FAA Drone ID Proposal- Round Two

[Thomas B]

Good question - the answer is not completely clear yet, at least to me. A device without cellular is still capable of connecting to the internet, via wifi, and so one could argue that the lack of wifi in that situation is no different to the lack of cellular signal, or the lack of coverage of the specific cellular provider that you use. That then simply puts it into the "capable" but "not connected to the internet" category of Standard Remote ID, and so you could fly with just the broadcast method.

Do you think this will mean that my CS and SC will not be of use when outside WiFi range and I’ll have to use my phone as part of the controlling apparatus instead?

 

[sar104]

Do you think this will mean that my CS and SC will not be of use when outside WiFi range and I’ll have to use my phone as part of the controlling apparatus instead?

Well in my post that you quoted I was arguing the opposite - that a wifi device is "capable of an internet connection", which is all that Standard Remote ID requires - at least as currently proposed. If that changes, or if I have missed something, there is always the option of using your phone as a hot-spot - which then provides internet connectivity to the tablet whenever there is cellular data connectivity, and that definitely satisfies the requirement.

 

[Thomas B]

Well in my post that you quoted I was arguing the opposite - that a wifi device is "capable of an internet connection", which is all that Standard Remote ID requires - at least as currently proposed. If that changes, or if I have missed something, there is always the option of using your phone as a hot-spot - which then provides internet connectivity to the tablet whenever there is cellular data connectivity, and that definitely satisfies the requirement.

Thanks... time will tell.

 

[badaxed]

Carry a phone?

yeah.... carry a phone..... call the authorities.... and when they get there..... they can pry the phone from your cold dead hands.

 

[Thomas B]

yeah.... carry a phone..... call the authorities.... and when they get there..... they can pry the phone from your cold dead hands.

My point was that privacy is lost when you use it.

 

[brettbrandon]

Well in my post that you quoted I was arguing the opposite - that a wifi device is "capable of an internet connection", which is all that Standard Remote ID requires - at least as currently proposed. If that changes, or if I have missed something, there is always the option of using your phone as a hot-spot - which then provides internet connectivity to the tablet whenever there is cellular data connectivity, and that definitely satisfies the requirement.

Question. If you have wifi only, how are you going to connect to internet as current wifi only travels a few hundred feet. Without a hotspot or like around.

 

[brettbrandon]

My point was that privacy is lost when you use it.

Is there an app folks can use to find your credentials or exact location.
Alot of what we can do now we have to give up privacy.
Personally, I will not get the "Real ID" in the US.

 

[sar104]

Question. If you have wifi only, how are you going to connect to internet as current wifi only travels a few hundred feet. Without a hotspot or like around.

You are not going to connect. But the requirement isn't to connect - it is to have an internet-capable device.

 

[brettbrandon]

You are not going to connect. But the requirement isn't to connect - it is to have an internet-capable device.

That makes alot of sense. Obviously our goverment at work...

 

[sar104]

That makes alot of sense. Obviously our goverment at work...

It absolutely makes sense, as explained repeatedly in the proposal that no one seems to want to read. The FAA wants the information to be transmitted via a USS when possible so that it is widely available. The alternative broadcast system is only going to be received locally.

 

[brettbrandon]

It absolutely makes sense, as explained repeatedly in the proposal that no one seems to want to read. The FAA wants the information to be transmitted via a USS when possible so that it is widely available. The alternative broadcast system is only going to be received locally.

It seems to me that 80 to 90 percent of the US is not covered in wifi and most of what is covered is private networks so I guess I just don't get it. Maybe they could tap into Commonwealth Edisons wifi that they are attaching to every house.

 

[sar104]

It seems to me that 80 to 90 percent of the US is not covered in wifi and most of what is covered is private networks so I guess I just don't get it. Maybe they could tap into Commonwealth Edisons wifi that they are attaching to every house.

But it doesn't have to be wifi - it will mostly be cellular.

