FAA Remote I.D.

[captainmilehigh]

Not everyone has the 'Chicken Little' attitude that the 'Sky is Falling'. Granted the UAS industry is at a turning point. Without proper representation from drone owners and those in the UAS industry, our voices and viewpoints won't be heard.

I'd wager that of the million plus UAS owners in the US, only a small fraction are members (or guests) on any of the drone forums. Most are probably unaware of the recent events concerning pending regulations.

So, I'd encourage each of you to sit down and compose a well thought out statement of your views to the FAA NPRM comment site. Suggestions go a long way........and yours may just save the way our friends at the FAA overthink things.

Simple solutions. Safer skies.

 

[Dave Pitman]

We can hope, @captainmilehigh

Consider that there were 23,952,772 individual comments on the FCC's site almost all against the dismantling of net neutrality. The comments were ignored. It is certainly easier to wait and see.

 

[RKBA]

Question: do the owner(s)/admins of these various “pilots“ forums intend to submit an official comment to the FAA on these proposals? If they do, I would be curious to read and if they are not then I would be equally curious to know why.

As one of, if not the, largest online forum for drones I would think the FAA would be very interested in what its thoughts were.

 

[captainmilehigh]

Question: do the owner(s)/admins of these various “pilots“ forums intend to submit an official comment to the FAA on these proposals? If they do, I would be curious to read and if they are not then I would be equally curious to know why.

As one of, if not the, largest online forum for drones I would think the FAA would be very interested in what its thoughts were.

I guess we could ask, huh?.......

@clackey,@BigAl07,@dirkclod.......what do you guys think? Can we promote a group effort here?

Also, I was wondering this: How many TOTAL members are there in the family of Forums......all 15 of them. This would give us an idea of how many 'voices' could be added to this effort to keep our UAS's flying free. Just a ballpark figure will be ok.

With only 800+ comments to the FAA so far, we have a long journey ahead.

Your Forum members and guests welcome the Administrators and Moderators thoughts in hopes to ensure our flying future. Thx.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Bruce Simpson is going to use his platform to make a group comment to the NPRM. It couldn't hurt. Check it out here:

 

[EndeavorOR]

I've enjoyed your concise appraisal of some of the NPRM.

What is your opinion on how, exactly, the suas (system) will know if a data connection is possible?

• An app will confirm the radios on you smart device are powered and in the on position.
• The app will then check to see if a mobile data stream is available and then connects.
• The app will detect if the operator places it in a Faraday cage to disrupt an available stream.

I didn't see anything in the rules that addresses this issue, and that means that the manufacturers will have to decide how to implement that part of the rule when they update their apps. I suspect that the app could easily check to see if the phone is in airplane mode.

 

[EndeavorOR]

The article on the link below gives a great overview of the rule and how it can impact drone users. It also has the link to leave comments for the FAA. Recommend doing so they can see their rules are going to be over regulation.

The FAA Proposed Rule On Remote Identification Will Kill Drone Flying

Comments that are based upon a misinterpretation of the impact of the rules are not likely to have any impact on the FAAs actions.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I didn't see anything in the rules that addresses this issue, and that means that the manufacturers will have to decide how to implement that part of the rule when they update their apps.

Okay, just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. I'm not sure the technology exits for an app to determine if there is a data connection available if the user didn't want it to. I support confidential, real-time broadcast RID. The grand scheme of collecting everything in order to facilitate some science fiction UTM someday, not so much.

 

[EndeavorOR]

I must have missed that part. Broadcast on WiFi to where? What will receive it and pass it to the service provider?

The broadcast is for local use by others in the area. It will be done on Wifi frequencies. It conceivably could be received by anyone in the area who had a smartphone or computer that has Wifi. The broadcast won't need to be received by anyone or passed on to the internet/service provider.

The connection to the internet and service provider will be entirely separate from the broadcast. It can be done by connecting your mobile phone to your controller and sending the data via your mobile phone.

 

[EndeavorOR]

Okay, just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything. I'm not sure the technology exits for an app to determine if there is a data connection available if the user didn't want it to. I support confidential, real-time broadcast RID. The grand scheme of collecting everything in order to facilitate some science fiction UTM someday, not so much.

There are many ways for an app to determine if internet access is available. The app could ping the service provider and separately ping a known good set of IP addresses, such as Google's DNS services (8.8.8.8 and 4.4.4.4). If neither work, the internet is down, and you can fly. If Google works, but the service provider doesn't, then the service provider is down, and you cannot fly. The app could also check to see if airplane mode is enabled or if mobile data is disabled, and deny the ability to fly if those conditions were true.

Good question. Since DJI is obviously involved in the development I'm pretty sure that future versions of the GO app will simply display those on the map, with notifications. The data would either come via the USS network through the phone's internet connection (if available) or by direct reception of UAV broadcasts.

