FAA Part 107 Registration - UPDATE!!

[brett8883]

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

;-)

TCS

Well originally that was what the FAA wanted in the NPRM but that was scrapped in the final rule. Now it’s suppose to be broadcast locally only and the mobile device will pick up the broadcast directly from the drone without going through a cell network.

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.

I have no idea what the cost of that would be but the FAA really wants the remote ID broadcast to be able to be picked up by Nosey Karen down the street without her having to go out and buy anything special. If she sees you doing something she doesn’t like now she’ll be able to tell law enforcement exactly where you are.

FAA website:

“Why Do We Need Remote ID?​

Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly. Remote ID also lays the foundation of the safety and security groundwork needed for more complex drone operations.”

So they are trying to make this optimized so anybody can pick up the signal with existing hardware. That means being able to be picked up by the general public and by manned aircraft. It’s extremely ambitious and they need to have it all ironed out probably by the end of the year because that is when manufactures are going to need to start finalizing designs, ordering parts, and start manufacturing to meet the September 2021 deadline for standard built in remote ID on new aircraft. I’ll eat my hat if that all happens in time and the system works well. Credit to the FAA that when they roll out programs like this (example LAANC and TRUST) they do work well but it takes them a long time to get it right.

 

[sar104]

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

In areas where there is no radar coverage (most of the country at UAV flight altitudes), an interrogated transponder is useless. There's nothing to trigger it, and nothing to receive it. Additionally Mode S transponders return altitude, not position, and so even if radar triggers them they won't show up since they are too small to produce a usable radar return.

 

[Chaosrider]

Well originally that was what the FAA wanted in the NPRM but that was scrapped in the final rule. Now it’s suppose to be broadcast locally only and the mobile device will pick up the broadcast directly from the drone without going through a cell network.


I have no idea what the cost of that would be but the FAA really wants the remote ID broadcast to be able to be picked up by Nosey Karen down the street without her having to go out and buy anything special. If she sees you doing something she doesn’t like now she’ll be able to tell law enforcement exactly where you are.

FAA website:

“Why Do We Need Remote ID?​

Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly. Remote ID also lays the foundation of the safety and security groundwork needed for more complex drone operations.”

So they are trying to make this optimized so anybody can pick up the signal with existing hardware. That means being able to be picked up by the general public and by manned aircraft. It’s extremely ambitious and they need to have it all ironed out probably by the end of the year because that is when manufactures are going to need to start finalizing designs, ordering parts, and start manufacturing to meet the September 2021 deadline for standard built in remote ID on new aircraft. I’ll eat my hat if that all happens in time and the system works well. Credit to the FAA that when they roll out programs like this (example LAANC and TRUST) they do work well but it takes them a long time to get it right.

(sigh)

I was afraid that something like that was going on. This is a seriously dumb rule, based on an Evil philosophy...the notion that if somebody gets annoyed about something, it's automatically everybody's problem.

You seem pretty patched in with what's going on. Is there any hope for the Right Thinkers working on this, or is it just bendover time?

To be clear, I'd have no problem with the technology they want on *MY* drones, as long is it's not seriously expensive. But it's a bad idea in general, bad for the sport of droning, and bad for Freedom in America.

And also to be clear, I am obsessively careful about not flying in a way or in a location that would annoy my scattered neighbors. I did my own "Noise Abatement" tests, and flew my Mini-2 progressively higher, and listened to the sound at various points. At 200 ft AGL, it's quite enough that it wouldn't bother me if I was sitting out on the deck, and I have much better hearing than most. So, if I want to go in the "house" direction, the first step is to climb to 200 ft.

I'm sick and tired of restrictions getting put on everybody because of the irresponsible actions of a few jerk pilots, or a few whiny Karens who think they get to decide how everybody else has to live.

(Flame off)

(sigh)

:-(

TCS

 

[Chaosrider]

In areas where there is no radar coverage (most of the country at UAV flight altitudes), an interrogated transponder is useless. There's nothing to trigger it, and nothing to receive it. Additionally Mode S transponders return altitude, not position, and so even if radar triggers them they won't show up since they are too small to produce a usable radar return.

