The good, the bad and the ugly- Remote ID Proposal PRM

[Fred Garvin]

Where is the AOPA on all of this?

It’s only been out a couple days.....won’t be “published” until 12/31.....

Give them a chance.....the FAA dropped this turd between Christmas and NYE for cowardly reasons.....

 

[skymonkey]

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.

ping200X - uAvionix

ping200X Transponder and ADS-B for Unmanned Aviation Systems (UAS) Overview Ping200X is a complete system designed to meet the Transponder and Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) requirements for operating Unmanned Aviation Systems (UAS) in controlled airspace. The system is...

uavionix.com

 

[Jefti]

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.

That won't happen until their is a change politically. Conservative swing = deregulation=reduced corporate compliance to self regulation = medical devices or drugs that cause deaths, planes that crash, environmental accidents, etc.

 

[JDSimpson]

If this makes the NAS safer, and helps stop illegal or malicious flights, then I am ok with that. The part I don't like is that it will probably cost us (subscription type connection) to a business like AirMap, Kitty Hawk etc., for monitoring our flights in order to legally fly for business or flying just for fun. I am sure we will learn a lot more about how this is all going to work as time goes on. We all have a lot of questions about this new proposed FAA ruling. I would suggest everyone write to the FAA to give their feedback and just maybe we will get more answers and clarity to our questions. My 2 cents.

 

[skiptv]

First there is 60 days of comments, then chines and tweaks, then 60 days of comments, then more changes an tweaks, its going to take a year or more to pass, some version of this, then 3 years to fully grand father it in....... I'll worry about this in 4 years. Personally I like it. Should weed out the wanna bees, slo down the growth of those joining the market and help capture law breakers. note "should" do all of that. We all know the alternative is being banned out of existence.

 

[MapMaker53]

Unfortunately, this will mostly only stop those who inadvertently fly into restricted airspace and are identified. The bad actors will simply find a way to disable the tracker, or not bother to sign-up/pay for the service, or fly an older model to avoid being identified. And only an on-scene signal jammer that actually brings down a drone will stop the really bad guys from doing damage.

 

[PatR]

Fred,

I have a different take on where the AOPA is at with this as I believe the fully support it and may have provided input and encouragement for remote ID.

The majority of general aviation and commercial pilots generally loath drones for various reasons. Let’s not forget that full scale pilots are the people filing the dearth of near miss and airspace violation drone reports to the FAA, whether the report was real or concocted, whether positive ID was obtained or not.

The AOPA membership is made up of full scale pilots, and those pilots are the people that vote in AOPA elections. They are also the people that buy the products and services provided through the AOPA and their advertising. The number of drone pilots that have joined the AOPA is small in comparison.

Despite the AOPA’s mission statement, their focus will be serving those that fund the organization. Drone operators are such a small percentage of the membership, providing inconsequential financial contributions, so their voice is being overlooked in favor of the full scale community the AOPA has traditionally served. In the past I have written opinion letters about drones to the AOPA and have never seen one published or even replied to. Considering I’ve been a member since 1988 I find that a bit irritating, but also informative.

From my perspective I just don’t see the AOPA doing anything to promote or protect drone operators until that membership segment becomes a much larger voting block than it is now. What the AOPA has done thus far relative to drones has had the appearance of maintaining operating restrictions to assure full scalers can maintain a rather elitist “playground”. Interestingly, the FAA’s drone registration numbers clearly indicate there are a lot more drone operators than full scale pilots so there is an open opportunity for drone operators to join the AOPA in large numbers to take advantage of an existing successful government lobbying body and leverage it to their advantage. Once drone operator membership exceeds full scale membership the AOPA’s focus would shift in our favor. Unfortunately that has not been happening as drone operators seem to be very short sighted and continue to avoid doing anything to preserve their rights and privileges.

 

[rvrrat14]

Fred,

I have a different take on where the AOPA is at with this as I believe the fully support it and may have provided input and encouragement for remote ID.

