Remote ID wouldn't have prevented this mid-air

[Cw4bray]

I think there is a good chance that many of the existing models will be able to satisfy standard RID requirements - they already have the ability to transmit data via an internet connection on the mobile device, and they already have wifi band radios that they use to transmit - that's what Aeroscope receives. It should be as simple as agreeing standards and making firmware updates.

Retrofit updates to existing models is probably moot, I can just imagine three years from now, flight time graphene composite batteries, active anti-collision vectoring and who knows what else will show up.

Satisfying the RID sooner rather than later by retrofitting software, might shorten the learning curve for engineering design of future standard models.

 

[Sxottie]

 

[lookout]

I was wrong, about the requirement for connectivity. My memory has failed in just six months since reading, it stinks getting old. It still won't provide what's needed for collision avoidance but maybe that could be accomplished with independent onboard Lidar. This is where I got confused; There are two kinds of remote identification mechanisms referenced in the NPRM, Network and Broadcast. It’s important to understand the key distinction between these two options.

They have different modes of ADS also B for broadcast A for Air to Air.

 

[sar104]

They have different modes of ADS also B for broadcast A for Air to Air.

Mode A is not an ADS mode - it's a transponder interrogation mode that responds with just a squawk code.