FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Phochief]

All aircraft operating in airspace that requires Mode-C transponder not all aircraft. There's a big difference my friend.

Sorry, I stayed at a Holiday Inn once....so, it looks like it would be required for all aircraft flying in A, B, C, E controlled airspace (not D airspace or airspace not requiring a mode-c transponder). Thanks for the correction, friend.

 

[sar104]

If receiving the Broadcast becomes a requirement then the drone would have to be able receive a broadcast from the source it broadcast to wouldn't it. Otherwise how would it know to terminate the flight if it took off without an internet connection.

I don't follow your thinking there. It can take off and fly without an internet connection as long as it is broadcasting.

 

[Bob1956]

This is All about the feds greed for money. They see the millions of drones and are now wanting to cash in. JUST like they tried with the internet.
( Mod Removed Remark )

If so they'll lose again. All these new regs are drone killing, most people will quit flying and buying these things. Nubies will park them once they're hit with all the rules and fees. And the word will get out. I don't know the percentage but with 100% of us rural residents grounded I have no FAA fees to pay

 

[sar104]

Sorry, I stayed at a Holiday Inn once....so, it looks like it would be required for all aircraft flying in A, B, C, E controlled airspace (not D airspace or airspace no requiring a mode-c transponder). Thanks for the correction, friend.

§91.225 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment and use.
(a) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in Class A airspace unless the aircraft has equipment installed that—

(1) Meets the performance requirements in TSO-C166b, Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic Information Service-Broadcast (TIS-B) Equipment Operating on the Radio Frequency of 1090 Megahertz (MHz); and

(2) Meets the requirements of §91.227.

(b) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft below 18,000 feet MSL and in airspace described in paragraph (d) of this section unless the aircraft has equipment installed that—

(1) Meets the performance requirements in—

(i) TSO-C166b; or

(ii) TSO-C154c, Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Equipment Operating on the Frequency of 978 MHz;

(2) Meets the requirements of §91.227.

(c) Operators with equipment installed with an approved deviation under §21.618 of this chapter also are in compliance with this section.

(d) After January 1, 2020, and unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the following airspace unless the aircraft has equipment installed that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Class B and Class C airspace areas;

(2) Except as provided for in paragraph (e) of this section, within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 to this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(3) Above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, Class E airspace within the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and

(5) Class E airspace at and above 3,000 feet MSL over the Gulf of Mexico from the coastline of the United States out to 12 nautical miles.

(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, including balloons and gliders. These aircraft may conduct operations without ADS-B Out in the airspace specified in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this section. Operations authorized by this section must be conducted—

(1) Outside any Class B or Class C airspace area; and

(2) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport, or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower.

(f) Each person operating an aircraft equipped with ADS-B Out must operate this equipment in the transmit mode at all times unless—

(1) Otherwise authorized by the FAA when the aircraft is performing a sensitive government mission for national defense, homeland security, intelligence or law enforcement purposes and transmitting would compromise the operations security of the mission or pose a safety risk to the aircraft, crew, or people and property in the air or on the ground; or

(2) Otherwise directed by ATC when transmitting would jeopardize the safe execution of air traffic control functions.

(g) Requests for ATC authorized deviations from the requirements of this section must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows:

(1) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative ADS-B Out, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time.

(2) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with ADS-B Out, the request must be made at least 1 hour before the proposed operation.

 

[Phochief]

If receiving the Broadcast becomes a requirement then the drone would have to be able receive a broadcast from the source it broadcast to wouldn't it. Otherwise how would it know to terminate the flight if it took off without an internet connection.

This is really hypothetical, but I would guess that this "feature" would be built into the UAS drone firmware. If the UAS doesn't receive a "ping" back from a receiving station after a period of time, it would advise the drone operator to land. And I also think that we will be the first to put settlements on Mars or Jupiter. It's late and I need a drink. Have a good night comrades. ?

 

[sar104]

This is really hypothetical, but I would guess that this "feature" would be built into the UAS drone firmware. If the UAS doesn't receive a "ping" back from a receiving station after a period of time, it would advise the drone operator to land. And I also think that we will be the first to put settlements on Mars or Jupiter. It's late and I need a drink. Have a good night comrades. ?

There's no pinging. It's a broadcast system It's one way - aircraft to receiving station. Just like ADS-B. The presence of, or reception by, a receiving station is not part of the requirement.

 

[Phochief]

§91.225 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment and use.

I just mentioned the new ADS-B rule as an aside regarding the broadcast topic. Not sure if we should delve into more ADS-B territory since it doesn't apply to UAS and may add to the confusion. Thanks for your input.

