FAA proposal for UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) aka drones

[CannondaleKid]

The FAA just released their plans to require Remote Identification on all drones and RC Aircraft. The public comment period will run from January 1 to March 1, 2020.
Here's the link to the FAA Remote ID Proposal
It's a 300+ page pdf so don't accept my quick synopsis, download it, skim the first 20 pages, zip to page 97 for a summary chart, then skip to page 107 for five example scenarios. After that, it's up to you how deep you wish to dive.

Or... here's a few basics:
As proposed, all UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems) over 255 grams will be required to connect to the Internet PRIOR to ALL flights. (This MAY change to ALL before approval)

While there are a few differences depending between a Standard Remote Identification UAS or Limited Remote Identification UAS, in general they must keep an Internet connection during all flights and broadcast a continuous ID message or land 'as soon as practicable'.
The message includes:
UAS ID (either serial# or "session ID"), Latitude, longitude, barometric pressure, altitude and UTC time.

The messages will be received and permanently saved through a network of authorized service providers, one of which the UAS owner must subscribe (and pay $$) to for EACH UAS before operation. So in other words, every second of every flight will be documented, and of course subject to access by various authorities.

While the final 'rules' may take 12-18 months to be nailed down, it will be three years from that time before the rules take full effect.
However, at that time there will be NO 'grandfathering' of UAS which do not comply to the rules.

Whether we lean toward more freedom or more rules, the days of anonymous UAS operation are very likely going to be a thing of the past.

[Alston_Neal]

I've been following this since now I own a drone, thanks to my son. At this point mine is under the radar (snicker) but I will move up to a more advanced model.

[chumley]

I'm not sure how the proposal will pass muster in a free country such as ours where we have significant pushbacks against any system that allows anybody (and especially any government agency) to track our exact location and activities.

(Admittedly, I have not yet read the attached proposal, but...) How does this system account for drones that are being flown in areas where an internet connection is either impossible or prohibitively expensive to obtain?

[CannondaleKid]

@chumley
Agreed... I'd say a bit too much government over-reach as written, but that's why they have the 'open comments' period. (And the more folks get involved the better, not just drone enthusiasts.)

How does this system account for drones that are being flown in areas where an internet connection is either impossible or prohibitively expensive to obtain?

That was my first thought as well and at the moment, it really doesn't... so much for well-thought rules.

[chumley]

I'm pretty sure there will be a valid argument that the FAA should require commercial airliners to maintain a constant connection with location tracking before they require "Joe from Queen Creek" to do it. (And, yes, I know that MH370 was not under FAA jurisdiction at the time it disappeared).

[Tough_Boots]

I'm not sure how the proposal will pass muster in a free country such as ours where we have significant pushbacks against any system that allows anybody (and especially any government agency) to track our exact location and activities.

What exactly are you posting this comment with?

[chumley]

@Tough_Boots While that was my home computer, I think you meant to bring up cell phones, which are an excellent example of something that a lot of people lose their feces over transparency of location tracking, listening, etc.

And that has happened incrementally over a decade of voluntary dependence, and by private companies.

While googlefacepple aren’t exactly widely trusted, they’re still also not actually the government.

And making this kind of change all at once rather than slowly creeping it into acceptance is a big factor.

Next, let’s discuss how most of the drones are Chinese and you have a whole new discussion about government surveillance and security!

[Tough_Boots]

@chumley
1. Your home computer is just as trackable as your cell phone.

2. Changing the way a culture sees privacy in only a decade is not "slowly creeping it in".

3. No... Googlefaceapple is not the government but you said "ANY system that allows ANYBODY"... to track us and our activities musters significant pushback-- and that is simply untrue.

[sneakySASQUATCH]

@chumley They already do. May 2010 they published 91.225/91.227 the final rule becomes effective 1/1/2020 as the FAA moves away from radar to ADS-B technology. As of January 1st, 2020 Faa requires ADS-B transponders to meet requirements spelled out operating in airspace 91.225 and operating requirements spelled out 91.227 to provide advanced safety and situational awareness. Basically, transponders can interrogate and are interrogated providing tail# lat/long/ altitude etc. to approach in certain airspace’s and other aircraft in the vicinity going away from solely using radar. I would expect this to be applied to drones as well eventually. Some drones already have databases that don’t allow them to operate in certain areas ie. Within certain distance of airports etc. and more and more people own and fly them some with little respect for the regulations or where they are prohibited. As they become bigger more capable it stands to reason that more regulations are necessary to keep other aircraft safe from people flying them. Last week we were notified through our comm center about unidentified groups of 17-30 drones flying grid patterns in eastern Colorado. Estimated to have 6 foot wing spans. This was then reported by the Denver Post as well. No one seems to know who owns or is operating them. Flying 25 mile patterns at 200-300’. While this is a relatively an unregulated area airspace wise it represents a significant hazard to people operating for ie. EMS pilots as generally we communicate through air to air frequencies and CTAF’s to avoid other aircraft flying in area as well as ADS-B technology alerting us to other aircraft in the area. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/12/23/d ... -colorado/
Drones don’t have regulations requiring ADS-B at this time so the only way a Pilot is going to avoid one is if there is a NOTAM that they are operating in a certain area and avoiding that area or if the pilot sees it which is extremely difficult in the day and even more difficult at night especially since a lot of LED lights are not visible under the NVG’s we utilize for night flying. I read aidmor’s (our safety reporting) all the time about drones interfering with our operations because just like the camera phone being available at all times people want to document life so it is not unusual due to the smaller size and portability of drones now days to spot them at scenes we fly to or at our bases because Joe from Queen Creek generally is completely ignorant of the dangers of flying their drones in these situations. I read every year how they have to call off helicopters and other fire fighting aircraft from fires until they can get a drone out of a restricted area because there is a certain part of the population according to the Bell Curve that are just plain stupid.

[chumley]

They already do

I learn something new everyday! Thanks.

fwiw I agree with your points regarding many drone users. I just think the FAA is 5 years late on doing something about it. I'm curious to see how the comment period goes!

[nonot]

Aircraft are required to use transponders, that constantly transmit the plane's identification, which allows ground tracking stations to monitor their positions at all times. It also keeps people employed as air traffic controllers. All planes are also required to file a flight plan.

The requirement of transponders wouldn't be an effective solution to impose on drones because of transponder power limitations (and battery life).

Using the internet seems to be an approach to tackle the identification and flight plan aspect, though I agree with you that internet access could be difficult/impossible in many locations.

I'm pretty sure there will be a valid argument that the FAA should require commercial airliners to maintain a constant connection with location tracking before they require "Joe from Queen Creek" to do it. (And, yes, I know that MH370 was not under FAA jurisdiction at the time it disappeared).

[CannondaleKid]

Some drones already have databases that don’t allow them to operate in certain areas ie. Within certain distance of airports etc.

The drone manufacturers with foresight who wished to build a respected name in the business as well as wished to be in business long-term (like Mavic) saw the need for this early on.
But it wasn't long before tinkerers hacked the firmware/software to disable those protections... which of course (along with the rising encroachments you mentioned above) brought rise to the need for more regulation.