Our Hobbyist Drone Alternative to Remote ID: VLOS ID

[sar104]

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.

Internet is not required - just the capability to connect via internet if it's available. I thought we'd been over this issue, here and on PP, multiple times.

 

[xspwhite]

Internet is not required - just the capability to connect via internet if it's available. I thought we'd been over this issue, here and on PP, multiple times.

 

[DoomMeister]

Internet is not required - just the capability to connect via internet if it's available. I thought we'd been over this issue, here and on PP, multiple times.

Only true for Standard RID. Limited RID requires an internet connection or a FRIA (AMA field).

 

[sar104]

That's certainly one of the more useful discussions on the subject. His suggestion that broadcast ID should be enough is a reasonable suggestion. The added complexity of the USS part puzzled me from the start, especially since it is only required if an internet connection is available.

The NPRM describes it as one of the elements of the proposal, and details how that would work, but doesn't explicitly explain or justify why it is needed. One can infer that its primary purpose would be to provide flight data to people or organizations outside reception range of direct broadcasts and where there is no ground-based receiver to feed those broadcast data to the network. That's fair enough, but it's not clear to me why that would be an important enough consideration to justify the expense to the FAA of setting up such a system, even if the cost to the user is low.

 

[DoomMeister]

That's certainly one of the more useful discussions on the subject. His suggestion that broadcast ID should be enough is a reasonable suggestion. The added complexity of the USS part puzzled me from the start, especially since it is only required if an internet connection is available.

The NPRM describes it as one of the elements of the proposal, and details how that would work, but doesn't explicitly explain or justify why it is needed. One can infer that its primary purpose would be to provide flight data to people or organizations outside reception range of direct broadcasts and where there is no ground-based receiver to feed those broadcast data to the network. That's fair enough, but it's not clear to me why that would be an important enough consideration to justify the expense to the FAA of setting up such a system, even if the cost to the user is low.

That is one thing we can wholeheartedly agree on @sar104. The whole RID USS is a major waste of money and resources. I think most sUAS systems have Some system sending info to the controller about telemetry that includes GPS position and raw barometric altitude. This could qualify as the broadcast RID. This whole new system that is proposed is basically useless for protecting manned aircraft as the Limited RID only shows position of the controller and not the aircraft (although it should be within that “very generous” 400 foot bubble) so LEO can see you when your drone is spotted flying.

Even with Standard RID a pilot will have to have an app open on a cell phone or other smart device to be able to receive the broadcast signal which will likely be only a few mW in strength to comply with FCC Part 15 regulations. At best probably a half mile range and at 100mph or more airspeed the reaction time would be minimal and that is if the pilot included it in the instrument scan about every 5 seconds.

 

[sar104]

That is one thing we can wholeheartedly agree on @sar104. The whole RID USS is a major waste of money and resources. I think most sUAS systems have Some system sending info to the controller about telemetry that includes GPS position and raw barometric altitude. This could qualify as the broadcast RID. This whole new system that is proposed is basically useless for protecting manned aircraft as the Limited RID only shows position of the controller and not the aircraft (although it should be within that “very generous” 400 foot bubble) so LEO can see you when your drone is spotted flying.

Even with Standard RID a pilot will have to have an app open on a cell phone or other smart device to be able to receive the broadcast signal which will likely be only a few mW in strength to comply with FCC Part 15 regulations. At best probably a half mile range and at 100mph or more airspeed the reaction time would be minimal and that is if the pilot included it in the instrument scan about every 5 seconds.

I'm not sure I'm ready to dismiss quite so completely, but I would like to see a more detailed justification.

One correction - under limited Remote ID the aircraft position is included in the data elements.

And in terms of broadcast power - there's no reason for that to be less than the existing radio transmissions from the aircraft, which are good for several miles. But even so, your argument about limited range is likely to be one of the reasons they want the USS system, since that isn't range-limited at all if there is connectivity available, which is likely to be the case in any kind of congested airspace.

