FAA Remote I.D.

It's laughable to suggest that a 319 page document, produced by the government and it's lawyers, is "quite clear". If it was clear, there wouldn't be so much confusion about it.

The section you referenced: "If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing. "

doesn't explain what it means to "broadcast" the message. Does it require it to be in 2-way communication with a receiver before it is considered successfully "broadcast"? If not, as EndeavorOR says above, that's good. But if it does (as everyone else out there is saying), that's bad.

Page 10 says "The FAA proposes to address the identification issues associated with UAS by requiring the use of new services and technology to enable the remote identification of UAS. " But, it doesn't say what that is. It just says it isn't ADS-B. Hopefully it is some thing that is truly broadcast-only. Considering it is 319 pages, demonstrating they don't mind writing lots of stuff, they really need to make that clear. It wouldn't kill them to make the document 320 pages in order to clear up this very important question.

If you read the document you would already know the answers to all those questions. Whining about the length of the proposal is pure intellectual laziness. I suggest you read it before posting further. You only have another 309 pages to go if you already got to page 10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meta4
If you read the document you would already know the answers to all those questions. Whining about the length of the proposal is pure intellectual laziness. I suggest you read it before posting further. You only have another 309 pages to go if you already got to page 10.

Do you think this is an effective technique for having a discussion about the issue? Instead of being helpful, you're just insulting others who you think don't know as much as you. This is your second post like this. What, you think after insulting me that I'll be like "awww shucks, I'll go reread the thing again, maybe next time I'll be able to understand as much as sar104 does". No, it just ends any discussion or any desire to seek to learn further what you think you might be trying to communicate. I see this type of post all the time on forums... "why don't you google it", etc.
 
My Phantom 4 Pro plus doesn’t even have a phone attached. It uses its own attached screen... so it doesn’t have the capability to use a service provider to access the internet.

It does connect to WiFi if it’s available... if it’s available!!

It’s amazing that all these regulations are stemming from 2 known (that I know of) drones hitting manned aircraft.

A small twin engine plane crashed today in Louisiana because the pilot flew into power lines (from what I’ve heard).

More people died from that then ever died from a drone hitting a manned aircraft.

I understand the need to protect human life, but stupid people gonna do stupid stuff regardless of regulations...I’m not saying the pilot in LA was stupid, but hitting power lines probably DOESN’T violate FAA regs... are they gonna add that now?

I do think Congress/FAA are going a little bit overboard...

They (government) need to implement mandatory cell phone texting feature shut down when driving. I’m a police officer and texting while driving kills lots of people.

Next time you're driving 55 mph down a 2 lane street and the car coming the opposite direction (only feet away from you) also doing 55 mph... you’re that close to death everyday if that person texting.

I chose to live in the country partly because I can fly my rc aircraft on my property. Now, I won’t be able to fly my rc helicopter (no onboard camera) on my property in the middle of no where because some idiot somewhere crashed his drone at a airport?

This is America right? Prosecute the idiots and leave the rest of us alone.

We have a lot of regulations already. I’m all for a software update to let my P4P+ broadcast WiFi, but if I have to spend more money... it’s getting ridiculous!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 23103a and MTO
My Phantom 4 Pro plus doesn’t even have a phone attached. It uses its own attached screen... so it doesn’t have the capability to use a service provider to access the internet.

It does connect to WiFi if it’s available... if it’s available!!

It’s amazing that all these regulations are stemming from 2 known (that I know of) drones hitting manned aircraft.

A small twin engine plane crashed today in Louisiana because the pilot flew into power lines (from what I’ve heard).

More people died from that then ever died from a drone hitting a manned aircraft.

I understand the need to protect human life, but stupid people gonna do stupid stuff regardless of regulations...I’m not saying the pilot in LA was stupid, but hitting power lines probably DOESN’T violate FAA regs... are they gonna add that now?

I do think Congress/FAA are going a little bit overboard...

They (government) need to implement mandatory cell phone texting feature shut down when driving. I’m a police officer and texting while driving kills lots of people.

Next time you're driving 55 mph down a 2 lane street and the car coming the opposite direction (only feet away from you) also doing 55 mph... you’re that close to death everyday if that person texting.

