Remote ID Coming Soon?

[ajkm]

In my opinion, one of the first steps is for professional/serious drone pilots to start strongly discouraging the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of the “buy and fly” crowd that has led to regulation in the first place.

Even in this forum, videos showing and posts talking about “endurance tests”, DJI “taking over” a drone in a TFR, “fly always” (which are almost always pilot error), inner city flights, and the like all get positive reviews and comments, while anyone who challenges the BVLOS is told that they’re being “police”, “party poopers”, and are unwelcome. That needs to change.

 

[JAW]

...........It's like when Windows Vista had a lot of government spyware because of 9/11......

really?

 

[dougiefresh27]

Are there really that many people flying drones in an unsafe manner that jeopardizes the safety of others? I know there are always a few bad eggs out there. I do my very best to fly within the rules and laws 100% but this sounds like a major undertaking. Would it mean that we are constantly being surveiled or that the ability to find out after the fact who did something wrong.

 

[kensteele]

In my opinion, one of the first steps is for professional/serious drone pilots to start strongly discouraging the reckless and irresponsible behaviour of the “buy and fly” crowd that has led to regulation in the first place.

Even in this forum, videos showing and posts talking about “endurance tests”, DJI “taking over” a drone in a TFR, “fly always” (which are almost always pilot error), inner city flights, and the like all get positive reviews and comments, while anyone who challenges the BVLOS is told that they’re being “police”, “party poopers”, and are unwelcome. That needs to change.

is that what we refer to fellow drone pilots as the "buy and fly" crowd? they're responsible for faa regulations? seriously? ?

 

[gnirtS]

Like it or not, flying a DJI drone you already have remote ID which you cannot turn off or disable.
A large amount of telemetry is broadcast on the downlink unencrypted. Its how Aeroscope works.

3rd parties have also built their own version of it for DJI and other brand drones. Its fairly widespread and deployed at sporting events and other gatherings.

The new EASA rules also mandate ID on the signal.

 

[kensteele]

Are there really that many people flying drones in an unsafe manner that jeopardizes the safety of others?

no there isn't. you can't keep calling something unsafe but no damage, injuries, or deaths ever happen. you know what's unsafe? driving a car is unsafe. does anyone here refer to driving a vehicle unsafe? the use of the word unsafe is being thrown around to try to ostracize a certain segment of the drone crowd. to be honest, nobody cares. it's sorta getting old actually. i've never seen anyone fly unsafe, have you?

 

[AntDX316]

really?

I didn't think it was true but it was. A lot of apps have slowed down and such. If you were on HDD on a slow PC it was like at least 3x slower than it was on XP. The latest PCs were unaffected. I'm a gamer so I play the latest games. You have to have Vista otherwise you can't play them with the latest DirectX.

 

[WithTheBirds]

How much battery life will the new drones lose? It's like when Windows Vista had a lot of government spyware because of 9/11. Windows XP is better but development for that stopped and you are forced to go Windows 10 with NVME.

An insignificant amount (you won't notice an impact on flight time). An additional 5 grams in weight and <150mw power consumption for a receiver (based on published specifications for existing hardware.

A transmitter would be a different story. Minimum transmission power to meet standard is >7W.

 

[AntDX316]

An insignificant amount (you won't notice an impact on flight time). An additional 5 grams in weight and <150mw power consumption for a receiver (based on published specifications for existing hardware.

A transmitter would be a different story. Minimum transmission power to meet standard is >7W.

But with ADSB sending telemetry you cannot turn it off? Therefore if you break 400 feet, fly over the highways at any time, etc. you are pretty much lit up to the FAAs radar like a Christmas tree on Christmas night at Rockefeller Center? Maybe not as big as the NYC Ball dropping on New Year's Eve but at least some bright strobe out in the distance than not being known at all that is recorded and can be looked up in the future like surveillance video recordings. I mean, the fact other aircraft can see you and you can see them, you should be cleared to fly greater than 1640ft as the only point of not flying more than 400ft is due to other aircraft. An obsolete law prior to not having ADSB. Having an ADSB drone capable of not being turned off should be cleared of the 400-foot altitude restriction otherwise people will just get drones that don't have ADSB on the black market.

