FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[sar104]

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.?.

No - as long as the drone has Standard Remote ID capability (it can broadcast and the mobile device is capable of an internet connection), then if no internet connection is available it doesn't matter - because it is still broadcasting directly. That is SRID compliant, and so the Limited Remote ID restricted operation doesn't apply.

 

[Thomas B]

No - as long as the drone has Standard Remote ID capability (it can broadcast and the mobile device is capable of an internet connection), then if not internet connection is available it doesn't matter - because it is still broadcasting directly. That is SRID compliant, and so the Limited Remote ID restricted operation doesn't apply.

Thank-you.

 

[AMann]

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.?.

No, what he’s saying is there’s a loophole (for now as it’s written...) if your drone is out of range of internet or cellular in a remote area and can’t connect to internet, and as long as your drone is continuously broadcasting compliant information, it can fly VLOS regardless of anyone receiving the broadcast information or not.

edit: ok, I jumped in and it was already said, sorry!

 

[Robert Mitchell]

If you object then definitely. Personally I think it's a very good proposal, and I support it. Long term, this, or something like it, is the only way that sUAS technology is going to integrate into the NAS.

Very good proposal?

While I agree, in principal with your statement "something like it" might eventually be needed for integration into the NAS for the stated purpose of UTM, this is not it. Too much emphasis has been put on identification and enforcement of compliance IMO for it to be purely about UTM integration. IMO, this is a response by nanny lawmakers, to media fear mongering, and service provider lobbying, while not a single life has been lost due to UAV mishaps. All the while we tolerate the loss of tens of thousands of lives annually due to other everyday technologies. If you put this into perspective it simply doesn't hold water.

This is appearing to be an overly burdensome rule for many segments of the industry, especially those with older equipment which will never be compliant.

At this point do we even know if any of today's equipment will be broadcast compliant and certifiable? Otherwise it would jeopardize the entire existing fleet.

 

[badaxed]

Transmitting doesn't necessarily involve to anything. The requirement is to transmit - just like ADS-B. There is no assurance that any receivers are within range.

If you can transmit and no one is there to hear you then how do they know if you were able to transmit in the first place?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

One issue I haven't seen discussed is flight below 100' over private property. The FAA does NOT control all airspace. There is some court recognition of airspace over private property that belongs to the property owner. The limit of that airspace hasn't been strict defined (somewhere below 400'). This doesn't mean much to urban dwellers but may be of some significance to those that own larger sections of private property in rural areas.

As for the comment about using the NAS and playing with the big boys, are you saying recreational flyers and small commercial "players" have no right to use this national resource? If large corporate interest are allowed to force them out of the airspace what's next, waterways and state/federal lands?

The safety issue is total nonsense. As for this being a huge national security issue, there are college engineering students (maybe some high school students) that could bypass these ID and lockout mechanisms. If someone want to use a drone as a weapon this ID technology isn't going to prevent it unless there were some broadbased system in place to take down a unidentified drone within minutes of it being detected. This is government overreach for control and to benefit corporate interest with zero concern for recreational flyers.

 

[Chip]

To be sure heads at the FAA would should have rolled following their losing the case that you brought up - very embarrassing for them indeed. That's not going to happen again, especially in regard to this new and highly significant proposal.

I agree with you 100% with one correction as noted. And one more:

Everyone involved got bonuses and raises. With lucrative careers as highly paid consultants and lobbyists to follow.

Judge Tells FAA Rep: “You’re Just Making Stuff Up.”
Oral arguments in the case of Taylor vs. Huerta, a case that challenges the legality of the FAA’s drone registration program, began last week – and the FAA did not appear to emerge with victory at hand.

The FAA representative argued that FAA is allowed to “exercise discretion with regards to enforcement,” and that the agency would be “hamstrung” in enforcement without registration. The judges in the case, however, did not appear entirely convinced when questioning the FAA representative. “Where are you getting these words from?” the judge asked the FAA representative, who stumbled over the exact phrasing of Part 336 (a). “You’re just making stuff up… that’s not what the statute says.”

“Your argument is very strange to read,” commented the judge. “I wouldn’t write anything like that… I’d be laughed out of the business.”

Michael Huerta FAA is an influential man in the drone industry
Announced January 2018

ParaZero, the Tel-Aviv based drone recovery systems company announced today that former US FAA Administrator Michael Huerta has joined their advisory board. Among other things, ParaZero is currently involved in testing flights over people as part of the FAA testing centers in the US and other projects involving IPP teams currently testing for commercial applications in the US.

 

[AMann]

One issue I haven't seen discussed is flight below 100' over private property. The FAA does NOT control all airspace. There is some court recognition of airspace over private property that belongs to the property owner. The limit of that airspace hasn't been strict defined (somewhere below 400'). This doesn't mean much to urban dwellers but may be of some significance to those that own larger sections of private property in rural areas.

As for the comment about using the NAS and playing with the big boys, are you saying recreational flyers and small commercial "players" have no right to use this national resource? If large corporate interest are allowed to force them out of the airspace what's next, waterways and state/federal lands?

The safety issue is total nonsense. As for this being a huge national security issue, there are college engineering students (maybe some high school students) that could bypass these ID and lockout mechanisms. If someone want to use a drone as a weapon this ID technology isn't going to prevent it unless there were some broadbased system in place to take down a unidentified drone within minutes of it being detected. This is government overreach for control and to benefit corporate interest with zero concern for recreational flyers.

