Our Hobbyist Drone Alternative to Remote ID: VLOS ID

[ksdehoff]

There are 57 days left to comment - if there is a fast consensus on doing this, we can get some of the drone youtubers engaged to get the word out. For now this is for consideration and comment.

We need to group together with our concerns about Remote ID and propose a workable alternative or we'll get nowhere. There are about 1000 comments and most of them are unproductive at best.

I would suggest we 'brand' our alternative so that comments to the FAA can reference this consistent group of concerns and an alternative.

My suggestion is that we propose this VLOS ID system to the FAA as an alternative to Remote ID for hobbyists

Technical solution: Software-limited flight rules of 200 ft vertical from operator and 3500 ft horizontal, no internet broadcast requirement but a local RF broadcast requirement.

Rationale:
VLOS is realistically impractical beyond some distance - this would establish that standard. No one realistically can see their drone out a mile in distance.
The 200 ft vertical limit provides an enforceable safe zone, where VLOS ID drones wont be challenging Remote ID drone airspace
Local RF Broadcast (position, heading, FCC ID) from the drone would provide data to Remote ID drones to avoid airspace conflicts. Also a back-door enforcement tool since Remote ID drones will be on the internet - they can detect a VLOS ID drone flying outside of it's VLOS 'bubble' and report it to the FAA

Unworkable Remote ID concerns:
Internet Requirement for flight - anyone with a cell phone knows how unreliable they are - signal comes and goes. Making drone flight dependent on 4G or other cellular technologies is expensive, poor performance, poor reliability and outright bans flights in a significant fraction of the US.

 

[sar104]

Just a correction - an internet connection is not required for Standard Remote ID flight.

 

[dronerdave]

I still have question about if DJI aircraft can transmit the correct info to the FAA without a close by receiver and no internet. Does the older MP have the ability to do this or be updated to do so? Will the FAA still require me to have an internet provider service if I'm on the edge of an internet connection? I'd like to get more clarity about this before I send off my suggestions.

And why a bubble and not a cylinder like how they describe air space classes? I wish the FAA would accept a geofenced multi rotor that has max horizontal flight distance of 2000 to 3000 foot VLOS radius from your transmitter without the need of a internet connection. I could live with that.

I agree we might have to be willing to give something up like max AGL of 400 feet but that directly hinders fixed wing folks so really you'd have to separate the two or create a new multi rotor only UAV section. Not sure if that's possible but really we need to find something that covers FPV, fixed wing and multi rotor crowds.

 

[sar104]

I still have question about if DJI aircraft can transmit the correct info to the FAA without a close by receiver and no internet. Does the older MP have the ability to do this or be updated to do so? Will the FAA still require me to have an internet provider service if I'm on the edge of an internet connection? I'd like to get more clarity about this before I send off my suggestions.

And why a bubble and not a cylinder like how they describe air space classes? I wish the FAA would accept a geofenced multi rotor that has max horizontal flight distance of 2000 to 3000 foot VLOS radius from your transmitter without the need of a internet connection. I could live with that.

I agree we might have to be willing to give something up like max AGL of 400 feet but that directly hinders fixed wing folks so really you'd have to separate the two or create a new multi rotor only UAV section. Not sure if that's possible but really we need to find something that covers FPV, fixed wing and multi rotor crowds.

The requirement is to transmit via the internet, when available, otherwise just to broadcast.

 

[crlmjohnson]

I still do quite understand which technology FAA is planning on using. I see rumors all over the internet

 

[Photo Bomber]

There are 57 days left to comment - if there is a fast consensus on doing this, we can get some of the drone youtubers engaged to get the word out. For now this is for consideration and comment.

We need to group together with our concerns about Remote ID and propose a workable alternative or we'll get nowhere. There are about 1000 comments and most of them are unproductive at best.

I would suggest we 'brand' our alternative so that comments to the FAA can reference this consistent group of concerns and an alternative.

My suggestion is that we propose this VLOS ID system to the FAA as an alternative to Remote ID for hobbyists

Technical solution: Software-limited flight rules of 200 ft vertical from operator and 3500 ft horizontal, no internet broadcast requirement but a local RF broadcast requirement.

Rationale:
VLOS is realistically impractical beyond some distance - this would establish that standard. No one realistically can see their drone out a mile in distance.
The 200 ft vertical limit provides an enforceable safe zone, where VLOS ID drones wont be challenging Remote ID drone airspace
Local RF Broadcast (position, heading, FCC ID) from the drone would provide data to Remote ID drones to avoid airspace conflicts. Also a back-door enforcement tool since Remote ID drones will be on the internet - they can detect a VLOS ID drone flying outside of it's VLOS 'bubble' and report it to the FAA

Unworkable Remote ID concerns:
Internet Requirement for flight - anyone with a cell phone knows how unreliable they are - signal comes and goes. Making drone flight dependent on 4G or other cellular technologies is expensive, poor performance, poor reliability and outright bans flights in a significant fraction of the US.

