Hole in FAA Remote ID Rule?

[Vic Moss]

Hi Vic, my point was that it will be law enforcement or private security at federally recognized critical infrastructure facilities (e.g., Los Alamos Lab, Y-12, Pantex Plant, NASA/JPL, one of the 100+ nuclear power plants in the US, etc) that would be taking drown a non-RID drone violating their airspace and justifying their actions based on potential hostile intent of the drone operator who intentionally modified their aircraft to not transmit RID. I would agree that if a member of the general public shot down a non-RID drone they would be violating federal law. Nor do I think that local law enforcement (police officer, sheriff deputy, park ranger, etc) would be authorized or justified taking doing a non-RID drone that is no where near a critical infrastructure facility - say just in a park or beach... but you never know.

There are a lot of new rules and relaxing of other rules that have to take place before anyone besides DOJ, DOI, SS, and a few other fed agencies would be allowed to take action against UAS.

And I seriously doubt any private security will ever be allowed to do that.

Keep in mind that all Law Enforcement are being trained in what they can and CAN'T do in terms of UAS operations etc. Unless the UAS poses a real threat to person etc it will not be considered hostile etc. It's not a perfect world and there are "Bad actors" in every industry but I can assure you the FAA is going to great lengths to help educate Law Enforcement and John Q. Public across the country.

Yes they are.. ?

 

[andrew reeves]

So...Whats the word on retro fitting a MP with this RID transmitter ruling? Also, found a Swiss company that will sell you one now for 1950$. Hello, my MP was $750.... What were they thinking? Seems like the senario of the ATF when they flip flopped for iver 2 years on the pistol brace question and they asked for suggestions from the public. Then 40,000 + responded from real people with issues about banning it and the ATF dropped the thoughtless reg. Maybe a group could do the same about this RID issue.

 

[chadCO]

Expecting logic from a proven rogue agency is somewhat comical... FAA proved beyond even a small child's doubt that they are failures of a level rarely seen outside the science lab. Boeing showed the world the FAA is absolutely corrupt.
Since not one person from the failed rogue agency has gone to jail for their betrayal of the nation.... FAA = Rogue.

 

[Vic Moss]

So...Whats the word on retro fitting a MP with this RID transmitter ruling? Also, found a Swiss company that will sell you one now for 1950$. Hello, my MP was $750.... What were they thinking? Seems like the senario of the ATF when they flip flopped for iver 2 years on the pistol brace question and they asked for suggestions from the public. Then 40,000 + responded from real people with issues about banning it and the ATF dropped the thoughtless reg. Maybe a group could do the same about this RID issue.

The FAA predicts the cost of the module will be around $50. I’m guessing less based on market pricing.

 

[Ron Caballero CAP]

I was not implying at all that pilots would need to read RID signals of other drones, but that someone (drone manufacturer, app developer, etc.) is going to have to create a way to receive/read the RID signal broadcast by a drone. This could be done by building and selling a standalone device or creating an app to go on a smart phone/tablet. My point was the FAA rule doesn't require this of drone manufactures, so what's the motivation for DJI or any app developer creating the ability to actually read the RID signal/information being transmitted by our drones.

The FAA could have included in the rule's "Subpart F— Remote Identification Design and Production" something like "Any person that produces a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under § 89.510 or § 89.515 or a remote identification broadcast module under § 89.520, shall provide 47 CFR part 15 compliant devices with the ability to process and display the received information mandated by Subpart D to be transmitted by unmanned aircraft or broadcast module attached to unmanned aircraft covered by Part 8

It is not reasonable, to me, for the FAA to mandate any receiver(s) of RID signals. LEAs, private security firms (as mentioned elsewhere) and others have the option of purchasing such a device.

 

[Vic Moss]

It is not reasonable, to me, for the FAA to mandate any receiver(s) of RID signals. LEAs, private security firms (as mentioned elsewhere) and others have the option of purchasing such a device.

There will be no need to purchase any device. That’s the point of the RID signal. A simple app on a smart device will be all that is needed.

 

[spsphotos]

The only ones who will care about capturing the signal will be the authorities or commercial entities that want to monitor drone traffic near their facilities. Joe Average is not going to care..drone operator might care as it will tell you if others are in your fly zone. This is not a hole.

 

[Vic Moss]

The only ones who will care about capturing the signal will be the authorities or commercial entities that want to monitor drone traffic near their facilities. Joe Average is not going to care..drone operator might care as it will tell you if others are in your fly zone. This is not a hole.

That's the general consensus. There will always be the usual paranoid folks who will get it, but except for LEO and such, no one is going to care much. But we'll see.

 

[mepilot]

One would think that because the drone relays exact position data back to the controller, and in my case, my smart phone with app running- that there would be an option to send an RID signal via cellular. I know- not ideal, as ideal would be a designated signal... But honestly, who is using this data? Doesn't seem to be for safety...

As a commercial pilot, who regularly flies in TAA (technologically advanced aircraft) equipped with ADS-B in/out, I can see traffic displayed in my right-side screen. I can view their altitude, and if they're equipped as well- I can view their tail-number. I regularly set this to +/- 3kft, because the screen becomes too cluttered. With the exception of survey aircraft, most are not flying below 3kft, unless they're on approach to landing, or taking off. Will I be able to now see drones flying in my display if I remove the 3kft filter, and would that data be displayed in time for me to make evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision? Same with the drone operator- would he/she be able to see my aircraft's position, altitude, course and speed with enough time to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision?

Once again- who is using this data and for what purpose?

 

[Vic Moss]

One would think that because the drone relays exact position data back to the controller, and in my case, my smart phone with app running- that there would be an option to send an RID signal via cellular. I know- not ideal, as ideal would be a designated signal... But honestly, who is using this data? Doesn't seem to be for safety...

