With FAA proposals for remote ID would you buy a currently produced drone, either new or used?
- Thread starter Mavic Mac
- Start date
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
Yes. The final rule is 5 years out. Plenty of time to enjoy what we do with cool tech. Plus the thing may be modified from what we see now, so basically no reason to panic and alter shorter term actions based on something that is years out and may not look like what we see now.
Redrat100
Member
Ditto. Besides those of us who build our own will be able to add new tech easier than those with off-the-shelf gear.
Along the line of home built.
If similar build kits to existing shelf models were packaged, would they fall under home built. Example: If a Mavic 2 was in a fully dissembled kit, minus camera gimbal and/or motors. Purchasing Radio, motors & camera separately.
But regardless, didn’t the home builds only qualify for the 3rd level and restricted to a FAA zoned field?
I’d purchase a lower priced drone... in waiting for Skydio S2 and no intentions to jump out of line. Will also consider the new EVO2... as it gets closer.
Although until the reg is clear & defined... if I was considering an Ag kit with expensive multispectral payloads, an Inspire 2 packaged with X7, 4 Lens set, and ProRes & Apple licenses or M210 & XT2/Z30... any of these kits exceed $11-15k. I’d take a pass for now. Those platforms have a much longer useful life and when batteries and extras added in, both can be even higher in package.
I wouldn’t purchase a truck knowing in 4 yrs it’d essentially have no value and no resale, and not legal to drive down a road.
Although until the reg is clear & defined... if I was considering an Ag kit with expensive multispectral payloads, an Inspire 2 packaged with X7, 4 Lens set, and ProRes & Apple licenses or M210 & XT2/Z30... any of these kits exceed $11-15k. I’d take a pass for now. Those platforms have a much longer useful life and when batteries and extras added in, both can be even higher in package.
I wouldn’t purchase a truck knowing in 4 yrs it’d essentially have no value and no resale, and not legal to drive down a road.
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
Sort of.
A 'typical' home build will not meet the requirements of Part 89 (Remote ID of Unmanned Aircraft Systems) and can only be flown at the approved fields.
The NPRM does not preclude an individual from building a craft that meets the requirements and filing the necessary paperwork. But it will be a pretty daunting task.
To add would be daunting or may be unobtainable if it requires certified components... my understanding is "currently" even the current manufactured models are not upgradable unless performed by the original manufacture. I hope it softens, and allows a pathway for existing platforms to obtain electronics to meet requirements.
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
The NPRM does not specify, or even mention that I have seen, anything about "certified" parts or modules. It does say that the craft must meet "performance standards" See the following.
§ 89.510 Production requirements.
(a) General production requirements. After [DATE 24 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], no person may produce an unmanned aircraft system unless:
(1) The unmanned aircraft system is designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft systems established in § 89.310 or for limited remote identification unmanned aircraft systems established in § 89.320 and in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance.
And further:
The FAA is proposing in § 89.520 that a person responsible for the production of standard remote identification UAS and limited remote identification UAS be required to submit a declaration of compliance for acceptance by the FAA. The declaration of compliance would affirm that the UAS meets the minimum performance requirements for remote identification by meeting all aspects of an FAA-accepted means of compliance (e.g., a consensus standard) for UAS with remote identification equipment. The FAA would rely on the declaration of compliance to show that the UAS complied with the applicable remote identification requirements at the time the UAS was produced. The FAA would not consider a declaration of compliance under this proposed rule to be an airworthiness certification.
Last edited:
dronecyclops
Well-Known Member
Correct, doesn't state certified, I stated "if it requires certified"... my interpretation as it "develops", the need to meet compliance will probably include some form of quality standard that would require indication/verification meeting that quality standard... that most likely won't be the home builder making statement it meets standards. The 2nd section sited on declaration of compliance (DOC), submitting a DOC will most likely require validation of some sort to limit or control the compliance, but currently that is an unknown for requirements and electronics.
My comments were focused on the limitations, knowing the procedure or requirements isn't clear yet...even the NPRM indicates areas of uncertainty or lacking specifications.
If older platforms currently aren't specified to be upgradable unless performed by original manufacture, I don't see home build obtaining it either. The focus of the current NPRM is not allowing existing crafts, it's not attempting to provide a path to meet specifications.
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
It is pretty clear that a craft will need to meet a "performance standard". The document does not tell us in any particular way that it needs to meet it, just that it does. It spells out the standard and it's up to the manufacturer (or home builder) to meet the standard and to document how it is met. The FAA then reserves the right to inspect and verify any aspect of compliance. "Certification" is not in there. Could it be someday down the road? Sure, but not in this go around. I suggest we concentrate on what IS in there because there is plenty.
The FAA anticipates that industry stakeholders would develop means of compliance (which may include consensus standards) that UAS designers and producers would use to comply with the requirements of this proposed rule. Any person or entity could submit a means of compliance for acceptance by the FAA if it meets the requirements in subpart D of proposed part 89.
And:
XII. Means of Compliance
A. Introduction Performance-based regulations describe outcomes, goals, or results without establishing a specific means or process for regulated entities to follow. Under certain FAA performance-based rules, a person may use a means of compliance to meet these performance requirements.
