Upcoming Remote ID (RID) Rule... Industry Article

[flyeratdca]

Hi Everyone-

Came across this resource today on the topic of RID and compliance. This isn't an endorsement for the product. There are some potentially helpful resources here.

Cheers-

Doug

The FAA's UAS Remote Identification Rule Is Nearly Here. Here’s What You Need To Know. - Global Aerospace Aviation Insurance

As the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) continues to increase, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has introduced the UAS Remote Identification (RID) Rule to ensure airspace safety and security. The second and final part of this rule goes into effect in September 2023, requiring that...

www.global-aero.com

 

[mavic3usa]

Thanks for post. What do I know about writing articles, not much...but just in case the author is reading and would like to make a few changes, here are a few of my suggestions since this article is current and help make it more clear to anyone who would come across it but doesn't already know alot about RID:

1. Change September 2023 to September 16, 2023
2. Broadcast modules (often called external modules)
3. Add the URL for the FAA DOC page
4. I get the impression the article is suggesting that you can fly BVLOS once you get standard RID while it won't be allowed for the broadcast modules, is that true? Do we know that yet?
5. You say "buyer beware" and then right after that you list pingRID without mentioning it is DoC.
6. You say a standard RID drone cannot turn off RID in a FRIA but it wouldn't be approved "standard RID" if you could turn it off. I believe you are ok to turn off or not use your broadcast module in a FRIA, no?
7. Add (250g) to 0.55 and "you don't need RID....because those are not typically registered." If you register a 249g drone and you fly only recreational, do you need RID?
8. Homebuilt UAS is an exception to RID, is that true?
9. Last paragraph, I get the impression that insurance companies will be using RID data to manage risk which suggests some sort of historical tracking capability, is that correct?

 

[Vic Moss]

Thanks for post. What do I know about writing articles, not much...but just in case the author is reading and would like to make a few changes, here are a few of my suggestions since this article is current and help make it more clear to anyone who would come across it but doesn't already know alot about RID:

1. Change September 2023 to September 16, 2023

Agree. Accurate information is key in articles like this.

2. Broadcast modules (often called external modules)

"Broadcast Module" is the technical term. I've actually never seen anyone use the term "external module" in discussions or articles.

3. Add the URL for the FAA DOC page

A very good idea.

4. I get the impression the article is suggesting that you can fly BVLOS once you get standard RID while it won't be allowed for the broadcast modules, is that true? Do we know that yet?

5. You say "buyer beware" and then right after that you list pingRID without mentioning it is DoC.

I'd be unhappy if I were uAvionix and they failed to mention that.

6. You say a standard RID drone cannot turn off RID in a FRIA but it wouldn't be approved "standard RID" if you could turn it off. I believe you are ok to turn off or not use your broadcast module in a FRIA, no?

Correct, Standard RID must be "tamper resistant" as per § 89.310 (d). So it cannot be turned off. UAS with Module RID can be turned off or simply removed from the UAS in a FRIA.

7. Add (250g) to 0.55 and "you don't need RID....because those are not typically registered." If you register a 249g drone and you fly only recreational, do you need RID?

If it is required to be registered, then it requires RID. If someone voluntarily registers a drone that doesn't need one, then they don't need RID.

8. Homebuilt UAS is an exception to RID, is that true?

Homebuilt are exempt from Standard RID. If they require registration, then they require RID. Research and educational exemption do apply.

9. Last paragraph, I get the impression that insurance companies will be using RID data to manage risk which suggests some sort of historical tracking capability, is that correct?

That would require Networked RID. That doesn't exist at the moment. There is the possibility of recorded RID data in areas that record them (El Paso, TX for example), but for now that's few and far between. This was written by an insurance provider. Odds are that was the author's attempt at making the article relevant to their readers. Global Aerospace does write quite a few UAS policies.

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

This is an important topic for all of us, at least, apparently, those with registered drones.

I have to confess that the ease of using acronyms is great for writers, but not so for all readers. I have trouble for the less used ones and for those that have more than three characters. I can infer that “BLVOS” means “Beyond Line Of Visual Sight,” but know I’m only assuming. When I get something like “FRIA” I’m at a loss.

If we’re discussing clarity on facts in this post, could we include clarity on acronyms as well? It would be easier for those of us less versed in the technological terms than the more sophisticated posters here.

Just a request on behalf of the novices out here, even if I’m the only one!

Smiley face “emoji” above left (SFEAL).

 

[Vic Moss]

This is an important topic for all of us, at least, apparently, those with registered drones.

I have to confess that the ease of using acronyms is great for writers, but not so for all readers. I have trouble for the less used ones and for those that have more than three characters. I can infer that “BLVOS” means “Beyond Line Of Visual Sight,” but know I’m only assuming. When I get something like “FRIA” I’m at a loss.

“FAA Recognized Identification Area”. That’s where you can fly a drone without RID of it requires registration.

If we’re discussing clarity on facts in this post, could we include clarity on acronyms as well? It would be easier for those of us less versed in the technological terms than the more sophisticated posters here.

Just a request on behalf of the novices out here, even if I’m the only one!

Smiley face “emoji” above left (SFEAL).

The FAA (like all gov’t agencies) lives for acronyms.

 

[Drbobk]

. I can infer that “BLVOS” means “Beyond Line Of Visual Sight,” but know I’m only assuming.

It’s actually BVLOS - Beyond Visual Line of Sight.

 

[lookout]

The way government handles most of their business functions, no the city hall and their law enforcement officers do not need to bother themselves with drones. No means no period. FAA doesn't have enough manpower to enforce this dumpster fire regulation, too bad. Even with leos it's going to be just about pointless. What's the real danger? Idiots in congress or some kid at the controls? Maybe government hates competition?