The chicken farmer case of 1946 was decided on by the Supreme Court a long time ago...365 feet and above was considered to be public airspace, anything below that was considered to be a property owners domain.

 

[dwolfe002]

The aircraft doesn't need to know if anyone is listening, and it doesn't affect the compliance of its operation.

I guess that is what bothers me the most. The aircraft is in compliance but if no one is listening then it doesn't do any good. But, if the drone cannot broadcast, you must land as soon as practicable. The area I live in is 15 miles from the nearest town of 7,000 people and 18 miles from the largest city around with 30,000 residents. The town I live in has quite an unusual town sign. The town sign is on both sides of the same pole and it is the only sign letting you know that you are here. I guess landing as soon as practicable for me is when my battery runs low and I have to change it. I don't think I'll worry about RID since it won't affect me at all unless I go somewhere the FAA cares about.

 

[AMann]

I guess that is what bothers me the most. The aircraft is in compliance but if no one is listening then it doesn't do any good. But, if the drone cannot broadcast, you must land as soon as practicable. The area I live in is 15 miles from the nearest town of 7,000 people and 18 miles from the largest city around with 30,000 residents. The town I live in has quite an unusual town sign. The town sign is on both sides of the same pole and it is the only sign letting you know that you are here. I guess landing as soon as practicable for me is when my battery runs low and I have to change it. I don't think I'll worry about RID since it won't affect me at all unless I go somewhere the FAA cares about.

Your DJI drone is possibly Remote ID capable and is already broadcasting information, it just may require a simple firmware update to get it to send the info in the right format.

Until the proposal becomes a regulation,
We all should send comments and recommendations to the FAA regarding this.

 

[dwolfe002]

Your DJI drone is possibly Remote ID capable and is already broadcasting information, it just may require a simple firmware update to get it to send the info in the right format.

Until the proposal becomes a regulation,
We all should send comments and recommendations to the FAA regarding this.

Yea, I understand all of that but it will probably not affect me in this area during my lifetime. I will more than likely send some comments to the FAA though. There are only around 70,000 people in the county I live in and half of those are in the two towns/cities near me. The FAA won't be in any rush to keep up with drones in my area. That just means that I will be able to get video of the first Amazon delivery in my area without any problems.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

The chicken farmer case of 1946 was decided on by the Supreme Court a long time ago...365 feet and above was considered to be public airspace, anything below that was considered to be a property owners domain.

I'm familiar with that case but I don't think there was any hard altitude stated as the airspace owned or controlled by the property owner but I'll check into it to confirm.

 

[AMann]

Yea, I understand all of that but it will probably not affect me in this area during my lifetime. I will more than likely send some comments to the FAA though. There are only around 70,000 people in the county I live in and half of those are in the two towns/cities near me. The FAA won't be in any rush to keep up with drones in my area. That just means that I will be able to get video of the first Amazon delivery in my area without any problems.

Amazon deliveries? Maybe you can become the first Drone Pirate - Arrrr

 

[AMann]

I'm familiar with that case but I don't think there was any hard altitude stated as the airspace owned or controlled by the property owner but I'll check into it to confirm.

They awarded him damages based on planes flying below that elevation. Apparently, Congress originally specified the 365’ elevation as the base for FAA airspace jurisdiction, but it is from the ground up now.

 

[dwolfe002]

Amazon deliveries? Maybe you can become the first Drone Pirate - Arrrr

I live around Beaufort, NC where Black Beard spent some time so that would be appropriate. Pirates in the air instead of the water. Arrrg

In fact they found his ship in Beaufort inlet maybe 5 years ago.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

They awarded him damages based on planes flying below that elevation. Apparently, Congress originally specified the 365’ elevation as the base for FAA airspace jurisdiction, but it is from the ground up now.

If it were from the ground up you would have to get FAA authorization to build a house, plant a tree or erect a swing set in your backyard. I don't think that is accurate.

 

[sar104]

If you can transmit and no one is there to hear you then how do they know if you were able to transmit in the first place?

Who is "they"?

 

[Matriculated01]

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

Agreed, I don’t see local governments being able to help themselves when they see a revenue cash cow sitting there ready for the milking. People have compared this to red light cameras, but in fact it’s much worse than that - red light cameras don’t track you wherever you go. In the law enforcement community it is a well known fact that any officer worth his salt should be able to issue at least 2-3 citations after following a car for 2 blocks or less. This proposal opens the door to automating that process - no direct following required. Computers and algorithms can start monetizing innocent mistakes that put no one in danger. No one can blame the government of not being sadistic. Forcing us to pay monthly subscriptions for the privilege of being tracked is nothing if not cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[Cybernaut]

This would result in a huge class action lawsuit against DJI or any other manufacturer that did such a thing. The claimants would handily win.

It would be insane for DJI to back this proposal. Their sales would drop like a rock if newbies understood all the new regulations they faced. I for one would never have purchased my Mavic Pro if I had known how restricting the current rules are. There are very few places to fly where I live. I am considering selling my drone if the new rules as written are formalized.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

If you can transmit and no one is there to hear you then how do they know if you were able to transmit in the first place?

Unlike the proverbial tree falling in the woods, and no one around to hear, I guess the system will record that you tried.