Remote ID function for FAA

[Chip]

Aerial Armor Drone Detection Systems | UAV Detection & Drone Security System | Detect Intruders!

World's leading UAV & drone detection systems since 2015. Our drone detection services are perfect for a variety of sports stadiums, concert venues, and other large events. Give us a call today!

www.aerialarmor.com

Our Drone Detection App

Drone detection made easy with our mobile application. A premium drone detection app available on both Apple and Android devices for security professionals only.

Receive automated drone alerts via text message within seconds of an intrusion.
Access live drone detections on the go so you can promptly retrieve info you need. Perfect for busy security personnel during large events.

***Our drone detection app is only available to security professionals who subscribe to our data service. Please contact us if you have any questions.

 

[Chip]

Is this the post?

My 16-year-old was the PIC this morning at Rehobeth Beach, Delaware. He had the Mini2 up about 10 minutes and was about 3/4 of a mile out to sea when a uniformed agent accompanied by local PD arrived at our launch site. Both were extremely cordial.

They asked if we knew about the temporary flight restrictions and when we told him we did not, they advised POTUS was in town and his summer beach house was less than a mile north of us on the beach.

I was amazed (and reassured) that they would be able to detect the aircraft but even more amazed at how quickly they were able to determine and respond to the launch site as well.

I hope all law-enforcement encounters go this smoothly. Lesson learned: Check the B4UFLY app before launch.

If so, it sounds pretty decent to me. They missed a TFR about the pres traveling. I can see that. It wasn't like they were hauled off to Gitmo.

Yes, good find, that sounds familiar. I agree with you that it seems a very legitimate use of drone detection (national security) and very professional encounter.

I'm thinking along the same lines. When I see a post that vaguely refers to police intervention reports I want to understand what was actually posted. It is easy to let the imagination go wild and conger up all kinds of egregious circumstances. This is the type of rhetoric that creates hyperbolic reactionary clusters of nonsense. Given what is going on this is the last thing we need. Honest and complete anecdotal iteration is critical to a reasonable assessment of processes in place.

I basically agree with you although I think a slight splash of rhetorical flourish is okay every now and then! My earlier reference to in-person encounters was to support why I believed some drone flights are being tracked and investigated not to suggest they were all unnecessary or improper.

 

[lookout]

Yes, good find, that sounds familiar. I agree with you that it seems a very legitimate use of drone detection (national security) and very professional encounter.

I basically agree with you although I think a slight splash of rhetorical flourish is okay every now and then! My earlier reference to in-person encounters was to support why I believed some drone flights are being tracked and investigated not to suggest they were all unnecessary or improper.

There was one drone sighting where they could pick up a 1' in the Washington DC SFRA. If they really want to find you, they have all the equipment, they don't need remote id. Especially in a tfr or sfra.

 

[SmilingOgre]

Yes, good find, that sounds familiar. I agree with you that it seems a very legitimate use of drone detection (national security) and very professional encounter.

I basically agree with you although I think a slight splash of rhetorical flourish is okay every now and then! My earlier reference to in-person encounters was to support why I believed some drone flights are being tracked and investigated not to suggest they were all unnecessary or improper.

Got ya! I'm sure I project a little too in reading some posts. I have no intrinsic love for gooberment as I have watched their performance for many years now. The FAA does an amazing job of keeping air traffic from reaching out and touching each other but they are not immune to political whim and outside pressure. Obviously I'm watching all of this unfold with a critical eye and great interest. Very much appreciate you clearing this up for me!

 

[RangerEd]

There is no expected forensic capabilities built into RID. The only way for someone to be able to track the drone is if they have an app that tracks and stores data. And they have to have that app open, running, and storing. There will be no clearinghouse for RID broadcasts.

It will be incumbent upon the app user to record the flight and give it to any responding police.

As far as the drone hovering over a hot tub, it's been my experience that this is usually either totally made up (someone who hates drones), or completely overblown by the "victim". I'm not saying it didn't happen, but unless there is evidence, I have my doubts. Too many people have cried wolf over drones (thanks to press, politicians, and manned pilots), that it's dubious when complaints like this arise.

I can see the time when a guy sets up a receiver at his house and starts posting the real time data online. Then he's going to get others to do the same, and soon enough you have an array of these receivers covering an area, a region, and the whole country. Somebody will make money out of the data at some point.

