The FAA is preparing to issue its plan for the requirement of identifying drones. It looks like they want a very comprehensive (meaning it could be expensive) plan.  One part of it might be what DJI is proposing (sending radio signals that identify each drone by registration number, and GPS, etc.), but the FAA has two other parts, one that then is a network of third party providers that will gather data from all flying drones and hand it over to the third part, a government agency (air traffic control?) that will somehow have authority. It looks like each drone might have to file the equivalent of a flight plan. Discussions could become heated.

Very early, just a heads up.
Regards,
John

Hello and good day John. Thank you for reaching out and for sharing this informative information with us. These information will be very big help to all of us drone enthusiast and thank you for your support.

DJI Stephen Posted at 12-27 14:40
Hello and good day John. Thank you for reaching out and for sharing this informative information with us. These information will be very big help to all of us drone enthusiast and thank you for your support.

I downloaded the entire document (a PDF). If it would help, I could try to upload it to the forum?

Two aspects of FAA's NPRM on drone Remote ID bother me.  


1) Very limited exception policy for drones flying without Remote ID.  Limiting drone to previously approved FAA flight areas.  Areas being so limited, that flying a drone without Remote ID over you very own property Illegal.  I foresee American drone Pilots telling FAA to take a flight, and that part of FAA's rule ending up before court system.


2) FAA ruling drones must be connected to Internet, other than for two exceptions.  Neither of which appear to cover drone pilots flying out in middle of no where.  Perhaps someone needs to inform FAA, huge portion of U.S. is not downtown Washington D.C. or Los Angeles with lots of people and great cell service.  Nor do those middle of no where areas have problems with to many aircraft in confined space

JohnK48 Posted at 12-27 19:52
I downloaded the entire document (a PDF). If it would help, I could try to upload it to the forum?

No real need.  It wouldn't make accessing and downloading document any easier.  
Least I did not have any trouble accessing document several times.

Here is a link for anyone looking for document:  Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

In regard to discussions heating up...

Do think FAA is pushing Remote ID at behest of product and deliver service companies.  With some special interests groups / agencies using Fearmongering to get Remote ID shoved upon all of us.

As several DJI forum members have mentioned, there has yet to be anyone killed by a drone.  Whereas there have been numerous claims of drones doing something, but as of yet no proof.

Good example (outside U.S.) being Gatwick Airport shutdown.  Lot of claims by airport admins and authorities.  Couple fasely arrested and publicily whipped by media.  Yet in the end, no proof that drones were actually present on the multiple occassions.

JohnK48 Posted at 12-27 19:52
I downloaded the entire document (a PDF). If it would help, I could try to upload it to the forum?

Thank you for the additional information you have shared John. You may post the link here at DJI Forum for us to be able to open the link and check the information given. Again thank you for your support and have a may you and your family have a great New Year ahead. .

DJI Stephen Posted at 12-28 12:38
Thank you for the additional information you have shared John. You may post the link here at DJI Forum for us to be able to open the link and check the information given. Again thank you for your support and have a may you and your family have a great New Year ahead.  .

Link to the proposed NPRM: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public- ... .gov/2019-28100.pdf  And note that somebody has already posted a link to it on the forum, but here it is.

JohnK48 Posted at 12-30 11:55
Link to the proposed NPRM: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf  And note that somebody has already posted a link to it on the forum, but here it is.

Thank you for posting the link JohnK48. Thank you for your support and may you and your family have a great New Year ahead. .

JohnK48 Posted at 12-30 11:55
Link to the proposed NPRM: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-28100.pdf  And note that somebody has already posted a link to it on the forum, but here it is.

And just a few of my own comments on the general topic.
Good people will generally obey the laws. Bad actors no. A good set of laws should take this to heart so as to not be overly restrictive and to allow the general public as much transparency as is practical. Different interests that are involved: 1) manufacturers, 2) package delivery services, 3) air taxi services, 4) recreational users, 5) EMS and police, 6) Security forces, 7) Bad Actors/lawbreakers.
It seems that a practical point to recognize is that some areas need to be locked down fairly tight from a security standpoint (public gatherings and concerts), some need to be well controlled (eg., airports), and much of the land needs very little special effort. There should be a lot of creative and respectful sharing of ideas so that we and the government can benefit.
Just my two cents worth.

DJI Stephen Posted at 12-30 12:04
Thank you for posting the link JohnK48. Thank you for your support and may you and your family have a great New Year ahead.  .

The same to you Stephen, and to all on this Forum.  
And fly safely, everyone.

JohnK48 Posted at 12-30 12:13
The same to you Stephen, and to all on this Forum.   
And fly safely, everyone.

It is always my pleasure JohnK48. Please be safe always and until next year. .

My understanding so far on this NPRM is that it would hurt the industry, violate our privacy, and is technically breaking federal law 50 US Code 1801 subsection 101 (foreign intelligence surveillance act). The collection of radio comms from US citizens is not allowed without a warrant.

Plus a length restriction of 400ft distance, a monthly subscription that we’d all have to pay plus data coverage/charges. Not to mention the cost of FAA approved remote ID tech.

Why can’t the NPRM use the broadcast based system that DJI has ALREADY designed? It’s a “license plate in the sky” that already exists! We wouldn’t have to pay any more money, most of the drones that we already fly will already work in the system, and it provides pilots with privacy. Instead, the NPRM wants to use network(internet) based which opens up a new can of problems. The NPRM would make it possible for the public to access (maybe even sell your data) all of your information, even your address. You wouldn’t want your car license plate showing your home address for all to see.

Thunder_Rob64 Posted at 1-6 14:44
My understanding so far on this NPRM is that it would hurt the industry, violate our privacy, and is technically breaking federal law 50 US Code 1801 subsection 101 (foreign intelligence surveillance act). The collection of radio comms from US citizens is not allowed without a warrant.

Plus a length restriction of 400ft distance, a monthly subscription that we’d all have to pay plus data coverage/charges. Not to mention the cost of FAA approved remote ID tech.

I strongly agree with you that we need to proceed with caution.  I think the "license plate in the sky" is a good thing to shoot for. Not sure about fully identifying where the controller is and who the owner is.  It would probably be OK if the identifying information makes it easy for law enforcement, but to broadcast to casual users seems a bit much. The historical equivalent in General Aviation is a "transponder" that makes a plane highly visible to a radar operator. The transponder (probably came into being from the military) did not provide absolute identification as the pilot had to manually dial in a 4 digit number that was assigned by ATC. These transponders have just recently been replaced by "ADDS-B" transponders that are much more sophisticated (and expensive).  I'm sure some in the FAA would like ADDS-B in every drone, but they recognize that it would flood the airwaves with unnecessary radio traffic and damage ATC. I don't think that ATC needs to be in the loop for every drone flight - that would be the equivalent of filing an IFR flight plan for every lift-off.  What a way to kill a recreational activity. Filing a flight plan for commercial flights might make a little sense, but that too could cause ATC unneeded grief.  Having the ability to check up on activity that might be suspicious is a worthy goal, but that does not require violation of privacy. Just my opinions.  And btw, EVERYBODY is welcome to submit comments about the NPRM to the FAA - please consider doing so.
Regards,
John