FAA Drone ID Proposal:

[bcfd29]

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...

www.federalregister.gov

 

[dawgpilot]

I just skimmed through the proposal (the full NPRM is 319 pages!) and it looks like the FAA's Remote ID plan will be a nightmare for drone operators. I understand the safety concerns that lead to this plan, but the implementation is not going to make many operators very happy.

If anyone else wants to take a look, the draft rule is posted here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf

 

[xman1]

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.

 

[Thomas B]

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.

Good pick up!

 

[dawgpilot]

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.

Read a bit further: it looks like the FAA is proposing that drones that don't have remote ID capability are going to be restricted to flying only in certain designated "Identification Zones", which are going to be things like AMA fields, etc.

c. UAS without Remote Identification Equipment

Under the proposed rule, the vast majority of UAS would be required to have remote identification 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 pounds will 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. A person operating a UAS without remote identification equipment would always be required to operate within visual line of sight6 and within an FAA-recognized identification area.

 

[AMann]

We knew it may come to this, self regulation obviously isn’t working for some, and many here have been trying to help educate those who pushed the rules.

It will be an interesting rule to implement, and to follow. My main question is What will happen for those of us who fly in unregulated open space with no internet and cell coverage.

 

[rxlawdude]

Read a bit further: it looks like the FAA is proposing that drones that don't have remote ID capability are going to be restricted to flying only in certain designated "Identification Zones", which are going to be things like AMA fields, etc.

Exactly. This is a nightmare for anyone purchasing a drone today and expecting to be able to fly it in other than VERY limited locations.

 

[AMann]

Good pick up!

Ah, just beat me to my post... I may just not upgrade for awhile... and perhaps go back to KAP.

 

[rxlawdude]

We knew it may come to this, self regulation obviously isn’t working for some, and many here have been trying to help educate those who pushed the rules.

It will be an interesting rule to implement, and to follow. My main question is What will happen for those of us who fly in unregulated open space with no internet and cell coverage.

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!

 

[Thomas B]

Read a bit further: it looks like the FAA is proposing that drones that don't have remote ID capability are going to be restricted to flying only in certain designated "Identification Zones", which are going to be things like AMA fields, etc.

Seems like it just says restricted to VLOS, not restricted to AMA fields or other defined areas.

 

[Thomas B]

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!

Just don’t do updates.

 

[xman1]

Just don’t do updates.

You would have to have one of the first few updates to not already have these feature installed, or an old Phantom or something. As I said above, after .04, I am pretty sure this was added to the Mavic Pro. Somewhere around .05 or .06 firmwares. It is around this time that the DJI whitepaper came out on remote identification and a noticeable drop happened in drone range.

 

[rxlawdude]

Seems like it just says restricted to VLOS, not restricted to AMA fields or other defined areas.

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.

 

[DroningOn]

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!

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.

 

[xman1]

Read a bit further: it looks like the FAA is proposing that drones that don't have remote ID capability are going to be restricted to flying only in certain designated "Identification Zones", which are going to be things like AMA fields, etc.

FAA Recognized identification area is going to be most places I would assume. You would however never be given authorization to enter within 5 miles of a major airport is what I think they are saying. At least I hope this is what they are saying. If it is not, I see mass violations of this directive in the future.

 

[rxlawdude]

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.

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.

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

 

[Thomas B]

You would have to have one of the first few updates to not already have these feature installed, or an old Phantom or something. As I said above, after .04, I am pretty sure this was added to the Mavic Pro. Somewhere around .05 or .06 firmwares. It is around this time that the DJI whitepaper came out on remote identification and a noticeable drop happened in drone range.

Source or supposition. This thread is already complicated by a faulty title since it’s a DOT proposal discussed here and not FAA.

 

[xman1]

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.

Move to earlier firmware would also solve that problem. My drone on its old 1.04 firmware has no restriction for any portion of the USA.

 

[xman1]

Source or supposition. This thread is already complicated by a faulty title since it’s a DOT proposal discussed here and not FAA.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the FAA part of the DOT?

Edit: Found it:

In 1967, a new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) combined major federal responsibilities for air and surface transport. The Federal Aviation Agency's name changed to the Federal Aviation Administration as it became one of several agencies (e.g., Federal Highway Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, the Coast Guard, and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Commission) within DOT (albeit the largest). The FAA administrator would no longer report directly to the president but would instead report to the Secretary of Transportation. New programs and budget requests would have to be approved by DOT, which would then include these requests in the overall budget and submit it to the president.

 

[Thomas B]

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

But make input to DOT as well as FAA vis comments page and mention “government taking” as one reason to exempt existing drones. Just like what is being done with ADSB.