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

I think there's a more-than-even chance that within a year or two we will see large-scale data aggregation of RID broadcasts, not by the FAA, but by service companies that will then publish said information to subscribers or perhaps even the public. This might be similar to FlightAware or FlightRadar24 where volunteers become data collectors who in turn feed that data to the service for publication. I run a PiAware station collecting ADS-B from manned aircraft, which in turn is fed to both systems mentioned above. The vast majority of data in these systems comes from volunteers.
So, would this be actionable intelligence for he FAA? Maybe. My bigger concern would be that the data for a given ID could be looked at as a whole, including frequent operation locations, i.e., home or office. this would allow anyone to locate a given drone ID and by extension, a pilot.

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

I can see the time when a guy sets up a receiver at his house and starts posting the real time data online. Then he's going to get others to do the same, and soon enough you have an array of these receivers covering an area, a region, and the whole country. Somebody will make money out of the data at some point.

We were apparently writing the same thing at the same time. I wouldn't be surprised if FlightAware jumped on this particular bandwagon.

 

[smashse]

I think there's a more-than-even chance that within a year or two we will see large-scale data aggregation of RID broadcasts, not by the FAA, but by service companies that will then publish said information to subscribers or perhaps even the public. This might be similar to FlightAware or FlightRadar24 where volunteers become data collectors who in turn feed that data to the service for publication. I run a PiAware station collecting ADS-B from manned aircraft, which in turn is fed to both systems mentioned above. The vast majority of data in these systems comes from volunteers.
So, would this be actionable intelligence for he FAA? Maybe. My bigger concern would be that the data for a given ID could be looked at as a whole, including frequent operation locations, i.e., home or office. this would allow anyone to locate a given drone ID and by extension, a pilot.

I highly doubt that it would be actionable, as there is no chain of custody. I totally agree that there will be some ADSBExchange type sites that run completely off of sent in data, but DAs won't be able to do anything with it, it is too easy to spoof and will only be informational. I could easily spoof data to ADSBExchange or Flightaware once I had a device sending to them, adding more by hand would be easy.

And an aeroscope is only like $10k. When you have YouTubers and Bitcoin people spending $70k+ on a meme or $12K on a weekend music festival, saying it is out of reach of most people while true, doesn't mean it is out of reach for the general public. But I digress... Aeroscope isn't the Government, it is DJI using DJI Databases. Sure the gov't uses Aeroscope, but they don't control it nor specify what data is sent.

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

I highly doubt that it would be actionable, as there is no chain of custody. I totally agree that there will be some ADSBExchange type sites that run completely off of sent in data, but DAs won't be able to do anything with it, it is too easy to spoof and will only be informational. I could easily spoof data to ADSBExchange or Flightaware once I had a device sending to them, adding more by hand would be easy.

And an aeroscope is only like $10k. When you have YouTubers and Bitcoin people spending $70k+ on a meme or $12K on a weekend music festival, saying it is out of reach of most people while true, doesn't mean it is out of reach for the general public. But I digress... Aeroscope isn't the Government, it is DJI using DJI Databases. Sure the gov't uses Aeroscope, but they don't control it nor specify what data is sent.

I don't think a user of Aeroscope is ever going to be a problem for me. Nor do I think the FAA is ever going to object to my operations. My very real concern is the public availability of location data, especially as it concerns my person. One cannot legally spoof or otherwise alter the ADS-B data packets, and presumably the RID data, so anyone who wishes to be legal will be subject to significant risk I think. Even if you "flood the zone" with spurious data (In my experience, the FCC has reacted poorly to this sort of thing) your "real" location data is still in there and could easily be revealed by even a cursory look.

 

[smashse]

I don't think a user of Aeroscope is ever going to be a problem for me. Nor do I think the FAA is ever going to object to my operations. My very real concern is the public availability of location data, especially as it concerns my person. One cannot legally spoof or otherwise alter the ADS-B data packets, and presumably the RID data, so anyone who wishes to be legal will be subject to significant risk I think.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying I could spoof. I can spoof the data going to ADSBExchange, FlightAware, etc. So the public websites that track planes will probably track drones at some point, I.E. RIDExchange/Droneaware, but the gov't won't be able to use that for enforcement because the data sent to those entities, by a person not flying anything, is too easy to spoof and too easy/real of a problem. This has NOTHING to do with the RID packets the drone would be transmitting. This would not happen at the drone, but rather to input an illegal-looking flight that never happened, proving it could not be used in court. This assumes that the FAA is not collecting the data themselves, and using sites that rely on ordinary citizens to upload, I.E. FlightAware, ADSBExchange, etc.

Nothing illegal about that at all (it may be against the terms and conditions of the website, but that's another story).

So my comment was that Law Enforcement/FAA won't be able to use RID tracking websites for enforcement, I.E. flying in a TFR or no fly zone, flying outside of limits, etc. And unfortunately, the FAA has decided that public access to location data is something they want, so unless you are flying at an authorized FAA field, you will be required to transmit RID, which anyone with a cell phone can then get location data from. It's already been decided and it isn't just a DJI issue, it is all drones to be legal.

