Here we go Remote ID Cost

[Cymru]

Whilst that may be correct, the number of drones being sold is now rising exponentially. In the past you could just wait for serious issues to occur before producing regulations to prevent them.

This is the point - its entirely about risk management and assessment. The whole point of it is to prevent an incident before it occurs if possible.

Drones have *potential* to cause serious damage, have been shown a few times to cause damage and their use is increasing

The comparison to manned aviation is non-sensical when you consider what goes into a real aircraft - redundant everything that matters, every single part from a screw up has a fully audited paper trial and quality assurance, rigid, fixed maintenance standards and periods and operated by people with training, the majority of which consists of what to do if something goes wrong.
This is different to a drone bought in a shop, operated by someone that didn't bother reading the manual, has never maintained or checked it and has absolutely zero redundancy to help it stay in the sky.

These heavier commercial drones will have detect and avoid systems, beacons, remote ID and redundant systems. Also operated in approved corridors and approved procedures. Completely different beasts.

From a risk management point of view, consumer drones present a high potential hazard so that has to be mitigated. Remote ID would be one of those measures.

 

[DoomMeister]

This is the point - its entirely about risk management and assessment. The whole point of it is to prevent an incident before it occurs if possible.

Drones have *potential* to cause serious damage, have been shown a few times to cause damage and their use is increasing

The comparison to manned aviation is non-sensical when you consider what goes into a real aircraft - redundant everything that matters, every single part from a screw up has a fully audited paper trial and quality assurance, rigid, fixed maintenance standards and periods and operated by people with training, the majority of which consists of what to do if something goes wrong.
This is different to a drone bought in a shop, operated by someone that didn't bother reading the manual, has never maintained or checked it and has absolutely zero redundancy to help it stay in the sky.

These heavier commercial drones will have detect and avoid systems, beacons, remote ID and redundant systems. Also operated in approved corridors and approved procedures. Completely different beasts.

From a risk management point of view, consumer drones present a high potential hazard so that has to be mitigated. Remote ID would be one of those measures.

And unless these heavier task drones are restricted to airways without people and vehicles under their flight path what is to prevent them from falling out of the sky like any consumer drone?

Don’t tell me a parachute is going to deploy and prevent serious injury or property damage.

RID is nothing more than a way for large corporations to usurp low altitude airspace.

 

[Cymru]

And unless these heavier task drones are restricted to airways without people and vehicles under their flight path what is to prevent them from falling out of the sky like any consumer drone?

Redundant flight control systems, redundant propulsion systems, lose a motor or prop it doesnt do a brick impression. Proper quality control, maintenance schedules, properly quality controlled audited parts.

The same way the risks is reduced for manned aircraft.

Basically, no single points of failure. Which consumer drones consist entirely of.

 

[DoomMeister]

So my hex drone with 5 rotor mode to alleviate crashes with the loss of a prop or motor is a step in the right direction. Along with the regular maintenance I perform on the system. But with it being a consumer drone it is not worthy of flying in the same airspace as the exalted delivery drone that will be allowed to overfly anything in its path.

Somehow I think I would rather my 2kg consumer drone fall on my roof than a 20+kg delivery drone on its way to a neighbor that has to have their package in an hour instead of the next day.

 

[Cymru]

Assuming your hex copter has a full audited construction and maintenance scheme and certified as such by the relevant body with full physical testing results to prove resiliency, each moving part quality controlled with a manufacturer paper trail and produced by approved processes and the type as a whole certified then fine.
Because thats what all of the delivery drones will have. Redundancy backed up by type certification, physical testing to destruction, an agreed, audited maintenance schedule and production standard guarantees for every part.
Add that to certified detect and avoid and remote ID and an operator certification and yes its fine.

"Its cool because i built and maintain it myself" isnt going to pass any safety related quality assurance or safety audit.

Safety isnt just a case of shoving another motor on it and having none of it tested or certified by an accredited body.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

This is the point - its entirely about risk management and assessment. The whole point of it is to prevent an incident before it occurs if possible.

Drones have *potential* to cause serious damage, have been shown a few times to cause damage and their use is increasing

The comparison to manned aviation is non-sensical when you consider what goes into a real aircraft - redundant everything that matters, every single part from a screw up has a fully audited paper trial and quality assurance, rigid, fixed maintenance standards and periods and operated by people with training, the majority of which consists of what to do if something goes wrong.
This is different to a drone bought in a shop, operated by someone that didn't bother reading the manual, has never maintained or checked it and has absolutely zero redundancy to help it stay in the sky.

These heavier commercial drones will have detect and avoid systems, beacons, remote ID and redundant systems. Also operated in approved corridors and approved procedures. Completely different beasts.

From a risk management point of view, consumer drones present a high potential hazard so that has to be mitigated. Remote ID would be one of those measures.

All risk are not equal and the "managing risk" argument can be used to justify about anything the government wants to put its hand into.

I'd be interested in seeing the statistics that support the statement "drones being sold is now rising exponentially". Last I checked in 2018 (before covid) the sale of drones was flat and with the advent of an increasing amount of regulations that trend would continue.

I've heard a lot of talk about potential commercial uses for drones but have yet to see someone put forward a viable plan for how that talk is put into action that justifies creating a pervasive RID system. That should happen BEFORE going full steam ahead on this plan that increase cost for all drone pilots with little regard for the when, where and how they fly or that those flights are a legitimate safety issue if/when these speculations about commercial uses becomes a reality.

There was a cartoon series when I was growing up back in the early 1960's called "The Jetsons". The mode of transportation for George Jetson to get to work, the kids to go to school and Jane his wife to get to the hair salon were flying vehicles. I thought that was pretty cool but had zero understanding of the logistics involved or even the need. Today I don't see the need or and practical means of getting it done. My opinion is the same regarding drone delivery in most places and situations. In my opinion this all encompassing RID is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[maelstrom]

Some of the infrastructure for RIM will be paid for with taxpayer month. The cost of monitoring regulatory compliance will be paid for with taxpayer dollars.

But that’s only a small fraction of the overall cost of remote ID - it won’t cost the taxpayer anywhere near the billions you’ve implied.

 

[Cymru]

I'd be interested in seeing the statistics that support the statement "drones being sold is now rising exponentially". Last I checked in 2018 (before covid) the sale of drones was flat and with the advent of an increasing amount of regulations that trend would continue.

The exponential claim wasn't mine. Worldwide drone sales are increasing a lot year on year though.
( Worldwide - retail consumer drone market forecast 2020 | Statista )
There are simply going to be more of them.

Yes RID should be an approved standard before then (there are several competing solutions currently out there). Technically DJI is half way there in that every drone they have currently transmits unencrypted data on who/what/where which is how Aeroscope etc works.

 

[UAS_Dude]

The exponential claim wasn't mine. Worldwide drone sales are increasing a lot year on year though.
( Worldwide - retail consumer drone market forecast 2020 | Statista )
There are simply going to be more of them.

Yes RID should be an approved standard before then (there are several competing solutions currently out there). Technically DJI is half way there in that every drone they have currently transmits unencrypted data on who/what/where which is how Aeroscope etc works.

Thank you @Cymru for injecting another voice of reason into this debate. We’re seeing the same old thing that happens in a lot of threads on this forum – people unwilling to do comprehensive (or even rudimentary) research because it might uncover something that goes against their preordained beliefs based on sentiments that align with their anti Big Brother, head-in-the-sand outlook on the world.

You stated the obvious when suggesting that “commercial drones will have Detect and Avoid systems, beacons, Remote ID and redundant systems.” But then someone comes back with “I would rather my 2kg consumer drone fall on my roof than a 20+kg delivery drone on its way to a neighbor that has to have their package in an hour instead of the next day” Either your post was ignored or it was somehow determined that commercial drones won’t in fact be strictly regulated or won’t need to meet legally mandated minimum safety and redundancy specifications. What’s that all about ? Kind of sad really.

When drone delivery was first mooted, I was totally against the idea because it just seemed so silly to me, not to mention the disruption with noise pollution etc. But then as Use Cases such as medical supply drops to solve the problem of sometimes life-threatening delays due to traffic congestion became reality, I started to think a little more outside the square. And now with the CORVID-19 pandemic, contactless transactions are more and more becoming the norm – and don’t fall into a false sense of security in believing that this pandemic will be the last.

Even if commercial drone delivery takes another decade to become widespread and mainstream, when is the right time to implement a system that will enable autonomous tracking and coordination of airborne UAS traffic? Why not now so that we’re in front of the eight ball for once? Introduce it sooner than later so as to allow plenty of time to iron out the bugs and put something in place that really works. If it achieves nothing in the short term but to identify and weed out the Idiot class of recreational drone operators, then it will have been money very well spent.

And it was that last sentence above that, of course, will hit an uncomfortable home with those who would prefer to continue to fly where ever they like, or as high as they like, because it’s their inalienable, God given right to do so.

 

[Cymru]

And it was that last sentence above that, of course, will hit an uncomfortable home with those who would prefer to continue to fly where ever they like, or as high as they like, because it’s their inalienable, God given right to do so.

Slightly controversially but if every consumer drone HAD remote ID and was visible to ATC and aircraft there would be an argument for a suitably trained operator to be allowed to operate at altitudes and in airspace that is currently forbidden as the risk of collision is massively reduced due to their clear (electronic) visibility.
The current danger is caused by neither ATC or other traffic knowing a drone is present. RID could in theory remove that danger. Combining that with additional operator training such as airlaw, airspace and maybe comms might make that perfectly safe to operate in many areas away from airfields.

 

[DoomMeister]

I have no problem with filing a flight plan and getting clearance for flights within controlled airspace and LAANC is already in place for that. Telemetry is already broadcast from my aircraft so it could be traced if needed, but there is no need for that in Class G airspace as long as I keep my aircraft in VLOS.

As far as local law enforcement knowing about my flights or John Q Public having access to my flight data and who I am and where I’m flying, it is absolutely none of their business. You don’t see people tracking every private aircraft that flies over and nosing into who they are and where they are going.

I am not sure who got this wild idea that everyone needs to be able to track a sUAS and it’s pilot anytime they take to the skies. Oh that’s right, big business and all their high dollar lobbyists lining the pockets of lawmakers and other government bureaucrats in charge of making regulations concerning our airspace.

 

[Cymru]

Manned aircraft flight data is tracked and has public access, including historic flights.
Anything broadcasting ADSB of even a simple SSR Squawk is public, tracked and full data available.
Why should a UAS be any different?

 

[Deleted member 93449]

But that’s only a small fraction of the overall cost of remote ID - it won’t cost the taxpayer anywhere near the billions you’ve implied.

What it's going to cost the taxpayer wasn't my focus but it is an element of how the cost will be paid. The other concern is the cost to the user but in both cases it comes down to the justification for spending that money and whether that justification does exist. My argument is the justification does not exist and the reasons given for why that money should be spend are based on gross speculations.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Thank you @Cymru for injecting another voice of reason into this debate. We’re seeing the same old thing that happens in a lot of threads on this forum – people unwilling to do comprehensive (or even rudimentary) research because it might uncover something that goes against their preordained beliefs based on sentiments that align with their anti Big Brother, head-in-the-sand outlook on the world.

You stated the obvious when suggesting that “commercial drones will have Detect and Avoid systems, beacons, Remote ID and redundant systems.” But then someone comes back with “I would rather my 2kg consumer drone fall on my roof than a 20+kg delivery drone on its way to a neighbor that has to have their package in an hour instead of the next day” Either your post was ignored or it was somehow determined that commercial drones won’t in fact be strictly regulated or won’t need to meet legally mandated minimum safety and redundancy specifications. What’s that all about ? Kind of sad really.

When drone delivery was first mooted, I was totally against the idea because it just seemed so silly to me, not to mention the disruption with noise pollution etc. But then as Use Cases such as medical supply drops to solve the problem of sometimes life-threatening delays due to traffic congestion became reality, I started to think a little more outside the square. And now with the CORVID-19 pandemic, contactless transactions are more and more becoming the norm – and don’t fall into a false sense of security in believing that this pandemic will be the last.

Even if commercial drone delivery takes another decade to become widespread and mainstream, when is the right time to implement a system that will enable autonomous tracking and coordination of airborne UAS traffic? Why not now so that we’re in front of the eight ball for once? Introduce it sooner than later so as to allow plenty of time to iron out the bugs and put something in place that really works. If it achieves nothing in the short term but to identify and weed out the Idiot class of recreational drone operators, then it will have been money very well spent.

And it was that last sentence above that, of course, will hit an uncomfortable home with those who would prefer to continue to fly where ever they like, or as high as they like, because it’s their inalienable, God given right to do so.

The first part of your post is just an attempt to demean those that disagree with you so that could have been omitted from your comments. You don't get points for trash talk.

You seem to claim that your view regarding the broad use of commercial drones for delivery changed when you heard about drops related to medical supplies. I'll like to know what connection the drop of medical supplies has with products delivered by Amazon, UPS, Federal Express, etc. Those medical supply drops are probably very limited in number and very narrow in scope as far as location. How you go from there to a broad spectrum use of drones for regular package delivery seems to be a huge leap as far as the types of things being delivered and where they are being delivered.

As far as "when is the right time", that is the type of gross speculation that should not be the foundation of spending billions of dollars and dumping a huge regulatory burden on individual users. If you're going to limit the freedom of individuals to use the NAS and burden them with additional cost there need to be hard facts motivating those limitations and the expenditure of resources. There is no historical evidence indicating flying drones under the current rules has been a safety issue even with the increase in the use over the last 20 years. Speculations about the pervasive use of drones for package delivery are just that, speculations. I'd like to hear some very practical explanations of how package delivery is going to be a practical option in major portions of the NAS before we start implementing new rules covering most of that airspace and costing billions of dollars. Until then I think the time, effort and dollars being expend on implementing these new rules for drones over a large portion of the NAS should be spend in areas where safety and dollars (hundreds of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars each year) are actually being lost every year.

