FAA Remote I.D.
- Thread starter dronesky
- Start date
Yes Josh is concerned and he spoke very well there. His passion for aviation (in general with UAS and Manned) is very contagious and we genuinely hope this new requirement does NOT stifle that for the youth and the not-so-youth around the world.
We’re looking at a few years out and many of us will have retired/replaced several models by then.
Also this is the “proposed” rules so don't get too far ahead of the cart.
Last edited:
FAA gets early earful on drone ID
The FAA published on December 31 a detailed and long-awaited proposal to create a system to track and manage every flight by millions of drones, and many stakeholders responded swiftly: The online document logged more than 100,000 views and 1,000 comments within three days of its publication.
www.aopa.org
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 176
- Age
- 54
From the article...FAA gets early earful on drone ID
The FAA published on December 31 a detailed and long-awaited proposal to create a system to track and manage every flight by millions of drones, and many stakeholders responded swiftly: The online document logged more than 100,000 views and 1,000 comments within three days of its publication.www.aopa.org
"The FAA has made clear that Remote Identification (RID) is a prerequisite for a long list of advanced operations being allowed without waivers, including routine drone flights at night, over people, and beyond the remote pilot’s line of sight;"
I have a feeling that if you could afford to buy a SRID drone, the liability insurance will be quite high. This will keep Joe Consumer in his little 400-foot flying bubble.
Unfortunately it was some of these “Joe Consumers” that led all of us to the changes coming in the next three years.
We all will pay the price.
I don't see how that conclusion follows at all. Waivers and insurance will be required for those advanced operations, not simply because a UAV has SRID.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 176
- Age
- 54
Sure you won't have to have insurance to own the drone, but to fly it?
I'm predicting that the SRID tech will only be available on higher-end drones like an Inspire 2 or other industrial commercial type drones.
Routine drone flights at night, over people, and beyond the remote pilot’s line of sight. With SRID you will not need a waiver for these types of flights. That's one reason why you won't find SRID on a consumer drone.
Here some scenarios I gathered from reading that FAA thing you told me to read.
Charlie, a guy who wants to do some photographing as a hobby, will purchase a drone tagged LRID. Doing so will allow Charlie to fly around in a 400-foot circle and take some pictures.
Then there is Sally, she has a Part 107 license and owns a business. Because Sally needs to fly more than 400-feet, she goes out and pays the extra money to buy a drone that is tagged SRID.
I have a feeling that the SRID drone is going to cost a great deal more $ than the LRID one.
Then there is Billy, Billy sat down at his kitchen table and built a drone while drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. He bought the parts for his drone at a local hobby shop. He is a nice guy, but Billy's drone doesn't have SRID or LRID.
So his next step is to immediately report to the FAA website and register his hobby built drone using his full name as the model number. When done, Billy will check the yellow pages and find his nearest AMA field where he will pay his dues and fly his drone.
Afterward, Billy might have a couple of beers with the owner of the club before heading home to let his dog out.
I really don't understand all these unsupported dire predictions. Why do you think SRID will only be available on more expensive drones? The necessary hardware basically already exists in all the recent DJI aircraft - the capability to connect to the internet via the mobile device and a wifi-frequency radio for broadcast. And there are huge numbers of professional/commercial/public service users of Phantoms and Mavics, so why would DJI not include that functionality in those levels of aircraft? That would be a bizarre business decision.
As for insurance - that will be based on how and where you fly, as it is now, not which radios the aircraft uses.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 176
- Age
- 54
Because if these drones are permitted to fly beyond VLOS, over people, and at night they will have to be safe and mechanically sound.
That means FAA certified and inspected. As a matter of fact, I'm going to bet you $5.00 that one of the safety requirements will be that they are equipped with parachutes. Also, I'll bet there will be a pretty elaborate base station that will be needed as well.
The Phantom 4 you see in my profile pic would never pass the test. It would for LRID, but I don't think DJI would go through the trouble to update these little drones when they have the opportunity to force you into buying a brand new one. From a business standpoint its kind of a no brainer.
