FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Matriculated01]

@sar104 you are wrong: an internet connection will be required [EDIT: where available] unless you want to only fly in the designated “drone parks.” If you’re gonna get on your high horse at least don’t misreport the facts. I’ve had a chance to read this thing and research a little more now. Direct transmission to local USS AND internet if you want to fly something like you are right now, or internet ONLY but be limited to 400’ distance, or neither and go to a drone park. The effect of this will be a major crunch on recreational flying. For those who still want to fly, say bye to any privacy and get ready for higher costs. You are being very presumptive to assume that people are mad about this because they want to continue to break the law with impunity. You’re not talking about me, I can tell you that much. This is the same naive attitude that has caused so many problems and allowed the government to abuse their power in so many different ways in the last 20 years: “If you’re not doing anything wrong why are you so concerned with the government tracking you, huh? You must be a criminal to value your privacy so much.” That’s exactly how we got so many of the mass surveillance scandals and so many people were harmed by it. Giving the government more surveillance power over ordinary people does not come without a cost. I am not naive about the fact that the drone industry is still in its infancy and that the explosion that’s coming had to be regulated somehow. I fully understand the legitimate safety concerns as more and more people get their hands on drones. I always think of how stupid the average person is and then remember that 50% of people are even stupider than that, which is a scary thought when we’re talking about all of these people having autonomous flying robots with (at least theoretical) capability of bringing down an airliner from miles away. I get it. But THIS is not the answer. This gives the government way too much info that they don’t need. I suppose there are ways to amend this that would make it more palatable. I would have questions about recording/storage of flight records. Who, for how long, for what purpose? What specifically is being done to address legitimate privacy concerns? I know this thing is inevitable, ordinary people are irrelevant when we’re talking about billions of $ about to be made, but if it is changed in a way to provide real, not imaginary, privacy protections it would become much more palatable to more people. But with the government’s record on promises of privacy protections and a proven track record of abuses any such assurances will be very thin, and liable to be left in the wind on a moment’s notice.

 

[sar104]

@sar104 yoi are wrong: an internet connection will be required unless you want to only fly in the designated “drone parks.” If you’re gonna get on your high horse at least don’t misreport the facts. I’ve had a chance to read this thing and research a little more now. Direct transmission to local USS AND internet if you want to fly something like you are right now, or internet ONLY but be limited to 400’ distance, or neither and go to a drone park. The effect of this will be a major crunch on recreational flying. For those who still want to fly, say bye to any privacy and get ready for higher costs. You are being very presumptive to assume that people are mad about this because they want to continue to break the law with impunity. You’re not talking about me, I can tell you that much. This is the same naive attitude that has caused so many problems and allowed the government to abuse their power in so many different ways in the last 20 years: “If you’re not doing anything wrong why are you so concerned with the government tracking you, huh? You must be a criminal to value your privacy so much.” That’s exactly how we got so many of the mass surveillance scandals and so many people were harmed by it. Giving the government more surveillance power over ordinary people does not come without a cost. I am not naive about the fact that the drone industry is still in its infancy and that the explosion that’s coming had to be regulated somehow. I fully understand the legitimate safety concerns as more and more people get their hands on drones. I always think of how stupid the average person is and then remember that 50% of people are even stupider than that, which is a scary thought when we’re talking about all of these people having autonomous flying robots with (at least theoretical) capability of bringing down an airliner from miles away. I get it. But THIS is not the answer. This gives the government way too much info that they don’t need. I suppose there are ways to amend this that would make it more palatable. I would have questions about recording/storage of flight records. Who, for how long, for what purpose? What specifically is being done to address legitimate privacy concerns? I know this thing is inevitable, ordinary people are irrelevant when we’re talking about billions of $ about to be made, but if it is changed in a way to provide real, not imaginary, privacy protections it would become much more palatable to more people. But with the government’s record on promises of privacy protections and a proven track record of abuses any such assurances will be very thin, and liable to be left in the wind on a moment’s notice.

No - I'm not wrong. To quote the proposal:

Standard 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.​

 

[MEFfly]

An action to take should be to make your concerns known when the FAA opens the "public comment period".

If enough of us don't like one or more provisions, we might be able to stop implementation or get the onerous requirements we don't like changed.

But that DOES require action.

I will gladly post a public comment if someone comes up with the appropriate/specific language and tells me where/how to post. FAA getting 1000's of respectful and specific comments should hopefully allow the proposed regulations to be crafted to limit adverse impacts on hobby flyers like many/most of us.

 

[Thomas B]

I will gladly post a public comment if someone comes up with the appropriate/specific language and tells me where/how to post. FAA getting 1000's of respectful and specific comments should hopefully allow the proposed regulations to be crafted to limit adverse impacts on hobby flyers like many/most of us.

 

[MEFfly]

View attachment 88967

Yes, that helps with the HOW (and yes, I got the FAA broadcast email)... but what about the WHAT?

