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

Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

no open source controllers huh. well yuneec going to be hit by this hard. but so is dji for the most part. well there goes pixhawk out the window. also wonder if the means we have to ditch all open source uas related software and home brewed payloads.
 
no open source controllers huh. well yuneec going to be hit by this hard. but so is dji for the most part. well there goes pixhawk out the window. also wonder if the means we have to ditch all open source uas related software and home brewed payloads.
Only if you get caught. But if you are flying commercial the older machines may have to go on the shelf. As for DJI, I’m hearing that most of their fleet already transmits and will not be affected by this. Only figures since they were the only UAS manufacturer of prosumer drones on the committee. Kinda like feathering you’re own nest ain’t it!!! Really funny how the US government won’t allow DJI to be used because of the privacy issue, but now we will all have to give up the same to the US government. Is this the pot calling the kettle black?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatR
Like the UK and brexit. The EU is made to be the enemy, but it's the UK itself and the establishment.
China is the enemy, but really it's the US itself.
 
The FAA rule establishes a three-year transition period, but that period doesn't start until the FAA has accepted public comments on its initial proposal, made appropriate adjustments, and issued a final rule. That rulemaking process can take many months. So the new system won't be fully operational until 2023 at the earliest. After the FAA puts the new rule in place, drone manufacturers have three years to comply. So, right here are six years before we see anyone starting to enforce the new rule. A LOT can and will happen over the next six years.

The proposed Remote I.D. rule would apply to all drones that are required to register with the FAA (recreational drones weighing under 0.55 pounds are not required to register), as well as to people who operate a foreign civil drone in the United States. As of now, any drone under the 400-foot table doesn't have to register with the FAA (non-commercial drones). Unless they change this part of the rule, most recreational pilots won't be affected. I think we may be getting ahead of ourselves with panic. The bottom line, rules are made to be broken......lol

IMO- The tracking system will come down to a simple GPS sensor (30 bucks) with a unique identifier that will report to a website via GPS satellites.

Now with my business, I do Arial videos and pictures for weddings, parties, landscapers, surveyors, local TV commercials, and some local news. I don't fly any of my drones above 400 feet or near any government locations. I don't fly near airports, hospitals, or private homes without permission and proper paperwork. I follow the rules and laws in place and have never had an issue. I truly don't see this new rule of identifying our drones as a problem for small businesses or hobbyists other than the cost of a new sensor.

An idea of how the tracking would work.
View attachment 19519

"Just give the robbers what they want and don't resist. They definitely won't come back for more if we do that!"
 
I wonder how repairs will be dealt with this proposed rules. with the proposed standards and the tamperproof position I may have to rule out doing my own repairs in the future.
 
They did that with full scale a very long time ago. If you build an Experimental category plane or heli you can work on it. If it’s a production aircraft what you can do is pretty limited. I presume they’ll take a similar route with commercial drones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rchrdbarnard2
Yeah, they are going to take away our hobby and pleasure
Why not install Ball-Trap stands on the commercial drone route to be able to have an occupation again....
 
Last edited:
The problem with that is that transponders are essentially fead after 2020, ADS-B on a couple different frequencies is being incorporated worldwide. Next we have to navigate through the allowances, prohibitions, approvals, and conditions for the use of either transponders or ADS-B as written in the RID proposal.

As for BNSF being on the DAC, they, in combination with Insitu/Boeing, along with at least one other drone provider, have been doing a lot of railway inspection trials. They started on that back around 2014 using Insitu’s Scan Eagle to fly somewhere between 30-70 miles of tracks in Arizona or New Mexico.

Without specifically saying who said what, internal conversations I had in 2014 with a couple people directly involved with the DAC and an FAA advisory group plainly stated that recreational RC would have to be sacrificed in order to integrate commercial BVLOS drone operations into U.S. airspace.
Pat, It isn't only the, recreational flyers, BNSF wants out of the way, it's all small operators also. They did some testing up here in NE Montana last summer. they already know that satellite is the only internet reliable enough to work, and that is not affordable for small operations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Warlocc
You also have the “total surveillance” side of this to consider. We harp about the way China monitors their citizens but statistically we (the U.S.) are but marginally behind China in the number of surveillance cameras per capita. Toss in the surge in images being collected for facial recognition purposes, license plate readers, etc., and you end up with a population monitored in almost everything they do.

Information is power and when you have enough info to accurately predict what people do, where, and when, you can have control. Control is almost the ultimate power.
This is the beginning of the end for all recreational drone flyers. It's been coming for a long time and we're getting the same thing here in UK as you guys over there in the US.

They're going to give you a consultation period, when you can have your say. The problem is, there are not enough of us to make a difference, either here in the UK or in the USA. What matters at the end of the day is the political clout that you have. Even in the US where there are estimated to be 1.5 million drone owners,10 times the amount as the UK, that is not enough. 1.5 million people spread out across a massive country like the USA in political terms is nothing. Just imagine what would happen if they tried to put remote ID on every firearm in the USA. Have the ability to track all those gun owners. The NRA would be all over it like a rash and it'd be thrown out in about a week. Why? Because they have political clout, not just in terms of a massive annual $250m lobbying budget but more because there are a lot of gun owners and they really do have political clout. They have the ability to keep out of office anyone who is pro gun control and that is why they are listened to and we will just get lip service...