 

[sar104]

I haven't seen this posted over here yet, but it appears to be DJI's position on the proposal:

DJI - Official Website

DJI technology empowers us to see the future of possible. Learn about our consumer drones like DJI Mavic 3 Pro, DJI Mini 4 Pro, DJI Air 3. Handheld products like Osmo Action 4 and Pocket 2 capture smooth photo and video. Our Ronin camera stabilizers and Inspire drones are professional...

content.dji.com

Schulman is also arguing against the USS part of the proposed requirement.

 

[Thomas B]

I haven't seen this posted over here yet, but it appears to be DJI's position on the proposal:

DJI - Official Website

DJI technology empowers us to see the future of possible. Learn about our consumer drones like DJI Mavic 3 Pro, DJI Mini 4 Pro, DJI Air 3. Handheld products like Osmo Action 4 and Pocket 2 capture smooth photo and video. Our Ronin camera stabilizers and Inspire drones are professional...

content.dji.com

Schulman is also arguing against the USS part of the proposed requirement.

Thanks for the link.
As an overview of the DJI article, they note they mention 2 things that got my attention.
1) they (DJI) have already demonstrated 2 technologies they already used to ID drones... why reinvent the wheel?
2) similar types of ID systems are not required on the most dangerous moving “vehicle” type... the automobile... which is involved in the death, disability, and financially ruinous situations for 100’s of thousand of U.S. citizens every year... maybe they should focus on a real and existing problem as FAA is a part of DOT.

 

[sar104]

Thanks for the link.
As an overview of the DJI article, they note they mention 2 things that got my attention.
1) they (DJI) have already demonstrated 2 technologies they already used to ID drones... why reinvent the wheel?
2) similar types of ID systems are not required on the most dangerous moving “vehicle” type... the automobile... which is involved in the death, disability, and financially ruinous situations for 100’s of thousand of U.S. citizens every year... maybe they should focus on a real and existing problem as FAA is a part of DOT.

(1) is pertinent, although the technology required to communicate with a USS is even easier for them to implement since the aircraft is already effectively connected to the internet when the controlling mobile device has service.

(2) is not really a valid comparison, since remote ID would not address any of the major road hazards that lead to accidents. Road traffic is already well organized and it's not the lack of detection or identification of traffic that causes problems.

 

[Thomas B]

(1) is pertinent, although the technology required to communicate with a USS is even easier for them to implement since the aircraft is already effectively connected to the internet when the controlling mobile device has service.

(2) is not really a valid comparison, since remote ID would not address any of the major road hazards that lead to accidents. Road traffic is already well organized and it's not the lack of detection or identification of traffic that causes problems.

Have to agree, but must note that, like the apparent majority of crashes and flyaways... the overwhelming majority of auto accidents are drivers error also... my point was that the consequences are much more severe and demonstrated to occur, but no action has been taken by the same agency.

 

[dronerdave]

I'd be fine with a method that transmits my location if I could continue to fly VLOS/400AGL as the rules currently read. I wouldn't even care if it broadcasts where I've been in the past while out of range of a a RID receiver once I do fly within range. Like a black box so to speak. This should only scare the ones who break the current rules.

 

[sar104]

Have to agree, but must note that, like the apparent majority of crashes and flyaways... the overwhelming majority of auto accidents are drivers error also... my point was that the consequences are much more severe and demonstrated to occur, but no action has been taken by the same agency.

Agreed - but what kind of action would that be, and does it exclude attempting to follow the will of Congress to integrate sUAS into the NAS?

 

[Deleted member 113944]

It really won't matter what comment you make. The FAA will "do as it's told" by the major players in the delivery industry, (we know who they are). That will include free flight over any terrain, people and equipment that isn't a permanent "avoid" or temporary via NOTAMs. The "exclusions" in the proposal will not help any recreational owner and the stupidity of _requiring_ internet access in order to fly is a horrible overreach because if you and I can't connect then, technically they can't either so they can't deliver their stuff. But they'll get around that by slaving their drones to satellites in those regions which will squeeze out the hobbyist on cost alone.