Ken Heron has very good suggestions about this on his video

 

[harle83]

There are 57 days left to comment - if there is a fast consensus on doing this, we can get some of the drone youtubers engaged to get the word out. For now this is for consideration and comment.

We need to group together with our concerns about Remote ID and propose a workable alternative or we'll get nowhere. There are about 1000 comments and most of them are unproductive at best.

I would suggest we 'brand' our alternative so that comments to the FAA can reference this consistent group of concerns and an alternative.

My suggestion is that we propose this VLOS ID system to the FAA as an alternative to Remote ID for hobbyists

Technical solution: Software-limited flight rules of 200 ft vertical from operator and 3500 ft horizontal, no internet broadcast requirement but a local RF broadcast requirement.

Rationale:
VLOS is realistically impractical beyond some distance - this would establish that standard. No one realistically can see their drone out a mile in distance.
The 200 ft vertical limit provides an enforceable safe zone, where VLOS ID drones wont be challenging Remote ID drone airspace
Local RF Broadcast (position, heading, FCC ID) from the drone would provide data to Remote ID drones to avoid airspace conflicts. Also a back-door enforcement tool since Remote ID drones will be on the internet - they can detect a VLOS ID drone flying outside of it's VLOS 'bubble' and report it to the FAA

Unworkable Remote ID concerns:
Internet Requirement for flight - anyone with a cell phone knows how unreliable they are - signal comes and goes. Making drone flight dependent on 4G or other cellular technologies is expensive, poor performance, poor reliability and outright bans flights in a significant fraction of the US.

I think it's an idea, I think it will never get off the ground. No matter what we do there will always be someone who finds a way around a software or hardware block. I also think the FAA will not back down unless a educated, well thought out solution is proposed. The main problem with all of this is it's being written for anything we fly by guys who know nothing about it. I fly Planes, aside from the Engine and Rudder controls inside there's nothing. You can't Geofence it and you can't ground it. Will I stop flying it? Well, unless it takes a nose dive from a 100+ feet into the ground no, I won't.I don't believe I've actually even had it that high in the Air. I also fly at a actual control Towered Airport. The folks there let us fly year around. Now this is Rural Western Iowa so "year around" is kinda taken with a grain of salt.There are about 10 of us that fly there and we have a area over by one of the Hangers with a nice long taxi area that we use. It also leads out over open Farm land. No way will my Drones fly there. I brought my Phantom once when they asked me to and it wouldn't even start, totally dead. That's the way it should be.

I have not submitted any comment yet, I am like you trying to read and watch as much as I can to send a well thought out measured response. If that doesn't work out then there's always " You Can Take My Drone From My Cold Dead Hands!. LOL!!!! Have a good one.

 

[dronerdave]

Got this Email from the AMA a couple days ago:
Dear Members,

On December 26, 2019, the FAA released a proposed rule for remote identification (Remote ID) of UAS. There are several areas of concern with the proposed rule that AMA will push back against, and we need your help advocating for change.
Although the proposal does include AMA's request to exempt fixed flying sites, the rule should also provide community-based organizations (CBOs), such as AMA, more flexibility to establish and maintain fixed flying sites that satisfy Remote ID compliance.
Second, the rule should create a pathway for Remote ID compliance at AMA events and competitions, which might not take place at fixed flying sites. Third, the rule should better accommodate operations not at flying sites to include situations where there is no internet connectivity, because many safe places to fly are in rural areas with little or no service. Finally, the rule should not require modelers to register every aircraft individually.
The FAA is accepting comments on the Remote ID proposal until March 2, 2020. We have requested an extension to the comment period to give everyone more time to weigh in. To help us achieve the best possible outcome on the final rule, it is critically important that all who support the hobby submit a comment.
Please submit a formal comment to the FAA as soon as possible.

 

[Photo Bomber]

Lets do our best to straighten this out. Ken Heron brings up some good points.

 

[Thomas B]

Here’s where to comment. Make your own reply ASAP!

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft...

www.federalregister.gov

 

[sar104]

Lets do our best to straighten this out. Ken Heron brings up some good points.

