DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

FAA Drone ID Proposal:

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Yes, mega corporations flexing their lobbying power to influence government in a manner that gives them more control and profits is a conspiracy theory. Nutball territory right there. ?


Amazon has been on this for years now, this NYT article is from 2016. It would be helpful if you did a little research and looked into lobbying efforts before you go tossing “conspiracy theory” around. I do agree though that government wants surveillance for its own sake as well.
 
This is getting ridiculous. That is not what the proposal says at all. It does not rely on an internet connection:

a. Standard Remote Identification UAS​
For purposes of this proposed rule, a “standard remote identification UAS” is a UAS with remote identification equipment capable of both: (1) connecting to the internet and transmitting through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcasting directly from the unmanned aircraft. Standard remote identification UAS are discussed further in section X.A.1 of this preamble. Any person operating a standard remote identification UAS would be required to ensure:​

  • · The UAS was designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements of the rule using an FAA-accepted means of compliance for standard remote identification UAS. Persons would be able to meet this obligation by ensuring that the serial number of the standard remote identification UAS is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance. A person operating a UAS would be able to read the label on the aircraft indicating whether the UAS is a standard or limited remote identification UAS. Additionally, a person could determine whether the UAS is listed on an FAA-accepted declaration of compliance by verifying the status on the FAA’s website. The standard remote identification UAS broadcasts the remote identification message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.
    • · When the internet is available at takeoff, the standard remote identification UAS connects to the internet and transmits the required message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS.
6. Connectivity For standard remote identification UAS, the FAA is proposing in § 89.310(f)(1) and § 89.310(f)(2) that if the internet is available at takeoff, the unmanned aircraft would be required to be designed and produced so that it would not be able to take off unless it is connected to the 133 internet and transmitting the message elements in proposed § 89.305 through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS.

Further, in § 89.310(f)(3), the FAA is proposing to require a standard remote identification UAS to continuously monitor its connection to the internet and the transmission of remote identification message elements to a Remote ID USS. If either is lost, the UAS would have to notify the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS so he or she may take appropriate action, as needed.
 
This allows ALL of us to fly in the NAS in a more safe manner. It's not putting anyone or anything OUT just like having to have headlights & taillights on cars only meant people needed to upgrade their equipment.

And as I read in Section XVII, it won't take affect for 24 months after (if) the law is passed. Drone owners would have another 12 months to upgrade after that.
 
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.

I was simply answering the guy's question, "What bad things have happened nation wide to warrant this overreach?". But I think it is evident that the FAA is possibly not satisfied with rules (as they currently stand) compliance and that's not really all about the ratio of recorded incidents to the number of registered drones in circulation. There is enough hard evidence published on social media to help the authorities come to the conclusion that there may be real issues which need to be addressed.

If the powers that be become convinced (one way or another) that there is an unacceptable (in their view) level of recalcitrance in the UAS flying community then of course they are going to up the ante by implementing more regulatory measures that they hope will be effective even if it's not a long term solution.
 
Yes, mega corporations flexing their lobbying power to influence government in a manner that gives them more control and profits is a conspiracy theory. Nutball territory right there. ?


Amazon has been on this for years now, this NYT article is from 2016. It would be helpful if you did a little research and looked into lobbying efforts before you go tossing “conspiracy theory” around. I do agree though that government wants surveillance for its own sake as well.
Amazon wants to use drones for delivery and uses their lobbying power to expand what they are allowed to do. (Yeah, I agree that sounds believable) Amazon lobbies the government to stop hobbyists flying so that Amazon has "clear skies" and makes "profits" that my non-commercial drone would be eroding... (That's just silly - you are not in their way - they just don't care)
 
DJI's Go4 provides an option to activate a type of remote id. I wonder if it can be tweaked to transmit the data requirements of a standard remote id system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pvs
Amazon wants to use drones for delivery and uses their lobbying power to expand what they are allowed to do. (Yeah, I agree that sounds believable) Amazon lobbies the government to stop hobbyists flying so that Amazon has "clear skies" and makes "profits" that my non-commercial drone would be eroding... (That's just silly - you are not in their way - they just don't care)
Numerous things that an every day reality today would have sounded silly 20 years ago. Talk to me 20 years from now when the only drones in the sky are those of the commercial persuasion. Won’t be silly then, we’ll all be sitting around wondering what happened.
 
@Thomas B

what does this mean for people that have Mavic pro platinum?
i have MPP, but i dont understand any of this FAA bullstuff
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's an article on the proposal. Seems like one objective was to please the big commercial operators like Amazon wanting to deliver packages.


But drones have to report when they go farther than 400 feet from "base station."

So do hobbyists have to make way for big commercial drone operators now, in addition to manned aircraft? And be pretty much restricted to a 400 feet radius of the launch point?

I like how it talks about tracking drones for potential terrorist operations. It's going to use scare tactics to try to get public support for this regulation. If a terrorist tried to fly a compliant drone with some kind of deadly payload, sure it may ping the FAA to let it know where it is, but what can they do to stop it? They won't know ahead of time that it's being used for terrorist attack until it's dropped its payload.

Then they can go back and see the logs showing where it started and where it went? Big whoop!
 
Here's an article on the proposal. Seems like one objective was to please the big commercial operators like Amazon wanting to deliver packages.


But drones have to report when they go farther than 400 feet from "base station."

So do hobbyists have to make way for big commercial drone operators now, in addition to manned aircraft? And be pretty much restricted to a 400 feet radius of the launch point?