I chose to live in the country partly because I can fly my rc aircraft on my property. Now, I won’t be able to fly my rc helicopter (no onboard camera) on my property in the middle of no where because some idiot somewhere crashed his drone at a airport?

This is America right? Prosecute the idiots and leave the rest of us alone.

We have a lot of regulations already. I’m all for a software update to let my P4P+ broadcast WiFi, but if I have to spend more money... it’s getting ridiculous!

Do NOT believe the public safety nonsense. This has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with dollars and control.
 
If you read the document you would already know the answers to all those questions. Whining about the length of the proposal is pure intellectual laziness. I suggest you read it before posting further. You only have another 309 pages to go if you already got to page 10.

Citizens aren't here to serve the government, the government was made to serve the citizens. The Constitution is a little over 4,000 words on four sheets of paper. A citizen should NOT have to read 300+ pages to understand the regulations for flying a recreational drone to take pictures and video. That utter nonsense.
 
Do you think this is an effective technique for having a discussion about the issue? Instead of being helpful, you're just insulting others who you think don't know as much as you. This is your second post like this. What, you think after insulting me that I'll be like "awww shucks, I'll go reread the thing again, maybe next time I'll be able to understand as much as sar104 does". No, it just ends any discussion or any desire to seek to learn further what you think you might be trying to communicate. I see this type of post all the time on forums... "why don't you google it", etc.

It's not my job to convince you of anything or to hold your hand through understanding this proposal. You chose to post completely inaccurate information, and then you asserted that my observation that the information was clearly stated in the document was "laughable", so don't try to play the victim card.
 
Citizens aren't here to serve the government, the government was made to serve the citizens. The Constitution is a little over 4,000 words on four sheets of paper. A citizen should NOT have to read 300+ pages to understand the regulations for flying a recreational drone to take pictures and video. That utter nonsense.

Seriously! Thank you.
 
I see a few legitimate concerns:

1. Obsolences: Nobody wants their investment to become useless because their equipment won't comply with the new standard.
2. Privacy: Nobody wants the crazies to have their home address.
3. Government overreach: This is a legitimate concern, particularly with local and state agencies. It is THE REASON why Congress gave the FAA preemption powers.
Maybe they will do something about private listing the drone address when a crazy takes out a drone owner and hits CNN but that would require 2 people, the victim, and the crazy.
 
With the standard RID your system WOULD be REQUIRED to update to the internet in real-time. If you are in a location without any internet access you would be limited to 400 feet distance.
(as long as it is capable of broadcasting from the AC)
We should not be limited to 400 ft distance because we have no internet.
Nor should we be required to pay for data rates AND a subscription fee to third party corporations.

When will GA fliers be paying the towers their subscription fees?

I have to pay and test for my 107 and am responsible as a PIC, just like a GA pilot, and eligible for all the fines too may I add.

Also, what about G airspace? Why do we need to tell anyone about what we are doing in G airspace at all? Not required of manned aircraft. But then again when was a manned aircraft ever used as a terrorist weapon like a drone can be, right?
Oh yeah, right.

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.
So let's not kid ourselves or the public about this rule making things safer for other aircraft.
This is specifically for law enforcement to be able to track our every move because people with drones are coming to kill everybody.

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.

FINANCIAL BURDEN = LESS NON AND SMALL COMMERCIAL FLIERS.

end of story.

P.S. Since everyone is so worried about public safety, why don't we talk about making automobiles transmit this data, as they are already killing thousands of people every year. Data like this could stop hit and runs dead. (Pun intended)

If your car is not connected real time to the internet, you cannot drive it more than 400 ft away from where it was parked. If you become disconnected during your standard drive, you should have to pull over as soon as practicable.
 
Well, after taking a few months off from this forum and coming back to see what people were saying about this, all I can really think of it is how a bunch of folks that for years have been relentlessly advocating for more FAA regulation of the NAS...got exactly what they were asking for. Welcome to the logical conclusion of a self-expanding government.
 
