FAA (USA) new proposed rules for UAV Remote-ID and location

[SirThomas]

It appears that the FAA is proposing some new rules (to be published 12/31/19) that they want comments on. Basically, it appears to be rules related to having drones identify themselves in real time, either via an onboard transmitter or via real-time transmission over the internet. Three tiers: fully able to identify, limited ability to identify, and unable to identify (think all current devices not retrofitted and self-built, not commercially purchased). As I read the proposed regulations, all current devices will be restricted to basically flying club locations after 3 years. Personally, that will pretty much get out of the fun of flying to anyone who just flies once in a while purely for entertainment and likes taking aerial photos and video. Comments? I plan to comment via the official comment channel once it is published.

Public Inspection: Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

 

[I B Spectre]

As I read the proposed regulations, all current devices will be restricted to basically flying club locations after 3 years.

I haven't seen anything so far suggesting restricting drones to flying club locations after 3 years. To be fair, I only clicked on the links embedded in the FAA email, so it's possible that I missed something. If you've seen something on this elsewhere, please post a link, we need all the information we can get.

We had a good discussion back on November under They will find you (maybe)! and it's a good read. We need to provide thoughtful, constructive input on this to help shape emerging regulations. We cannot afford to do nothing at this pivotal moment.

When I posted the above, I did not realize the unpublished document from the Federal Register was available. It's 319 pages long and reads like most government documents being clear as mud. Up to now, most of the references to "FAA recognized identification areas" has pertained to RC clubs located within restricted airspace, so further reading is warranted to clarify. One problem I see is that two of the three methods illustrated in the email are for ways to remotely identify that depend on availability of the internet. We need to make our voices heard when it comes to the realities of flying drones in areas without reliable internet. We also need to press the issue of making our personal I.D. and location unavailable to anyone except the proper authorities with a need to know.

 

[SirThomas]

The 3-year comes from the part of the document that says all devices must conform within three years to these rules, so was an interpretation on my part.

The restriction on flying club locations was inferred by this portion on page 16 and 17: "A person operating a UAS without remote identification equipment would always be required to operate within visual line of sight6 and within an FAA-recognized identification area. Under the proposed rule, an FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area where UAS without remote identification can operate. An area would be eligible for establishment as an FAA-recognized identification area if it is a flying site that has been established within the programming of a community based organization recognized by the Administrator."

The limited-identification tier seems to be focused on UAS that are restricted by design to fly no more than 400 feet from operator, but these would have to real-time transmit identification and location data to a UAS service provider over the internet . The FAA guestimated that these service providers would charge us operators about $2.50/month to subscribe to their service. If no internet, then it won't take off. So, I guess some field-upgradeable units could potentitally be converted to limited-identification tier. I could see DJI doing that with the Spark so it becomes limited to 400 ft away from controller, and the Fly software on the phone/tablet would require both WiFi connection to drone and either WiFi or data plan on phone/tablet to be able to connect to the ID service provider.

The whole thing is interesting reading since it addresses each recommendation of a study group and either agreed with or rejected their recommendations.

Thanks for the pointer to the other discussion thread.

 

[SoccerRef12]

First let me say that I have not read any of the lengthy documents referenced in the discussion, but what I thought from some brief discussion/forums was that any new drones would have to have the location/user info broadcasted, but older devices would not have to be retrofitted with hardware to accomplish the new requirements. Had anyone seen anything that explicitly states that older drones would have to be retrofitted to fulfill the regulations?

 

[I B Spectre]

I appreciate your input, SirThomas. I found the "400 feet from its control station" part of the Limited Remote Identification model somewhat disturbing. 51drone was one of the first to make me aware of a proposal by DJI to address the issue in the video posted on the discussion thread. It sounds like DJI is keenly aware how this will impact the industry.

Somewhere I recall reading DJI said they could, via software, have existing drones transmit the required information. It might be as simple turning on UUID which is defaulted "on" with the Mavic Enterprise series, but supposedly not "off" in the other models. The costs involved with the Standard Remote ID and possibly with the Limited Remote ID are negatives, IMO, as are the establishment of databases of all drone flights, not just those that might be breaking the rules. Flight by subscription is not what most of us would embrace. I'm always skeptical of organizations that provide contract services that should fall exclusively within the province of the government (i.e. think private prisons).

Since, at least at this point, they're excluding UASs under .55 lbs (250 grams), I foresee more Mavic Mini sales along with any comparable designs from others.

