FAA Remote I.D.

[captainmilehigh]

It would be nice if somebody was to come up with a printed condensed outline of proposed mandates concerning the Remote ID specifics. May be easier to follow.

Something like 'CliffsNotes' for FAA Remote ID proposals [emoji12].

Thanks for posting @skymonkey. Good information.

 

[MTO]

I[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE="This rulemaking also has NOTHING TO DO ABOUT SAFETY TO OTHER AIRCRAFT, as pilots of manned aircraft will NEVER see the position of our UAV using this system...


Also it will increase the cost to the average Joe and get a lot of them to be removed from the sky due to financial hardship.
This is the actual thing that giant corporations like Amazon want to achieve with such a law.
Clear out the sky from the pesky hobbyist.

[/QUOTE]
Here is the real reason. I imagine Jeff Bezos and a bunch of political powerhouses sitting around the table in plush high backed chairs laughing like madmen at a system called R.I.D.
Don’t be fooled!

 

[MacCool]

The whole Colorado/Nebraska "drone swarm" business looks this "proposed" rule is going to be a sure bet for implementation.

FAA proposes rule change to force identification of Colorado, Nebraska drones

One day after three northeastern Colorado and a western Nebraska county became unwilling participants in a series of mysterious, nocturnal and unknown drone flights crisscrossing their skies, the Federal Aviation Administration is promoting a new rule requiring most drones to be identifiable...

www.foxnews.com

 

[bsartist]

I

[QUOTE="This rulemaking also has NOTHING TO DO ABOUT SAFETY TO OTHER AIRCRAFT, as pilots of manned aircraft will NEVER see the position of our UAV using this system...


Also it will increase the cost to the average Joe and get a lot of them to be removed from the sky due to financial hardship.
This is the actual thing that giant corporations like Amazon want to achieve with such a law.
Clear out the sky from the pesky hobbyist.

[/QUOTE]
Here is the real reason. I imagine Jeff Bezos and a bunch of political powerhouses sitting around the table in plush high backed chairs laughing like madmen at a system called R.I.D.
Don’t be fooled!
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s not just the giant corporations that want to clear out the sky of some of us pesky hobbyists.

 

[EndeavorOR]

A couple of additional thoughts.

First, nobody needs to read the Remote ID proposal unless they want to comment. The only thing that a drone pilot needs to know is that if it takes effect, you'll need a standard or limited remote ID capable drone to fly outside of pre-approved hobbyist areas. Your drone will be clearly labelled as such when you buy it. Most of the contents of the proposed rules, beyond what I wrote above, apply to manufacturers, not users.

Second, if you have an existing drone that is not compatible, it is very likely that someone will come along with a lightweight device you can add on that will supply the broadcasts and a ground unit to receive your broadcasts, connect to your phone and do the internet reporting. Something similar to DJI's FPV gear would do the job. The current proposal need not require the grounding of your old technology.

Third, I know that Amazon and others are talking about using drones for deliveries, but I've always believed that this is just marketing. I seriously doubt that we'll ever see drones for routine consumer deliveries, for a whole host of reasons (control issues, battery life, safety, beyond VLOS will likely require redundancy similar to that required on commercial AC, etc). I foresee real commercial drone use for "on campus" deliveries at larger institutions, crop dusting, real estate sales, police surveillance, search and rescue, news/traffic/weather reporting, and presumably some other things that don't exist yet and we cannot even foresee today. Widespread use of drones will probably be for things that haven't even been invented yet.

Fourth, these rules are clearly intended to create a system by which (1) drones can communicate and automatically avoid one another and (2) the FAA and law enforcement to identify and prosecute those who violate the rules.

But, I'm not sure that (1) will actually work. The Part 15 frequencies (Wifi) are already fairly congested, even in suburban areas. There is likely to be a lot of interference that prevents everyone from detecting every drone. Furthermore, the proposed rule allows UAS to broadcast on ANY Part 15 frequency (which could be any frequency the drone chooses in 900Mhz, 2.4Ghz, or 5.8Ghz bands - among others) rather than on a single channel. That will make it very difficult for other drones and other aircraft to track everything in the sky, since they would have to be constantly scanning a large swath of Part 15 spectrum to gather all of the data. ADS-B, in contrast, uses one specific frequency. However, the proposal makes clear that drones will NOT be permitted to use ADS-B to prevent interference with manned aircraft that use it. Item (2) will only work for law abiding drone users who don't disable their Remote ID. I suspect that those people who are using drones for illegitimate purposes will find a way.

Finally, the Colorado drone flights are almost certainly military drones that will not be affected by Remote ID at all.

