FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[unionglzr]

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'...

dont know what’s wrong with It if they find anything offense about it probably not worth being on this forum.

 

[Rangerider]

This is absurd. This is nothing short of total control for the total police state system! This is only for the corporations that want no one flying drones in 'their' airspace to prevent any harm with the corporate drones. It is not about safety unless you consider it the safety of the corporate drone companies like Amazon etc that don't want you flying into their drones. The new requirements should not restrict anyone from flying unless they have an internet connection! This is beyond absurd! If you can fly an airplane with a similar system called ADSB like I do all over the place as long as you are not in controlled airspace without a clearance then why the sudden limitation on drone flying? Right now, I can go fly my airplane in which I have an ipad that is logging my flight, go home and later download my entire flight to my ipad with all flight data! Why should it be more restrictive for a drone? There are far fewer drone accidents than airplane accidents in terms of number and severity. Hopefully there will be an add on for existing drones like the M2P etc that will broadcast id without a required internet connection for flight. There should be a way to have the drone broadcast its id stuff to a govt provided network of antennas to meet their corporate masters needs I would think. I don't use a phone to fly my drone and I fly in such remote areas that phone service is very limited. The FAA works for the corporations and they all hob nob with each other so the corporations and the drone manufacturers like DJI have known about this for a long time now. If they have made our newer drones incapable of meeting the requirements without a live internet connection then they are corrupt if you ask me. The onus should be on the government to provide the communication network to receive the required id info not the other way around.

 

[unionglzr]

What’s the laws on ultralites people build on their own...don’t need a pilots license I think?

 

[Rangerider]

did not mean to offend. I’m just a proud patriot of ??

I don't see anything offensive about your avatar. There are people here that are offended by the American flag. That's their problem.

 

[AMann]

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.

... probably mot as expense as satellite internet service, but it would be feasible for commercial users and those who fly occasionally in non- cellular areas.

 

[deleted member 877]

dont know what’s wrong with It if they find anything offense about it probably not worth being on this forum.

It’s different to what was there before and nobody said anything about being offended. It was more of a joke - hence the smiley face.

 

[sar104]

This is absurd. This is nothing short of total control for the total police state system! This is only for the corporations that want no one flying drones in 'their' airspace to prevent any harm with the corporate drones. It is not about safety unless you consider it the safety of the corporate drone companies like Amazon etc that don't want you flying into their drones. The new requirements should not restrict anyone from flying unless they have an internet connection! This is beyond absurd! If you can fly an airplane with a similar system called ADSB like I do all over the place as long as you are not in controlled airspace without a clearance then why the sudden limitation on drone flying? Right now, I can go fly my airplane in which I have an ipad that is logging my flight, go home and later download my entire flight to my ipad with all flight data! Why should it be more restrictive for a drone? There are far fewer drone accidents than airplane accidents in terms of number and severity. Hopefully there will be an add on for existing drones like the M2P etc that will broadcast id without a required internet connection for flight. There should be a way to have the drone broadcast its id stuff to a govt provided network of antennas to meet their corporate masters needs I would think. I don't use a phone to fly my drone and I fly in such remote areas that phone service is very limited. The FAA works for the corporations and they all hob nob with each other so the corporations and the drone manufacturers like DJI have known about this for a long time now. If they have made our newer drones incapable of meeting the requirements without a live internet connection then they are corrupt if you ask me. The onus should be on the government to provide the communication network to receive the required id info not the other way around.

If this were an attempt to lock out everyone except big business, why would the proposal provide a relatively simple method for recreational UAVs to continue to fly? It doesn't require an internet connection - you should read the proposal more carefully. And the FAA will be providing the communication network via companies contracted as RID USS.

 

[sar104]

... probably mot as expense as satellite internet service, but it would be feasible for commercial users and those who fly occasionally in non- cellular areas.

But why would they need it, when almost all DJI drones already have direct broadcast capability, which costs nothing?

 

[AMann]

But why would they need it, when almost all DJI drones already have direct broadcast capability, which costs nothing?

The broadcasts from existing drones cant be received in remote areas, and proposing a nation-wide drone reception system as some are mentioning here with enough antennas to cover everything is not feasible, so it really will come to using something like cellular or satellite for drones to comply

 

[sar104]

The broadcasts from existing drones cant be received in remote areas, and proposing a nation-wide drone reception system as some are mentioning here with enough antennas to cover everything is not feasible, so it really will come to using something like cellular or satellite for drones to comply

No - you have misunderstood. It doesn't matter whether there are direct broadcast receiving stations in the area - that's not one of the operational requirements - only that the aircraft broadcasts directly.