Regarding builds. A more likely scenario, is that modules will be presented and approved over time. For example, a communication module is built by someone that meets the performance standard for broadcasting the required information. Then that entity could sell that module to others for use in their aircraft. Since the FAA had previously approved of the use of that module, it will likely be approved when used in another build. The module is not "certified" though.
Think of it as constructing a home built airplane, you can purchase all the parts from manufactures, but it still requires an IA to inspect and sign off to be flight worthy. Who knows, In the future FAA may require you to have an annual too, lol.
In my opinion this isn't really about remote ID, it's more of a crafted cloak to obtain other objectives driven by politics and large companies. The way it's constructed is focused more on control & mgmt of who & what will / can be allowed to fly outside of little FAA Playground zones. If it was about remote ID, it'd be constructed differently and providing a clear pathway for existing crafts to obtain. To arbitrarily assume the role & decision of when a craft no longer is permitted to fly based on craft generation age is more controlled than even manned crafts. Example, to fly an M210 over Ag acres that's capable to upgrade payload sensors and craft maintained should have no limitation. But currently, if flying in a remote area lacking internet or cellular presents a problem... regardless if it's an older generation that is considered phased out... that isn't addressing remote ID.
Further, if it was focused on the purpose of remote ID, which was expressed as a safety proposal for both air traffic and security threats. Within that arena of parameters, the home build would be discouraged as a potential threat that could carry much more payload compared to the wide majority of consumer platforms and may have electronics that can easily be overridden (turned off, etc) compared to manufactured platforms. Expressing that existing platforms don't meet new proposed standards and are essentially not able to meet the requirements when a home build theoretically could is illogical and not rational. Other than the numbers; eliminating existing platforms from consideration removes the vast majority of undesired crafts, and for those willing to purchase new crafts, provides a greater revenue source to the manufactures within the political circle.
It's several years before it's a reality to contend with, present challenges & revisions. In the end, I don't see this addressing the original concerns or primary purpose of remote ID. Currently based on reaction across the forums, it's encouraging an attitude more to abuse the regulations... many are very willing to adopt remote ID that actually addresses the task, not this type of control.
Further, if it was focused on the purpose of remote ID, which was expressed as a safety proposal for both air traffic and security threats. Within that arena of parameters, the home build would be discouraged as a potential threat that could carry much more payload compared to the wide majority of consumer platforms and may have electronics that can easily be overridden (turned off, etc) compared to manufactured platforms. Expressing that existing platforms don't meet new proposed standards and are essentially not able to meet the requirements when a home build theoretically could is illogical and not rational. Other than the numbers; eliminating existing platforms from consideration removes the vast majority of undesired crafts, and for those willing to purchase new crafts, provides a greater revenue source to the manufactures within the political circle.
It's several years before it's a reality to contend with, present challenges & revisions. In the end, I don't see this addressing the original concerns or primary purpose of remote ID. Currently based on reaction across the forums, it's encouraging an attitude more to abuse the regulations... many are very willing to adopt remote ID that actually addresses the task, not this type of control.
Dave Pitman
Well-Known Member
I'm as critical of some of the details in the proposal as anyone. And, if you read carefully, you notice that in most cases, the FAA has chosen to go far beyond what was proposed by the ARC (Aviation Rule making Committee).
But some of your assumptions go out in the weeds pretty quickly. I would suggest that to present a respectable rebuttal, it's best to stick to what is in the NPRM.
But some of your assumptions go out in the weeds pretty quickly. I would suggest that to present a respectable rebuttal, it's best to stick to what is in the NPRM.
In my opinion, interpretation... disagree.
But enough said and time will show.
When we purchased our new aircraft I checked and confirmed that ADS-B was compatible with the Pixhawk. The manufacturer assured me that it was and it was a simple install in the factory. The FAA might not go that far but there are aircraft on the market now that can handle it.
I’m in agreement with Dougcjohn’s assessment of the situation. The remote ID proposal is just a preliminary step, foundational for following regulations. The drone/RC aircraft registration rule was the foundation for the remote ID proposal, and all to follow. You could call it incrementalism, or as the Chinese so aptly call it, death by a thousand cuts.
Our future has been in the hands of corporate planners since 2008 but is only now being implemented. Implementation is moving forward because corporate players are now ready to play. It was supposed to happen in 2018 but was somehow delayed. Failing to look and plan beyond the obvious in the text of the remote ID proposal will keep us three or more steps behind everything that is to take place going forward.
We might want to look upon this similar to a declaration of war against the RC/small drone operator population. Once war is enjoined, to fight it on the enemy’s terms, pace, and battlefield assures you will lose.
With your permission I’ll import my argument in favor of the AOPA from Yuneec Pilots.
Our future has been in the hands of corporate planners since 2008 but is only now being implemented. Implementation is moving forward because corporate players are now ready to play. It was supposed to happen in 2018 but was somehow delayed. Failing to look and plan beyond the obvious in the text of the remote ID proposal will keep us three or more steps behind everything that is to take place going forward.
We might want to look upon this similar to a declaration of war against the RC/small drone operator population. Once war is enjoined, to fight it on the enemy’s terms, pace, and battlefield assures you will lose.
With your permission I’ll import my argument in favor of the AOPA from Yuneec Pilots.
Last edited:
