FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Verdrone]

I'm taking a wait and see approach to this. The FAA is asking for feedback, so if you don't like this proposed regulation, let them know. I reacted very badly to NFZs back in the day, when they were implemented and it turned out to be a non issue for me. All of my DJI drones have remote ID in them already so I'm covered for limited use, which translates to what I have now, except the VLOS seems to be defined as 400', I may be reading that wrong though. I haven't read all of the replies but it seems a lot of people are missing that if you have a drone with an ADS-B transponder, you can seemingly fly wherever you want. Including BVLOS! That's the more interesting part in my opinion.

I emailed DJI support, my mavic mini gets here today. I asked them it would functional as it now, after these changes, can they make it compley.

 

[Lon Denard]

I emailed DJI support, my mavic mini gets here today. I asked them it would functional as it now, after these changes, can they make it compley.

I have a Mini and it has Remote ID in the settings so it's good to go for limited use. Like I said, my only concern is the definition of "limited use" and will DJI be forced to implement these rules through software? The good news for Mini owners is that we are currently exempt from these rules! People laughed at DJI for coming out with the Mini... Well, who's laughing now! Technically, if this goes through as written, the Mavic Mini will have more "legal range" than a Mavic 2 Pro! Hahahaha!

Before people start arguing with me, all I can say is, read the proposal. It clearly defines the drones that are affected by this proposed regulation as above 250 grams.

 

[Photoman482]

View attachment 88834

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

I just got a Mavic Pro 2. Does IT have Remote ID???

 

[SnipeUout]

I have been a pilot since I was 18. I have flown light singles and twins to military ejection seat aircraft. Since my early days in aviation it was viewed that one day general aviation would fade away due to increased regulation. This happening now. Soon people who could afford an old Cessna with steam gauges and basic equipment will be severely restricted once WAAS/ADS-B requirement are enacted. Pilots of older platforms who can’t upgrade will be limited to flying in G and E air space.

I don’t see the FAA giving one iota about recreational drones. They are not the same as classic RC aviation. Classic RC aviation required skill, some understanding of theory and was/is mostly limited to LOS. Any common Joe can buy a semi autonomous, surveillance drone for less then a thousand dollars. Take off with no knowledge and fly it beyond LOS. It’s abit scary not just for the survalance element, but the fact that they can/do crash into other peoples property.

Lastly, there is a national security threat. A lot of the popular drones are build and sold from China. A country that has a huge interest in the US and it’s allies. There is no doubt in my mind that DJI would take kick backs from the Chinese government to provide data mined information from US drone users. So the NSA could be working through back channels with the FAA to limit what these Chinese drones can see.

 

[Lon Denard]

I just got a Mavic Pro 2. Does IT have Remote ID???

Yes.

 

[Chip]

 

[Mavic Air Head]

I have not had a chance to read the whole thing, but it appears there will be a 400’ limit on DISTANCE, not only AGL altitude. Is this correct? Can anyone confirm/deny for sure?

That's the way I read it- a virtual pop can area to fly in.

 

[Drone on]

That's the way I read it- a virtual pop can area to fly in.
[/QUOT

Would only matter if that piece of the regulation is enforced. If DJI builds that into geo fencing, then either NLD sales will rise, or DJI sales will crash. If the latter, then this whole thread is mute.

I flew from an AMA field before, and it was great. It was great not because I stayed in the confines of the field, which I did not, rather because no RC planes were using the field, so I had this remote spot to fly undisturbed by others.

There was another AMA field I wanted access to for the same reason. I contacted the main administrator, and he was adamant, "NO DRONES".

If I have to fly within the confines of an AMA field, then I'm done...sooooo not worth it.

 

[kcabpilot]

This is just my opinion but based on the public opinion of drones in general I have a feeling that this whole idea of filling the sky with commercial package delivery drones is destined to be an abject failure. People are simply not going to put up with these contraptions constantly flying over their houses to make noisy, intrusive deliveries of ridiculously non-essential products to residential properties. The operator will be potentially pissing off a swath of people along the entire flight path. It will be a nightmare. I don't know who came up with this idea but they're nuts.

As for recreational drones. Yes, there may be millions of them out there but the vast majority of those rarely or never get flown again a month or two past Christmas and spend the rest of their lives in a closet with all the other forgotten toys.. The size of actual enthusiasts that regularly fly them is relatively small and for non-enthusiasts they get boring pretty quickly.

As for the new rules - the idea is that a whole bunch of people are gonna make a whole bunch of money and you ain't one of them. That's the way it always is, get used to it. But refer back to my first paragraph, looks like a bust to me.

 

[Lon Denard]

Well since virtually everyone on this forum claims to fly with in visual line of sight (except myself and a few others) and depending on the drone, conditions and individual, that can easily be defined as less than 400'... This shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I think some good points have been made regarding the "why" this is being implemented. I'm still of the opinion that safety is down the list of reasons, well below control, surveillance and paving the way for corporate interest. I also don't thinking a bunch of drone pilots writing the FAA is going to hold any sway, versus the giant corporate interest, in how this is going to play out. It's like writing my representatives in NY about 2nd Amendment issues.