Uhhh...basic transponders just respond when pinged.

Mode C transponders report altitude.

Mode S transponders report a specific aircraft.

Right?

In any event, I responded to this first, IIRC, in a thread that was about collision with manned aircraft.

You are correct that my "solution" would not make it more convenient for people to whine.

For what conceivable reason would it not be sufficient for someone who believes a drone is being flown in an illegal manner, to simply contact their local law enforcement?

The entire approach to this is badly wrong-headed.

TCS

 

[sar104]

Uhhh...basic transponders just respond when pinged.

Mode C transponders report altitude.

Mode S transponders report a specific aircraft.

Right?

Yes - but only when interrogated.

In any event, I responded to this first, IIRC, in a thread that was about collision with manned aircraft.

You are correct that my "solution" would not make it more convenient for people to whine.

For what conceivable reason would it not be sufficient for someone who believes a drone is being flown in an illegal manner, to simply contact their local law enforcement?

The entire approach to this is badly wrong-headed.

TCS

I've no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Chaosrider]

Yes - but only when interrogated.

I've no idea what you are talking about here.

Sorry, definitely a little fuzzy wording there!

I first commented about the in-flight ID requirement in the context of collisions between a drone and a manned aircraft. So, in my mind, I was trying to solve the problem of drone visibility in a radar environment.

I didn't realize until later that the ID rule was as dumb as it is, since it's not really a flight safety issue, which is what I was looking at. My "solution" didn't migrate well from it's origins, to the actual reason and requirements for ID.

Sorry for the fuzzy language.

TCS

 

[sar104]

Sorry, definitely a little fuzzy wording there!

I first commented about the in-flight ID requirement in the context of collisions between a drone and a manned aircraft. So, in my mind, I was trying to solve the problem of drone visibility in a radar environment.

I didn't realize until later that the ID rule was as dumb as it is, since it's not really a flight safety issue, which is what I was looking at. My "solution" didn't migrate well from it's origins, to the actual reason and requirements for ID.

Sorry for the fuzzy language.

TCS

I think was absolutely a flight safety issue, at least as originally defined, although under the final rule it's not very clear how manned aircraft are going to receive the information. I assume that you have read the FAA explanation:

Executive Summary​

This rule establishes requirements for the remote identification of unmanned aircraft1 operated in the airspace of the United States. Remote identification (commonly known as Remote ID) is the capability of an unmanned aircraft in flight to provide certain identification, location, and performance information that people on the ground and other airspace users can receive. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft is necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United States. Remote identification provides airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement entities, and other government officials. The information can be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk. Remote identification will become increasingly important as the number of unmanned aircraft operations increases in all classes of airspace in the United States. While remote identification capability alone will not enable routine expanded operations, such as operations over people or beyond visual line of sight, it is the next incremental step toward enabling those operations.​

​

Unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States are subject to the operating requirements of this rule, irrespective of whether they are operating for recreational or commercial purposes. The rule requires operators to seek special authorization to operate unmanned aircraft without remote identification for aeronautical research and other limited purposes.​

Unmanned aircraft produced for operation in the airspace of the United States are subject to the production requirements of this rule. There are limited exceptions allowing the production of unmanned aircraft without remote identification, which include home-built unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft of the United States Government, amongst others.​

 

[Chaosrider2]

I think was absolutely a flight safety issue, at least as originally defined, although under the final rule it's not very clear how manned aircraft are going to receive the information. I assume that you have read the FAA explanation:

Executive Summary​

This rule establishes requirements for the remote identification of unmanned aircraft1 operated in the airspace of the United States. Remote identification (commonly known as Remote ID) is the capability of an unmanned aircraft in flight to provide certain identification, location, and performance information that people on the ground and other airspace users can receive. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft is necessary to ensure public safety and the safety and efficiency of the airspace of the United States. Remote identification provides airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement entities, and other government officials. The information can be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk. Remote identification will become increasingly important as the number of unmanned aircraft operations increases in all classes of airspace in the United States. While remote identification capability alone will not enable routine expanded operations, such as operations over people or beyond visual line of sight, it is the next incremental step toward enabling those operations.​