Speaking from a personal point of view.... I own 4 drones, 2 of which are out of service. I could easily get my out of service drones back in the air if I was willing to spend a bit of time and cash, but I have to admit that the inclination is not there anymore. It'll be some time down the line before all of this comes to pass. My 2 remaining serviceable drones may have died by then anyway. At this time, I have no plans to purchase any new drones. If any of my drones are still flying by the time all this happens, I will probably fly them illegally until I get busted or my drones become unfit for safe flight/break down and die! :)
 
Pat, It isn't only the, recreational flyers, BNSF wants out of the way, it's all small operators also. They did some testing up here in NE Montana last summer. they already know that satellite is the only internet reliable enough to work, and that is not affordable for small operations.

That’s one of the reasons Iridium systems have been integrated into a lot of smaller dual application military drones.
 
Interesting how so many unverified reports of drone incursions into manned airspace and near misses are listed as “evidence” to justify this regulatory debacle. Of course Gatwick is a biggie, along with Frankfurt, an operations hub for Lufthansa, who uses DJI drones to inspect their aircraft at that location.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren57
Interesting how so many unverified reports of drone incursions into manned airspace and near misses are listed as “evidence” to justify this regulatory debacle. Of course Gatwick is a biggie, along with Frankfurt, an operations hub for Lufthansa, who uses DJI drones to inspect their aircraft at that location.
Yes, still waiting for the UK authorities to publish pictures of the 2 drones that they said they recovered after the Gatwick incident. Over a year ago now....
 
Yes, still waiting for the UK authorities to publish pictures of the 2 drones that they said they recovered after the Gatwick incident. Over a year ago now....

Yes... Perhaps we're waiting for imaginary/non existing photos.

However, this whole mess could be resolved with a simple definition modification.

It seems that recreational drones, by definition, that weigh less than 55 pounds down to 0.55 pounds are regulated according the Small UAS rule and that drones weighing less than 0.55 pounds (8.8 ounces) are not regulated.

8.8 ounces is a ridiculously light weight. Even my lowly Breeze weighs 13.6 ounces and it can barely fly 10 minutes carrying no payload.

A concerted push by a number of the more knowledgeable and scholarly members on this forum may be able to lobby successfully to have that definition modified to raise the 0.55 pound lower limit to a more reasonable weight that most of our drones would fall under, and make them classified as unregulated.
 
If you don't have reliable internet, none of this will work. Thus those of us here in Northeastern Montana, will not be able to fly at all. There aren't any CBO areas here, and, as far as I know no plans for one. This is why this whole thing is flat out bad from the get go. I will be sending my comments against this rule as currently written.
I am pretty sure they will cover this. GPS satellites will be able to supply info to the net for them.
 