I like how it talks about tracking drones for potential terrorist operations. It's going to use scare tactics to try to get public support for this regulation. If a terrorist tried to fly a compliant drone with some kind of deadly payload, sure it may ping the FAA to let it know where it is, but what can they do to stop it? They won't know ahead of time that it's being used for terrorist attack until it's dropped its payload.

Then they can go back and see the logs showing where it started and where it went? Big whoop!
Pleasing big commercial interests IS The goal. In order for the commercial drone industry to flourish the corporations have to bring the pesky hobbyists to heel. It’s happening before our eyes, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. Say bye bye to the hobby and hello to faster/more convenient deliveries. It’ll take years, quite possibly 10-15 or more, but it’s clear where this is headed. Nobody has enough money (read: power) to take on Amazon alone, let alone when you combine it with UPS, FedEx and the rest. Might as well put a fork in it and enjoy the last few years left remaining before this takes full effect and starts expanding and adding on even more. Some people though won’t notice what’s happening for a long time, boiling frog syndrome unfortunately.
 
My opinion won’t be popular with a lot of folks on this forum, but this proposed rule of remote ID or fly at “explicative CBO field” is pure BS. This is nothing more than clearing low altitude airspace for senseless package delivery by Amazon, UPS, and other such players. Once again $Big Bucks$ horns in and starts taking over.
I never got into RC before because bringing home a bag of pieces and rebuilding was not my idea of a sustainable hobby. I love flying my UAS for the photo/videography and a CBO flying field is not my idea of a great photo op.

Retrofitting an older UAS to broadcast its position is likely cost prohibitive, but I’ll be damned if I yield my Class G airspace from 400’ AGL down to anything except a manned aircraft. Commercial BVLOS needs to have there own altitude sector from 450’ to whatever the floor altitude is for manned aircraft and be equipped so they are tracked by ATC.
 
Would be funny as hell if people started hijacking delivery drones.
 
Here's a snapshot of the current state of drones in the United States:
1,509,617 Drones Registered
420,340 Commercial Drones Registered
1,085,392 Recreational Drones Registered
160,748 Remote Pilots Certified
Page last modified: December 10, 2019 10:19:58 AM EST
The number of aircraft in the United States has been steadily increasing, with 2018 estimates holding that the general aviation fleet was 213,375 aircraft, and the for-hire carrier fleet was 7,397 aircraft .

There's seven times as many sUAS's as there are passenger aircraft, assuming, NO un-registered drones like the Eachine and MM exist. (I'm a minority because I registered my MM) I'm guessing double that number of unregistered drones. Drones may out number passenger planes by maybe 15 times...?
As of March 2019, civil penalties have rarely been imposed and no criminal sanctions have been enforced by the FAA. Less than five cases so far (through February 2019), have been referred to the FAA’s enforcement division regarding violations involving drones. So how much of a problem do we have ?
Maybe this will change three years from now; with new ID / position tracking.

First off... those initial #'s are probably WAY off... I have over a dozen "hobby" aircraft and all of them fall under my Hobby Registration #.

If you think that sheer # of aircraft is a deciding factor in this "conversation/battle" you're way off. The only thing that really matters in this conversation is $$.
 
My opinion won’t be popular with a lot of folks on this forum, but this proposed rule of remote ID or fly at “explicative CBO field” is pure BS. This is nothing more than clearing low altitude airspace for senseless package delivery by Amazon, UPS, and other such players. Once again $Big Bucks$ horns in and starts taking over.
I never got into RC before because bringing home a bag of pieces and rebuilding was not my idea of a sustainable hobby. I love flying my UAS for the photo/videography and a CBO flying field is not my idea of a great photo op.

Retrofitting an older UAS to broadcast its position is likely cost prohibitive, but I’ll be damned if I yield my Class G airspace from 400’ AGL down to anything except a manned aircraft. Commercial BVLOS needs to have there own altitude sector from 450’ to whatever the floor altitude is for manned aircraft and be equipped so they are tracked by ATC.
Agreed. I’ve been trying to open people’s eyes about what’s really going on but some people just refuse to see what’s right in front of them. Using “safety” to please corporate puppet masters and take away our freedoms and joys out of life is the oldest trick in the book. I just don’t understand how so many still just eat up whatever the government tells them without question. There are some well-meaning people on this forum who are honestly just concerned about safety and welcoming of new regs thinking that they’ll actually save the hobby but there is definitely a need for a healthy dose of skepticism.
 
Agreed. I’ve been trying to open people’s eyes about what’s really going on but some people just refuse to see what’s right in front of them. Using “safety” to please corporate puppet masters and take away our freedoms and joys out of life is the oldest trick in the book. I just don’t understand how so many still just eat up whatever the government tells them without question. There are some well-meaning people on this forum who are honestly just concerned about safety and welcoming of new regs thinking that they’ll actually save the hobby but there is definitely a need for a healthy dose of skepticism.


You will be able to legally break LOS, from what I read. That's more freedom.
 
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!
 
Well there is no drone pilot vote so we're going to be outvoted.

Because people are also paranoid about drones being used to snoop on them or more specifically their daughters.
 
I’m also not too excited about all the new regulations...but then I see new Skydio 2 footage from idiots like Billy what’s his name showing him riding through the streets of San Francisco (I believe?) with his trusty Skydio 2 flying behind him uncontrolled and autonomously buzzing over cars, up and over railroad bridges, etc. The new obstacle avoidance technologies is awesome but is being put into the hands of idiots who are just fueling the fires for regulators-and creating a need for remote identification.

And don’t get me wrong, I’m in the preorder list for a Skydio 2. But I plan to be much safer when I fly.

Z
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
132,101
Messages
1,569,604
Members
160,869
Latest member
palaiouras