The majority of general aviation and commercial pilots generally loath drones for various reasons. Let’s not forget that full scale pilots are the people filing the dearth of near miss and airspace violation drone reports to the FAA, whether the report was real or concocted, whether positive ID was obtained or not.

The AOPA membership is made up of full scale pilots, and those pilots are the people that vote in AOPA elections. They are also the people that buy the products and services provided through the AOPA and their advertising. The number of drone pilots that have joined the AOPA is small in comparison.

Despite the AOPA’s mission statement, their focus will be serving those that fund the organization. Drone operators are such a small percentage of the membership, providing inconsequential financial contributions, so their voice is being overlooked in favor of the full scale community the AOPA has traditionally served. In the past I have written opinion letters about drones to the AOPA and have never seen one published or even replied to. Considering I’ve been a member since 1988 I find that a bit irritating, but also informative.

From my perspective I just don’t see the AOPA doing anything to promote or protect drone operators until that membership segment becomes a much larger voting block than it is now. What the AOPA has done thus far relative to drones has had the appearance of maintaining operating restrictions to assure full scalers can maintain a rather elitist “playground”. Interestingly, the FAA’s drone registration numbers clearly indicate there are a lot more drone operators than full scale pilots so there is an open opportunity for drone operators to join the AOPA in large numbers to take advantage of an existing successful government lobbying body and leverage it to their advantage. Once drone operator membership exceeds full scale membership the AOPA’s focus would shift in our favor. Unfortunately that has not been happening as drone operators seem to be very short sighted and continue to avoid doing anything to preserve their rights and privileges.

Not to mention all the companies that have thrived off the drone industry......mapping, Ag, construction, SAR, software and hardware. Surely they too will realize what is going on and understand the impacts. I agree, most manned pilots loath drones, period. I am a part 61 too, and enjoy the freedoms I have had as Part 107.
The coming days/weeks should get very interesting.

 

[Phaedrus]

First there is 60 days of comments, then chines and tweaks, then 60 days of comments, then more changes an tweaks, its going to take a year or more to pass, some version of this, then 3 years to fully grand father it in....... I'll worry about this in 4 years. Personally I like it. Should weed out the wanna bees, slo down the growth of those joining the market and help capture law breakers. note "should" do all of that. We all know the alternative is being banned out of existence.

FAA admits at least two years to a final rule and then another 3 years for full implementation. Let's not forget that this NPRM is over two years late itself!!

Now is the time to educate ourselves, comment, engage organizations and legislators that may help and to prepare for the future. It is not time to panic,.............................. yet

 

[philsmith76]

Page 95. “If the unmanned aircraft is in a location that does not have wireless internet connectivity, then for any local third-party observers attempting to identify the unmanned aircraft the only accessible source of remote identification information would be the broadcast.”

So in rural areas without internet and without a USS receiving station nearby it seems like as long as you are broadcasting the required info, something in line with DJI aeroscope, perhaps the flight will still be allowed.

Then on Page 132 “6. Connectivity” completely changes that to say internet is required to take off.

On Page 137 the FAA realizes that they don’t know how exactly these connections will work and asks for comments on how to make it work!

Page 149. The FAA basically thinks by the time this goes into effect a majority of our current aircraft will no longer be operational...and we will just go ahead and purchase newer compliant aircraft. Gee thanks FAA. Imagine if they said something like to manned aircraft.

Page168 “Remote ID USS, such as an operator of multiple routine unmanned aircraft flights, may choose to provide remote identification services only for its own fleet”.......so full warning that we will be at under the thumb of the USS

Page 174 “the number of UAS that need to operate only at FAA-recognized identification areas would likely drop significantly.”.....after 12 mo no more ID areas will be allowed to be added and after that. The age of home built RC aircraft and hobbiest will end.

Page 189 “The FAA reviewed UAS registered to part 107 operators and found 93% of the existing part 107 UAS fleet may have technical capabilities to be retrofit based on information received by industry (i.e., could support software updates through internet)”

Page 196 and here is the pay to play “each entity operating a UAS would be required to subscribe to a Remote ID USS at a rate of $2.50 per month or $30 per year.”

 

[Dave Pitman]

In the past I have written opinion letters about drones to the AOPA and have never seen one published or even replied to.

Pat, just so you know you're not alone, I too have written to AOPA on a few occasions. I did receive a response the last time. I wrote to them when they were basically re-broadcasting all the hoopla while Gatwick was occurring. I criticized them for promoting unsubstantiated information detrimental to average law-abiding drone ops. I received a reply form the online editor, Jim Moore. I won't paste it here because it is OT for this thread, and it was long. However, in summary, he basically said that since other main stream media were reporting it they thought it appropriate for AOPA to report as well. He did admit that the "facts" were (and still are) unproven. BTW, only an AOPA member since 1997

Unfortunately [...] drone operators seem to be very short sighted and continue to avoid doing anything to preserve their rights and privileges.

This is true. We, as small individual com-ops really need to find a way to leverage our numbers if we expect to have any voice in this or future issues. Individually commenting of the NPRM is fine and encouraged. But in our society it just doesn't do much to apply pressure, unfortunately. Many millions commented to reject the proposal to allow privatization of the internet and the FCC didn't blink and did it anyway.

I don't know how "we" can do it because we are so unorganized, for one. And two, we would have to figure out a way to apply pressure even if we were all to get on the same page. Even across all the forums, the percentage of Part 107 holders that participate is tiny. We have no common voice. Now would be a great time for someone(s) with the skills to step up with some ideas.

 

[bobfa100]

I wonder if the companies making radio and camera bits for the FPV/race community could come up an add on board or small module that attaches to our existing drones. The potential market is huge. I visualize something like the strobes that popped up when the night flying new rules were published.

 

[Phaedrus]

I wonder if the companies making radio and camera bits for the FPV/race community could come up an add on board or small module that attaches to our existing drones. The potential market is huge. I visualize something like the strobes that popped up when the night flying new rules were published.

Possibly. But racing quads can more likely use the second method of compliance, location only, to fly most races. Yes, it says 400 feet, but I doubt anyone is going to measure the size of you course.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Fred,

I have a different take on where the AOPA is at with this as I believe the fully support it and may have provided input and encouragement for remote ID.

I hear ya.....my response wasn’t so much if, or what, the AOPA reaction would be.....more of a “it just came out and it’s over Christmas/NYE”.....there may not be anyone there in a position to make a statement, until next week.....

 

[PatR]

I don't know how "we" can do it because we are so unorganized, for one. And two, we would have to figure out a way to apply pressure even if we were all to get on the same page. Even across all the forums, the percentage of Part 107 holders that participate is tiny. We have no common voice. Now would be a great time for someone(s) with the skills to step up with some ideas.

This ^ is exactly where and how the AMA, a body “dedicated” to aero modeling, screwed the pooch during and after the first ARC committee. That was the opportunity to embrace not just the amateurs and contest people, but also the commercial side as every one of them was to be impacted by future rule making. The organizational functionality was present, but the mental aptitude to project beyond their own immediate needs and desires wasn’t, and still isn’t. In their myopia they sowed the seeds that will severely restrict the hobby industry forever more.

That leaves us with the AOPA, an organization that currently caters to manned aviation, but that could be changed. There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 609,000 (2017 number) certificated full scale pilots in this country, down from over 800,000 in 1980, and only part of them (350,000) are AOPA members. AOPA membership has also been in decline, somewhat corresponding to the pilot population. sUAS people could quickly overwhelm the manned pilot membership if they so desired, and in so doing force a change in focus with AOPA legislative lobbying activities.

It would take a little time, but I think less time than what has been projected for this proposal to become effective. As the AOPA is the only established general aviation political action body of enough size to be effective it makes sense to use what has been time proven to be effective. The only other options are the EAA and AUVSI, with the AUVSI being useless for anything requiring completion.

