• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About pb3

  • Rank
  1. It looks like the FAA has basically ignored the tens-of-thousands of comments regarding the proposed Remote ID rule and technology. My take is that it's not necessarily a bad idea, but has no benefits (e.g. situational awareness) for UAV pilots and will be very burdensome on sUAS owners and pilots. From the press release, it appears that the FAA never had any intention other than shoehorning this mess down our throats -- the RFI went out to potential vendors in 2018. https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=24956
  2. I'm not convinced that pursuing another technology in the form of the ATSM remote ID standard is the way to go. ADS-B already meets the criteria and such a capability will allow drones to fully integrate into the national airspace system if/when necessary. The article makes reference to using Bluetooth and Wi-Fi signals, but I cannot see how these would have the range and coverage inherent in ADS-B technology. There's been a lot of discussion about how adding drones into the system would "overwhelm" the ADS-B spectrum, but this has been rebutted both technically and in terms of air traffic control operations. I've been particularly interested in equipping my drone with ADS-B out capability and the technology is now there. For example the Ping 1090i from uAvionix is an ADS-B Transceiver, with Integrated GPS and a barometer. It weighs 25 grams and only draws about 500mW power. Even with an antenna and separate battery, it should be well within the payload capacity of my Phantom 4, for example. But, at $2,000, the cost is still too much to justify for a Part 107 advanced drone hobbyist like myself, who occasionally does low-level commercial flights for not a lot of money. However, by backing the ADS-B standard, rather than introducing another technology, the price of miniaturized systems needed for drones would be driven down through economies of scale.