News outlets are starting to pickup on the proposal. FAA announcement on Remote ID

 

[SirThomas]

I think the DJI representative in the video in the other thread said it well -- we should take the time to read through these proposed rules (which are different than what the advisory committee recommended) and craft reasonable responses to submit during the public comment period. I liked the way he suggested highlighting the positive aspects of the proposed rules as well as areas that would be a hardship or difficult to comply with.

 

[I B Spectre]

Good points, SirThomas, particularly since DJI has by far the largest drone products in the U.S.. Still, while they are the elephant in the room of drone producers, they are but one stakeholder that we would like to see influencing the regulatory outcome.

This NPRM is huge and takes a while to review, but I'm seeing certain items that pertain to those of us in this forum and I apologize in advance for the lengthy post, but it is important we understand the proposals to which we can respond:

Page 188:
Based on industry information and market research, the FAA estimates at least 93% of the current part 107 fleet and at least 20% of the current recreational fleet would be eligible for retrofits, thus minimizing the costs for operators and producers. This is based on industry information suggesting that small UAS at a certain level of design specification and operational capability would likely have system and connectivity capabilities that could be retrofit through a software update.

Page 190:
The FAA has limited information on the manufacturers and types of UAS in the recreation fleet because part 48 registration currently allows limited recreational flyers to register multiple small unmanned aircraft under a single Certificate of Aircraft Registration. However, published market information finds 36% of the North America fleet is manufactured by one producer (DJI) that provided information to the FAA suggesting they could retrofit. The FAA estimates that about 20% of the recreational fleet is comprised of aircraft manufactured by DJI that could be retrofit. This estimate was developed by multiplying the combined part 107 and recreational unmanned aircraft fleet by 36%, and then subtracting DJI aircraft registered under part 107.

Page 191:
Therefore, the FAA assumes UAS purchased in year 1 that are retrofit would allow the aircraft to “continue flying ”under the limited or standard remote identification requirements after the compliance date of the final rule. UAS sold in year 1 that could not be retrofit would likely not meet the limited or standard remote identification requirements after year 3. Persons that own unmanned aircraft in this group of “legacy” UAS without remote identification equipment would have potential “loss of use” associated impacts since this proposal does not include grandfathering. The retrofit assumptions above were used in this analysis to estimate the effects of retrofits on the costs of the proposal and its compliance period.

Anticipating the kickback this would cause, the FAA asks the following on Page 192:

- Would it be possible to retrofit by a software or firmware update through an internet download?

- How would a retrofit solution meet the proposed tamper resistance and labelling
requirements? Would a software push be able to meet requirements for tamper
resistance or would it require hardware? How would you meet labelling requirements under a retrofit scenario (e.g., would you mail the label)?

- Would retrofits meet the limited or standard remote identification requirements?

- What are the costs of retrofits to the producer and the owner/operator?

- In lieu of a software push through the internet, what other methods could producers use to facilitate retrofits (e.g., mail-in programs or physical retrofit drop-off locations)?

-If retrofits are not an option for certain makes and models, would you offer operators “buy-back” or “trade-in” incentives to replace UAS without remote identification equipment? If so, please describe the incentive and the process.

As additional pertinent information is understood, it will be posted.

 

[Snoopy]

All these new onerous FAA regulations on UAVs are another attempt by the government to regulate an un-regulatable activity too late in the game. There have been millions of drone sold in the USA and only a small fraction of the owners have actually registered with the FAA. Adding more regulation simply drive the honest pilots away from the sport. It will take a very short time for hackers to post how to defeat the UAV Remote-ID and location software online. Reminds me of the NY State Safe Act where it was mandatory to register your AR-15 assault type rifle, out of the approximate 1.5 million sold only about 50 thousand actually registered. I think I will be hanging up my scarf and finding another hobby under 250g.
P.S
Anyone around Saratoga NY area interested in a slightly used Spark comes with controller, 5 batteries, charger and a hard case.

 

[I B Spectre]

It's way too early to make decisions on whether to stay or go. They're only opening a discussion on how to achieve the mandated ability to remotely identify drones at which time all the stakeholders (you and me) can make our concerns known. Usually the worst something like this seems is in the early proposal stage and usually moderates over time.

DJI is ahead of the curve on this with their Aeroscope solution which appears to provide the authorities with the necessary information while insisting on protecting the user's privacy rights. The "under 250 gram" solution may not prove to be long lasting and nothing can preclude their inclusion at a later time.

