FAA Release NEW rules for UAS Operations

[anotherlab]

The Ocusync Mavics should all have the ability to transmit the RID packets over Wi-Fi without any additional hardware, just a firmware update. But if they required a module, it could be engineered as a sleeve for the battery with a connector that tapped battery connector. That would provide power to the module and the data lines in the battery connector would provide the means of getting the data from the drone. That would reduce the number of components needed for the module, keeping costs down.

 

[DanMan32]

My thought was that if the drone was already transmitting this information back to the RC, the module would just need to receive it from the drone and retransmit it on the appropriate frequency.

And how do you propose the universal module pick up and decode proprietary Lightbridge or Occusync communications? Or for that matter enhanced WiFi whose use of the WiFi and enclosed data is also proprietary?

 

[DanMan32]

The Ocusync Mavics should all have the ability to transmit the RID packets over Wi-Fi without any additional hardware, just a firmware update. But if they required a module, it could be engineered as a sleeve for the battery with a connector that tapped battery connector. That would provide power to the module and the data lines in the battery connector would provide the means of getting the data from the drone. That would reduce the number of components needed for the module, keeping costs down.

Maybe, but I doubt it would be cheaper than a standalone universal module with built-in GPS receiver and battery. You'd need a version for each model if it tapped into the battery power, and protocol used by the model to intercept RC communications. You'd still need a radio to pick up the AC/RC communications.

You're making it too complicated all to save on a GPS radio and battery.

If you're going to do all that, the AC itself could act as a module through firmware update if FAA allows it.

And then we're back to my original idea where the firmware update will have RID be in built-in mode, getting RC GPS from user provided mobile with GPS, and revert to module mode if no RC GPS. No extra hardware at all.
Again, if FAA allows this hybrid setup.

 

[maelstrom]

And how do you propose the universal module pick up and decode proprietary Lightbridge or Occusync communications? Or for that matter enhanced WiFi whose use of the WiFi and enclosed data is also proprietary?

Neither of your points would be a problem if the module was produced by DJI and could be paired with the drone like the RC. Its all purely speculation anyway as nobody know the final details of what will be required.

 

[anotherlab]

If you're going to do all that, the AC itself could act as a module through firmware update if FAA allows it.

That has been my point. The hardware in the Ocusync Mavics supports sending RID messages over Wi-Fi. There should be no need for an external module.

 

[Vic Moss]

That has been my point. The hardware in the Ocusync Mavics supports sending RID messages over Wi-Fi. There should be no need for an external module.

DJI is working on the technical aspects of whether or not they can push a firmware update to make their drones Standard Compliant.

 

[anotherlab]

DJI is working on the technical aspects of whether or not they can push a firmware update to make their drones Standard Compliant.

I would be surprised if they were blocked at a technical level. Ocusync is their protocol, but uses off the shelf Wi-Fi components. The AC already has all or nearly all of the information needed for the RID message. It then becomes an issue of being able to form the RID packet (once the Wi-Fi spec for a RID message has been defined by the FAA) and transmitting once per second.

 

[Vic Moss]

I would be surprised if they were blocked at a technical level. Ocusync is their protocol, but uses off the shelf Wi-Fi components. The AC already has all or nearly all of the information needed for the RID message. It then becomes an issue of being able to form the RID packet (once the Wi-Fi spec for a RID message has been defined by the FAA) and transmitting once per second.

Correct. But at this point they aren't in a position to confirm which birds (if any) are able to be upgraded and which ones will need to be retrofitted.

 

[Bekanne]

Wonder if this thread should be in SUAV Rules and Regs section.

Thomas, how can I know if my drone is compliance ready? By type or age? Thank you

 

[Vic Moss]

Thomas, how can I know if my drone is compliance ready? By type or age? Thank you

You can't yet because the standards aren't available yet. They will be soon-ish, and we can start figuring out next steps.

But the main thing to consider is that none of the RID rules take effect until September 15, 2023. We have lots of time to figure all of this out.

 

[Thomas B]

Thomas, how can I know if my drone is compliance ready? By type or age? Thank you

At this time I don't think any are in compliance, Some of the newer MAs and MMs seem to have a place for it in the settings. As I understand it The exact mode required for the RID is not yet set.

Good news is that we have 2 years to figure it out and comply for current drones being used.

 

[Vic Moss]

At this time I don't think any are in compliance, Some of the newer MAs and MMs seem to have a place for it in the settings. As I understand it The exact mode required for the RID is not yet set.

Good news is that we have 2 years to figure it out and comply for current drones being used.

Many of the newer DJI drones have "Remote ID" settings, but it's not the actual Remote ID that is in the rules. That may be able to change though. My Mavic 2 Pro has it too.

 

[anotherlab]

At this time I don't think any are in compliance, Some of the newer MAs and MMs seem to have a place for it in the settings. As I understand it The exact mode required for the RID is not yet set.

Good news is that we have 2 years to figure it out and comply for current drones being used.