If you want to encourage a mass response of hobbyists, and you want it to be taken seriously by the faa, someone who is really into the specifics would be the best person to craft the language.

 

[Matriculated01]

No - I'm not wrong. To quote the proposal:

Standard 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.​

That does not mean what you think it means ?

Page 8:
“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.
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. Limited remote identification UAS would be required to transmit information through the internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station. Under this proposal, the vast majority of UAS would be required to comply with one of these two categories of remote identification. For those limited exceptions, which include certain amateur-built UAS and UAS manufactured prior to the compliance date, operators flying UAS without remote identification capabilities would be permitted to fly only at certain specific geographic areas established under this rule specifically to accommodate them” (what I’m calling drone parks).

 

[Thomas B]

Yes, that helps with the HOW (and yes, I got the FAA broadcast email)... but what about the WHAT?

If you want to encourage a mass response of hobbyists, and you want it to be taken seriously by the faa, someone who is really into the specifics would be the best person to craft the language.

Mass form letters may be easily ignored, but check out the post earlier in this thread with a draft.

 

[MEFfly]

Mass form letters may be easily ignored, but check out the post earlier in this thread with a draft.

post # please?

And if you are referring to the nice post which linked to a draft response on DropBox... I read the draft. It is a good start, but I think a template comment that calls out the regulations by number/section/subsection is needed, and then each person can add in their generalized "thoughts and feelings" text.

 

[badaxed]

No - that logic does not extend to vehicles on the roads. Tracking requirements for aircraft is a more realistic comparison. And whether or not you fly anywhere that it matters is completely irrelevant when plenty of others do fly where it matters. It's what your equipment is capable of, not how you, personally, intend to use it, that determines the level of engineered safety required.

My car is capable of going 120 mph. I do not believe it was engineered to travel at those speeds consistently, safely, on current road systems. Rather, in my opinion, the system was designed to support "intended use" of speed limits and current road systems.
My idea of logic may differ from yours. That does not make my logic always correct or yours always correct.
just an opinion.

 

[Bob1956]

That's what I'm reading. No internet = 400 feet max range. As proposed, there are zero provisions for rural areas except no fly (which I'm including the 400 foot limit). Find it amazing that I'll still be able to fire my deer rifle across my own field, but I won't be allowed to send the drone over to film the target.
Over my own field. And if somehow I get that 30 year old RC plane back together and launch it, Ill still be illegal. The same field the plane always flew over. What's next ? kites?

 

[Matriculated01]

That's what I'm reading. No internet = 400 feet max range. As proposed, there are zero provisions for rural areas except no fly (which I'm including the 400 foot limit). Find it amazing that I'll still be able to fire my deer rifle across my own field, but I won't be allowed to send the drone over to film the target.
Over my own field. And if somehow I get that 30 year old RC plane back together and launch it, Ill still be illegal. The same field the plane always flew over. What's next ? kites?

Bob, it appears slightly worse than that my friend. No internet = no range. No internet = drone park only. Internet only = 400ft range. Internet + broadcasting to local USS = fly as you do right now, but have zero privacy, monitored by government from take off to landing and every inch in between.

 

[sar104]

That does not mean what you think it means ?

Page 8:
“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.
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. Limited remote identification UAS would be required to transmit information through the internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station. Under this proposal, the vast majority of UAS would be required to comply with one of these two categories of remote identification. For those limited exceptions, which include certain amateur-built UAS and UAS manufactured prior to the compliance date, operators flying UAS without remote identification capabilities would be permitted to fly only at certain specific geographic areas established under this rule specifically to accommodate th
remote identification UAS would be required to transmit information through the internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station. Under this proposal, the vast majority of UAS would be required to comply with one of these two categories of remote identification. For those limited exceptions, which include certain amateur-built UAS and UAS manufactured prior to the compliance date, operators flying UAS without remote identification capabilities would be permitted to fly only at certain specific geographic areas established under this rule specifically to accommodate them” (what I’m calling drone parks).

No - it means exactly what it says in 89.110. For Standard 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.​

In other words, if an internet connection is available (i.e. if the mobile device has a data connection and is online), then a standard remote identification aircraft is required to broadcast via the internet and directly. If no internet connection is available then it just broadcasts directly. Both are compliant situations.

The FAA identification areas only apply to aircraft that cannot broadcast by either method - they are primarily for aircraft without any remote identification system (89.120). Limited Remote Identification aircraft (89.115 - internet broadcast capable but not direct broadcast) operated in locations with no internet connection would not be able to take off unless in an FAA identification area.

 

[sar104]

Bob, it appears slightly worse than that my friend. No internet = no range. No internet = drone park only. Internet only = 400ft range. Internet + broadcasting to local USS = fly as you do right now, but have zero privacy, monitored by government from take off to landing and every inch in between.

You really are doing a disservice to the community in continuing to push this nonsense.

 

[Matriculated01]

You really are doing a disservice to the community in continuing to push this nonsense.

