FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Camino Ken]

Wow, there is so much confusion. If every poster would read all of the other posts in this thread there shouldn’t be so much doom and gloom. As I understand it most of the drones we have now should be able to broadcast the necessary information (maybe with a firmware update?). In addition we will have to signup with a service that will cost about $2.50 USD. And thats it! Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

So bottom line... if you knew someone was buying their 1st drone, would you recommend then to not even buy one?

I just ordered a mavic mini but it is on backorder and I still have a chance to cancel ther order... based on this new tesh, what would you do?? Over always wanted a drone and im in a sort that I can afford this smaller one. Honest answers are greatly appreciated!

As Thomas B said, it's probably going to take 3 years to get all of this firmly established and the infrastructure in place. So get the Mini and enjoy flying it. Of course fly by the current regulations (altitude less than 400', within line of sight, no flight over people or moving vehicles, outside of controlled airspace, etc.).

 

[emilford]

From how I read this in essence the FAA is grounding all non commercial drones.

If internet is required I guess you can fly in your front yard unless internet is needed all the time. Net no internet connection will allow this over any distance and height.

Also as previously mentioned how will you be able to fly in National Forest or remote areas that currently have no restrictions? You can’t establish a internet connection in the field.

Lastly this implies that all current drones sold by DJI would not work as none have any built in remote id capability that I know of. Sure DJI says this can be added via software but not sure how easily this will happen.

Big issue for me is fact that most folks places currently fly don’t have internet thus no remote id via software or built in would work

Also most internet works are locked. There are not public networks for flying. So you are going to be limited to your front yard.

Sad day.

Paul C

You are missing an important part of the requirements. The UAV has two suggested modes for conveying the “data elements” externally: 1) the internet. 2) direct “broadcasting” from the UAS.

There are existing mechanisms for getting to the internet through our controllers and cell phones or tablets if and where we have service. The proposed rules just indicate that you either do or do not have internet connection. They want just the bottom line for the duration of your flight. Yes or No.

The mention of the second mode of getting your informationpp out in real time is more interesting: The word “broadcast”. This means the UAS would use airwaves to radio broadcast the data elements. The FAA proposal simply leaves it as a to-be-determined what the infrastructure of the receiving entity will be and exactly how this will be done with what hardware. They do say that they will contract this task out, and the entities holding the contract will have to pass the data on to FAA in real time at request. All the specific technical requirements are still up in the air, but once established, the written proposal makes it clear that FAA will certify UAS that either have both broadcast and internet, or internet only.

I strongly urge all of us to actually read the proposal. All of the most important meat is up front. There is also a chart that summarizes everything. It is written in plain clear english. No need to be a lawyer to understand what the proposed rules are. Make no mistake... the FAA has the authority to do what they are proposing. There will be significant costs to the operators of UAS.

Ability to track UAS for safety is reasonable. However there is a future subtext that suggests that this is just the first step in an integrated air traffic control system. My worry is the possibilty that class G airspace will be sliced up and substantial routes within class G will be reserved for priority commercial corporations.

 

[deleted member 877]

So bottom line... if you knew someone was buying their 1st drone, would you recommend then to not even buy one?

I just ordered a mavic mini but it is on backorder and I still have a chance to cancel ther order... based on this new tesh, what would you do?? Over always wanted a drone and im in a sort that I can afford this smaller one. Honest answers are greatly appreciated!

The Mavic Mini weighs less than 250 grams and so is not in scope. You will not be affected unless by some chance the 250 gram threshold is reduced. The FAA has indicated that they are not ruling out such a change and are taking a "wait and see" approach - a lot will depend on compliance related factors

As suggested above you've got 3 years of fun before you need to be concerned about anything really. The worst that could happen in the interim is that you may have to pay $5 to register your drone.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Wow, there is so much confusion. If every poster would read all of the other posts in this thread there shouldn’t be so much doom and gloom. As I understand it most of the drones were have now should be able to broadcast the necessary information (maybe with a firmware update?). In addition we will have to signup with a service that will cost about $2.50 USD. And thats it! Please, anyone correct me if I am wrong.

