Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Welcome DJI Spark Pilot!
Jump in and join our free Spark community today!
Sign up
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Tech demo of RID
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I B Spectre" data-source="post: 109043" data-attributes="member: 18605"><p>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<em> track every unmanned vehicle weighing 250 grams or more in the national airspace</em>. This is unnecessarily broad and smacks of data mining for its own sake.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>every flight</em>, 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I B Spectre, post: 109043, member: 18605"] 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[I] track every unmanned vehicle weighing 250 grams or more in the national airspace[/I]. 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 [I]every flight[/I], 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
sUAV Rules & Regulations
Tech demo of RID