 

[bsartist]

Second, if you have an existing drone that is not compatible, it is very likely that someone will come along with a lightweight device you can add on that will supply the broadcasts and a ground unit to receive your broadcasts, connect to your phone and do the internet reporting. Something similar to DJI's FPV gear would do the job. The current proposal need not require the grounding of your old technology.

Yeah. If you happen to be in a place that has internet connectivity. Otherwise, SOL.

 

[sar104]

A couple of additional thoughts.

First, nobody needs to read the Remote ID proposal unless they want to comment. The only thing that a drone pilot needs to know is that if it takes effect, you'll need a standard or limited remote ID capable drone to fly outside of pre-approved hobbyist areas. Your drone will be clearly labelled as such when you buy it. Most of the contents of the proposed rules, beyond what I wrote above, apply to manufacturers, not users.

Second, if you have an existing drone that is not compatible, it is very likely that someone will come along with a lightweight device you can add on that will supply the broadcasts and a ground unit to receive your broadcasts, connect to your phone and do the internet reporting. Something similar to DJI's FPV gear would do the job. The current proposal need not require the grounding of your old technology.

Third, I know that Amazon and others are talking about using drones for deliveries, but I've always believe that this is just marketing. I seriously doubt that we'll ever see drones for routine consumer deliveries, for a whole host of reasons (control issues, battery life, etc). I foresee real commercial drone use for "on campus" deliveries at larger institutions, crop dusting, real estate sales, police surveillance, search and rescue, news/traffic/weather reporting, and presumably some other things that don't exist yet and we cannot even foresee.

These rules are clearly intended to create a system by which drones can communicate and automatically avoid one another. But, I'm not sure that it will actually work. The Part 15 frequencies (Wifi) are already fairly congested, even in suburban areas. There is likely to be a lot of interference that prevents everyone from detecting every drone.

Furthermore, the proposed rule allows UAS to broadcast on ANY Part 15 frequency (which could be any frequency the drone chooses in 900Mhz, 2.4Ghz, or 5.8Ghz bands - among others) rather than on a single channel. That will make it very difficult for other drones and other aircraft to track everything in the sky, since they would have to be constantly scanning a large swath of Part 15 spectrum to gather all of the data. ADS-B, in contrast, uses one specific frequency. However, the proposal makes clear that drones will NOT be permitted to use ADS-B to prevent interference with manned aircraft that use it.

I'm not sure that frequency congestion is going to be a problem for broadcast communications, since not every broadcast is expected to get through. Those frequencies are working fine for the UAV control link over significant ranges even in urban areas, which is a much more demanding requirement. ADS-B works fine on just one frequency. And Aeroscope, which is essentially similar technology to what is proposed, has been demonstrated to work in busy locations such as around airports.

 

[sar104]

Yeah. If you happen to be in a place that has internet connectivity. Otherwise, SOL.

You don't require an internet connection for Standard Remote ID.

 

[EndeavorOR]

Yeah. If you happen to be in a place that has internet connectivity. Otherwise, SOL.

Again, if you read the rule, you'll find that if your drone broadcasts the required data on Wifi (which all DJI drones are capable of doing), you can fly even in places where there is no internet.

 

[EndeavorOR]

That's a valid point given current conditions. However, the use of part 15 spectrum is likely to increase in the future. What happens when every business has 3 Wifi APs, and there are hundreds of drones broadcasting Remote ID, many of which will be commercial drones that will be autonomous (no Wifi for control) or controlled using longer-range licensed spectrum. They'll be sending Part 15 broadcasts which nobody will be able to receive, but be controlled using other mechanisms.

Aeroscope is far more sophisticated than a smartphone or computer, and the latter is what the FCC is anticipating will be able to receive the Remote ID broadcasts and put together a complete map of all drone activity in the area. Also, if the idea is that drones in flight will be able to use the data to avoid collisions in real-time, Aeroscope is much too large and heavy to do that job.

I'm not sure that frequency congestion is going to be a problem for broadcast communications, since not every broadcast is expected to get through. Those frequencies are working fine for the UAV control link over significant ranges even in urban areas, which is a much more demanding requirement. ADS-B works fine on just one frequency. And Aeroscope, which is essentially similar technology to what is proposed, has been demonstrated to work in busy locations such as around airports.

 

[sar104]

That's a valid point given current conditions. However, the use of part 15 spectrum is likely to increase in the future. What happens when every business has 3 Wifi APs, and there are hundreds of drones broadcasting Remote ID, many of which will be commercial drones that will be autonomous (no Wifi for control) or controlled using longer-range licensed spectrum. They'll be sending Part 15 broadcasts which nobody will be able to receive, but be controlled using other mechanisms.

The increase in spectrum congestion in the future is certainly a potential problem, and not just restricted to this functionality.

