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

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

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?

AOPA is for manned flying and AMA is for model flyers. Both saw a chance for increased revenue and suddenly "included" drones. What we need is one UAS association, big enough to lobby for us. The only way that will happen is if all the small nicke; and dime drone association combine for the common good.

I've joined two associations who suffered quick deaths. Have no plans to join anything else until these small groups put their egos aside and merge.

 

[clolsonus]

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

As an AMA member and a part 107 certified drone pilot, I see the same thing at my AMA club. A few of the old timers give me the stink eye any time I try to fly anything with extended technology at our club field. One guy is still trying to protect the 1980's and I get a 30 minute lecture about club rules he thinks I might break before I can even get out of my car. But to be fair, most of the club is welcoming to my DIY creations and interested in what goes into them to make them work. Anyway, my read is that the AMA is small and maybe has 1 or 2 people working on government relations issues. I believe they are an ally in all of this, but they are already spread thin and doing their best just to keep a space protected for traditional hobby activities.

I still have my fingers crossed that some small bits of pragmatism will continue to run through this process and whatever pops out in the end won't be as dire as it looks right now.

 

[PatR]

I do, having used the AOPA aircraft insurance services shortly after the drone side went live. If you are already an AOPA member you can sign up to receive drone specific news letters as part of your regular membership. Since adding the drone services to my membership I’ve noted they are slowly expanding their coverage of drone specific information. I believe that expansion would accelerate if drone member numbers increased.

Membership fees don’t differentiate between drones and full scale, one membership fee covers both. Once a member, a drone operator, be they commercial or recreational, has every AOPA service available as a full scale member. For some, their legal services plan might be helpful, for others it might be their life and AD&D insurance. For those having an interest in full scale, the magazine and various air safety services could be helpful.

What might be seen as important is both the commercial and recreational flyer are equally represented. EVERY drone operator can join. Also important is the fact the AOPA does not cater to just a segment of drone operations as does the AMA or the few commercial drone organizations, their concerns are more focused on airspace access, regulation development, and limiting government restriction of aviation. There are three levels (at progressively higher pricing) of drone specific membership. It’s worth a few minutes to check the AOPA site to review the benefits of each level.

 

[rvrrat14]

The larger firms pushing drone solutions are the main ones that can push our cause, TO KEEP THEIR BUSINESSES. Right now lots of small operators are using their services and they’re making money. This will affect their user base/customers/clients, too.

Likewise, lots of municipalities use sUAS technologies for public works, police, fire, etc. This will affect them too. And they all don’t have huge budgets for drones!

I think this topic surely will go ‘nationwide’ soon. Good or bad, drone news seems to float to the top.
Next time you do business with one of the companies, ping them on their thoughts. Everyone has to be united.

 

[Mavic Mac]

Not sure if it has been mentioned but it may also may be worthwhile to express your opinions to your U.S. Senator.
HERE is a link to contact info for the Senators

 

[2edgesword]

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.

99.999% of any issues of safety in the NAS have nothing to do with drones.

 

[philsmith76]

Page 309
89.510 Production requirements.
(a) General production requirements.....no person may produce an unmanned aircraft system unless:

So much for making your own paper airplane and throwing it in the front yard. Or even those little balsa wood kits with a prop an rubberband.

 

[PatR]

Back to the control of the population aspect of things. In this case it may well be to assure drone enterprise business have an easier path to profitability by eliminating competition. Compliance with this rule is well beyond the financial capabilities of most people, and most small drone businesses. This proposal has been prepared, to some extent, by FAA drone advisory committee members, and a review of that membership would prove enlightening. Bear in mind that some of those members are companies that have been “self certifying” aircraft and associated hardware and software. Others bear allegiance to the manned commercial pilot population. One is the market leader in drone sales.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_pa...ory_committee/media/DAC_Membership_Roster.pdf

They don’t force such limitations on the EAA or home built aircraft sector. Our “home built” rules should be no different from theirs. Flip side of this will cause a surge in autopilot sales prior to incorporation of the proposal.

 

[Dave Pitman]

89.510 Production requirements.
(a) General production requirements.....no person may produce an unmanned aircraft system unless:

So much for making your own paper airplane and throwing it in the front yard. Or even those little balsa wood kits with a prop an rubberband.

You're good so long as you only fly in designated FRIAs. ?

§ 89.501 Applicability.

3.
( c) Unless the unmanned aircraft system is a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft system or a limited remote identification unmanned aircraft system, this subpart does not apply to the design or production of:

(1) Amateur-built unmanned aircraft systems.

 

[Philztoy]

AOPA is for manned flying and AMA is for model flyers. Both saw a chance for increased revenue and suddenly "included" drones. What we need is one UAS association, big enough to lobby for us. The only way that will happen is if all the small nickle and dime drone association combine for the common good...

I think that is true the AOPA has been for manned pilots. I don't know their drone intentions and they are certainly economically motivated, so they are a bit suspect. Someone else here mentioned AOPA generally is for less regulations and freedom to use the skies for general aviation. So that is the issue we are talking about here, which is kind of why I thought they are our best shot on our short notice. I guess if they see enough drone membership economic interest they may take notice but who knows? Just not sure there is another option under the present time constraints.

It is true we would be better off with a drone specific lobby organization. But we are behind the curve on that one.

The local municipalities and fire departments and law enforcement will most likely be grandfathered out or otherwise exempt from the new rules, so I don't think they will be much help.

This hope has some merit for sure "I still have my fingers crossed that some small bits of pragmatism will continue to run through this process and whatever pops out in the end won't be as dire as it looks right now." I have my fingers crossed here too.

I did sign up for the AOPA drone newsletter. But I haven't seen anything on the AOPA website about this legislation as of yet.

The thought of FAA involved in our drone flying and our equipment is alarming! The proposed rules seem excessively intrusive. Its like gun control for drones!

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

You're good so long as you only fly in designated FRIAs. ?

§ 89.501 Applicability.

3.
( c) Unless the unmanned aircraft system is a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft system or a limited remote identification unmanned aircraft system, this subpart does not apply to the design or production of:

(1) Amateur-built unmanned aircraft systems.

FRIAs=Podunk County...

 

[Philztoy]

Its kind of ridiculous to put this onerous of requirements on our mostly camera drones.

I had a buddy who was reclaiming some mothballed cobra attack helicopters for civilian use (they are pretty fun to fly!). He told me the FAA was always interested when those left the ground in civilian hands. I get that for sure.

But in this legislation every drone in every case is being flight followed more than if we were flying a cobra attack helicopter around.

These rules are kind of treating us like we are flying around CIA drones with hellfire missiles on them.

Did anybody tell them we are just flying around cameras for the most part?

I guess I might write a comments letter.

Has anybody got a draft letter they would share yet?

 

[Philztoy]

Mark Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association;

Rich Hanson, President, Academy of Model Aeronautics

So both AOPA and AMA are represented in the "Drone Advisory commission". That is pretty disappointing iif they were complacent with these regs. But I guess we could write to them?

The rest of the drone advisory commission seems to be industry. Google is in there, Amazon is in there. ATT and Verizon internet is in there. So it looks like they are clearing the drone airways for Autonomous delivery operations and such. And we will get the opportunity to spend our dollars to facilitate it.

I apologize for posting so much. The whole thing smells the deeper I get into it.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Mark Baker, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association;

Rich Hanson, President, Academy of Model Aeronautics

So both AOPA and AMA are represented in the "Drone Advisory commission". That is pretty disappointing iif they were complacent with these regs. But I guess we could write to them?

The rest of the drone advisory commission seems to be industry. Google is in there, Amazon is in there. ATT and Verizon internet is in there. So it looks like they are clearing the drone airways for Autonomous delivery operations and such. And we will get the opportunity to spend our dollars to facilitate it.

I apologize for posting so much. The whole thing smells the deeper I get into it.

"So both AOPA and AMA are represented in the "Drone Advisory commission".
I am sure they are both strong drone advocates (insert sarcasm here). I also hear Mothers Against Drunk Driving will be sitting in the Miller Brewing Co. board of directors...

 

[Dave Pitman]

The whole thing smells the deeper I get into it.

It does have an odor for sure.

Most commercial ops are happy to support a Remote ID system. The purpose of a Remote ID system would be for those needing to know (LLE) to be able to quickly and easily identify any uas operating at a given location; In real time. The system that would provide that identification is already incorporated into many (most ?) commercial grade / prosumer UAVs. As the FAA mentions, it could probably quite easily and without much cost, be put into use. It would basically consist of a short data stream consisting of the identity and location of the uas and the control station being broadcast along with the control signal which anyone with the proper receiver could receive.

But what the FAA wants to do in the NPRM goes far beyond this. They want every single uas to connect to the internet anytime it goes airborne and stream it's data to a server somewhere where it can be stored in case anyone wants to look it up someday in addition to it being available in real time like the simple radio wave version.

The FAA figured out that this server based system, which they call "Remote ID UAS Service Supplier" or (Remote ID USS) will cost a lot of money to set up and administer, so they want private entities to step up and build it and charge users in order to pay for it. The FAA crunched the #s and came up with $ 2.50 per month that the service should cost users. This doesn't cover the sim and data connection for every UAV, however.

Remember, the reason the FAA states as the need for a remote ID system is to find bad actors. The examples they give are near wildfires and airports. This could easily be accomplished with the simple version of Remote ID (RID) that I think we all had envisioned. But, the FAA thinks, I guess, that it would be much easier (and extremely more complex and expensive) if in addition to a live radio broadcast, the LLE can sit in their office and log into the Remote ID USS to see who the bad actor might be. If there is a bad actor flying where they shouldn't, I guess the LLE will have to actually go out to the scene unless they plan to just email a citation?

The FAA is going to require that UAS that are equipped with this new Remote ID system be difficult to modify in order to discourage bad actors from using these craft while defeating the ID system. Really? If a bad actor wanted to fly where they shouldn't, why wouldn't they just use one of the 10's or 100's of thousands of units that will not have that system. Let alone the fact that almost nothing is un-hackable.

Back to that internet connection. The FAA wants the bird to not be able to take off if there is an internet connection that the operator is not using. You mean like the craft will know if your phone is in Airplane mode? Or, you put a aluminium dome over the craft that has it's own data connection? If there is no internet connection, then the craft will still be able to take off, presumably, if it live broadcasts the data. You know, that simple solutions we were anticipating. So, why do we need the complex and expensive server system again? The one that goes far, far beyond what even manned aviation uses?

I could go on because there is a Buuuunnnnncccchh of overthinking presented in the NPRM. But I suspect everyone is seeing it for themselves.

Fellas. I think we are in the "good ol' days" of UAS ops in the US. For how long is the question.

 

[Fred Garvin]

Okay.....so.....all the Law Abiding Legitimate Operators follow this. We get aircraft that can communicate in real-time. We get internet communications and uploads. We do everything right and fly correctly....LIKE WE DO NOW.

SUDDENLY!! A bad actor flies an illegal drone where it shouldn't be flying. It's not registered! It's not communicating! OH MY OH MY WHAT DO WE DO? We can't find him, can't track him.....and of course, bad guys don't follow the law.

NOTHING has changed.

(Except some folks got rich)

 

[Dave Pitman]

That is a very realistic scenario.

Remote ID is a great idea. Creating the NSA-PRISM of UAS isn't so good, IMO.

 

[PatR]

Remote ID is beneficial. Creating a new industry constructed to serve an FAA authorized lobbying cabal is not. Monetizing federal airspace access is also a disaster for everyone that would be forced to use it. Just look at the cost of airspace access in Europe to see where it is going to go.

 

[Dave Pitman]

The FAA's vision of this would probably be fine for the likes of UPS, Amazon, etc. For operations that hope to have 10's of thousands of operations (100's ?) per day. A database of that network's activity might be appropriate. In fact, the companies themselves will probably handle that as a normal part of their business. The FAA need only audit it. You know, like they audited the MAX certification.

Anyway, A big disparity from "our" networks.

 

[Capt Binkley]

Here's a pretty good synopsis.