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

[PatR]

I was over there when some near disasters between manned and unmanned occurred. With few exceptions, the manned aircraft caused the conflict.

 

[jasnwatsn]

Not sure if anyone has posted this, i mean we're 7 pages in on this post so yeah....

 

[JDSimpson]

Here is a great read with some degree of background for Remote ID for UAS.

https://kittyhawk.io/resources/Remote-ID-White-Paper.pdf?dl=1

Good article. I believe Kitty Hawk has the right view on the positive side of RID.

 

[jasnwatsn]

Good article. I believe Kitty Hawk has the right view on the positive side of RID.

I would tend to lend a little bit more credibility to a company that 1)is not in bed with the FAA and 2) has both Pros and Cons about Remote ID, not just the rainbows and unicorns portion.

 

[JDSimpson]

I would tend to lend a little bit more credibility to a company that 1)is not in bed with the FAA and 2) has both Pros and Cons about Remote ID, not just the rainbows and unicorns portion.

You are correct. However, we have not seen the final ruling. As a commercial remote pilot, I do not fear RID and I can see how RID could be a benefit to legal operations in the NAS.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I'm bored.Think I'll make a video about remote ID....

 

[rcdancer]

The fatal flaw in this proposal is the requirement for an internet connection. Problem is that there are many, many geographical areas of this country without reliable cellular service ...... unlike the urban areas which the lawmakers, bureaucrats and lobbyists reside in. In typical fashion, they live in a bubble and are out-of-touch with the rest of the country that lies between the coasts.

 

[philsmith76]

Well at least for standard ID if there is no internet connection, you can can still fly as long as you are broadcasting.

 

[rcdancer]

 

[BigAl07]

The fatal flaw in this proposal is the requirement for an internet connection. Problem is that there are many, many geographical areas of this country without reliable cellular service ...... unlike the urban areas which the lawmakers, bureaucrats and lobbyists reside in. In typical fashion, they live in a bubble and are out-of-touch with the rest of the country that lies between the coasts.

There is a provision built into the NPRM for non-internet scenarios. If no internet the "bird itself" just has to broadcast the telemetry directly. This allows for any local Rx to pick up the data and react accordingly. Think of it like ADS-B where it's always broadcasting regardless if anyone is actually picking up the broadcast or not.

 

[Fred Garvin]

...There is a provision built into the NPRM for non-internet scenarios...

But aren’t you limited to 400’ then? That could be a problem in some situations. If it were say, 2500’, a distance that would provide for VLOS, then there would be no issue. I can see my Typhoons out that far, but not my Mavic’s, especially the Air, so I’d never be affected with them. 400’ just isn’t enough... I fly farther than that from my backyard, around the neighborhood. I think 2500’ would be reasonable. If you can’t see it that far off, no harm no foul as your personal limits are the restriction....if you can see it, then you’ve got great vision, but I think asking for much more than that would be asking too much from the FAA.

If they would change that one part, the 400’ restriction, to something more realistic, I would personally be much more in support of the new direction.

 

[2edgesword]

There is a provision built into the NPRM for non-internet scenarios. If no internet the "bird itself" just has to broadcast the telemetry directly. This allows for any local Rx to pick up the data and react accordingly. Think of it like ADS-B where it's always broadcasting regardless if anyone is actually picking up the broadcast or not.

I think one major problem at this point is the lack of clarity regarding whether a large majority of the existing drones can be modified to broadcast the required ID information and whether this can be done via an inexpensive firmware upgrade or a modification in hardware that could be cost prohibitive depending on the cost. Having an answer to these question might alleviate some of the resistance regarding this proposal. That said I'm not sure if the manufacturers can answer these question without some clarity from the FAA regarding the broadcast requirements (content and signal) and how a manufacturer certifies that the modification of existing drones and new drones being manufactured meet FAA requirements.

 

[2edgesword]

But aren’t you limited to 400’ then? That could be a problem in some situations. If it were say, 2500’, a distance that would provide for VLOS, then there would be no issue. I can see my Typhoons out that far, but not my Mavic’s, especially the Air, so I’d never be affected with them. 400’ just isn’t enough... I fly farther than that from my backyard, around the neighborhood. I think 2500’ would be reasonable. If you can’t see it that far off, no harm no foul as your personal limits are the restriction....if you can see it, then you’ve got great vision, but I think asking for much more than that would be asking too much from the FAA.

If they would change that one part, the 400’ restriction, to something more realistic, I would personally be much more in support of the new direction.

If the drone is capability of broadcasting the required ID information it is NOT bound by the 400' rule. The 400' rule applies to those that can only provide the ID info via internet connection. That said I agree with you that the 400' rule for those transmitting the ID info via the internet is too restrictive and should be increased to something more in line with line of sight.

 

[philsmith76]

Standard ID has no 400 foot restriction. On page 97 has a table “Summary of Differences between Standard Remote Identification UAS and Limited Remote Identification UAS” look for “Connectivity prior to takeoff” to see that for standard ID all that is needed is to be Broadcasting at takeoff

 

[jasnwatsn]

You are correct. However, we have not seen the final ruling. As a commercial remote pilot, I do not fear RID and I can see how RID could be a benefit to legal operations in the NAS.

Same boat as you and I absolutely want it to be easier to fly in the NAS. My hope is they don’t make it more cumbersome to utilize unmanned aircraft to help save lives.

 

[adm_geomatics]

We've already looked into this with our Yuneec H520's. It would not be very hard at all to add functionality to the firmware of the RC and a dongle that connects to a cloud resource. Telemetry from the drone to the flight software and the RC stores and reports. That said, 3 years down the road we will have refreshed all of our current gear, just to have bought something that will immediately become non-compliant... Thanks to all for staying on top of this information!

 

[rcdancer]

The confusion as to exactly just what this proposal really says, illustrates how poorly written and obtuse it is.

 

[rcdancer]

 

[BigAl07]

But aren’t you limited to 400’ then?

No if the aircraft "Can Self Broadcast" there is no limit of 400'. That limit, as I understand it, is if there is no internet connectivity for the ground station AND the aircraft can't Self Broadcast.

.....I can see my Typhoons out that far, but not my Mavic’s, especially the Air, so I’d never be affected with them. 400’ just isn’t enough... I fly farther than that from my backyard, around the neighborhood. I think 2500’ would be reasonable. If you can’t see it that far off, no harm no foul as your personal limits are the restriction....if you can see it, then you’ve got great vision, but I think asking for much more than that would be asking too much from the FAA......

I too agree that 400' is very limiting but where do they "draw the line in the sand"? If it's a large form factor you can fly it to 2500' or it's small 400'? It's a sticking point for some no matter what the limit is. I don't have a good answer or I would submit it to them but I don't think 400' is going to be that big of a hurdle 3 years down the road. A lot can change between now and then.

 

[BigAl07]

I think one major problem at this point is the lack of clarity regarding whether a large majority of the existing drones can be modified to broadcast the required ID information and whether this can be done via an inexpensive firmware upgrade or a modification in hardware that could be cost prohibitive depending on the cost. Having an answer to these question might alleviate some of the resistance regarding this proposal. That said I'm not sure if the manufacturers can answer these question without some clarity from the FAA regarding the broadcast requirements (content and signal) and how a manufacturer certifies that the modification of existing drones and new drones being manufactured meet FAA requirements.

EXACTLY! Until the final "Requirements" are published we/they/everyone has no idea what to plan for in terms of equipment and DATA. I guess they have to make the requirements first and THEN the manufacturers can weigh in on how/when their equipment can be compliant and what the process might involve. You can't make the equipment until you know what they are requiring of the equipment.

Chicken vs the Egg?