 

[brettbrandon]

Reading more of it if you are not remote id they are going to assign places for you to fly. So much for scenic pics or footage.

This is still just going exactly how UPS, Amazon and the others have been pushing for. They all have their Lobbyists in Washington pushing for this so they can take over our airspace for deliveries. Washington does what the big corps want and could care less about us little folks who will have to accept it.
Enjoy it while it is here because the big boys will be taking over before too long.

 

[sar104]

Reading more of it if you are not remote id they are going to assign places for you to fly. So much for scenic pics or footage.

This is still just going exactly how UPS, Amazon and the others have been pushing for. They all have their Lobbyists in Washington pushing for this so they can take over our airspace for deliveries. Washington does what the big corps want and could care less about us little folks who will have to accept it.
Enjoy it while it is here because the big boys will be taking over before too long.

Right - but the plan is for most equipment to be compliant with Standard Remote ID. I don't think those companies want to be crashing into personal drones that they cannot detect, but there is much more to it than that. This proposal does the opposite of what so many people are crying about - it provides a framework in which you can continue to fly. If the FAA wanted to ban recreational drones from the airspace they would simply do that.

 

[brettbrandon]

Right - but the plan is for most equipment to be compliant with Standard Remote ID. I don't think those companies want to be crashing into personal drones that they cannot detect, but there is much more to it than that. This proposal does the opposite of what so many people are crying about - it provides a framework in which you can continue to fly. If the FAA wanted to ban recreational drones from the airspace they would simply do that.

Is my M2P going to be compliant?

 

[sar104]

Is my M2P going to be compliant?

I'm hoping that mine is, and I'm assuming that with DJI as part of the standards development team that they will drive a solution that only requires a firmware update. With all their commercial and enterprise aircraft in service that's going to be a real priority for them.

 

[brettbrandon]

This is about the same as what they did with changing the TV and wireless frequencies.
They moved the bands around and all the sudden our wireless microphones, guitars and in ear monitors have to be trashed because they are broadcasting on illegal frequencies. Once again, the big guys got what they wanted and individuals got screwed out of thousands of dollars.
Good reason not to buy the Mavic 3 if it exsists. It probably won't be compliant...

 

[Camino Ken]

Take off and landings are already dealt with via rules regarding controlled airspace around airports. As for the others, they represent a miniscule number of flight operations and can be controlled via a NOTAM system that you could receive on your smart phone to notify drone pilots of the activity.

I agree in general. The one issue is that for some of these flights they do not file a flight plan or notify the tower of the intent and specific location of the flight. The solution would be to have the ADS-B signals received by the drone pilots.

 

[deleted member 877]

In regard to Privacy I believe that Law Enforcement should be able to see your name but the general public should not be able to see more than an ID (like a number plate on a car) and location that can be reported to LE. Consider the following two scenarios:-

1. A car collides with yours but then does a runner, a hit-and-run. The most you can do is report the registration plate number to LE. There is no way for you to ascertain the name of the dirt-bag unless you're a cop yourself.

2. A drone is hovering outside your bedroom window with the camera pointing at you. There should be a way for you to somehow get the ID of that drone (but not the owner's name) so that you can report it to LE. That way they will be able to track down the offender even if they don't arrive on scene until the drone has flown away and disappeared.

So it could be argued that this new Drone Identifying system should not impact on privacy any more than what is currently in place using the first scenario as an example.

 

[sar104]

This is about the same as what they did with changing the TV and wireless frequencies.
They moved the bands around and all the sudden our wireless microphones, guitars and in ear monitors have to be trashed because they are broadcasting on illegal frequencies. Once again, the big guys got what they wanted and individuals got screwed out of thousands of dollars.
Good reason not to buy the Mavic 3 if it exsists. It probably won't be compliant...

Well if you are determined to convince yourself that it's all a big conspiracy to stop you flying then it's certainly not my job to talk you out of it.