http://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/january/09/faa-gets-early-earful-on-drone-id
FAA GETS EARLY EARFUL ON DRONE ID
CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY, COST
January 9, 2020
By Jim Moore
The FAA published on December 31 a detailed and long-awaited proposal
to create a system to track and manage every flight by millions of
drones, and many stakeholders responded swiftly: The online document
logged more than 100,000 views and 1,000 comments within three days of
its publication.
http://aopa.org/-/media/Images/AOPA-Main/News-and-Media/2020/January/drones/0108_remote_id_diagram.jpg
The FAA has proposed three ways to fly a drone once remote
identification begins. The rulemaking proposal is subject to comments
for 60 days, and further changes are possible before a final rule is
published. Graphic courtesy of the FAA.
The FAA has proposed three ways to fly a drone once remote
identification begins. The rulemaking proposal is subject to comments
for 60 days, and further changes are possible before a final rule is
published. Graphic courtesy of the FAA.
Initial feedback on the drone identification and tracking notice of
proposed rulemaking
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/31/2019-28100/remote-identification-of-unmanned-aircraft-systems
was decidedly negative. Many if not most of the first 1,000 comments
voiced concern about remote pilot privacy, new limitations on where
and how drones can be flown, and financial costs both known and
unknown. The FAA set a March 2 deadline for public comment.
AOPA Director of Regulatory Affairs Christopher Cooper said the
association’s analysis of this notice of proposed rulemaking is
ongoing, and the association will weigh in on specifics once the
details of what the FAA has put forward are fully understood. Cooper
said feedback from members will also inform the association’s
positions, and more time may be needed to allow all stakeholders to
fully digest and understand FAR Part 89, the new regulation the FAA
seeks to create while amending others. (AOPA invites those who submit
comments to copy the association via this email address
drones@aopa.org when submitting.)
“We plan to carefully review this very important proposed rule to
determine all of the potential impacts to both our manned and unmanned members,” Cooper said. “Meanwhile, at first glance, this proposed rule
is a step in the right direction toward further integrating UAS safely
into the National Airspace System, while also providing tools to
protect the public from nefarious and reckless operators. However, you
can expect we will have much more to say in the weeks ahead on how the
FAA can improve this proposed rule.”
The short version
The FAA seeks to require all drones larger than 0.55 pounds (250
grams) to be individually registered and to broadcast identifying
information in order to fly in most locations;
The FAA has made clear that Remote Identification (RID) is a
prerequisite for a long list of advanced operations being allowed
without waivers, including routine drone flights at night, over
people, and beyond the remote pilot’s line of sight;
A system to track and remotely identify drones is the key to creating
a new unmanned aircraft traffic management (UTM) system, and the
details of exactly how this new system is implemented remain to be
decided. The FAA is leaving much of this to private industry, creating performance standards without dictating how they are achieved;
Nothing is going to change soon: The proposed rulemaking calls for
various requirements to be phased in over three years, and the
details, including that timing, can still be changed prior to
publishing of the final rule;
With very few exceptions, the FAA proposes that virtually every
unmanned aircraft in the airspace (at any altitude) must be quickly identifiable by other users, and law enforcement, which will have
access to the pilot’s location information as well as the aircraft’s
location. Those unable or unwilling to participate, no matter what
credentials the operator may hold, will be relegated to flying only in federally approved, designated areas called FAA-recognized
identification areas (FRIA). (The FAA expects existing locations
designated for flying traditional radio-controlled model aircraft will
be among the first FRIAs approved.)
Bad actors drove the rule
The FAA announced
http://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/march/30/faa-seeks-digital-id-for-drones
that RID was coming in March 2017, and assembled a committee of
stakeholders (including AOPA) to provide recommendations on how best
to minimize the downsides of drones and maximize the
opportunities—delivery of food and medicine, infrastructure inspection
at a fraction of the cost of other methods, disaster response, and
scores of others. The aviation rulemaking committee report
http://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/december/21/drone-identification-and-tracking-report-released
was published in December 2017, though some of the 74 members
submitted dissenting views on some key points.
