The FAA has been discussing Remote ID for years now, and we finally have the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making). This is not a final regulation, but shows us the direction they want to head. Also very important is the ability for anyone – including you and me – to leave comments about how we feel this NPRM will affect us. The FAA has to read these comments as they begin considerations for the final rule on Remote ID. Again, this is NOT a final rule, and I have a really strong suspicion that a lot of things could be changing for the final rule, mostly due to the reaction the community is having to this. There is no need to overact yet about any of this because there is time for changes to be made before the final rule comes out, probably sometime in 2021.
The NPRM for Remote ID is a 300+ page document and it’s not much of a page turner, so I am going to just give you a really brief rundown on the basics of what is being proposed. Since I am primarily a commercial drone operator, that is the perspective this is coming from. That being said, keep in mind that we are not just talking about commercial operators here, this covers EVERYONE. So it will apply to the commercial drone operator flying a 50lb drone down to a hobbyist flying a foam board plane.
Once the final rule is released the FAA wants full integration of Remote ID within 3 years. That breaks down into 2 years for drone manufacturers to get out models of their drones that are compliant and approved by the FAA, then 1 year additional year for operators to get drones that are compliant.
There are 3 basic types of flights that will exist once this is in place.
The main type will be standard Remote ID flights. This will encompass the vast majority of drone operations out there. In order to meet the requirements here a drone must be declared compliant by the manufacturer and marked as being compliant. The drone from takeoff to landing will wirelessly broadcast the required information which can be picked up by people in wireless range of the drone. Additionally, using the internet, the same info needs to be transmitted to a Remote ID service provider which we will discuss later. That means 2 ways the info is being sent out, one that is local, and one that is internet based. So what elements is the drone sending out for others to view.
Its serial number (which will be tied to the drones registration number and allow the FAA to get ahold of the operator if needed)
The location and altitude of the control station (operators location)
The location and altitude of the drone
A time stamp
An indication of the drones emergency status (lost link, downed aircraft, etc.)
These elements are being continually broadcast for the duration of the flight. With this standard type of flight the local broadcast from the drone must always happen or the drone will have to land. Then the internet connection is also a must, but if you are flying in the middle of nowhere where no internet available, then the flight can still take place. Again though, if the internet is available the minimum info must be sent out to a service provider.
The second type of flight is called limited remote ID and seems like it is geared towards drone racing or maybe tethered flights. With this type of operation the drone is only sending info from an internet connection to the Remote ID service providers, but the drone must always be within 400’ of the operator. For these flights, since there is no local broadcast, if there is no internet connection then the flight cannot happen or has to be terminated.
The third type of flight is for drones or aircraft that are not able to do remote ID. So this would include older drones, custom built drones, R/C aircraft, and drones that are under .55 lbs and don’t require registration. These flights can only take place at FAA-recognized identification areas. These are specific locations (most of them will be AMA fields) that have applied and been approved for non-remote ID flights. During the flight the aircraft must operate within visual line of sight of the operator. These sites will be the ONLY place that drones without remote ID can operate.
Now let’s go back to the remote ID service providers. These are going to be similar to the services we use now for LAANC, and I think some of the LAANC companies will also participate as remote ID service providers. The NPRM is a little fuzzy about what happens with them, but presumably they collect the information on drone flights for their connected users, then this information is made publicly available somehow. They are required to retain the data for 6 months before they can delete it.
One other point in the NPRM that I want to mention is that the FAA wants to ban drones from using transponders or ADS-B, which are two ways that planes send their location to each other and to ATC. This isn’t really a big deal as the end goal is seemingly to merge the ADS-B data and UTM data where it can all be viewed and used for deconflicting aircraft – both manned and unmanned - that are on a course to collide.
Now I want to dive into my opinions on all of this and how it will affect various groups. To do this let’s have kind of like a winners and losers discussion.
First let’s talk about manufacturers. If you are a big manufacturer (DJI, Yuneec, Parrot, Autel, etc.) then this is a massive win. Those are large companies who will need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get new models set that are compliant, but they also stand to sell millions of new drones since no existing drones can be retrofitted to work with Remote ID, and will be obsolete (unless you only want to fly at AMA fields). The federal government and FAA are pushing Remote ID, so I’m not going to go so far as to say the manufacturers are part of a conspiracy to sell more drones, but this certainly will force a ton of new drone sales. And before people say that DJI is behind this, keep in mind that DJI was on the committee to advise the FAA on Remote ID, had a proposal that would have meant most current drones on the market would work under Remote ID, then the FAA heavily deviated from the committees recommendations to give us the NPRM we are looking at here. The losers from this perspective are the small to midsize manufacturers - companies that build small batches of drones for hobbyists, custom cinema rigs, custom inspection drones, etc. Under the NPRM every drone or remote aircraft sold requires a specific serial number system to be used, one that no one is currently using. That means everyone including small manufacturers have to swap to a new serial number system, and all manufacturers will be forced into the costs of getting their drones engineered and built to be Remote ID compliant, and then the added costs of declaring compliance with the FAA. Even by the FAA’s estimates that could be $30,000+ per drone model with ongoing costs for continual testing and record keeping required under the new regulations. And that’s just one of the more significant burdens put onto manufacturers (there are others). This is probably going to bring some smaller companies to decide that building drones is not worth the added effort and cost, potentially leading them to close their business. Not everyone is backed by big money from a VC firm. The best case scenario is probably for places that sell model aircraft like Flite Test where they can continue to sell model aircraft that are not Remote ID compliant and assuming their buyers are only flying them at FAA-recognized identification areas. But Remote ID would still probably cut into sales as people might not want to fly solely at these approved locations.
