Remote ID

[jrhoffman75]

Just need to find a phone that will pick up all the possibilities of remote ID broadcasts, and run one of the remote ID receiver apps, and see if it picks up.

Do you know of any apps? The only one I know is Drone Scanner but it only recognizes Bluetooth.

 

[lookout]

Do you know of any apps? The only one I know is Drone Scanner but it only recognizes Bluetooth.

Open drone ID is another one.

One of them developers says that most phones aren't up to the task to doing this for one reason or another. So it all might be a flop for most people.

 

[karlblessing]

Open drone ID is another one.

One of them developers says that most phones aren't up to the task to doing this for one reason or another. So it all might be a flop for most people.

How was the FAA expecting people/leo/etc to utilize this new required functionality ?

 

[lookout]

How was the FAA expecting people/leo/etc to utilize this new required functionality ?

You might say a couple on the remote ID board, T Mobile or Verizon (the worst, they lock every bootloader on every phone on their network so it can't be rooted or modded because it might hurt their network somehow) have had some optimism over how all of this was going to work out. Remember they were looking at the network remote ID on the most reliable cell networks out in the boondocks to track every flight. Of course that fell through, figure the rest of it would too. FAA probably don't have any idea I'm guessing.

Be funny if it all went in the trash or at least the drawing board. Most likely not very many people were going to have access to aeroscope either along with the limited manpower.

 

[karlblessing]

Seems like it would be required even if there is little to no way to enforce let alone test the functionality.

 

[jrhoffman75]

How was the FAA expecting people/leo/etc to utilize this new required functionality ?

I'm guessing the broadcasting is automatic; nothing the operator needs to do. The lack of generally available receivers is a plus.

 

[karlblessing]

I'm guessing the broadcasting is automatic; nothing the operator needs to do. The lack of generally available receivers is a plus.

Figured the broadcast side would be automatic, but the purpose of requiring remote id is kind of moot it they never really thought thru the application of receiving it.

 

[jrhoffman75]

Figured the broadcast side would be automatic, but the purpose of requiring remote id is kind of moot it they never really thought thru the application of receiving it.

The fact that we (*general citizens) can't find an app to receive doesn't mean that the proper authorities don't have the capability. I prefer it that way.

 

[mobilehomer]

RID was not intended for the general public. It is for the FAA and law enforcement.

 

[lookout]

RID was not intended for the general public. It is for the FAA and law enforcement.

They kept putting on that any brainless idiot further encumbered by having multiple smart devices would be capable of identifying it themselves. But given that most governments have no knowledge of or interest in anything aviation related, it isn't much better to leave it to uninitiated LEOs either. I'm not one to jump into the idea that we should limit it to the LEOs for that reason. FAAs lack of manpower is not really a good reason to go that route.

 

[lookout]

Seems like it would be required even if there is little to no way to enforce let alone test the functionality.

That's the Grey area. Yes they'll require the broadcast module even if Noone is able to pick it up. If a man is alone in a forest and no woman is around to hear him is he still wrong?

According to the rdq lawsuit against the faa, the attorney seemed to indicate that the way the faa is going about this is a little shady. Coercion might be the word I use to describe it.

 

[karlblessing]

They kept putting on that any brainless idiot further encumbered by having multiple smart devices would be capable of identifying it themselves. But given that most governments have no knowledge of or interest in anything aviation related, it isn't much better to leave it to uninitiated LEOs either. I'm not one to jump into the idea that we should limit it to the LEOs for that reason. FAAs lack of manpower is not really a good reason to go that route.

I would say make LEO that will be equipped with said devices be required to take sort of the equivalent of a Part 107 certification before they can start using the device in enforcement. But that's probably too much.

 

[lookout]

How 1960s nuclear-fallout math influences today’s drone regulations

Research from drone company DJI details how today’s drone policy involves some questionable assumptions.

www.vox.com

Now dji looked at the 250g used for registration purposes and think we could possibly go up to 2.2kg (5 pounds). But it would have to satisfy both conditions of flying over people and getting hit by a fast moving manned aircraft. There was a post somewhere on this forum about a quad that was about 10 or 15 pounds that when a manned aircraft hit a quad that it did do some damage to the cowling. But it still didn't bring it down immediately.

