FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Almaz Aswad]

Maybe then you could help me understand this string of legislative requirements and continued restrictions on objects that are seen as either toys, or camera platforms. Why now start regulating a product that has been flown since the ‘60s without this safety concern.
Yes, its a prediction, but it’s not without merit.
P.S. These forums are full of professional forum experts. Armchair experts who always have a condescending remark.

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.”

 

[Almaz Aswad]

I disagree. Might as well put one on all cars too with that logic. For someone just looking for a little recreational photo taking it makes absolutely no sense. I am not in the flight line.

I can see the consequences already of mass violations. Following the current rules is fine but these new rules if implemented are grossly anti-drone.

Um, there are all kinds of regulations controlling cars, and yes there are all sorts of ways to track your car. If little Billy wants to drive over to the store across the street he needs a license and the car has to be registered. If he didn’t, then what’s to keep a million other little Billys from driving around unlicensed in an unregistered car.

Rules in that space, rules in airspace. I can see the consequences when a drone flies into a plane.

I agree however, that some of this proposal might be particularly onerous to the recreational pilot. That’s why we need to let our voices be heard.

 

[Verdrone]

I'll tell you what is next, liability insurance for everyone, just like with cars

 

[Matriculated01]

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).

Yes, it is making more sense now.

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.

Not really, I know that technical aspects get worked out eventually. My concern is still with the overall concept of the thing. Broadcasting my position to the general public, why again? Government recording every detail and in all likelihood storing indefinitely. Because “safety.” It’s like we haven’t learned anything. And it’s not even the legislators doing it but some lifelong bureaucrats who nobody voted for. This won’t “kill” the hobby but I have a feeling only the most dedicated and hardcore enthusiasts will be left standing after all is said and done, and with the understanding that Big Brother is watching and may slap you down at any point.

 

[Thomas B]

I'll tell you what is next, liability insurance for everyone, just like with cars

Already carry it. Comes with AMA membership. $2.5 million liability and $1k on the drone for under $70/yr.

 

[Almaz Aswad]

I will respectively agree to disagree then with your definition. We are arguing about semantics at the moment.

Edit: I think this will take the law going into effect to come to a conclusion. You must think from the position of the FAA I think on this one. I also don't see how one could add this sort of transponder to normal RC aircraft or model rockets.

So there is one of the first parts of the proposal you might comment on in your response to the FAA before March 1.

 

[Brevanskc]

I'm trying to understand this as everyone else here but still need to have someone who speaks both legalize and FAA to help me out here. Is my following understanding on track? Living out in the country, using a wifi only or wifi + cellular tablet used only for maps and no other modification on my drone I would only be able to fly a radius of 400'? Also, it may be possible that with no internet connection on my device, attached to the controller or on the drone I may not be able to fly at all or at best have to drive to a non existent suvs park to fly? But, perhaps....a firmware update might be developed to possible to meet the new connectivity communication standards?

 

[Almaz Aswad]

Yes, it is making more sense now.

Not really, I know that technical aspects get worked out eventually. My concern is still with the overall concept of the thing. Broadcasting my position to the general public, why again? Government recording every detail and in all likelihood storing indefinitely. Because “safety.” It’s like we haven’t learned anything. And it’s not even the legislators doing it but some lifelong bureaucrats who nobody voted for. This won’t “kill” the hobby but I have a feeling only the most dedicated and hardcore enthusiasts will be left standing after all is said and done, and with the understanding that Big Brother is watching and may slap you down at any point.

Well if there’s anything left of the ’rule of law” by the time this proposal becomes a regulation, no one should get access to the stored flight data without a legitimate law enforcement (yes a regulation is a law) purpose, and then, in most cases, a warrant. If recent memory has taught us anything, it’s that there are lots of bad people out there, and also a lot of stupid people. An intentional act by one, or an accidental moment of idiocy by the other, could kill recreational drone flying instantly, not to mention cause the loss of life, limb, and property.

I’m also trying to figure out who in the general public is gonna be sitting on the couch monitoring drone movements overhead. The flight info is not piped into their homes or devices, it would be publicly ‘available’ they'd have to go get it And if they are, how does that effect me? Which leads me to ask, why not implement this part?

 

[Phochief]

UAS with built-in over-the-air transmitter: Fly under Standard Remote Identification rules
UAS with only WiFi connected to internet: Fly under Limited Remote Identification rules at 400' max distance
UAS with neither WiFi connected to Internet or built-in transmitter: Only fly in designated and FAA approved sites (like an AMA field)

As long as your UAS is within radio over-the-air range of a Remote ID USS, you're good to go under Standard Remote ID rules. However, the FAA is in the process of establishing exactly how these Remote ID USS providers will directly communicate with an in-the-air drone that is broadcasting it's ID data. I'm only guessing, but perhaps through cellular towers.