​

Unmanned aircraft operating in the airspace of the United States are subject to the operating requirements of this rule, irrespective of whether they are operating for recreational or commercial purposes. The rule requires operators to seek special authorization to operate unmanned aircraft without remote identification for aeronautical research and other limited purposes.​

Unmanned aircraft produced for operation in the airspace of the United States are subject to the production requirements of this rule. There are limited exceptions allowing the production of unmanned aircraft without remote identification, which include home-built unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft of the United States Government, amongst others.​

Yes, I did read that. It's mosly word salad.

Safety just doesn't require a whole new system. Mobile data, which we all use anyhow, would have been fully sufficient.

Mobile data is associated with a specific phone number. It's not even hard to imagine how to use that data for either safety or law enorcement purposes.

The rest is just excessive control fluff.

TCS

 

[sar104]

Yes, I did read that. It's mosly word salad.

Safety just doesn't require a whole new system. Mobile data, which we all use anyhow, would have been fully sufficient.

Mobile data is associated with a specific phone number. It's not even hard to imagine how to use that data for either safety or law enorcement purposes.

The rest is just excessive control fluff.

TCS

I guess we are going to disagree on this - I don't see a single sentence in there that I would characterize as fluff or word salad. The points being made are pertinent and accurate.

 

[SkyeHigh]

Remote identification provides airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement entities, and other government officials. The information can be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.

There are limited exceptions allowing the production of unmanned aircraft without remote identification, which include home-built unmanned aircraft…

And so, anyone with ill intent will get someone to build a home-brewed drone for them.

It’s clearly not an easy solution but it seems all too easy to circumvent.

 

[BigAl07]

Remote identification provides airspace awareness to the FAA, national security agencies, law enforcement entities, and other government officials. The information can be used to distinguish compliant airspace users from those potentially posing a safety or security risk.

There are limited exceptions allowing the production of unmanned aircraft without remote identification, which include home-built unmanned aircraft…

And so, anyone with ill intent will get someone to build a home-brewed drone for them.

It’s clearly not an easy solution but it seems all too easy to circumvent.

No those "home built" will be required to get an Add-On RID unit. No loophole for homebuilt units.

 

[spudster]

No those "home built" will be required to get an Add-On RID unit. No loophole for homebuilt units.

But if someone has ill intent who is going to force them to put in on their homebuilt?

 

[BigAl07]

But if someone has ill intent who is going to force them to put in on their homebuilt?

That goes for ANY rule/law/regulation etc in existence today. It has NOTHING to do with drones/UAS/FAA/Part 107/RID. If there is an incident and they are not FULLY in compliance there will be consequences. If there is a report it's possible the same could be said.

Once again that question/statement has no merit as it applies to every aspect of civilization. Many will decide to opt out and some will be "Rewarded". That's just the status of our current civilization across the board.

 

[merk]

Well originally that was what the FAA wanted in the NPRM but that was scrapped in the final rule. Now it’s suppose to be broadcast locally only and the mobile device will pick up the broadcast directly from the drone without going through a cell network.


I have no idea what the cost of that would be but the FAA really wants the remote ID broadcast to be able to be picked up by Nosey Karen down the street without her having to go out and buy anything special. If she sees you doing something she doesn’t like now she’ll be able to tell law enforcement exactly where you are.

FAA website:

“Why Do We Need Remote ID?​

Remote ID helps the FAA, law enforcement, and other federal agencies find the control station when a drone appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where it is not allowed to fly. Remote ID also lays the foundation of the safety and security groundwork needed for more complex drone operations.”