Next we have Remote ID service providers. They are just winning, really no losses here. Some of these will be provided free of charge, but others will have user fees to access their services. Service providers will also be holding valuable drone data (as well as presumably handing that off to the FAA). There is money to be made here for sure.
Last, is the group who loses the most here, and that is drone operators. While the FAA discusses promises of night ops, flight over people, and eventually beyond-visual-line-of-sight, none of that is actually a part of the proposal. There aren’t any real and immediate benefits to drone operators here, but boy are there a lot of loses. Due to the fact that the FAA wants to require a new standardized serial number system, NO EXISTING drone on the market or sold to date would be Remote ID compliant under this NPRM. So millions of drones – hobbyist and commercial - would be restricted to operation at FAA-recognized sites where Remote ID is not required.
Let’s talk specifically about hobbyists. If you plan to buy a new drone and fly under Remote ID then you will be in the clear and just able to fly as usually – just make sure you know and follow all of the laws because the FAA is recording your flight data, and be aware that anyone can see where your drone is and where you are operating from. But for hobbyists who for 80+ years have enjoyed building their own R/C aircraft, they are now stuck flying only at FAA-recognized sites. A major issue here is that these sites aren’t necessarily public locations. Almost all of the sites will be AMA fields that are privately owned and not accessible unless you are an AMA member. Ok, so why not request your own FAA-recognized site? You have to be an FAA recognized CBO (community based organization) to do that. As well, the FAA states in the NRPM (page 174) that their intent is the phasing out FAA-recognized sites over time – meaning continually fewer and eventually no locations for flying R/C without Remote ID. From my viewpoint the FAA is really showing that they do not care about hobbyists, and are essentially moving toward eradicating the entire model aircraft hobby. You could own a piece of land a hundred miles from anything civilized, but because it’s not an FAA-recognized site, flying a model plane without Remote ID on that land would be against federal law.
So what about commercial operators? Commercial operators lose out big by having to broadcast their operational location to the public. That’s right - I don’t just mean where your drone is at, but also where you as the operator are at. If this info were only available to law enforcement that would be one thing, but the FAA has said that all of the required information that is broadcast by Remote ID is public info. As commercial operators we fly a lot, and anyone who has a lot of hours flying drones is familiar with how many questions you get asked by people in passing, or by the person who thinks you are spying on them. Throw in occasional threats to shoot your drone down – or even shoot you in some extreme cases, and sometimes even under current laws, operating drones can be risky sometimes. And now the FAA wants to hand your exact location to anyone who sees your drone and has an app to view the info that it’s broadcasting. This is not safe for operators, and frankly is not safe for the airspace. The FAA tries to justify that pilots in general aviation are identified because they are tied to the plane and in communication with ATC, which is true, however manned aircraft are generally taking off from secure locations where random people cannot see their location and walk up to bother or threaten them during a flight. This info should only be available to law enforcement and federal officials, not to the general public.
There are other issues with the NPRM that the FAA needs to consider as well. It has taken 10 years for the FAA to get ADS-B, like the general aviation version of Remote ID, fully implemented into manned aircraft. There are way less manned aircraft than there are UAS, plus general aviation pilots are usually fairly well informed and take the regulations very seriously. But in less than 1/3 that amount of time the FAA expects unmanned aircraft all be compliant, and are basing Remote ID on the drone registration system that is (whether they want to accept it or not) nowhere near full compliance even though it has been in place for years! There is still a significant amount of ignorant or poorly informed people operating drones, as well as a whole lot of people who think laws for drone are ridiculous and just don’t care. Until that is addressed the FAA will never see full compliance and will still see existing drones in the air that are not Remote ID compliant.
