Pilot safety aspect of Remote ID?

[nick779]

I started digging into Remote ID rules again as well as upcoming dates and deadlines as I wanted to buy an Air 2S or Mavic 3. Currently all pilots need to comply with Remote ID standards by September 16, 2023. Meaning about 15 months from now.

Even if DJI's recent drones are compatible via software update, does it bother anyone else that this will be public, unencrypted data that can be read (supposedly) by any smartphone and not limited to LE only? I don't care if my drone gets a digital license plate, but there's a HUGE safety risk when anyone with a phone can pinpoint the pilot of a $300-$5000+ drone.

I understand that there are still lawsuits out there fighting this, but it's really holding me back personally from anything bigger despite how much I'd like to have it. What do you guys think?

 

[Zbip57]

DJI's Aeroscope system can see the current location of your drone, the recorded Home Position, and (if you have a GPS enabled device running the DJI app) it can see the pilot's location. This system is allegedly being used in the Ukraine. Here's the result of that:

Rather than an expensive Aeroscope system, the FAA thinks it's a good idea to make Remote ID available to everyone using just a cellphone?

 

[nick779]

DJI's Aeroscope system can see the current location of your drone, the recorded Home Position, and (if you have a GPS enabled device running the DJI app) it can see the pilot's location. This system is allegedly being used in the Ukraine. Here's the result of that:

Rather than an expensive Aeroscope system, the FAA thinks it's a good idea to make Remote ID available to everyone using just a cellphone?

I'm honestly not worried about Aeroscope because of the price hurdle and it's decrypting DJI telemetry. I do have a problem with everyone being able to scan the skies in a ~1 mile radius and being able to pinpoint all pilots in that area as they drive around.

Just seems like an easy theft opportunity. I don't care if it was available to LE, but wonder a bit if that would still create more confrontations in general for people why fly within the rules.

Also, I can't imagine it would be too hard to set something up that detects anything flying near a certain point and automatically sends a FAA complaint with that pilot's Remote ID.

 

[Zbip57]

I'm honestly not worried about Aeroscope [...] I don't care if it was available to LE, [...] I do have a problem with everyone being able to scan the skies in a ~1 mile radius and being able to pinpoint all pilots in that area as they drive around.

Precisely.

 

[Chaosrider]

I started digging into Remote ID rules again as well as upcoming dates and deadlines as I wanted to buy an Air 2S or Mavic 3. Currently all pilots need to comply with Remote ID standards by September 16, 2023. Meaning about 15 months from now.

Even if DJI's recent drones are compatible via software update, does it bother anyone else that this will be public, unencrypted data that can be read (supposedly) by any smartphone and not limited to LE only? I don't care if my drone gets a digital license plate, but there's a HUGE safety risk when anyone with a phone can pinpoint the pilot of a $300-$5000+ drone.

I understand that there are still lawsuits out there fighting this, but it's really holding me back personally from anything bigger despite how much I'd like to have it. What do you guys think?

I'm definitely with you on this one!

I'm happy to have the FAA and law enforcement get access to my location data during a flight, but J Random Citizen? Very bad idea.

Perhaps in the next Congress there will be more of an opportunity to correct this glaring defect.

Other than that, I think RID is a good idea, and it may break loose additional BVLOS options.

But the snitch feature has got to go.

 

[nick779]

I'm honestly surprised this thread has been so quiet, with so much money on the line only 2 people have an opinion? TBH I'd be ok with mandated Aeroscope or an "enhanced" Aeroscope to meet Remote ID specs if it meant keeping the full transmissions from common people. If a common person can ID a drone to report to LE, ok, but there is no reason everyone should be able to pinpoint the pilot. The pilot location should be LE only.

Frankly I greatly dislike the loss of BVLOS for consumer use as I do enjoy some longer distance flights over water/forests, but if the FAA strips consumer rights in favor of BVLOS drone delivery services I really doubt it will go over well with the community.

 

[Chaosrider]

I'm honestly surprised this thread has been so quiet, with so much money on the line only 2 people have an opinion? TBH I'd be ok with mandated Aeroscope or an "enhanced" Aeroscope to meet Remote ID specs if it meant keeping the full transmissions from common people. If a common person can ID a drone to report to LE, ok, but there is no reason everyone should be able to pinpoint the pilot. The pilot location should be LE only.

Frankly I greatly dislike the loss of BVLOS for consumer use as I do enjoy some longer distance flights over water/forests, but if the FAA strips consumer rights in favor of BVLOS drone delivery services I really doubt it will go over well with the community.

