For Those Of Us In The US With Drones

[menzies]

From The Federal Aviation Administration

________________________________________

For Immediate Release
May 5, 2020
Contact: pressoffice@faa.gov

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announced the eight companies that will assist the Federal government in establishing requirements for future suppliers of Remote Identification (Remote ID). Remote ID will enable Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly called drones, to provide identification and location information while operating in the nation’s airspace.

The FAA selected the following companies to develop technology requirements for future Remote ID UAS Service Suppliers (USS): Airbus, AirMap, Amazon, Intel, One Sky, Skyward, T-Mobile, and Wing. These companies were selected through a Request for Information process in December 2018.

“The FAA will be able to advance the safe integration of drones into our nation’s airspace from these technology companies’ knowledge and expertise on remote identification,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao.

This initial group will support the FAA in developing technology requirements for other companies to develop applications needed for Remote ID. The applications will provide drone identification and location information to safety and security authorities while in flight.

The technology is being developed simultaneously with the proposed Remote ID rule. Application requirements will be announced when the final rule is published. The FAA will then begin accepting applications for entities to become Remote ID suppliers. The FAA will provide updates when other entities can apply to become qualified Remote ID USS on FAA.gov.

Drones are a fast-growing segment of the transportation sector with nearly 1.5 million drones and 160,000 remote pilots now registered with the FAA. The agency’s ability to develop Remote ID technology simultaneously with the rule enables the FAA to continue to build on a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) system that has demonstrated global leadership through the small UAS rule and the implementation of the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC), which automates the application and approval process for most UAS operators to obtain airspace authorizations.

 

[ssobol]

That's just flippin' great....

 

[GFC]

Can someone please 'splain to a non-drone owner what this does? Will our wonderful gubmint now be able to tell who owns the drone that is flying over someone's house or business?

 

[ssobol]

Can someone please 'splain to a non-drone owner what this does? Will our wonderful gubmint now be able to tell who owns the drone that is flying over someone's house or business?

The short answer is "yes".

 

[menzies]

Yes. Right now you have to register it and you get a "tail" number.

Initially your could have the number inside the aircraft - mine was on the side of my slide-in batteries.

They they said it had to be on the outside as they did not want LEOs opening an aircraft to find the number as it may be dangerous for them.

So now it is on the airframe.

This process is now to implement technology whereby the aircraft will transmit its ID to a receiver.

Really surprised a foreign entity like AirBus is on there. Also surprised that, to my knowledge, they don't have a drone manufacturer on there - like DJI.

 

[ssobol]

They want all drones greater than .5 pounds to transmit their location so that LEO and other aircraft can detect them. Sort of like ADS-B, but different (because drones are prohibited from using ADS-B).

They also want drones to detect other aircraft (from their ADS-B) and at least notify the drone operator. Ideally they want the drone to automatically get out of the way (i.e. land).

 

[GFC]

I guess I never thought about it but is there a fear that drones could be used for some type of terrorist attack? What is the big fear about drones? What is the fear of LEO's about drones?

 

[ssobol]

I guess I never thought about it but is there a fear that drones could be used for some type of terrorist attack? What is the big fear about drones? What is the fear of LEO's about drones?

Drones have been used in terrorist attacks. There was an apparent attempted assassination of Venezuela President Maduro using two drones in 2018. Other commercial drones have been used to drop grenades and RPG rounds in the Middle East.

Drones have disrupted airport operations (big stinks at Gatwick and Heathrow about a year ago) and forest fire fighting operations as well as medical evacuation flights (e.g. after car accidents).

I don't think that drones per se are a problem for LEO (except when they interfere with LEO helicopter operations). The problem is that if someone calls to complain about a drone doing something they don't like, at this time the LEOs can't do much about them if they can't locate the drone operator.

On the other hand, lots of private citizens have lots of issues when they see a drone anywhere near them and they call the cops.

 

[ghost]

1.) This is probably what we need, though the fact that DJI was not part of the group tells you there are politics at play. I wonder what this does for existing drones without the tech?

2.) Also me. This is why I really like my mavic mini at .49 and under the limit. I won’t be surprised when they change the regs to even smaller weights.

 

[ssobol]

1.) This is probably what we need, though the fact that DJI was not part of the group tells you there are politics at play. I wonder what this does for existing drones without the tech?...

Wouldn't do to have someone who actually knew what they were talking about serve on a rulemaking committee.

 

[menzies]

Re existing drones without the tech, I guess two things.

They would be grandfathered - though there are heck of a lot of Phantoms and others out there!

Or, since they already communicate with a controller up to 7KM (Phantom 4/about 4.5 miles), they could have their software and firmware updated to communicate with a broader audience.

 

[ssobol]

Re existing drones without the tech, I guess two things.

They would be grandfathered - though there are heck of a lot of Phantoms and others out there!

Or, since they already communicate with a controller up to 7KM (Phantom 4/about 4.5 miles), they could have their software and firmware updated to communicate with a broader audience.