A DJI Phantom 4 Pro Obsidian Edition is flown at night (with LED
strobe lights attached to enhance visibility as required by FAA
waiver). Photo by Jim Moore.
Meanwhile, drones grew in number and in capability, and the dark side
of the technology captured the attention of law enforcement and the
public, in the form of smuggling and other criminal activity. A
growing body of evidence shows that the technology is equally adept at fulfilling nefarious intentions as it is at achieving humanitarian
good and economic efficiency.
For all the demonstrable good that drones have done, bad actors have
been intent on ruining it for everybody: Among the examples referenced
by the FAA in the proposal published December 31, a drone dropped Nazi propaganda
https://www.newsweek.com/drone-used-drop-nazi-leaflets-ariana-grande-concert-sacramento-bites-bridge-1414933
leaflets outside a concert in California in May (the drone was flown
illegally over people).
Arguably worse than that, drone sightings have prompted flight
cancellations and shut down entire airports, including Heathrow
Airport in London
https://www.forbes.com/sites/grantmartin/2019/01/08/londons-heathrow-airport-briefly-closed-following-possible-drone-sighting/#124b5dd13158
at the height of the holiday travel season. The FAA noted similar
disruptions at airports across the United States in recent years.
Some hazards created by bad behavior remain unseen, and unknown until
wreckage or documentation emerges. Examples of this include an
intentional close encounter between a small drone and a passenger jet approaching Las Vegas
https://interestingengineering.com/video/drone-camera-captures-frightening-near-miss-with-plane-landing-at-las-vegas-airport
in 2018 that prompted the FAA to investigate after a video was
published online.
More often, drones transit restricted airspace without leaving an
identifiable trace. Small unmanned aircraft have buzzed Major League
Baseball and National Football League games several times (that are
known). While those flights proved largely benign, notwithstanding a
crash or two in a stadium or arena that put spectators at risk of
injury, the FAA noted in the remote identification rulemaking proposal
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-28100/p-254 that terrorists
have been practicing overseas:
“Recent reports in the news including the Islamic State of Iraq and
Ash-Sham's modifications of commercial UAS, the assassination attempt
of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, a foiled plot in the United Kingdom to
fly an unmanned aircraft into an airliner, and a bomb-laden unmanned
aircraft flown by Huthi forces and detonated over a military parade in
Yemen illustrate the ways in which UAS may be used to threaten life,
critical infrastructure, and national security. Remote identification
of UAS would enable national security agencies and law enforcement to
quickly identify potential threats and act to prevent such incidents.”
Drones have also put the safety of firefighters and law enforcement
flying manned aircraft at risk. They have disrupted rescue missions
and shut down aerial operations at major wildfires. The FAA noted that
the cost of enforcing the rules nationwide is prohibitive, and one of
the key functions of remote identification is to reduce the agency’s
workload while increasing compliance:
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-28100/p-269
“Although Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies are
responsible for the investigation and prosecution of illegal
activities, the FAA retains the regulatory and civil enforcement
authority and oversight over aviation activities that create hazards
and pose threats to the safety of flight in air commerce. Both safety
and security enforcement are extremely difficult absent a remote
identification requirement that enables the prompt and accurate
identification of UAS and operators.”
Days before the long-awaited rulemaking proposal was published,
citizens and law enforcement began reporting mysterious drone
sightings in Colorado and Nebraska. Drones have been reported hovering
over houses, or flying in formation with other drones, and the ongoing
mystery over who is behind these flights has caused consternation as
the motives and intent of the operators remain unknown. One Colorado
newspaper has reported
https://gazette.com/military/could-mystery-of-colorado-drone-sightings-finally-be-explained/article_c8d375be-2e6f-11ea-85b7-2335e1d42476.html
that the drones might be flying on a secret U.S. Air Force mission to
test the security of nuclear missile installations, though the FAA has
said the reason for the reported flights remains unknown, and the
agency is investigating.
