FAA Part 107 Registration - UPDATE!!

[BigAl07]

For those FAA Part 107 holders who are updating their registrations or are registering a NEW aircraft you may notice that the FAA DroneZone portal has been updated to incorporate Remote ID information. The update requires a registrant to indicate if their drone is Remote ID equipped or not.

Currently, there are NO drones which are equipped with Remote ID. Although there are blogs and other sources which may claim differently, the FAA has not approved any Means of Compliance (MOC) for Remote ID at this time.

If a registrant selects 'Yes' to the Remote ID equipped question, they will be required to enter additional information, including a serial number. The serial number needed is NOT the drone's serial number, rather, it's the Remote ID serial number (which doesn't exist). Entering the drone's serial number will not be accepted and not allow the drone to be registered.

(Borrowed from our UAS Liaison at the FAA)

 

[brett8883]

For those FAA Part 107 holders who are updating their registrations or are registering a NEW aircraft you may notice that the FAA DroneZone portal has been updated to incorporate Remote ID information. The update requires a registrant to indicate if their drone is Remote ID equipped or not.

Currently, there are NO drones which are equipped with Remote ID. Although there are blogs and other sources which may claim differently, the FAA has not approved any Means of Compliance (MOC) for Remote ID at this time.

If a registrant selects 'Yes' to the Remote ID equipped question, they will be required to enter additional information, including a serial number. The serial number needed is NOT the drone's serial number, rather, it's the Remote ID serial number (which doesn't exist). Entering the drone's serial number will not be accepted and not allow the drone to be registered.

(Borrowed from our UAS Liaison at the FAA)

I thought I saw something where you have to give them your phone number now too?

 

[sar104]

For those FAA Part 107 holders who are updating their registrations or are registering a NEW aircraft you may notice that the FAA DroneZone portal has been updated to incorporate Remote ID information. The update requires a registrant to indicate if their drone is Remote ID equipped or not.

Currently, there are NO drones which are equipped with Remote ID. Although there are blogs and other sources which may claim differently, the FAA has not approved any Means of Compliance (MOC) for Remote ID at this time.

If a registrant selects 'Yes' to the Remote ID equipped question, they will be required to enter additional information, including a serial number. The serial number needed is NOT the drone's serial number, rather, it's the Remote ID serial number (which doesn't exist). Entering the drone's serial number will not be accepted and not allow the drone to be registered.

(Borrowed from our UAS Liaison at the FAA)

Actually it appears that they still only ask for the aircraft serial number, but the dialog box changes to add "Enter the serial number as displayed on your Remote ID equipped device."

 

[Darth Kahn]

For those FAA Part 107 holders who are updating their registrations or are registering a NEW aircraft you may notice that the FAA DroneZone portal has been updated to incorporate Remote ID information. The update requires a registrant to indicate if their drone is Remote ID equipped or not.

Currently, there are NO drones which are equipped with Remote ID. Although there are blogs and other sources which may claim differently, the FAA has not approved any Means of Compliance (MOC) for Remote ID at this time.

If a registrant selects 'Yes' to the Remote ID equipped question, they will be required to enter additional information, including a serial number. The serial number needed is NOT the drone's serial number, rather, it's the Remote ID serial number (which doesn't exist). Entering the drone's serial number will not be accepted and not allow the drone to be registered.

(Borrowed from our UAS Liaison at the FAA)

 

[Darth Kahn]

Leave it to the government to make things about as clear as depleted uranium.

 

[BigAl07]

Leave it to the government to make things about as clear as depleted uranium.

I find this statement humorous. This is the FAA trying to be PROACTIVE and get things in order prior to something actually going live and yet people are still unhappy. Tsk Tsk Tsk . . . .

 

[Deleted member 137163]

I find this statement humorous. This is the FAA trying to be PROACTIVE and get things in order prior to something actually going live and yet people are still unhappy. Tsk Tsk Tsk . . . .

Proactive...FAA...Proactive...FAA...hmm I can't seem to make that make sense. Just kidding. Cynical based on 37 years of FAA knowledge. Proactive is a welcome change and I look forward to their new approach.

 

[BigAl07]

Proactive...FAA...Proactive...FAA...hmm I can't seem to make that make sense. Just kidding. Cynical based on 37 years of FAA knowledge. Proactive is a welcome change and I look forward to their new approach.

I whole heartedly AGREE

 

[Deleted member 137163]

The FAA on the local level are for the most part great people. As a past FAASTeam Lead Rep I have had the honor to work with some knowledgeable, caring people within the FAA. It is when you get to the upper level where the disconnect with reality occurs. "Hey, let's require an A&P to change a drone battery." Just saying...

 

[jwahaus]

For those FAA Part 107 holders who are updating their registrations or are registering a NEW aircraft you may notice that the FAA DroneZone portal has been updated to incorporate Remote ID information. The update requires a registrant to indicate if their drone is Remote ID equipped or not.

Currently, there are NO drones which are equipped with Remote ID. Although there are blogs and other sources which may claim differently, the FAA has not approved any Means of Compliance (MOC) for Remote ID at this time.

If a registrant selects 'Yes' to the Remote ID equipped question, they will be required to enter additional information, including a serial number. The serial number needed is NOT the drone's serial number, rather, it's the Remote ID serial number (which doesn't exist). Entering the drone's serial number will not be accepted and not allow the drone to be registered.

