Remote ID NPRM Response Talking Points
While this is a “hard copy” of the Remote ID Response Talking Points, we have a working document that you can view, add comments, and ask questions.
It can be found here: Remote ID NPRM Response Talking Points
Introduction:
The FPV (First Person View) Freedom Coalition (FPVFC) believes that if Remote ID (RID) regulations create difficulties for recreational UAS operators to comply, the likely result will be large-scale non-compliance. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will be seen as punishing recreational operators—operators with a proven track record of safety and non-incident behaviors. Using costly, restrictive RID system to track compliant, law abiding citizens will do nothing to stop those looking to cause disruption or harm, as they will simply not comply.
The regulations, as presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for RID will likely stall innovation and dissuade the general public from attempting to enter the hobby or industry. As recreational operators are the future pilots, software programmers, engineers, astronauts, explorers and entrepreneurs, restricting amateur-built drones as well as restricting hobbyist flight of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) will disinterest young people from pursuing technical careers.
The FPVFC’s position on RID is that while it can be a good thing, RID needs to be implemented in such a way that makes sense for all involved. This means common sense solutions that maintain safety of both UAS and manned aircraft, while bringing advantages to UAS operators everywhere, be it commercial or recreational. When deciding how to comment back to the FAA, please consider the following items.
FAA Registration Requirements
Currently, amateur-built UAS make up a significant portion of all UAS currently in the air. The FAA’s presupposition that hobbyist operators only have on average two (2) unmanned aircraft is grossly underestimated. Personal experience with model clubs across the U.S. indicates the average hobbyist owns between five (5) and ten (10) unmanned aerial vehicles per operator. The requirement to register each recreational UAS creates a new financial burden with no benefit to the operator. The FPVFC proposes the current UAS Recreational requirement of registering the operator would incent participation in the UAS recreational hobby.
Shielded Operations
The FPVFC proposes that the FAA create a provision for shielded operations. This would exempt any UAS, commercial or recreational, from any and all RID requirements when the following criteria are met:
Operation takes place in any airspace except over air traffic controlled airports.
Operation does not exceed an altitude of 50 feet over the tallest object within 1000 lateral yards of the location of the operators ground station.
Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) approval would be required in controlled airspace.
UAS Under 250g (.55lbs)
The FPVFC proposes specific language that exempts any UAS used for either commercial or recreational that is under 250g (.55lbs) at time of flight, including any and all attachments, from any and all RID requirements.
UAS Without Remote ID
Should be able to be implemented in such a way that is not a hindrance to flying in any location.
Should not restrict the operator to only operating within FAA-Recognized Identification Area (FRIA).
Operators of amateur-built UAS would be required to use the ASTM WK65041 RID and Tracking Overview Standard to self-report the location of the operation. Link to an example of how this works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeJpC3o8JBM.
An example of this would be using an app such as Kittyhawk, Airmap, or UASidekick to distinguish the latitude and longitude boundaries of a flight area by drawing a polygon.
Operator would designate a time for session.
Operator would provide and be identifiable via the pilot’s FAA registration number.
Operator would provide a telephone number through which they could be contacted.
App would log the location of the device used to self-report operation location.
In the event of no mobile access at the operation location, operator can define flight location information ahead of time from an area where data access is available. The aircraft will not have a restriction that will prevent the operation.
Information should be encrypted in such a way that only Law Enforcement or the FAA can access that information.
Aircraft and operator location information should NOT be available to the general public.
Operator can be notified via the app or by phone of any hazards that should be observed in the specified area.
UAS operator would be required to adhere to all other regulations, altitude restrictions, LAANC notifications, and Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR’s) for the operation.
Standard and Limited Remote ID UAS
When UAS without Remote ID is structured in such a way that as the above standard, this eliminates the need to distinguish between Standard and Limited Remote ID. This should be redesignated as “New Standard Remote ID UAS” which is described below.
New Standard Remote ID UAS
RID can be a retrofit component within an unequipped unmanned aircraft. This RID module may be installed as a retrofit by the amateur owner or Original Equipment Manufacturer.
RID component would need to have a serial number and be registered with the FAA. If the ANSI/CTA-2063-A has Bill of Material requirement, the FPVFC will add concerns to the response to the FAA.
RID component should be resistant to tampering.
RID component could be swapped from one unmanned aircraft to another and still be compliant as the serial number is not UAS dependent, but RID component dependent.
RID component should be capable of the following:
Interfacing with a GPS unit on the UAS.
Have a barometer for sensing of barometric based altitude data.
