FAA Remote I.D.

bsartist · Jan 3, 2020

Bone4Drone said:
Amazon forgets that many people are stupid and will put out that cute little specially market mat on their dining room table.

Or put it out to snag other people’s packages. The modern day porch pirate. LOL.

dronesky · Jan 3, 2020

flockshot · Jan 3, 2020

That guy and XJet would get along just great.

P-2 · Jan 3, 2020

EndeavorOR said:
You are mistaken. I am not describing the 400 foot bubble that is involved in "limited" Remote ID drones.

A "standard" Remote ID drone must (1) broadcast certain real-time data from the drone on Wifi frequencies (not to mobile phone towers) and (2) update an internet database in real-time. Note that (1) must come from the drone itself, but (2) need not. I'll discuss both of these requirements in the two paragraphs below.

While the broadcast on Wifi frequencies must come from the drone itself, most drones today have Wifi radios which are used to communicate with the controller. A simple firmware update will allow those radios to also transmit a burst every one-second or so with the unencrypted datastream required by the rule for standard drones. The purpose of this broadcast would be to allow anyone in the area with a smartphone or computer and the right app to get a map view of all the drones in the area simply by receiving the broadcast. The FAA rule specifically requires that these broadcasts occur on Part 15 frequencies and thus the broadcast CANNOT be sent out to mobile phone towers. In FCC parlance, a "broadcast" is a one to many, i.e., an FM radio station "broadcasts." A mobile telephone does not.

Note also that you will not necessarily need to broadcast your registration number with this broadcast. Rather, for your own privacy, you can instead opt to broadcast a unique session ID for each flight. The session ID would be generated by your Remote ID service provider. So, a police officer accessing the FAA system could determine your identity, but a neighbor watching the flight could not.

In contrast to the real-time Wifi broadcast that must come from the drone itself, the internet update need NOT come from the drone itself, but can be sent from the Remote Pilot using a mobile phone connected to the controller. Since most drone users today use their mobile phone to operate the camera and view real-time information about their drones operations (barometric altitude, speed, direction, etc.), a simple app update would allow that same data to be transmitted over the internet.

And again, if you have no internet, you can fly a standard drone as long as it is broadcasting the required data over Wifi. So, if you're on your farm and there's no internet, you're free to fly as long as your device is broadcasting the required data on Wifi, which it will have no trouble doing if you are controlling it using a 2.4Ghz or 5.8Ghz controller. On the other hand, if you have internet and your remote ID service provider is down, then you're grounded.

A limited Remote ID drone is the one that must operate within a 400 foot bubble. It will not need to broadcast anything from the drone. The Remote Pilot need merely update his location information via the internet in real-time. The limited Remote ID drone doesn't have to broadcast real-time data using Wifi. My suspicion is that this rule is to allow drones that won't be remotely controlled by radio (and thus not have a Wifi radio that can be used to broadcast the data), but instead will be remotedly controlled using gestures. So, if someone releases a selfie-drone in the future that has no Wifi radios whatsoever, the user can install software on his phone that will send the required internet updates, and then launch the drone and control it using hand movements. Since the drone won't be allowed to go more than 400 feet from the controller, updating the internet with the controller's location will be "good enough."

I'm not sure why the rule includes this, since such drones are likely to be under .55 pounds and not subject to the rule. It may be that the FAA contemplates changing the .55 pound rule in the future and wants to have a regulatory framework in place when that happens.

Agree 100%......... the Number one fixture in my mind is safety for the aircraft carrying people. Everything else is 2nd, 3rd, 4th and on down the line..........with that said, the FAA is sticking it to the hobbyist in America. BIGTIME. Are they following orders from up above? Probably ...

P-2 · Jan 3, 2020

dronesky said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

President Trump could stop this with a stroke of a pen

flockshot · Jan 3, 2020

Prmath2 said:
President Trump could stop this with a stroke of a pen

Lets keep it to drones. We don't need to start a political discussion in relation to this.

RKBA · Jan 3, 2020

flockshot said:
Lets keep it to drones. We don't need to start a political discussion in relation to this.

How was that statement political? It was true, the president could stop this.

Dave Pitman · Jan 3, 2020

EndeavorOR said:
If your UA System has the ability to access the internet, but there is no internet service, your UA can fly as long as it is also broadcasting the required data via Wifi directly from the aircraft itself.

I've enjoyed your concise appraisal of some of the NPRM.

What is your opinion on how, exactly, the suas (system) will know if a data connection is possible?

An app will confirm the radios on you smart device are powered and in the on position.
The app will then check to see if a mobile data stream is available and then connects.
The app will detect if the operator places it in a Faraday cage to disrupt an available stream.

bsartist · Jan 3, 2020

Dave Pitman said:
I've enjoyed your concise appraisal of some of the NPRM.

What is your opinion on how, exactly, the suas (system) will know if a data connection is possible?

An app will confirm the radios on you smart device are powered and in the on position.

The app will then check to see if a mobile data stream is available and then connects.

The app will detect if the operator places it in a Faraday cage to disrupt an available stream.

What about airplane mode? Unless the app can detect that. Not sure if that state is exposed through an API on IOS.

