Did the FAA publish the list of those that are compatible? If so, do you have a link to that information?I'm debating on whether to bite the bullet and purchase the H520e for mapping purposes as Yuneec seems to be quite reasonably priced. That's why I joined this group. To get a better idea of "real world" experiences vs the manufacturer claims.
However, my current DJI Mavic Air 2 does meet the requirements of remote ID. All of the information from my drone is transmitted during flight (location, altitude, owner info, etc.). Several widely available apps know where your drone is at any moment as well as transmit other aircraft locations in your vicinity. In fact, several drone publications have supplied a list of manufacturers and drone models already made with on board transmitters that meet the new FAA requirements. Am I missing something?
Did the FAA publish the list of those that are compatible? If so, do you have a link to that information?
To my knowledge the full specs have not been finalized yet. Maybe @BigAl07 could help us out here as he is more in tune with these proceedings.
If that is the case we should be good because most of that is already sent back to the controller as telemetry. Maybe a firmware change to add any missing ID information and the aircraft already knows the location of the ST16.
Just have to get Yuneec to modify the firmware one last time. ?
Did the FAA publish the list of those that are compatible? If so, do you have a link to that information?
To my knowledge the full specs have not been finalized yet. Maybe @BigAl07 could help us out here as he is more in tune with these proceedings.
Unless somethin changed from YESTERDAY the standards have not been finalized nor released. Anything stating otherwise is rumor and guessing. Until the standards are complete and implemented it's just babble.
Most unmanned aircraft must be produced as Standard Remote ID Unmanned Aircraft and
meet the requirements of this rule beginning 18 months after the effective date of the rule.
• Remote ID Broadcast modules must be produced to meet the requirements of the rule
before they can be used.
• The final rule establishes minimum performance requirements describing the desired
outcomes, goals, and results for remote identification without establishing a specific means
or process.
• A person designing or producing a standard UA or broadcast module must show that the
UA or broadcast module met the performance requirements of the rule by following an
FAA-accepted means of compliance.
• Under the rule, anyone can create a means of compliance. However, the FAA must accept
that means of compliance before it can be used for the design or production of any
standard remote identification UA or remote identification broadcast module.
I know you know much more about this sort of stuff than I do, but can you explain this a little. Granted I didn't get through reading the entire "Final Remote ID" rule ( https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-15/pdf/2020-28948.pdf) but I did skim it along with a pretty close reading of the executive summary of the rule (https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/RemoteID_Executive_Summary.pdf).
No where in there do I see anything that that says the FAA will provide any additional standards (again, I could have missed it). Looking at it again it seems to say exactly what my post yesterday said, manufacturers can request approval for their systems that they feel meet their requirements in the rule to the FAA and the FAA will let them know if they excepts that system.
From the rule summary:
Your new MA2 has DJI's idea of RID and merely happens to be called Remote ID. It meets no current standards because there are none as of yet. It may or may NOT meet the final standards once they are adopted.......
However, my current DJI Mavic Air 2 does meet the requirements of remote ID. All of the information from my drone is transmitted during flight (location, altitude, owner info, etc.). ....
..... Several widely available apps know where your drone is at any moment as well as transmit other aircraft locations in your vicinity. In fact, several drone publications have supplied a list of manufacturers and drone models already made with on board transmitters that meet the new FAA requirements. Am I missing something?
May I ask for a few drops of information as a carrier frequency? The rest is implementable on the fly but is important to decide what hardware base should be used.Unless they're on the UAS Team for ASTM (which I was until last year) they have no firm knowledge of what the final standards will look like.
May I ask for a few drops of information as a carrier frequency? The rest is implementable on the fly but is important to decide what hardware base should be used.
ASTM is currently creating/defining the standards and once they are defined the FAA will adopt and then publish them.
Manufacturers can't even submit their "Request for approval" until the standards are released and the timeline (estimation) for them to start submitting is roughly 9ish months after the 4/6/21 release of the new UAS Regs. That's because the standards are not yet created so nothin to request approval for yet.
With the FAA's proven record of complete failure would you expect anything else from the rogue agency?My understanding of the RID rule was that it contained all the requirements that the FAA was going to provide and it was up to manufacturers to demonstrate that they meet those requirements and get approved by the FAA. The rule seemed to say that it was purposely left vague as to what the exact specs were and it was up to the manufacturers show specs that the FAA liked. Sort of like "I don't know how to define RID, but I will know it when I see it".
Dylan
Rogue? Not. The FAA is responsible for developing regulatory and operational systems in response to laws passed by an elected and representative congress. That’s what they do. They are not rogue. That’s our system of constitutional democracy.With the FAA's proven record of complete failure would you expect anything else from the rogue agency?
Boeing showed the FAA as a epic lying corrupt failures from top to bottom.... Has anyone gone to jail for murdering over 300 people? NOPE... its fully corrupt, fully rogue.Rogue? Not. The FAA is responsible for developing regulatory and operational systems in response to laws passed by an elected and representative congress. That’s what they do. They are not rogue. That’s our system of constitutional democracy.
Complete failure? Not. Much of what drone operators may be experiencing as oppressive regulatory oversight is a result of air safety methods developed in response to terrible accidents with horrific loss of life for those in aircraft *and* on the ground.
One could certainly argue that FAA has either “erred on the side of caution” or “hugely overreached” in drone safety regulation. I personally can’t imagine wanting to travel by air if the FAA was more hands-off. They recently responded to anti-regulatory interests with a more self-regulatory system for airplane manufacturers, we all saw those results. No thanks.
My sense is that drone operation ballooned so quickly that it’s been difficult for any government to respond as quickly as we would like. Maybe the FAA should have gone faster, but that’s government, it doesn’t make them rogue or a complete failure. I’m happy to see new regs this year making it easier, cheaper, and more valuable for pt. 107 pilots to keep up their certificates, and great updates for easily accessible and safe methods for flying over people and night flying. FAA is not standing still.
Integration of drones in the National Airspace System via Remote ID is a tough nut any way you try to crack it. I think FAA made some major missteps in their early notices. To their credit, they’ve largely corrected them. I don’t know what my personal financial hit will be when it comes time to purchase RID modules, it’s hard to be happy about that, but I WILL DO IT.
Safety is important, too important to be left to individuals‘ interpretations of best practices, because there are plenty of yahoos out there who don’t seem to care about anything but themselves. I don’t want my family’s and community’s safety to be dependent only on others’ good will. The track record isn’t good. The FAA’s work in air safety is important. They can’t provide a guarantee, but do improve the odds.