Remote ID wouldn't have prevented this mid-air

[sar104]

Question: Did FAA dissolve what used to be Section 336 (the modeller guys) and now put them under part 107 along with the drones/quads?

The previous recreational exemption - the "Special Rule" was created by “Public Law 112-95, Section 336”, in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and codified in 14 CFR Part 101subpart E.

With the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Section 349) It has been superseded by the "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" 49 U.S.C. Section 44809. 14 CFR Part 101 will be rewritten to reflect that, but it has not yet happened.

 

[sar104]

I'm saying the radio system won't work in remote areas without satellite repeaters.

And you are incorrect. Can you explain why you think "satellite repeaters", whatever those might be, are required?

 

[BigAl07]

Question: Did FAA dissolve what used to be Section 336 (the modeller guys) and now put them under part 107 along with the drones/quads?

Huh?

Just like 349 is now, 336 was a Carve Out ...Protective Bubble from Part 107. Recreational flyers (multirotors, planes, heli etc) would fly recreationally with RELIEF from the full part 107 as long as their entire flight fits perfectly within 336. The only difference (in reference to this way Off-Topicness) is it's now 349. Still a carve out and if you pierce the protective bubble afforded by 349 in ANY way you are liable for all of Part 107 regulations. This isn't just theory it's CODIFIED into law.

You're missing the big picture or you're trying to re-ignite your previous dead-end argument.
The type of airframe does not distinguish which set of rules apply. It doesn't matter if I'm flying a foamie park flyer airplane, 75lb 9' wingspan warbird plane, 4' 3D helo, 300gr micro quad, DJI Matric 210, or anything else it's still a sUAS. As such ALL OF US fall under Part 107 unless we operate specifically within the small carve out (Bubble of protection) from Part 107 called 349 and will become Part 101E when it's all re-written.

 

[Cw4bray]

And you are incorrect. Can you explain why you think "satellite repeaters", whatever those might be, are required?

Anyone who has hiked in mountains, knows cell phones don't work in the hills, there's simply no reception - that's why they don't work. In order for a remote ID system to work, it needs to be connected. Limits on transmit power on any frequency spectrum make it likely that in a remote area, you won't be able to connect and as a result won't be authorized to fly. Satellites orbit the earth and relay communications, this could be a method for making connections in a remote area. Your cellular system doesn't even work 30 miles outside the big city, it shouldn't be relied on, when robust communication for flight safety is at stake. If your goal is true collision avoidance a common radio link would be more reliable. If your goal is just remote ID, anyone could connect by any method to the internet to report position. We'll all see soon enough, how this plays out.

 

[sar104]

Anyone who has hiked in mountains, knows cell phones don't work in the hills, there's simply no reception - that's why they don't work. In order for a remote ID system to work, it needs to be connected. Limits on transmit power on any frequency spectrum make it likely that in a remote area, you won't be able to connect and as a result won't be authorized to fly. Satellites orbit the earth and relay communications, this could be a method for making connections in a remote area. Your cellular system doesn't even work 30 miles outside the big city, it shouldn't be relied on, when robust communication for flight safety is at stake. If your goal is true collision avoidance a common radio link would be more reliable. If your goal is just remote ID, anyone could connect by any method to the internet to report position. We'll all see soon enough, how this plays out.

No - it doesn't need to be connected. An internet connection is required to get the flight data to a USS, but that's why standard RemoteID includes direct broadcast - to cover the situation when there is no connection to a USS. It's explained in detail in more than one place in the NPRM - if you had read it then there is no way you could have missed that.

89.110​

Remote identification:​

If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft.​

​

If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.​

 

[Cw4bray]

If positive separation with command and control isn't included in the NPRM...I didn't see it during my read, hobbyist will take a back seat to commercial operators.

 

[sar104]

If positive separation with command and control isn't included in the NPRM...I didn't see it during my read, hobbyist will take a back seat to commercial operators.

Firstly - control is not part of this proposal - it's about detection and identification, just like ADS-B. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "a back seat" since the NPRM applies equally to all sUAS operators.

 

[Cw4bray]

Firstly - control is not part of this proposal - it's about detection and identification, just like ADS-B. Secondly, I don't know what you mean by "a back seat" since the NPRM applies equally to all sUAS operators.

Yes; all UAS operators will be required equally to be equipped ...but that's not equal if Amazon can utilize a big city mobile phone network and a professional photographer shooting below a cliff in the back country can't possibly get a connection, resulting in being grounded. Broadcast range isn't the same as airspace or equipment standards.
I presumed that detection and Identification maybe could lead to controlled separation. After high volume BVLOS operations result in midair collisions we can have a safety stand down to rethink the wisdom of un-separated free flight BVLOS. Until then, full speed ahead ! Lets run with the "big sky" theory. It would be safer and easier if a complete system was engineered from the start. Remote ID as we will soon see, will probably become obsolete before 2025 to make way for a effective anti collision system.

 

[sar104]

Yes; all UAS operators will be required equally to be equipped ...but that's not equal if Amazon can utilize a big city mobile phone network and a professional photographer shooting below a cliff in the back country can't possibly get a connection, resulting in being grounded. Broadcast range isn't the same as airspace or equipment standards.
I presumed that detection and Identification maybe could lead to controlled separation. After high volume BVLOS operations result in midair collisions we can have a safety stand down to rethink the wisdom of un-separated free flight BVLOS. Until then, full speed ahead ! Lets run with the "big sky" theory. It would be safer and easier if a complete system was engineered from the start. Remote ID as we will soon see, will probably become obsolete before 2025 to make way for a effective anti collision system.

Okay - that's three replies in a row where you have completely ignored that connectivity is not required, even though I went so far as to quote the relevant section of the NPRM, and that ADS-B follows exactly the model that are saying won't work. I'm done.

