The good, the bad and the ugly- Remote ID Proposal PRM
- Thread starter LUIS MARTINEZ
- Start date
dronecyclops
Well-Known Member
Not sure about good reading Luis but sure is a must read for us if we plan on being around in next 3 years
MapMaker53
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2018
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 532
- Age
- 70
- Location
- Long Island, NY
- Website
- www.zazzle.com
Anyone care to dumb all of this down? Sounds like none of our current drones will be qualified to operate commercially beginning 36 months after the passing of these proposed rules -- unless some form of transponder hardware can be easily added to the craft that emits specific geo and serial information (which I think is pretty unlikely). I feel for those who own and operate multiple UAVs as part of their business, if I interpret this correctly.
I got part of the way through it.
They don't want drones using ADS-B.
They seem to require that you have an internet connection so that your position and drone position can be sent to a server somewhere the "USS – UAS service supplier". So maybe this implies some type of internet black box that could connect into a legacy drone I hope?
They want all drones registered so they can connect the drone to the operator more quickly.
They are trying to come up with a system to allow operating drones beyond visual line of sight somehow at some point.
Trying to do all this without interfering with present manned systems.
lots of more stringent serial numbering and labeling requirements as to how the drone complies to the regs.
Oh and they set up some type of mechanism for ID free zones where drones without the proper gear can fly
.
It helps police illegal operators.
That is what I got out of it so far. I am sure I can be wrong so please feel free to correct the above summary.
They don't want drones using ADS-B.
They seem to require that you have an internet connection so that your position and drone position can be sent to a server somewhere the "USS – UAS service supplier". So maybe this implies some type of internet black box that could connect into a legacy drone I hope?
They want all drones registered so they can connect the drone to the operator more quickly.
They are trying to come up with a system to allow operating drones beyond visual line of sight somehow at some point.
Trying to do all this without interfering with present manned systems.
lots of more stringent serial numbering and labeling requirements as to how the drone complies to the regs.
Oh and they set up some type of mechanism for ID free zones where drones without the proper gear can fly
.
It helps police illegal operators.
That is what I got out of it so far. I am sure I can be wrong so please feel free to correct the above summary.
Page 107 begins some example flight situations. The hardware for the secondary connection to the UAS Service Supplier (mentioned as a paid service) is not really defined. Hopefully something like the 5km UUID dji uses currently has the range to connect to it to satisfy the requirements.
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t even consider this a good read. Maybe the Southern Pacific would.
I think we all knew something like this would be coming sooner than later.
There will still be those that don’t follow the laws and fly anyway. So what good is that. It limits the honest law abiding person, while the criminal/law breaker continues down his path.
.
I think we all knew something like this would be coming sooner than later.
There will still be those that don’t follow the laws and fly anyway. So what good is that. It limits the honest law abiding person, while the criminal/law breaker continues down his path.
.
Thanks for the summary. I understand it is still way too early to have an answer from DJI on compliance for current drones; I did emailed my local dealer to check if they know anything from DJI re: retrofits for current drones.
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
Right off the bat, you'll (we'll) need each uas to have a data connection ($$) and pay for someone like AirMap to store the transmitted data ($$).
Anyone else see a theme here?
Also,
"The proposed rule requires manufacturers to:
It's unlikely that the FAA will go look at anything. They got caught with their pants down letting Boeing self certify for pete's sake. Real lives were lost because of that. Supposedly, they don't have the manpower to watch over airliners being build. Now they want to watch over uas manufacturers? Uh-huh.
The storing of all uas operational data in case the gov't wants to look at it someday is right out of the NSA model that Snowden showed us though. Actually, it's going even further by charging those being monitored for providing and storing the data. Bold
I think someday, there are going to be a LOT of used uas for sale that can only fly in FRIAS areas. It isn't going to be cheap or easy to retrofit existing craft AND controllers to comply. It probably won't be worth it for 450 class MRs and lower. $10k birds and up, maybe.
It's interesting that currently, the Fed is deregulating health and safety issues across the board. And even trying to sue states when they don't want to go along. That makes this escalation somewhat of a paradox.
Anyone else see a theme here?
Also,
"The proposed rule requires manufacturers to:
- Allow the FAA to inspect their facilities, technical data, and any UAS produced."
It's unlikely that the FAA will go look at anything. They got caught with their pants down letting Boeing self certify for pete's sake. Real lives were lost because of that. Supposedly, they don't have the manpower to watch over airliners being build. Now they want to watch over uas manufacturers? Uh-huh.
The storing of all uas operational data in case the gov't wants to look at it someday is right out of the NSA model that Snowden showed us though. Actually, it's going even further by charging those being monitored for providing and storing the data. Bold
I think someday, there are going to be a LOT of used uas for sale that can only fly in FRIAS areas. It isn't going to be cheap or easy to retrofit existing craft AND controllers to comply. It probably won't be worth it for 450 class MRs and lower. $10k birds and up, maybe.
