If you follow the unmanned aircraft industry there has been a lot of hand wringing regarding the lack of network remote ID. Specifically, there are those who are concerned about how the Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) system can evolve without it. We at the DSPA think that UTM can continue to evolve and thrive without it.
First off, it is important to note that the FAA has not ruled out network remote ID in the future. We believe that it will have an important role to play, but it is not ready for primetime. We know that the telecom companies were clamoring for network remote ID since the days of the FAA’s 2017 Remote ID & Tracking ARC and were touting a technology readiness level of 9. In reality, the 2020 FAA Cohort meetings showed the technology was just not ready. The promises of less congestion on licensed spectrum have not proven true. As many people have experienced in urban areas, network connectivity can be atrocious even with full bars let alone rural areas with one bar.
One advantage of network is that it could obscure the location of the pilot or take off location from the general public. However, the counterpoint is that network requires a connection to the internet, and in most cases that means either a cellular or satellite connection. These requirements increase costs to the remote pilot through recurring cellular/satellite plan fees and higher hardware costs. It also subjects pilots to constant surveillance and raises the specter of “big brother”. DHS was specifically mentioned as wanting a complete “dashboard of the sky” even tracking flights of a child flying a sUAS in their own backyard. These are among reasons why there was a such a strong backlash against the FAA Remote ID NPRM that generated over 53,000 comments.
Commenters have mentioned that range is an issue with broadcast remote ID. However, tests by a companies such as Pierce Aerospace and Intel have shown that Bluetooth 5 LR achieves ranges upwards of 2 km in normal suburban RF conditions. Higher sensitivity antenna can be deployed to increase detection range even further. However, range does decrease as altitude decreases and radio line of sight decreases. We see that as a positive feature rather than a detriment as it increases pilot privacy and limits data to those whom it really concerns.
The logical question then becomes, how can UTM become a reality without everyone participating? The answer lies in the following: does everyone really have to actively participate in UTM via network for it to function? Our answer is, “no”. We direct your attention to UTM CONOPS 2.0 section 2.4.1.2 which states:
VLOS UAS Operators are able to visually separate from other UAS and manned aircraft. Given that the ability to safely operate VLOS is not predicated upon data exchanges with other UTM participants (e.g., strategic de-confliction), the primary UTM services they must use relate to meeting applicable regulatory and policy requirements. Recreation and commercial Operators performing flight per 14 CFR Parts 101[1] and 107 (respectively) must meet requirements related to aircraft registration, obtaining Airspace Authorization for flight in controlled airspace, and RID. They satisfy such requirements through use of FAA services, including those found in DroneZone or via a USS that has been qualified by the government to provide certain services (e.g., LAANC USS or RID USS). VLOS UAS Operators may voluntarily use services not required of them, such as those applicable to BVLOS Operators. Use of such additional services enhances the situational awareness of the VLOS Operator, as well as that of other Operators and stakeholders within the system.
2.4.1.2 clearly indicates that VLOS operators are to be treated differently than Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) or autonomous operations.
Nothing in the CONOPS or rule prevents voluntary participation in UTM to strategically deconflict operations. For BVLOS and other complex operations, this makes sense. However, the FAA still needs to create rules regarding both BVLOS and UTM. That may be the opportunity to require a connection to network specifically for those types of operations.
A key to getting UTM to work with broadcast remote ID is getting broadcast remote ID into the UTM system. It has been done. In 2018, DJI and Altitude Angel successfully demonstrated that broadcast remote ID can be integrated into the UTM system during a full scale UTM test named “Operation Zenith.” This proof of concept showed that broadcast remote ID messages could be captured by ground based sensors and could be fed to UAS Service Suppliers. There is already work being done by companies such as Hidden Level that are working to deploy sensors around cities to capture broadcast remote ID information and integrate the data into the UTM system. Others are looking to deploy sensors around sensitive areas.
This concept of receiving broadcast remote ID through a distributed network of sensors and passing it on to the UTM system is called secondary surveillance. The FAA Drone Advisory Committee Task Group 9 is already exploring the use of secondary surveillance to enhance situational awareness for both piloted and remotely piloted aircraft.
Given the low cost of Wi-Fi and BT sensors, wide-scale deployment of sensors in areas where it makes sense, will keep overall costs lower. Sensors could be installed on cellular towers where backhaul already exists. At first we envision sensors near critical infrastructure or near airports, then deployed into cities where there is a higher need for awareness or higher air traffic density. In essence, this shifts the paradigm from omniscient monitoring to targeted monitoring of UAS operations.
This change to broadcast also shifts costs. The shift happened between drone operators and the people who desire to obtain the information. Instead of requiring people who fly drones to purchase cellular plans and higher priced hardware, it shifts the cost to those who want the data. If entities want to detect drones around critical infrastructure, the costs are borne by those entities to install sensors around the facilities. If cities want to find out who is flying in their cities, then it then becomes incumbent on them to contract with either a service provider to install the sensors or install the sensors themselves. However, there is minimal changes to costs to public safety who wish to obtain the data through their handheld mobile device. There could be a cost for the app or could be a cost to obtain data that is obtained through secondary surveillance.
With the use of secondary surveillance technologies, broadcast remote ID can be integrated into the UTM system. UTM participants can utilize the information to deconflict. UTM participants will still be able to share intent and strategically deconflict with each other. As UTM CONOPS 2.0 outlines, VLOS operators can still visually separate from other air traffic and can voluntarily participate and share intent through the UTM construct. Given these capabilities, UTM still can work without network remote ID.
[1] Now section 44809.
Drone Service Providers Alliance is a 501c(6) committed to providing a voice for small and medium sized drone business. We provide “A UNITED VOICE FOR POSITIVE CHANGE”. Check out more at https://dspalliance.org/.
