FAA Release NEW rules for UAS Operations

[GGehret]

I think it is is pretty clear. If your drone can't comply with the Remote ID rule, you can only fly in designated/approved areas. That said they went out of their way to allow you to affix an add-on module to an existing drone to meet the rules.
I'm sure someone will sell a battery operated GPS/Broadcast module that you can affix to the drone.

UNfortunately, that won't help me. I live in the boonies and we barely have a Dunkin Donuts just a few years ago let alone a designated area to fly coming onboard. :-(

 

[hiflyer201]

The FAA has opened a pandora's box and if you think they care you've never dealt with the FAA. Individuals perhaps but not the Administration. You used to be able to walk into the FAA, sit down in a booth and take a written...Knowledge Test as it's now called. You could call the FAA and schedule within a week a checkride and take it for free. Those days are long gone. Now you have to have an appointment to visit the local FSDO and wait at the door before they decide to let you in and of course that's only for standing at the counter... If you expect to have a meeting you will need a security pass...regardless for how long you've held a certificate. In my case 60 years...no violations. It's all a little discouraging I have to say.

 

[z28lt1]

I recall at some point when the proposed rules were being discussed in the forums that a few people had pointed out that it may just be a firmware update to the controller that would meet the requirement.

Also, could it be that a DJI accessory or a third party standalone device could "capture" the RF signal from the controller and act as a repeater to transmit the location info as required, as opposed to something physically added to the drone?

I'm a biologist, not an engineer, so excuse my ignorance in this tech.

What about during the draft, there was talk about service providers you'd have to pay to broadcast the RID?

So there's no grandfathering in?

If there was, DJI should get their Mavic 3s out before this was implemented.

The final rule is significantly changed from the draft rule. The draft rule required the upload of the data live, to a service provider that would capture and store the data. This was eliminated, primarily because it was pointed out to the FAA that reliable internet connections are not available everywhere. So, the drone itself has to broadcast the information, not the controller.

The "grandfathering" is that drone makers have 18 months to make sure every drone they build complies, and you have 30 months before you have to fly one. After that, you need to have a drone that follows it, or add a Remote ID module to an existing one.

 

[z28lt1]

One major difference the FAA has overlooked thus far on RID vs Manned:

Remote Pilots are NOT protected from interaction with the public, including law enforcement, by means of physical location as Manned Aircraft pilots are.

Imagine a Gulfstream pilot at 23,000 feet having the local busy-body physically accosting them for flying over their house? Or worse (but it still happens more than we'd like to admit), having 3 cops roll up with guns drawn and demanding they land immediately? (And there are plenty of examples of both.)

The FAA would have a hissy fit, and rightfully so.

But as a remote pilot, we're going to have to deal with this, probably more than we'd like to admit.

It will take more than a few of these incidents recorded on video before there is enough justification to make further changes to RID, such as a time delay, or some sort of access restriction.

Personally, I would love it if I could livestream from my MA2, then put a link in the RID to the livestream. Most of the problems would be solved before they started.

Making this data totally public is going to cause problems, no doubt. I'm hopeful that over time the "fear" of drones subsides, but it certainly isn't going to go away entirely. I'm sure we will read stories here of people who got chased down by John Q Public because he was flying 300 feet in the air, near someone's property.

 

[DanMan32]

There's still the question of broadcast. Broadcast how? WIFI was mentioned, which could be used, but standard wifi specs aren't designed for one way broadcast. It does broadcast, but only enough to provide a short identity (SSID) and the radio "serial number" for when there are multiple devices creating a mesh for the same SSID.
So how is the RID supposed to use WiFi?

As for range, the original Air and the Mini use enhanced WIFi that does get quite a ways out so it's possible to use WiFi for RID. I saw it mentioned the RID is related to VLOS, which to me is saying how far out the RID needs to go.

As for flying at night and over people, that's a different topic in the same document, just as the topic of 107 certification being renewed by taking a review class rather than a test.

The whole thing creates more questions and concerns than answers.

 

[z28lt1]

There's still the question of broadcast. Broadcast how? WIFI was mentioned, which could be used, but standard wifi specs aren't designed for one way broadcast. It does broadcast, but only enough to provide a short identity (SSID) and the radio "serial number" for when there are multiple devices creating a mesh for the same SSID.
So how is the RID supposed to use WiFi?

As for range, the original Air and the Mini use enhanced WIFi that does get quite a ways out so it's possible to use WiFi for RID. I saw it mentioned the RID is related to VLOS, which to me is saying how far out the RID needs to go.

As for flying at night and over people, that's a different topic in the same document, just as the topic of 107 certification being renewed by taking a review class rather than a test.

The whole thing creates more questions and concerns than answers.

Wifi Aware is what DJI uses, and allows devices to be broadcaster, subscribers, or both. It will work just fine.

I've been involved with rules like this, across other industries that specify what has to happen, but leave it to the company or manufacturers on how it will happen. This one is a little different, because the industry is going to need to get together, the FAA isn't going to allow each company to build their own remote id app you have to download to see. I'd expect WiFi Aware to become the de-facto standard.

 

[monteolsen1]

The wording they use is confusing, but they basically created two close, but separate instances:

1 - "Built in" ( what the FAA is calling "Standard") Remote ID
and
2 - Remote Module Remote ID.

The main changes for the Remote Module are:
A) - Broadcast Take off point instead of control station
B) - Let user know if it is not working before taking off (instead of actually preventing takeoff)
C)- Requires the user to maintain VLOS at all times (which is required now anyway, but part of the push for Remote ID is to eventually allow some more BVLOS flights).

I think the VLOS rule, as I read it, will only apply to those without RID.

 

[z28lt1]

I think the VLOS rule, as I read it, will only apply to those without RID.

The wording is very clear, and repeated several times. Without Remote ID, VLOS AND within designated areas.
Remote ID Module (as opposed to "built in") requires VLOS.

They explicitly state (multiple times) that the rule isn't meant to change any existing VLOS requirements, but that if/when they do allow BLVOS, Remote Modules will still be required to maintain VLOS, while "Standard" (Built-In) will be allowed to follow any future regulations.

Here's one example of the wording used (Bolding, Mine):
"The purpose of the visual-line-of-sight provision of this rule is to impose a separate visual-line-of-sight requirement on unmanned aircraft operated with remote broadcast modules to ensure that these aircraft are operated within visual line of sight even if the existing operating requirements are changed through future integration efforts."

 

[Vic Moss]

What about during the draft, there was talk about service providers you'd have to pay to broadcast the RID?

So there's no grandfathering in?

If there was, DJI should get their Mavic 3s out before this was implemented.

There is no requirement to have the RID packet go through any service providers. That aspect was not included in the Final Rule. There will be no monthly premium to pay. We will simply have a module for retrofit, or fly an OEM compliant drone.

There is no grandfathering because we can retrofit.

 

[Vic Moss]

I think the VLOS rule, as I read it, will only apply to those without RID.

Anyone flying without RID will be required to fly at a FRIA. And FRIA flyers will be required to maintain VLOS.

But, the VLOS rule will also apply to every drone in the air, RID or not. BVLOS waivers will still be required to stray into BVLOS.

However, RID is one of the main building blocks for Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM). And BVLOS will be a huge part of UTM.

 

[Vic Moss]

Making this data totally public is going to cause problems, no doubt. I'm hopeful that over time the "fear" of drones subsides, but it certainly isn't going to go away entirely. I'm sure we will read stories here of people who got chased down by John Q Public because he was flying 300 feet in the air, near someone's property.

This concern was bought up in no uncertain terms on Sunday when I got the rule. And it was brought up again in our zoom meeting with the FAA just before they announced the new rules.

I can say that the FAA completely understands our fears. And they are working changing the wording on the rules that will make it clear that drones and their operators are specifically mentioned in rules that protect us from assault.

And it is my hope that they use it frequently, quickly, and publicly.

 

[Vic Moss]

Wifi Aware is what DJI uses, and allows devices to be broadcaster, subscribers, or both. It will work just fine.

I've been involved with rules like this, across other industries that specify what has to happen, but leave it to the company or manufacturers on how it will happen. This one is a little different, because the industry is going to need to get together, the FAA isn't going to allow each company to build their own remote id app you have to download to see. I'd expect WiFi Aware to become the de-facto standard.

ASTM will have their standards sent to the FAA very soon. It's almost ready anyway. They just need to tweak it and submit it to the FAA for approval. And since the FAA has been involved with the ASTM group working on the RID specs, it'll be approved.

Once the ASTM standards are public, we'll have our MOC and manufacturers and module makers will have their specs.

And it is standards based like you said. I like to use NTSB standards as an example.

The NTSB says you have to have a 5,000 pound, car traveling at 50 MPH, stop within "X" distance. They don't tell the manufacturers how to do it, just that they have to. It's up to them to show the NTSB how they will comply.

And DJI's system is a good one. And in lots of drones already have it. And I would imagine even more will be in 18 months.

 

[brett8883]

This concern was bought up in no uncertain terms on Sunday when I got the rule. And it was brought up again in our zoom meeting with the FAA just before they announced the new rules.