Hearing about people getting tickets in the mail because their drones have been recorded to break certain limits like speed traps and toll avoidance, if someone else picks up your drone and does it you still get blamed.

“Remote ID is the ability of a UAS in flight to provide identification information that can be received by other parties.” “Remote ID would assist the FAA, law enforcement, and Federal security agencies when a UAS appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where the drone is not allowed to fly.” “Remote ID is the next step to enable safe, routine drone operations across our nation. This capability will enhance safety and security by allowing the FAA, law enforcement, and Federal security agencies to identify drones flying in their jurisdiction.”

 

[WithTheBirds]

But with ADSB sending telemetry you cannot turn it off? Therefore if you break 400 feet, fly over the highways at any time, etc. you are pretty much lit up to the FAAs radar like a Christmas tree on Christmas night at Rockefeller Center? Maybe not as big as the NYC Ball dropping on New Year's Eve but at least some bright strobe out in the distance than not being known at all that is recorded and can be looked up in the future like surveillance video recordings. I mean, the fact other aircraft can see you and you can see them, you should be cleared to fly greater than 1640ft as the only point of not flying more than 400ft is due to other aircraft. An obsolete law prior to not having ADSB. Having an ADSB drone capable of not being turned off should be cleared of the 400-foot altitude restriction otherwise people will just get drones that don't have ADSB on the black market.

Hearing about people getting tickets in the mail because their drones have been recorded to break certain limits like speed traps and toll avoidance, if someone else picks up your drone and does it you still get blamed.

“Remote ID is the ability of a UAS in flight to provide identification information that can be received by other parties.” “Remote ID would assist the FAA, law enforcement, and Federal security agencies when a UAS appears to be flying in an unsafe manner or where the drone is not allowed to fly.” “Remote ID is the next step to enable safe, routine drone operations across our nation. This capability will enhance safety and security by allowing the FAA, law enforcement, and Federal security agencies to identify drones flying in their jurisdiction.”

This seems to have nothing to do with my response to your original question- i.e. the potential impact of the ADS-B power consumption.

I am interested to learn where you are quoting from. In any case to the extent your concern now relates to the potential of drone operations being monitored by authorities this is a reality now even absent ADS-B implementation. Aeroscope being just one example of an existing means to monitor operation of DJI drones.

I can’t see how drones running ADS-B transmitters might be a reality any time soon. The minimum transmitter power required by the current regs is 7w with larger aircraft running 350W units to allow reliable monitoring by ATC. The technological challenges here are obvious impediments. Can you imagine the congestion on ATC monitoring systems if every drone in the air was visible?

 

[sar104]

Even though I fly VERY conservatively, and almost always in out of the way places, every time I see this sort of never ending encroachment on our flying hobby, I am always very happy that I still have my trusty old F450 Flamewheel

Fair enough, but the problem is due to the "never ending encroachment" by ignorant or reckless fliers into controlled airspace or other locations prohibited by law, so what did you expect?

 

[AntDX316]

This seems to have nothing to do with my response to your original question- i.e. the potential impact of the ADS-B power consumption.

I am interested to learn where you are quoting from. In any case to the extent your concern now relates to the potential of drone operations being monitored by authorities this is a reality now even absent ADS-B implementation. Aeroscope being just one example of an existing means to monitor operation of DJI drones.

I can’t see how drones running ADS-B transmitters might be a reality any time soon. The minimum transmitter power required by the current regs is 7w with larger aircraft running 350W units to allow reliable monitoring by ATC. The technological challenges here are obvious impediments. Can you imagine the congestion on ATC monitoring systems if every drone in the air was visible?