You can always count on me for an opinion...particularly on this topic!

Part of the lack of response is that even in just the year that I've been here, this has been discussed quite a bit. To tease out responses, the thread will need to contain something new...

My position on RID/Aeroscope is the same as yours...fine for the FAA and LE, but not for J Random Citizen. Let 'em call the cops if they have a problem.

I think a clean, simple regime for BVLOS for drone delivery services will pave the way for BVLOS for anyone with a 107 ticket. I'm not sure easy legal BVLOS will ever trickle down to Rec users...and I don't think it should.

You refer to the "loss" of BVLOS for "consumer" uses. That implies there was a time when it was legal. When was that time, and under what basis was it legal?

Thx.

 

[nick779]

You can always count on me for an opinion...particularly on this topic!

Part of the lack of response is that even in just the year that I've been here, this has been discussed quite a bit. To tease out responses, the thread will need to contain something new...

My position on RID/Aeroscope is the same as yours...fine for the FAA and LE, but not for J Random Citizen. Let 'em call the cops if they have a problem.

I think a clean, simple regime for BVLOS for drone delivery services will pave the way for BVLOS for anyone with a 107 ticket. I'm not sure easy legal BVLOS will ever trickle down to Rec users...and I don't think it should.

You refer to the "loss" of BVLOS for "consumer" uses. That implies there was a time when it was legal. When was that time, and under what basis was it legal?

Thx.

Understandable.

I read elsewhere that the reason the FAA is making this publicly available was to avoid wiretapping claims.

BVLOS, I suppose my standpoint could be more related to ignorance than anything. I flew FPV back in 2015-2017 and "thought" it was legal or unaccounted for back then. I only dipped back into flying last year when I had heard about the additional stipulations and rules along with Remote ID.

 

[Ty Pilot]

You refer to the "loss" of BVLOS for "consumer" uses. That implies there was a time when it was legal. When was that time, and under what basis was it legal?

Thx.

This has been discussed (a lot) too, but it tends to be buried in those threads about why VLOS was originally conceived.

I'll try to keep this short.

Prior to 'drones' the FAA did not regulate model RC aviation. That was left (here in the US) to the AMA. As such the hobby was self regulated (for over half a century) and did so exceptionally well; as the very nature of flying RC required you to see what you were doing or you would soon lose control and crash. For decades model aviation was relatively safe (as far as the NAS is concerned).

It would shock some to know that many Fixed-wing RC events took place at active airports. Never a problem.

Flash forward to the emergence of the modern drone, for all intents and purposes, this would be the Phantom 1 era - about ten years ago around 2013 or 2014. Yeah there were drones well before then but this was the first mass-produced and sold drone.

Because these drones took little skill to operate, and did not require a pilot to actually see them to remain airborne, well, naturally "things" started happening. Things like crashes into the mouth of 'Old Faithful' at Yellowstone, landing on the aprons of international airports and yada, yada, yada.

It was THAT period were the technology of drones left the boundaries of regulation set up by the AMA and there was nothing on the books at the FAA because this technology came about in a relatively short period of time. So essentially it was never "legal" to fly BVLOS it just wasn't a regulated activity. Until it had to be.

There was no denying what would happen eventually if regulators did not get a handle on drones - and they're still building that handle, if you get my drift. Yeah - RID.

 

[Torque]

This has been discussed (a lot) too, but it tends to be buried in those threads about why VLOS was originally conceived.

I'll try to keep this short.

Prior to 'drones' the FAA did not regulate model RC aviation. That was left (here in the US) to the AMA. As such the hobby was self regulated (for over half a century) and did so exceptionally well; as the very nature of flying RC required you to see what you were doing or you would soon lose control and crash. For decades model aviation was relatively safe (as far as the NAS is concerned).

It would shock some to know that many Fixed-wing RC events took place at active airports. Never a problem.

Flash forward to the emergence of the modern drone, for all intents and purposes, this would be the Phantom 1 era - about ten years ago around 2013 or 2014. Yeah there were drones well before then but this was the first mass-produced and sold drone.

Because these drones took little skill to operate, and did not require a pilot to actually see them to remain airborne, well, naturally "things" started happening. Things like crashes into the mouth of 'Old Faithful' at Yellowstone, landing on the aprons of international airports and yada, yada, yada.

It was THAT period were the technology of drones left the boundaries of regulation set up by the AMA and there was nothing on the books at the FAA because this technology came about in a relatively short period of time. So essentially it was never "legal" to fly BVLOS it just wasn't a regulated activity. Until it had to be.