Well, ramble on! How about FAA licensing based on IQ + Common Sense test. That might reduce the number of drones in the US from 1.5 million to around 60 from what I've seen lately.
I live under the base/cross wind portion of the traffic pattern at a busy uncontrolled county airport. I get lots of low a/c over the house at times. Just recently the house next door was for sale. I hear a drone and go check it out and it's a guy flying a Mavic 2, like mine. He didn't have a commercial lic. and didn't call the airport office. He said he was just doing a favor for a friend and left. That's just one of the many issues I see with flying cameras. My house is 160' ASL, add 400' to that and consider the airport elev is 65' bla bla. He could have got right up in the mix. I Have test flown in my yard but I keep it below roof level and short cuz there loud. I was a high school drop out so I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but did end up getting a diploma. And in the early 80's it was Army TV commericals "High School to Flight School" So I have a comm. Inst. helo rating thanks to the USA and I have an airplane single eng. rating. I'm rambling again. I could see a written test like buying a gun, I just hope the test is harder :) There are problems on the county gov. side here too. I grew up under the above mentioned airport. The office is manned off/on during the day only. Sooo I went to the county website for the airport and there was an online form a had to fill out to fly. I didn't do it but how that info gets to pilots over unacomm ( if that's what they still call it) in a timely matter I don't know. Me I like to fly in the Nevada Desert where I can cut loose and fly all over w/o danger to anyone and W/O cell coverage. If this gets to the point you can't fly in the wilderness I will be so sad but DJI wiil be sadder. But I'll get one of the new improved miniature drones. WTF
 
Also, what about G airspace? Why do we need to tell anyone about what we are doing in G airspace at all? Not required of manned aircraft. But then again when was a manned aircraft ever used as a terrorist weapon like a drone can be, right?
Oh yeah, right.

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.
So let's not kid ourselves or the public about this rule making things safer for other aircraft.
This is specifically for law enforcement to be able to track our every move because people with drones are coming to kill everybody.

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.

My point exactly, why can’t I fly my old school rc aircraft on my country property in class g airspace? If I let go of the sticks they crash, can’t do beyond VLOS as there are no cameras.

What law enforcement are you talking about? Certainly not state and local because 90% of them are clueless about drone laws (I know that as I am a cop).

This is pressure from the big corporations to limit Joe Public from being in “THEIR” airspace. Thank Amazon... but our packages might be here the same day?

I may not be Jeff Bezos, but I too want to make money with my drone. This is the land of the free right? I have my 107, marked my drones with commercial FAA numbers, use LAANC to give notice blah blah blah...
 
My point exactly, why can’t I fly my old school rc aircraft on my country property in class g airspace?

You can, but it will need to broadcast position data. The FAA is clearly anticipating a much higher density of low-altitude drone traffic in the future, and UAVs are much harder to spot than general aviation VFR traffic. But in the end it would not surprise me if all manned traffic is required to broadcast ADS-B or similar in all airspace.
 
This is pressure from the big corporations to limit Joe Public from being in “THEIR” airspace. Thank Amazon... but our packages might be here the same day[emoji849]

From what I’ve read Amazon, UPS, and others will be flying drones above 500’. These drones will be using ADS-B equipment not RID.
 
I guess we’ll just have to get used to packages being busted up from the 500’ fall, since they’ll never break that barrier.

The packages will not be dropped, the drones will come down to certain safe altitude and the package will be lowered by hoist I believe.
 
The packages will not be dropped, the drones will come down to certain safe altitude and the package will be lowered by hoist I believe.

A hoist operation of several hundred feet for every delivery? That sounds more dangerous than the drone performing a landing.

What I was reading a while back was that they were testing a system where the recipient would put out a mat (marked with a special Amazon logo) in a predetermined safe landing area, and the drone would know to look for and use it as the landing location.
 
The drone would come down much lower than that.

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

I’ve also seen the logo pad you talk about. I think in suburbs and urban areas coming down to ground might be a little risky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smiller
Frankly once the number of deliveries gets high enough to be practical for the shipper I have to imagine accidents will mount up, just a matter of odds no matter how carefully planned, at least until the technology matures to the point where accidents are extremely rare. The question is will drone delivery be able to make it though the first phase to the second.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers