Is the Phantom 4 RTK going to be RID compliant?

It's a very popular commercial platform, and a number of users trying to renew their FAA registration are finding that without RID they cannot do so. FAA won't accept the drone's serial number as-is.

Any clarifications and suggestions would be appreciated!

I'm not very confident that DJI will integrate this functionality on the P4RTK which is almost obsolete with the release of the Mavic 3 enterprise range.

On the other hand there are modules to add. This may be able to help you:

LV_Forestry Posted at 1-24 08:11
I'm not very confident that DJI will integrate this functionality on the P4RTK which is almost obsolete with the release of the Mavic 3 enterprise range.

On the other hand there are modules to add. This may be able to help you:

Thanks for the assist!

Hi, NerdyBD. Thank you for reaching out. Regretfully, we currently don't have information about this. For the latest updates please stay tuned to our DJI official website at ( www.dji.com ) and you may also check this thread: https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=277548. Thank you for your kind understanding.

Many (even older) DJI drones have everything they need hardware-wise to enable RID. All that is needed is to turn it on via firmware update. I can't say this is true for the P4R for sure, but it just might be...

DJI Gamora Posted at 1-24 20:56
Hi, NerdyBD. Thank you for reaching out. Regretfully, we currently don't have information about this. For the latest updates please stay tuned to our DJI official website at ( www.dji.com ) and you may also check this thread: https://forum.dji.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=277548. Thank you for your kind understanding.

Truly appreciated!

NerdyBD Posted at 1-25 06:05
Truly appreciated!

Hi, NerdyBD. Thank you so much for your feedback. Hope you have a good day ahead!

Hi, this is Jan from Dronetag - we manufacture a Remote ID solution for drones. As for the non compliant drones (f.e. DJI brand models without the firmware update) - to fly in compliance with the FAA rules, you would need to add a Remote ID module to retrofit your drone. If you would be interested to know more, let´s talk, or try to search on youtube for Ken Heron od Alien Drones, both had our device in independent testing.

jan.jirousek Posted at 2-2 07:01
Hi, this is Jan from Dronetag - we manufacture a Remote ID solution for drones. As for the non compliant drones (f.e. DJI brand models without the firmware update) - to fly in compliance with the FAA rules, you would need to add a Remote ID module to retrofit your drone. If you would be interested to know more, let´s talk, or try to search on youtube for Ken Heron od Alien Drones, both had our device in independent testing.

Hi Jan! Thank you, great product!

Now the brands come directly to advertise in the threads. This forum is wonderful.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-2 08:15
Now the brands come directly to advertise in the threads. This forum is wonderful.

Hi, you were the first to post a link to a video about our products. I did not advertise anything, I just replied to the question and tried to be helpful.

jan.jirousek Posted at 2-3 06:33
Hi, you were the first to post a link to a video about our products. I did not advertise anything, I just replied to the question and tried to be helpful.

1/ Manufacturers are not welcome on public forums, for the sake of maintaining objectivity.  If a user has tested or heard of a product, that's objective.  The manufacturer will never be completely objective about his product.  

2/If all the brands start doing the same thing, the forum will become an advertising space where we will have to spend your time sorting out what is objective and what is not.  

3/Please go to check point VI of the forum rules.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-3 07:19
1/ Manufacturers are not welcome on public forums, for the sake of maintaining objectivity.  If a user has tested or heard of a product, that's objective.  The manufacturer will never be completely objective about his product.  

2/If all the brands start doing the same thing, the forum will become an advertising space where we will have to spend your time sorting out what is objective and what is not.  

Agreed on all counts. At least Jan was up front about the fact that he represented a company and was advertising a product. Some posts are not so honest.

patiam Posted at 2-3 07:35
Agreed on all counts. At least Jan was up front about the fact that he represented a company and was advertising a product. Some posts are not so honest.

Yes it's true at least he was direct and effective.

I don't know about you but here we are invaded by advertising from all sides. Every day I receive advertisements by email for GNSS receivers, LiDARs... The manufacturers do what is necessary to collect university email addresses and to spam us.

On Youtube I find that there are more and more advertising videos where the opinion is not very objective. There is one channel in particular that I watch more, it's Indiana drone. It's a big advertisement for a LiDAR manufacturer, that's all.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-3 08:01
Yes it's true at least he was direct and effective.

I don't know about you but here we are invaded by advertising from all sides. Every day I receive advertisements by email for GNSS receivers, LiDARs... The manufacturers do what is necessary to collect university email addresses and to spam us.

According to FAA Remote ID rule -§ 89101 (a) (1), all drones that are used for business purposes, or drones with takeoff weights higher than 250g/0.55 pounds, have to comply with the Remote ID rule.

The Phantom 4's weigh more than 1Kg.  I sure hope that DJI fixes their bug/lack of feature.  I can't afford to have an add-on remote ID module fall from my Phantom 4.  I can't afford to have an add-on remote ID device interfere with the telemetry link from my controller to the aircraft.   FAA and NTSB won't be happy when something goes wrong with an after-market fix.

I was recently able to register my Phantom 4 Pro V2 on Dronezone without saying yes to the Remote ID question.

WA4OSH Posted at 2-3 11:18
I was recently able to register my Phantom 4 Pro V2 on Dronezone without saying yes to the Remote ID question.

Thank you for this!

WA4OSH Posted at 2-3 11:19
[view_image]

Remote ID for operators is not in effect until 16th September 2023. That is why it lets you to register without Remote ID equipped drone or Broadcast Remote ID module

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-3 07:19
1/ Manufacturers are not welcome on public forums, for the sake of maintaining objectivity.  If a user has tested or heard of a product, that's objective.  The manufacturer will never be completely objective about his product.  

2/If all the brands start doing the same thing, the forum will become an advertising space where we will have to spend your time sorting out what is objective and what is not.  

Hi, my name is Lukas and I am a co-founder of Dronetag. I can't entirely agree with your point 1. Why would you disallow manufacturers to join the discussion on a public forum? As long as they are there to address questions and refute nonsense, they are welcome on most forums. In fact, we try to be active in Remote ID-relevant discussions to calm people down because they often panic about new rules they don't understand We also discuss with people their ideas for future products or features. I believe this way might be beneficial for all sides.

We try to be completely honest about our product, future offerings and company operations. The YouTube reviews you can find for our products are unsponsored, and actually, both guys (Keith from Alien Drones and Ken Heron) have requested us to test the device themselves (it was not our intent). Please do not lump all manufacturers in the same bag.

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-3 13:56
Hi, my name is Lukas and I am a co-founder of Dronetag. I can't entirely agree with your point 1. Why would you disallow manufacturers to join the discussion on a public forum? As long as they are there to address questions and refute nonsense, they are welcome on most forums. In fact, we try to be active in Remote ID-relevant discussions to calm people down because they often panic about new rules they don't understand We also discuss with people their ideas for future products or features. I believe this way might be beneficial for all sides.

We try to be completely honest about our product, future offerings and company operations. The YouTube reviews you can find for our products are unsponsored, and actually, both guys (Keith from Alien Drones and Ken Heron) have requested us to test the device themselves (it was not our intent). Please do not lump all manufacturers in the same bag.

Who will be the next company member to come and justify themselves?

Please refer to point VI of the forum rules.  

We are smart enough to discern YouTube videos among others that relate to a product with objectivity.  We don't need commercial unboxing here straight from manufacturer.  So continue to have your products tested by competent "Youtubers", it's the right approach.

Even if your intervention here seems honest, it could give ideas to other brands that are much less so. Moreover this forum in particular is very badly moderated, I doubt that the moderators dare to react.  Nobody wants to spend their time sorting between objective opinions and ads, so yes we are going to put all brands in the same bag and apply point VI.

Thanks

WA4OSH Posted at 2-3 11:18
I was recently able to register my Phantom 4 Pro V2 on Dronezone without saying yes to the Remote ID question.

When you talk about interference with the telemetry signal, is that a personal experience or something you've heard?  Because depending on the power it is possible.  

