You really think they did anyone a favor by adding RID ?? Really ?? I'd think the FEDs had a little something to do with it. Reading this forum and a few others, reading the reviews and watching Youtube it sure SEEMS like a lot LESS than 95% of the
Mini 4 *PRO* users buy it strictly for recreational use.

. Speaking AS a purely recreational user I would like to add a set of prop guards for safety without having to (legally) spend another $100.
That being said, as I mentioned in my previous post I'm sure with their infinite knowledge they could work around this issue with a simple software
option to turn
on RID when the "normal recreational battery" is attached just as they can turn it OFF automatically with it attached, They could call it "purely recreational LEGAL flyer RID", or maybe Prop guard RID. Prop guards are for SAFETY but should not warrant spending another $100 to make "purely recreational flyers" legal. I'm sure there are also lots of other "cool gimmicks" that "purely recreational flyers" would like to do to customize their little toy like skins or putting TayTay's photo on the bottom and still remain "purely recreational."

.
Good conversation and understandable this is where we landed today and looking back in hindsight, perhaps could have done it differently. The
Mini 3 Pro was likely developed and thought-out a year before it launched May 2022 so let's say mid-2021 or maybe [pandemic] earlier...while the
Mini 2 was the sub-250 statement. Someone probably thought let's leave the
Mini 2 alone with no RID and make the
Mini 3 with remote ID. Remember, I keep saying excessive government rules and over-regulation only burden the industry, slow it down, get in the way, make it less nimble; and DJI didn't always understand the RID confusion at that time. There was a thing called "if you build a drone for sale in the US past [a certain date], it better have RID." So you are right, the government probably forced this one, telling DJI don't go and make a millions toy drones without RID for sale in the US else it will take decades to get them "under control." Only later has DJI learned to "cope" with what we know today as RID. In fact, we've all learned a thing or two as of today and unfortunately, the implementation or the correction to make it good going back to earlier models is not going to be clean. Just look at all the various solutions from attaching phones to built-in googles, to drones left out in the cold, to
Mavic 2 series win...and now we have
Mini 3/4 software. This is a support nightmare for DJI.
DJI probably thought broadcast modules were going to be $50 for example. When they created prop guards, I'm sure the accessory manufacturer didn't have any idea about "overweight" for RID restrictions, etc. If you want cheap props, they can't be tied into the software. So there's no reliable way to control this and tie it into RID. The RID rules say the props don't spin until RID is confirmed; plastic attachments don't resolve this.
In order for DJI to implement RID, they had to following the government rules. You can start reading about the Means of Compliance
here so just like any government regulation, it's not easy to fully understand what it takes to comply. In other words, DJI couldn't just pull together whatever scheme they thought would work best for their customer base. Instead someone probably said, just go ahead and put it in every drone and call it a day. We have customers around the world and the laws are different in every country, we do what we can. In the meantime, nobody else will darn get involved in this nightmare where the rules change every six months and nobody get grandfathered and you have no idea where the craziness will go....only big DJI can deal with it and ultimately they didn't do the best job either considering the other distractions they face.
RID is not a commercial vs recreational feature. As you can see, the DoC is out of step when it comes to serial numbers, we have drones broadcasting RID details that are *not* in the FAA database, and on top of that (this is just a guess), we have very little overall compliance with a new deadline approaching next month. How anyone can call this successful....one more thing, reminder about the ON/OFF switch for RID, here are the rules, tell me if you think your solution complies:
This is what the FAA says about RID and a switch and it has less to do with being "legal" or not and more to do with whether there is a DoC for your serial number:
§ 89.310 Minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft.
A standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must meet the following minimum performance requirements:
(a) Control station location. The location of the control station of the unmanned aircraft must be generated and encoded into the message elements and must correspond to the location of the person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system.
(b) Time mark. The time mark message element must be synchronized with all other remote identification message elements.
(c) Self-testing and monitoring.
(1) Prior to takeoff, the unmanned aircraft must automatically test the remote identification functionality and notify the person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system of the result of the test.
(2) The unmanned aircraft must not be able to take off if the remote identification equipment is not functional.
(3) The unmanned aircraft must continuously monitor the remote identification functionality from takeoff to shutdown and must provide notification of malfunction or failure to the person manipulating the flight controls of the unmanned aircraft system.
(d) Tamper resistance. The unmanned aircraft must be designed and produced in a way that reduces the ability of a person to tamper with the remote identification functionality.
Source:
Federal Register :: Request Access
Source:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-08/RemoteID_Final_Rule.pdf
Here's an excerpt about MoC:
Under this rule, anyone can create a means of compliance; however, the FAA must
accept that means of compliance before it can be used for the design or production of any
standard remote identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module. A
person seeking acceptance by the FAA of a means of compliance for standard remote
identification unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast modules is required to submit
the means of compliance to the FAA. The FAA reviews the means of compliance to determine if
it meets the minimum performance requirements and includes appropriate testing and validation
procedures in accordance with the rule. Specifically, the person must submit a detailed
description of the means of compliance, a justification for how the means of compliance meets
the minimum performance requirements of the rule, and any substantiating material the person
wishes the FAA to consider as part of the application. FAA-accepted consensus standards are
one way, but not the only way, to show compliance with the performance requirements of this
rule. Accordingly, the FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of
compliance and submit them to the FAA for acceptance.
Disclaimer: The internet is full of FAA documentation and as a layperson and non-expert, I don't always find the latest and most current information to quote. Often the documents are in draft, have changed, or there is superseding information so please understand this caveat which basically says I could be way off base. I have no idea who is following the rules, or not.