Those settings are optional identifiers for DJI's AeroScope and are not related to the Remote ID that FAA will be mandating. See this post for more information.

 

[DanMan32]

You can't yet because the standards aren't available yet. They will be soon-ish, and we can start figuring out next steps.

But the main thing to consider is that none of the RID rules take effect until September 15, 2023. We have lots of time to figure all of this out.

Thank you for confirming FAA has not set the technical standards that mfrs are to follow. Many keep saying its up to the mfr.
It's unfair to set a compliance date when there's no specs to follow yet.

 

[DanMan32]

I firmly believe DJI could have Mavics comply with RID solely through firmware except for the RC location requirement. DJI cannot guarantee that since it's hardware doesn't provide RC GPS location. Currently that relies on the user mobile which may not have GPS.

DJI could set up a hybrid model if FAA would allow it where if RC location is not obtainable, it would resort to acting as if a module was being used.

If a user has a device that doesn't have GPS, a BT based GPS module could be used where then DJI would have the RC location.

 

[Vic Moss]

Thank you for confirming FAA has not set the technical standards that mfrs are to follow. Many keep saying its up to the mfr.
It's unfair to set a compliance date when there's no specs to follow yet.

The FAA created standards based regulations. The standards will be easily met by manufacturers. They just need to tweak them once ASTM (the likely standard) is released. And there is plenty of time for all the pieces to fall into place. There isn't anything patently unfair about the timeline. It will be met with no issues.

 

[DanMan32]

The FAA created standards based regulations. The standards will be easily met by manufacturers. They just need to tweak them once ASTM (the likely standard) is released. And there is plenty of time for all the pieces to fall into place. There isn't anything patently unfair about the timeline. It will be met with no issues.

So then there is no specific to a technical standard, just idea high level ideas.

For example I thought the data would have to be in a specific frame, much like UDP, but I suppose if it is only going to be interpreted by a human rather than machine, it could be free-form text. Data would need labels to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation in free-form.

Here's another example: the TXT flight logs. If you opened them with a plain text editor, it would appear as garbage. You need to know how the data is formatted and only DJI officially needs to know how the data is formatted. Others have figured it out, which is how we have CSVView. But then DJI changed the format with Fly 1.2.2 so CSVView could no longer read it. I think that's been fixed.

So FAA has to publish the means of transmission since WiFi and BT aren't designed for broadcasting data, and the format the data is to be presented. How far is the signal required to reach?
You can't have mfrs fight over this on their own as that could go on for months to years. Betamax anyone?

 

[Vic Moss]

So then there is no specific to a technical standard, just idea high level ideas.

For example I thought the data would have to be in a specific frame, much like UDP, but I suppose if it is only going to be interpreted by a human rather than machine, it could be free-form text. Data would need labels to avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation in free-form.

Here's another example: the TXT flight logs. If you opened them with a plain text editor, it would appear as garbage. You need to know how the data is formatted and only DJI officially needs to know how the data is formatted. Others have figured it out, which is how we have CSVView. But then DJI changed the format with Fly 1.2.2 so CSVView could no longer read it. I think that's been fixed.

So FAA has to publish the means of transmission since WiFi and BT aren't designed for broadcasting data, and the format the data is to be presented. How far is the signal required to reach?
You can't have mfrs fight over this on their own as that could go on for months to years. Betamax anyone?

They are performance based standards. They will be available in plenty of time for all of the manufacturers to comply.

It actually works better this way. Instead of telling manufacturers what they have to do, they tell them what the drones need to do in order to qualify for RID. And it's up to the manufacturers to make it happen.

All of them knew this was coming. And all of them have their systems in place. All they're waiting on is the actual technical tweaks. Now the the actual rules are out, ASTM is tweaking their standards to match it. Until the new rules came out, no one outside a very few people in the FAA knew what the exact rules would be. Now they do, and now they are working on the standards.

This is much to do about nothing.

 

[DanMan32]

They all have to talk the same "language". Otherwise one mfr builds on Betamax, the other builds on VHS, and you end up with 5 different apps and possibly hardware to be able to read that drone in your neighborhood. Betamax cannot read VHS or vice versa, nor will it fit.

It could take the whole two years for all mfrs to agree on the means of transmission. Then they have to start producing.

FCC may have to also get involved.

 

[Vic Moss]

They all have to talk the same "language". Otherwise one mfr builds on Betamax, the other builds on VHS, and you end up with 5 different apps and possibly hardware to be able to read that drone in your neighborhood. Betamax cannot read VHS or vice versa, nor will it fit.

It could take the whole two years for all mfrs to agree on the means of transmission. Then they have to start producing.

FCC may have to also get involved.

The systems will be ready to go with no problem in time for rollout. It's almost ready now. As mentioned earlier, the only thing missing is the technical aspects of the transceivers. It's simply a matter of tweaking what already exists.

And the FCC won't get involved because the RID systems will use the unlicensed spectrum.