Broadcasting of RID messaging in an encrypted format where only Law Enforcement and FAA personnel would have access to it.
RF Frequency should not interfere with any existing Command and Control or transmission equipment on the UAS.
RID should be RF broadcast based, relaying the RID messaging in a minimum one-mile radius from the aircraft.
A UAS with RID would be capable of Beyond Visual Line of Sight, in both recreational and commercial operations.
Operator would still be required to use the ASTM WK65041 RID and Tracking Overview Standard to self-report the location of the operation.
An example of this would be using an app such as Kittyhawk, Airmap, or UASidekick to distinguish the latitude and longitude boundaries of a flight area by drawing a polygon, designate a time for session, and be identifiable via the pilots FAA registration number.
App would log the location of the device used to self-report operation location.
In the event of no mobile access at the operation location, operator can define flight location information ahead of time from an area where data access is available.
Information should be encrypted in such a way that only Law Enforcement or the FAA can access that information.
Information should NOT be available to the general public.
Can be notified via the app or by phone of any hazards that should be observed in the specified area.
UAS operator would be required to adhere to all other regulations, altitude restrictions, LAANC notifications, and TFR’s for the operation.
Use of the Internet to Send Remote ID Messaging
The FPVFC contends that using the internet to send RID messaging creates several problems for both commercial and recreational operators. There is much of the United States that does not have mobile data access, creating a bottleneck for adhering to the proposed rules. It also creates an opportunity for cybersecurity breakdowns through which information about the operator would no longer be secure.
Instead, the basis of RID should be on RF broadcast technology equipped to the unmanned aircraft to announce its position. This should not have to come from a particular manufacturer, but could be developed to be an added component that can be equipped the craft by the UAS operator. Examples of this would be the FLARM capabilities of the TBS Crossfire, or the WISDM unit from WhiteFox Defense. This will allow Law Enforcement to locate a UAS in flight with the proper equipment when needed in the event of an incident and prevent the current fleet of UAS, both commercial and recreational, from being declared out of compliance. Instead, this will provide a method of a simple upgrade to bring all UAS needing to fly with RID instantly into compliance.
This will change the need for manufacturers to attempt to update their existing fleet, and instead grant the operator the choice to add equipment to their UAS to comply with RID regulations while gaining a measure of freedom in the types of operations they can participate in.
Use of FPV Equipped UAS
When First Person View (FPV) systems are used, the operator arguably has better situational awareness of the UAS’ immediate surroundings than an operator flying the UAS from the ground (Visual Line of Sight or, VLOS). As such, the operator of the FPV equipped UAS should be able to fly without a visual observer so long as the flight is not over people not involved in the operation.
FPV provides the operator the same, if not better visual awareness than that of a manned aircraft pilot when flying from the cockpit.
FPV does not diminish the hearing of the operator, and enables better aural acuity than a pilot operating an aircraft from the cockpit.
Amateur-Built Aircraft
For decades, the hobbyist model aircraft community has sparked innovations in technology which have driven advancements in UAS technology. Safety has been paramount in the hobbyist community with minimal incidents. Model aviation as a whole contributes to the STEM programs in many schools, with students learning about physics, aerodynamics, electronics and the benefits of practicing a challenging skill as they learn how to fly a model aircraft.
We estimate there are approximately 150,000 recreational UAS operators flying FPV in the U.S. Virtually all of these owner/operators fabricate, assemble, modify, and/or repair their own equipment. From an initial survey, we determined the average recreational operator owns ten (10) UAS which are also unequipped. None of this fleet of approximately 1.5 million UAS are capable of a firmware upgrade to become Standard or Limited RID UAS compliant.
The proposal to restrict flying location based on how the aircraft was built makes absolutely no sense and will only serve to diminish the hobby of model aviation and the innovations that are developed as a result of the hobby. By removing all of this provision and allowing both the self-reporting and/or addition of a secondary RID unit to existing aircraft, a path to compliance for RID is created. An amateur UAS pilot voluntarily adding Remote ID equipment to their UAS has no incentive to tamper with or disable the equipment, so costly compliance requirements are unnecessary and will result in fewer modelers choosing to add the equipment.
Registration of Serial Numbers
A majority of the current fleet of UAS in the air are amateur-built, recreational aircraft and will not be capable of being firmware updated to have a serial number. By moving to a secondary component that can be added to an unmanned aircraft to satisfy RID, you create an opportunity to both be compliant, and produce new components that can meet the criteria of the FAA’s need for RID.
These RID components should:
Have a unique serial number.
Be registered by the operator through the FAA.
Be capable of broadcasting RID messaging within a minimum one (1) mile radius.