FAA officials have told the media that the onset of this particular
mystery days before the remote identification plan was spelled out is
a coincidence.
The FAA has made no secret of the fact that the agency will not abide
careless, reckless, or illegal behavior by drone pilots, and without
the ability to remotely track and identify drones and their operators
in real time, there is zero chance the agency will supply the big
carrot: a more permissive approach
http://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2019/january/18/faa-prepares-more-permissive-drone-rules
to unmanned aircraft that allows package delivery and other use cases
that are practical only when the drone is flown beyond line of sight.
Costs and limitations
Unmanned aircraft that are able to broadcast remote identification
information via radio frequency and connect via the internet (when
internet service is available) to a UAS Service Supplier (USS), a
private party approved by the FAA, will be able to fly under “standard
remote identification” rules. The FAA believes, based on information
provided by manufacturers, that most drones already meet both of the requirements (internet connection capability and radio frequency
broadcast capability) for standard remote identification, or can be
enabled to meet the requirements with a software update.
The FAA estimated that 93 percent
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-28100/p-739 of the drones
currently registered under Part 107 already comply with the standard
remote identification requirements, or can be retrofitted to do so
with a software update. The percentage of drones flown strictly for
recreation that already meet the requirements or can do so with a
software update was more difficult to calculate, since a single
recreational pilot can register any number of aircraft under a single
number. That is going to change under the proposed changes to drone registration rules, with every drone required to register individually
(the current fee is $5 per aircraft).
Unmanned aircraft that are unable to broadcast identification
information may still be flown outside of an FAA designated area
(FRIA), but these “limited remote identification” UAS must be able to
connect to the internet, must be connected to a USS during flight, and
must be programmed to remain within 400 feet of the ground control
station at all times.
AOPA file photo.
Unlike standard remote identification-capable drones, those flown
under the limited remote identification provisions
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-28100/p-160 would not have the
option of flying in areas where there is no available internet
connection.
The benefits of flying beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) without a
waiver, and other advanced operations the FAA expects to streamline
once remote identification is in place, will be reserved for standard
remote identification drones.
While the FAA made no attempt to forecast what USS services required
for remote identification compliance will cost consumers, the agency
did do some math on the gas money required for recreational pilots to
travel from their home to the nearest FRIA, where unmanned aircraft
can fly within defined boundaries free of RID requirements. The agency
compared hobbyist registrations to locations of current Academy of
Model Aeronautics flying fields, by zip code:
“The zip code analysis
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-28100/p-948 indicates a person
operating UAS that are not standard remote identification UAS would be
required to travel an average of 16 miles one-way to the nearest
FAA-recognized identification area,” the proposed rule states. Based
on assumptions including 52 visits to that “identification area” each
year, and the number of non-RID drones currently operated by
hobbyists, the FAA estimated that this group will spend $2.28 billion
on gas in the first decade of remote identification, starting in the
fourth year once all requirements are in effect.
There will be other costs for those who wish to fly where they choose.
In addition to requiring registration of all drones flown outside of a
FRIA, a new marketplace will be created for USS, and it’s not clear
what those services will cost.
The FAA did not make the law enforcement community entirely happy by
allowing three years for the RID rules to take full effect, and
presented that as a concession to owners of unmanned aircraft that
cannot meet the identification requirements without hardware changes:
The FAA analyzed the costs of allowing up to three years for
owners/operators to be in compliance and found this alternative
minimizes costs to owners/operators since on average the affected
existing fleet of UAS could be replaced at the end of useful life
(three years). In addition, this alternative is more likely to reduce uncertainty of adverse impacts to producers with inventories of UAS
produced before the compliance date that would likely not meet the
remote identification provisions of this proposal. Given the average
three-year UAS lifespan, the three-year operational compliance period
would likely assist producers in depleting existing non-compliant
inventories with reduced impact compared to the proposed one-year
compliance period.