There was no denying what would happen eventually if regulators did not get a handle on drones - and they're still building that handle, if you get my drift. Yeah - RID.

Yeah, there used to be an RC flying field within a few blocks of SeaTac airport, parallel to the runway. It was pretty cool to land an RC plane with a 737 landing in the background. Drones closed that field.
And prior to DJI we used to strap tiny analog cameras on our RC planes and use analog CC monitors to get these really crappy, static filled images (with lots of lag) which we thought were amazing!
I bought my Phantom 1 when they first came out, joined this group, saw where the future of RC was headed and my fear turned me into one of those drone police. I think I was close to getting a lifetime ban from PhantomPilots before I just walked away. I still lament the restrictions we see more of each year and wished we would have done a better job of policing ourselves.
The FPV drone and the Mini 2 brought me back to these forums.
I just enrolled in a 107 course, but my understanding is that I can still legally fly my DJI FPV drone as long as I have a visual observer standing next to me (as opposed to being a mile away on walkie talkies) who keeps a VLOS on the drone at all times? Has this changed recently?

 

[Chaosrider]

Understandable.

I read elsewhere that the reason the FAA is making this publicly available was to avoid wiretapping claims.

BVLOS, I suppose my standpoint could be more related to ignorance than anything. I flew FPV back in 2015-2017 and "thought" it was legal or unaccounted for back then. I only dipped back into flying last year when I had heard about the additional stipulations and rules along with Remote ID.

Wiretapping claims?

 

[Chaosrider]

This has been discussed (a lot) too, but it tends to be buried in those threads about why VLOS was originally conceived.
I'll try to keep this short.
Prior to 'drones' the FAA did not regulate model RC aviation. That was left (here in the US) to the AMA. As such the hobby was self regulated (for over half a century) and did so exceptionally well; as the very nature of flying RC required you to see what you were doing or you would soon lose control and crash. For decades model aviation was relatively

Prior to 'drones' the FAA did not regulate model RC aviation. That was left (here in the US) to the AMA. As such the hobby was self regulated (for over half a century) and did so exceptionally well; as the very nature of flying RC required you to see what you were doing or you would soon lose control and crash. For decades model aviation was relatively safe (as far as the NAS is conc

safe (as far as the NAS is concerned).
It would shock some to know that many Fixed-wing RC events took place at active airports. Never a problem.
Flash forward to the emergence of the modern drone, for all intents and purposes, this would be the Phantom 1 era - about ten years ago around 2013 or 2014. Yeah there were drones well before then but this was the first mass-produced and sold drone.
Because these drones took little skill to operate, and did not require a pilot to actually see them to remain airborne, well, naturally "things" started happening. Things like crashes into the mouth of 'Old Faithful' at Yellowstone, landing on the aprons of international airports and yada, yada, yada.
It was THAT period were the technology of drones left the boundaries of regulation set up by the AMA and there was nothing on the books at the FAA because this technology came about in a relatively short period of time. So essentially it was never "legal" to fly BVLOS it just wasn't a regulated activity. Until it had to be.
There was no denying what would happen eventually if regulators did not get a handle on drones - and they're still building that handle, if you get my drift. Yeah - RID.

This is an extremely helpful history lesson, thanks!

 

[Chaosrider]

Prior to 'drones' the FAA did not regulate model RC aviation. That was left (here in the US) to the AMA. As such the hobby was self regulated (for over half a century) and did so exceptionally well; as the very nature of flying RC required you to see what you were doing or you would soon lose control and crash. For decades model aviation was relatively safe (as far as the NAS is concerned).

It turns out that I have two RC airports near me, one just east of Carson City airport (but not in the ATA), the other one in the middle of nowhere south of Gardnerville. I'm an AMA member, and I'm going to start going to the events at these fields. I may even learn to fly RC aircraft!

It would shock some to know that many Fixed-wing RC events took place at active airports. Never a problem.

Absolutely. I've been going to regular airshows for 40 years, and outside of major metro areas, it was quite common to see RC events take place alongside the normal full sized aircraft. Never a problem.

Because these drones took little skill to operate

I think this is a key issue. With drones, the aircraft did a lot of the hard work of flying...just staying stable and in the air...all by itself. So any moron with a few hundred bucks could but and fly one. No knowledge and little or no skill? Problems aren't surprising.

Karnack sees all!