 

[Troy.Spark]

Here is my thought this was built not for safety it was made to help the commercial drone companies Amazon, UPS, etc how else could they run their fleet and not crash into a private owner. Once again business users the government to get what they want in the name of safety. Sorry if I sound like a crazy person. But I just haven’t seen enough unsafe acts or anything that warranted thus kinda crack down on the public

 

[DavidBlezard]

Here is my thought this was built not for safety it was made to help the commercial drone companies Amazon, UPS, etc how else could they run their fleet and not crash into a private owner. Once again business users the government to get what they want in the name of safety. Sorry if I sound like a crazy person. But I just haven’t seen enough unsafe acts or anything that warranted thus kinda crack down on the public

I like safe flying. Not big on government regulations. Your not crazy. I have some concerns and suggest

The 3-year comes from the part of the document that says all devices must conform within three years to these rules, so was an interpretation on my part.

The restriction on flying club locations was inferred by this portion on page 16 and 17: "A person operating a UAS without remote identification equipment would always be required to operate within visual line of sight6 and within an FAA-recognized identification area. Under the proposed rule, an FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area where UAS without remote identification can operate. An area would be eligible for establishment as an FAA-recognized identification area if it is a flying site that has been established within the programming of a community based organization recognized by the Administrator."

The limited-identification tier seems to be focused on UAS that are restricted by design to fly no more than 400 feet from operator, but these would have to real-time transmit identification and location data to a UAS service provider over the internet . The FAA guestimated that these service providers would charge us operators about $2.50/month to subscribe to their service. If no internet, then it won't take off. So, I guess some field-upgradeable units could potentitally be converted to limited-identification tier. I could see DJI doing that with the Spark so it becomes limited to 400 ft away from controller, and the Fly software on the phone/tablet would require both WiFi connection to drone and either WiFi or data plan on phone/tablet to be able to connect to the ID service provider.

The whole thing is interesting reading since it addresses each recommendation of a study group and either agreed with or rejected their recommendations.

Thanks for the pointer to the other discussion thread.

I started reading it. Going to take more than one sitting. I think I have an understanding of the potential impact on older drones and limited flight depending on how your drone sends it's remote id. What I don't get and will comment after 1/1/20, is why the 2nd tier of identification, Limited Id Drone can only 400 ft from the controller. Why can't the controller be the conduit and relay the UAS coordinates to the FAA as a the drone does directly in the Standard Remote Id scenario? See attached. It is a bit fuzzy, sorry that is what I got in the email.

Another suggest I will make is to divide the 400 ft ceiling into vertical sections, say 99 AGL and below is recreational and 100 AGL to 400 AGL uses these rules. Drone manufacturers and build in an attitude limiter unless you are transmitting a Drone id.

 

[Troy.Spark]

I like safe flying. Not big on government regulations. Your not crazy. I have some concerns and suggest



I started reading it. Going to take more than one sitting. I think I have an understanding of the potential impact on older drones and limited flight depending on how your drone sends it's remote id. What I don't get and will comment after 1/1/20, is why the 2nd tier of identification, Limited Id Drone can only 400 ft from the controller. Why can't the controller be the conduit and relay the UAS coordinates to the FAA as a the drone does directly in the Standard Remote Id scenario? See attached. It is a bit fuzzy, sorry that is what I got in the email.

Another suggest I will make is to divide the 400 ft ceiling into vertical sections, say 99 AGL and below is recreational and 100 AGL to 400 AGL uses these rules. Drone manufacturers and build in an attitude limiter unless you are transmitting a Drone id.

95% of my flights are under 200’ heck probably more like 100’ as I video equipment in operation and I need to be 600’ to 1200’ away the 400’ sphere is no good for me most of the time internet access is limited as it is in very rural area’s again I understand that I’m a very small percentage if not the only one that fly’s like this. I have to give up my freedom because of a what if scenario. We can what if anything into nonexistent.

 

[I B Spectre]

I'm always suspicious of business entities that see emerging services as a cash cow. These USS contractors are interested in making a profit from where ever it can be found such as subscriptions and service fees for accessing flight.

