Spitfire76

FAA Issues Proposed Rule For Remote ID

Recommended Posts

Hi all, hat tip to @Zacc Dukowitz  — in this guide, he walks through 4 major talking points for those of you looking to shape the next significant stage of the U.S. drone industry (1-cost, 2-compliance, 3-privacy, and 4-logistical concerns) and potential solutions so you can make a more informed and impactful comment.

I've read dozens of the 9,000+ comments, and so many of them aren't following the FAA's commenting guidelines and wouldn't likely be considered during the review period.

Hopefully, this guide makes it easier for you to be an advocate and to help push this industry forward in a safe and sensible manner.

https://www.dronepilotgroundschool.com/remote-id-public-comment

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume this question has already been chewed up and beaten like a dead horse, but I gotta ask. 

With respect to this internet based identity reporting thing. I assume the answer will talk about line of sight signal requirements and loss of signal at lower altitudes, but still. 

Why in God's name are reinventing the friggen wheel and not simply integrating a system directly into the existing ADS-B system? I don't care about loss of signal at low altitudes, there are 1001 easy solutions to mitigate that. Help me out here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll go ya one better:

With the exception of ingress and egress to airports manned aircraft fly 500' and above, UAV's fly 400' and below.  Around airports UAV's have LAANC and manned is talking to ATC.  

 

Where's the conflict?  Remote ID does absolutely nothing to prevent collisions between UAVs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. As a long time GA guy, I could offer a few examples of why the coverage needs to be reliable outside the vicinity of airfields. But none of that carries any relevance with respect to my objections to a plan which relies on the development and integration of a completely novel system which does nothing more than duplicate some of the most basic and elementary reporting functions of multiple ATNS systems which are already globally deployed and could very easily and cost effectively be expanded to meet the unique requirements of the UAS community. 

I suspect that it wouldn't take many FOIA requests or much digging around in the public domain before those who were looking to find that this system was sold to the FAA as the new hotness, chock full of marginally valid reasons why ADS-B just won't cut it, and was done so by a corporate contract company who stand to quietly milk the FAA and American people for a system that is duplicitous, underperforms existing deployed systems, and will become the bane of the existence for all UAS Operators in the US. Mark my words, this has a heavy coat of BS stank that will be good for no one but the company who is already developing delay plans to work the FAA over and over and over. 

This upsets me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Av8Chuck said:

Remote ID does absolutely nothing to prevent collisions between UAVs.  

I don't think it even claims to.  It's about building a UTM for the benefit of delivery wannabees. 

 

The next step will be to require GA to upload all their data in real time for "safety" sake.  Wonder if that would get AOPA's attention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Yeah, I understand the justifications driving the requirements. I've been involved with the FAA in one way or another for the larger part of 3 decades, and even spent a brief 2½ years working in their environmental compliance of airspace rule making shop. One of the most common misnomers about the FAA which everyone involved in aviation is what it is that drives the FAA's culture of safety, and the true nature of the resulting regulations imposed. 

It seems like an obvious answer to most, make sure the all the airplanes operate safe and in an organized fashion. That is true, but it's what drives that desire for safety and efficiency which people don't realize.

First, though, it's important to understand a few things about everyone's favorite Federal Agency! First is the FAA is easily the highest paid Federal Agency in the US Government. There are a couple reasons for this related to the propensity of employees to stay WAYYY longer on the job than any other agency, which results in a larger number of employees ascending to the highest regions of the pay scale.

Second, what most people understand to be a single mission oriented agency, called the FAA, operates as a single organism, and utilize just a single voice. They also assume that I once all govt agencies, the FAA makes a point that all subordinate departments push in sync towards the same direction.

The reality is that the FAA is actually an umbrella organization which houses no fewer than 10 separate organizations which all cover-down on a set of specific aspects of the civil aviation industry. Don't mistake these division as being what we see in companies with different divisions to handle certain aspects of a common product line. It's not hyperbolic at the least when I say the term "airplane" is where any and all commonalities they all share ends. These sub-organizations all have distinct regulatory roles which are VERY clearly designated with deep lines in the sand. They don't have a slightly unique version of the same overall corporate culture, they each have very deeply entrenched, distinct, unrelated, and often incompatible cultures depending on (my theory) the types of people and personalities the nature of their work attracts. And as you can probably guess, despite the clearly marked boundaries of mission and authority each holds, there is a fair share of mission creep and overlap. So there are the occasional hissing and spitting slap fights any time someone who shouldn't have lifts their leg on somebody else's tree. 