There is a DIY model with an open-source code made by the French gendarmerie based on ESP32.  This one does not interfere with the Phantom 4 that's for sure.  I don't know if it would be usable for an FAA remote ID?

https://forum.dji.com/thread-283647-1-1.html

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-3 16:20
Who will be the next company member to come and justify themselves?

Please refer to point VI of the forum rules.  

Hello, introducing yourself is a basic courtesy when you are new and joining a discussion on a forum. I see you like to refer to the rules, so how about you follow them yourself and stop being rude?

My colleague Jan came here to offer help with Remote ID-related questions. We do this all the time once we are mentioned anywhere. People are usually grateful that someone competent is willing to speak with them, address their concerns and answer their questions.

I wouldn't come here if you were not accusing Jan and our company of advertising in this thread. Please reread his first message and tell me what exactly you think violates VI of the forum rules.

I believe that proficient people among equipment manufacturers can co-exist with the common users mutually beneficently. Please let's be nice to each other, share our experience, so we can all contribute to safe flying.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-3 16:31
When you talk about interference with the telemetry signal, is that a personal experience or something you've heard?  Because depending on the power it is possible.  

There is a DIY model with an open-source code made by the French gendarmerie based on ESP32.  This one does not interfere with the Phantom 4 that's for sure.  I don't know if it would be usable for an FAA remote ID?

Interference with Wi-Fi-based devices on DJI drones is a common occurrence. The reason is that the Wi-Fi RID devices operate on the same frequency bands. Even though DJI implements frequency hopping in their systems, operating another Wi-Fi equipment on board is a risk. Not only does the range decrease, but it can also lead to RC link failure. You can verify this on your own, turn on two DJI drones close to each other and open the Channel selection menu to see the impact.

The project you are referring to uses the ESP32 system, which is simply a terrible idea to put anywhere close to drone internal sensors or antennas. It usually uses 20 dBm (100mW) transmission power for Wi-Fi which is really high and will lead to interference issues and unnecessary electromagnetic noise. This is why some companies (including us) use Bluetooth-based solutions. Bluetooth uses so-called beacon channels separated from the most common drone frequencies and also much less transmission power (usually a maximum of 10 dBm / 10 mW).

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-4 01:35
Interference with Wi-Fi-based devices on DJI drones is a common occurrence. The reason is that the Wi-Fi RID devices operate on the same frequency bands. Even though DJI implements frequency hopping in their systems, operating another Wi-Fi equipment on board is a risk. Not only does the range decrease, but it can also lead to RC link failure. You can verify this on your own, turn on two DJI drones close to each other and open the Channel selection menu to see the impact.

The project you are referring to uses the ESP32 system, which is simply a terrible idea to put anywhere close to drone internal sensors or antennas. It usually uses 20 dBm (100mW) transmission power for Wi-Fi which is really high and will lead to interference issues and unnecessary electromagnetic noise. This is why some companies (including us) use Bluetooth-based solutions. Bluetooth uses so-called beacon channels separated from the most common drone frequencies and also much less transmission power (usually a maximum of 10 dBm / 10 mW).

What is terrible is that this conversation perfectly demonstrates what the reasons why a manufacturer is not welcome.

I understand that a cheap open source system is restrictive for your business, I'm sorry about that.

Here we are faced with this situation:
-My user experience where I explain to another user that I did not observe any problem with the ESP32 + Phantom 4 couple. Plus a link to another user's thread who experienced it on Avata.
vs
-A company that manufactures and sells beacons and tries to demonstrate with beautiful graphics that it's a terrible idea.

Is there anything that shocks you? So, I'm going to rewrite it, continue to have your products tested by third parties recognized by the community, so if the product is really of quality you won't need to come and do demonstrations. The community will take care of promoting you through user experience stories.