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying I could spoof. I can spoof the data going to ADSBExchange, FlightAware, etc. So the public websites that track planes will probably track drones at some point, I.E. RIDExchange/Droneaware, but the gov't won't be able to use that for enforcement because the data sent to those entities, by a person not flying anything, is too easy to spoof and too easy/real of a problem. This has NOTHING to do with the RID packets the drone would be transmitting. This would not happen at the drone, but rather to input an illegal-looking flight that never happened, proving it could not be used in court. This assumes that the FAA is not collecting the data themselves, and using sites that rely on ordinary citizens to upload, I.E. FlightAware, ADSBExchange, etc.

Nothing illegal about that at all (it may be against the terms and conditions of the website, but that's another story).

So my comment was that Law Enforcement/FAA won't be able to use RID tracking websites for enforcement, I.E. flying in a TFR or no fly zone, flying outside of limits, etc. And unfortunately, the FAA has decided that public access to location data is something they want, so unless you are flying at an authorized FAA field, you will be required to transmit RID, which anyone with a cell phone can then get location data from. It's already been decided and it isn't just a DJI issue, it is all drones to be legal.

Yes, I misinterpreted your reference to spoofing. You aren't suggesting doing it, although you did say you could, but rather that anyone else could. In any case, you are concerning yourself with legal and regulatory concerns, and in that context you are certainly correct: an agency could not use publicly-sourced data for enforcement purposes. But as I said, for me this is far more an issue of personal security.

Bad actors can and will use location data to see where a particular drone and pilot operate over time. If some hothead sees data indicating a drone flew over his house at some point, he can then expand the search to all places that aircraft/pilot has operated in the past. The patterns will quickly emerge to give a very clear picture of where that aircraft spends its time. For example, if the drone gets firmware updates at home/office, this will be displayed in a very obvious way. Given that RID is not a law, I suspect the FAA can and will rescind the more egregious elements of it if and when something unfortunate occurs as a result of this significant violation of pilot privacy rights. Making pilot location public is a patently bad idea.

 

[Vic Moss]

I can see the time when a guy sets up a receiver at his house and starts posting the real time data online. Then he's going to get others to do the same, and soon enough you have an array of these receivers covering an area, a region, and the whole country. Somebody will make money out of the data at some point.

Very possible, but not something I'm going to lose sleep over. I really don't care if people have known where I fly, and the FAA won't do anything about it anyway. Flight records don't show who was flying.

 

[SethB]

Bad actors can and will use location data to see where a particular drone and pilot operate over time. If some hothead sees data indicating a drone flew over his house at some point, he can then expand the search to all places that aircraft/pilot has operated in the past. The patterns will quickly emerge to give a very clear picture of where that aircraft spends its time. For example, if the drone gets firmware updates at home/office, this will be displayed in a very obvious way…

(emphasis added)
In my brief experience with RID on an Air 2s/RC-N1 controller/iPad Mini5, one does not have to have location services/GPS enabled for updates.

In that state Fly will report unable to launch. Could that mean that one need not be broadcasting RID info for updates?

 

[salimedwardo]

One thing to know is that there are currently zero regulations in place governing collection, storage, distribution or use of UAV remote id data.

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

One thing to know is that there are currently zero regulations in place governing collection, storage, distribution or use of UAV remote id data.

Given that the data will be broadcast, there will be no reasonable right to privacy. The data will be considered public domain.

 

[salimedwardo]

One thing to know is that there are currently zero regulations fiziksel sunucu satın al in place governing collection, storage, distribution or use of UAV remote id data.

 

[Torque]

RID is the Y2K of the drone world.

 

[lookout]

RID is the Y2K of the drone world.

People from the early 1900s will see a drone and really freak out.

 

[lookout]

UAS Declaration of Compliance

UAS Declaration of Compliance

uasdoc.faa.gov

DJI mavic pro platinum is now on the standard remote ID list. Most likely it has the full compliance with Bluetooth and wifi embedded chip whereas the original m1p is spotty on that. And this is probably with a firmware update.

 

[SethB]

UAS Declaration of Compliance

UAS Declaration of Compliance

uasdoc.faa.gov

DJI mavic pro platinum is now on the standard remote ID list. Most likely it has the full compliance with Bluetooth and wifi embedded chip whereas the original m1p is spotty on that. And this is probably with a firmware update.

Wow, that is big news. Mavic Pro Platinum is the oldest DJI drone to hit the list. It *may* mean that we *will* get native RID on the Mavic 2 series.