- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Yep, drench the World with DJI consumer drones, then present a solution to the 'massive issues'.
DJI have got themselves in a good win win position, they win both ways.
FAA Drone ID Proposal:
- Thread starter bcfd29
- Start date
- Status
Yep, drench the World with DJI consumer drones, then present a solution to the 'massive issues'.
DJI have got themselves in a good win win position, they win both ways.
LOL, remain calm - you have nothing to worry about in that regard. BTW your avatar is a little risky given the forum guidelines. Just sayin'...
Last edited:
Multi-Rotor Pilot812
Well-Known Member
Sorry if this has already been answered.....
but when this takes affect does that mean as a recreational drone pilot you can legally fly bvlos?
but when this takes affect does that mean as a recreational drone pilot you can legally fly bvlos?
No. If you have a DJI without software updates, you can legally fly only on FAA Recognized Identification Areas (RC model club fields) and nowhere else, or with some software updates in a radius of 400ft. The new software does not let you fly further, because the current DJI quadcopters don't have the technology to broadcast to the Internet directly.
Or you buy new stuff that brings you to the standard class. Everything you do will be recorded in real time. If you fly bvlos you will get a fine automatically.
AMann
Well-Known Member
In an earlier post I mentioned how a unit similar to a satellite tracker could be used to broadcast Remote ID compliant telemetry (SRID data) outside of any cellular and internet range. That’s essentially what I meant. Such a unit could allow a drone to be used independent of any other network system to broadcast its Remote ID.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 1,757
- Reactions
- 2,369
You basically said that there is no way possible for anyone on earth to legally challenge whatever regulations the FAA eventually tries to cram down our throats. I do not buy that myself. Our system is not perfect but its better than what you suggest. I pointed out that very recently one guy proved the FAA enacted a major drone reg without legal authorization. Its the most relevant and timely example there is. If you wish to believe that the FAA has no legal limits and that John Taylor is the only guy on earth who ever has or ever could beat the FAA in court that is okay. Its not important that I try and convince you otherwise.
My understanding from the NPRM is: no Internet, no take off.
Or can you please tell me the page with this SRID data.
Huckleberry
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2018
- Messages
- 206
- Reactions
- 211
So, out of curiosity, who determines what VLOS is? VLOS will differ between the 20 yr old pilot and the 80 yr old pilot. VLOS will differ between the standard Mavic 2 Pro and the Mavic 2 Pro equipped with Firehouse strobes.
I "basically" said nothing of the sort! I asked you a simple question which you didn't answer obviously because you cannot cite any other historical instances of "The FAA overstepping its authority and enacting an illegal regulation". That's why the case you referred to was an anomaly or, in other words, a one-off. Why didn't you just answer "No"?
In another post I did suggest that the viability of the recreational drone community taking the FAA to court and having any chance of winning would be a pipe dream - not impossible, but a pipe dream nonetheless.
Furthermore, what's the point of your statement, "Our system is not perfect but its better than what you suggest"? I haven't suggested anything in that regard and have been defending the FAA from the git go. I ask you again - can you cite any other historical instances of "The FAA overstepping its authority and enacting an illegal regulation"?
Last edited:
Oops sorry, when I read about the possibility of a 2,500' maximum distance out, I overlooked the VLOS part. For those fortunate enough to be equipped with one of those "six million dollar man" bionic eyes or bright strobes mounted on their drones, VLOS at 2,500 is doable.
I will amend my previous post referring to BVLOS.
Last edited:
Rockowe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 498
- Reactions
- 415
- Age
- 53
AMann
Well-Known Member
Thanks, that’s exactly what it stands for. A great hobby if you have the winds
AMann
Well-Known Member
Any type of transmission from the drone can be used to directly access and transmit information theough the internet, it just depends on the network setup. Its the same thing you do to use the internet on your cellphone. The transmission can access the internet by using cellular, VHF, or satellite bands.
I think that for most people, the best way for drones to access the internet may be by using cellular data, but for those flying in remote areas outside of reliable cell coverage may have to use satellite based systems to be compliant.
SRID is simply the type and format of the information being sent, it stands for Spacial Reference Identifier and can include geographic data of where the drone and pilot are, who or what they are, flight information, etc.
Last edited:
did not mean to offend. I’m just a proud patriot of ??LOL, remain calm - you have nothing to worry about in that regard. BTW your avatar is a little risky given the forum guidelines. Just sayin'...
Rangerider
Well-Known Member
Forgive me if this has already been covered in this lengthy thread.
I thought that ADSB for drones would require the government to install enough antennas to receive drone data transmissions and therefore receive the data that would be required like id, altitude, etc? It seems to me that a software change would allow the 'required' data to be received by the govt and keep the other data like video/pictures etc protected? If the govt wants this data they should be required to install the needed antenna network to receive the required data. This is just my uneducated opinion.
I thought that ADSB for drones would require the government to install enough antennas to receive drone data transmissions and therefore receive the data that would be required like id, altitude, etc? It seems to me that a software change would allow the 'required' data to be received by the govt and keep the other data like video/pictures etc protected? If the govt wants this data they should be required to install the needed antenna network to receive the required data. This is just my uneducated opinion.
Just bought my Mavic pro 6 months ago (my 3rd drone in 4 years) and although I love flying I’m about done with this. I knew it was coming to this once the government got hold of it. Just didn’t think it was going to happen this fast.
And just for the record of all the do-gooders this really had nothing to do you all trying to “educate us”. For many, if not most of us, we just like to fly so please!
And just for the record of all the do-gooders this really had nothing to do you all trying to “educate us”. For many, if not most of us, we just like to fly so please!
In that case I don't think I understand what you mean by a satellite tracker. So it's not a GPS device communicating via cellular - it's a satellite comms device of some kind, such as an InReach? That would be prohibitively expensive broadcasting data at 1 Hz.
- Status