Alright, third and final, and the actual answer to the question of what drives the FAA's culture of safety. One of yous guys made the point that any drone ID systems implemented would inherently be limited in their effectiveness with preventing in-flight drone collisions. That statement is absolutely correct, and I would contend that shortcoming would extend to avoiding drone v. manned aircraft collisions as well. The FAA also knows this, acknowledges it, and when the NTSB recommends year after year that they develop mitigations for this limitation, the FAA does what they do, and moves on. They ignore you for saying it, and provide the NTSB with a carbon copy of last year's carbon copy listing of why unless they have Congressional mandates to do so, they don't care. 

Here's the truth that take some aviators a little bit of time to reconcile and come to terms with when they realize it. The FAA is many things, often conflicting things, but are charged with establishing minimum standards for aircraft, airports, airmen, airspace, and all the systems that connect them. Based on a Congressional delegation, the FAA plays the role of sole regulatory authority for anything and everything concerned with aviation in the US, as well as holding all authorities to conduct oversight and enforcement of the industry. 

Paradoxically and in many ways conflicting, they are also charged with the encouraging and nurturing all social and economic aspects of aviation in the US. They are required to expand and innovate in perpetuity. 

Finally, they have the all the different missions needed to make it all go. This is where the efficiency and safety aspects are critical. The margins of error the FAA continuously calculates and refines when setting standards for system efficiencies and safety of flight are done so at an amazingly granular level, are incredibly difficult to comply with, and are why flying in an airplane is safer than sitting on the couch watching TV.

However, all of the characteristics, and millimeter sized efficiencies, and microscopic scale minimum safety margins are not implemented to save the lives of those brave pilots or to protect the investments of those airlines, or to ensure the drone community can avoid crashing thier new drones and fly again tomorrow. They don't particularly care whether or not they delayed a Cessna pilot trying to take-off. Nothing they do to increase safety or efficiency, aside from a few distinct offices who are required to make aviation bigger, is done for the users of the National Airspace System (NAS). In fact, when developing safety standards, the users  are often perceived as the risk factor.

The FAA is required by law and concerned with ensuring the safety of two groups of people. They are the "flying public" and citizens on the ground, and that's it. This is apparent with a number of factors when it comes to small GA ops which are of course manned aircraft. I suspect the biases, which are in many cases fully justified, are going to be even less advantageous for the UAS crowd. 

Now, I'm not saying the people at the FAA are callous to the lives pilots and don't care about their safety. All I'm saying is the charter is hyper-focused on reducing aviation mishaps for the sake of the citizens, not the operators. The operators are the ones who create the safety issues and must be regulated. 

And just to say it one more time, the decision to reinvent the aircraft self-ID wheel frustrates the hell of me, but in no way surprises me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts about this from DJI ? I believe there is still a privacy issue here since anyone can locate you and your drone. They could harass you even though you maybe flying legally. I can also see  pilots targeted for robbery.

 

Edited by Spitfire76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im all for safe flying and trying to keep public happy.

It should not be at the cost of the model aircraft and drone being cut back to zero rights

100,000 of drones dont have anyway to implement the remote id ideas ,this will mean that very few drones will be upgraded with the new software.

and that legacey drones will be told to fly in a appointed field. photographers use drones to take and see fantastic views and will not sit in a field takeing the same shots all year long. these rules will make it illegal to fly your drone out side of the field. the councils who suppose to appoint the fields know nothing about this and will not be appointing fields. thats gonna make allot of people angry as they will of spent thousands on equipment and aircraft.

the new restrictions are reduceing the ability of the aircrafts and they will struggle to fly safe. 

The point is that change always happens and those who wish to update and fly new aircraft is fine.

but the people who cant afford new aircraft or be able to update should be still allowed to fly as normal until they decide to scrap or pack in.

i can see a lot of people not registering in the future and flying when and were they like cause ,

if pilots are not be able to fly outside the one field and it be illegal if they do .i can see pilots not sticking by any of the rules or drone laws ,

instead of 100 rules of what and were we cant go or do, its about time that a fair deal of were we can fly be shown and rules to provide safe flight areas so people wont walk into these areas without knowing. hobbiests who fly for years and wont give up. photographers for the scenary,commercial for money.

they pilots have to fly freely to practice and check there aircraft, in safe flying areas ,so before anybody signs up or upgrades the rest of the deal should be on the table. if theres no one left to fly  theres no point in the rule books.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.