It's not clear to me if "most of the drones were [sp] have now" can meet the direct broadcast requirements (we're not just taking about DJI drones) or what the ultimate cost will be for signing up for whatever services are required. There are also the 400' in all direction flight restrictions and for those drones that cannot broadcast the information the need for an internet connection in places where the risk of any collision is minimal to non-existent but there isn't much cellphone coverage.

It also comes don't to being real about the real reasons for this legislation and resisting any new regulations that don't have a solid foundation is the real world versus speculations. Now is the time to raise flags to try and amend these regulations. Once they are in place it becomes that much harder to get them changed.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

You are missing an important part of the requirements. The UAV has two suggested modes for conveying the “data elements” externally: 1) the internet. 2) direct “broadcasting” from the UAS.

There are existing mechanisms for getting to the internet through our controllers and cell phones or tablets if and where we have service. The proposed rules just indicate that you either do or do not have internet connection. They want just the bottom line for the duration of your flight. Yes or No.

The mention of the second mode of getting your informationpp out in real time is more interesting: The word “broadcast”. This means the UAS would use airwaves to radio broadcast the data elements. The FAA proposal simply leaves it as a to-be-determined what the infrastructure of the receiving entity will be and exactly how this will be done with what hardware. They do say that they will contract this task out, and the entities holding the contract will have to pass the data on to FAA in real time at request. All the specific technical requirements are still up in the air, but once established, the written proposal makes it clear that FAA will certify UAS that either have both broadcast and internet, or internet only.

I strongly urge all of us to actually read the proposal. All of the most important meat is up front. There is also a chart that summarizes everything. It is written in plain clear english. No need to be a lawyer to understand what the proposed rules are. Make no mistake... the FAA has the authority to do what they are proposing. There will be significant costs to the operators of UAS.

Ability to track UAS for safety is reasonable. However there is a future subtext that suggests that this is just the first step in an integrated air traffic control system. My worry is the possibilty that class G airspace will be sliced up and substantial routes within class G will be reserved for priority commercial corporations.

You kind of, sort of had me agreeing with you until you threw in "Ability to track UAS for safety is reasonable." This legislation, in spite of what is says and all the speculations, has nothing to do with safety. How do I know this? Look at the safety record of UAS operations over the last 20 years. If you double the number of UAS operations and quadruple the number of accidents it wouldn't make a blip on the radar screen of aviation related accidents, injuries or deaths. As stated prior, if safety was the major concern there are much better ways to spend the $500 million plus in areas where aviation accidents, injuries and deaths do occur.

And I'm not buying the rouge terrorist use of a drone. This legislation is about controlling the dollars.

 

[sar104]

My understanding at this point is you would need an internet connection if the drone you are flying cannot broadcast the minimum ID information and you are flying anywhere other than an approved FAA flight area.

That's correct. There are three categories proposed:

Standard Remote ID equipment: The aircraft is capable of connecting to a USS via the internet (via the mobile control device) to transmit the required elements, and can broadcast the required data directly via radio. If an internet connection is available while flying it is required to do both. If no internet connection is available it only broadcasts directly. It can fly anywhere legal under the current regulations.

Limited Remote ID equipment: The aircraft is capable of connecting to a USS via the internet (via the mobile control device) but has no broadcast capability. It is required to remain with 400 ft of the control point, and must land if the internet connection is goes down.

No Remote ID equipment: The aircraft is restricted to VLOS at an FAA identification area.

But all recent DJI aircraft should be able to broadcast the necessary information, and so should not fall into the Limited Remote ID category.

 

[sar104]

You kind of, sort of had me agreeing with you until you threw in "Ability to track UAS for safety is reasonable." This legislation, in spite of what is says and all the speculations, has nothing to do with safety. How do I know this?

You don't.

 

[sar104]

As Thomas B said, it's probably going to take 3 years to get all of this firmly established and the infrastructure in place. So get the Mini and enjoy flying it. Of course fly by the current regulations (altitude less than 400', within line of sight, no flight over people or moving vehicles, outside of controlled airspace, etc.).

And the Mini is exempt from these requirements anyway, as proposed.

 

[AMann]

A very beautiful part of NC, spent a week at a mountain cabin (2500 sq ft ) a few years back. A lot of photo ops along the Broad River.