Remote ID Proposal Outlaws Home-built RC Aircraft

PATRICK MCKAY·MONDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2019·
I want to clear up a myth about the FAA's proposed remote ID rules that I've been seeing floating around. People think that amateur home-built model aircraft will be largely unaffected by this, since they can just fly at AMA fields. Or people think that to build and fly model aircraft outside of AMA fields, all they would have to do is slap some kind of transponder on their model and they are good to go. This is completely wrong. This proposal will effectively outlaw home-built model aircraft as most people actually build them.
The reason for this is the production standards. The proposal contains two completely different types of rules: operational rules and production rules. The operational rules allow UAS without remote ID to be flown at a FRIA site. The production standards prohibit anyone from producing a UAS that does not comply with the remote ID rules, regardless of whether it is even flown. Just building a UAS for private use that does not comply with remote ID is a violation of the law, unless one qualifies for an exemption from the production rules.
Many people (including the AMA apparently) read that amateur-built models are exempt from the production requirements and think that means they're fine. However, the devil is in the details, which in this case is the definition of amateur-built, which "means an unmanned aircraft system the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by a person who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."
The FAA's proposal clarifies that this means more than 50% of the total components in the Unmanned Aircraft System (which includes the ground control station) must be fabricated and assembled by the hobbyist. Home-built models using mostly parts that are pre-fabricated and purchased separately are expressly excluded from this exemption:
UAS assembled completely from pre-fabricated parts. The FAA anticipates that some model aircraft enthusiasts may assemble UAS entirely from pre-fabricated parts and that commercial vendors may wish to sell UAS parts, including packages that contain more than 50 but less than 100 percent of the parts necessary to build a UAS. The resulting UAS would not qualify as amateur-built because the person building it would be fabricating and assembling 50 percent or less of the UAS. The UAS would not qualify as built from a kit because it did not include 100 percent of the necessary parts. Under these circumstances, the person assembling the UAS would be considered the producer and would be required to comply with the design and production requirements of proposed subpart F. (NPRM p. 152.)
We’ll leave aside the fact that the proposed regulation provides no way to quantify parts. Raw number of all components down to individual chips on circuit boards? Number of black-boxed components like receivers and flight controllers? Total mass? As currently written, the amateur-built exception to the production requirements would not apply to the vast majority of modelers.
Even assuming parts are quantified by black-boxed components, most amateur model aircraft would fall into the pre-fabricated, rather than amateur-built category, as most people assemble model aircraft from a collection of pre-fabricated parts they buy separately from various manufacturers. They might buy the airframe as a pre-cut styrofoam body (for planes) or carbon fiber sections (for quads), then glue/screw it together and mount and wire up motors, flight controllers, speed controllers, receivers, and cameras and video transmitters for FPV craft.
The most anyone ever fabricates themselves is the aircraft body. Nobody is fabricating their own receivers, speed controllers, lithium batteries, motors, or remote controllers, so virtually no model aircraft hobbyists would actually qualify for the amateur-built exception which requires more than 50% of parts (however that is quantified) to be fabricated and assembled by the builder.
The vast majority of RC hobbyists would fall under the category of using more than 50% prefabricated parts that do not come as a single kit with 100% of the parts necessary to fly. The proposed regulation would treat such modelers as UAS producers, and would require them to comply with all the production standards to produce and certify a UAS as RID compliant. This process is long and convoluted, and is clearly contemplated to only be used by large corporations developing mass produced UAS to be sold to consumers (the proposal estimates this process would only ever be used by a few hundred corporate entities).
Let’s assume a hobbyist could even comply with the technical requirements to equip a model with remote ID (doubtful given the tamper-resistant requirement which would at minimum prohibit the use of open source flight controllers and could be interpreted to require the person who built the model to somehow prevent himself from bypassing the remote ID system). The certification process requires the purchase of multiple standards that could cost hundreds of dollars to even read, and the filing of extensive forms and reports with the FAA that is estimated to exceed over 50 pages and take hundreds of man hours to produce. It would be completely impossible for any individual hobbyist to comply with these procedures for their home-built model aircraft.
Thus as written in the currently proposal, building your own home-built model aircraft the way the vast majority of hobbyists actually do that would be illegal. It doesn’t matter where you fly them, or even if you fly them at all. Merely building a UAS without equipping it with remote ID and following the process to certify it with the FAA would be an independent violation of the law. It goes without saying that this would be completely unenforceable, but that’s not the point.
Legally at least, this proposal will completely outlaw home-built RC model aircraft as they are actually made by hobbyists. The FAA attempted to disguise this by putting in the amateur-built exemption, and then defining it in such a way as it will be impossible to actually qualify for. I fully expect the AMA to fall for this trick and act like everything is fine because of the amateur-built exemption and the FRIA sites, because they have always sucked at statutory interpretation and anticipating how regulations affecting model aircraft will actually be applied (Sec. 336 anyone?). That’s even without considering that the FRIA exemption for AMA fields is only intended to be temporary and will be phased out over time, leaving hobbyists with nowhere to fly where they are not subject to the operational remote ID requirements.
No matter what the AMA says, this regulation will be the death of amateur home-built model aircraft, period. It doesn’t matter if it’s a quadcopter or traditional RC plane, flown by an AMA member or not. We’re all affected by this equally, and all RC hobbyists have a duty to oppose this regulation wholesale as bringing about the extinction of our hobby.
WOW! This post is as long as the new rule itself. lol I feel we are jumping to conclusions too quickly. The rule will change.
 
Guys, there is a silver lining to this new rule. With the use of the ID sensor, all drones will have to have, we can now find out lost drones!!
 
Yes... Perhaps we're waiting for imaginary/non existing photos.

However, this whole mess could be resolved with a simple definition modification.

It seems that recreational drones, by definition, that weigh less than 55 pounds down to 0.55 pounds are regulated according the Small UAS rule and that drones weighing less than 0.55 pounds (8.8 ounces) are not regulated.

8.8 ounces is a ridiculously light weight. Even my lowly Breeze weighs 13.6 ounces and it can barely fly 10 minutes carrying no payload.

A concerted push by a number of the more knowledgeable and scholarly members on this forum may be able to lobby successfully to have that definition modified to raise the 0.55 pound lower limit to a more reasonable weight that most of our drones would fall under, and make them classified as unregulated.

Drones such as the new Mavic Mini that do come in under the .55 pound (250 grams) Do Not have to be registered but; they are still UAV's and do still have to follow the rules.

It is unlikely that any lobbying on the part of the general public to raise the weight minimums for registration would have any effect on the FAA; as it is the general public that it seeks to no longer have in the air at some point in the future when, those with deep pockets such as Amazon, Google, UPS and so on - plan to open their aerial operations.

All we as the general UAV public can do is join together with a group large enough and with deep enough pockets to speak for us.
 

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
20,954
Messages
241,586
Members
27,284
Latest member
csandoval