Recent content by dylanfm

Does anybody have a flight controller that has the GPS acquiring error that they want to sell cheap? It sounds like people have already tried to troubleshoot or fix boards with this error and I have no reason to think that I can to better, but I'm curious enough to want to give it a try. Dylan

I guess you are right that module based remote ID does explicitly exclude any BVLOS which I guess would make it impossible to get a waiver, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that the BLVOS waiver process is going to get any easier for any other type of drone. That seems to me to...

how so?

I'm not a programmer but I have spent a lot of time trying to make small changes to ST16 software. Specifically, it looks like the ST16 might have the code to be able to use the MK58 modules (used to transmit video from a gopro on the Q500) but part of the configuration xml is commented out to...

Possibly a dumb question, but is the ST24 bound to both the CGO04 and the H920? Can you turn on the motors and/or fly the H920? On the TH 480 and the ST16 the pan and tilt commands go through the SR24 receiver and I'm pretty sure it is the same on the H920. If both the camera and the H920 are...

That is the Texas instruments logo. You can see it in a picture here: https://www.tme.eu/en/details/sn74hc151pw/decoders-multiplexers-switches/texas-instruments/ But like others have said, the chip doesn't look bad and I would doubt that this multiplexer has anything to do with the GPS. Dylan

I posted a screenshot of the training to try clear up your statements: I feel those 2 statements imply that RID with be required (after 09/16/2023) because of and only for operations over people. Regardless whether it is misleading or not, the 2nd statement is incorrect in that the future...

I do want to point out that I'm not getting training from any sources other than FAA. The training that I posted about learning from and also that I posted a screen capture to try to correct some misleading information that somebody had replied to me with is from the FAA part 107 Recurrency...

Based on the current rules, when RID is implemented on 09/16/2023, there will be no distinction based on weight for part 107 operation. All 107 operations will require RID after 09/16/2023 regardless of weight. Prior to taking the training, I had thought that RID wouldn't be required any drones...

I realize I should have been more clear about the RID implementation date in my original post. I took for granted that not everybody may be paying attention to news about about this rule and therefore may not know when it goes into effect. I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I also...

It isn't just operations over people, although that is where a <0.55lbs drone might be the most useful for part 107 operations, but all part 107 operations like I said (according to the training). That is what surprised me as something I learned from the training. I don't feel like it is too...

Again, I understand that RID is not required until the rule goes into effect in a couple years. Maybe I need to edit my original post for clarity. WHEN RID is required it WILL BE REQUIRED on drones weighing <0.55lbs when operated under part 107.

I realize that RID doesn't go into effect until 2023, and the training states that somewhere. But it also states that both registration and RID are required for drones <0.55lbs when operated under part 107.

One thing I didn't realize before I took this recurrency training is that RID will be required on drones <0.55lbs when operated under part 107. That seems unfortunate because I could see that with how much cameras have improved really small drones could have more opportunities for commercial use...

Ok. It seems odd that the rule explicitly says that anybody can create a "means of compliance" (which they define as testing and validation that it meets the requirements of RID defined in the rule) and submit them to the FAA for approval if that isn't the case. It also seems odd that in...