DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Our Hobbyist Drone Alternative to Remote ID: VLOS ID

It might be for now :) Meaning there's a lot more to do, to turn fun to hell for hobbyists

Understood which is why I think there should have been a summary of those things geared toward the hobbyist so it's not all jumbled in with the things primarily related to commercial use of drones.
 
Understood which is why I think there should have been a summary of those things geared toward the hobbyist so it's not all jumbled in with the things primarily related to commercial use of drones.
Great idea!
Maybe you should suggest it to FAA as a comment on the proposed new regs!
Do it here:
 
Seems to me that if you don’t agree with with the FAA confining you to a 400’ bubble or worse yet a 400’ bubble at a FRIA site, you have to hope that your equipment will pass muster when they finally decide just what and how the standard RID will be implemented.

A couple of people want to cajole you into believing that DJI has this in the bag and you have nothing to worry about, and it is possible that could be the case. Unfortunately the FAA has not finalized what exactly all elements of RID will be, and I have no knowledge of any drone manufacturer assuring its customers that their drones will be compliant with Standard RID.

So be sure to submit your opinions and ideas to the FAA before March 2nd. Also feel free to express your opinion on this forum in a civil non-belittling manner. Yes you know who I mean!!!
 
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 would agree with the 3500’ software limiter for lateral distance, as i am rarely over 1000’ for most of my photography.

However, I strongly disagree with the 200’ altitude limiter. There have been multiple occassions where I have personally needed to go up into the mid 300’ range to get my shots, especially for bridges and expansive landscapes. The ability to get these unique bird’s eye views is one of the most exciting features of drone photography.
 
I would agree with the 3500’ software limiter for lateral distance, as i am rarely over 1000’ for most of my photography.

However, I strongly disagree with the 200’ altitude limiter. There have been multiple occassions where I have personally needed to go up into the mid 300’ range to get my shots, especially for bridges and expansive landscapes. The ability to get these unique bird’s eye views is one of the most exciting features of drone photography.
With my ARC2s I can keep VLOS for over a mile in the golden hour... so obviously would protest the 3500’ lateral distance.
Be sure to make your comment to FAA. When flying next to cliffs in the mountains near me or at the Mogollon Rim. I often set my drone to the max, about 1600’ to be able to image the top of these areas, always w/in 400’ of the “cliff”.
 
Thanks for working on this. One concern is that don't think we wanna codify VLOS height/distance limits.

One example is flying with lights, as that makes a drone visible much farther away. And in general I just don't think we wanna codify VLOS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustViewerFun
As long as people continue to fly beyond VLOS and or over 400AGL, I feel the FAA will just clamp down harder on the rec fliers. I think 3000' radius is realistic and I rarely fly over 300 but I doubt everybody will be on the same page. The words "flying responsible" means flying w/i VLOS and the FAA wants a way to keep you flying in compliance. So IMO as a group we really need to request something that the FAA would consider reasonable for rec fliers. If they would approve a software upgrade to keep my quad within a reasonable distance that I can live with I'd be OK with that. But I also want a bit more freedom with my racing drones as well and I wish they would allow more than a 400' bubble. I definitely plan add that in my post as well because of a lack of being able to broadcast with my racing drones.
 
The problem with your 3,000ft radius is that it is OK for a Mavic Mini, but not for a big plane.
 
The problem with your 3,000ft radius is that it is OK for a Mavic Mini, but not for a big plane.
Actually in many circumstances it's easier to make way for a full sized plane at a distance than up close. You simply drop down to where the plane wont be. People always think they will hear the plane coming but they can be on you rather quickly. I had a guy flying a Cub come in on me where my quad was flying and less than 100" from my home point. Reaction time was horrible and I felt lucky that my Mavic wasn't in a direct line of collision as he flew past my quad. The object is to see and avoid and I've been doing that flying fixed wing RC's at an active airport for years.

Although I agree that the FAA may think that a drone out 3000' at a hundred feet AGL might interfere with full sized aircraft which requires a rule modification but all my encounters have been more in the range of this so called 400' bubble.
 
Seems to me that if you don’t agree with with the FAA confining you to a 400’ bubble or worse yet a 400’ bubble at a FRIA site, you have to hope that your equipment will pass muster when they finally decide just what and how the standard RID will be implemented.

A couple of people want to cajole you into believing that DJI has this in the bag and you have nothing to worry about, and it is possible that could be the case. Unfortunately the FAA has not finalized what exactly all elements of RID will be, and I have no knowledge of any drone manufacturer assuring its customers that their drones will be compliant with Standard RID.

So be sure to submit your opinions and ideas to the FAA before March 2nd. Also feel free to express your opinion on this forum in a civil non-belittling manner. Yes you know who I mean!!!