Dave Pitman · Jan 3, 2020

bsartist said:
What about airplane mode? Unless the app can detect that. Not sure if that state is exposed through an API on IOS.

Basically, my point is, that IF the requirement to connect to the internet is dependent on IF there is an available connection. HOW does that determination take place. I'm not sure there is a proven way to accomplish that kind of check though an app.

dronesky · Jan 3, 2020

Dave Pitman said:
Basically, my point is, that IF the requirement to connect to the internet is dependent on IF there is an available connection. HOW does that determination take place. I'm not sure there is a proven way to accomplish that kind of check though an app.

Also Which service provider? What I mean is some have better coverage than others and yours might not be the better one

Dave Pitman · Jan 3, 2020

Does anyone else find irony in that at the same time the FAA releases this NPRM that requires your suas have an active internet connection (some say unless there isn't one available). They are also banning much of the federal gov't from purchasing and using Chinese drones because of their suspected propensity to connect to the internet?

sar104 · Jan 3, 2020

Dave Pitman said:
Does anyone else find irony in that at the same time the FAA releases this NPRM that requires your suas have an active internet connection (some say unless there isn't one available). They are also banning much of the federal gov't from purchasing and using Chinese drones because of their suspected propensity to connect to the internet?

Well to be precise - it's their alleged propensity to send data back to China, not just that they connect to the internet.

Dave Pitman · Jan 3, 2020

I agree that with those that are of the feeling that the NPRM is not really about safety in the NAS. In fact, it really has a very small amount to do with safety, and that is only through (hopefully) accountability. That is, if you know that everyone will know who you are when you're flying, then you will be responsible when otherwise you would not be. This is pretty flawed, IMO, because anyone that chooses to be a "bad actor" will not be prohibited in the least by this proposal.

Some of you have used the ideal that eventually, this proposed "PRISM" like server/storage scheme can be put into use by a UTM and THEN it could (probably would) lead to greater situational awareness in the NAS. But that aspect is just speculation at this point and is not even part of the NPRM.

Getting back to safety through accountability. That level of accountability can easily be provided for with the over-the-air broadcast (wi-fi is just a frequency band) that DJI and probably the other manufacturers can do right now. If LLE (for example) wants to know who "that is" showing up on their scope. That technology is available right now. I personally have no problem with this form of RID and believe that the live broadcast is sufficient for the safety through accountability that I think we all want.

This grand scheme is most certainly aimed at enterprise operators that hope to have 10s of thousands of operations per day, each.

For safety, I like the idea of manned aircraft being required to stay 1000' or higher unless taking off or landing. Drones would stay below 400' and there would be 600' minimum separation. I know, this wouldn't create huge piles of money for VCs, and it could be implemented immediately with almost no cost and that it is just not right for a gov't project. We also wouldn't need a new screen in out manned airplane showing where all those drones are which is a plus!

Dave Pitman · Jan 3, 2020

sar104 said:
Well to be precise - it's their alleged propensity to send data back to China, not just that they connect to the internet.

That's very true! But it still has to make you smile or at least, smirk a little.

bsartist · Jan 3, 2020

Dave Pitman said:
Basically, my point is, that IF the requirement to connect to the internet is dependent on IF there is an available connection. HOW does that determination take place. I'm not sure there is a proven way to accomplish that kind of check though an app.

I’m agreeing. Just saying you don’t need a Faraday Cage.

Dave Pitman · Jan 3, 2020

bsartist said:
I’m agreeing. Just saying you don’t need a Faraday Cage.

Gotcha! The phone could probably detect that, though. The aluminium foil might be more difficult!

skymonkey · Jan 4, 2020

DJI Creates High-Security Solution For Government Drone Programs - DJI

DJI Creates High-Security Solution For Government Drone Programs

www.dji.com

Tim Pearson · Jan 4, 2020

FliteDoc said:
For those of you, like me, with an interest in drones for photography … take a look at what is coming.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf

Unbelievable … 319 pages !!

If they’re going to require ADS-B out for drones, why not make it for any drones flying above 400 ft., or those applying for waivers to fly in controlled airspace …

Imagine what your TCAS will look like when all drones have ADS-B out ??

And what about the problem w. limited numbers of ADS-B towers and little low-altitude coverage .. thousands more towers??

After 12/31/19 you can ‘comment’ on the proposed rule here: Public Inspection: Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

I urge you to pass this around, and consider commenting …

I just submitted a comment saying basically "Leave the Hobbyists out of this. We already have visual line of sight and daytime restrictions - and we're already required to avoid other aircraft. Put the impetus on the Amazon's of the world to make their UAV's highly visible and equipped with appropriate senors and software. Make them spend the money... they're the ones who will profit from commercially exploiting this low altitude airspace."

At the time I posted my comment, there were just over 800 other comments... no where near enough. That number needs to become more like 80,000 (or more) if we want to save our hobby. We also need to involve our Congressional representatives and US Senators.

Dave Pitman · Jan 4, 2020

Tim Pearson said:
At the time I posted my comment, there were just over 800 other comments... no where near enough. That number needs to become more like 80,000 (or more) if we want to save our hobby. We also need to involve our Congressional representatives and US Senators.

Have a read over here when you get a chance.

https://commercialdronepilots.com/t...anization-membership-drive-united-voice.2720/