(Borrowed from our UAS Liaison at the FAA)

Thanks for posting this information. I just tried registering my drones and the FAA DroneZone site wouldn't accept my drone serial numbers. (I checked the Yes button).

I'll try again, only selecting 'No' the next time.

 

[DroneSouth DSP]

Proactive...FAA...Proactive...FAA...hmm I can't seem to make that make sense. Just kidding. Cynical based on 37 years of FAA knowledge. Proactive is a welcome change and I look forward to their new approach.

Right On Big Al!…The BEST THING About 2020 was witnessing the FAA Actually trying to figure out how to help!...?...And While My Father was Spinning in the Grave (In Disbelief) it made me Proud to Witness it! So a BIG KUDOS to “Oak City”...Thanks and Keep up the Great Work!

 

[lookout]

Right On Big Al!…The BEST THING About 2020 was witnessing the FAA Actually trying to figure out how to help!...?...And While My Father was Spinning in the Grave (In Disbelief) it made me Proud to Witness it! So a BIG KUDOS to “Oak City”...Thanks and Keep up the Great Work!

Hi! I'm from the government. I'm here to help.

 

[BigAl07]

Hi! I'm from the government. I'm here to help.

Seriously? You took the time to post such a rude remark and to quote someone who was being nice? Some people . . .

 

[AMann]

So I don’t have to sell my MP2 yet?

I even tried to google “drone Remote ID unit” and some other variations of the name to see if there are any on the market yet and their cost, but just found a lot of unrelated junk instead.

Has anyone seen or priced one yet?

 

[brett8883]

So I don’t have to sell my MP2 yet?

I even tried to google “drone Remote ID unit” and some other variations of the name to see if there are any on the market yet and their cost, but just found a lot of unrelated junk instead.

Has anyone seen or priced one yet?

There’s nothing like that yet. Probably still a long way out. All we have from the FAA is theoretically what they want it to do but nothing on the specifics of how it will be done.

I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong if I am but I bet there won’t be anything concrete for at least 3 years or it will look dramatically different from what the FAA envisions in the final rule. This is highly ambitious technologically and I just don’t think the FAA can pull it off as quickly as they would like to think.

 

[Chaosrider]

There’s nothing like that yet. Probably still a long way out. All we have from the FAA is theoretically what they want it to do but nothing on the specifics of how it will be done.

I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong if I am but I bet there won’t be anything concrete for at least 3 years or it will look dramatically different from what the FAA envisions in the final rule. This is highly ambitious technologically and I just don’t think the FAA can pull it off as quickly as they would like to think.

If I were given the task to build one of these devices, I'd start with the cheapest Mode S transponder I could find, and then find a way to "de-scope" it so that it's both light and cheap.

One way to make it cheaper and lighter would be to lose all of the display hardware, which will have no value. You could set your squawk code on the ground with an external device, that wouldn't need to fly.

There are certainly more elegant ways to do this kind of development work, but I think this would be the fastest way.

TCS

 

[brett8883]

If I were given the task to build one of these devices, I'd start with the cheapest Mode S transponder I could find, and then find a way to "de-scope" it so that it's both light and cheap.

One way to make it cheaper and lighter would be to lose all of the display hardware, which will have no value. You could set your squawk code on the ground with an external device, that wouldn't need to fly.

There are certainly more elegant ways to do this kind of development work, but I think this would be the fastest way.

TCS

They are saying the signal needs to be able to be picked up by mobile devices and so that limits you to some form of Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. How they are going to get these companies to agree on a protocol that actually works reliably is beyond me. I can’t even get my phone to connect to my car’s Bluetooth half the time when it’s already been paired to it. They can’t tell manufacturers something is ok and then 6 months change it because it doesn’t work. They are going to have to make dang sure this is system is reliable before it’s released and I don’t see that happening for quite some time.

 

[sar104]

If I were given the task to build one of these devices, I'd start with the cheapest Mode S transponder I could find, and then find a way to "de-scope" it so that it's both light and cheap.

One way to make it cheaper and lighter would be to lose all of the display hardware, which will have no value. You could set your squawk code on the ground with an external device, that wouldn't need to fly.

There are certainly more elegant ways to do this kind of development work, but I think this would be the fastest way.

TCS

That's not going to work - firstly it would not be compliant with the required data fields and secondly it only broadcasts when interrogated by radar.

 

[Chaosrider]

They are saying the signal needs to be able to be picked up by mobile devices and so that limits you to some form of Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. How they are going to get these companies to agree on a protocol that actually works reliably is beyond me. I can’t even get my phone to connect to my car’s Bluetooth half the time when it’s already been paired to it. They can’t tell manufacturers something is ok and then 6 months change it because it doesn’t work. They are going to have to make dang sure this is system is reliable before it’s released and I don’t see that happening for quite some time.

Or, instead of WiFi or Bluetooth, they could use mobile cellular data, just like our drones and phones do...

;-)

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

That's not going to work - firstly it would not be compliant with the required data fields and secondly it only broadcasts when interrogated by radar.

Sometimes, when what you say you want is very expensive and difficult, you end up doing something different, which isn't all of what you want, but which you can actually get done fairly quickly.

From a safety-for-the buck perspective, having drones give a positive radar return does a whole lot more than having them accessible by cell phones.

That's just a dumb requirement.

TCS