The signal is likely to be sent via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. The signal will be limited in distance.

As a commercial pilot, who regularly flies in TAA (technologically advanced aircraft) equipped with ADS-B in/out, I can see traffic displayed in my right-side screen. I can view their altitude, and if they're equipped as well- I can view their tail-number. I regularly set this to +/- 3kft, because the screen becomes too cluttered. With the exception of survey aircraft, most are not flying below 3kft, unless they're on approach to landing, or taking off. Will I be able to now see drones flying in my display if I remove the 3kft filter, and would that data be displayed in time for me to make evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision?

No. At least not yet. RID isn't designed to be seen by manned aviation. It's designed to be used by people on the ground to track drones and/or find the Drone Pilot or operator. You will not be able to see any of the data on your ADS-B screen. As a matter of fact, § 107.53 of the RID Final Rule that forbids the use of ADS-B out as an RID compliance tool.

There is a DAC Task Group that is looking into how manned aviation could use RID, but they have not come up with a final recommendation yet.

Same with the drone operator- would he/she be able to see my aircraft's position, altitude, course and speed with enough time to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision?

No. Again, RID is not designed to have anything to do with manned aviation. And why would we anyway? Legally we're located at or below 400' (for the most part). The only manned aviation down with us is helicopter traffic. And even then, only rarely.

UAS will still rely on see and avoid at this point. Some DJI have AirSense technology which reads ADS-B signals. it's nice to have, but it's actually annoying. It reads too much traffic. Maybe with some tweaking it will be a good thing, bur for now, it's not that great of a system.

Once again- who is using this data and for what purpose?

Mainly for law enforcement to find errant operators and pilots. It can also be used by private security folks around installations that need to know when a drone is in the air. And of course anyone who puts the app on their smart device will be able to see all of the message elements as well.

For more info, please check out our newsroom. That should answer more of your questions.

Newsroom – Drone Service Providers Alliance (Admin approved link).

 

[mepilot]

Vic- thanks for the detailed reply.

As I'm new to drone operation, I'm seeing all these new rules as a solution needing a problem. If we're restricted to at or below 400ft, and most manned traffic (helicopters) are at or above 500ft, then I really don't see the need for RID unless it has a specific safety benefit. Have there been that many violations handed out, and/or close calls to warrant the need for a "big brother" approach to the entire industry? As with anything in aviation- costs are astronomical and are getting exponentially larger every day due to litigation. 107 was just the beginning. RID I see is the proverbial opening of "pandora's box" in that we as operators may not like what we see and can no longer close said box.

 

[Vic Moss]

Vic- thanks for the detailed reply.

As I'm new to drone operation, I'm seeing all these new rules as a solution needing a problem. If we're restricted to at or below 400ft, and most manned traffic (helicopters) are at or above 500ft, then I really don't see the need for RID unless it has a specific safety benefit. Have there been that many violations handed out, and/or close calls to warrant the need for a "big brother" approach to the entire industry? As with anything in aviation- costs are astronomical and are getting exponentially larger every day due to litigation. 107 was just the beginning. RID I see is the proverbial opening of "pandora's box" in that we as operators may not like what we see and can no longer close said box.

RID was mandated by Congress. The FAA has to provide a workable system. And since security is at its core, federal security agencies also have their fingers in the pie.

The original intent was to make it more difficult for people to use drones for nefarious purposes. It was to be used by Law Enforcement to find people who are doing illegal things.

It will also be one of the stepping stones for Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM). That will be similar to what ATC does for manned aviation, but it won't be handled real-time by people. It will be an automated system.

 

[BigAl07]

Vic- thanks for the detailed reply.

As I'm new to drone operation, I'm seeing all these new rules as a solution needing a problem. If we're restricted to at or below 400ft, and most manned traffic (helicopters) are at or above 500ft, then I really don't see the need for RID unless it has a specific safety benefit. Have there been that many violations handed out, and/or close calls to warrant the need for a "big brother" approach to the entire industry? As with anything in aviation- costs are astronomical and are getting exponentially larger every day due to litigation. 107 was just the beginning. RID I see is the proverbial opening of "pandora's box" in that we as operators may not like what we see and can no longer close said box.

Keep in mind that RID (in it's most likely form) has nothin to do with Manned to Unmanned separation. It's designed to allow Ground Based Law Enforcement to see (in graphical form) the potentially offending UAS and have data to react and possibly interact with the operator.

 

[Steve F]

The signal is likely to be sent via Wi-Fi or Bluetooth. The signal will be limited in distance.

I'll say. Not sure how useful this would be without some enhanced receiver hardware. An ordinary smart phone will probably be limited to a few hundred feet.

 

[Vic Moss]

An ordinary smart phone will probably be limited to a few hundred feet.

Which is the whole point. The less area someone can pick up our broadcast, the safer we'll be from prying eyes. With the VLOS rules, a few hundred feet will be fine. LEOs will have plenty of ability to still find wayward or rogue drone operators.

This is also why the RID Module UAS will be strictly limited to VLOS flights. If someone wants BLVOS, they they will have to be using a Standard RID UAS when you apply for your waiver.

 

[journo]

I see a "remote ID" section buried in the Go Fly app, with two lines offered to fill in. It's got a switch to enable or disable. I've left lines blank and disabled it.

 

[Vic Moss]

I see a "remote ID" section buried in the Go Fly app, with two lines offered to fill in. It's got a switch to enable or disable. I've left lines blank and disabled it.

That is bit the same thing as the FAA's Remote ID. That is simply a function of the GO app where you can put your information in for people using the AeroScope system. It won't satisfy the RID compliance.