areoscope has been used for about 3yrs at sporting events, airports, outdoor concerts, etc. The info they get is make, model, serial number, location, altitude and direction.

Aeroscope - DJI

DJI AeroScope is able to identify the vast majority of popular drones on the market today by monitoring and analyzing their electronic signals to gain critical information, allowing users to protect the integrity of their flight-sensitive environment.

www.dji.com

 

[scoble08]

Based on comments from DJI, I understand that all Mavic Pros already have the remote ID feature built-in. Is that true?

Does anyone know if there is a list of all drones that meet the requirements? I've been looking, but have not found one.

I haven't heard of any firmware updates that contain Remote ID, however IOS DJI Go 4 version 4.3.32 has as section where you can enter Remote ID info.

 

[Cybernaut]

The "Requirements" aren't even finalized yet (still in Proposal) so there isn't a list because the requirements are still undecided.

I'm speculating, but I suspect Remote ID will be in the final version of the new rules. I hope the subscription services and other idiotic proposals will not be in there.

Thanks everyone for the responses regarding the Go 4 app.

 

[BigAl07]

Let's not confuse DJI's "Remote ID" with the Proposed Requirements
"Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems"

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

Which currently has over 34K comments but unfortunately many are from non-UAS enthusiasts.

I'm speculating, but I suspect Remote ID will be in the final version of the new rules. I hope the subscription services and other idiotic proposals will not be in there.

Thanks everyone for the responses regarding the Go 4 app.

Well yes Remote ID will be in the final version of the ruling because Remote Identification is the topic of the proposal. The problem is that DJI's version (which is more than adequate IMHO) doesn't meet half of the requirements as they are written now. We can only hope that they will read and appreciate the comments and make some sensible changes to the proposal before it goes into law.

 

[Deleted member 94047]

I haven't heard of any firmware updates that contain Remote ID, however IOS DJI Go 4 version 4.3.32 has as section where you can enter Remote ID info.

My understanding is that the "Remote Identification" currently present in GO4 (introduced by DJI in late 2017) and requires the purchase (?) and use of a separate system - AeroScope.

AeroScope is a system that remotely identifies and tracks airborne drones, allowing law enforcement and aviation safety officials to respond to safety and security concerns about drones. DJI drones locally broadcast their location, speed, heading and serial numbers to AeroScope receivers used by authorities at sensitive locations or in response to complaints. However, they do not broadcast personally identifiable information.

The above quote is from this news release from DJI dated 2017-12-01.

DJI Introduces Voluntary Flight Identification Options For Drone Pilots - DJI

DJI Introduces Voluntary Flight Identification Options For Drone Pilots

www.dji.com

So, it looks like the "Remote Identification" system which is already integrated into DJI Drones and the GO4 app and the "Drone-to-Phone Remote ID" scheme which DJI is now advocating are two separate systems. But who knows, DJI may have just tweaked the existing system such that it no longer requires specialized equipment (AeroScope receivers) and instead works with the app which they will release. If the later happens to be the case, a new firmware update may not be needed and all of us who have firmware versions dated early 2018 and later would be automatically enrolled in to the new system. All of this is just conjecture of course.

 

[Sowsalbitters]

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.

I like ideas like this. Submit this comment to the FAA. They are going to regulate things anyway. Why not make it good for “us” the pilot that wants to be safe for all reasons and our aircraft. Fine tune regulations to keep the pilot safe from legal matters and the community safe, by technology and certifications. So the people that know what they are doing “us” keep doing it that way. I do not agree at this point that all bad apples ruin the bunch. Having a signal that shows everything and to everyone about your free time and hobby. Is not the way to go. I feel if this gets as bad as everyone is saying. The bottom is going to fall out with UAVs all together.

 

[Sowsalbitters]

Gang- I might recommend you read the essential parts of the proposed law (it's an 87 page document).

We have FOUR YEARS before this law begins to actually take effect. Kindly read as follows which is pasted from the proposed legislation, found on page 72488 (it's a weird gov numbering thing- the actual doc is 87 pages), Section XVII. Highlights are mine from the paste section below.

"Requirements that prohibit operation of UAS without remote identification would begin 36 months after the effective date of the rule. This 36-month period runs concurrently with the 24- month period provided for the development of means of compliance, and for the design, production, and sale of UAS with remote identification.

Once UAS with remote identification are widely available, this proposal would allow an additional one- year period of time for UAS owners and operators to purchase and transition to operations of UAS with remote identification."

