FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[pvs]

DJI and other stakeholders have indicated remote ID can be achieved via software.

How Do You Feel About the Remote Identification Requirement?

Last week I took the time while on a 12 hour train ride to read the the report which is over 200 pages in length. My take is all Mavic 1 and Mavic 2 drones will be subject to remote ID and tracking requirements should the FAA adopt the committee's recommendations. This includes 107 flights as...

mavicpilots.com

I might be wrong, but I believe my Mavic Air, with up-to-date firmware, is already capable of this. If I go into MC Settings. the very first item says "Remote Identification". I tapped on that and enabled the stuff months ago. I enabled UUID and Identification & Flight Information. I entered my FAA number under Identification, and set Flight Information to "Hobby flying, will not exceed 400AGL", and then there's an "Apply" button below that.

I did this stuff months ago, and as such, I have not really cared about the notice that came out the other day.

Is this notice referring to something different?

 

[JAW]

PVS SAID:
I might be wrong, but I believe my Mavic Air, with up-to-date firmware, is already capable of this. If I go into MC Settings. the very first item says "Remote Identification". I tapped on that and enabled the stuff months ago. I enabled UUID and Identification & Flight Information. I entered my FAA number under Identification, and set Flight Information to "Hobby flying, will not exceed 400AGL", and then there's an "Apply" button below that.

I did this stuff months ago, and as such, I have not really cared about the notice that came out the other day.

Is this notice referring to something different?

I believe all Mavics with current updates are capable of this. However, the question I posed earlier was will this DJI remote ID system be capable of meeting, I suppose through software updates, all the data requirements of the standard remote ID system as proposed?

PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR A STANDARD and LIMTED REMOTE ID SYSTEM

 

[Bob1956]

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

Unfortunately it doesn't sound that optimistic. Unless your front yard is a sanctioned AMA RC field, you can't fly there either.

 

[unionglzr]

First, we are talking about collision avoidance with other aircraft. Second, the proposed system would not have prevented this accident.

Don’t think system is for so much about preventing something like that(which I’m sure they will use it that way when they can) as to identifing when something does happen who is responsible

 

[Jhawkengr]

An action to take should be to make your concerns known when the FAA opens the "public comment period".

If enough of us don't like one or more provisions, we might be able to stop implementation or get the onerous requirements we don't like changed.

But that DOES require action.

 

[unionglzr]

I thought this thread needed more input, so...

I always add 50% to any estimate of time or money, so three years could be closer to five. A lot can happen in that time.

I work for the world's largest retailer. Our executives dismissed Amazon's drone delivery commercial aired X number of years ago, as a publicity stunt. We have tried drones in distribution centers, to take inventory, and spot check product facing, but like all things tech, the conditions have to be perfect. It is much easier to accomplish the same objective with scanning machines on wheels, even at DC stock heights. Even then, tech only makes financial sense where labor is tight. While solving the dilemma of 'the last mile' is cause for salivation, not all drone deliveries will be within a mile of the DC.

Still, what happens if the commercial drone industry 'floods' the sky with 'same day delivery'. All that constant buzzing as they descend. Will people select that delivery mode, or socially/collectively reject it?

The commercial industry presupposes people will tolerate drone delivery. I find that hard to believe. Will people down the drones? If so, the lost products will add up to the point that drone delivery is not worth it to retailers. Not any of the tests have been to commercial scale, yet. To my recollection, real world tests have been the occasional drop off, and for medical supplies. Rarely does financial modeling play out as designed. The ROI may not be real.

Regarding a safe airspace, while drones out number manned aircraft, how many are up in the air at any one point in time? I'm sure the numbers are greater in densely populated areas, but not so much in rural areas. I've been flying for three years, and I've only seen another drone twice. Do we really need a blanket policy, or a more demographically tailored policy?

Regarding the bad guy, I'm sure the bad guy effort will be recorded somehow, but stopped? If I remember correctly, the only thing that prevented the assassination attempt in Venezuela (?) was a drone technological failure.

Regarding enforcement, unless there's a new drone task force, I don't see existing police forces stopping everything to pursuit a senior citizen drone pilot. Maybe the FAA or other would issue you an auto generated ticket like the cameras at intersections can. And, if you fail to pay?

Regarding privacy, just as Amazon works with the USPS, the US(PS) could work out a deal to install surveillance equipment on commercial drones, or be suspected of doing so.

In the spirit of cooperation, would it not be possible to elevate the floor of manned aircraft from 500' to 650, and have the commercial drones fly from 450 to 600'? The commercial drones will be more powerful, and computer controlled, so the more narrow space should be easy to navigate. Also, commercial drones would likely start from distribution centers, even pizza. The DCs would be on the outskirts of town, fly straight up to altitude, and then, within their assigned altitude, across to destination, before their intolerably noisy final descent.

I suppose a floor of 550' for manned aircraft would extend the airport radius forbidden zone, but not that much. Geometry anyone?

What do you mean by down the drones?

 

[BigAl07]

An action to take should be to make your concerns known when the FAA opens the "public comment period".

If enough of us don't like one or more provisions, we might be able to stop implementation or get the onerous requirements we don't like changed.

But that DOES require action.

This is probably the smartest and most important post I've seen on this topic since it started. WELL DONE!