DJI has already demonstrated their Aeroscope technology that identifies UAV communication links and provides information on flight status, paths and other information in real-time. It is available as both stationary and portable units. Further, they have demonstrated their direct drone-to-phone app that can remotely identify airborne drones within radio range of the drone and provide location, altitude, speed and direction of the drone as well as an identification number for the drone and location of the pilot. It's that last part that should give pause and we should strongly insist that providing location of the pilot to anyone other than proper authorities with a need-to-know presents a problem with operator privacy and could allow misuse by anyone not legally authorized to know. Seems to me Aeroscope is an elegant, proven, low cost solution that should obviate the need for being restricted to FAA-recognized identification areas. The Stationary and Limited USS approaches smack of high implementation and operation costs.

 

[DavidBlezard]

95% of my flights are under 200’ heck probably more like 100’ as I video equipment in operation and I need to be 600’ to 1200’ away the 400’ sphere is no good for me most of the time internet access is limited as it is in very rural area’s again I understand that I’m a very small percentage if not the only one that fly’s like this. I have to give up my freedom because of a what if scenario. We can what if anything into nonexistent.

you are describing 99% of my flights. I’m usually out over water at about 60-70’ AGL. Yes I do fly more than 400’ away from the controller.

 

[Snoopy]

Looks like DJI plans to add UAV Remote-ID and pilots location on some future software patch for all their old drones. [DJI makes app to identify drones and find pilots location]

 

[macoman]

I agree with some thoughts here that the whole ID remote identification is nothing more than big businesses trying to take away our rights to fly for fun, for them to deliver services thru drone and government seen it as a future cash cow.

 

[I B Spectre]

Good one, Snoopy, I am encouraged by the "DJI said it would roll out its Remote ID capabilities once its obligations were more clear. It could apply the changes to drone models dating back “several years”, it said". Hopefully that will include the Spark.

I know big business is always trying to elbow their way to the bar, but the biggest concern expressed by governments worldwide is for airspace security. Major airport shutdowns got everyone's attention and ISIS video of showing off-the-shelf drones targeting vehicles and dropping IEDs on them sounded the alarm. All it took was a couple of boneheads ignoring the temporary no-fly zones during the California fires to halt firefighting efforts further jeopardizing life and property. The authorities want and need the ability to identify and locate bad actors. I am not comfortable with just anybody with a cell phone being able to locate me. That should be exclusive to authorities with a need to know only.

Deliveries by drone are likely to come, but as to whether the public will embrace that is unclear. People already have a problem with porch pirates and drones will not fix that, plus they're noisy. Wait until the news shows a few autonomous delivery drone crashes resulting in property damage or injury.

 

[I B Spectre]

There are less than a handful of YouTube videos discussing this problem, but be sure that will change in the coming days. Our reaction to the FAA proposals are overwhelmingly negative, but we have to stay focused on providing input during the comment period that seeks to persuade the rule makers of the need to accommodate our sector of the issue.

Here is a clear presentation of the proposal: Pilot Institute comments on FAA proposal
It's somewhat lengthy, but covers the details most important to our needs.

I wish we didn't have to deal with this, but ignoring it and failing to submit our concerns to the FAA and our U.S. Senators and Congressmen/women leaves us without a voice. Angry responses and threats of non-compliance will not help our cause. We don't have an overarching lobby to represent us in the way the AMA speaks for the RC plane crowd. Big business has the resources to influence policy centered on the furtherance of commerce through drone deliveries.

Be thinking about how you intend to respond the rule making request. Once it opens for comment, you have 60 days.

 

[SoccerRef12]

I'm not opposed to law enforcement or FAA using it to track illegal pilots, but I'm very concerned with anti drone vigilantes using it.

 

[sharps45]

I haven't seen anything so far suggesting restricting drones to flying club locations after 3 years. To be fair, I only clicked on the links embedded in the FAA email, so it's possible that I missed something. If you've seen something on this elsewhere, please post a link, we need all the information we can get.

We had a good discussion back on November under They will find you (maybe)! and it's a good read. We need to provide thoughtful, constructive input on this to help shape emerging regulations. We cannot afford to do nothing at this pivotal moment.

When I posted the above, I did not realize the unpublished document from the Federal Register was available. It's 319 pages long and reads like most government documents being clear as mud. Up to now, most of the references to "FAA recognized identification areas" has pertained to RC clubs located within restricted airspace, so further reading is warranted to clarify. One problem I see is that two of the three methods illustrated in the email are for ways to remotely identify that depend on availability of the internet. We need to make our voices heard when it comes to the realities of flying drones in areas without reliable internet. We also need to press the issue of making our personal I.D. and location unavailable to anyone except the proper authorities with a need to know.

As an American I say the government has NO NEED to know!