The FAA has made modifications to it’s 12/31/2019 remote id NPRM on the federal register. Don’t be fooled by the dates of publication because they did not change the publication date to 1/31/2020. It is a new document that is definitely more favorable to our hobby/profession. I have read through most of the proposal and these are some of the key changes. This is not an exhaustive list. I am not addressing Limited Remote or No Remote Identification. Standard Identification should be easy to achieve and removes a lot of restrictions and since this is of most importance to me I am sticking with that.

  

ADS-B will not be used to implement new system. Broadcasting of remote ID is to be continuous from take off to landing at a minimum of 1 packet per second. UAS does not need to connect to the internet. Only the controller (phone) needs to connect IF available. If the internet is NOT available, you can fly as long as the UAS has the ability to broadcast and is broadcasting.

  

Broadcasting from the UAS can use current hardware as long as the UAS can be upgraded (by firmware for most) to comply with this requirement. RF will be in the WIFI range currently used by most UAS's. DJI has told the FAA that the entire fleet of DJI drones can be upgraded by a software update. They will NOT be made obsolete. No new hardware will need to be purchased to comply!

There is talk of BVLOS and night time flying allowed within the standard remote id. It appears as if these flight operations may be allowed without waivers. That would be really cool is true.

This is just a small portion of what was changed. There is a lot of good stuff in here along with some questionable to bad stuff but IMO a huge improvement. I invite you to read the document here.

Aloha Thunder,

     Mahalo!

Aloha and Drone On!

This is great news, thanks for posting.

Hello and good day NightThunder. Thank you for sharing this information and for giving us an update with regards to this matter. Great find and thank you for your support.

This sounds very much like the white paper from dji and discussions by ARC, and both these proposals were pretty much identical and made huge sense, using Remote ID shouldn’t hamper in anyway hobbyists or commercial pilots.

It’s amazing how long it took to put this together only for it to start to crumble in such a short time, it just goes to show what idiots are in charge here.

It's time for for us to change our tone from FAA bad to FAA willing to work with us. A lot of fear mongering is going on and we should stop that and start thinking of ways we can work with the FAA.

Cetacean Posted at 2-1 02:09
Aloha Thunder,

     Mahalo!

Thanks for the greeting. It put a smile on my face.

Aloha   

NightThunder Posted at 2-1 13:10
It's time for for us to change our tone from FAA bad to FAA willing to work with us. A lot of fear mongering is going on and we should stop that and start thinking of ways we can work with the FAA.

Aloha Thunder,

     Very good point!  I should be getting an AMA notice that I will post in another thread.  The FAA has been doing a good job integrating private drones into our airspace so far.  This last glitch was an interesting deviation from their previous efforts.  I wonder what happened?

     Keep up the good work!  Mahalo!

Aloha and Drone On!

If only DJI had good sense not to show off their "Remote ID" solution, we would have had a decent argument against additional requirements being piled on to what FAA originally called for.

Thanks to DJI, FAA can now say - Look DJI's already come up with a way to make their existing drones via simple firmware update do what we requested AND more.  DJI can not only broadcast Remote ID to World + Dog, but broadcast flight information of drone, pilot's GPS location, and any additional information that special interests dream-up.  Along with relaying all that information back via R.C. for pilot's SmartDevice to send to designated (drone pilot paid for) data centers; for distribution and storage.

NightThunder Posted at 2-1 13:10
It's time for for us to change our tone from FAA bad to FAA willing to work with us. A lot of fear mongering is going on and we should stop that and start thinking of ways we can work with the FAA.

What I have been doing from start.  Professional, but firm.  
FAA needs to stick with original idea of drone Remote ID being available to appropriate personnel of FAA, Federal LEOs, and Federal agencies involved with National security.  
Dropping any ancillary stuff proposed or added on to by special interests.

I see Hedgetrimmer has got things ar#e about face again, some people will never learn, but maybe if he bothered to read ARCS proposals as well as djis white paper he’d understand, but I’m guessing that’s beyond him. It certainly seems like he was fully behind FAA proposals which frankly were ridiculous.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/brcukg8t4j0agic/DJI%20Remote%20ID%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf?dl=0

I think anybody who reads above white paper will see dji were firmly behind hobbyists and commercial pilots their interests and particularly their privacy.

