FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[Matriculated01]

Page 196:

• The FAA assumes each entity operating a UAS would be required to subscribe to a Remote ID USS at a rate of $2.50 per month or $30 per year.

Ahh, there it is. Thanks.

 

[Thomas B]

Page 196:

• The FAA assumes each entity operating a UAS would be required to subscribe to a Remote ID USS at a rate of $2.50 per month or $30 per year.

True... but I saw that word “assume” and we all know what that does.

 

[sar104]

True... but I saw that word “assume” and we all know what that does.

The "assumes" refers to the financial analysis:

FAA review of subscription costs to USS for LAANC range from 0$ to $5 per month. The average of $2.50 is used for the regulatory analysis. In this analysis, the FAA assumes the subscription cost will be a flat rate and will not vary by the number of UAS operated by an entity. UAS service providers may charge additional fees for other services not related to this proposed rule.​

 

[dfb]

I wonder what they’re going to do with tethered drones?

Also, I hope they leave KAP and even kid’s helium balloons alone!

There are tethered drones (assuming you did not mean ballons)? I remember some time ago reading FAA regs that spoke of tethered aircraft and a power requirement. I thought then, and now, even more, of tethering my Mavic 2 to escape some requirements! I don't remember anything that required the tether to be under tension! Still, there is that pesky power part.

 

[Bob001]

Not too big a deal for older drones. ID rules specifically say that drones made prior to the rules are not subject to them.

. UAS without Remote Identification Equipment

Under the proposed rule, the vast majority of UAS would be required to have remoteidentification capability, however as discussed in section X. A. 3,a limited number of UAS would continue to not have remote identification.The FAA envisions that upon full implementation of this rule, no unmanned aircraft weighing more than 0.55 poundswill be commercially available that is not either a standard remote identification UAS or a limited remote identification UAS. However, there will be certain UAS including amateur built aircraft and previously manufactured UAS that might not have remote identification capability.Apersonoperatinga UAS without remote identification equipmentwould always be requiredto operate within visual line of sight6and withinan FAA-recognized identification area.

Note the I suspect drones as old as a Mavic Pro may already have a form of this implemented after the early firmware 1.04 (Do I have that correct?). That is why you got somewhat reduced range as they added a remote identification channel in favor of better signal. I noticed this when flying 1.06 and downgraded back to 1.04. About this time, DJI also released a whitepaper for remote drone identification for law enforcement.

How does one "downgrade" back to an earlier upgrade?

 

[deleted member 877]

If the FAA is proposing these regulations due to their concern of safety within the national air space, why have they not applied similar regulations to all forms of aviation?

Paramotors are a prime example. Per the official USPPA website, “Our sport is basically self-regulated so you are not required by law to be a certified pilot”.

The other significant difference when comparing Paramotors (sport aviation) to UAS is Self Regulation and you do actually need to be a certified USPPA pilot to be able to legally fly your aircraft - at least that is how it works where I live with HGFA or RAA membership being mandatory. To gain your PPG 1 rating do you not need to pass written and practical exams?

When I took up hang gliding I had to pass the tests and also join the self regulated association (HGFA). HGFA membership also includes third party insurance. It was the same for when I got into flying sail planes - training, study, passing exams, and becoming a card carrying member of the self regulated body.

With recreational drone flying none of the above is required and there is no UAS specific self regulated body. You can join the AMA which provides a measure of credibility but, from what I gather, there are not a lot of UAS flyers interested in joining and that is partly due to the AMA's less than welcoming attitude towards the recreational UAS community.

 

[IDPhoto]

This would result in a huge class action lawsuit against DJI or any other manufacturer that did such a thing. The claimants would handily win.

where do i sign up?

 

[deleted member 877]

There are tethered drones (assuming you did not mean ballons)? I remember some time ago reading FAA regs that spoke of tethered aircraft and a power requirement. I thought then, and now, even more, of tethering my Mavic 2 to escape some requirements! I don't remember anything that required the tether to be under tension! Still, there is that pesky power part.

There certainly are tethered drones - A telecommunications company that I work for (Telstra) has been trialing them in an innovative way:-

The ‘cell on wings’ is a mobile small cell mounted on a drone in order to temporarily boost mobile network coverage in a local area, which is particularly useful in emergency situations. This can be done through a tethered backhaul, by wiring a network cable to the drone from the ground while it is flying, or via a wireless line of site extension, relaying the signal from another tower.

 

[Earthman]

I would guess that DJI and other drone manufacturers will have to blacklist most of the US for any drones manufactured prior to the ID technology. This is really bad news!

Don’t panic!

It’s not likely that any existing DJI UAV will need to be blacklisted or grounded as long as you are not flying without your cell phone as part of the system and/or you have cell data turned off.

The truth is, DJI and similar UAVs already have sufficient hardware to implement remote ID, and DJI has published a proposal or description for a remote ID system that doesn’t require additional hardware. Read this post FAA (USA) new proposed rules for UAV Remote-ID and location

DJI currently knows where your UAV is flying (since it is reporting it’s position to the DJI Go4 app), and if you registered the UAV for warranty with your name, they know who you are. The only pieces of their remote ID system that are missing is (maybe) a firmware update, and to share the ID info with others (such as an FAA database and app) in realtime.

Those who fly less sophisticated UAVs (RC fixed-wing aircraft weighing more than 0.55-lbs for example) may need to add a module (with GPS and WiFi modem) that would communicate with an app on your cell phone to report the aircraft’s position to the same database mentioned above.

What irks me, is that remote ID will mostly benefit a few, large, commercial interests like Amazon that need to know where the rest of us are flying so they can avoid us while delivering packages, etc. We will be paying most of the cost for the remote ID system to make it safe for them to profit!