Aeroscope is far more sophisticated than a smartphone or computer, and the latter is what the FCC is anticipating will be able to receive the Remote ID broadcasts and put together a complete map of all drone activity in the area. Also, if the idea is that drones in flight will be able to use the data to avoid collisions in real-time, Aeroscope is much too large and heavy to do that job.

The remote ID broadcasts are not going to be going via cellphone or computer - those will be direct to dedicated receiver stations on the ground, and eventually mobile receivers on drones and aircraft - similar to the current ADS-B system.

 

[EndeavorOR]

Per the proposed rules, the FCC anticipates that any computer or smartphone with the proper software can receive all the Remote ID broadcasts in an area and create an instant map of all drone activity in the area using the data that is being broadcast. If that goal were achieved, drones in flight could also receive and use the data to automatically avoid collisions.

However, given the congestion issues I cited and the fact that drone manufacturers can broadcast the required data on hundreds of possible frequencies, I am dubious that this proposal will allow what the FCC claims that it wants to achieve.

It will, however, make Aeroscope and more sophisticated drone scanning systems like it work better.

The remote ID broadcasts are not going to be going via cellphone or computer - those will be direct to dedicated receiver stations on the ground, and eventually mobile receivers on drones and aircraft - similar to the current ADS-B system.

 

[EndeavorOR]

But given how critical the FAA believes that this functionality is (since the FAA is mandating it), it seems as if the FAA should not require it to be broadcast on frequencies where congestion is a problem now and will become worse in the future.

The increase in spectrum congestion in the future is certainly a potential problem, and not just restricted to this functionality.

 

[flockshot]

If I understand correctly, we won't see this implemented for 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 years from now. I am counting on technology advances to make this a no brainier by then. If not, maybe it will be time for a new drone. Beyond that, we may think our voices will count, and that is a nice thought.

 

[Adamborz]

Well, I do know when I fly to close to strong WiFi routers, I get warnings on my screen about the interference. I have the plus version V1 P4P+ and sometimes my screen will even shut off (I guess the app stops working) and won’t restart. I either have to pilot back or RTH and land and shut down and reboot.

I can only imagine how much of this WiFi is going to interfere with the transmission from aircraft to RC. After all, I use the drone to take pictures/video and I need to see what the camera is pointed at.

Also, yes I’m envisioning a small removable device you can attach to your drone and program ID. then switch to another drone and program it to that ID via your phone.

But if that’s the case, I can program a bogus ID and fly around... just like people spoof phone numbers and make it look like they are calling you from the White House or IRS now.

I’ll make my I.D. say FAA enforcement... so the other drones will be scared lol.

I’m obviously joking, but I see this whole thing getting abused by hackers or juvenile delinquents.

 

[sar104]

Per the proposed rules, the FCC anticipates that any computer or smartphone with the proper software can receive all the Remote ID broadcasts in an area and create an instant map of all drone activity in the area using the data that is being broadcast. If that goal were achieved, drones in flight could also receive and use the data to automatically avoid collisions.

However, given the congestion issues I cited and the fact that drone manufacturers can broadcast the required data on hundreds of possible frequencies, I am dubious that this proposal will allow what the FCC claims that it wants to achieve.

It will, however, make Aeroscope and more sophisticated drone scanning systems like it work better.

That's technically possible given the frequencies they are proposing, since those devices have wifi and bluetooth receivers. It's only going to be relevant locally over small distances though, so the fact that those devices don't have the receiving range of Aeroscope shouldn't matter.

 

[skymonkey]

 

[captainmilehigh]

That short video was very informative. It was good to see all those vendors and entities working together to create a simple (key word 'simple') and highly effective explanation of services, and to provide positive results.

Perhaps there is hope for the Remote ID system to be developed using these services in partner with the FAA that will avoid confusion and non-compliance of skeptical drone operators. I must admit, I'm a bit more optimistic now.

@skymonkey, thanks for sharing. [emoji106]

 

[skymonkey]

I am also little more optimistic on Remote I.D. with this video. It looks like they want data from take off to landing. Think of it like a black box. If you don’t break any regs or threaten the NAS your safe. No mention of LE or on how manned aircraft will even detect us.
There’s a lot more we need know.
I was surprised to se Uber as a USS.

 

[captainmilehigh]

Yep. I was equally as surprised seeing SkyWard as a large part of this program. Being a Verizon company, it gives tremendous access to coast-to-coast coverage. I also learned that LAANC can be accessed through SkyWard. I had only heard of AirMap and KittyHawk.

It is a very promising program, and now we know where to access pertinent information on its progress.

Plus, it may prevent our friends at the FAA from 'overthinking' it with input from this development team.