Maybe about a year before the new rules kick in they will start cranking out some LRID and SRID models.
Operations with a parachute will still require a waiver, and will cost more than a brand new P4P V2.
The parachute $300, ASTM kit $1500, and manual deployment capabilities round $300.
$2100 total.
Off the shelf, over people
Flights over people got easier and recreational drone compliance a little clearer. Plus, federal dollars will help validate drone tech to come.
www.aopa.org
- Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance
The Department of Transportation made three major announcements that will be an advancement for the commercial drone industry: (1) proposed regulations to allow drone operators to fly over people as well as at night WITHOUT a waiver or an exemption, (2) an advanced notice of proposed rule making...
jrupprechtlaw.com
Yes - but SRID is not only for flying BVLOS. It's for flying beyond 400 ft. There is nothing in this proposal requiring FAA certified and inspected drones to do what is currently allowed under recreational and Part 107 rules.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 312
- Reaction score
- 176
- Age
- 54
Operations with a parachute will still require a waiver, and will cost more than a brand new P4P V2.
The parachute $300, ASTM kit $1500, and manual deployment capabilities round $300.
$2100 total.
Off the shelf, over people
Flights over people got easier and recreational drone compliance a little clearer. Plus, federal dollars will help validate drone tech to come.www.aopa.org
- Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance
The Department of Transportation made three major announcements that will be an advancement for the commercial drone industry: (1) proposed regulations to allow drone operators to fly over people as well as at night WITHOUT a waiver or an exemption, (2) an advanced notice of proposed rule making...
- Has been satisfactorily demonstrated to the FAA by the manufacturer they are below the Category 2 injury threshold,
- No exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin, and
- No FAA-identified safety defect.
here is a part on another comment I made to the nprm
While I support the FAA and their efforts to ensure a near absolute safe environment for national air space. I do welcome realistic and reasonable methods to Identify uas in the growing of the uas population in the coming years. As of now I do believe 400 AGL is appropriate flight level mark.With man aircraft low level mark at 500 AGL which gives 100 ft separation
With that be said I do have concerns. For aircraft with remote id the remote id must not hinder in anyway of the following. 1st the entire air space under FAA jurisdiction normal for UAS Minus any and all prohibited areas and or any TFR for man and Uas flights. That airspace must be made without any obstruction in any way shape or form be made available for Legal Uas operators both recreational and commercial. 2ND financial and or other burdens to comply must be minimalized to the greatest extent possible. 3rd There must be means to ensure full compliance and those who fly rouge must be held fully accountable. 4th In current form this will have massive pilot safety issues with some general public folks will harass (verbal or with weapons knives or firearms) or use law enforcement to needlessly harass legal flying pilots who are fully with in the laws. Changes must be made to protect pilots from harm. As the unmanned aircraft as been defined as actual aircraft
not as a toy or a model of a aircraft. The following suggestions are being presented for the 4th concern. 1st shooting at or downing of (in any method) a LEGAL FLIGHT uav that is in the air or on the ground needs to have severe civil and criminal penalties attached that are actually enforced and prosecuted. 2nd Interfering with a LEGAL FLIGHT uav operation also must have severe civil and or criminal penalties that are actually enforced. 3rd If civilian for federal law enforcement agents and other official security personnel (such as state for federal park rangers) are to help the FAA enforce Unmanned Air System regulations they must be fully professionally trained and certified on the all the laws regarding the use of Unmanned aircraft systems.
The 400ft AGL limit for flights I mentioned before was pre remote id. With remote Id enabled I would like to make a few requests. 1st request increase the flight AGL to 200 ft from the floor of controlled E airspace outside of controlled airspace of airports. 2nd increase distance flying from ground station from 400ft to 1000ft in a sparsely populated area (farm field or other low population area). if limited remote id must be had. 3rd CBO such as AMA can have new fixed flight sites approved beyond proposed 12 month period after rules takes effect. 4th CBO such as AMA can request waivers that can be granted easily to hold contest or challenges at areas that more suitable for the events than at the existing fixed flight site. 5th to enable request 1 require abd-s in (not adb-s out) module for remote pilots to track and have a heads up advantage for manned flights near them that is not In visual range of the ground station site that will flyover where they are at so they can move the unmanned aircraft out of the way. before the man aircraft comes into visual sight.