 

[Chip]

According to the rdq lawsuit against the faa, the attorney seemed to indicate that the way the faa is going about this is a little shady. Coercion might be the word I use to describe it.

What some consider to be the real slim shady part was the FAA hosting a top secret meeting and demonstration of remote ID to corporate benefactors with special interests ($$$) at FBI HQ in Quantico, Virginia. It was considered by some as shady because the process of rule making is supposed to be transparent and on the record. The top secret meeting at Quantico went against the essence of public rule-making. And RDQ's attorney only discovered it by digging and happenstance because the FAA tried to conceal it.

The court of appeal in RDQ case acknowledged the error but disregarded it under the olde latin doctrine no harmus no foulus because after the secret meeting and demonstration the FAA chose to pursue a method that did not rely on the internet.

But, some believe that the breathtaking audacity of conducting top secret meetings and demonstrations for special interest groups is in fact very harmful to the perceived credibility and integrity of the government agencies involved.

 

[lookout]

What some consider to be the real slim shady part was the FAA hosting a top secret meeting and demonstration of remote ID to corporate benefactors with special interests ($$$) at FBI HQ in Quantico, Virginia. It was considered by some as shady because the process of rule making is supposed to be transparent and on the record. The top secret meeting at Quantico went against the essence of public rule-making. And RDQ's attorney only discovered it by digging and happenstance because the FAA tried to conceal it.

The court of appeal in RDQ case acknowledged the error but disregarded it under the olde latin doctrine no harmus no foulus because after the secret meeting and demonstration the FAA chose to pursue a method that did not rely on the internet.

But, some believe that the breathtaking audacity of conducting top secret meetings and demonstrations for special interest groups is in fact very harmful to the perceived credibility and integrity of the government agencies involved.

That internet part for remote ID was discontinued because the various telecom networks were not reliable in areas in the middle of nowhere. Unless that's not what you are referring to.

The fact that the FAA is consulting non governmental bodies and not the public affected by these rulings sets off some dishonesty about why they are doing all of this. Can we get some open meetings request on what was discussed? We have to pay money to even get a copy of the specification for remote ID broadcast module. Those secret meetings should have been made exhibits in the case.

The one article seemed to think that the court didn't address some key areas. Ironically realized that there might still be some possible fourth amendment disputes.

 

[lookout]

I would say make LEO that will be equipped with said devices be required to take sort of the equivalent of a Part 107 certification before they can start using the device in enforcement. But that's probably too much.

If any governing body has a disposition to anything aviation related they're going to try to run away with that and then the quad pilot will have to fight the charges and the foul disposition both if not the FAA. Most governing bodies are not that cognizant about anything related to aviation. Once the court is brought in the FAA will be filing in the blanks for the clueless underling governing body.

But what are they going to go on? Remote ID broadcast data that they might have or further summoning your automated flight records? They might be able to identify you with remote ID but need your flight records to show what you were doing. Now that might be where the search and seizure they didn't address might kick in.

 

[lookout]

Dronetag

Dronetag develops a solution for safe and efficient drone traffic management in the European airspace

dronetag.cz

Dronetag mini is not a quad but a paperweight brick that is an addon module, not using wifi but LTE and Bluetooth out to a mile range.

Hey hey there FAA, I thought we weren't using cellular.

 

[karlblessing]

Dronetag

Dronetag develops a solution for safe and efficient drone traffic management in the European airspace

dronetag.cz

Dronetag mini is not a quad but a paperweight brick that is an addon module, not using wifi but LTE and Bluetooth out to a mile range.

Hey hey there FAA, I thought we weren't using cellular.

Was it meant for the US or for remote id in other countries? Seems the ones in UK utilize mobile.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

I updated my Air 2S firmware a few days ago. Today's flight resulted in an odd entry in my log:

"Remote ID error. Connect to network to obtain mobile device location. Flying without broadcasting required remote ID messages may violate local regulations (Code: 30334)"​

So it looks to me like something is not fully baked yet.

 

[KI5RLL]

Even kind enough to not only alert the person looking for you, but even include possible viols to have when they call in on you.