Hope this is helpful and positive in tone. I'm not an expert or an attorney, just a guy who believes in due diligence before I believe publicly shared information.

Best-

Neil Reid
Dallas, TX

Thanks bud. Actually really good info.

 

[badaxed]

Right, if it comes to that I wish them lots of luck with enforcement(not really). I guess when hobbyists are restricted to the point of flying a kite and fpv is all but outlawed then only outlaws will fly. There’s something north of 1.5 million registered “drones” as of now, how many are there that aren’t registered? Of them how many do you think will tell the FAA where exactly to insert their new regulations? Technically it’s already illegal to fly a 15 gram aircraft with goggles on and I try to break that regulation every single chance I get. If people like yourself and the FAA think outlaw flyers are a problem now then hold on because you haven’t seen anything yet, after all if you’re going to not comply with one part then I guess you might as well really go for the gusto!

Laws are words on paper and only have force if we believe in them and choose to abide by them. When we do not choose, the government is left with two choices: enforce the words with state violence or have its authority weakened with contempt by the People.

 

[dronerdave]

I do understand that without more black & white rules in place to follow, conviction for violating laws would be more difficult or maybe impossible. That is how it was in the past for rec fliers where the FAA only suggested we follow AMA/CBO type rules. Flying is a privilege, not a right, so similar to hunting there needs to be a set of rules in place to governor the public. You can break the law but you're responsible for your actions. I doubt there are gonna be gov agents looking for every drone operator flying out of compliance but if something does go wrong such as interfering with emergency operations, I'd think with a solid set of rules in place, it would be easier to be convicted. I do think something has to be done to stop some of the dumb actors out there and adding ID to multi-rotors is probably coming down the pike.

With that said, these newly proposed rules are a threat to recreational flying and think might be challenged in court. I'm not against ID, but to pay monthly on every RC aircraft I own would be way too costly IMO. I have planes I haven't flown in years. Why would I pay a monthly fee for something I rarely use? Anyway I feel the whole thing has been poorly thought out.

 

[dklassen]

"Flying is a privilege, not a right"

Guess i look at it a bit differently. Our Declaration of Independence says I have a God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Flying my quads isn't hurting anyone and I have a right to do it when I want and where I want as long as I'm not endangering anything or anyone else. Nothing wrong with following common sense guidelines for sure but this is a freedom grab by the government pure and simple. Glad to see RDQ taking the lead and suing the FAA over it.

 

[Thomas B]

Wonder if remote ID for drones has passed the constitutional test which resulted in the abandonment of photoradar for cars?

 

[DroningOn]

Wonder if remote ID for drones has passed the constitutional test which resulted in the abandonment of photoradar for cars?

The legal challenges against “photo tickets“ have always centered around the sixth amendment (the right to face ones accuser). I suspect the legal challenge to “drone ID“ will center more around the fourth amendment (warrantless/unreasonable search and seizure). I think the successful, so far, challenge to automated license plate readers is more analogous than photo tickets. Either way, if this gets implemented it will end up in the courts fast! Then and only then will the government have to articulate and defend this rule and how it will make the skies “safer“. Up to this point they have gotten a free ride.

 

[sar104]

"Flying is a privilege, not a right"

Guess i look at it a bit differently. Our Declaration of Independence says I have a God given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Flying my quads isn't hurting anyone and I have a right to do it when I want and where I want as long as I'm not endangering anything or anyone else. Nothing wrong with following common sense guidelines for sure but this is a freedom grab by the government pure and simple. Glad to see RDQ taking the lead and suing the FAA over it.

Living in a society with laws must be a total drag.

 

[OurAngryBadger]

Got my new M2P today and noticed it already has settings for Remote ID. My spark didn't have that.

Interesting in how it will works with the smart controller though, since the SC doesn't have an internet connection.

 

[wco81]

FAA announced 8 companies for Remote ID today. Airbus but not Boeing, T-Mobile the only mobile company. Oh and Amazon.

Does this mean they're going forward with the proposal, to heck with all the public comments?

 

[Classic flyer]

It appears the FAA is getting serious about REMOTE I D....looks like the party is starting to die down....be smart fly safe

 

[sar104]

FAA announced 8 companies for Remote ID today. Airbus but not Boeing, T-Mobile the only mobile company. Oh and Amazon.

Does this mean they're going forward with the proposal, to heck with all the public comments?

Of course they are moving forwards - the comment period is for constructive comments on the method - not pointless requests not to implement anything at all, which seemed to comprise the bulk of the responses. The next phase is to finalize the requirements and mechanisms.