Stop feeling offended, I've never tried your products and don't review them and I don't have the budget for it. What worries me at the base is the presence of the manufacturer on the forum, whether it's your company or another, it doesn't make a difference.
I regularly promote Agisoft Metashape and SHP UGCS. I have no contractual relationship with these companies. The only link I have with them is the license of their products that I paid at the normal rate to use them.
Quite regularly I intervene with other users to offer potential help, or to clarify certain points. If I don't have the answer to their questions, I send them back to the manufacturer. Then the user tells us about his experience with them. This is how the forum should work, this is the purpose of point VI.

And finally, I'm not sure that engaging in this kind of discussion with a stubborn like me is beneficial for the brand image of a company.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-4 02:33
What is terrible is that this conversation perfectly demonstrates what the reasons why a manufacturer is not welcome.

I understand that a cheap open source system is restrictive for your business, I'm sorry about that.

Why are you still trying to twist the discussion into something that it isn't? We love open-source and educational projects - just check out free/open-source projects such as Dronald, Drone Scanner, OpenDroneList. We do them because we are pilots ourselves, and our primary motivation is to have safe low-level airspace operations. Did you know that DIY projects cannot be accepted as the means of Remote ID in the EU and the US? They simply don't pose any risk to any Remote ID manufacturer.

What shocks me is the unexpected conversation turn to the fact that you claim we are here to do business. I added two simple and common facts about Wi-Fi-based systems that you can verify on your own by turning on two DJI drones next to each other or simply Google "DJI Wi-Fi interference issue". It's probably a good idea to warn someone about bad ideas so that they don't encourage others to do the same when it might endanger them, don't you think? Moreover, when physical facts and the practical experience of others support it. The beautiful graphics you refer to come from the official Remote ID standard ASD-STAN EN 4709-002.

Neither you nor I am here to interpret the rules There is nothing in VI that would disqualify equipment manufacturers from joining the discussion and helping others. If that worries you, I am completely fine with it, and you can always take my advice with a grain of salt. As soon as the comments are backed up by real and verified data, you shouldn't automatically dismiss them because they come from the manufacturer. If you like, we can try to shoot an educational video about possible interference coming from other 2.4 GHz systems.

Finally, I am not trying to win this argument, and I would be grateful if we could agree on a truce. Let us keep discussing without unnecessary shouting "this is advertising" and I promise you that we will always try to stay as objective & helpful as possible. Ultimately, our common goal is to educate and help the people so we can all have more joyful flights.

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-4 05:05
Why are you still trying to twist the discussion into something that it isn't? We love open-source and educational projects - just check out free/open-source projects such as Dronald, Drone Scanner, OpenDroneList. We do them because we are pilots ourselves, and our primary motivation is to have safe low-level airspace operations. Did you know that DIY projects cannot be accepted as the means of Remote ID in the EU and the US? They simply don't pose any risk to any Remote ID manufacturer.

What shocks me is the unexpected conversation turn to the fact that you claim we are here to do business. I added two simple and common facts about Wi-Fi-based systems that you can verify on your own by turning on two DJI drones next to each other or simply Google "DJI Wi-Fi interference issue". It's probably a good idea to warn someone about bad ideas so that they don't encourage others to do the same when it might endanger them, don't you think? Moreover, when physical facts and the practical experience of others support it. The beautiful graphics you refer to come from the official Remote ID standard ASD-STAN EN 4709-002.

Comrade, please stop taking everything personally. I'm not obsessing over Dronetag in particular. Just the fact that companies don't make a habit of coming here.

I went to see your website, young startup, what you produce seems a bit expensive but honest. I am ready to offer you to come with your product, given that we are geographically not too far away.  I undertake to make an objective review of it on this forum each time a user asks a question concerning the remote ID. As I do with all the products I have tested. No money, no contract, pure objectivity.

I have no connection with the manufacturers, on the other hand I have some with the local authorities. The question of Remote ID has already arisen several times, it would seem that it is only a matter of time before we are imposed the equivalent of FAA 'Remote ID in Europe, it's already +/ - the case in some countries. They are not closed to DIY solutions, what is imperative is that the user cannot modify the identifier of his beacon easily. According to the 945.

I'll let you think about it.