Keep in mind that the 400' bubble is a lot more restrictive than a cylinder that is 400' tall and extends 400' in each direction. If the absolute maximum distance is 400' it means that if your altitude is 400' you can't move in any direction horizontally or the drone will be more than 400' away (A2 + B2 = C2)
 
Keep in mind that the 400' bubble is a lot more restrictive than a cylinder that is 400' tall and extends 400' in each direction. If the absolute maximum distance is 400' it means that if your altitude is 400' you can't move in any direction horizontally or the drone will be more than 400' away (A2 + B2 = C2)
Which makes no sense at all. I don't need a distraction like having to calculate how close I am to going out of this silly bubble while flying. It should be a cylinder just like they classify air spaces. All I would have to pay attention to is what the controller is showing on the screen in regard to distance out.

At a minimum I'm requesting a larger cylinder that is reasonible to fly within.
 
I like the ideas that are being discussed and would encourage more back-and-forth dialog to try to hone in on a final proposal. Once it is narrowed down, perhaps someone here would be willing to create a 'draft comment" that we could all uses as a template or boilerplate for our comment submission to the FAA. If we had such a template available, we could just 'cut & paste' the template and use the result as our own comments if we agree 100% with the boilerplate comments, or use it to adjust our own comments to reflect our individual viewpoints. I am afraid that the number of people who provide relevant and respectful comments to the FAA will be limited. However, if we had a resoucre like a well-vetted boilerplate / template available, we could increase the number of comments significantly. Thoughts?
 
Hi, been a member for a little while, lurking, but I only got into quads late last year and I don't usually post much any way. Thought these might be of interest on this subject. Some have been trying to restrict this hobby/business for years and it looks like its starting to pay off for them.
John

Amazon has been working towards this since 2012, this is a 2015 statement.

Senate Bill 2607 - started Oct 2019

Epic.org has been after drones for years from a privacy perspective
 
Thanks for posting that information @JohnnyJ105 !

Isn’t it rather odd that EPIC.org being a group that fights for privacy concerns wants sUAS operators to broadcast their information in the open, thereby exposing them to breech of privacy issues? I could understand them having an issue if it were a case of surveillance by a government entity without getting a bench warrant.

Amazon is an amazing entity unto itself. We’re big, we’re bad, and we want everything our way so we can make even more money. I have a couple of birds I can fly in response to Amazon and I don’t need to register them and RID is not needed as their meaning is well understood.

Now we are seeing more about the bill introduced by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. When it was first introduced it was all about privacy, but a quick scan starts revealing that it is more about opening the airspace for big commercial entities and robbing the airspace from the average citizen that wants to enjoy flying an sUAS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
Thanks for posting that information @JohnnyJ105 !

Isn’t it rather odd that EPIC.org being a group that fights for privacy concerns wants sUAS operators to broadcast their information in the open, thereby exposing them to breech of privacy issues? I could understand them having an issue if it were a case of surveillance by a government entity without getting a bench warrant.

Amazon is an amazing entity unto itself. We’re big, we’re bad, and we want everything our way so we can make even more money. I have a couple of birds I can fly in response to Amazon and I don’t need to register them and RID is not needed as their meaning is well understood.

Now we are seeing more about the bill introduced by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. When it was first introduced it was all about privacy, but a quick scan starts revealing that it is more about opening the airspace for big commercial entities and robbing the airspace from the average citizen that wants to enjoy flying an sUAS.

It's not odd at all, because the information proposed to be broadcast doesn't include the identity of the operator - only the location. So that's not a privacy issue, even if it might barely conceivably be regarded as an operator safety issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
It's not odd at all, because the information proposed to be broadcast doesn't include the identity of the operator - only the location. So that's not a privacy issue, even if it might barely conceivably be regarded as an operator safety issue.
What I was reading in EPIC’s proposal was even beyond what the NPRM is for RID. That is what I found quite odd.
 
What I was reading in EPIC’s proposal was even beyond what the NPRM is for RID. That is what I found quite odd.

Their primary focus is public privacy issues, although what they were proposing back in 2015 was based on other aircraft/vessel identification systems. And section V. does address the privacy issues surrounding hobbyist registration and information broadcast.
 
Their primary focus is public privacy issues, although what they were proposing back in 2015 was based on other aircraft/vessel identification systems. And section V. does address the privacy issues surrounding hobbyist registration and information broadcast.
I read through most of the document up through most of section IV. Should have kept reading through section V where they finally addressed recreational drone use. Their proposals up through section IV would place too much transparency for the small commercial operator doing mapping, building inspections, and photography/videography. I do understand some of their concerns when it comes to government and conglomerate uses for UAV’s though.
 
I read through most of the document up through most of section IV. Should have kept reading through section V where they finally addressed recreational drone use. Their proposals up through section IV would place too much transparency for the small commercial operator doing mapping, building inspections, and photography/videography. I do understand some of their concerns when it comes to government and conglomerate uses for UAV’s though.

Commercial operators are going to use business information in the registration details. I suspect that's about as much of a concern as putting the business name and phone number on commercial vehicles. More an advertising benefit than a privacy worry.
 
They can squawk all they want, but soon there will be big companies sending out mass drones just to collect data on them. Meanwhile, the average citizen will have to fly his drone at an AMA field.

If they want to use this RID system with drones, then it will have to be done through satellite. Internet connections only work well in the city.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,592
Messages
1,554,169
Members
159,595
Latest member
Jared69