Be resistant to tampering.
If the proposed rule would allow for additional hardware, which would include a serial number as well as the required communication device (transponder for RID UAS) to be added to existing, non-equipped UAS, a high percentage of the existing UAS fleet, estimated above at 1.5 million units could be retrofitted.
The stated ANSI/CTA-2063-A requirement in the RID NPRM requires additional investigation. If this standard requires tracking and management of a complete Bill of Material of the UAS, we will provide a comment to the FAA that this is excessive and it would apply “airliner” class of regulations to under 55 pound sUAS.
The FAA’s Assumptions
Retrofits:
Section XIX. Regulatory Notices and Analysis. A. Retrofits.
This section states, based on information from UAS producers, part of the existing fleet could be retrofit to comply with RID requirements with relative ease and minimal cost through a firmware upgrade. The FAA goes on to cite that 93% of the current part 107 fleet and 20% of the current recreational fleet would be eligible for retrofits. The FAA goes on to say the background for this analysis will be available in the docket for this rulemaking.
The FPVFC response to these assumptions is we feel the percentage of the recreational fleet eligible for retrofit is 0%, not 20%. The FPVFC’s position on the percentage of the part 107 fleet eligible for retrofit is also 0%, not 93%.
Rationale: While we respect the FAA’s analysis, they are starting with what we feel are incorrect assumptions about DJI and then factoring those numbers for the recreational fleet. Also of note, the FAA requests information which would provide them additional data. The FPVFC took a ground-up view of the problem and considered the technology of the part 107 and recreational fleet. The FPVFC feels the recreational fleet could not be firmware updated to comply with the RID requirements because the current C2 and video data streams would need to be altered AND additional hardware would be required to create either broadcast or network connectivity. The rationale for part 107 is much of the current fleet is comprised of DJI drones and many of those drones have a transponder capability but their function is not compatible with the NPRM requirements.
The number and price of individual drones
XIX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses, C. Affected UAS Fleet/Characteristics, footnote #92 and 94
This section describes, on average the UAS operator owns two (2) aircraft and these have an average lifespan of 10 years. In the footnote, the FAA describes the AMA information which will be updated as the average AMA member owns nine (9) model aircraft and Footnote #94 shows the price range of a UAS is $140 to $675 with an average of $313.
We need to focus on FPV drones greater than 250 grams (0.55 pounds). How many do you own? For the FPVFC staff, this number is closer to ten (10) for each of us.
Average price of UAS
XIX. Regulatory Notices and Analyses, C. Cost and Savings Summary, i. UAS Owners and Operators, page 72496.
This section describes the average UAS purchase price of $2,500 for the part 107 consumer fleet, and about $114 for the fleet of UAS flown by recreational flyers. This section goes on to explain the financial discount rate of 3% and the discounted cash flow of loss to drone owners. The FAA concluded that there is no need to phase in RID rules because the cost to recreational UAS owners who are paying $114 on average for their UAS, which have a three (3) year life-span (on average) and the discount rate is 3%. Given that logic train, why should the FAA wait? The FPVFC asserts the average FPV drone has a price point much higher than $114. We would assert the average price is closer to $600. What’s your reaction to this? When the price is six times the FAA cited price, the cost to the recreational fleet is much larger and a brief phase in without any grand-fathering results in a much higher cost than described by the FAA.
FAA Requested Comments
Please see the separate FPVFC document on this topic. There are 12 requests for comments we have found so far. We have detailed the request and will provide a response. This document can be located here: FAA Requests for Comments on RID NPRM
Just off our radar for the moment:
There are a number of sections in the NPRM that have caused us to be concerned but not to the level of the areas described above in these Talking Points. Below are areas we will be researching further to determine if they merit a full throated response to the FAA.
XII. Design and Production Requirements, E. Requirement to submit a Declaration of Compliance.
Total cost of adding remote ID, more research required.
Glossary of Terms
Transmit - Referencing the ability of the UAS and/or ground station to connect to the internet via WiFI/cellular to send the required message elements to a RID USS.
Broadcast - References the ability of the UAS to send the required message elements via radio frequency compatible with personal wireless devices to any surrounding interested parties/aircraft.
Remote ID USS - Remote ID Unmanned Service Suppliers are a third party company that will communicate with the UAS/ground station to provide RID interfacing. These companies will log your flight data (RID message elements), and will hold your data for a period of not more or less than six (6) months in case of review or investigation.
Ground Station - The control unit for the UAS. In the case of UAS Systems such as a DJI UAS, this would the control transmitter/remote.