 

[Almaz Aswad]

I'm trying to understand this as everyone else here but still need to have someone who speaks both legalize and FAA to help me out here. Is my following understanding on track? Living out in the country, using a wifi only or wifi + cellular tablet used only for maps and no other modification on my drone I would only be able to fly a radius of 400'? Also, it may be possible that with no internet connection on my device, attached to the controller or on the drone I may not be able to fly at all or at best have to drive to a non existent suvs park to fly? But, perhaps....a firmware update might be developed to possible to meet the new connectivity communication standards?

i read it the same way you do. Look in this thread for the 51 Drones video. Russ explains this part of the proposal, and the rural issues it raises, very well. He’s in North Dakota so he knows the ramifications.

 

[Thomas B]

i read it the same way you do. Look in this thread for the 51 Drones video. Russ explains this part of the proposal, and the rural issues it raises, very well. He’s in North Dakota so he knows the ramifications.

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

 

[Almaz Aswad]

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

Thanks Thomas.

 

[Almaz Aswad]

Already carry it. Comes with AMA membership. $2.5 million liability and $1k on the drone for under $70/yr.

How do I join AMA. Google wants me to become a doctor?

 

[Thomas B]

How do I join AMA. Google wants me to become a doctor?

No .... try this link.

Academy of Model Aeronautics | Join Today

join.modelaircraft.org

 

[Almaz Aswad]

No .... try this link.

Academy of Model Aeronautics | Join Today

join.modelaircraft.org

You am the man, thanks

 

[Almaz Aswad]

No .... try this link.

Academy of Model Aeronautics | Join Today

join.modelaircraft.org

Newest non-doctor in the AMA... thanks again?

 

[Evmoius]

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.

What concerns me most about these proposed regulations is the essential banning of hobby built craft. Myself and many of my friends have built dozens of drones over the last five years ranging from large cinematography hexs to fast and tough acrobatic, freestyle FPV quads. From what I read they will all be basically illegal. There is exactly 3 AMA fields withing 50 miles of my area. They are strict about accepting new members and frown on drones and especially FPV. Basically, if you aren't scratch building p51 replicas and the like, you are not worthy of "their" airspace. Not that I find flying over an open field the least bit interesting anyway.

If these rules go into effect as is the vast majority of builders and FPV guys will just give the FAA the finger and go about their usual routine. Thus the FAA will have accomplished nothing but making a group of bright, talented individuals, with a hobby that's not playing video games or watching TV, criminals.

 

[Dronedevices]

...if these regulations are for safety, it doesn't make sense to force rural flying into more congested cities.

 

[sar104]

Yes, it is making more sense now.

Not really, I know that technical aspects get worked out eventually. My concern is still with the overall concept of the thing. Broadcasting my position to the general public, why again? Government recording every detail and in all likelihood storing indefinitely. Because “safety.” It’s like we haven’t learned anything. And it’s not even the legislators doing it but some lifelong bureaucrats who nobody voted for. This won’t “kill” the hobby but I have a feeling only the most dedicated and hardcore enthusiasts will be left standing after all is said and done, and with the understanding that Big Brother is watching and may slap you down at any point.

I'm inclined to agree on the publicly available data - that seems unnecessary to me. But the data won't be held by the government - it will be the USS providers, and the proposal is that they are required to keep it for 6 months.

 

[Huckleberry]

If the FAA is proposing these regulations due to their concern of safety within the national air space, why have they not applied similar regulations to all forms of aviation?

Paramotors are a prime example. Per the official USPPA website, “Our sport is basically self-regulated so you are not required by law to be a certified pilot”.

USPPA regulations site

They appear to be concerned with a 1lb UAV flying over 400’ AGL, but don’t mind the 350lb setup of a man and his powered parachute flying at 15,000’ AGL.

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

And I don’t wanna hear the “mass number of UAVs in the sky compared to paramotors” excuse. I live in rural midwest and only know of not even a handful of other UAVs in my entire area and have never come across another one in the air while I’ve been out flying.

I understand that visibility of a UAV compared to a powered parachute is apples to oranges. But so is 400’ compared to 15k’.

A hobby is a hobby and what should be good for the goose should be good for the gander. If UAVs are gonna be required to transmit operations, so should every other form of aviation that shares the airspace.

In conclusion, and to my point, this is being driven from somewhere other than the FAA safety office.