So they are trying to make this optimized so anybody can pick up the signal with existing hardware. That means being able to be picked up by the general public and by manned aircraft. It’s extremely ambitious and they need to have it all ironed out probably by the end of the year because that is when manufactures are going to need to start finalizing designs, ordering parts, and start manufacturing to meet the September 2021 deadline for standard built in remote ID on new aircraft. I’ll eat my hat if that all happens in time and the system works well. Credit to the FAA that when they roll out programs like this (example LAANC and TRUST) they do work well but it takes them a long time to get it right.

Was there something else mentioned somewhere? In the bit you copied from the FAA site it only mentions govt agencies interacting with remote id. Although, as much as I hate to say it, giving the average person the ability to at least be able to tell what drone is flying over their backyard is probably something that needs to happen. There are too many rotten apples out there who spoil it for the rest of us.

If they do make it possible, I hope the only thing they provide is an ID number that can't be publicly traced back to a person. We might have to allow the general public to be able to report a nuisance pilot, but I really wouldn't anyone to be able to find out your name and address without first going through some official channel.

 

[BigAl07]

Was there something else mentioned somewhere? In the bit you copied from the FAA site it only mentions govt agencies interacting with remote id. Although, as much as I hate to say it, giving the average person the ability to at least be able to tell what drone is flying over their backyard is probably something that needs to happen. There are too many rotten apples out there who spoil it for the rest of us.

If they do make it possible, I hope the only thing they provide is an ID number that can't be publicly traced back to a person. We might have to allow the general public to be able to report a nuisance pilot, but I really wouldn't anyone to be able to find out your name and address without first going through some official channel.

"In theory" only the appropriate people (Law Enforcement) will have the "full" information in the data stream but anything broadcast can be hacked and unlocked. With that being said, "John/Karen Q. Public will only have BASIC information available" to them as it's set up currently. Keep in mind this is still an evolving process so the final version may or may not look like the early design suggestions.

 

[brett8883]

Was there something else mentioned somewhere? In the bit you copied from the FAA site it only mentions govt agencies interacting with remote id. Although, as much as I hate to say it, giving the average person the ability to at least be able to tell what drone is flying over their backyard is probably something that needs to happen. There are too many rotten apples out there who spoil it for the rest of us.

If they do make it possible, I hope the only thing they provide is an ID number that can't be publicly traced back to a person. We might have to allow the general public to be able to report a nuisance pilot, but I really wouldn't anyone to be able to find out your name and address without first going through some official channel.

Yea they buried it in 470 pages of the final rule and haven’t been very transparent about in the press releases. Only if you read the actual document do you see what they are really doing. In the Final Rule it says

“Though many commenters opposed the inclusion of the unmanned aircraft location message element due to privacy and safety concerns, the FAA finds this message element is a foundational part of remote identification. By including this message element, the remote identification message allows the FAA, law enforcement, and the public to have awareness of unmanned aircraft operations and correlate the location of unmanned aircraft with the location of their respective operators. The availability of this information will promote accountability and trust in the unmanned aircraft community overall. Further, remote identification in combination with community outreach will foster a better public understanding of the important role unmanned aircraft play in the economy and society overall.

Some commenters raised the issue that the availability of this information could put remote pilots at greater risk of assault, theft, or other crimes. As noted previously, though the FAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by commenters regarding personal safety and the marginal risk created by broadcasting a control station’s location, the FAA emphasizes that there are statutory prohibitions against interfering with an aircraft.Additionally, there are local, State, and Federal laws against assault, theft, and other crimes.

Many commenters suggested that this message element should only be available to specific entities and not be publicly available, but the FAA finds this would adversely impact the intended transparency of remote identification information and the effectiveness of this rule. The public availability of the unmanned aircraft location as well as all the other message elements allows persons to associate each element of the unmanned aircraft and control station with a unique identifier. The FAA notes that the broadcast range of remote identification information will have a finite limit based on signal strength limitations for unlicensed devices.”

 

[brett8883]

"In theory" only the appropriate people (Law Enforcement) will have the "full" information in the data stream but anything broadcast can be hacked and unlocked. With that being said, "John/Karen Q. Public will only have BASIC information available" to them as it's set up currently. Keep in mind this is still an evolving process so the final version may or may not look like the early design suggestions.