LV_Forestry and I agree on lots of things and I value his contributions and opinion, but I'm going to have to differ here. To me there is nothing wrong with devs/vendors posting here as long as they are honest and up-front about who they are, what they sell, and what their interests are, and do not spam the forums with blatant adverts.

I think the Dronetag guys have satisfied those conditions, I and welcome their insights regarding RID solutions.
And if we're going to quote Forum Rules, Rule IV might be relevant here as well...

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-4 06:49
Comrade, please stop taking everything personally. I'm not obsessing over Dronetag in particular. Just the fact that companies don't make a habit of coming here.

I went to see your website, young startup, what you produce seems a bit expensive but honest. I am ready to offer you to come with your product, given that we are geographically not too far away.  I undertake to make an objective review of it on this forum each time a user asks a question concerning the remote ID. As I do with all the products I have tested. No money, no contract, pure objectivity.

We would be very happy if you would be willing to test out our product. Can you please write me an email so we can arrange the details? It is on our website, but I don't want to post it there, so it doesn't get deleted.

As for the Remote ID in Latvia (or anywhere else in the EU), the EU 947 already imposes requirements for flights in a Specific category to be Remote ID equipped starting 1st January 2024. Once you fill out your application for flight in Specific, you will have to show compliance with the RID requirement. And unfortunately, the system cannot be DIY because it will not comply with the requirements in 945. The system will have to undergo certification by Notified Body that does the C-class drone or Remote ID devices certifications. There are very few Notification Bodies that do it and you can find the list of them here https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/nando/index.cfm?fuseaction=directive.notifiedbody&dir_id=159261. The cost for the certification is hefty.

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-4 01:35
Interference with Wi-Fi-based devices on DJI drones is a common occurrence. The reason is that the Wi-Fi RID devices operate on the same frequency bands. Even though DJI implements frequency hopping in their systems, operating another Wi-Fi equipment on board is a risk. Not only does the range decrease, but it can also lead to RC link failure. You can verify this on your own, turn on two DJI drones close to each other and open the Channel selection menu to see the impact.

The project you are referring to uses the ESP32 system, which is simply a terrible idea to put anywhere close to drone internal sensors or antennas. It usually uses 20 dBm (100mW) transmission power for Wi-Fi which is really high and will lead to interference issues and unnecessary electromagnetic noise. This is why some companies (including us) use Bluetooth-based solutions. Bluetooth uses so-called beacon channels separated from the most common drone frequencies and also much less transmission power (usually a maximum of 10 dBm / 10 mW).

IEEE 802.11b (on 2.4GHz) does not implement Frequency Hopping (FHSS) modulation.  Instead it uses DSSS (Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum) and supports four data rates: 1 Mbps, 2 Mbps.  The higher data rates 5.5 Mbps and 11 Mbps use CCK (Complimentary Code Keying).  The IEEE 802.11n/ac/ax protocols use OFDM modulation, supporting several bandwidths and number of sub-carriers.

Bluetooth (Classic) and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) just like WiFi occupy 2.4GHz. Both Bluetooth and BLE are frequency hoppers.  Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) uses 40 2MHz-wide channels and Bluetooth Classic 79 1MHz-wide channels.  (Corrected typo WA4OSH 2/5/2023)

Wi-Fi coexistence allows multiple 2.4 GHz technologies including Wi-Fi, Zigbee, Thread, and Bluetooth to operate without signals from one radio interfering with adjacent radios.

However, WiFi-Bluetooth coexistence does not guarantee that a receiver for a telemetry channel on WiFI cannot be front-end overloaded or de-sensed by nearby Bluetooth or WiFi.  This is why I'm very skeptical of add-on Remote ID devices.

WA4OSH Posted at 2-4 14:29
IEEE 802.11b (on 2.4GHz) does not implement Frequency Hopping (FHSS) modulation.  Instead it uses DSSS (Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum) and supports four data rates: 1 Mbps, 2 Mbps.  The higher data rates 5.5 Mbps and 11 Mbps use CCK (Complimentary Code Keying).  The IEEE 802.11n/ac/ax protocols use OFDM modulation, supporting several bandwidths and number of sub-carriers.

