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