No, you’ve misunderstood they WANT it to be used by the public and it is being designed to allow as easy of access to it as possible.

 

[Chaosrider]

No, you’ve misunderstood they WANT it to be used by the public and it is being designed to allow as easy of access to it as possible.

And that's the part that I find so objectionable.

If someone is concerned about the legality or safety of a drone, or if it just bothers them, they should call their local LEOs, and sort it out locally.

I am 100% in favor of LEOs and the FAA having full visibilty into who is flying what where.

What we *DON'T* need is a federal "Snitch Convenience Act".

(sigh)

TCS

 

[BigAl07]

No, you’ve misunderstood they WANT it to be used by the public and it is being designed to allow as easy of access to it as possible.

I've seen some early examples of the "system" and unless something changes (and it could) there are Levels of access. LEA level gives full information from the Data Stream:
Pilot ID (Remote ID#), Drone Alt, Distance from Groundstation/Pilot, GPS coord of Pilot/Groundstation.

Basic gives a location of the UAS on a map, does not give location of groundstation/pilot, altitude, distance of aircraft to GS, or RID# of the operator. It's literally just a drone icon on the map.

 

[brett8883]

I've seen some early examples of the "system" and unless something changes (and it could) there are Levels of access. LEA level gives full information from the Data Stream:
Pilot ID (Remote ID#), Drone Alt, Distance from Groundstation/Pilot, GPS coord of Pilot/Groundstation.

Basic gives a location of the UAS on a map, does not give location of groundstation/pilot, altitude, distance of aircraft to GS, or RID# of the operator. It's literally just a drone icon on the map.

You got me excited for a second! That sounded like a really good reasonable approach but then I remembered that the FAA addressed this in the final rule and unfortunately threw this out.

The final rule says:

“A significant number of commenters, representing manned and unmanned aviation, manufacturers, users of unmanned aircraft, some State and local law enforcement agencies, and numerous individuals opposed the proposed requirement to provide the location of the control station to the public and cited a number of reasons including ensuring the safety of the person manipulating the flight controls of the UAS. Commenters expressed concerns about the privacy of their operations and that this information could increase the dangers for UAS operators and their property potentially resulting in assault, home invasion, and theft of their UAS and other equipment.”

[... edited for length...goes on for three pages listing various groups and organizations that oppose allowing the public to receive the pilot’s location...]

...”By including this message element, the remote identification message allows the FAA, law enforcement, and the public to have awareness of unmanned aircraft operations and correlate the location of unmanned aircraft with the location of their respective operators. The availability of this information will promote accountability and trust in the unmanned aircraft community overall.”

[...edited for length... FAA says they acknowledges the safety concerns and risk involved with the public having operator location but FAA says they don’t care (in more politically correct terms.) FAA says existing laws about assault and theft ensure safety so this isn’t a problem, nothing to see here. Oh brother!?]

...“Many commenters suggested the FAA modify the proposed regulation to allow for the control station location [remote controller, effectively pilot location] to only be available to specific entities such as the FAA and law enforcement. Though some commenters suggested using encryption techniques to accomplish this, the FAA finds that implementation of such a nuanced requirement would be highly complex, costly, and impractical. The FAA does not intend to limit who can receive the broadcast messages, and allowing encryption of certain message elements would limit who can receive the broadcast messages only to those with the capability to decrypt the messages. Allowing encryption is inconsistent with the FAA’s policy that the remote identification message elements should be publicly available information.

[...edited for length... The FAA says furthermore that allowing some message elements to be available to LE but not the public is too complicated and expensive to implement.]

...“Therefore, the FAA adopts the control station location requirement as proposed.”
FAA Remote ID Final Rule pages 110-120


So unless I’ve misunderstood this it is actually their policy that all message elements “should be” available to the public. They seem to make clear this is an intentional designed feature of remote ID. They acknowledge and then dismiss any concerns about pilot safely resulting from the public having this information