 

[Phochief]

There's no pinging. It's a broadcast system It's one way - aircraft to receiving station. Just like ADS-B. The presence of, or reception by, a receiving station is not part of the requirement.

I know, I know. Geez, that's why I said "hypothetical". Pure speculation on my part. Pinging is definitely doable, but all of this is moot in the face of a a proposed rule-making that hasn't even been finalized. Right? Just forget I said it and have a good night. ?

 

[sar104]

I know, I know. Geez, that's why I said "hypothetical". Pure speculation on my part. Pinging is definitely doable, but all of this is moot in the face of a a proposed rule-making that hasn't even been finalized. Right? Just forget I said it and have a good night. ?

Fair enough - but two way radio would be an entirely different requirement, and what purpose would it serve? The aircraft doesn't need to know if anyone is listening, and it doesn't affect the compliance of its operation.

 

[Phochief]

Fair enough - but two way radio would be an entirely different requirement, and what purpose would it serve? The aircraft doesn't need to know if anyone is listening, and it doesn't affect the compliance of its operation.

You're right.

 

[dronerdave]

There's no pinging. It's a broadcast system It's one way - aircraft to receiving station. Just like ADS-B. The presence of, or reception by, a receiving station is not part of the requirement.

That also had me confused until a few pages back. But I'm still unsure about a few matters. I use a Crystal Sky monitor and other that being at home next to my router, I'm never (or at least I thought) connected to the internet. I also rec fly where there is no internet and ONLY in class g airspace.

So my M-Pro will be sending out a signal (it doesn't matter if nobody is receiving due to my location) as required and in that situation am I subjected to the 400' radius bubble or can I fly as usual out to say 2500' provided I'm still in VLOS and under 400'AGL?

I can care less about my drone telling the world about my location. I only want to stay w/i the regs but I do not want to be restricted to only 400' out or an AMA type field.

Also if my drone already transmits that data w/o the internet, why would I pay for a service to connect to? What is the advantage of internet connection? I'm thinking (and may be wrong) that if I'm not connected to the internet I'd be subjected to flying no further that 400' from my transmitter. Is that the case?

I do think there are a lot of drone operators who are (secretly) crying about the privacy thing because it will show if they're flying in the wrong place or BVLOS and/or too high. If those persons are planning to use privacy as a reason to lobby rather than accept the rules (such as VLOS), IMO they are barking up the wrong tree. The FAA will just laugh. I'm more for expanding the VLOS bubble to further distances and this might be accomplished if all rec pilots are on the same page and voice their opinion. If we cannot get on the same page, and be willing to compromise, the FAA will probably not change a thing.

 

[badaxed]

UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee Membership June 18, 2017

1) A3 & Aerial by Airbus 2) Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) 3) Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) 4) Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) 5) Airborne Law Enforcement Association (ALEA) 6) Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 7) Airmap 8) Airspace Systems, Inc. 9) Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE) 10) Amazon Prime Air 11) American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) 12) American Petroleum Institute (API) 13) Analytical Graphics, Inc. 14) Ariascend/DUGN 15) Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) 16) ASTM International 17) AT&T 18) BNSF Railway 19) California Highway Patrol, Office of Air Operations 20) College Park, MD Airport 21) Commercial Drone Alliance 22) Consumer Technology Association (CTA) 23) CTIA/Akin Gump 24) DJI Technology 25) DLA Piper 26) Drone Aviator, Inc. 27) Dronsystems Limited 28) Fairfax County Police Department 29) Farris Technology 30) Flight Safety Foundation 31) FlyTransparent/Black River Systems Company 32) Ford Motor Company 33) General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 34) General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) 35) General Electric Aviation 36) Globalstar 37) Grand Forks Sheriff’s Office 38) Hangar51 39) Helicopter Association International (HAI) 40) Insitu, Inc. 41) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 42) Intel Corporation 43) International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 44) Just Innovation 45) Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) 46) Metropolitan Police Department 47) Miami Beach Police Department 48) Miami-Dade International Airport 49) Montgomery County Police Department 50) National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) 51) National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) 52) National Governors Association (NGA) 53) New York City Police Department 54) News Media Coalition (NMC) 55) Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems 56) PrecisionHawk 57) Professional Helicopter Pilots Association (PHPA) 58) Public Safety Aviation Accreditation Commission (PSAAC) 59) Qualcomm 60) RelmaTech 61) Rockwell Collins 62) RTCA 63) SAE International 64) SkyPod, USA 65) Skyward, A Verizon Company 66) Texas Department of Public Safety, Aircraft Operations Division 67) The Brookings Institution 68) The MITRE Corporation 69) The Police Foundation 70) The Toy Association 71) T-Mobile USA 72) uAvionix 73) Verizon 74) X

Hmmmmm! Police orga and companies that may get in on billions when passed.