 

[lookout]

The previous recreational exemption - the "Special Rule" was created by “Public Law 112-95, Section 336”, in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and codified in 14 CFR Part 101subpart E.

With the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Section 349) It has been superseded by the "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" 49 U.S.C. Section 44809. 14 CFR Part 101 will be rewritten to reflect that, but it has not yet happened.

So where was the rules on the modellers before they were merged with drones/quads like a square brick in a circle hole? They were their own thing before the quads/drones came along.

Hmm...that explains where the 55 lbs madness came from. Maybe. It applied to modellers and not drones if I read it correctly. I can imagine those things becoming quite heavy. But yet they were in their own little AMA fields not bothering anybody.

I wish they would just keep them separate, because a recreational modeller is not the same thing as a recreational drone/quad. It's like the difference between a plane and a helicopter. If a helicopter is in a busy traffic pattern at the airport, it has to fly along with the traffic more like a fixed wing so as not to interfere with operations.

They were going to require the modellers to have the remote ID just like the quads/drones.

 

[skiptv]

All remote ID is going to do is make a few big corporations rich! Verizon, T-Mobile, ATT are going to be providing the cell data link to your drone, guess what Drones are not going to get some unlimited data plane. Using Airmap now? They are part of the corporate grab that the FAA is calling Remote ID, you have to pay for that service too. And Boeing how are they involved in this? Amazon too. This a way reward corporations over people, targeting a huge market that will have no choice but to use this program if they want to fly. By the way, Consumer Drones have been in the Skys since 2012, and exactly how many drones have hit planes? 50,000 NO votes for Remote ID and it gets done anyway. Hopefully a new administration, one not so friendly to the corporations take control in Nov.

 

[sar104]

All remote ID is going to do is make a few big corporations rich! Verizon, T-Mobile, ATT are going to be providing the cell data link to your drone, guess what Drones are not going to get some unlimited data plane. Using Airmap now? They are part of the corporate grab that the FAA is calling Remote ID, you have to pay for that service too. And Boeing how are they involved in this? Amazon too. This a way reward corporations over people, targeting a huge market that will have no choice but to use this program if they want to fly. By the way, Consumer Drones have been in the Skys since 2012, and exactly how many drones have hit planes? 50,000 NO votes for Remote ID and it gets done anyway. Hopefully a new administration, one not so friendly to the corporations take control in Nov.

Do you really think that the cell companies are even going to notice the additional data packets from sparse sUAS telemetry, let alone get rich from them? Who would you like to see involved, rather than Boeing, Amazon and other companies that have expertise in this area?

 

[Cw4bray]

Okay - that's three replies in a row where you have completely ignored that connectivity is not required, even though I went so far as to quote the relevant section of the NPRM, and that ADS-B follows exactly the model that are saying won't work. I'm done.

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.

 

[sar104]

I was wrong, about the requirement for connectivity. My memory has failed in just five months since reading, it sucks getting old. It still won't provide what's needed for collision avoidance but maybe that could be accomplished with onboard Lidar.

You mean for ground avoidance or traffic avoidance? All the necessary data are in the proposed broadcast telemetry to enable traffic collision avoidance.

 

[Cw4bray]

You mean for ground avoidance or traffic avoidance? All the necessary data are in the proposed broadcast telemetry to enable traffic collision avoidance.

Sounds like the UAS industry could pass spinoff technology to passenger aircraft. I was thinking traffic avoidance.

 

[sar104]

Sounds like the UAS industry could pass spinoff technology to passenger aircraft. I was thinking traffic avoidance.

The most elegant and simple solution would have been for all aircraft, manned or unmanned, to use the existing ADS-B technology. Unfortunately it was never designed with the potential volume of sUAS traffic in mind - hence the decision that sUAS traffic would not be permitted to broadcast ADS-B data.

 

[Otisangb]

Having a run in with a low flying helicopter is one of my concerns. The last thing i need is to be on the news for something like this. I need to to educate myself on this remote id techology. Personally i am 100% for it if it will help. I just do not see any negatives to having it. I would not mind shelling out some extra cash for it and it does not seem like it would be cost prohibitive.

 

[Cw4bray]

Having a run in with a low flying helicopter is one of my concerns. The last thing i need is to be on the news for something like this. I need to to educate myself on this remote id techology. Personally i am 100% for it if it will help. I just do not see any negatives to having it. I would not mind shelling out some extra cash for it and it does not seem like it would be cost prohibitive.

My opinion's changed on this subject. First I thought, it'll make current drones obsolete and the cost associated with that, but then I realized from reading this forum that too many people are operating these things way too far from home and that VLOS regulations can't fix stupid. So now I'm with you. Unfortunately it's needed because people are not keeping close enough to home.

 

[sar104]

My opinion's changed on this subject. First I thought, it'll make current drones obsolete and the cost associated with that, but then I realized from reading this forum that too many people are operating these things way too far from home and that VLOS regulations can't fix stupid. So now I'm with you. Unfortunately it's needed because people are not keeping close enough to home.

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.

 

[Otisangb]

My opinion's changed on this subject. First I thought, it'll make current drones obsolete and the cost associated with that, but then I realized from reading this forum that too many people are operating these things way too far from home and that VLOS regulations can't fix stupid. So now I'm with you. Unfortunately it's needed because people are not keeping close enough to home.

I hear you. I saw a video of someone flying over a city well beyond LOS. What happens if their is a malfunction and that that 2 lb brick goes into someones head. Not that remote ID would prevent that. I have never had anything near a close call with the drone. But i have sat on my boat anchored in a cove and have had coast guard helicopter zip by just above me with about zero warning in sound. If i was flying a drone at that time who knows. If there was some kind of remote id on the pilots end or my end or both would definetly be an asset for safety.