Counter-drone counter arguments
Some of the early objections appear to be based on misunderstanding of
the actual requirements. To dispense with one of these: UAS operating “standard” remote identification (the drone broadcasts the RID
information electronically, from the aircraft, and/or via internet
connection to an FAA-designated UAS service provider) will, in fact,
be able to operate legally in areas without internet service.
As the FAA puts it:
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-28100/p-440
"A standard remote identification UAS would be required to broadcast
and transmit the remote identification message elements from takeoff
to landing. If the internet is available at takeoff, the standard
remote identification UAS would have to connect to the internet and
transmit the message elements through that internet connection to a
Remote ID USS and would also be required to broadcast the message
elements directly from the unmanned aircraft. If the internet is
unavailable at takeoff, the standard remote identification UAS would
only be required to broadcast the message elements directly from the
unmanned aircraft."
The proposed requirements will not effectively ground drones outside
of cellular coverage areas, as some have suggested. The directive to
“land as soon as practicable” applies only to the in-flight loss of
both the unmanned aircraft system’s internet connection and a loss of
RID broadcast capability by the unmanned aircraft. The FAA will
require drone manufacturers to enable the remote pilot to monitor both
internet connectivity and RID broadcast functionality (if applicable,
in the case of standard RID) throughout the flight.
Remote pilot privacy is another area of concern raised by many
commenters. With every drone subject to Part 89 (the proposed new RID regulation) required to transmit a unique identification number, GPS
location, barometric altitudes of both drone and pilot (standard
category only), and an emergency code if a malfunction ensues when
flying anywhere outside of a FRIA, many remote pilots voiced
apprehension (even outrage) that their location will become public
knowledge.
That may or may not be the case, depending on how remote
identification is implemented. DJI, the manufacturer of nearly 80
percent of drones flown under Part 107 and a significant portion of
the recreation-only fleet as well, announced in November
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aviation-drones/amid-privacy-backlash-chinas-dji-unveils-drone-to-phone-tracking-idUSKBN1XN2JR
that it was developing a mobile application that will allow anyone
with a mobile device to collect the remote identification data being
broadcast by DJI drones (a feature that remote pilots can currently
disable).
The FAA proposes that private industry will ultimately decide how the
data is handled, and while law enforcement will have access to all of
the available information, individual USS will serve as conduits for distributing customer information at the network level, and “the FAA anticipates that there will be some Remote ID USS available to the
general public and that others will be private.”
Users may have to pay more for that privacy, as the FAA noted:
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-28100/p-455
"For example, if Company ABC sets up a private Remote ID USS to
provide remote identification services exclusively to its fleet of
UAS, then the private Remote ID USS would only be available to the UAS operators of Company ABC. In comparison, if Company XYZ sets up a
Remote ID USS that can be accessed by the general public for remote identification services, then Company XYZ's Remote ID USS would be
considered available to all operators of UAS flying in the airspace of
the United States, irrespective of whether that access requires a
monetary cost. The FAA is not proposing to establish specific
requirements regarding Remote ID USS business models, (e.g., charging
fees, requiring user agreements, and requiring information from Remote
ID USS users). The FAA believes that operators will choose a Remote ID
USS that best meets their operational needs."
It remains to be seen what USS will cost for individual users, public
or private. The FAA expects many of the current providers of Low
Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability, which allows Part 107-compliant flights in certain controlled airspace, will seek USS designation, though there are likely to be others.
AOPA continues to evaluate the FAA cost estimates and technical
details of the notice of proposed rulemaking. Given its scope and
significant impacts on all airspace users, AOPA may ask the FAA to
extend the comment period beyond the current March 2 deadline, Cooper
said.
Many hobbyists, including traditional radio control model aircraft
enthusiasts, were among the first to decry the FAA approach to RID,
arguing that the rules should not be applied to aircraft flown without automated stabilization and first-person view. Others seek a carve-out
for racing drones and other FPV models, and worry that RID will
devastate hobby flying.
Photo by Bob Knill.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