Excerpts from dji proposal, link to full document above,  on Remote ID and the fact that this was written and presented to the FAA over 2 years shows both dji and ARC's intentions . Dji have also backed up this proposal and all that's in it publicly in December 2019 DJI Proposes Electronic Identification Framework For Small Drones Remote Identifier Would Provide Accountability While Protecting Drone Operator Privacy March 27, 2017 – DJI, the world’s leading maker of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), Monday proposed an electronic identification framework for UAS that would allow authorities in the United States to identify drone owners when necessary while also respecting their privacy. “DJI understands that accountability is a key part of responsible drone use, and we have outlined a proposal that balances the privacy of drone operators with the legitimate concerns authorities have about some drone operations,” said Brendan Schulman, DJI Vice President of Policy and Legal Affairs. “This is another example of how the UAS industry is innovating solutions to emerging concerns, and we look forward to working with other stakeholders on how to implement the best possible system.” Last year, the United States Congress directed the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop approaches to remotely identifying the operators and owners of unmanned aircraft, and set deadlines for doing so over the next two years. DJI has outlined a concept in which each drone would transmit its location as well as a registration number or similar identification code, using inexpensive radio equipment that is already on board many drones today and that could be adopted by all manufacturers. Anyone with the proper receiver could obtain those transmissions from the drone, but only law enforcement officials or aviation regulators would be able to use that registration number to identify the registered owner. This system would be similar to automotive license plates, which allow anyone to identify a nearby vehicle they believe is operating improperly, but which can only be traced to their owner and operator by authorities. “The best solution is usually the simplest,” DJI wrote in a white paper on the topic, which can be downloaded at this link. “The focus of the primary method for remote identification should be on a way for anyone concerned about a drone flight in close proximity to report an identifier number to the authorities, who would then have the tools to investigate the complaint without infringing on operator privacy.” Last week DJI submitted the white paper to the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), which is collecting perspectives on how to remotely identify small drones in the United States in advance of an FAA effort to develop a consensus approach. DJI believes a remote transmission system is preferable to a network that attempts to track or record the location of all drones in real time, which would be far more complex to develop and would expose the confidential information of drone users. The DJI white paper notes several examples of professional and personal operation of drones in which the operator has a legitimate need to keep their identity and the nature of the operation confidential, such as an energy company using drones to survey the location of a prospective new wind farm.

DJI’s proposed system for the United States would also protect the privacy of safe and responsible drone pilots, and would prevent professional drone operators from having to share proprietary information about the location and nature of their flights. Given that some drones have been targeted by gunfire and some drone pilots have been threatened with assault despite flying legally, DJI believes it is prudent to allow individual drone owners to avoid disclosing their identities to the general public.

“No other technology is subject to mandatory industry-wide tracking and recording of its use, and we strongly urge against making UAS the first such technology. The case for such an Orwellian model has not been made,” the white paper says. “A networked system provides more information than needed, to people who don’t require it, and exposes confidential business information in the process.” The overwhelming majority of personal and professional drone pilots operate safely and responsibly. However, DJI recognizes that law enforcement and aviation regulators need to be able to identify the owners of drones that may be operating unlawfully or in highly sensitive areas. Many people who are unfamiliar with the benefits of drones will also appreciate knowing that authorities can identify their operators when necessary.

hallmark007 Posted at 2-2 05:15
I see Hedgetrimmer has got things ar#e about face again, some people will never learn, but maybe if he bothered to read ARCS proposals as well as djis white paper he’d understand, but I’m guessing that’s beyond him. It certainly seems like he was fully behind FAA proposals which frankly were ridiculous.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/brcukg8t4j0agic/DJI%20Remote%20ID%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf?dl=0

I see resident has arrived to Troll-n-Trash the thread to Protect his compensated interests.  While trashing me, like Snake in Grass.

2-Faced

Hypocrite much?


