Welcome DJI Spark Pilot!
Jump in and join our free Spark community today!
Sign up

Tech demo of RID

With the proposed "network based Remote ID" what happens when you are flying in an area where there is no cell service and therefore, no internet? Would the sUAS be relegated to flying within a 400 foot radius of the controller because of the lack of an internet connection? Not very useful if you are part of a sanctioned SAR mission! Am I correct, or am I missing something here.
 
That's one of the biggest issues with the FAA NPRM regarding network-based USS. Too many places have unreliable or no internet connectivity and the Local method requires it and then limits you to 400 feet in all directions. The Standard method uses broadcasting and is not dependent on internet to fly. The FAA convened the ARC comprised of stakeholders (security agencies, airlines, pilots, drone manufacturers, etc.) to explore ways to achieve identification and accountability. The ARC agreed that broadcast was the preferred method due to low costs, speed and ease of implementation, and only mentioned network connectivity as an option. The method the FAA has proposed would track every unmanned vehicle weighing 250 grams or more in the national airspace. This is unnecessarily broad and smacks of data mining for its own sake.

They do need to know if a UAV is flying suspiciously, carelessly or where it's not supposed to be, but it is hard to justify the need to track and keep records of every flight, the vast majority of which are operating legally. The drone-to-phone approach utilizes wi-fi broadcasting, can be implemented very quickly at no cost to the users, and has been demonstrated to work. Compared with the creation of a number of USS companies all collecting flight information for a fee and it's no wonder that approach is not being well received. I don't have an issue with the drone-to-phone approach provided that only enforcement agencies will have access to the controller's location if needed and that's to protect the safety of the drone pilot. It's odd that they use the analogy "like a license plate for drones", but unlike car tags, an automobile's every move is not being documented and stored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RotorWash
You've confirmed my assumption on the FAA proposal. Is the FAA blind as to what a mess this cause! It won't stop someone who committed to using a sUAS for some illegal mission. They'll just use a drone that's either homemade or a commercial drone manufactured before the Remote ID was instituted. Sounds like they lost control of the situation and now they want to implement laws that will essentially shut everyone down. Apparently they don't seem to care about the sUAS Part 107 pilots who fly in remote locations for local and county governments doing SAR work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I B Spectre
This is much, much bigger when you realize the proposal affects every unmanned aerial vehicle flying in the national airspace...hobby, commercial, film/television industry, news, RC airplanes/helos, state/local agencies, utility companies, agri-business...everybody (military and federal govt. excluded). To track and capture flight data on that many sUASs is mind boggling. The EASA (Europe) came up with a far better, far less egregious solution. The FAA needs to go back to the recommendations of the ARC and build from there. In trying to come up with a single shot at a one-size-fits-all solution, they have created a mess that only the drone delivery companies can smile about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RotorWash
It won't stop someone who committed to using a sUAS for some illegal mission. They'll just use a drone that's either homemade or a commercial drone manufactured before the Remote ID was instituted.
I've read many similar comments like this online and you're correct of course. Thing is the FAA agrees as well: "Although remote identification of UAS may not deter nefarious actors, it would allow the swift interdiction of the clueless and careless persons manipulating the flight controls of UAS and shift law enforcement and security partners’ UAS protection efforts to the truly nefarious actors. This information would also aid in any subsequent criminal or civil enforcement action." - p.34 (Federal Register)
 
  • Like
Reactions: I B Spectre
I recently came across a discussion about GPS and Remote ID that brought up an interesting point. One of the unintended consequences of the proposed rules could be that indoor flight, without a GPS signal, would not be permitted. The installed and always on RID system would require knowing the current position of the UAS before allowing flight whether it has an Internet connection or not as even broadcast only mode requires position information. Generally not a problem as we always want a strong GPS signal when flying but what about the times we fly indoors using ATTI or OPTI mode, for example someone wants to do a video inside a large building? Without GPS, the system most likely is not going to allow the props to spin. There are also situations outdoors when flying ATTI mode is desired especially for craft that allow switching modes for creating smoother video.

See the following commentary:
 
  • Like
Reactions: I B Spectre
So the paper airplane I built and fly inside my house will be non compliant?:rolleyes:
 
I recently came across a discussion about GPS and Remote ID that brought up an interesting point. One of the unintended consequences of the proposed rules could be that indoor flight, without a GPS signal, would not be permitted. The installed and always on RID system would require knowing the current position of the UAS before allowing flight whether it has an Internet connection or not as even broadcast only mode requires position information. Generally not a problem as we always want a strong GPS signal when flying but what about the times we fly indoors using ATTI or OPTI mode, for example someone wants to do a video inside a large building? Without GPS, the system most likely is not going to allow the props to spin. There are also situations outdoors when flying ATTI mode is desired especially for craft that allow switching modes for creating smoother video.

See the following commentary:

So how did you come to that conclusion?

Indoor flight is not in the National Airspace System; as such it should not be subject to RID...atti and optical flow is the solution.
 
So how did you come to that conclusion?

Indoor flight is not in the National Airspace System; as such it should not be subject to RID...atti and optical flow is the solution.
A read through the linked article will explain it better but basically regulation states the technical requirement for the RID system to have gps coordinates for UAV position before allowing takeoff. If you own a SRID craft and your are inside without GPS then the system may prevent takeoff as it cannot ascertain the UAS position. If you have a LRID craft then only your control station would need the GPS coords but chances are if your inside your phone won't have a GPS signal either. Even if you started the drone outside then went inside, once the coords are lost the system will most likely detect it as a failure and want you to land as soon as "practicable". This "effect" was not intended by the FAA but with the current wording in the NPRM it could be the effect it has regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I B Spectre
So the paper airplane I built and fly inside my house will be non compliant?:rolleyes:
Is it >0.55 pounds? :)

from the noted web article:

"Until the definitions of aircraft and unmanned aircraft are changed in 14 CFR 1.1, the NPRM’s requirements appear to inadvertently ban the hand launch of large paper airplanes and balsa wood gliders indoors and outdoors (>0.55 pounds) except at certified FRIA sites. The FAA alludes to this in a footnote. Of course they would not enforce this and the FAA has acknowledged the wording problem and plans to fix it.

To emphasize – no one believes the FAA intends to regulate paper airplanes. But this humorous item illustrates how the wording of regulations can have unintended consequences.

The FAA’s rules, as described above, also have the consequence of banning most indoor flight by small UAS over 0.55 pounds. No where does the NPRM state “indoor flight is banned”. But it is a consequence of the rules they have crafted and per the email above, the FAA acknowledges this themselves. No where do they say “hand launched paper airplanes are banned” – instead, this falls out from the definitions of “aircraft” (which does include paper airplanes) and the requirement for remote ID on anything over 0.55 pounds (or all drones including <0.55 pounds when operated under Part 107).

The paper airplane issue is a funny one and this example is solely to illustrate why words matter in regulations – again, no one believes the FAA will prohibit paper airplanes – and the FAA ‘s own NPRM says they will fix the wording problem."
 
Good find, RotorWash. I appreciate your diligence in researching the issue even though it does not affect you in Canada at this time. This kind of article is a prime example of why not to submit a NPRM comment until more thought and exploration reveals the depth of issues, both intended and unintended, that the proposal brings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RotorWash
Glad to add to the conversation in any small way I can I B Spectre. I always appreciate your efforts as well and even though our flags may be different I know the love we all have for this hobby is shared the same.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
14,593
Messages
118,799
Members
17,987
Latest member
csdisme