Bluetooth (Classic) and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) just like WiFi occupy 2.4GHz. Both Bluetooth and BLE are frequency hoppers.  Bluetooth uses 40 2MHz-wide channels and BLE uses  79 1MHz-wide channels.  

"Bluetooth uses so-called beacon channels separated from the most common drone frequencies and also much less transmission power (usually a maximum of 10 dBm / 10 mW)." Yes, Bluetooth (Classic) transmits beacons inside of guard bands not occupied by WiFi channels.  Note that WiFi Channels overlap each other.  Drones or WiFI routers don't always pick the three non-overlapping channels 1,6, and 11.  They will pick anything that they perceive is less occupied.

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-4 01:35
Interference with Wi-Fi-based devices on DJI drones is a common occurrence. The reason is that the Wi-Fi RID devices operate on the same frequency bands. Even though DJI implements frequency hopping in their systems, operating another Wi-Fi equipment on board is a risk. Not only does the range decrease, but it can also lead to RC link failure. You can verify this on your own, turn on two DJI drones close to each other and open the Channel selection menu to see the impact.

The project you are referring to uses the ESP32 system, which is simply a terrible idea to put anywhere close to drone internal sensors or antennas. It usually uses 20 dBm (100mW) transmission power for Wi-Fi which is really high and will lead to interference issues and unnecessary electromagnetic noise. This is why some companies (including us) use Bluetooth-based solutions. Bluetooth uses so-called beacon channels separated from the most common drone frequencies and also much less transmission power (usually a maximum of 10 dBm / 10 mW).

ESP32 boards like this one can support both Bluetooth and WiFI.  I see no reason why an open-source ESP32 board can't do Remote ID, transmitting on a beacon frequency that is not currently being used by the 2.4GHz telemetry.  However, no one guarantees no front end overload or desense on either the open-source project or the commercially available solutions.

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-4 11:50
We would be very happy if you would be willing to test out our product. Can you please write me an email so we can arrange the details? It is on our website, but I don't want to post it there, so it doesn't get deleted.

As for the Remote ID in Latvia (or anywhere else in the EU), the EU 947 already imposes requirements for flights in a Specific category to be Remote ID equipped starting 1st January 2024. Once you fill out your application for flight in Specific, you will have to show compliance with the RID requirement. And unfortunately, the system cannot be DIY because it will not comply with the requirements in 945. The system will have to undergo certification by Notified Body that does the C-class drone or Remote ID devices certifications. There are very few Notification Bodies that do it and you can find the list of them here https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/nando/index.cfm?fuseaction=directive.notifiedbody&dir_id=159261. The cost for the certification is hefty.

Ok cool, I'll see what can be arranged with the CAA and others authorities. I'll get back to you when it's done.

WA4OSH Posted at 2-4 14:44
"Bluetooth uses so-called beacon channels separated from the most common drone frequencies and also much less transmission power (usually a maximum of 10 dBm / 10 mW)." Yes, Bluetooth (Classic) transmits beacons inside of guard bands not occupied by WiFi channels.  Note that WiFi Channels overlap each other.  Drones or WiFI routers don't always pick the three non-overlapping channels 1,6, and 11.  They will pick anything that they perceive is less occupied.
[view_image]

Both EU/US standards require using BLE 5.0 Long Range and optionally BLE 4.0 Legacy. Bluetooth Classic is not allowed. The messages in BLE 5.0 are split into two frames, the first advertised on all three beacon channels (37, 38, 39) simultaneously pointing to another payload message transmitted on the rest of the channels (1-36). Rotating the second message around channels less likely to be occupied with Wi-Fi transmission helps to reduce interference. BLE 4.0 does only use the single payload limited to 31B transmitted on beacon channels (37, 38, 39).

The standards also recommend using Channel 6 in the case of Wi-Fi RID, and most manufacturers follow this (from what we have seen yet). If it is a built-in RID, channel 6 is fine, as you can implement the co-existence mechanisms. But if it is an external RID device used on e.g., a DJI drone, I wouldn't recommend using anything else with channel 6 on board. During our initial phase of R&D, we played with this a lot, and we concluded that it simply poses a not negligible risk to an operator. But yeah, anyone can use whatever they want, just sharing our experience

Please also note that the standard states:
"The output power of the UAS DRI system should be set as high as possible but still in compliance with national rules/limits to achieve the maximum possible range of the DRI system."

And this is something that is checked by the Notified Body based on design materials. So if you are in the EU and using a Wi-Fi module supporting 100 mW. You must go with the maximum. Otherwise, they won't let you pass.

WA4OSH Posted at 2-4 14:52
ESP32 boards like this one can support both Bluetooth and WiFI.  I see no reason why an open-source ESP32 board can't do Remote ID, transmitting on a beacon frequency that is not currently being used by the 2.4GHz telemetry.  However, no one guarantees no front end overload or desense on either the open-source project or the commercially available solutions.
[view_image]

Of course it can do the Remote ID. But could it be accepted as the official means for flying in a Specific category from 1.1.2024? I doubt it. In the EU, releasing a RID solution to the market is quite a complex topic. You must follow what EU 2019/945 specifies and it imposes to get certified by Notified Body. That doesn't mean the final solution cannot use open-source libraries, it just means that it cannot be a DIY product.

In the US, the process is a little simpler. It also must not be a DIY project. It must be a commercial one. But getting on the FAA-approved list at https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs is based on the declaration, not certification. That doesn't mean you are not accountable for the product and its performance, the approval process is just easier. However, FAA can ask you to do a technical / performance audit anytime, which you will have to cover on your own, and if they find your solution is not compliant, they withdraw your declaration, and they can ban your company from submitting new ones.

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-5 01:09
Both EU/US standards require using BLE 5.0 Long Range and optionally BLE 4.0 Legacy. Bluetooth Classic is not allowed. The messages in BLE 5.0 are split into two frames, the first advertised on all three beacon channels (37, 38, 39) simultaneously pointing to another payload message transmitted on the rest of the channels (1-36). Rotating the second message around channels less likely to be occupied with Wi-Fi transmission helps to reduce interference. BLE 4.0 does only use the single payload limited to 31B transmitted on beacon channels (37, 38, 39).

The standards also recommend using Channel 6 in the case of Wi-Fi RID, and most manufacturers follow this (from what we have seen yet). If it is a built-in RID, channel 6 is fine, as you can implement the co-existence mechanisms. But if it is an external RID device used on e.g., a DJI drone, I wouldn't recommend using anything else with channel 6 on board. During our initial phase of R&D, we played with this a lot, and we concluded that it simply poses a not negligible risk to an operator. But yeah, anyone can use whatever they want, just sharing our experience  

Thank you for broadening my understanding of the RID standard.  

First of all, I had to correct a typo and add a chart showing the difference between Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE).

I certainly understand the rationale for chosing BLE 5.0+ over WiFi for an add-on external RID device.
BLE 5 gave us BLE-LR which extends range at the cost of a reduced data rate.  Also the output power was increased from +10 dBm (10mW) to +20 dBm (100mW).

For WiFi, it looks like the DJI aircraft would have to pick its WiFi or other standard link to avoid WiFi channel 6 used by the RID device.  The power out must be adjusted so that there's sufficient signal at the receiving end.   A 6dB increase in power yields a doubling of the distance in free space (See Friis Equation)

Unfortunately, Remote ID chews through power.

lukasbrchl Posted at 2-5 01:18
Of course it can do the Remote ID. But could it be accepted as the official means for flying in a Specific category from 1.1.2024? I doubt it. In the EU, releasing a RID solution to the market is quite a complex topic. You must follow what EU 2019/945 specifies and it imposes to get certified by Notified Body. That doesn't mean the final solution cannot use open-source libraries, it just means that it cannot be a DIY product.

In the US, the process is a little simpler. It also must not be a DIY project. It must be a commercial one. But getting on the FAA-approved list at https://uasdoc.faa.gov/listDocs is based on the declaration, not certification. That doesn't mean you are not accountable for the product and its performance, the approval process is just easier. However, FAA can ask you to do a technical / performance audit anytime, which you will have to cover on your own, and if they find your solution is not compliant, they withdraw your declaration, and they can ban your company from submitting new ones.

Remote ID is quickly all over the world, not just the US and EU.  Over-regulation makes products very difficult to comply and raise the costs significantly.  People are seeing boards available for $50 that have a GPS, LoRa, WiFi and Bluetooth/BLE on board with an ESP32 processor (Eg TTGO T-Beam) and have to see a commercial solution for $300-ish and wonder where all that cash is going.  $300 is a significant portion of what a whole drone costs these days, especially for folks that are building their own quad/hex copters and FPV drones.  There's no reason that an Open-Source solution that uses a standard off the shelf board could not be run through commercial FAA approvals with a crowd-funded organization.  I also think there's a lot of opportunity for the manufacturers of the aircraft receiver modules to add a return channel providing telemetry and RID.  My hope is to see that new products are created with RID incorporated and legacy products not rendered obsolete.  

I just bought my Phantom 4 Pro V2 just to find out that the settings on the MC settings page appear to be for RemoteID, but really aren't.  I can imagine what the Phantom 4 RTK Remote ID folks are up against.  They spend a fortune on their aircraft.

  

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-3 16:31
When you talk about interference with the telemetry signal, is that a personal experience or something you've heard?  Because depending on the power it is possible.  

There is a DIY model with an open-source code made by the French gendarmerie based on ESP32.  This one does not interfere with the Phantom 4 that's for sure.  I don't know if it would be usable for an FAA remote ID?

Things were simple with a control transmitter and an aircraft receiver.  With the demand of a return telemetry channel and video, things have become more complicated.  Now that RID has been added into the mix ...

Is this a personal experience or rumor?  My questioning what's going on comes from my professional background as an RF Test engineer and my other hobby - Amateur Radio (Extra).

I've been working with WiFi and Bluetooth/BLE for over a decade now with companies like T-Mobile and Microsoft.  I recently have been working for Amazon on a different project, but the issues of intermod and desense are rampant in systems where there are many RF sources and transceivers in one box or proximity.  For example, a WiFi deployment can interfere with automatic train control in a subway or WiFi and Bluetooth receivers inside of a laptop have to deal with the processor at 2.x GHz, USB with all of its harmonics, high transfer rates on SerDes busses to cameras and solid state drives.  In HAM radio, deploying repeaters on top of mountains can be a real eye-opener, especially where there's high-powered FM and TV transmitters, VHF, UHF and Microwave transmitters and public safety trunking systems all in a confined area.  

Adding one component to an already complex system is not addition, but it's multiplication.

The real problem is that while a solution works for one manufacturer, it does not guarantee it will work for other manufacturer's aircraft as well as components.  I will take a look at the project for a better understanding.

LV_Forestry Posted at 2-3 16:31
When you talk about interference with the telemetry signal, is that a personal experience or something you've heard?  Because depending on the power it is possible.  

There is a DIY model with an open-source code made by the French gendarmerie based on ESP32.  This one does not interfere with the Phantom 4 that's for sure.  I don't know if it would be usable for an FAA remote ID?

That French ID will comply with the "Arrêté du 27 décembre 2019" and not with ASTM F3411 / prEN 4709-002. You could hack it to remove the France specific code and replace it with the code from https://github.com/opendroneid/opendroneid-core-c, but a) it wouldn't be approved and b) the code for self build French "balise" that I have seen is pretty ugly.

sxjack Posted at 3-4 02:34
That French ID will comply with the "Arrêté du 27 décembre 2019" and not with ASTM F3411 / prEN 4709-002. You could hack it to remove the France specific code and replace it with the code from https://github.com/opendroneid/opendroneid-core-c, but a) it wouldn't be approved and b) the code for self build French "balise" that I have seen is pretty ugly.

a) Approved by whom? I'm curious to see who will come to check the conformity of the beacon. We do what we can to comply with what is imposed on us.

b) At least they did something, and it works. And you, what did you do?