It might be easier to use a WiFi controlled gimbaled camera attached to a tethered weather balloon when all this RID BS comes to fruition. At least it won’t need an internet connection. I remember the spotty cellular there.

For kite aerial photography why not modify your Mavic? Simply take off the props and use the four arms on it as a Picavet stabilizer, then you are all set!

But really, I don’t think we’ll have to worry about remote ID with current DJI drones as they transmit information that might be easy to format to what FAA finally requires for it.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

You don't.

Yes I do. The 20 year history is evidence.

 

[Hauptmann]

And I'm not buying the rouge terrorist use of a drone. This legislation is about controlling the dollars.

Gotta watch out for those rouge terrorists. At least we can recognize them with their painted faces. ?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

And the Mini is exempt from these requirements anyway, as proposed.

And that could change with the stroke of a pen. Can a Mini fly above 100', out of line of sight, into controlled airspace, etc. I have zero confidence this sub-class of drones are going to be immune from this or some future legislation.

 

[sar104]

Yes I do. The 20 year history is evidence.

No it isn't because (1) there isn't anything like a 20-year history of widespread sUAS use and (2) we are heading for an even different future, with rapid growth of commercial autonomous sUAS.

I really don't understand your dogged refusal to accept that the widespread use of this technology is going to require some kind of integrated and automated traffic management system.

 

[IDPhoto]

We still have a few years before total meltdown but i can see that their tactics are already working with people not wanting to be part of this for now, i dont blame them. Hope that we can send our opinions to the FAA, its the very least we can do. "Least" ?

 

[sar104]

And that could change with the stroke of a pen. Can a Mini fly above 100', out of line of sight, into controlled airspace, etc. I have zero confidence this sub-class of drones are going to be immune from this or some future legislation.

And now back to the tactic of inventing your own straw man versions of this to argue against when you run out of things to complain about in the actual proposal.

 

[Phochief]

After getting a good night's sleep and thinking about this whole thing again, I think that the primary reason for this proposed rule-making is for law enforcement's benefit. Just looking at the FAA's graphic (below) pretty much shows their hand. Note how all Remote ID data concludes at "Law Enforcement". Personally, I fly by the rules so it shouldn't affect me, right?. However, once the general public knows they can just call 911 to report a drone (for any reason)...

 

[dronerdave]

I'm having some issues with this diagram especially the Standard Remote Identification.


As I understand it my Mavic Pro does transmit RID via radio frequency although I still don't know if it requires a DJI update. As far as flying out of internet communication, wouldn't they have a fourth diagram if in fact I don't need an internet connection to fly outside their 400' radius bubble rule?
The way I'm reading the three ID methods is I'd have to move to the 400' radius diagram and even in that circumstance it shows you need internet and pay a service fee or go to the last unfortunate diagram...an AMA type field which I don't want to be forced to fly at. Why would the FAA allow an RC aircraft to fly outside their ability to monitor?

If there is no internet and as mentioned you don't need an internet connection, (such as being in the middle of nowhere), wouldn't there be some kind of diagram as shown below?



"If an internet connection is available while flying it is required to do both". Can someone explain how my Crystal Sky that has no cellular connection can be used if I'm within range to connect to the internet? I guessing that if I am allowed to fly w/o the internet and my drone drifted into range of where the RID signal can be received, if I don't connect to the internet, I'd be in violation. Correct? If I'm on the edge of a cell towers range, wouldn't that be difficult to deal with.

 

[Lon Denard]

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

I don't think it's a "system concern" more of a if you are stopped and or questioned concern. I'm mostly sure the drones will keep flying regardless, the concern is what if you're caught flying without Remote ID? I mean let's be real, they have no way of knowing if I'm flying a drone at the park, unless someone calls and a cop decides to stop and check me out. I think a lot is being read into this. I mean, I launch my Mavic2 Pro in my back yard with the Smart Controller, how is the FAA gonna know?

 

[Terry63]

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.

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!

I would like to thank sar104, AMann and Phochief for keeping the technological aspect of this thread alive long enough for me to better understand the proposed regulations. By reading into it something that was not there I became overly concerned about the future of flying in the mountains. Worst case scenario, I would have to buy a drone that is Standard Remote Identification capable. But my Mavic Pro might be SRID with a software change.