While I support the FAA and their efforts to ensure a near absolute safe environment for national air space. I do welcome realistic and reasonable methods to Identify uas in the growing of the uas population in the coming years. As of now I do believe 400 AGL is appropriate flight level mark.With man aircraft low level mark at 500 AGL which gives 100 ft separation
With that be said I do have concerns. For aircraft with remote id the remote id must not hinder in anyway of the following. 1st the entire air space under FAA jurisdiction normal for UAS Minus any and all prohibited areas and or any TFR for man and Uas flights. That airspace must be made without any obstruction in any way shape or form be made available for Legal Uas operators both recreational and commercial. 2ND financial and or other burdens to comply must be minimalized to the greatest extent possible. 3rd There must be means to ensure full compliance and those who fly rouge must be held fully accountable. 4th In current form this will have massive pilot safety issues with some general public folks will harass (verbal or with weapons knives or firearms) or use law enforcement to needlessly harass legal flying pilots who are fully with in the laws. Changes must be made to protect pilots from harm. As the unmanned aircraft as been defined as actual aircraft
not as a toy or a model of a aircraft. The following suggestions are being presented for the 4th concern. 1st shooting at or downing of (in any method) a LEGAL FLIGHT uav that is in the air or on the ground needs to have severe civil and criminal penalties attached that are actually enforced and prosecuted. 2nd Interfering with a LEGAL FLIGHT uav operation also must have severe civil and or criminal penalties that are actually enforced. 3rd If civilian for federal law enforcement agents and other official security personnel (such as state for federal park rangers) are to help the FAA enforce Unmanned Air System regulations they must be fully professionally trained and certified on the all the laws regarding the use of Unmanned aircraft systems.
The 400ft AGL limit for flights I mentioned before was pre remote id. With remote Id enabled I would like to make a few requests. 1st request increase the flight AGL to 200 ft from the floor of controlled E airspace outside of controlled airspace of airports. 2nd increase distance flying from ground station from 400ft to 1000ft in a sparsely populated area (farm field or other low population area). if limited remote id must be had. 3rd CBO such as AMA can have new fixed flight sites approved beyond proposed 12 month period after rules takes effect. 4th CBO such as AMA can request waivers that can be granted easily to hold contest or challenges at areas that more suitable for the events than at the existing fixed flight site. 5th to enable request 1 require abd-s in (not adb-s out) module for remote pilots to track and have a heads up advantage for manned flights near them that is not In visual range of the ground station site that will flyover where they are at so they can move the unmanned aircraft out of the way. before the man aircraft comes into visual sight.
When will we know for sure if this is going to become law? if it does i guess i will be forced to leave drones as there is no way i am going to fly with internet all the time or even be able to get a drone which HAS remote id currently i only have a phantom 2 which will probably become obsolete if this becomes a law along with all the other old drone's.drones will be ruined for me.
When will we know for sure if this is going to become law? if it does i guess i will be forced to leave drones as there is no way i am going to fly with internet all the time or even be able to get a drone which HAS remote id currently i only have a phantom 2 which will probably become obsolete if this becomes a law along with all the other old drone's.drones will be ruined for me.
After the 60 day comment period and then a review period by the FAA of the MANY comments. Then then can even change their proposal to try and meet the demands of the commenters or they can push it through as-is.
Worst case ( push it as is) would be at least 6 months before it became law and even then it would be roughly 36 month implementation time.
In terms of “always flying with internet access” that’s but one of the options. Having an aircraft that can Self Broadcast also meets the requirements.
I agree, this is something that has many thinking they need both on the standard RID. I believe internet is more for joe public first then FAA. Broadcast will be mainly FAA. Either or.
Similar threads
- Sticky
