FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Shon]

One article I read on this, indicated that existing drones will eventually be banned:

"Existing drones wouldn’t have to install tracking equipment retroactively, but would in most cases be banned from operation after the rule becomes law."

YAHOO FINANCE

Where in the proposed regulations did they interpret it this way...or are they just fishing for clicks?

 

[deleted member 877]

So am I interpreting things correctly by thinking the Mavic Mini would be exempt from the remote ID requirement? If so, it suddenly became more relevant again for me!

Correct but it would not be surprising that, at some point in the not too distant future, the Weight threshold is lowered.

 

[Thomas B]

Would be funny as hell if people started hijacking delivery drones.

No....

 

[Deleted member 93449]

This is a solution looking for a problem. And I don't want to hear about the 1001 what ifs. Life has risk. The attempt to mitigate all risk means not getting out of bed which actually won't remove all risk. About 40,000 people are killed in car accidents in the U.S. each year. There are over 2.5 million injuries as a result of car accidents each year. It's not apples to apples but even if there was one plane crash per year caused by a drone strike the numbers killed and injured would be miniscule in comparison. So we are going to throw hundreds of millions of dollars (it will end up in the billions) at a non-problem.

Billions have been spend on collision avoidance for manned aircraft and yet there are still mid-air collisions every year. We're going to spend billions more on the UAS airspace below 400' to cover the airspace across the whole country, airspace in which manned aircraft spend less than 0.0000001% of their flight hours flying in.

 

[Thomas B]

One article I read on this, indicated that existing drones will eventually be banned:

"Existing drones wouldn’t have to install tracking equipment retroactively, but would in most cases be banned from operation after the rule becomes law."

YAHOO FINANCE

Where in the proposed regulations did they interpret it this way...or are they just fishing for clicks?

A pure government taking!

If you haven’t formally weighed in with TSA and FAA on these regs you don’t need to gripe.

 

[markyga]

So what’s the downside of requiring every UAS to have an ADSB-out? Wouldn’t that solve most of the problems?

 

[dawgpilot]

So what’s the downside of requiring every UAS to have an ADSB-out? Wouldn’t that solve most of the problems?

They address that in the proposal and claim that there are too many drones out there and it would cause the ADS-B frequencies to be saturated.

 

[deleted member 877]

Billions have been spend on collision avoidance for manned aircraft and yet there are still mid-air collisions every year.

I'm suggesting that, if those billions of dollars were not spent, then there would be a lot more mid-air collisions occurring. It's all about risk mitigation. Nobody, including the FAA, expects there to be an accident rate of 0% but they will continue to do what they deem necessary to keep it as low as possible.

 

[Chip]

Nobody, including the FAA, expects there to be an accident rate of 0% but they will continue to do what they deem necessary to keep it as low as possible.

I agree, this is a factual statement. But, that is why its scary. Meglomaniacs doing whatever they deem necessary.

 

[Maviac]

Sigh. Please hire a lawyer. Pay a lot of money. Lose.

Report back to us. You're 100% wrong on your legal theory.

IAAL (with not a lot but some class-action experience) and I sign on to this. Only an inexperienced lawyer with no class experience would let you pay him or her to even try. And they/we handle these on contingency most of the time, anyway.

Certainly not fraud, by even the most loosest definition.

Caveat: if DJI knew what was coming down the pipeline and intentionally sold unequipped drones with the intent of bricking them (or severely limiting them) to sell more, then, maybe. But if you can prove that, which you can’t, you will become VERY (moderately) rich.

But you can’t.

 

[Maviac]

My prediction----The AMA and its Old Geezer traffic-pattern-flyers-at-approved-sites will strongly support this.

I’d take a bet against that. As far as I can tell AMA is supportive of what we do and probably doesn’t want a ton of old drones flooding its areas.

Lots of conspiracy theorists here. You know how many regs those of us who are airplane pilots have to deal with? Lots more than any drone pilot (this is not meant to be disrespectful and I’m a proud Part 107 pilot and spend a lot more time doing public education on sUASs than airplanes, but come on).

 

[Chip]

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

 

[Maviac]

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.

That’s sort of the question, right? A few of us operate occasionally where there is no internet, or we might at some point. My understanding is that DJI products produced in the past, say, 2 or 3 years have the ability to broadcast this info, so this rule is inconsequential unless you’re a privacy nut (and I love my privacy, which is why I’m in the middle of nowhere right now for Christmas without the ability to do much besides check email and post to forums, each of which takes several minutes).

I don’t know that this is true but if so, and if you or someone can confirm it, it would assuage a lot of this angst (I’ve spent several hours on a very slow internet connection that is about to shut off on me because I’ve exceeded my bandwidth) and haven’t found a clear answer but I think they have. I’d actually like to know because I’m about to snap up an M2P since I feel like I’ve outgrown my MA’s photography abilities but not if it doesn’t have this capability.

To elaborate on my earlier comment, if DJI (or any other manufacturer) is CURRENTLY selling products that cannot comply with this reg, or maybe even did since they learned of it, maybe you have a claim (not that I or any reputable lawyer would ever represent you).

But I don’t think that’s the case.

 

[sar104]

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.

No - I suspect it will take more time, and this is only a proposal at this stage. I'm sure that the timeframe will expand. It's probably not going to require significant, if any, new hardware to broadcast the required data, so I wouldn't expect it to add much to production costs. The investment is going to be in infrastructure.

Anyway, while this is fundamentally a very interesting discussion, the simply staggering level of ( Mod Removed ) on display in this thread is just too much for me to continue to participate. I generally regard this forum as one of the more educated centers of discussion for all things sUAS, but this is just too depressing.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I'm suggesting that, if those billions of dollars were not spent, then there would be a lot more mid-air collisions occurring. It's all about risk mitigation. Nobody, including the FAA, expects there to be an accident rate of 0% but they will continue to do what they deem necessary to keep it as low as possible.

My point is there hasn't been 1 fatal accident caused by a drone strike that I'm aware of and the risk based on everything I've read is miniscule. How much does spending hundreds of millions of dollars further mitigate the potential of a fatal accident? Are there ways that money could be spent that would have a greater impact on reducing risk in areas where hundreds or thousands of lives are lost? If ten people get killed in the process of constructing all of the infrastructure (for instance building the communications towers to support this network) have we really mitigated loss of life in a situation where up to this point no lives have been lost?

 

[Maviac]

My point is there hasn't been 1 fatal accident caused by a drone strike that I'm aware of and the risk based on everything I've read is miniscule. How much does spending hundreds of millions of dollars further mitigate the potential of a fatal accident? Are there ways that money could be spent that would have a greater impact on reducing risk in areas where hundreds or thousands of lives are lost? If ten people get killed in the process of constructing all of the infrastructure (for instance building the communications towers to support this network) have we really mitigated loss of life in a situation where up to this point no lives have been lost?

I’m no fan of unnecessary regulations but the sUAS (to use the FAA’s term) industry is obviously in its infancy. A drone, even a Mavic, could certainly bring down a small aircraft. And possibly a commercial one of it hit the wrong place. I’m doing a presentation tomorrow on the benefits of what we do at my local airport but I also have to point out the risks.

A phantom or even Mavic Air hitting the windscreen of my 172 could be catastrophic, and yet there have been several folks caught flying them over the airport over the past 3 months. These are not rumors or suppositions: these are idiots flying drones, without any permission, right over the area where airplanes are taking off or landing

(I’ve flown over the airport too, with express authorization (I was doing it specifically for an airport video) and while in constant communication with Unicom/CTAF).

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I’m no fan of unnecessary regulations but the sUAS (to use the FAA’s term) industry is obviously in its infancy. A drone, even a Mavic, could certainly bring down a small aircraft. And possibly a commercial one of it hit the wrong place. I’m doing a presentation tomorrow on the benefits of what we do at my local airport but I also have to point out the risks.

A phantom or even Mavic Air hitting the windscreen of my 172 could be catastrophic, and yet there have been several folks caught flying them over the airport over the past 3 months. These are not rumors or suppositions: these are idiots flying drones, without any permission, right over the area where airplanes are taking off or landing

(I’ve flown over the airport too, with express authorization (I was doing it specifically for an airport video) and while in constant communication with Unicom/CTAF).

Where is the emperical evidence that a drone the size/weight of a Mavic could bring down any aircraft? Even if it could under very unique circumstances what are the probabilities? Prior to mandates on transponders and other collision avoidance how many fatal midair collisions occured per year in the U.S. between manned aircraft? I can't recite the numbers but there were very few versus none between drones and manned aircraft. So what is there to mitigate, a 1 in a billion chance down to what? Are there cost invoiced in implementation of this that actual reduce the perceived benefit? If we're talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars I'd like to see some real evidence that a serious problem exist and that spending that money really mitigates the problem.

 

[deleted member 877]

Where is the emperical evidence that a drone the size/weight of a Mavic could bring down any aircraft? Even if it could under very unique circumstances what are the probabilities? Prior to mandates on transponders and other collision avoidance how many fatal midair collisions occured per year in the U.S. between manned aircraft? I can't recite the numbers but there were very few versus none between drones and manned aircraft. So what is there to mitigate, a 1 in a billion chance down to what? Are there cost invoiced in implementation of this that actual reduce the perceived benefit? If we're talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars I'd like to see some real evidence that a serious problem exist and that spending that money really mitigates the problem.

I think it's probably about time that you make an effort to gain an understanding of what risk mitigation actually involves and why it is important. Suggest that you read the FAA Safety Risk Management Policy. Just sayin'...

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_8040.4B.pdf

 

[Verdrone]

That’s sort of the question, right? A few of us operate occasionally where there is no internet, or we might at some point. My understanding is that DJI products produced in the past, say, 2 or 3 years have the ability to broadcast this info, so this rule is inconsequential unless you’re a privacy nut (and I love my privacy, which is why I’m in the middle of nowhere right now for Christmas without the ability to do much besides check email and post to forums, each of which takes several minutes).

I don’t know that this is true but if so, and if you or someone can confirm it, it would assuage a lot of this angst (I’ve spent several hours on a very slow internet connection that is about to shut off on me because I’ve exceeded my bandwidth) and haven’t found a clear answer but I think they have. I’d actually like to know because I’m about to snap up an M2P since I feel like I’ve outgrown my MA’s photography abilities but not if it doesn’t have this capability.

To elaborate on my earlier comment, if DJI (or any other manufacturer) is CURRENTLY selling products that cannot comply with this reg, or maybe even did since they learned of it, maybe you have a claim (not that I or any reputable lawyer would ever represent you).

But I don’t think that’s the case.

DJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification - DJI

DJI today demonstrated a direct drone-to-phone, Wi-Fi based solution to remotely identify airborne drones, pioneering an easy way for anyone with a smartphone to monitor nearby drones for enhanced safety, security and peace of mind.

www.dji.com

 

[53-63-6f-74-74]

One article I read on this, indicated that existing drones will eventually be banned:

"Existing drones wouldn’t have to install tracking equipment retroactively, but would in most cases be banned from operation after the rule becomes law."

YAHOO FINANCE

Where in the proposed regulations did they interpret it this way...or are they just fishing for clicks?

Page 289-290. It's clearly noted that there is NO grandfathering. Non-compliant aircraft would be limited to designated areas (model aircraft club fields, etc.). Also on Page 263 it is stated that NO person would be able to operate a UAS that is not able to transmit the required data (except on such sites).