To bad hallmark007 can't admit his interest compensator jumped gun with their Free to World + dog app demo; handing FAA a club to beat down any arguments involving grandfathering in existing drones.

hallmark007 Posted at 2-2 05:55
DJI’s proposed system for the United States would also protect the privacy of safe and responsible drone pilots, and would prevent professional drone operators from having to share proprietary information about the location and nature of their flights. Given that some drones have been targeted by gunfire and some drone pilots have been threatened with assault despite flying legally, DJI believes it is prudent to allow individual drone owners to avoid disclosing their identities to the general public.

https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-demonstrates-direct-drone-to-phone-remote-identificationDJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification

News2019-11-13

DJI Demonstrates Direct Drone-To-Phone Remote Identification

  

Simple, Low-Cost Solution Meets Government Expectations To Identify Airborne Drones

  
  

DJI, the  world’s leader in civilian drones and aerial imaging technology, today  demonstrated a direct drone-to-phone, Wi-Fi based solution to remotely  identify airborne drones, pioneering an easy way for anyone with a  smartphone to monitor nearby drones for enhanced safety, security and  peace of mind.

  
  

DJI’s  remote identification solution, developed in collaboration with  industry stakeholders and regulators, broadcasts information from drones  directly to off-the-shelf mobile phones using existing Wi-Fi protocols. Using a simple app, anyone within radio range of the drone can receive  that signal and learn the location, altitude, speed and direction of the  drone, as well as an identification number for the drone and the  location of the pilot.

So much for DJI protecting privacy.  Again, absolutely no need for DJI to create App to Demo App prior to what FAA will eventually come up with.  Which will be subject to Public comment, and quite possibly pressure from our Representatives should FAA go for dreams of Special Interests.

I think what we have here is more BS by Hedgetrimmer, he continues to spread BS all over this forum. And mainly when it’s of no interest to anyone.

1/ we know dji developed an app
2/ Developed at the bequest of the FAA
3/ Dji never said they would broadcast any proprietary information, (in fact the opposite)
4/ Dji are on record saying they would not accept any proprietary information being broadcast regarding commercial or hobbyists pilots
5/ we all read in FAA proposals that they fully intended all along to broadcast pilots information including the place they were flying and this included both commercial and hobbyists pilots

So what we have on this thread now is a bigot spreading complete false information, ignoring the white paper above because it doesn’t suit his ridiculous arguments, now what kind of an idiot could add 2+2 and come up with what this idiot came up with.There is not one statement in the rubbish press release this guy put up by dji saying they would release any information on any pilot, which makes what he put up and what he's trying desperately to prove absolute muck, on the other hand what I've posted is a clear and unadulterated statement of fact from dji that clearly points out their position on Remote ID. I think now members can make up their own minds on this .

Firstly his argument makes absolute no sense, it’s pretty clear from djis statement in public in months December 2019 and January 2020 and from their white paper above along with the findings of ARC that dji were never going to be in favor of releasing proprietary information to the general public, in fact I have shown clearly that this was not their intention.

But what we now did know was through their own means and not anything to do with an app dji developed , that the FAA were indeed going to broadcast all information to the detriment of pilots.

Hedgetrimmer problem is , he can’t let anything go he doesn’t know when he’s beat, in this case he’s defending the FAA on one hand and castigating them, always pulling and dragging trying desperately to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

His argument above has not been taken up by anyone not one single person yet he has posted threads posts, all of which got short shrift by members here, you can’t talk out the side of your mouth while trying to make a sensible point, I’m not sure as much as I ’m certain most here won’t even know what his ridiculous point is, or why he insists being an idiot.

Members here are about the one thing and that’s what’s best for all drone users, Hedgetrimmer is about himself, his argument is totally off cue and nothing to do with what’s going on, but this is what he does, I was on a thread the other day about compass when he comes along and tries to make it about gps, laughable but most of his contribution is similar. Cutis was banned the other day for similar off topic behavior , just saying .

Now I think in the interest of all users it’s clear there may be changes for the better here and they should be discussed not Hedgetrimmer private arguments, I wish all well and if I can contribute constructively I will.
So let’s put this private nonsense to bed .

NightThunder Posted at 2-1 13:10
It's time for for us to change our tone from FAA bad to FAA willing to work with us. A lot of fear mongering is going on and we should stop that and start thinking of ways we can work with the FAA.

I apologize to you regarding answering a trio of posts that needed correcting, your thread deserves better and I hope from here out discussions will be about issues at hand and not about whether we hate dji or not.
Thank you and good luck .

hallmark007 Posted at 2-3 03:37
I think what we have here is more BS by Hedgetrimmer, he continues to spread BS all over this forum. And mainly when it’s of no interest to anyone.

1/ we know dji developed an app

See you are still doing exactly what you have accused others of doing - being a Lowly Snake in Grass.