1. As the current proposal reads, existing drones would have a phase out period and would not be grandfathered. I believe the proposed phaseout period is 3 or 4 years after the rule is adopted, but could be less. As the typical hobbyist drone is a consumer product, the useful life is probably about 2 years. Drones available in 4 years are going to be a whole lot different that what is available today and only occasional dabblers are going to be using drones more than a couple of years old. It is in the manufacturers interest that you have to buy a new drone, not keep the old one.

2. Existing drones do not have the hardware onboard to comply with the proposed requirements. They either would have to be retrofitted or phased out. There is an after-market/retrofit opportunity here, but only for serious drones (i.e. special purpose). Most people will just get a new drone that meets the requirements.

3. A lot of people are just going to ignore the new requirements. Most of them will not be caught, especially if their drone does not have the hardware to broadcast its position or the position of the operator.

4. Unless you do something really stupid with your drone, the local LEO's have much more important things to do with their time than chase drones that are flying in the local park (even if it is not allowed).

 

[menzies]

Not sure the Phantoms meet your description of a drone that only last a few years and whose owners want to upgrade - these are $1600 machines.

 

[ssobol]

Not sure the Phantoms meet your description of a drone that only last a few years and whose owners want to upgrade - these are $1600 machines.

Like most consumer electronic products (which is basically all it is), there is new model with improved features about every year. The prices on previous models fall steeply when the new ones come out. I recently bought a perfectly good Phantom 3 for $200.

 

[Group9]

Why is it that every single time the government has the option of more or less monitoring/spying/surveillance, they always go with more?

I don't think they trust us at all. Although, I have to admit, the feeling is mutual.

 

[rgano]

Why is it that every single time the government has the option of more or less monitoring/spying/surveillance, they always go with more?

I don't think they trust us at all. Although, I have to admit, the feeling is mutual.

I think the greatest fear surrounding the drone issue is the downing of a passenger airliner as a result of illegal or intended drone operation. Doubtless, bad actors will be able to disable the ID function making the idea that ID broadcasting is a way to prevent such a catastrophe ridiculous, but there it is.

The second big fear, I think, is interference with vital air ops like fire fighting and police helicopters.

And lastly, there is that ever-present bugaboo, invasion of privacy. I would posit that ID rule will have its greatest impact on the teenage-minded operators peeking over fences.

 

[Knot Fast]

Without take a position on the appropriateness, I submit that DJI is a Chinese company and Chinese companies may be specifically excluded from USA airspace management technology, as they are with 5G.

A 1970's Cessna 172 with gps autopilot has been a potential budget remote explosive delivery vehicle for >20 years. So far, so good...

In ~3-5yrs, drone broadcast ID will enable an alert to you when your Amazon package is landing on your swim platform. I wonder if they will be able to land while we are underway?

 

[menzies]

Interesting!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/droned...botics-could-ban-dji-drones-from-sale-us/amp/

 

[Traderjoe]

I like the fact that you can trace people who flys in and over private property and take pics. What is the difference in a peeping tom and a drone flying into your yard.

Joe

 

[menzies]

I like the fact that you can trace people who flys in and over private property and take pics. What is the difference in a peeping tom and a drone flying into your yard.

Joe

That's complicated. You don't actually own all of the airspace over your property.

Clearly you don't own the navigable airspace that airplanes use, defined currently as above 500 feet.

However the question of who owns the air above a property below 500 feet has not been well defined. There are really two application so far in law.

The first is that you own enough of the air above your property to be able to use that property. For example you need air above your yard to be able to walk in it, plant trees, build a tree house etc.

Secondly, and kinda linked to the first, this includes enough air so that you can enjoy your property or run your business. For example no one can invade a farmers airspace to the extent that they are terrifying his animals or hover over your house to the extent they scare your family or you cannot speak to each other.

However it is not well defined and each event tends to be defined by the court case.

I believe the FAA are looking to lower that 500 foot ceiling and many municipalities are fighting it.

As to your example of the peeping tom, if someone walks past your house outside of the property perimeter or stands across the street, and looks in your window are they doing anything illegal since there are outside of your property? Now if a drone flies over at 150-200 feet, clearly above the air that a homeowner "owns" is the operator doing anything illegal?

 

[Traderjoe]

That's complicated. You don't actually own all of the airspace over your property.

Clearly you don't own the navigable airspace that airplanes use, defined currently as above 500 feet.

However the question of who owns the air above a property below 500 feet has not been well defined. There are really two application so far in law.

The first is that you own enough of the air above your property to be able to use that property. For example you need air above your yard to be able to walk in it, plant trees, build a tree house etc.

Secondly, and kinda linked to the first, this includes enough air so that you can enjoy your property or run your business. For example no one can invade a farmers airspace to the extent that they are terrifying his animals or hover over your house to the extent they scare your family or you cannot speak to each other.

However it is not well defined and each event tends to be defined by the court case.

I believe the FAA are looking to lower that 500 foot ceiling and many municipalities are fighting it.

.

Well I damn sure own the right to privacy on my property.

 

[menzies]

BTW, for anyone interested, given the lack of rules around drones (or unmanned aerial vehicle) agencies have asked all operators to follow the safety guide issued by the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics). See the Safety Code here, especially bullet four.

https://www.modelaircraft.org/

 

[porman]

OK, what's to keep the bad guys from disabling any tracking devices?