It's interesting that currently, the Fed is deregulating health and safety issues across the board. And even trying to sue states when they don't want to go along. That makes this escalation somewhat of a paradox.
Last edited:
Exec summary...
“The FAA expects a significant number of existing UAS to become compliant with the proposed requirements through software upgrades pushed by manufacturers”
Well, let’s hope so.
“The FAA expects a significant number of existing UAS to become compliant with the proposed requirements through software upgrades pushed by manufacturers”
Well, let’s hope so.
dronecyclops
Well-Known Member
Totally agree & I sure wouldn't go out to buy another drone till this is settled
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
Don't get your hopes up. DJI, for example, rarely puts their resources into gear they have already earned their money on.
Last edited:
The FAA barely has time to keep 737s Max from falling out of the sky. Seriously, all these increasing mandates on their time will go the way most others do unless they get some sort of huge transfusion into their budget.Right off the bat, you'll (we'll) need each uas to have a data connection ($$) and pay for someone like AirMap to store the transmitted data ($$).
Anyone else see a theme here?
Also,
"The proposed rule requires manufacturers to:
- Allow the FAA to inspect their facilities, technical data, and any UAS produced."
It's unlikely that the FAA will go look at anything. They got caught with their pants down letting Boeing self certify for pete's sake. Real lives were lost because of that. Supposedly, they don't have the manpower to watch over airliners being build. Now they want to watch over uas manufacturers? Uh-huh.
The storing of all uas operational data in case the gov't wants to look at it someday is right out of the NSA model that Snowden showed us though. Actually, it's going even further by charging those being monitored for providing and storing the data. Bold
I think someday, there are going to be a LOT of used uas for sale that can only fly in FRIAS areas. It isn't going to be cheap or easy to retrofit existing craft AND controllers to comply. It probably won't be worth it for 450 class MRs and lower. $10k birds and up, maybe.
It's interesting that currently, the Fed is deregulating health and safety issues across the board. And even trying to sue states when they don't want to go along. That makes this escalation somewhat of a paradox.
Capt Binkley
Active Member
I'm guessing that the legacy equipment will be worked through the apps. New equipment will a form of ADS-B transponders built-in. At least we won't be paying the outrageous prices for the equipment that GA pays.
Fred Garvin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2019
- Messages
- 497
- Reaction score
- 544
- Location
- DFW Metroplex
- Website
- orbisdroneservices.com
Well.....1-2 years before it’s finalized and put into play as law.....then 3 years before compliance is enforced.... so 4-5 years before it’s an issue, and by then I’m sure we’ll all be well aware of what is required and how to meet compliance.
Until then....ALOT can change.....ALOT will change.....
So really at this point, best to take the time to read it, understand it, and note which parts are concerning so each person can formulate a cohesive, intelligent response to submit to the FAA. It may be questionable how effective, or even if the FAA will seriously consider comments....but if you don’t comment then it’s certain they won’t listen.
Might be a good idea to start a sticky thread to discuss, understand, and create a general form letter, or campaign, to flood the FAA with lucid, intelligent responses from the community.....before multiple threads get created diffusing the conversation.
Until then....ALOT can change.....ALOT will change.....
So really at this point, best to take the time to read it, understand it, and note which parts are concerning so each person can formulate a cohesive, intelligent response to submit to the FAA. It may be questionable how effective, or even if the FAA will seriously consider comments....but if you don’t comment then it’s certain they won’t listen.
Might be a good idea to start a sticky thread to discuss, understand, and create a general form letter, or campaign, to flood the FAA with lucid, intelligent responses from the community.....before multiple threads get created diffusing the conversation.
Capt Binkley
Active Member
Ok, im working my way through this document and reading all of your posts. I am very new to this industry as I just got my 107 in Oct of this year and dont have a whole bunch of hours logged. But as I read all of this I am very worried about my future direction in this ever growing Drone industry. Does it seem that they are trying to squeeze out all the little guys and hobbyists just to leave all of the flying to big biz? I see that BVLOS flights are becoming/have become a hot topic, but as a pilot who is looking to do some realty work, rooftop inspection, and other very low altitude work(maybe agriculture?) I dont see the need to have to transmit or need ADS-B. Perhaps the current rules and regs are sufficient for many small businesses and pilots who don't require BVLOS flights. Maybe leave all of this to the large energy companies, Amazon, and anyone else who needs/wants BVLOS flights for the needs of their businesses. Just my thoughts!
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
Capt Binkley
Active Member
I'm confident this industry will figure out how to incorporate these technologies without breaking the bank. The drone industry has two things going for it, that the rest of the aviation doesn't.
#1 is economy of scale. Drones get produced in multiple thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. GA aircraft get produced in hundreds, if that. That economy of scale means any new tech introduction is likely to be much less for drone fliers.
#2 The regulation for developing new GA tech is lengthy and very, very expensive; because GA aircraft carry people. The drone industry doesn't have that problem. If drone companies can develop the tech with a .001% failure rate for $X; that's going to be much more manageable than GA who has to develop it with a .00001% failure rate for $X * 1,000.