The $500 million to a billion being directed at this issue should be directed at the real causes of aviation accidents and fatalities. The 400', VLOS rules have worked well (no fatal accidents and few incidences) in spite of the hysteria generated by the media when someone violates those rules. And if you really want to mitigate the possibility of a drone/manned aircraft collision prohibit manned aircraft from flights below 500' unless they are landing/taking off, emergency flight or commercial flight (crop dusting, power line inspection, etc.) that can only be accomplished by using a manned aircraft.

 

[kcabpilot]

...And if you really want to mitigate the possibility of a drone/manned aircraft collision prohibit manned aircraft from flights below 500' unless they are landing/taking off, emergency flight or commercial flight (crop dusting, power line inspection, etc.) that can only be accomplished by using a manned aircraft.

Somewhat unrealistic to expect to have the entire national airspace below 500 feet be given to hobbyists with toy airplanes. There is already a VLOS rule for UAV's that, as mentioned above, is doubtfully being followed. I know I can barely, if at all, see my dark grey Mavic Pro with unaided eyes when it's 400 feet away, that's really about the limit and only against the sky. It's virtually impossible to see against a landscape background such as hills or mountains. A few minutes of browsing YouTube will net you ample proof that the VLOS rule is regularly ignored.

 

[Huckleberry]

Page 289-290. It's clearly noted that there is NO grandfathering. Non-compliant aircraft would be limited to designated areas (model aircraft club fields, etc.). Also on Page 263 it is stated that NO person would be able to operate a UAS that is not able to transmit the required data (except on such sites).

That’ll be the day I become a law breaker.

 

[CloFan]

I am not in favor of the proposal as written. There are some good points and bad, but the internet requirement is simply unrealistic. In the US we are not to the point of ubiquitous internet; not to mention home-built quads that don't even have the ability to connect to an internet-connected device.

If I am able to fit a (small, lightweight, affordable) ADS-B transmitter to a quad, that may be acceptable. I don't want to hear excuses of the ADS-B network being over-saturated, the FAA should know that that is the cost of implementing something like this.

The 250g weight limit will absolutely be eliminated in the future. Keep that in mind when thinking this proposal will not affect your new Mini.

 

[kcabpilot]

...If I am able to fit a (small, lightweight, affordable) ADS-B-out transmitter to a quad, that may be acceptable. I don't want to hear excuses of the ADS-B network being over-saturated, the FAA should know that that is the cost of implementing something like this...

I doubt there are enough active drones at any one time to saturate the system but I just put the cheapest ADS-B-out system available in my airplane and it was about three times the cost of a Mavic - just for parts and that's the add-on I had to already have a mode C transponder.

 

[hiflyer201]

as if they didn't have enough to do...well you know the FAA motto....We're not happy until you're unhappy

 

[B52-D]

What do you thing this is going to add to the cost of anyone putting a transmitter on a drone that go 15 to 20 miles at 400 ft

FAA Guestimate is $2.50 per month.

 

[BigAl07]

Here is a great article written by our very own Vic Moss @Vic Moss

He tells it like it is and with experience and a vast knowledge of our industry under his belt. Vic isn't against Remote ID but he is for a smart approach and this article is the icing on the cake.

FAA Announces New Remote ID Technology...Why are We Disappointed?

How FAA's New Remote ID Proposal Will Endanger the Drone Pilot's Safety and End Up Hurting the Drone Industry As a Whole

www.thedroneu.com

 

[Shon]

Page 289-290. It's clearly noted that there is NO grandfathering. Non-compliant aircraft would be limited to designated areas (model aircraft club fields, etc.). Also on Page 263 it is stated that NO person would be able to operate a UAS that is not able to transmit the required data (except on such sites).

Thanks. I think this point is important for those that think somehow the rules won't apply to them.

 

[Lon Denard]

I am not in favor of the proposal as written. There are some good points and bad, but the internet requirement is simply unrealistic. In the US we are not to the point of ubiquitous internet; not to mention home-built quads that don't even have the ability to connect to an internet-connected device.

If I am able to fit a (small, lightweight, affordable) ADS-B transmitter to a quad, that may be acceptable. I don't want to hear excuses of the ADS-B network being over-saturated, the FAA should know that that is the cost of implementing something like this.

The 250g weight limit will absolutely be eliminated in the future. Keep that in mind when thinking this proposal will not affect your new Mini.

We'll see... There will always be some limit, and there will always be a way to beat it. As of now, I could just buy Japanese spec batteries for my Mini if they go to 200 grams. In any case, they will always regulate, that's what they do. Industry and individuals innovate, that's what we do.