 

[51 Drones]

It's the beginning of the end for hobbyists my friends.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

I can't imagine why anyone would fly at a club based flight zone, other than initial training. Not a lot of skill needed for today's quadcopters. It's not a crowd-pleaser since spectators can't see them in the air! Club based airfields make good sense for rc fixed wings. They are large and colorful and actually NEED to do VLOS. The spectators love to watch.

For me, my Mavic 2 is a camera. How many pictures can you take of the same flying field?

Another issue is the very limited number of airfields. I live on Long Island with a population of 7 million people. There are a grand total of 2 AMA airfields in the area. Why limited fly is limited to those airfields you might as well kiss the hobby goodbye for most of those 7 million people. Your going to tell someone that lives in wide open spaces on eastern LI that they have to drive 40 miles to one of these airfields to fly? Nonsense!

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Don’t panic!

It’s not likely that any existing DJI UAV will need to be blacklisted or grounded as long as you are not flying without your cell phone as part of the system and/or you have cell data turned off.

The truth is, DJI and similar UAVs already have sufficient hardware to implement remote ID, and DJI has published a proposal or description for a remote ID system that doesn’t require additional hardware. Read this post FAA (USA) new proposed rules for UAV Remote-ID and location

DJI currently knows where your UAV is flying (since it is reporting it’s position to the DJI Go4 app), and if you registered the UAV for warranty with your name, they know who you are. The only pieces of their remote ID system that are missing is (maybe) a firmware update, and to share the ID info with others (such as an FAA database and app) in realtime.

Those who fly less sophisticated UAVs (RC fixed-wing aircraft weighing more than 0.55-lbs for example) may need to add a module (with GPS and WiFi modem) that would communicate with your cell phone to report the aircraft’s position to the same database mentioned above.

What irks me, is that remote ID will mostly benefit a few, large, commercial interests like Amazon that need to know where the rest of us are flying so they can avoid us while delivering packages, etc. We will be paying most of the cost for the remote ID system to make it safe for them to profit!

Remote ID isn't about safety, it's about dollars and control. The safety angle is thrown out here like it is with the gun control debate, to make it more palatable to the uninformed.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Bruce (xjet) from New Zealand has made an excellent and very important video about the planed regulations:

Please watch it and spread it.

As I've repeat numerous times (not quite as bluntly) the public safety mantra is total nonsense.

 

[DroningOn]

It's the beginning of the end for hobbyists my friends

Correct, that is exactly what their plan is.

 

[DroningOn]

As I've repeat numerous times (not quite as bluntly) the public safety mantra is total nonsense.

We’ve truly reached an “Emperor has no clothes” point in all of this. In a few days it will be the year 2020. Consumer drones have been ubiquitous for over five years. They are no more of a threat to the NAS as high fly balls are from baseball fields. The only thing the regulation proponent crowd have ever had is the “but it could happen“ argument. Every day that goes by Shows that this is untenable Therefore the answer must be elsewhere. And we all know what that answer is. It has nothing to do with safety it has everything to do with control and status. Government always wants control and some people, especially influential ones, want status. In summary, the influential people on sites like this one are seeing their days numbered because the “safety mantra“ Is wearing so thin you can barely see it anymore.

 

[IDPhoto]

Ok so i got bored of this back,forth, up, down, left and right conversation. My question is what is it we can do as a community about this? Are we going to keep having these conversations that lead to nowhere or are we going to conversate about possible solutions? If we as a community are going to give up then so be it, there is a nice trash barrel 4 floors down where i can play target practice. On Jan 1st we have 2 months to submit our opinion to the FAA, i will do my part and wonder if everyone is on board?

 

[Matriculated01]

Ok so i got bored of this back,forth, up, down, left and right conversation. My question is what is it we can do as a community about this? Are we going to keep having these conversations that lead to nowhere or are we going to conversate about possible solutions? If we as a community are going to give up then so be it, there is a nice trash barrel 4 floors down where i can play target practice. On Jan 1st we have 2 months to submit our opinion to the FAA, i will do my part and wonder if everyone is on board?

The seemingly pervasive feeling around here that we actually have some say in this and that the “comment period” is anything but window dressing and a pacification tool/illusion of a voice is so quaint it almost brings a tear to my eye ?
Almost.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The only thing the regulation proponent crowd have ever had is the “but it could happen“ argument.

This is true, besides one sure, proven incident (to perhaps a few incidents) with manned aircraft . . . Worldwide, over perhaps many millions of drone flights, to have involved a consumer (or commercial ?) drone.

But we are talking about a fast growing hobby, purely by sales of DJI products not to mention many other drone manufacturers.
And these will be mixing it up (not considering esablished NFZs like flight paths and restricted airspace) with low flying light aircraft and helis, all be it very rarely.
But they are manned (womaned, neutral gendered) and this is the main thing we need to consider here.

An option which is sort of in place now n most countries . . .
Surely these light manned aircraft should be limited to 500' or more to give us a 100' buffer, and the usual care or NFZ's placed around heliports or uncontrolled light plane airports.

 

[IDPhoto]

welcome to the future of drone flying (not my photo) have fun everyone! ???

 

[Chip]

The seemingly pervasive feeling around here that we actually have some say in this and that the “comment period” is anything but window dressing and a pacification tool/illusion of a voice is so quaint it almost brings a tear to my eye ?
Almost.

I agree the FAA will go through the motions and then just enact the regs in accordance with instructions from their principals and sponsors ie ? But, they do have legal obligation to respond to public comments on the record and its worth forcing the FAA to go through as rigorous a process as possible in order to create a record that may support a legal challenge.