I can say that the FAA completely understands our fears. And they are working changing the wording on the rules that will make it clear that drones and their operators are specifically mentioned in rules that protect us from assault.

And it is my hope that they use it frequently, quickly, and publicly.

So what will that do?

 

[Vic Moss]

So what will that do?

It will give us teeth. But the FAA/DOJ/DOTIoG need to use it in enforcements. There will also be a public service campaign. I don't know if it will help. We'll see.

 

[tesohn]

This is JUST NOW released so details to follow ASAP!

Remote Identification. A good start from DSPA​

https://dspalliance.org/remote-identification-a-good-start/

New Rules for Ops Over People (& RID) from DSPA​

New Rules for Ops Over People (& RID) – Drone Service Providers Alliance​

Nights Ops and Recurrent Training from DSPA​

Nights Ops and Recurrent Training - Drone Service Providers Alliance

Part of the new rules put out on 12/28/20 by the FAA include night operations without a waiver, operations over people without a waiver, and recurrent training instead of recurrent testing. For night ops, it should be fairly straight forward. Instead of requiring a waiver to fly at night under...

dspalliance.org

*Fixed error in duplicate links... sorry*

Don't have to worry about the RID, when it goes into affect my drone will be 4-1/2 years old. But the two other new rulings (flying over people and night flight) well those are both part of the Big Government providing Special Rules for Big Tech (because after they are the ones paying all the kick-back to Big Gov.) so Bezos and the likes can get what they want. 1 month ago you would be hauled off to jail, your drone confiscated, and a big fine for either flight (at night or over people). Now the FAA are saying its ok as long as you are selling your goods and paying kick-backs. We should have known this was going to happen when all these companies were the ones that the FAA were consulting with to set new rules of Drone flying. They could care less about you and I weekend drone flyers.

 

[Vic Moss]

Don't have to worry about the RID, when it goes into affect my drone will be 4-1/2 years old. But the two other new rulings (flying over people and night flight) well those are both part of the Big Government providing Special Rules for Big Tech (because after they are the ones paying all the kick-back to Big Gov.) so Bezos and the likes can get what they want. 1 month ago you would be hauled off to jail, your drone confiscated, and a big fine for either flight (at night or over people). Now the FAA are saying its ok as long as you are selling your goods and paying kick-backs. We should have known this was going to happen when all these companies were the ones that the FAA were consulting with to set new rules of Drone flying. They could care less about you and I weekend drone flyers.

This is a pretty pessimistic view of things.

First, there has never been anyone "hauled off to jail, your drone confiscated, and a big fine" for what you're saying.

Second, this has ZERO to do with big business. As a matter of fact, Amazon has been twice denied when they wanted exclusive use of certain airspace. So that disproves "Bezos and the likes can get what they want".

Third, there are no kick-backs. That's hogwash unless you have proof. And you don't.

Fourth, the FAA did not consult with any of those companies when they were crafting rules. They were on the DAC, and a few of the ARCs, but so were other companies.

Fifth, the large telecom companies were salivating over the RID internet connection requirement in order to fly. They were completely cut out of the Final Rule. So there goes your " Big Government providing Special Rules for Big Tech" statement.

Sixth, nowhere does "saying its ok as long as you are selling your goods" ever come into play. More hogwash.

So basically your entire post is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Under 250 grams will not require registration or remote ID. Anything heavier will require registration and some type of remote ID that transmits location, individual identification (serial number?) and location of the operator OR at a minimum location of the drone while flying, identification and take off location. At this point no internet connection required. There is some discussion of ID transmission module for legacy drones. The definition of authorized sites has need expanded so that limitation appears to have been relaxed.

 

[TDASEN]

Is this new rule going to require hobbyist to get part 107?

 

[Vic Moss]

Under 250 grams will not require registration or remote ID. Anything heavier will require registration and some type of remote ID that transmits location, individual identification (serial number?) and location of the operator OR at a minimum location of the drone while flying, identification and take off location. At this point no internet connection required. There is some discussion of ID transmission module for legacy drones. The definition of authorized sites has need expanded so that limitation appears to have been relaxed.

Sort of...

Drones under 250g are exempt ONLY if they fly under 44809 Exception rules. If you use it for 107, it must be registered and have RID.

There isn't any discussion about legacy drones, it's actually part of the Final Rule. Drones can be retrofitted with non-tamperable RID modules.

FRIAs still have pretty much the same definition, but in addition to CBOs being allowed to submit applications, educational institutions can as well.

And RID info packets must contain drone ID, GPS and AGL of drone, Velocity, location of command station or take off point, and time mark.

 

[Vic Moss]

Is this new rule going to require hobbyist to get part 107?

Not at all. Just 107 Pilots.