I have no problem with remote ID. It would be very helpful as a UAS pilot to be able to see other UAS’s in the area I’m flying in. As far as manned aircraft go, there is already a 100’ separation in place. We stay below 400’ and they stay above 500’. Obviously unless their landing which were not flying near airports anyway. The main issue I see is this whole requirement for the UAS broadcasting it’s information from the aircraft itself. Why? The controller is part of the AC. If this goes through as written there will be increased draw on batteries and further limit flight times. There also should be consideration given to unpopulated areas where there is no access to the internet. I’m planning on throwing my two cents into the FAA’s commenting period and I’d suggest everyone do the same.
FAA Remote I.D.
- Thread starter dronesky
- Start date
. I’m guessing that was on the homeland security wishlist when they were assembling this: method and avenue for a kill switch. Once that link is in place, the rest is easy.
That's not an answer. You asserted that homeland security and LE are driving this. So you read this somewhere?
The USS subscription, while proposed to be very low, is a bit inconsistent with traditional ATC and other systems such as LAANC. I wouldn't be surprised if that gets removed.
Your question as to how manned traffic will get these data is a good one, and that doesn't seem to be full described yet. An equally good question is how other sUAS will get the data, since the stated intention is to be able to integrate sUAS into the NAS and deconflict sUAS traffic with both manned aircraft and other sUAS. Since the Standard Remote ID requirement always involves direct broadcast (similar to ADS-B), the obvious solution for inter-traffic visibility is for both sUAS and manned aircraft to have receivers (equivalent to ADS-B in). ATC will obviously have access to the sUAS data via the internet and/or direct broadcast, and so around TMAs they will be able to notify manned traffic of any issues.
On flying without an internet connection - there is no operational requirement under SRID to have an internet connection - that's the reason for the direct broadcast requirement. SRID involves transmitting data elements to a USS via the internet only if an internet connection is available.
who said the USS subscription will be low. The USS suppliers will be free the set the cost to there liking. I can see the cost of use in the hundreds to thousands per month. there is some uav software on the market that runs in that range. pix4d. ugcs. and there are others.
The proposal specifies $2.50 per month. The FAA contract with the USS providers will constrain the price.
When I use airmap (LAANC) to request ATC/FAA authorization, i see all the other UAS that have announced their flight to airmap. So, I can already tell where other drones are if they announce their flight to airmap. The FAA should expand on that!!!
I try and use airmap for every flight of mine even if I don’t need the authorization. Record keeping and I can see the other drones in the area.
I try and use airmap for every flight of mine even if I don’t need the authorization. Record keeping and I can see the other drones in the area.
Let's take off the rose-colored glasses and get real for a minute. This is simply Paving the way for the big boys (IE Google, Amazon, even UPS) to plow through the skies with their drones and make sure us little people are out of the way. Throw the word safety on it to make it a less Jagged pill to swallow.
All under the guise to "solve" a problem that does not exist. Unless there has been a wave of drone on drone collisions or drone to man aircraft collisions that I'm unaware of.
All under the guise to "solve" a problem that does not exist. Unless there has been a wave of drone on drone collisions or drone to man aircraft collisions that I'm unaware of.
I’m LE and believe me when I say it isn’t LE driving this. We have enough to deal with without worrying about drones.
I can’t speak for the FEDS as I am not a FED, but unless they plan on quadrupling staff, almost nobody is going to be enforcing this either...
Someone posted that it's intellectually lazy to not read the 319 page legal document. I strongly and respectfully disagree. It IS possible to not be lazy and at the same time not want to read a 319 page legal document to be able to fly my drone. I have not read it and I probably won't. And I'm still allowed to have an opinion about my life being regulated. 319 pages? Who here has TRULY read the whole thing.... please SMH
That was probably my comment. It's not intellectually lazy per se not to read the proposal, but it is intellectually lazy to make repeated incorrect assertions about the contents based on click-bait YT videos or similar without consulting the proposal document at all. The proposal is 319 pages of double-spaced text, but the operating requirements are clearly set out in just a few pages.
I truly respect your opinions (although they differ from mine), but the “manual” I had to read as a kid to drive a couple ton piece of metal on a road inches from your couple ton piece of metal wasn’t this complicated.
I can only think of 2 drone vs manned craft collisions and a handful of other idiotic people crashing at or near airports... just think of all the horrific crashes from cars over the years and nothing like this for them??
Now before you say these are unmanned craft vs manned, hell they have self driving cars now!
This is being pushed by big business... just my opinion before you ask.
captainmilehigh
Premium Pilot
Same for KittyHawk. Although it would be interesting to see if KittyHawk and AirMap agree on flights filed and drones in the air at that moment on the map.
I'm sure that some of the bigger companies that are pursuing commercial operations, especially delivery systems, are in favor of this since some form of sUAS ATC/avoidance systems will be required. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, and the FAA was already mandated to do something like this by Congress anyway - that's the real driver.
Who is/was pushing the FAA/Congress to come up with this? Big Corporations... is my guess.
Regardless, it’s coming. Hopefully the expense to small business (me) won’t put me out of business.
They may have lobbied for more regulation. But it was inevitably going to be needed anyway.
have anyone forgot this is a two rules in one proposal. one operation standered which is being touched on now. but some of you seem to forget the bigger issue production standards which is in the document. here is a big I got you by the tail. it called tamperproof requirement which equals no opensource flight controller or open source ground station software also custom payloads are also banished.
I really don’t think LE driving it is in any way regarding additional new laws to enforce. It‘s simply an investigation tool: identify the user of a drone before the thing ever hits the ground. That’s pretty simple.
And no, I don’t think LE is the primary force behind this, but I do believe they were licking their chops when the FAA told them to present their wishlist for what they wanted to see in it.
I posted earlier expressing my similar opinion about big business. But it is likely lost in the sea of comments. Obviously this is a heated debate/ topic, there are 9 or 10 pages of comments so far! Good stuff!
All the local cops I know done even know the FAA regulates drones. Heck a lot of them have drones and don’t even have FAA #s.
We have enough to worry about on the ground...
Now the FAA/ NTSB/NSA and all the other acronyms might.
The amazing thing is since the White House and the senate are republicans controlled... they are supposed to be about smaller government. This all has been in the works longer than the past 3 years though...
Similar threads
- Sticky
