FAA Release NEW rules for UAS Operations

[Vic Moss]

Not even close. Bluetooth beacons max out at about 450m.

I've been told different by those who are working on it. But it is definitely all line of site. And much, much better than internet connected transmission RID.

 

[anotherlab]

I've been told different by those who are working on it. But it is definitely all line of site. And much, much better than internet connected transmission RID.

Different with a greater range or shorter range?

 

[DanMan32]

Here's my take. Type 2 RID using a module is confined to VLOS simply because it can only transmit takeoff point as a ground location whereas type 1 may be allowed BVLOS because the RC position will be included in the broadcast.

Since you have to rely on PIC complying with VLOS, why not allow BVLOS as long as you're within X feet of TO at all times?

By the way, for type 1, since not all devices have GPS, the RC itself will need GPS to guarantee compliance. Perhaps the rules will allow alternative location services, but if you're in the boonies with no cell or wifi, a wifi only ipad will not be able to give you any location info at all.

I suppose you could fix that with an external BT or wifi GPS module for your base.

 

[Vic Moss]

Here's my take. Type 2 RID using a module is confined to VLOS simply because it can only transmit takeoff point as a ground location whereas type 1 may be allowed BVLOS because the RC position will be included in the broadcast.

Since you have to rely on PIC complying with VLOS, why not allow BVLOS as long as you're within X feet of TO at all times?

By the way, for type 1, since not all devices have GPS, the RC itself will need GPS to guarantee compliance. Perhaps the rules will allow alternative location services, but if you're in the boonies with no cell or wifi, a wifi only ipad will not be able to give you any location info at all.

I suppose you could fix that with an external BT or wifi GPS module for your base.

Base station GPS details is one of the things that need to be worked out. If the base station (controller) doesn't have GPS capabilities, it will require a module. In which case it will fly under Category 2.

 

[Vic Moss]

Different with a greater range or shorter range?

Longer for BT. 1.1KM in one set of testing. But that is under ideal situations. We'll all know what the general specs will be once ASTM F38 group has their standards out.

 

[Vic Moss]

If you are willing to spend 90 minutes watching a video, Greg from Pilot institute does a great job of explaining the new FAA regulations to include Remote id, flying at night, flying over people, drone classes 1 through 4, and much more.

He is having another question and answer session tomorrow Sunday 1/3/2020 on you tube at 11:30 Eastern time.

Blue Skies and Happy Trails

Greg texted me yesterday and asked if I could join him. I'll be home from church about 45 minutes after it starts and jump in them.

We are also recording a video with him on Wednesday. I expect that will be his Friday show. But I'll pop on to this Q&A after church today. I'm not sure if I'm going to zoom in or just be in the chat. He hasn't let me know yet.

 

[anotherlab]

There have been a few posts asking if the Remote Identification feature already in the DJI Go & Fly apps is part of the new Remote ID requirement. This is not the Remote ID that FAA will be requiring. The Remote Identification settings currently in the apps are to allow the pilot to optionally provide some identifying information that would be picked up by DJI's Aeroscope. This has announced 3 years ago in a DJI press release.

Recent updates to the DJI GO 4 app and DJI drone firmware, made available first for the DJI Mavic Pro last week, will allow pilots to choose whether or not to broadcast additional information about their flight operations, if they believe it will be helpful to ease any concerns about their flights. Professional pilots and pilots who fly near sensitive locations may choose to do this routinely.

Once updated, the DJI GO 4 app will display a “remote identification” menu in the main controller settings. This menu gives pilots the option to broadcast their “UUID,” a unique user identification code tied to each pilot’s DJI GO account, and “Identification & Flight Information,” if a pilot chooses to enter information into them. The default setting for both options is to not broadcast them, and these settings can be changed at any time.

 

[hhung516]

There have been a few posts asking if the Remote Identification feature already in the DJI Go & Fly apps is part of the new Remote ID requirement. This is not the Remote ID that FAA will be requiring. The Remote Identification settings currently in the apps are to allow the pilot to optionally provide some identifying information that would be picked up by DJI's Aeroscope. This has announced 3 years ago in a DJI press release.

Thank you for posting the question here. I’m one of those who asked this exact question in a different thread and was told to continue the discussion here.

I do understand where FAA is coming from. If you are out flying in the public, then the public has the right to see your registration #, exactly like a license plate on a car. I do hope it stops at the registration # tho, not showing anything personal about the pilot.

But for all the drones manufactured before the new RID law, FAA got to allow them to fly with an optional module that can broadcast the ID info right? Or maybe the flight app would be able to send the ID info to a server then whoever uses the RID app can query the server then get the ID info within the vicinity. Otherwise FAA will likely face multiple class action lawsuits coming their way.

 

[Vic Moss]

Thank you for posting the question here. I’m one of those who asked this exact question in a different thread and was told to continue the discussion here.

I do understand where FAA is coming from. If you are out flying in the public, then the public has the right to see your registration #, exactly like a license plate on a car. I do hope it stops at the registration # tho, not showing anything personal about the pilot.

But for all the drones manufactured before the new RID law, FAA got to allow them to fly with an optional module that can broadcast the ID info right? Or maybe the flight app would be able to send the ID info to a server then whoever uses the RID app can query the server then get the ID info within the vicinity. Otherwise FAA will likely face multiple class action lawsuits coming their way.

The FAA is adamant that no personal information will be shared over public access. The only ones that will be able to cross reference registration with personal info are law enforcement with compelling need to know.

 

[PacificSkyDreamn]

I realize that the FAA rule is final - although it's not yet been officially published in the Federal Register. So I wonder if some minor changes could be brought about by members of congress through pressure from their local constitutes. It seems it would be reasonable to only give law enforcement the ability to know an operator's actual control point location. Given that the actual Apps that will detect and read RID signals have not even been developed maybe there a technological fix to this concern.

There are corporate enterprise and government agency use only Apps that get restricted to certain user communities now... I have a couple on my iPhone that are downloaded via the Apple Store but can only be activated by my agency's IT department and used by authorized employees with unique authentication passcodes (google "RSA SecurID Tokens" if curious). Seems like similar technical solution could be achieved in order to keep control point locations away from the general public but readily available to law enforcement personnel.

 

[Vic Moss]

I realize that the FAA rule is final - although it's not yet been officially published in the Federal Register. So I wonder if some minor changes could be brought about by members of congress through pressure from their local constitutes. It seems it would be reasonable to only give law enforcement the ability to know an operator's actual control point location. Given that the actual Apps that will detect and read RID signals have not even been developed maybe there a technological fix to this concern.

There are corporate "enterprise" and government agency use only Apps that get restricted to certain user communities now... I have a couple on my iPhone that are downloaded via the Apple Store but can only be activated by my agency's IT department and used by authorized employees with unique authentication passcodes (google "RSA SecurID Tokens" if curious). Seems like similar technical solution could be achieved in order to keep control point locations away from the general public but readily available to law enforcement personnel.

It's unlikely that will happen. Unfortuntely.

 

[brett8883]

I realize that the FAA rule is final - although it's not yet been officially published in the Federal Register. So I wonder if some minor changes could be brought about by members of congress through pressure from their local constitutes. It seems it would be reasonable to only give law enforcement the ability to know an operator's actual control point location. Given that the actual Apps that will detect and read RID signals have not even been developed maybe there a technological fix to this concern.

There are corporate "enterprise" and government agency use only Apps that get restricted to certain user communities now... I have a couple on my iPhone that are downloaded via the Apple Store but can only be activated by my agency's IT department and used by authorized employees with unique authentication passcodes (google "RSA SecurID Tokens" if curious). Seems like similar technical solution could be achieved in order to keep control point locations away from the general public but readily available to law enforcement personnel.

A new law would certainly override these rules and I do think it we should bring it up to our representatives. As much as I am sure I will be called wacky for saying this but I do think there are deep constitutional questions about this rule.

In 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that location data is property which is protected under the 4th amendment which requires a warrant to obtain Carpenter v United States. Also the 5th Amendment says that private property cannot be taken “without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” 5th Amendment

With this rule the Government is telling us not only must we give up property without an act of Congress ie law that requires we do so but we also have to give it away to anyone and everyone without compensation.

 

[DanMan32]

A new law would certainly override these rules and I do think it we should bring it up to our representatives. As much as I am sure I will be called wacky for saying this but I do think there are deep constitutional questions about this rule.

