FAA Remote I.D.

[R Martin]

It was as of April/May of this year. The outside firm is going through the submissions trying to get them into sensible buckets. Then they will be processed and who knows what will come down the pipes from that.

The way NPRM goes... if they have to make several "significant" revisions each one could significantly delay the final ruling because each one gets a Comment Period followed by a Review Period. Who knows . . . .

My big concern is my current hardware. I installed all the whistles and bells only to discover that it won't be allowed possibly. We are in the process of replacing the Inspire because I can't do the job without something small to pick up the little stuff. The FireFly is great on big jobs but its too much of a pain to drag out and set up for a 1-5 minute flight. Its a crap shoot but I've settled on a Phantom 4 for now. At least the cost isn't something we couldn't surplus and replace when the regs change if it comes to that. The big bird though....just have to see what shakes out.

 

[Dave Pitman]

he way NPRM goes... if they have to make several "significant" revisions each one could significantly delay the final ruling because each one gets a Comment Period followed by a Review Period.

Well the first comment period came and went and by what has been released by the FAA since indicates that the majority of those comments went right into the virtual round bin. I would expect the same on subsequent rounds, only with much less interaction from the trenches as we now see the writing on the wall, so what's the use.

A lot of words to say I get the impression that R. Martin's thoughts are probably correct. Simple, sensible RID is not in the cards.

And, "it doesn't matter 'cus in 3 years all the current uavs will be in the waste basket so it doesn't matter" is simply incorrect. (no disrespect to anyone that believes this). My 5 year old P3P still operates just fine. Religated to emergency or high risk use (for the drone), yes. But working perfectly. My P1 still flies too for that matter. I can't be the only one that takes care of their kit.

 

[dronesky]

Well the first comment period came and went and by what has been released by the FAA since indicates that the majority of those comments went right into the virtual round bin. I would expect the same on subsequent rounds, only with much less interaction from the trenches as we now see the writing on the wall, so what's the use.

A lot of words to say I get the impression that R. Martin's thoughts are probably correct. Simple, sensible RID is not in the cards.

And, "it doesn't matter 'cus in 3 years all the current uavs will be in the waste basket so it doesn't matter" is simply incorrect. (no disrespect to anyone that believes this). My 5 year old P3P still operates just fine. Religated to emergency or high risk use (for the drone), yes. But working perfectly. My P1 still flies too for that matter. I can't be the only one that takes care of their kit.

Pretty much same for me my P3P is my back ups back up and flys great same as my P1

 

[BigAl07]

Well the first comment period came and went and by what has been released by the FAA since indicates that the majority of those comments went right into the virtual round bin. I would expect the same on subsequent rounds, only with much less interaction from the trenches as we now see the writing on the wall, so what's the use.

A lot of words to say I get the impression that R. Martin's thoughts are probably correct. Simple, sensible RID is not in the cards.

And, "it doesn't matter 'cus in 3 years all the current uavs will be in the waste basket so it doesn't matter" is simply incorrect. (no disrespect to anyone that believes this). My 5 year old P3P still operates just fine. Religated to emergency or high risk use (for the drone), yes. But working perfectly. My P1 still flies too for that matter. I can't be the only one that takes care of their kit.

Pretty much same for me my P3P is my back ups back up and flys great same as my P1

To be fair my exact statement was:

Odds are by the time this goes into effect the vast majority of non-compliant aircraft will be replaced and some of them a few times over.

(bold and increased font for emphasis by Allen)

I too have many sUAS (I would guestimate at least a dozen if not more) that will not fit into the "New" regulations and most of them probably can't be retrofitted to be compliant either. My backup/reserve fleet includes P3P, P3S as well as some custom and off-brand units that predate P1's. It is what it is.

It's hard to imagine any growing/emerging industry that a product is made that is forever Future Proof especially with the rate that technology and regulations are evolving.

The vast majority of current sUAS operators who will still be flying when this new regulation goes into FULL SERVICE will not be flying non-compliant aircraft. Yes some of us will have legacy equipment but we will be the exception not the rule.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Al, probably true.

But to be fair, the FAA of the past was far more practical than the agency seems to be headed today. Many of these future "legacy" aircraft could easily comply with a live broadcast RID scheme because they already have that capability. This was made clear to the FAA and it seems they chose to ignore that and simply dismiss it with the notion that these craft will be in the bin in a few years. Remember the "old" FAA that allows manned aviation aircraft that didn't come with electrical systems or radios to operate in the NAS? And even accommodates them in the most controlled airspace when conditions are met. Not that I personally would fly without a radio, but you get my point, I think.

The bitter pill is that the FAA's vision of UTM disguised as RID is in lockstep with corporate BVLOS, saturated airspace operation that the majority of us will never do. Yet we will be restricted by it's complications and tasked with paying for it.

Corporate manned aviation has tried to get general aviation to pay more than it's share for decades and the FAA has thus far not mandated that. Here we are at basically the dawn of UAS operation and the FAA is going all-in with corportate UAS. It's not really a time for celebration for many and the FAA's excuses like the 3 year life span of UAS just makes it worse.

 

[xJaybirdx]

Check out the price on these units, ping 2020i & ping 1090i.

UAS: Communicate, Navigate, Separate - uAvionix

Unmanned Aviation Systems (UAS) Communicate ADS-B solutions for point-to-point or networked UAS operations for Beyond Visual Line of Sight Operations. Available Now MicroLink

uavionix.com

Holy crap!