Just fly your drones where you can but do it safely... The administrative overhead on the FAA will be so high tracking down "illegal" flights will cripple them and their budget.

What exactly does the FAA wish to accomplish with remote identification?
200 feet vertical would affect the return to home feature of people in an urban area, or very tall trees in mountains.

Seems they could just use data sync up from an app, after a flight. The drones already send data to satellite.

 

[sar104]

What exactly does the FAA wish to accomplish with remote identification?
200 feet vertical would affect the return to home feature of people in an urban area, or very tall trees in mountains.

Seems they could just use data sync up from an app, after a flight. The drones already send data to satellite.

The purpose is real time sUAS traffic location and identification, both for traffic (manned and sUAS) deconfliction and for law enforcement location of operators if needed. So post flight data sync isn't going to be of any use for either of those.

Where did the 200 ft limit come from - that's not in the proposal?

 

[Thomas B]

Agreed - but what kind of action would that be, and does it exclude attempting to follow the will of Congress to integrate sUAS into the NAS?

Of course not. No problem with the congressional mandate.... I have lodged my concerns with FAA/DOT on the proposal. Comment was meant only to say that there are more dangerous activities with large human mortality that should be addressed first.

 

[sar104]

Of course not. No problem with the congressional mandate.... I have lodged my concerns with FAA/DOT on the proposal. Comment was meant only to say that there are more dangerous activities with large human mortality that should be addressed first.

I thought that's what you meant, but again - if we wait until all other hazards in the country are fixed then this one is never going to be addressed until it reaches that level - probably the first time a drone accidentally brings down an aircraft. At which point the reaction would be far worse. Road safety, for example, already soaks up billions of dollars per year, and there is no reason to put the airspace issue on hold just because vehicles still cause fatalities.

 

[Deleted member 113944]

The purpose is real time sUAS traffic location and identification, both for traffic (manned and sUAS) deconfliction and for law enforcement location of operators if needed. So post flight data sync isn't going to be of any use for either of those.

Where did the 200 ft limit come from - that's not in the proposal?

Thank you.
I wasn't aware that there was a problem with drones and manned craft crossing paths. Makes sense after flight data wouldn't work for tracking people, drones. ?

 

[DoomMeister]

I thought that's what you meant, but again - if we wait until all other hazards in the country are fixed then this one is never going to be addressed until it reaches that level - probably the first time a drone accidentally brings down an aircraft. At which point the reaction would be far worse. Road safety, for example, already soaks up billions of dollars per year, and there is no reason to put the airspace issue on hold just because vehicles still cause fatalities.

The only problem with sUAS integration into the NAS at this point is that big business isn’t making big bucks on it, therefore Congress hasn’t given return on investment to the major players in this. All of their lobbying thus far has led to the NPRM we are now facing and it only looks to get even more stringent and expensive with the regulations that will follow these.

If big business wants to play the game, put them above 400’ AGL, use ADS-B and an IFF transponder set to a code that ID’s them as a UAS. Leave the lower altitudes for hobby and small business much as it is now.

 

[Thomas B]

The only problem with sUAS integration into the NAS at this point is that big business isn’t making big bucks on it, therefore Congress hasn’t given return on investment to the major players in this. All of their lobbying thus far has led to the NPRM we are now facing and it only looks to get even more stringent and expensive with the regulations that will follow these.

If big business wants to play the game, put them above 400’ AGL, use ADS-B and an IFF transponder set to a code that ID’s them as a UAS. Leave the lower altitudes for hobby and small business much as it is now.

Not a bad thought!

 

[DoomMeister]

Not a bad thought!

Yep, put them up in airspace with a higher concentration of manned aircraft and see how well that floats with Air Transport and General Aviation. This bull dozing of small business and recreational flying is not cricket as my friends across the pond would say.