One of the biggest justifications given for why we need Remote ID is national security. Multiple examples are listed of drones causing flight delays at airports, dropping brochures over sporting events, dropping drugs into prisons, etc., but all of that being used as reasoning is totally fear based and just not reality. Sure, there a lot of uneducated operators out there who in the future could be using a drone with remote ID, might do something dumb, and this technology will allow the authorities to have an exact location on them to deal with that problem. However, if there are knowledgeable criminals looking to drop drugs into prisons, harm people in a stadium with a drone, or spy on critical infrastructure, more than likely they will be using a custom built rig or some drone that doesn’t have remote ID built in (like one of the millions of drones that already exist). In that case Remote ID does absolutely nothing for safety or security! The only solution that truly helps out national security is to have UAS detection or counter UAS systems in place at locations that have security concerns. Security is grossly overused in the NPRM as a rational for Remote ID, and it is very evident that the Department of Homeland Security and/or the FBI had some hand in the crafting of the NPRM.
Another item that could be of some concern is the use of serial numbers. In general, serial numbers are things you keep fairly private as maintenance of drones and warranty repairs are tied to a drones serial number. According to the NPRM you are required to register every drone individually, so I just don’t get the reasoning to not just use the registration number for Remote ID broadcast. I understand that the intent is for the serial number to be baked into the drone and using that means there cannot be user error in the info being broadcast, but it just seems like an item that should be kept private. Even in general aviation planes display their registration number on the outside of the aircraft, and most of the time the registration number is what is used to identify them in communications with ATC. They are not using any serial numbers off of the aircraft.
The last thing I want to go into is the substantial added workload this NPRM would put on the FAA. For those of you who have been around a few years and remember the early days of Part 107, we had to submit all waivers and airspace authorization requests via a web portal. There were so many requests being submitted that it took 4-5 months to hear back from the FAA on a request, then it took years and the addition of LAANC (an automated authorization system) before the backlog finally cleared up. The waiver/authorization system not only cost the government a lot of money, but also slowed down the industry as people had to either not accept work, or had to wait months for authorizations. With the NPRM there are 2 areas the FAA is adding to their workload. All of the FAA-recognized identification areas have to be individually reviewed by the FAA for approval or denial based on a few factors (airspace, safety, location to critical infrastructure, etc). Just based on the AMA fields that would be well over 2,500 sites for review. That’s a LOT of time and effort. Then we have the manufacturers all submitting declarations of compliance for models of drones. This as well could take a lot of time as everyone who wants to have compliant drones on the market starts sending info into the FAA. Take it one step further and imagine the FAA gets backlogged here and manufacturers are either pushing back release dates. How does that help the industry?
It seems to me that time and time again the FAA struggles to actually view reality and consider consequences for the regulations they put in place. Consider the latest set of hobbyist laws that was put into place as law with a number of items (airspace authorizations and the still not available test) were nowhere near ready. Why is it they are constantly putting the cart before the horse to the detriment of the industry? This is one of a few major reasons there is a constant struggle to get meaningful compliance with drone from the public.
Are there solutions to these issues? Well, if the FAA wants to see high levels compliance with Remote ID then there absolutely need to be changes made before the final rule is released.
First of all, the FAA should have listened to the ARC more and not just gone off on their own. By dropping the specialized serial number requirement and adjusting some of the information that is being broadcast, existing drones on the market could be made Remote ID compliant with a simple firmware update. They also need to write in a way for the flight controller (which presumably would handle Remote ID) or some other component to be the main serial number used for Remote ID so that small and medium manufacturers can use DJI flight controllers (as a large amount of them already do) to meet compliance without adding significant burden to them. The ARC also suggested tiers of Remote ID, where standard drone ops like real estate photos would only need to do either local broadcast of information from the drone or internet (not both), then more complex operations that deviate from the standard drone laws would require both methods of information broadcast.
Second, the location of a drone operator should be information only available to law enforcement and not to the general public. There really isn’t much else to be said on this. If the FAA wants to keep operators safe that info cannot be publicly available.
Last, the FAA needs to find a way to allow for FAA-recognized sites to be established even if an organization is not a CBO. This would allow for local parks departments to apply for one or multiple sites to be cleared for people to fly R/C aircraft and thus help to maintain a hobby that has been around for nearly a century.
So how can we fight to get some changes made before the final rule is released? That is the beauty of an NRPM. It’s a preliminary rule, and now it is open to public comment – comments that the FAA has to read and respond to! This is truly one of the few instances where you as an everyday citizen can make your voice heard before a regulation is created. I would encourage everyone who flies drones or is in the R/C hobby world to consider leaving comments on this NPRM. But don’t just post a quick angry comment. Educate yourself ahead of time be reading more articles like this. Then go comment - make some well informed points, and give possible solutions to issues that you see. We can all help be part of a force to create a better Remote ID regulation.
Comment on the NPRM by March 2, 2019 at this link: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2019-1100-0001