If you don't like something in this proposal then you have time to add your input. If you don't do that then you don't have any say-so later down the road.

For it or against it you've got an opportunity to weigh in and let your thoughts be known.

 

[jpzend125]

Every point here is well received. Like anything new there will be confusion, bugs and outcries. it would make sense to me if a drone accessory supplier developed an "ad on" registration transmitter. I am sure it would be affordable and lightweight. The most interesting part of this issue i have seen so far, is what happens when there is no internet or cell service? And, in that case, the area would be really isolated, maybe not needing regulation?

 

[Drone on]

What do you mean by down the drones?

sticks and stones for the low tech. Signal jamming for the high tech

 

[Drone on]

This is probably the smartest and most important post I've seen on this topic since it started. WELL DONE!

If you don't like something in this proposal then you have time to add your input. If you don't do that then you don't have any say-so later down the road.

For it or against it you've got an opportunity to weigh in and let your thoughts be known.

Should we elect someone from membership to draft a response? I believe there's a lawyer in the room.
Maybe an election should be put to a vote, and the draft put to a vote

Then, the final draft is submitted by every member so it's the same message in numbers. a pseudo DDOS

 

[MBurris]

Are there any statistics regarding the number of people significantly injured or killed from a drone? Is this a search by the government of a solution in need of a problem?

 

[Matriculated01]

Should we elect someone from membership to draft a response? I believe there's a lawyer in the room.
Maybe an election should be put to a vote, and the draft put to a vote

Then, the final draft is submitted by every member so it's the same message in numbers. a pseudo DDOS

This might be a good idea. I think the main focus of the letter should be exempting hobbyists from as many requirements as possible. Amazon wants regulation so they can release their drone fleet? Give them what they want. Release the drones. But leave normal people out of it. Unfortunately the most likely case is that the “comment period” is just window dressing to provide an illusion of a voice for ordinary people. Unless you have Amazon’s pockets, not very like to have much/any effect. The only stakeholders who might have any real pull to affect any changes are the drone/tech companies, but again most of them are nowhere near Amazon’s level.

 

[JAW]

DO I NEED TO BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS ??

The short answer is NO. You must have the capability of being connected to the internet, which I believe all Mavics have, via Go software.


*Land as soon as practicable The landing site and duration of flight are at the discretion of the pilot. Extended flight beyond the nearest approved landing area is not recommended.
source: FAA Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (FAA-H-8083-25A)

 

[DoomMeister]

Should we elect someone from membership to draft a response? I believe there's a lawyer in the room.
Maybe an election should be put to a vote, and the draft put to a vote

Then, the final draft is submitted by every member so it's the same message in numbers. a pseudo DDOS

That could be a good idea! Yet we have a few different camps inside our membership when it comes to this proposal. Just look at the responses in this thread.

 

[pvs]

PVS SAID:
I might be wrong, but I believe my Mavic Air, with up-to-date firmware, is already capable of this. If I go into MC Settings. the very first item says "Remote Identification". I tapped on that and enabled the stuff months ago. I enabled UUID and Identification & Flight Information. I entered my FAA number under Identification, and set Flight Information to "Hobby flying, will not exceed 400AGL", and then there's an "Apply" button below that.

I did this stuff months ago, and as such, I have not really cared about the notice that came out the other day.

Is this notice referring to something different?

I believe all Mavics with current updates are capable of this. However, the question I posed earlier was will this DJI remote ID system be capable of meeting, I suppose through software updates, all the data requirements of the standard remote ID system as proposed?

PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR A STANDARD and LIMTED REMOTE ID SYSTEM
View attachment 88898

Yeah, having read through the thread, Elaine and company seem to be creating quite a set of hoops to jump through. And it seems that $$$ are the driving force, as always.

Looks like we all need to voice our objections and concerns, though our voices don't seem to matter these days.

There's a reply above, requesting a lawyer from these boards to write up a formal reply that we could all individually address so that our voices might mean a bit more. Sounds like a great approach, as I am sure the document in question is filled with confusing legalese.

 

[Lon Denard]

I don't think you are reading that correctly. (I'm a lawyer, but don't hold that against me; I read proposed regulations and legislation as part of my job.)

It is clear that any drones without the ID technology (that means all of ours!) will ONLY be permitted in authorized club-based approved flight zones.

"Ours"... All of my DJI drones already have "limited" Remote ID built in. It's clearly in the settings but I'm sure no one has activated it. Hahahaha!

 

[Lon Denard]

Um, no. You can't sue a manufacturer for subsequent changes to the law.

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

 

[DoomMeister]

Geez I didn't know you were a MOD here...

Now you do!

 

[Lon Denard]

I'm taking a wait and see approach to this. The FAA is asking for feedback, so if you don't like this proposed regulation, let them know. I reacted very badly to NFZs back in the day, when they were implemented and it turned out to be a non issue for me. All of my DJI drones have remote ID in them already so I'm covered for limited use, which translates to what I have now, except the VLOS seems to be defined as 400', I may be reading that wrong though. I haven't read all of the replies but it seems a lot of people are missing that if you have a drone with an ADS-B transponder, you can seemingly fly wherever you want. Including BVLOS! That's the more interesting part in my opinion.

 

[Jerry Campbell]

What do you thing this is going to add to the cost of anyone putting a transmitter on a drone that go 15 to 20 miles at 400 ft