It's where the system uploads back data to some server where people can get busted later. Other aircrafts track and record then people see what drones were flying and can prosecute. If you do 70mph in a 65mph you are in violation even if everyone else is doing 75mph you are still subject to get a ticket but I assume the only way they can track is if the drone is registered to a physical address. Having UUIDs with names people chose isn't good as they can use other people's names. I don't think they can really prosecute unless someone weaponized the drone attacking people and/or property and now the FBI is using all their latest tech strategies to find the maker and operator, basically, if someone does 250mph for many many miles on busy public US highways.

I think Airsense is cool. Every time I hear aircraft, I keep constantly looking for it and if I can't find it I get as low as I can because even below 400ft with no NFZ aircraft still fly.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Your probably overthinking this. Why do you suspect DJI will be including ADS-B transmitters?

 

[AntDX316]

Your probably overthinking this. Why do you suspect DJI will be including ADS-B transmitters?

To keep the skies safer by ensuring regulations are being met. As long as people are as intelligent as going through a highway speed red light zone during a power out, everything should be ok.

 

[WithTheBirds]

To keep the skies safer by ensuring regulations are being met.

That would be a reason for DJI to do it- why do you thing it will happen (for the Mavic specifically)? There are technical limitations which suggest it can’t any time soon. Flight time would be significantly impacted.

 

[Rangerider]

Are there really that many people flying drones in an unsafe manner that jeopardizes the safety of others? I know there are always a few bad eggs out there. I do my very best to fly within the rules and laws 100% but this sounds like a major undertaking. Would it mean that we are constantly being surveiled or that the ability to find out after the fact who did something wrong.

As far as I can tell, there have been no drone strikes on manned aircraft other than one incident with a helicopter. There have been hundreds of reported near air misses by commercial aircraft but no collisions. There are more bird strikes by far reported every year. I've had several bird strikes and a lightning strike while flying. How many near misses with kites, balloons, etc? Lots. Most of the near misses are between other manned aircraft of which I have seen at least two. How about wake turbulence, wind shear, hail, icing, etc? Flying has inherent dangers. I'm not saying there shouldn't be safety concerns and some rules for UAV's but it is mostly over-reaction if you ask me. The FAA is simply protecting the developing commercial drone business from competition from the private sector in my opinion with a lot of these rules. One known reported collision with drone & airplane. This is the only one in North America!

 

[sar104]

As far as I can tell, there have been no drone strikes on manned aircraft other than one incident with a helicopter. There have been hundreds of reported near air misses by commercial aircraft but no collisions. There are more bird strikes by far reported every year. I've had several bird strikes and a lightning strike while flying. How many near misses with kites, balloons, etc? Lots. Most of the near misses are between other manned aircraft of which I have seen at least two. How about wake turbulence, wind shear, hail, icing, etc? Flying has inherent dangers. I'm not saying there shouldn't be safety concerns and some rules for UAV's but it is mostly over-reaction if you ask me. The FAA is simply protecting the developing commercial drone business from competition from the private sector in my opinion with a lot of these rules. One known reported collision with drone & airplane. This is the only one in North America!

Which rules do you think are overreactions?

 

[Rangerider]

Which rules do you think are overreactions?

I'll leave that to you. Which ones do you think aren't?

 

[sar104]

I'll leave that to you. Which ones do you think aren't?

Right - I thought that might be the game. Drop some completely unsupported assertions and then refuse to elaborate or defend them.

 

[Rangerider]

As a former pilot with many thousands of hours in the air, I can see how the Remote ID would possibly be good information to have in the cockpit especially when flying at lower altitudes. Let the faster moving, overtaking aircraft give way to the slower flying drones just like motorized vehicles have to give way to bicycle drivers on the road. Remote ID might help in this respect. I am not opposed to it but see its potential abuse as outweighing the benefits to manned aircraft. Remote ID is clearly for use by police and manned aircraft as drones are seen as the threat. Just one more piece of gear to add to the airplane increasing cost for very questionable safety enhancements as things currently are. Perhaps in the future with many thousands of commercial drones plying the sky close to the earth it will be relevant to protect the commercial drones from the non-commercial drones.