Tell all of us hallmark007 why you continue to defend DJI who did opposite of what they said.  

Why do you continue to trash any thread or OP which points to issues with DJI?

What's in it for you?

This is fracking ridiculous. I DO NOT APPRECIATE my thread being hijacked. Let's stick to the issues please. I intended this thread to show that the FAA is listening, at least in my opinion. I had hoped that people would read the new NPRM and come up with some reasonable opinions about. The new proposal is a game changer! It's not perfect, but now we have a good base from which to express our concerns. Let's stick to that!

To help get this back on track, has anyone read the new NPRM? Did you come away with the same impression I got (and I qoute myself): There is talk of BVLOS and night time flying allowed within the standard remote id. It appears as if these flight operations may be allowed without waivers. That would be really cool is true.
Be still my beating heart.

Oops. My bad. Don't see a way to delete a post.

NightThunder Posted at 2-3 10:21
This is fracking ridiculous. I DO NOT APPRECIATE my thread being hijacked. Let's stick to the issues please. I intended this thread to show that the FAA is listening, at least in my opinion. I had hoped that people would read the new NPRM and come up with some reasonable opinions about. The new proposal is a game changer! It's not perfect, but now we have a good base from which to express our concerns. Let's stick to that!

Thanks for posting the revised NPRM link.  Took a while to read it and digest most of what was being said.  The revision is not perfect but is definitely a step in the right direction.  What I would call a more common sense approach.  I believe that as long as inputs are kept professional to the FAA we still stand a chance of gaining further changes before this goes into effect.  

I did get the sense that BVLOS and night flying (within remote id standards) would be allowed but it was not 100% clear.  One can only hope.

NightThunder Posted at 2-3 10:29
To help get this back on track, has anyone read the new NPRM? Did you come away with the same impression I got (and I qoute myself): There is talk of BVLOS and night time flying allowed within the standard remote id. It appears as if these flight operations may be allowed without waivers. That would be really cool is true.
Be still my beating heart.

Adds a bit of clarity to the truth behind Remote ID

NightThunder Posted at 2-1 13:10
It's time for for us to change our tone from FAA bad to FAA willing to work with us. A lot of fear mongering is going on and we should stop that and start thinking of ways we can work with the FAA.

I have constantly felt the same sentiment.  I talked many times with my local FAA office and they have been totally accommodating with my questions and providing guidance.  In fact, it would behoove everyone on these forums to simply reach out to your local FAA, as opposed to relying on media or fear mongering to steer your opinions.  It's really not that hard.

https://content.dji.com/who-shou ... e-pilot-is-located/

hallmark007 Posted at 2-20 03:46
https://content.dji.com/who-should-know-where-a-drone-pilot-is-located/

Everyone should read the article you linked to. It makes complete sense to me and further validates that DJI is on our side!

BTW Nice to see you back hallmark007!

NightThunder Posted at 2-20 11:53
Everyone should read the article you linked to. It makes complete sense to me and further validates that DJI is on our side!

BTW Nice to see you back hallmark007!

Thank you, it’s still very hard to see how or where this will all end up . Hopefully common sense will prevail .

Some more intelligent interviews , I do believe djis position is very much in favor of users which is great to see.

hallmark007 Posted at 2-29 07:38
Some more intelligent interviews , I do believe djis position is very much in favor of users which is great to see.

https://youtu.be/HEWL66Og9tY

Excellent videos, very informative.  Definitely hope that common sense does prevail in this issue.  Thanks for sharing hallmark007.

NightThunder Posted at 2-20 11:53
Everyone should read the article you linked to. It makes complete sense to me and further validates that DJI is on our side!

BTW Nice to see you back hallmark007!

"and further validates that DJI is on our side!"

Perhaps, perhaps not.
Depends upon what was said in the meeting describe below, and what FAA meant by "primarily stated that they were supportive"and if "their vision of how remote identificcation" is what was shown in video of free Drone to Phone app.


On October 2, 2019, the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs hosted a meeting between representatives from DJI Technology, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Company representatives primarily stated that they were supportive of the Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems rulemaking. They also discussed their vision of how remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems could be accomplished.

Think this video and djis submissions to the FAA shows unequivocally who’s side they were on, and any logical thinking would have seen this.
Interesting google are backing our hobby.
Worth reading djis submission, clear and precise.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2019-1100-51823

Oh ye of little faith.