FAA Remote I.D.

[BigAl07]

To you maybe but many here would see value in the ownership making their official position known to everybody. And if the official position is “no position“ then that is good to know as well

You're misunderstanding @sar104 comment. He didn't say the "Owner of the site's position" has zero effect.... he's stating that those who are actually commenting are merely complaining and stating "They don't want extra regulations". THOSE type of comments have zero weight what so ever.

 

[BigAl07]

No thanks. This is the hottest topic in the two busiest forums, if they are not reading these threads at least then that pretty much answers my question.

@RKBA You're just trying to stir the pot. You want to get a direct response you need to take the time & effort to reach out to the party you're trying to entice into a conversation.

This same topic is on all (15) forums and it's the same complaints and justifications on all of them. You honestly expect our entire staff to read every post on every forum? Not possible or practical. This thread is 17pages long and the first one on MP is 34 pages (and had to be shut down... hint hint) and the 2nd one is currently (8) pages and still going strong. Sometimes it's hard to just stay up to speed on moving new topics into the existing thread let alone try to comment/participate. It would be an almost full time job just to stay current on this one topic on all of our forums. Then who would be taking care of the spammers, violators, member help & support, forum maintenance, advertising support, and also try to have some form of personal/family life?

And for future reference, if you want to get a message/comment to a specific person you have 2 options (the responsibility is on you to do one of the other ):

1) Tag the member using the (@) symbol (like asking @clackey to weigh in)
2) Send the member a Private Message directly to them https://phantompilots.com/conversations/add?to=clackey

Anything else is a shot in the dark. The above 2 options will work.

Sincerely,
Allen
Pilots ADMIN Team

 

[bhartwell]

"Loss of use" is a bit harsh and not actually accurate. The affected drone pilots would be "restricted to certain pre-approved areas" that generously include, for instance, Death Valley (summer months only), Louisiana coastal swamp, Donner Pass (winter months only), the International Space Station, and from the bottom of any active volcano in the state of Hawaii. You get to see America's wonders up close and enjoy your drone in ways you might not have experienced otherwise.

Understanding this is in jest, sadly it’s not that far from the truth. As an avid aerial videographer, with a focus on natural landscapes and ocean views, current bans, limits, exclusion zones, etc. make it difficult to find places to legally fly today. Especially in California, the land of supposed liberal idealism. Most state beaches and parks, all preserves, most local parks, designated open areas, etc., have all enacted bans. Even vast open expanses like Point Reyes, ban drones.

Why? Lack of knowledge, paranoia, bureaucratic indifference.... Even within our own community, we seem completely ok with regulators crippling our hobby for no real reason other then “someone might get upset seeing a drone in the air”.

Should we be all that surprised that the FAA is proposing draconian policies to track and regulate drones? The answer that it will be a few years and the rules will be different when finally enacted is equivalent to putting our heads in the sand. The proposal as written represents current thinking, and that should raise significant concerns for anyone that has an interest in this topic.

It’s a reflection of the same paranoia that has resulted in the propagation of drone restrictions and bans. Sadly, while the commercial space has advocacy resources, the amateur / hobbyist does not seem to. DJI, Yuneec, Parrot and 3D Robotics are not able or willing to coordinate and fund an advocate effort.

I wonder is there enough interest in this hobby out there for enough people to come together and advocate for reasonableness. If not, it’s likely we will need to find a new hobby.

 

[Dave Pitman]

You honestly expect our entire staff to read every post on every forum? Not possible or practical

To be fair, Allen, I don't think @RKBA was asking for staff reaction to user comments. Rather, he was asking for an official company stance on the NPRM as written.

Carry on!

 

[2edgesword]

The proposal is pretty heavy on the justification part, but your comments suggest that you simply didn't read it.

His statement means the FAA's justifications don't hold up to close scrutiny. The safety issue is bogus (the facts regarding the drone safety record make that clear). LE chasing down violators is a myth (few LE actions regard airspace violations that I'm). The idea these measures make us safer against a terrorist attack defies logic (thousands if not tens of thousands of unregistered UAS vehicles to choose from or components from which to build them). All of these justifications are smoke and mirrors.

The ONLY justification for putting these measures into place is to clear the airspace for the commercial use by the Big Boys. Again, I don't think the FAA gives a hoot about recreational fliers. The proof of that will be in what they do to make the airspace more accessible to recreational pilots like increase the 400' distance to something more in line with line of sight, not restricting airspace in areas where there is no internet connection (vast areas where there is nothing to connect), not requiring a separate registration for each aircraft (multiple aircraft covered under one registration number tied to the individual that owns them), etc.

As far as commercial drone use, do huge sections of airspace become unusable for recreational pilots with none of the broadcast capability or an internet connection because Fed-X might deliver a package in the area once a week?

 

[terrence davidson]

for standard the internet available will fall on the cell internet providers side. if there is a cell service by any provider that is up and running in your location regardless you have a contract with them or not you must go though them to fly .
you will not get away with pulling the sim card out or using a device that has no cellular ability.
I see multiple cell contracts with each and every supplier to cover yourself. the only way you might get away with that is a very remote area where no company has signal. then again there is satellite cell service so those remote areas may be considered internet covered by the faa.
Even more so for limited remote id

 

[sar104]

for standard the internet available will fall on the cell internet providers side. if there is a cell service by any provider that is up and running in your location regardless you have a contract with them or not you must go though them to fly .

That is not what the proposal says, and is incorrect.