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

I’m not against regulations. When the general public can’t sensibly regulate itself, government has to step in and set universal standards. Anyone who gets on an interstate highway knows that there are plenty of drivers pushing the envelope. Who would want to venture out on a road if there were no rules and efforts to enforce them?

What is needed of the regulation writers is a broad understanding of the activity they are governing. What would the rules of the road look like if the authors weren’t themselves licensed drivers?

I have to wonder if the people writing drone regulations are also drone fliers. Considering just the line of sight rules, how workable (and reasonable) is the requirement that a pilot or the observer, with only the naked eye, be able to determine the attitude of a drone that is capable of flying miles away? It’s a difficult feat when the drone is just a few hundred yards away.

The best observation of a drone’s attitude is its telemetry, the same information that pilots on board use for flying and landing safely when visual information is impaired.

I can not land my drone by visual sight alone even when I am just yards away. If I don’t have the gimbal down, I have to walk around the pad to make sure the drone is squarely over the pad.

Shouldn’t drone operators be allowed the same tools as onboard pilots?

Shouldn’t the regulators be knowledgeable, if not proficient, in the devices and technology they’re overseeing?

 

[lookout]

I’m not against regulations. When the general public can’t sensibly regulate itself, government has to step in and set universal standards. Anyone who gets on an interstate highway knows that there are plenty of drivers pushing the envelope. Who would want to venture out on a road if there were no rules and efforts to enforce them?

What is needed of the regulation writers is a broad understanding of the activity they are governing. What would the rules of the road look like if the authors weren’t themselves licensed drivers?

I have to wonder if the people writing drone regulations are also drone fliers. Considering just the line of sight rules, how workable (and reasonable) is the requirement that a pilot or the observer, with only the naked eye, be able to determine the attitude of a drone that is capable of flying miles away? It’s a difficult feat when the drone is just a few hundred yards away.

The best observation of a drone’s attitude is its telemetry, the same information that pilots on board use for flying and landing safely when visual information is impaired.

I can not land my drone by visual sight alone even when I am just yards away. If I don’t have the gimbal down, I have to walk around the pad to make sure the drone is squarely over the pad.

Shouldn’t drone operators be allowed the same tools as onboard pilots?

Shouldn’t the regulators be knowledgeable, if not proficient, in the devices and technology they’re overseeing?

Visual sight in 3d is more difficult to establish and especially in reference to something you are trying to avoid. The difference in size distance away from you and your object versus the other object and speed are all rapidly changing factors. Flying by instruments is almost 100% drone flying or at least fly by wire.

Regulators can't get past the framework they've established on how to conduct business without having to decide what matters and what doesn't. Varies from state to state and void where prohibited. Some exclusions apply. Only one coupon per customer.

 

[Drbobk]

how workable (and reasonable) is the requirement that a pilot or the observer, with only the naked eye, be able to determine the attitude of a drone that is capable of flying miles away?

It is COMPLETELY reasonable! Airplane (as opposed to drone) pilots are taught to continually “have their heads on a swivel” and look in all directions for potential conflicting traffic. They do “clearing turns” to look for traffic before doing abrupt maneuvers. A drone pilot looking at his screen has no such awareness. If someone flying past VLOS is not continually spinning the drone in place to see all around, he is not capable of seeing other manned aircraft and will be a danger to them. Drone flyers are typically NOT going to pause and spin because they’re often recording video, and they just don’t get it. And it’s even worse in the event of a “disconnected” RTH when there is no visual provided on the screen at all.

A pilot flying on instruments is being monitored all the time by Air Traffic Control who provide, among other things, separation from other aircraft when that can’t be done visually. Don’t compare a drone pilot looking at his screen to a pilot looking at his instruments. The situations are not even close to similar.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I can not land my drone by visual sight alone even when I am just yards away. If I don’t have the gimbal down, I have to walk around the pad to make sure the drone is squarely over the pad.

What if perhaps this is not universal? What if your lack of landing accuracy at such a short distance is merely because it is not a skill you practice, and therefore it is not a skill you can achieve, let alone master?

Most drone pilots start out their 'career' starring at the screen so often and so much that they get to the point that; VLOS seems pointless if not outright impossible. But that is because, flying a dot around the sky with full mastery of heading and control cannot be picked up in an hour or a day or a month - it takes practice, a lot of it. Ask any RC pilot that got beyond three channel, slow, forgiving trainers - how long it took them before they could fly advanced aircraft and you'll find it took a dedicated effort.

The problem inherent in drones is that they don't require this particular skill in order to get (and stay) airborne.
It is far easier to stare at a screen and try to figure things out while the drone holds its position and allows the pilot time to 'catch up', than it is to build an intuitive sense of the drone flying in real time. But believe it or not, the latter is possible and superior in terms of SA.

In the US before drones, the FAA left regulation of all UA (RC), to the AMA. Once drones appeared and it became obvious that they fell into an unregulated crack (no skill or fixed flying sites needed), that is when our 'community' popped up on the radar of the FAA.

But the FAA did not pull these regulations (such as VLOS), out of their posterior, it was from decades of experience - a UA pilot that can operate his aircraft confidently via VLOS has a far greater sense of operational awareness than one that cannot. This is a simple fact.

The biggest reason for this is because; a proficient pilot is 'proactive' rather than 'reactive' to the basics of flight. A proactive pilot (VLOS) that stays 'ahead' of his aircraft (meaning the aircraft is responding predictably and in accordance with the commands given), has far more available brain power and focus to deal with any external conditions or surprises that can occur in flight.