 

[chadCO]

Exactly. This is a nightmare for anyone purchasing a drone today and expecting to be able to fly it in other than VERY limited locations.

The corporations will restrict all airspace for profit operations and the hobbyist will be outlawed or restricted to tiny spots.
FAA has a long track record of accommodating all corporate requests accompanied by large lobbyist payments. Just ask Boeing.

 

[marcorasi1960]

Does anyone have a sense for timing? After the 60-day comments period, is this something that could take effect quickly, or could it be a long process before implementation?

 

[Rangerider]

If this were an attempt to lock out everyone except big business, why would the proposal provide a relatively simple method for recreational UAVs to continue to fly? It doesn't require an internet connection - you should read the proposal more carefully. And the FAA will be providing the communication network via companies contracted as RID USS.

According to a previous lengthy video post on this thread on the nprm, you need an internet connection to take off! If that is incorrect then I sit corrected. However, the threat of the FAA commandeering my drone while in flight is Orwellian to put it mildly. The prohibition of not taking off without the gov monitoring my every move is Orwellian. I am not going to read the entire 319 pages of gov pabulum. I will let others with more tolerance to do that and I will listen to their analysis. This nprm is more restrictive for drones than the similar system called ADSB is for manned aircraft as far as I can tell. Again, in my opinion, this is not about safety for the general public, it is about total control of the airspace for corporate purposes! They hate the little guys unless they (the gov) have them boxed in!

 

[Thomas B]

Does anyone have a sense for timing? After the 60-day comments period, is this something that could take effect quickly, or could it be a long process before implementation?

It will take 3-4 years to implement.

one of the objections I sent in my email to the FAA and DOT was the WIFI business... Some of the safest places to fly in AZ, and the western U.S. are the remote stretches of National Forest and deserts and WiFi is often not available.

 

[sar104]

According to a previous lengthy video post on this thread on the nprm, you need an internet connection to take off! If that is incorrect then I sit corrected. However, the threat of the FAA commandeering my drone while in flight is Orwellian to put it mildly. The prohibition of not taking off without the gov monitoring my every move is Orwellian. I am not going to read the entire 319 pages of gov pabulum. I will let others with more tolerance to do that and I will listen to their analysis. This nprm is more restrictive for drones than the similar system called ADSB is for manned aircraft as far as I can tell. Again, in my opinion, this is not about safety for the general public, it is about total control of the airspace for corporate purposes! They hate the little guys unless they (the gov) have them boxed in!

You should read the proposal rather than watch click-bait videos. Standard Remote ID requires internet capability (i.e. a mobile device that is internet-capable), but (rather obviously) doesn't have internet connection as an operational requirement - that's the reason for the additional direct broadcast capability requirement.

 

[Chip]

A court challenge in any shape or form to the eventual outcome, unless of course it goes against the big players, is a pipe dream. But, by all means, dream on .....

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 disagreed and gave you an excellent example.

I "basically" said nothing of the sort!

Okay so you said it was a pipe dream and dream on. Did I not paraphrase you correctly?

 

[Papa Echo]

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.

Yes, I agree.
And it's a huge difference if you fly a Mavic Mini or a 20ft glider.

 

[deleted member 877]

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 disagreed and gave you an excellent example.



Okay so you said it was a pipe dream and dream on. Did I not paraphrase you correctly?

Yes, you did not paraphrase me correctly. Not even close. And you still haven’t answered my question - LOL!

 

[Rangerider]

You should read the proposal rather than watch click-bait videos. Standard Remote ID requires internet capability (i.e. a mobile device that is internet-capable), but (rather obviously) doesn't have internet connection as an operational requirement - that's the reason for the additional direct broadcast capability requirement.

Okay. I would appreciate you rebutting that video, correcting the inaccuracies, and enlightening the rest of us. Please do that and I will compare what you contend to what the video producer contends. That should be beneficial to all of us. Don't just accuse someone who put a lot of time and effort into providing us with useful and informative info as the video producer did and then accusing them of 'click-baiting'. I am standing by for enlightenment.

 

[Filipok]

Just don’t do updates.

That would be fine except an ADS-B is going to be required to be installed on all UAVs. If someone reports you to the FAA, while you're at a park, and they happen to know who you are or get a shot of your license plate, the FAA would simply need to go back to the remote Id service providers to look up your flight. If your data isn't there, you're up the creek.