 

[bsartist]

With all due respect BOTH the AIRCRAFT and CONTROL Station units don't have to actively report/broadcast. The Control Station location and Aircraft information (Lat/Long and Alt) have to be transmitted but that can be done via the transmission from the aircraft only. The MIN requirement is for the AIRCRAFT to broadcast via RF to be able to fly under the Standard Remote ID section. If able then both units would/should broadcast but it Internet not available etc only the Aircraft has to broadcast to meet the MIN requirement.

Here's an interesting and very well digested breakdown of the NPRM as it was when submission window closed:

https://mavicpilots.com/attachments/faa_remote_id_nprm_overview_-january_23-_2020-pdf.92379/

Just for clarification, this still means that building an app for the phone still wouldn’t “fly” because transmitting from only the controller would not meet the minimum requirements (as proposed). No?

 

[BigAl07]

Just for clarification, this still means that building an app for the phone still wouldn’t “fly” because transmitting from only the controller would not meet the minimum requirements (as proposed). No?

That's MY understanding. They want to know AIRCRAFT location and for those big companies who are planning/hoping/betting to fly BVLOS Autonomously this makes sense as the aircraft may not be in constant contact with the Ground Control Station at all times.

 

[R Martin]

Holy crap!

This is certainly not a solution for a lot of rec pilots but on the commercial side, it makes sense. It plugs in directly to my PixHawk flight controller and I was able to make the mod myself. You get instant situational awareness of an radius you define. GA and commercial pilots know where you are at any given instant. ATC gets the information in real-time as well. So $2K is a small price to pay in my book. That amount was basically 1/10th the cost of my aircraft. If I had a $200.00 rec UAV, it would be a different story.

 

[ARMeyer]

That's MY understanding. They want to know AIRCRAFT location and for those big companies who are planning/hoping/betting to fly BVLOS Autonomously this makes sense as the aircraft may not be in constant contact with the Ground Control Station at all times.

Good point, up until now I thought that reporting from the controller should be sufficient, but in the eyes of the FAA, if the controller loses contact with the AC and/or there is a flyaway, then the AC location is unknown.

I’m not opposed to letting the FAA and other UAS, GA & Commercial pilots to know where I’m flying as I think it would be beneficial to all pilots. The issues I have are:

1. I don’t know how the FAA can prevent the general public from getting the info because it becomes a matter of public record.
2. The added expenses to my phone data plan for the amount to data that will be transmitted.
3. 5G coverage better be available EVERYWHERE since it seems like the AC won’t be allowed to fly without data being sent (I fly in areas where only 4G is available).
4. Although I don’t fly for emergency purposes, there should be a bypass for emergency response teams in the event that 5G coverage is knocked out or overloaded during a disaster.

I realize I’m just pointing out several problems

 

[BigAl07]

1. I don’t know how the FAA can prevent the general public from getting the info because it becomes a matter of public record.

As proposed the info will be available LIVE to the public during the flight. The stored DATA would also be public record but care if people know where I'm flying but that's just me.

2. The added expenses to my phone data plan for the amount to data that will be transmitted.

You could set your system to "Broadcast Only from Aircraft" and then upload the data later over WiFi etc.

3. 5G coverage better be available EVERYWHERE since it seems like the AC won’t be allowed to fly without data being sent (I fly in areas where only 4G is available).

There is an allowance for lack of Internet coverage so 5G or not isn't a limiting factor as the rules were initially proposed.

4. Although I don’t fly for emergency purposes, there should be a bypass for emergency response teams in the event that 5G coverage is knocked out or overloaded during a disaster.

I DO fly for Emergency Services but if there is not sufficient Internet coverage you can still fly so long as the AIRCRAFT is set to BROADCAST and the associated DATA could be uploaded later. A large portion of my Emergency Services area is WILDERNESS and there is and will not be any cell service.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I realize I’m just pointing out several problems

Yeah, thousands brought up those and many, many more problems with the NPRM.....irrellevent I'm afraid. Welcome to the frey!

 

[Caryboy]

if that does pass I will fly without it since I fly under 400' and what are they going to bring out fighter jets to intercept them, id like to see that.

 

[Basspig]

I'm hanging onto my P4P with old firmware.

 

[BigAl07]

if that does pass I will fly without it since I fly under 400' and what are they going to bring out fighter jets to intercept them, id like to see that.

No but they can come see you in person and have a word with you. It happens more than you realize and when Remote ID goes LIVE it will happen even more often.

 

[Caryboy]

That’s the benefit of having Multiple addresses.

 

[dirkclod]

That’s the benefit of having Multiple addresses.

If your wanted to be found believe me they will find you.

 

[BigAl07]

That’s the benefit of having Multiple addresses.

Yea well that may work for getting your mail but when they walk up to you WHILE you're flying it may be a whole other ballgame. But you do you.

 

[smiller]

If you're flying safely and according to the rules in a suitable area, 'they' are not likely to notice or care. However yes, do something stupid enough to make someone look for you and they will not be happy. Not really any different than things are now.

If/when the rule changes ever do pass, it's hard to believe that any agency is going to make an effort to identify and track down drones that are flown safely and in an appropriate area solely because they are non-compliant with the new wireless notification rule and for no other reason. Not going to happen, there's just not the money nor manpower nor logic to back up the effort. That said, stray into a bad situation and a non-compliant aircraft would only make your day more unpleasant.