Can you give me a page number please? If I am incorrect it’ll be removed shortly. I am not only going by my interpretation but many other people who have a stake in this. Page number please.

 

[Almaz Aswad]

the main reason for the new legislation ,is the simple fact of numbers and liability,model aircraft and heli flying has always been a closed pastime purely for enthusiasts,who flew their models at designated sites, following a raft of safety rules which were strictly enforced and because of this there was not the exposure to the public ,of small unmanned aircraft flying around over their heads,it was only people who had an interest in the hobby who new anything about it
suddenly thousands of amazing drones appeared, and anyone could purchase one and fly it where ever they liked,with no regard to safe practises and no knowledge of how it worked and now we are faced with over regulation to some extent as governments try to play catch up

This looks more and more like a two edged sword. Clearly safety and deterrence of bad actors are necessary and worthy goals. But the other end is, this benefits the commercial drone industry and will constrict the recreational aspect of this tech. We already have enthusiasts who balk at going through the registration process and/or the ‘inconvenience“ of seeking authorization before flying in controlled airspace. Wait till we have to register each and every drone, ensure and certify that every minute of every flight is monitored and available publicly, and pay fees to the contractors who will collect this real time data and transmit it. That sounds like more ice water on the recreational sector.

We can’t hope for a happy medium, we‘ll have to get involved and work for it. Its a proposal, we can comment till March 1 (comes out Jan 1) and we need to do just that. This is probably one of the most powerful forums for getting the word out, educating, organizing, and responding. According to the proposal we have a little more than a 4 year window before this (in whatever form it takes by then) is rolled out and phased in.

Fasten your seat belts, it’s gonna be a bumpy flight.?

 

[sar104]

Can you give me a page number please? If I am incorrect it’ll be removed shortly. I am not only going by my interpretation but many other people who have a stake in this. Page number please.

Page 22. Section 89.110. I think you are confusing the capability requirements for SRID (internet to USS and direct broadcast) with the operational requirement (both if available, direct only if no internet connection).

 

[Matriculated01]

“If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, the standard remote identification UAS would only be required to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. If the Internet is available, but the UAS cannot connect to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would be designed such that it could not take off.”

There is much more complexity here, I agree. For those living in rural areas with no internet available, start at bottom of page 93 and keep reading. What I said before is basically correct as it will apply to the overwhelming majority of people in all likelihood. Standard remote ID may exempt some from the internet connection requirement if no connection is available, but the SUA will still have to have the ability to connect to the internet and do so where connection becomes available, as well as broadcast directly. Where’s that lawyer guy who reads regs for a living? ? we could use a little help here.

 

[Almaz Aswad]

Well what do you expect? Comparing the millions of UAVs now in use that can fly up to 500 m and out for miles with the relatively tiny number of RC aircraft historically flown just at designated RC fields is not useful. It is going to require a completely different approach to aviation and public safety, and the fact that they are trying to develop such an approach is not an indication of an attempt to stamp out recreational drone use. The proposal describes a way to integrate drone use with relatively painless safety systems, not to outlaw it.

You are absolutely right IMO. We cannot downplay the explosion of unmanned objects flying around semi autonomously, if there aren’t some rules in place then the first incident that results in serious injury or, god forbid, death, recreational use of these craft will be doomed. It would be grossly irresponsible if the govt didn’t try to regulate the flying of drones. And grossly self centered and irresponsible if we as drone pilots didn’t play an active role in trying to attain the same goals and still preserve our “hobby.”

That being said, because there are now so many of us flying recreationally, we also have a huge lobby that can have a voice in how the final regulation shapes up.

This is certainly not the issue to “throw the baby out with the bath water.”

 

[sar104]

“If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, the standard remote identification UAS would only be required to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. If the Internet is available, but the UAS cannot connect to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would be designed such that it could not take off.”

There is much more complexity here, I agree. For those living in rural areas with no internet available, start at bottom of page 93 and keep reading. What I said before is basically correct as it will apply to the overwhelming majority of people in all likelihood. Standard remote ID may exempt some from the internet connection requirement if no connection is available, but the SUA will still have to have the ability to connect to the internet and do so where connection becomes available, as well as broadcast directly. Where’s that lawyer guy who reads regs for a living? ? we could use a little help here.

Is your concern now that most aircraft won't be able to comply with SRID? All recent (Phantom 3 onwards) DJI aircraft already have the necessary internet connectivity via the controlling mobile device. And all recent aircraft are already capable of direct broadcast - that's how Aeroscope works.

 

[Thomas B]

post # please?

And if you are referring to the nice post which linked to a draft response on DropBox... I read the draft. It is a good start, but I think a template comment that calls out the regulations by number/section/subsection is needed, and then each person can add in their generalized "thoughts and feelings" text.

Here’s a good start. Good news is whatever takes effect it will be 3+ years, bad news is that there is less than 2 months to make input. The video is a synopsis of the most onerous points and points out the government taking involved. This should help guide letters to the FAA. Worth the watch and points out that sub 250gm drones are not immune.

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