 

[terrence davidson]

sorry my mistake lets hope that does not make it to the nprm

 

[terrence davidson]

actually I just sent in a comment to the faa for clarification in cellular internet service suppliers and internet suppliers in general for compliance to one of two requirements for standard remote id.
if they require uas pilots to connect to a uas service supplier and using their example they give in the nprm that if your primary uas service supplier is down but another uas service supplier that you do not have contract to is running .you must connect to that uas service supplier that is fully functioning even if you do not have a contract with them. basically if your UAS service supplier does not have a roaming agreement with the UAS service supplier that is running you need to get a contract with them to fly. would not the same go for internet access which could become mandatory with the nprm.

 

[bsartist]

I have a technical question. Can anyone hazard a guess as to how the internet data connectivity part will work for people with a crystalsky monitor? I’m thinking of getting one and that question came to mind.

 

[xspwhite]

This isn't really about LE. I do not see many if any agencies setting up drone monitoring and enforcement divisions. They have enough on their hands monitoring surface vehicle traffic and real crimes. I don't see Officer Smith monitoring an app to chase down a rogue (spelled it right) drone that's not flashing ID on the app.

No, but it will give officer Smith who sees you out flying your drone the power to come and harass you. If he is just bored, he can shake you down, tell you to land your drone so he can put it on a scale and weigh it. You might be flying your little Mavic mini, but office Smith will have the authority and power to ruin your whole day if he feels like it.

Maybe even accidentally arresting you, because he mistakingly thought the law was 248 grams instead of 250.

 

[bsartist]

Whatever device you use will have to be able to connect to the internet. If you walk to a dead spot while flying, then DJI fence system might land your drone in the middle of a swamp.

This doesn’t answer my question. I am specifically asking about guesses regarding the CrystalSky monitor. I’m interested in something like “technically possible” (and how) or “technically impossible” (and why).

Your comment may only serve to throw people off of my question and start debating your assertion against the NPRM - trying to set you straight rather than answering my non-controversial technical question.

 

[sar104]

I have a technical question. Can anyone hazard a guess as to how the internet data connectivity part will work for people with a crystalsky monitor? I’m thinking of getting one and that question came to mind.

That's not clear. The requirement is that the device is "internet capable", but the proposal doesn't seem to specify whether that means that it must have a cellular radio or if wifi is good enough. The CS is capable of an internet connection, just not a direct cellular connection. If they amend it to specify "cellular data capable" then it would presumably be satisfied by tethering it to a cell phone hot spot.

 

[bsartist]

That's not clear. The requirement is that the device is "internet capable", but the proposal doesn't seem to specify whether that means that it must have a cellular radio or if wifi is good enough. The CS is capable of an internet connection, just not a direct cellular connection. If they amend it to specify "cellular data capable" then it would presumably be satisfied by tethering it to a cell phone hot spot.

Thanx. After I posted I did notice that the CS has WiFi so I was wondering if that could be leveraged.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm shocked there aren't more comments thus far. We're (1) week in and as of right now (keep in mind there could be a slight delay in comments being "posted") there are only 2,766 comments received.

Maybe some people are just waiting to see if others are sincere and comment... I dunno but I would have thought there would be 10X that (or more) by now.

For anyone who is contemplating a comment here are some tips from the FAA (and they are legit so pay them some attention):

https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf

 

[captainmilehigh]

For me, I'm still working on outline points and a rough draft. The pdf. above has some very good suggestions on how to compose an effective comment, so I've found myself doing some rewriting and condensing my comments. Thanks Allen.

Here in the US, I'd wager that the majority of UAS's are unregistered with the FAA. So, these drone pilots probably would not be aware of, or care about any pending FAA mandates. Most of these would be recreational pilots. Those with Part 107 businesses would be more aware of requirements needed to fly and be in compliance.

Until there is some accountability in the requirements to fly UAS's in today's US airspace, it will remain "Open the Box, Charge the Battery, and Fly". Drone pilots like these are oblivious to rules, guidelines, and general common sense. It is unlikely they will post a comment on the FAA site.

For those of us that 'do it right', I'd urge each of you to compose a sincere comment in favor of whatever you believe would be the most beneficial to the UAS community......
..........both Part 107 members AND Recreational pilots.

Each of us have differing points of view, so let the FAA know what your thoughts are.

 

[skymonkey]

 

[Dave Pitman]

A demo with few details and a sales pitch by the presumed USS operators.
The claim is pretty much rainbows and unicorns of course.

With the USS network scheme, how about those wanting to monitor the database, LLE or joe-public could pay a fee to access the USS data. Operators would not be charged?

Notice the RC airplane operator just needs to download an app and they qualify for the Limited category. (it appears)

 

[BigAl07]

A demo with few details and a sales pitch by the presumed USS operators.
The claim is pretty much rainbows and unicorns of course.

With the USS network scheme, how about those wanting to monitor the database, LLE or joe-public could pay a fee to access the USS data. Operators would not be charged?

Notice the RC airplane operator just needs to download an app and they qualify for the Limited category. (it appears)

It's GREAT to see Bixler with FlightTest and his side kick being a part of that. They are huge "influencers" for the Hobby/Recreational industry. HUGE!!!

 

[bsartist]

It's GREAT to see Bixler with FlightTest and his side kick being a part of that. They are huge "influencers" for the Hobby/Recreational industry. HUGE!!!

Yeah but my personal opinion is that network remote ID (as opposed to direct broadcast) is a bit of an overreach, cumbersome, costly and fraught with privacy concerns. I think it jumps the shark and violates the KISS principle. Just my $.02