 

[UAS_Dude]

The first part of your post is just an attempt to demean those that disagree with you so that could have been omitted from your comments. You don't get points for trash talk.

You seem to claim that your view regarding the broad use of commercial drones for delivery changed when you heard about drops related to medical supplies. I'll like to know what connection the drop of medical supplies has with products delivered by Amazon, UPS, Federal Express, etc. Those medical supply drops are probably very limited in number and very narrow in scope as far as location. How you go from there to a broad spectrum use of drones for regular package delivery seems to be a huge leap as far as the types of things being delivered and where they are being delivered.

As far as "when is the right time", that is the type of gross speculation that should not be the foundation of spending billions of dollars and dumping a huge regulatory burden on individual users. If you're going to limit the freedom of individuals to use the NAS and burden them with additional cost there need to be hard facts motivating those limitations and the expenditure of resources. There is no historical evidence indicating flying drones under the current rules has been a safety issue even with the increase in the use over the last 20 years. Speculations about the pervasive use of drones for package delivery are just that, speculations. I'd like to hear some very practical explanations of how package delivery is going to be a practical option in major portions of the NAS before we start implementing new rules covering most of that airspace and costing billions of dollars. Until then I think the time, effort and dollars being expend on implementing these new rules for drones over a large portion of the NAS should be spend in areas where safety and dollars (hundreds of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars each year) are actually being lost every year.

You keep repeating yourself ad nauseam and asking over and over again the same questions, which have been answered, but you don't seem to be able to understand plain English and/or logic. If you don't like the answers you have been given - DO THE RESEARCH !! But I have already worked out and suggested why you won't do that.

You really should just stop now but it is obvious that the most important thing for you is to have the last word regardless of how impotent it is.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

You keep repeating yourself ad nauseam and asking over and over again the same questions, which have been answered, but you don't seem to be able to understand plain English and/or logic. If you don't like the answers you have been given - DO THE RESEARCH !! But I have already worked out and suggested why you won't do that.

You really should just stop now but it is obvious that the most important thing for you is to have the last word regardless of how impotent it is.

My repetition is in response to your continued statement of speculations about why RID is needed.

As far as "do the research", the onus is on you, the individual claiming there is a need for these regulations and spending a billion dollars, to provide the research that demonstrates the real, not speculative, evidence that this system is needed. You have to be able to justify the expense and limitations on freedom, not the other way around.

 

[dirkclod]

Breathe...Debate....Breathe guys ?

 

[DoomMeister]

The quotes are all mangled in this thread. I am closing it temporarily and will reopen it after who said what is straightened out.

 

[DoomMeister]

I have this last page of the thread straightened out. Not sure how a quote can be screwed up, but it happened. Let’s use a little caution and delete your post or edit it if you messed up the quote when replying to another’s post.

Thread reopened.

 

[UAS_Dude]

You keep repeating yourself ad nauseam and asking over and over again the same questions, which have been answered, but you don't seem to be able to understand plain English and/or logic. If you don't like the answers you have been given - DO THE RESEARCH !! But I have already worked out and suggested why you won't do that.

You really should just stop now but it is obvious that the most important thing for you is to have the last word regardless of how impotent it is.

My repetition is in response to your continued statement of speculations about why RID is needed.

As far as "do the research", the onus is on you, the individual claiming there is a need for these regulations and spending a billion dollars, to provide the research that demonstrates the real, not speculative, evidence that this system is needed. You have to be able to justify the expense and limitations on freedom, not the other way around.

Why is the onus on me? I'm actually happy with the Remote ID proposal as it currently stands and I'm sure that I enjoy the company of many others who also understand and appreciate the need for RID. I trust the FAA to do the right thing.

The FAA is going to implement this thing and they certainly don't have to justify anything to you or anyone else for that matter, except the elected politicians who will sign off on the proposal. You had your chance to make your case during the consultation phase but, commiserations dude, it's too late now. Maybe you did submit a proposal. How did that work out for you?

You can keep on wasting energy railing against the atrocious waste of taxpayer money blah blah - on unproven blah - demonstrate the real, not speculative, evidence blah. If you think that making noise will actually achieve anything that makes any substantial difference then go nuts, Enjoy yourself. But I gotta tell ya - you won't be winning a literary award any time soon.

Finally, and I'm sure the mods will sigh with relief, I will not post any more content on this thread. 2edgesword can have his all-important last word and that will hopefully wrap it up and put it to bed.