 

[Earnest Ward]

Don't get your hopes up. DJI, for example, rarely puts their resources into gear they have already earned their money on.

I'm not so pessimistic, given that DJI decided - without a US regulatory mandate - to add ADS-B receivers to all of their drones over .55 lbs. beginning Jan. 1.

My current fleet is 2 years old and (assuming the projected 3 year implementation holds true) I don't imagine I'll still be flying the same aircraft by the time the new rule goes into effect. But I would imagine the manufacturers might find it difficult to sell drones going forward (and maybe even expose themselves to a potential class action) if they knowingly sell a product that will be illegal in 36 months (or less.)

 

[PatR]

Another side of this is the cost of manufacturing certified equipment to service remote ID. As the FAA will most certainly impose certification standards, the cost of the certification will be passed on to us, and that price is high. Will it be “affordable”?

For example, I used to fly a borrowed Cessna 150 and the alternator failed one day. The owner of the plane went out and bought a new alternator for a small block Chevy for around $40.00. When I asked why he did something totally illegal he informed me that an FAA approved alternator would set him back about $600.00. The difference between the Chevy and FAA/PMA alternator? PMA certification. They both looked, functioned, and were made the same.

That plane flew every day for at least the next two years, 4-6 hours a day.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I'm not so pessimistic, given that DJI decided - without a US regulatory mandate - to add ADS-B receivers to all of their drones over .55 lbs. beginning Jan. 1.

That's not really the situation. More applicable would be how DJI is handling the lack of an approved battery for the I1. Nadda.
If DJI is not interested in having batteries built to be sold by them, they could give license (code) to other part manufactures to build an OEM battery and could probably make a % without any additional overhead. But they choose to do neither and leave former customers with a bird that is often working well doing what it does. But without a good source of new batteries.

That lack of support for legacy products and the mentality behind it is the point.

My current fleet is 2 years old and (assuming the projected 3 year implementation holds true) I don't imagine I'll still be flying the same aircraft by the time the new rule goes into effect.

I agree with this to a point. But remember the I2 story? In a few years, a lot of the current tools will still be able to do their job in many cases.

But I would imagine the manufacturers might find it difficult to sell drones going forward (and maybe even expose themselves to a potential class action) if they knowingly sell a product that will be illegal in 36 months (or less.)

The thing is, we won't know what the reg. will be until it is finalized, or close. So how could a manufacturer be held to some sort of an account?

We users, on the other hand, had better pay very close attention to what we are investing in!

 

[Redrat100]

This ^ is exactly where and how the AMA, a body “dedicated” to aero modeling, screwed the pooch during and after the first ARC committee. That was the opportunity to embrace not just the amateurs and contest people, but also the commercial side as every one of them was to be impacted by future rule making.

Here is the link to the AMA page with their stance on the ID topic. Summary: the AMA advocates for recreational hobbyist fliers only. It appears the AMA had some early input. Sadly, they only kept hobbyists in mind since it is not their charter to advocate for the commercial suas community.

AMA on remote id proposal

 

[Philztoy]

The AOPA is probably the best bet. They have been in the FAA game a long time.

Unless we all agree on what we want and write the same objection letter, my experience with objecting to governmental rules is, they won't listen. I know we all don't like the proposed laws, but it is doubtful we would all agree on the same things we don't like and our individual letters would be all over the place and will be mostly ignored by the FAA.

I'm a pilot and a member of the AOPA. I didn't even know they had a drone section. But I just saw that they do and they are actively cultivating drone pilot members. Drone Membership 2018

The AMA is happy flying out of club airfields. My experience is that drones are the red headed step children of AMA club airfields.

It would be nice to just have a Drone only organization. But I haven't seen one and it would be hard to establish quick enough to make any rule making difference.

Has anyone had any experience with the Drone section of the AOPA?