My prediction is that BLVOS and other rules will get more relaxed for 107 pilots, and those same rules will get tighter and more restrictive for pure Rec pilots. If you're already a current private pilot, getting the 107 is easy. If not, it takes a fair amount of work. This is exactly the way it should be!

 

[Johnmcl7]

I'm honestly surprised this thread has been so quiet, with so much money on the line only 2 people have an opinion? TBH I'd be ok with mandated Aeroscope or an "enhanced" Aeroscope to meet Remote ID specs if it meant keeping the full transmissions from common people. If a common person can ID a drone to report to LE, ok, but there is no reason everyone should be able to pinpoint the pilot. The pilot location should be LE only.

Frankly I greatly dislike the loss of BVLOS for consumer use as I do enjoy some longer distance flights over water/forests, but if the FAA strips consumer rights in favor of BVLOS drone delivery services I really doubt it will go over well with the community.

I read the original thread but I can't see how it's going to be the problem you think it will, it reminds me of the furore over contactless card limits and the endless fraud it was going to create which never happened. If someone is flying their drone legally it should be within line of sight so it shouldn't be hard to find the operator and any drone I've seen in the wild I've seen the operator without any technology whatsoever. Also why bother with all the hassle of tracking down a drone when most drones are not worth that much when you can just mug someone and nick the phone and car keys which are likely worth far more than a drone.

Anyone can already easily find me when I'm flying my drone and they can also easily see the expensive camera I'm using, my expensive bikes etc. none of which have thankfully been stolen, remoteID doesn't change any of that.

 

[Ty Pilot]

. . . I'm an AMA member, and I'm going to start going to the events at these fields. I may even learn to fly RC aircraft!

Being a GA pilot, I think you would find the challenge quite rewarding, depending of course on how deep you get drawn in to the 'dark side'.

 

[Chaosrider]

I just enrolled in a 107 course, but my understanding is that I can still legally fly my DJI FPV drone as long as I have a visual observer standing next to me (as opposed to being a mile away on walkie talkies) who keeps a VLOS on the drone at all times? Has this changed recently?

Not that I'm aware of, but the effective law is that as long as you are able to see the aircraft at all times, you're fine. You don't have to be staring at it the whole time...or necessarily any of the time...but you have to be able to see it, if you lift the goggles.

Many people will suggest that the raw text of the law says otherwise, and those people sometimes have a point. But the effective law is that as long as you're able to see it, and you're flying in uncontrolled airspace, there aren't going to be any Drone Cops knocking on your door if you fly without a VO.

The FAA is quite sensibly focusing their enforcement resources on things that are statistically dangerous. Also quite sensibly, the enforcement efforts don't sweat any bullets about what conceivably might happen in any given situation.

When it comes to the allocation of risk mitigation resources, probability rules, and possibility drools!

 

[Chaosrider]

Being a GA pilot, I think you would find the challenge quite rewarding, depending of course on how deep you get drawn in to the 'dark side'.

For better or worse, my personal history suggests that I get drawn into dark sides fairly easily...

 

[Chip]

Wiretapping claims?

Yes, using an aeroscope to track drones may violate state and federal wiretapping laws according to four federal agencies., the DOJ. DOT, FCC and DHS.

Check it out:

Advisory on the Application of Federal Laws to the Acquisition and Use of Technology to Detect
and Mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems
August 2020

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/f...ory-uas-detection-mitigation-technologies.pdf

 

[nick779]

Wiretapping claims?

Sorry, wiretapping laws. If the information is available to everyone, it's not considered wiretapping. I'll try to dig up that discussion.

 

[nick779]

It turns out that I have two RC airports near me, one just east of Carson City airport (but not in the ATA), the other one in the middle of nowhere south of Gardnerville. I'm an AMA member, and I'm going to start going to the events at these fields. I may even learn to fly RC aircraft!

Absolutely. I've been going to regular airshows for 40 years, and outside of major metro areas, it was quite common to see RC events take place alongside the normal full sized aircraft. Never a problem.

I think this is a key issue. With drones, the aircraft did a lot of the hard work of flying...just staying stable and in the air...all by itself. So any moron with a few hundred bucks could but and fly one. No knowledge and little or no skill? Problems aren't surprising.

Karnack sees all!

My prediction is that BLVOS and other rules will get more relaxed for 107 pilots, and those same rules will get tighter and more restrictive for pure Rec pilots. If you're already a current private pilot, getting the 107 is easy. If not, it takes a fair amount of work. This is exactly the way it should be!

Tbh I'd be OK with that. Obtain a part 107 for relaxed recreational bvlos.