I wouldn't be surprised if DJI drones use the remote ID information the same way that they use their collission sensors. If you get within xx meters of another drone, your drone might just stop moving in that direction until the drone moves somewhere else.

 

[EndeavorOR]

I don't think that Bruce's analysis is entirely correct. It should be relatively easy for hobbyists to add remote ID to existing drones. If you make your own drone, there will likely be a product available to allow your drone to have remote ID.

However, I do agree that the 12-month limit on adding new fields is objectionable. Likewise, I do think that everyone should refrain from posting comments UNTIL they fully understand the proposal. Comments that misunderstand the proposal will be ignored.

Bruce Simpson is going to use his platform to make a group comment to the NPRM. It couldn't hurt. Check it out here:

 

[Dave Pitman]

There are many ways for an app to determine if internet access is available. The app could ping the service provider and separately ping a known good set of IP addresses, such as Google's DNS services (8.8.8.8 and 4.4.4.4). If neither work, the internet is down, and you can fly. If Google works, but the service provider doesn't, then the service provider is down, and you cannot fly. The app could also check to see if airplane mode is enabled or if mobile data is disabled, and deny the ability to fly if those conditions were true.

And, how would the app determine if all the device radios were active, but defeated with a Faraday cage (from inside the cage)?

 

[EndeavorOR]

And, how would the app determine if all the device radios were active, but defeated with a Faraday cage (from inside the cage)?

There is no internet access inside a faraday cage.

 

[sar104]

And, how would the app determine if all the device radios were active, but defeated with a Faraday cage (from inside the cage)?

Why would you put your device inside a Faraday cage?

 

[Dave Pitman]

You guys are sharp. I shouldn't have to explain, but I will.

If I wanted to fly in an area that had cell coverage, but I didn't want to connect to that coverage, I simply fool the phone into thinking there is no coverage. Inside the cage, the phone would determine that everything is active and there is no service.

 

[EndeavorOR]

Why would you put your device inside a Faraday cage?

I suspect that Dave is asking about what might happen if your drone and controller were not in a faraday cage, but the phone connected to your controller was in a faraday cage. In that case, I suspect that the device would allow you to fly, but that your actions would be illegal.

 

[sar104]

You guys are sharp. I shouldn't have to explain, but I will.

If I wanted to fly in an area that had cell coverage, but I didn't want to connect to that coverage, I simply fool the phone into thinking there is no coverage. Inside the cage, the phone would determine that everything is active and there is no service.

I see. But your aircraft would still be transmitting the same data, so why would you want to do that?

 

[Dave Pitman]

I see. But your aircraft would still be transmitting the same data, so why would you want to do that?

I'm not saying that I would, just that it was easily possible to avoid. As stated, I think RID through local broadcast is a sufficient means of promoting good behavior through accountability.

I don't want the complexity and adding of many points of mission failure that will be the norm should the internet connection scheme be approved. Practicality is important.

 

[EndeavorOR]

Option 1 says drone is to simultaneously transmit by radio frequency and internet
Option 2 limited remote you can only fly out to 400 ft with flight plan submitted by internet?
Option 3 FRIA No internet

sar 104 am I reading this wrong?

You are reading it wrong. There are only two options:

Option 1: Standard Remote ID: UAS must both broadcast Remote ID on Wifi and connect to internet. However, UAS means the drone and the controller. The broadcast must come from the drone. The internet connection can occur at the controller (on the ground). If internet is down, you can fly. If internet is up, but Remote ID service provider is down. you can switch to another provider, and then fly. Option 1 is presumably intended for drones that are remotely controlled via a radio link using Wifi frequencies (i.e., all DJI drones) since it would require a simple firmware update to allow the drone to broadcast the required information on the same Wifi channel being used for control, and the user can connect a smartphone to the controller in order to make the internet connection.

Option 2: Limited Remote ID. No broadcast. Internet only, and can come from controller. If internet is down, you cannot fly. If internet is up, but service provider is down, you can switch to another provider and fly. No matter what, flight is limited 400 foot bubble. Option 2 is presumably intended for drones that are not controlled by radio, but using other means. These types of drones might be controlled by hand gestures, or perhaps a programmed rule (i.e., take off, go up to 200 feet, and then fly in a circle around where you started for 100 feet, then land where you took off).

 

[sar104]

I'm not saying that I would, just that it was easily possible to avoid. As stated, I think RID through local broadcast is a sufficient means of promoting good behavior through accountability.

I don't want the complexity and adding of many points of mission failure that will be the norm should the internet connection scheme be approved. Practicality is important.

Adding the USS transmission doesn't increase the number of failure points because if the internet connection goes down it doesn't matter.