Help with new rule Remote ID reqiuerments

[Bigbird48]

So theres this new remote ID rule coming and the FAA wants comments. The PDF of the new rules is 300+ pages long which I started to read and gave up.Then I wanted to comment and went to the GOV site it says to go to , to make a comment and well you try it. I had no luck trying to weed thru all the pages to find were to comment on this new rules stuff. If anyone can find the exact page were you can really leave a comment please link it here .
Going to post a nother thread with a new ? on same rules.

 

[Bigbird48]

The way I understand it is that you have to have an internet connection that broadcast your drones location to someone. Or you have to Fly in a CBO area only.
I have no data plan on my Ipad so does this mean I can't fly anywere but a CBO no?
Does this apply to old drones or just new one being mfg?
Also what if theres no Internet service were you are.

 

[Thomas B]

The way I understand it is that you have to have an internet connection that broadcast your drones location to someone. Or you have to Fly in a CBO area only.
I have no data plan on my Ipad so does this mean I can't fly anywere but a CBO no?
Does this apply to old drones or just new one being mfg?
Also what if theres no Internet service were you are.

Should be just the new ones I think... like cars before catalytic converters.

 

[rxlawdude]

The way I understand it is that you have to have an internet connection that broadcast your drones location to someone. Or you have to Fly in a CBO area only.
I have no data plan on my Ipad so does this mean I can't fly anywere but a CBO no?
Does this apply to old drones or just new one being mfg?
Also what if theres no Internet service were you are.

There's another thread about this, but to answer your question, any drone that doesn't have the new ID technology will be limited to CBO areas and VLOS. Expect blacklisting in firmware to pretty much kill recreational flying.

 

[Thomas B]

There's another thread about this, but to answer your question, any drone that doesn't have the new ID technology will be limited to CBO areas and VLOS. Expect blacklisting in firmware to pretty much kill recreational flying.

Should this be the case, then everyone should get a part 107 test completed ASAP.

 

[Freebird32]

There is language in there to the effect that if the UAS doesn't have Remote Identification (which they are forcing on the manufacturers) after three years the only place you would be permitted to fly your old UAS would be at an AMA club flying site, for example. I suppose they could figure out a way to add remote ID to older birds, but it would need to be free. I think this is as much a push to secure airspace for commercial application as it is to eliminate hobby drones/flyers.
The key might be to push for an increased lower threshold weight (instead of .55 lbs). Would at least give hobby drones a little more capability without the overbearing regulations.

 

[Thomas B]

There is language in there to the effect that if the UAS doesn't have Remote Identification (which they are forcing on the manufacturers) after three years the only place you would be permitted to fly your old UAS would be at an AMA club flying site, for example. I suppose they could figure out a way to add remote ID to older birds, but it would need to be free. I think this is as much a push to secure airspace for commercial application as it is to eliminate hobby drones/flyers.
The key might be to push for an increased lower threshold weight (instead of .55 lbs). Would at least give hobby drones a little more capability without the overbearing regulations.

The key would be that the drones already sold would be exempt.

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

Money talks and you can bet the entire industry will steam roll the UAS hobbyist once the commercial applications are realized and made practical.

I fly outside cities and towns and will be hanging onto my MPP which doesn't require authorization for take off.

 

[rxlawdude]

Should this be the case, then everyone should get a part 107 test completed ASAP.

That won't address legacy drones (which will be limited to CBO approved locations), now, will it?

 

[Scottalmas]

I really don't see why the legislation could not be amended in the final markup to allow for the GPS location of the UAS to be transmitted from an internet connection residing on the remote control, so long as it is the coordinates of the UAS that is being transmitted. The only downside to that is you could not operate your phone or tablet in Airplane mode, leading to likely interference, but that is going to exist anyway if the UAS is transmitting cellular data. This would also a bit of a bummer for people like me who do not have a data plan for their drone-dedicated tablet.

Also, there are many areas in the US without reliable internet access. How is that going to work?

This is much worse than I was expecting.

 

[sjnovakovich]

This whole idea sucks. If transponders are required in drones you can expect the cost of them to triple. Furthermore, whether or not you are breaking any rules, the Barney Fife types of LEOS will be flexing their muscles left and right, since they will know every time your bird is in the air.

 

[Scottalmas]

The way I understand it is that you have to have an internet connection that broadcast your drones location to someone. Or you have to Fly in a CBO area only.
I have no data plan on my Ipad so does this mean I can't fly anywere but a CBO no?
Does this apply to old drones or just new one being mfg?
Also what if theres no Internet service were you are.