 

[menzies]

Well I damn sure own the right to privacy on my property.

Actually you don't. Your privacy, even on your own property, is severely limited.

Not trying to stir up a shiatstorm here, but whether you like it or not, it's true.

For example someone standing on public property, or your neighbor on his property can legally take photos of your yard and even inside the house! There are some limits to that, mainly they cannot take photos of rooms where privacy is expected - bathroom and bedrooms mainly. But even that is not always the case.

If someone is walking past and you or a member of your family is crossing the living room after having a shower and he sees them, there is more chance of an indecdent exposure charge than a violation of privacy. If you are anywhere outside your home within sight of public land, or your neighbors, your privacy is limited.

 

[Rick Hudson]

If you haven't seen a DJI Phantom go through a light aircraft wing, it's worth seeing. Chilling.

 

[menzies]

Some interesting comments on that video...

Nice entertaing vid,..but HOW ABOUT BEING HONEST....
The wing Dayton used is from a tiny Mooney M20 piston aircraft (super fragile,..and ancient)NOT a commercial airliner that your readers would typically fly on.
A PROPER TEST ON A COMMERCIAL JET'S WING AND ENGINE NEEDS CARRYING OUT AT 230m.p.h.(which is the max legal permitted FAA,CAA,etc,flying speed below 10,000 feet,for commercial airliners,(hobby drones all fly well below that altitude,120 metres max by law.)

Drone pilots should not be flying in restricted areas but the University of Dayton video is actually really embarrassing for the University. They should be committed to good science and not fear mongering for publicity. They should be reviewing realistic speeds and determining risks and probabilities of mid air collisions from multiple causes for a realistic comparison. I would categorize this video as anti-science.

This is fearmongering for the ignorant who don't realize that there are millions and millions of birds that fly in airport zones and flight paths all the time and there are very few bird-strikes that bring down airliners. Now contrast that with hobbyists who are not allowed to fly near airports and that there are no "drone strikes" that have ever brought down an airliner. If hobbyist drones are such a danger, why doesn't the military use small drones to take out enemy planes? By the way, I am a commercial multi-engine instrument rated pilot who used to fly commercially.

 

[thataway]

One aspect of the proposed ID is that it be an a cell phone frequency--which will require a completely different frequency than the RF which is used for control, plus a separate cell frequency transmitter, subject to the FCC rules, and a subscription to a cell phone channel. No wonder that most of the cell phone companies are represented in the rules making.

It would be like saying that you boat AIS B (or A)must be also readable on a cell phone frequency--rather than be in the VHF band network!

My only drone is the first Mavic Mini. Not mentioned in the patent law suit, but probably effected--as is probably most of other drones. DJI was attached because of market share. Most likely there will be some fiscal compromise. I doubt that DJI is gong to roll over on this one. Currently at the administrative law judge stage now (Government regulatory agency makes rules, and then enforces them with their own judges). Most likely it will be elevated to higher courts, if not resolution before. Also the ruling came down March 2--and apparently the drones are still for sale--until July??

We had the Privacy issue in our neighborhood. One of my neighbors who is an attorney, jammed the offending drone's GPS, and it flew into a tree on his property--where the wreckage still hangs over a year later.....In our neighborhood, I only fly the drone over my property and under 400'. But lots of water out there. I have a friend who is an insurance photographer. Half of his business is using a drone to inspect roofs, and other aspects of the property not easily photographed from the ground.

 

[ssobol]

... One of my neighbors who is an attorney, jammed the offending drone's GPS, and it flew into a tree on his property--where the wreckage still hangs over a year later......

You'd think an attorney would realize that intentionally jamming a GPS signal is also illegal.

People get all upset about drones, but depending on where you live you might have airplanes and/or helicopters flying overhead often, yet those people only complain about the noise not the invasion of privacy.

 

[Frosty]

People get all upset about drones, but depending on where you live you might have airplanes and/or helicopters flying overhead often, yet those people only complain about the noise not the invasion of privacy.

I think one reason drones are perceived differently is that they basically exist to make a photographic record (in the form of high res video). Doesn't help that lots of drone footage ends up on youtube.

A plane flying over is generally on a mission to get where it is going. Rarely do they circle overhead and they can't really hover in place. Helicopters can, but that costs money and so they rarely do. Again, on a mission.



I'm not speaking to legality because I don't know about it. Just why drones tend to be more of a privacy concern than airplanes or helicopters.

 

[menzies]

I think one reason drones are perceived differently is that they basically exist to make a photographic record (in the form of high res video). Doesn't help that lots of drone footage ends up on youtube.

A plane flying over is generally on a mission to get where it is going. Rarely do they circle overhead and they can't really hover in place. Helicopters can, but that costs money and so they rarely do. Again, on a mission.

I'm not speaking to legality because I don't know about it. Just why drones tend to be more of a privacy concern than airplanes or helicopters.

Would they concern you more or less than the person walking past your house and looking into your front window? Maybe even standing there (hovering) and looking?