FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[DroningOn]

In truth, self regulation was working just fine. How many people are flying drones? How many have posed a real problem?

drone reg·u·la·tion
/drōn reɡ(y)əˈlāSH(ə)n/

1. A solution in search of a problem

 

[JAW]

If the proposal goes through pretty much intact, the questions are (1) can DJI provide standard remote ID capabilities to current owners---I don't think anyone would find limited use remote ID capability useful, and (2) can they do it at a reasonable cost?

 

[HappyHours]

The email I got had this graphic that may help some

 

[Matriculated01]

drone reg·u·la·tion
/drōn reɡ(y)əˈlāSH(ə)n/

1. A solution in search of a problem

Thank you!!!
That is exactly right. This new heavy handed bondoogle coming down the pike - what problem is it solving exactly? None. The few cases where manned aircraft or people might have been endangered by a careless drone pilot are already covered under existing regulations. Meaning, enforcement of existing laws is the answer, not more laws. People aren’t catching on to the bigger picture of this thing and the corporations who are pushing for this. I think once the word gets out people will open their eyes. DJI and other industry giants on our side need to fight this tooth and nail. Although when I call DJI a giant I almost chuckle to myself when I compare them to Amazon... more like a mosquito. We have no chance. ?

 

[sar104]

Hi Sar104,

I am not trying to over react. From the literature the FAA provided in the email I received, there are only 3 methods, 2 required internet for remote id, the 3rd is when remote id can't be obtained, net you are flying in a AMA field or similar spot. Sorry if I read this wrong, as your knowledge base is much greater than mine. But from reading just the email and their proposal that is linked, I don't feel it's ridiculous. But I guess time will tell.

I am also concerned as I use the smart controller, there is no cell phone connection. I realize that with the standard controller and a cell phone, with some new software from DJI, remote id can work possibly since cell service would allow connection to the internet, however with the smart controller, it only has wifi and thus you would be locked out of 99% of all networks.

I only fly in remote parts of my State, all National Forest or Private land, where I have permission. 85% of these spots have no cell phone connection thus no remote id would be possible, so if I read the literature from the FAA proposal, I could not fly legally by their new rules. Instead only on a AMA field or similar spot.

Sorry if I have this incorrect.

Paul C

No problem - but I posted the actual wording from the proposal above. It uses an internet connection on startup if it has one, if not then it only broadcasts directly.

 

[HappyHours]

I have a lot of gripes with this proposal but probably the biggest one is that they don't seem to make any kind of allowance for flying in uncontrolled airspace. If a plane can take off in class G with no transponder or radio then why would a drone have these limitations put on it?

Also the direct line to an ambiguous "Law Enforcement" really shows this for what it is. They assume we're all criminals who need to be caught and punished.

I can guarantee if this goes into effect as is there will be almost zero compliance among the vast majority of builders.

I agree with this completely, if we are in class G airspace why do our restrictions exceed those required for aircraft,

This is pure unadulterated [Language removed by Admin]. What bad things have happened nation wide to warrant this overreach!

We have no representation so they just walk all over us.

 

[sar104]

You lost me with "it does not rely on an internet connection". If one of the requirements says "connecting to the internet and transmitting through that internet connection" followed by "and" broadcasting directly from the aircraft how can it not be relying on an internet connection? If 1 and 2 were separated by "or" I could understand that you wouldn't be relying on an internet connection but there is no "or" in the statement.

No. You have to read the entire statement. The aircraft has to be capable of both methods - it doesn't always have to use both. See post #79.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

See p.22 of the proposal (at the bottom.). It explains how things work when an internet connection is NOT available.

	No person would be allowed to operate a UAS within the airspace of the United States unless the operation is conducted under one of the following: (1) the UAS is a standard remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.110; (2) the UAS is a limited remote identification UAS and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.115; or (3) the UAS does not have remote identification equipment and that person complies with the requirements of § 89.120.
	(Standard) Remote identification: If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.
In-flight loss of broadcast capability:	A person manipulating the flight controls of a standard remote identification UAS that can no longer broadcast the message elements would have to land as soon as practicable.

My comments were based on the text I quoted.

The text you referenced says "the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing." My question is if there is no internet connection what is the UAS transmitting directly to?

 

[sar104]

My comments were based on the text I quoted.

The text you referenced says "the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing." My question is if there is no internet connection what is the UAS transmitting directly to?

Any local receiver designed to listen to those messages - akin to Aeroscope but not proprietary.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Any local receiver designed to listen to those messages - akin to Aeroscope but not proprietary.

Forgive my ignorance but are these types of receivers already widely in use? I've been involved in aviation for over 50 years and I've never heard of the system.

 

[sar104]

Forgive my ignorance but are these types of receivers already widely in use? I've been involved in aviation for over 50 years and I've never heard of the system.

No - I think that's one of the major points here - it's going to require some new equipment and infrastructure on the detection side.

 

[dawgpilot]

Scary part (p.31 of the proposal)

This proposed rule would result in additional costs for persons responsible for the production of UAS, owners and operators of registered unmanned aircraft, community based organizations,

Not just that, but their estimate is something like 50 MILLION per year over the next 10 years in increased costs. Not exactly chump change here.

 

[sar104]

Not just that, but their estimate is something like 50 MILLION per year over the next 10 years in increased costs. Not exactly chump change here.

But compared to potential the size of the sUAS commercial market, that's pretty cheap for a comprehensive tracking system.

 

[deleted member 877]

This is pure unadulterated ********. What bad things have happened nation wide to warrant this overreach!

Do you ever read the news?

 

[AMann]

Do you ever read the news?

I don’t think that matters, why should the FAA wait until something does happen to implement safer regulation?

?...Oh yeah.

 

[Kombucha]

A serial number transponder system would adequately meet all the concerns raised. The recording and transmission of telemetry over the Internet is clearly intended to use "safety concerns" as a justification for invasive surveillance of non-commercial pilots. There is no safety-based reason to record telemetry of non-commercial flight occurring less than a few hundred feet off the ground and away from an airport. This rule is the equivalent of having your car report to law enforcement how fast and how long you drove, where you stopped, and what you did at the rest stop after you left the car. This is MUCH more invasive than ADS-B Out or a transponder. This system does not require you to be painted with radar, or even flying, for it to report everything about your personal location as the person who is the registered operator (the control system) as well as the aircraft's information.

If you care about flying and you are not a commercial entity, read this proposal and comment at Regulations.gov on "Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems". Note that the FAA welcomes the kind of information that could be used to expand the scope of their influence, for example:

• The FAA welcomes comments on whether the connection (to their surveillance system) should be required from takeoff to landing or whether it should be required from start up to shut down.
• The FAA welcomes comments on whether it should provide some fields in the registration database to some or all Remote ID USS for use by law enforcement or the Federal Government.
• The FAA welcomes detailed comments on whether and why it should require the owners of UAS without remote identification to have to obtain an ANSI/CTA-2063-A compliant serial number and to list it in the Certificate of Aircraft Registration or the Certificate of Identification and whether there would be any costs associated with obtaining a compliant serial number.
• The FAA requests comments regarding whether both barometric pressure altitude and geometric altitude of the control station (not just the aircraft) should be part of the remote identification message elements.

Remember this day before the FAA recorded every second of your activity, before the State demanded to know why you had a need to take pictures of the snow falling on your town, or to film trains you have always loved or to survey your own property. When you have grandchildren and the skies are filled with law enforcement, delivery, and media drones, you will be able to point at them and say, "in my day, a person just like you or me could fly something just like one of those".

I've loved these days!

 

[Deleted member 93449]

No - I think that's one of the major points here - it's going to require some new equipment and infrastructure on the detection side.

Do you think three years is going to be enough time to get this system in place?

I've read the cost estimate of $500 million over ten years but if the history of accuracy of cost estimates holds true it could be 3 or 4 times that much. I also don't understand why UAS manufacturers and users would be required to be incompliance in 3 years for a system that may not be operation for many years after that.

Of course this is all in the discussion phase with the details yet to be worked out. In the meantime maybe some genius can figure out how to build a unit that can be incorporated into drones that won't cost an arm and a leg or come up with an under 0.55 lb drone design with the functionality of a Mavic Pro.

 

[Kombucha]

It wasn’t lost on me that the notice just happened to be located on the amazon server farm, hah

Noooooooo!
I am just getting into the hobby, it’s still fresh and fun. How come nobody is discussing what is really going on here? The gigantic commercial interests are buying up the airspace all to themselves via the puppets we call politicians/regulators and pushing out us recreational, normal people all under the guise of “safety.” This is regulatory over reach if that phrase has any meaning. You and I can’t fly our drones because Amazon needs the skies for their drone feet to be unobstructed. This is ridiculous.

You are theorizing a conspiracy between government and a corporation where there is none. Government wants surveillance because surveillance is what government does. Amazon cares about your drone flying less than they care about you driving to work.

 

[Matriculated01]

Do you ever read the news?

Pete that’s not the point. The point is what issue is this proposal addressing that isn’t already covered by existing regs? This is typical bureaucrat-think: “more laws is always the answer.” When you’re a hammer everything looks like a nail. The truth is that an overwhelming majority of concerns are already addressed by the current regulatory system and it just needs to be enforced. The government needs more mass surveillance capability like a an alcoholic needs a drink - they just can’t help themselves. Plus there is heavy commercial lobbying for this, corporations want the skies regulated to the point where only the big, pocket-heavy players will basically have access. Monopolizing things is what they do.

 

[Kombucha]

So you’ve already read the whole thing and understand it fully? You have way too much trust in the people writing the rules. Give them the power and they will keep squeezing and squeezing until most people just give up and it becomes accepted as conventional that of course if you want to fly your drone you should go to the allocated “drone park.” You expected to just fly freely as long as you’re not endangering anyone and following some basic rules? Fanatic opinions, just be quiet and fall in line.

I've read it. He's a commercial pilot. If I were him, I would love the new proposal. The only ones it hurts are non-commercial pilots who may value their privacy. This rule has nothing to do with safety. It's about the tracking and telemetry of individuals and their aircraft.