 

[badaxed]

Right? That would be like suing GM for not having airbags on a '72 Impala...

Yeah, but they ( the govt)do not require YOU to put an airbag in a 72 impala or take it off the road.

 

[JAW]

If I remember correctly, the broadcast requirements cover both the locations of the drone AND the pilot.

 

[badaxed]

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.

Well said!

 

[dwolfe002]

You want to be a Big Boy and play in the NAS but you want to have your own set of rules or better yet change the existing rules so you can do whatever you want. That's not how this works.

Many of us have been preaching for years now that rogue operations are going to be more regulations upon us.... well HERE WE ARE!!

It's about being able to SAFELY integrate into the NAS not about asking everyone else to change the rules for us....

I want to play in the NAS and the current regulations allow me to do most of what I want to do. Along with others, we are not asking for the existing rules to be changed. We are asking that future rules do not cause the shrinking of the sport. I have no problems with RID but applying new rules along with that requirement on existing drones that do not have the proper technology is a bunch of bull. Also, requiring me to fly in a 400' circle because I don't have internet is also a bunch of bull. I want to follow decent rules. Right now we have VLOS, 400' max altitude, and plenty of rules about where we can fly and not fly. I cannot understand why the lack of internet resources should cause my situation to change. That is not how this should work.

If you think that rogue operations are why these new regulations are being put into place you are not as smart as I thought you were. These regulations are being put in place for the commercial drone industry, and money and I can't believe anyone would think anything else. I would rather have my part and Amazons divided in an amicable way instead of having to fly in basically a small circle.

I have safely integrated into the NAS by blindly following the rules but I don't really believe that it should be my fault if a plane comes down to 200' and hits my drone. I also don't believe that Amazon drones should be able to either. Let them fly at 300' to 500', let the airplanes fly at 500' or more, and let me have my 300' to take a few photos or make a couple of videos. It's not alot to ask and it's already there in the RULES.

 

[sar104]

That also had me confused until a few pages back. But I'm still unsure about a few matters. I use a Crystal Sky monitor and other that being at home next to my router, I'm never (or at least I thought) connected to the internet. I also rec fly where there is no internet and ONLY in class g airspace.

So my M-Pro will be sending out a signal (it doesn't matter if nobody is receiving due to my location) as required and in that situation am I subjected to the 400' radius bubble or can I fly as usual out to say 2500' provided I'm still in VLOS and under 400'AGL?

I can care less about my drone telling the world about my location. I only want to stay w/i the regs but I do not want to be restricted to only 400' out or an AMA type field.

Also if my drone already transmits that data w/o the internet, why would I pay for a service to connect to? What is the advantage of internet connection? I'm thinking (and may be wrong) that if I'm not connected to the internet I'd be subjected to flying no further that 400' from my transmitter. Is that the case?

I do think there are a lot of drone operators who are (secretly) crying about the privacy thing because it will show if they're flying in the wrong place or BVLOS and/or too high. If those persons are planning to use privacy as a reason to lobby rather than accept the rules (such as VLOS), IMO they are barking up the wrong tree. The FAA will just laugh. I'm more for expanding the VLOS bubble to further distances and this might be accomplished if all rec pilots are on the same page and voice their opinion. If we cannot get on the same page, and be willing to compromise, the FAA will probably not change a thing.

Standard Remote ID requires the capability to transmit data via the internet and directly broadcast. A Crystal Sky monitor is capable of connecting to the internet via wifi, and so should qualify. If no internet is available then direct broadcast is compliant, and so the 400 ft distance limit, which applies only to Limited Remote ID (internet capable but no direct broadcast), should not apply.

 

[badaxed]

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.

What if there are no cellular towers or wifi where you fly? Rural area or mountainous area. No fly?

 

[sar104]

What if there are no cellular towers or wifi where you fly? Rural area or mountainous area. No fly?

Receivers are not part of the requirement - the requirement is just for the sUAS to broadcast the required data elements. And obviously the proposal would be unworkable if that were not the case.

 

[Thomas B]

Standard Remote ID requires the capability to transmit data via the internet and directly broadcast. A Crystal Sky monitor is capable of connecting to the internet via wifi, and so should qualify. If no internet is available then direct broadcast is compliant, and so the 400 ft distance limit, which applies only to Limited Remote ID (internet capable but no direct broadcast), should not apply.

So, to clarify, in the most remote areas where I fly the new regs are likely going to only allow the most restricted operation of the drone.?.