In 2018 the Supreme Court ruled that cell phone location data is property and is protected under the 4th amendment which requires a warrant to obtain Carpenter v United States. With this rule the Government is telling us not only must we willingly give up this property to the government but we have to give it to give it away to anyone and everyone.

Furthermore the 5th Amendment says that private property cannot be taken “without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” 5th Amendment

The cell phone location issue was even brought up on the TV show NCIS.

 

[DanMan32]

Base station GPS details is one of the things that need to be worked out. If the base station (controller) doesn't have GPS capabilities, it will require a module. In which case it will fly under Category 2.

I'm pretty sure FAA doesn't say a GPS reveiver has to be actually in the controller, only that the broadcast include the controller location.
It seems likely that DJI could update current Mavics to broadcast RID, but the remotes themselves don't have GPS. The apps rely on the mobile device in providing our location.

I suppose what will happen is if the mobile device is incapable of providing the AC the accurate RC location, the RID will operate as if it were a module even though it's built-in and the app notify the user that they are only type 2 compliant.
And if the user doesn't fly with the app, DJI drones already limit height and distance which would force VLOS.

But it still begs the question, how accurate does the location have to be, since there are alternative means to GPS.

 

[brett8883]

The cell phone location issue was even brought up on the TV show NCIS.

Yea I wonder if that Jonathan Rupprecht guy who is that lawyer who focuses on drone issues would tell us if we have any case.

Normally in a lawsuit you have to prove you have standing which is easier said than done. You have to prove that you have actually been harmed before you can sue. Normally this would require you actually get in trouble before you can sue the government for an unconstitutional law. However, in this case we would have standing the moment the rule goes into effect and the first flight is taken with the information broadcast without compensation.

Just the act of suing the FAA over this may be enough to get them to back down over the broadcasting to everyone issue. The FAA reauthorization act gave the FAA the legal go ahead to implement RID but never at any point does it suggest that it should be broadcast to the general public. The FAA did that on their own. I think if we make the argument that first it’s RID on drones next it’s gonna be RID on cars then it will be RID on people we could get public support for this.

 

[anotherlab]

....But it still begs the question, how accurate does the location have to be, since there are alternative means to GPS.

It's in section VIII.C.2 Positional Accuracy from the Remote ID Final Rule document (page 155)

For standard remote identification UAS, the FAA proposed that the reported position of the unmanned aircraft and control station would have to be accurate to within 100 feet of the true position, with 95 percent probability.

The FAA is adopting this requirement as proposed.

 

[DanMan32]

I'm not sure cellular based location services are that accurate. WiFi based location services rely on a database that's populated by correlating wifi signals from a device and the GPS coordinates from where the WiFi signals were found.
It's a lot like tracking traffic based on our cellphone and easypass transponder movements.
But I don't think that can be within 100ft with 95% accuracy. There's lots of spots without any WiFi, let alone tracked WiFi. And there's no guarantee a tracked WiFi station will remain where it is.

 

[anotherlab]

I'm not sure cellular based location services are that accurate. WiFi based location services rely on a database that's populated by correlating wifi signals from a device and the GPS coordinates from where the WiFi signals were found.
It's a lot like tracking traffic based on our cellphone and easypass transponder movements.
But I don't think that can be within 100ft with 95% accuracy. There's lots of spots without any WiFi, let alone tracked WiFi. And there's no guarantee a tracked WiFi station will remain where it is.

Cellular based positioning is not precise enough to meet the FAA's requirement, Wi-Fi location is even less. The FAA RID document does not mention either as an option.

The FAA is tracking where the aircraft launched from. Where the pilot goes after that is almost irrelevant.

 

[Papa Echo]

You should watch Bruce's opinion about the new rule:

 

[DanMan32]

Cellular based positioning is not precise enough to meet the FAA's requirement, Wi-Fi location is even less. The FAA RID document does not mention either as an option.

The FAA is tracking where the aircraft launched from. Where the pilot goes after that is almost irrelevant.

Actually FAA and other agencies pressuring FAA specifically want to know where the pilot is, particularly if flying BVLOS which may sometime be allowed without a waiver.

Nothing says how pilot location is determined, asong as it's accurate within specs.