Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

FAA Remote ID Requirements?

Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Just what the subject line asks. Will the H Plus meet the FAA GPS requirements?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you mean RID compliance in well over 2 years from now? There is no drone presently built that will meet RID compliance until they finalize the exact specifications and publish what those specs are. Most of today’s fleet will end up requiring an add on to become compliant.
 
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?
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
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.


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
 
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. ?
 
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. ?

Well, one of the requirements is that the RID info can be received by "personal electronic devices (ie cells phones)" on the ground". AFAIK, all the telemetry from the H is transmitted back on the 2.4Ghz Zigbee link which would require specialized personal electronics to receive and therefore would be unlikely to be accepted by the FAA in my opinion. Now if telemetry is transmitted (or could be made to be with a FW update) using the 5Ghz WIFI link from the camera then maybe we could be good.

But I'm still not clear exactly how personal electronics are supposed to receive the RID info. It seems like somebody would have to connect to our camera's WIFI access point using our generic password, and then get the RID info. I guess the idea is that the RID data will some how be encoded in the header info that is transmitted from the wifi hotspot (like along with the access point name) so it is accessible without actually connecting to the hotspot. I don't know if DJI does that or if Yuneec products could be updated to do that.
 
I would imagine there is a public and private cipher in the data packets being transmitted. Definitely private for when you bind, however there may be a way to have some packets disregard that and essentially be the 'public' part that anyone could receive.
 
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.
 
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.


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:
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:


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.
 
......
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.). ....
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.

..... 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?

Either they are producing lies, theories, or something in the middle but they are not accurate.

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. It's all hypothesis at this point as nothing in finalized and nothing meets the non-existent FAA RID Requirements. Don't fall for those statements.
 
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.
 
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.


You may ask but not of me LOL!

That question is one of the main ones to be answered when ASTM release their standards for the FAA to approve and adopt.

I'm merely the lowly FAA Safety Team Representative who comes through to share tidbits of info as I am given them. That's much more technical that anything I have available at the moment.
 
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.


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 response to the comments suggesting existing ASTM standards be used (the only times that I can find ASTM mentioned in the rule) is seems to repeatedly say that ASTM RID standards might meet the rule requirements after they are modified and approved rather than saying new ASTM standards will be the only ones that will be used. I also don't a see restriction on when someone could submit a means of compliance for approval.

But I'm neither a lawyer nor a government regulator so I will probably never understand.
 
Let me try to explain as a non-US citizen.

Some organizations are involved to produce and follow the product in the adoption procedure. Some of these are deciding to be worthy to produce a standard under a request from the government or another organization. All this is not for free, because If someone wants to produce approved products should first buy the standard. In this case ASTM is watching some potential in this standard and starts to develop it. Of course, no one is prohibited to prepare a concurrency standard, but FAA will adopt only one of them. So, it better is to produce the standard from a reputable structure with all lobbying levers. When the standard is adopted they will be a normative reference for the manufacturers of the equipment. Previously manufactured devices can meet all the criteria. but they are still not approved by FAA devices. Manufacturer or wholesale reseller can put a request for approval of a particular device or drone. When the experts say this one covered the standard, it will get approval.

So, to finalize. Until we didn't see an approved by FAA standard, we can't talk about approved or not approved drones at all. As I wrote in the EASA thread, where I'm more interested, all devices on the market covers exactly nothing in relation to the authorities expectations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
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
With the FAA's proven record of complete failure would you expect anything else from the rogue agency?
 
With the FAA's proven record of complete failure would you expect anything else from the rogue agency?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rchrdbarnard2
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.
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.

"my family’s and community’s safety to be dependent only on others’ good will.".... so you trust the FAA to protect you from criminals like Boeing?... So how did that work out for the victims?
 
Last edited:
Many droners criticize FAA regs. I’m glad FAA is there. I don’t ”trust the FAA to protect (me)”. I’m glad that safety is recognized as a value in our society, and do believe that FAA is helping improve the odds. I don’t trust that law enforcement will prevent the possibility of someone running a red light and t-boning my car, either. I’ll still try to drive defensively.

There are so many calls for deregulation. It’s a perennial topic. Accidents mostly don’t “just happen”. They occur with predictable regularity when people routinely take unsafe actions.

We have a system of laws that continue to elevate corporations as criminally liable in ways that we previously held individuals liable. We have a system that holds Boeing “criminally liable” and fines them $2.5B, but doesn’t send individuals to jail. Where and when do we hold the individuals who made decisions resulting in the deaths of hundreds accountable? Apparently we don’t.

Where and when do we hold individuals responsible for the deaths of thousands from intended opioid addition? Apparently we don’t. The corporations, they’re the one’s. Ugh.

That’s not FAA, that’s USA. That’s us. That’s our system of criminal justice. That’s our evolving elevation of corporations to the rights and responsibilities of individuals. I think it’s wrong. But it’s not FAA.

A big government agency too cozy with the industry it regulates? What a surprise. It seems that was moreso part of the recertification of the 737 Max. My perhaps underinformed understanding of the initial certification process for that aircraft is that business interests trumped the public good. For a while. Another perennial issue.

To come back to the topic, we were discussing Remote ID and the certification of hardware/software systems that support it. Lots of different interests for FAA to navigate. The staff I’ve heard present on this seem to be genuinely dedicated to the best compromises for the *diverse* groups interested in solutions.
 

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
20,955
Messages
241,594
Members
27,286
Latest member
lahorelaptop