And this is just the kind of nonsense that gets posted on YouTube and lapped up by people who don't follow the only good advice he gives - to read the proposal. I made it about half way through, still wondering if he was being disingenuous or simply was incapable of comprehending plain English, before giving up. All the points that he tried to make, mostly by misrepresentation, assertion and innuendo, in the first half of the video, were either misleading or simply wrong.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

At this point there are a lot of unanswered questions, questions even the FAA can't answer. There is a section of the NPRM with questions direct at manufacturers about retrofitting existing drones and compliance which I'm not sure they can answer without knowing the full details about the requirements of broadcast and monitoring systems.

 

[Cyclops2100]

I noticed there is a setting in my Mavic air to transmit an id. I don’t know who can see it but the option is there since I got the drone on Christmas.

 

[xspwhite]

For anyone who is confused by this 319-page document. I found this and its really really good.

 

[xspwhite]

At this point there are a lot of unanswered questions, questions even the FAA can't answer. There is a section of the NPRM with questions direct at manufacturers about retrofitting existing drones and compliance which I'm not sure they can answer without knowing the full details about the requirements of broadcast and monitoring systems.

From what I have gathered so far. there will be two different types of drones you can buy.

The lower price drones will give you Limited access to the USS, which means that you will be tethered to a 400-foot radius around and above you.

If you are rich and can afford a drone with Standard capabilities, then you will be able to fly without VLOS.

So start saving your money now so you don't have to take out a second mortgage.

Also, the price you pay for your monthly subscription for take-off and landing privileges will be for each drone you own.

 

[crlmjohnson]

I remember reading somewhere that DJI (in there forum), that they are already design the hardware in the new drones to display the drones ID. and that they have already designed the software to for the hardware to work. They are just waiting on FAA to make it official before they roll out the update.

New drone-to-phone Remote ID

DJI announced today that the Chinese drone maker has been working on a new drone-to-phone Remote ID solution that uses WiFi. The new app was demonstrated with a DJI Mavic Air (DJI, Amazon) and a DJI Mavic 2 Enterprise drone at the International Civil Aviation Organization’s third annual Drone...

forum.dji.com

DJI Introduces Voluntary Flight Identification Options For Drone Pilots - DJI

DJI Introduces Voluntary Flight Identification Options For Drone Pilots

www.dji.com

DJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification - DJI

DJI today demonstrated a direct drone-to-phone, Wi-Fi based solution to remotely identify airborne drones, pioneering an easy way for anyone with a smartphone to monitor nearby drones for enhanced safety, security and peace of mind.

www.dji.com

 

[crlmjohnson]

I think it's an idea, I think it will never get off the ground. No matter what we do there will always be someone who finds a way around a software or hardware block. I also think the FAA will not back down unless a educated, well thought out solution is proposed. The main problem with all of this is it's being written for anything we fly by guys who know nothing about it. I fly Planes, aside from the Engine and Rudder controls inside there's nothing. You can't Geofence it and you can't ground it. Will I stop flying it? Well, unless it takes a nose dive from a 100+ feet into the ground no, I won't.I don't believe I've actually even had it that high in the Air. I also fly at a actual control Towered Airport. The folks there let us fly year around. Now this is Rural Western Iowa so "year around" is kinda taken with a grain of salt.There are about 10 of us that fly there and we have a area over by one of the Hangers with a nice long taxi area that we use. It also leads out over open Farm land. No way will my Drones fly there. I brought my Phantom once when they asked me to and it wouldn't even start, totally dead. That's the way it should be.

I have not submitted any comment yet, I am like you trying to read and watch as much as I can to send a well thought out measured response. If that doesn't work out then there's always " You Can Take My Drone From My Cold Dead Hands!. LOL!!!! Have a good one.

I also fly by a couple of private airports (G airspace) also the airports know that I am there, when I am flying.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

From what I have gathered so far. there will be two different types of drones you can buy.

The lower price drones will give you Limited access to the USS, which means that you will be tethered to a 400-foot radius around and above you.

If you are rich and can afford a drone with Standard capabilities, then you will be able to fly without VLOS.

So start saving your money now so you don't have to take out a second mortgage.

Also, the price you pay for your monthly subscription for take-off and landing privileges will be for each drone you own.

I was thinking more about the technical aspects like message format, signal frequency/strength, if some type of encryption will be require, what testing will be required to prove compliance, etc.

 

[JAW]

If you are rich and can afford a drone with Standard capabilities, then you will be able to fly without VLOS.

Nope. VLOS is still required. The requirements of the proposal are the basis for later flights beyond VLOS

 

[xspwhite]

Nope. VLOS is still required. The requirements of the proposal are the basis for later flights beyond VLOS

It"s been my understanding that Limited Compatibiites will allow for big companies to make deliveries. That means the drones will have to fly at night, over people, and FPV.