As I read the proposed regulation, the UAS itself must have an Internet connection. It does not sound like it will be sufficient for the RC to be able to transmit the coordinates of the UAS over the Internet. THAT is crazy to me and should be amended. Of course, a grandfathering for aircraft purchased (or manufactured) before a date certain would be a good idea also.

 

[Bigbird48]

As I read the proposed regulation, the UAS itself must have an Internet connection. It does not sound like it will be sufficient for the RC to be able to transmit the coordinates of the UAS over the Internet. THAT is crazy to me and should be amended. Of course, a grandfathering for aircraft purchased (or manufactured) before a date certain would be a good idea also.

Yes grandfathered for earlier UMA would be a good idea. I fly mostly in remote areas or my back yard. I see no need to broadcast my location if Im out in the boonies photographing a waterfall or river, makes no sense at all

 

[Scottalmas]

While I appreciate the inherent danger and risks to manned aircraft if the skies were filled with reckless UAS operators, the fact is I am not aware of a single verified instance of a recreational drone making contact with an manned aircraft. Talk about a solution looking for a problem.

I dont' see any reason why a more robust version of what DJI is already doing doesn't completely solve whatever perceived problem there is. Require hight limitations tied to geozones that can be adjusted on a per instance basis through a system like LAANC. If I want to fly where my UAS could propose a risk to a manned AC, I could request permission through LAANC and the geozone gets unlocked for the specific time and location. Is that really so hard?

 

[BigAl07]

While I appreciate the inherent danger and risks to manned aircraft if the skies were filled with reckless UAS operators, the fact is I am not aware of a single verified instance of a recreational drone making contact with an manned aircraft. Talk about a solution looking for a problem.

Aviation is safe because we don't wait for the disaster to put safety precautions in place.

There has been ONE confirmed hobby to manned aircraft incident... others I'm sure.
"At 1919:15, the sUAS pilot pressed the return-to-home (RTH) button on the control tablet, and the aircraft turned around and began tracking northeast toward the home point. The helicopters had completed a turn toward LDJ, and were just west of Coney Island at 300 ft. At 1919:51, the sUAS battery endurance warning activated, indicating that only enough charge remained to return directly to the home point. The pilot did not have visual contact with the sUAS or the helicopters at that time. As the sUAS was tracking northeast, telemetry data dropped out for about 9 seconds but returned just before the collision. The position of the aircraft was near the maximum range of the remote controller. At 1920:17.6, the data logs ended. The last position and altitude logged correlated with the position and altitude of the incident helicopter's recorded data and ATC radar information; about 300 ft west of Hoffman Island. The sUAS pilot reported that he lost signal with the aircraft and assumed it would return home as programmed. After waiting about 30 minutes, he assumed it had experienced a malfunction and crashed in the water. "

Keep in mind this information is obtained from DATA recovered from the UAS flight logs.

Here's the full NTSB report for anyone interested:
20170922X54600-20191223-224259

I dont' see any reason why a more robust version of what DJI is already doing doesn't completely solve whatever perceived problem there is. Require hight limitations tied to geozones that can be adjusted on a per instance basis through a system like LAANC. If I want to fly where my UAS could propose a risk to a manned AC, I could request permission through LAANC and the geozone gets unlocked for the specific time and location. Is that really so hard?

Because so many don't want to follow those and insist on flying ANYWHERE and ANYWAY they want. If we could have proven we could police our own this wouldn't be happening but we failed in that respect miserably.

 

[lightbg]

They have their hands full trying to get ADS-B installed on all general aviation planes before the end of 2019. I think we’re at the end of a long line........

Jake

 

[Scottalmas]

I hadn't seen that one. Scary stuff. I still don't know why it would not be effective to simply mandate that manufacturers of drones weighing more that .55 lbs (250g) capable of flying higher than 25 feet and further than 400 feet be equipped with a Geozone system like DJI uses that is tied directly to the FAA's data base with GPS location of the AC being transmitted via the internet from EITHER the or the connected RC. Frankly, as long as the control application can send and receive GPS data to lock down the drone in the firmware before takeoff, I would think an in air collision between a UAS and manned aircraft would be impossible.

 

[HappyHours]

I can’t make heads or tails of it but the little I read said that the internet option is only available for drones that can only fly 400 ft from the controller, in other words either the Rc part has a design limit or you are using WiFi.

This sounds pretty bad for the thousands of Mavic users.

 

[IDPhoto]

I am wondering if it's time to let this thing go, the more laws they push to us hobbyists the more useless my drone becomes

 

[sjnovakovich]

I was just thinking. Since this information will be available to local law enforcement, I think it's just a way to give some authority over air space to all of the Barney Fife types out there.