Remote Identification. A good start.

The FAA listened. Mostly.

Today the FAA will release the Final Rule for Remote ID. The Final Rule is almost 500 pages long, but if you have time and patience, well worth the read. You’ll gain quite a bit of insight into the minds at the FAA, as well as which aspects of the manned aviation industry support UAS, and which see us as a nuisance.

This article will in no way be an exhaustive explanation of the entire rule. Instead we will hit the highlights and lowlights, and give some feedback. We’ll try to get the major aspects of the new rule out in the open, and hopefully create industry dialogue between stakeholders. 

The Drone Service Providers Alliance calls the Remote ID (RID) rule as a great start with some concerns. We are pleased that the FAA took to heart many of the comments submitted by those in the drone community and industry. We are especially pleased that the FAA eliminated the network requirement, eliminated the limited category, and exempted drones under 0.55 pounds that don’t require registration. However, the DSPA’s main concerns surround two issues. 

First, the rule retains the requirement for providing pilot or take off location in a public manner. Many in the drone community are rightfully concerned after being confronted by angry individuals or having their drones shot out of the sky. The FAA must state, unequivocally, that those who harass or injure remote pilots or who destroy a UAS will be prosecuted and must work to ensure that the US Department of Justice and US Attorney’s Offices actively follow up on any incidents. These incidents must be treated with the gravity that they deserve. We ask that the FAA propose a rulemaking that addresses destruction of UAS and interference with a RPIC. 

Second, we are disappointed that the FAA dismissed the “notify and fly” proposal put forth by Kittyhawk. The rule as published will negatively impact compliance rates as many people in the FPV community will likely opt to ignore the RID rules regarding both equipage and FRIAs.  First, the addition of requiring take off location necessitates the addition of a GPS to any module. This both increases weight and costs to platforms that are driven by grams. Further, most FPV pilots seek areas that are close to where they live and are unlikely to travel to FRIAs.  In fact, most are likely to just fly around their houses. We suggest that the FAA reconsider in the next iteration of Remote ID of allowing a notify and fly method as it would satisfy the public safety need of knowing who is flying and where. 

The devil is in the details. So let’s dive into the details. And let’s start with the good.

As mentioned above, the little guy (& gal) won a huge victory with the exclusion of the network requirement. That was one of the most illogical aspects of RID when it came to implementation. While we can see the desire of the security agencies that want it, it was truly overburdensome and unnecessary to endure the safety of the NAS. Which after all is the goal of RID.

The cost and technical aspects of requiring a service to monitor your flights would have created some serious non-compliance issues. Especially for the homebuilt and FPV communities. So we can all breathe a sigh of relief for that. Broadcast will create its own set of complications with those two communities, but at least the FAA took network off the table. It’s not even in the same room anymore.

FRIAs were expanded. In addition to Community Based Organizations (CBO) being allowed to apply for FRIAs, educational institutions are allowed now as well. And allowing cities was discussed, but not added. Which is a shame. Some cities are embracing drones, and being active in promoting them. Buena Vista, CO is developing a drone park with a local club. If the city was allowed to apply for a FRIA it would allow them to bear the burden of paperwork and any associated costs instead of the club. Since National League of Cities is represented on the DAC by Mayor Troxell of Fort Collins, CO, I suggest that maybe he take this up with the NLC and create their own CBO. Then they could be in control of parks and such that they’d like to open up to non-RID compliant UAS. I know the r/c and recreational flyer communities would love that. That they vote NLC, hint, hint…

Additionally the timeframe and expiration of FRIAs and FRIA applications were eliminated. The original NPRM wording made it look like the end goal of RID was to remove FRIAs from existence. That obviously wasn’t the case, and the new wording makes that much clearer. So overall, the FRIA portion of the Final Rule was a win. 

Retrofitting our current fleets is now allowed. 

This was a very common complaint from the small and medium sized Drone Service Providers (DSP). And we know from monitoring many of the online forums that it was in the minds of many when deciding whether to purchase new models of drones. With the allowance of retrofitting, we predict an uptick in commercial drone sales.

Grandfathering current models was not included. So some of the very early drones may become restricted to FRIAs, but very few of those are still in use by small and medium DSPs, so we don’t foresee that as a major issue. Again, another huge win for the UAS community, and a direct result of the 53,219 comments received and read by the FAA.

Exclusion of the 0.55lbs (250g) drones from RID was a huge relief to many manufacturers and recreational flyers. If this was not eliminated from the Final Rule, it would have devastated the micro FPV and TinyWhoop markets. And that is a huge entry market into the worlds of not only the commercial UAS, but relational flyers are well. Another win.

We also now have the final nail in the ADS-B Out coffin. The final rule is amended to prohibit the use of ADS-B in order to satisfy the requirements of RID (waiver requirements for BVLOS, etc, notwithstanding). ADS-B has been touted and pushed by some in the industry, despite the very vocal and obvious desire of the FAA and manned pilot organizations to not allow it. Now that argument is over.

Aeronautical Research was given a huge boost in the Final Rule.  The rule provides those in the research arena a process to fly without being RID compliant.

Final rule provides a mechanism for the FAA Administrator to authorize deviations from the operating requirements. It’s always good to provide a way to be excluded from the RID requirements when it is necessary. So the FAA is thinking ahead on this one.

One of the first rules of picking wild raspberries is to watch out for thorns. We’ve discussed the fresh raspberries in RID above, let’s talk about the thorns.

Public availability of PIC location is a huge issue. We’ve all heard multiple stories of first hand accounts of people being threatened, physically attacked, and even shot down by people who were not happy with us flying our drones near them. And that was only if they could find us.

Now imagine if you will (in our best Rod Serling accent) what can happen if someone can simply pull out their phone when they see a drone and know exactly where we are.  It could become a true Twilight Zone situation indeed. 

Public knowledge of our location was the number one concern of every drone operator and pilot we talked to. And many of them decided that they would take preemptive measures in order to protect themselves. And that would likely not end well for anyone.

Even after 1000s of comments expressing the very real and dangerous concern over this requirement, the stated reasoning behind keeping that requirement in is weak at best, a direct insult at worst. Straight from the Final Rule preamble:

“Though the FAA acknowledges the concerns expressed by commenters regarding personal safety, the FAA emphasizes that there are rules against interfering with an aircraft. The FAA finds that removal of the proposed requirement is not the appropriate solution, rather community outreach and other precautions are better suited to tackle these issues. Some commenters noted that sharing of the control station location is counter to the current practice of locking aircraft doors; however, the FAA finds that the analogous and appropriate practice would be to operate from a secure or restricted access location as necessary.”

Yes, there are rules against “interfering with an aircraft”. Very specific ones in 18 U.S. Code § 32. Including threats with intent. However, even with the myriad of examples available for the FAA, DOJ, and/or the U.S. Attorney’s Office to use, there has yet to be a single example of anyone being cited or prosecuted under this statute. Even the small number sent to the DOJ by the FAA have been ignored. No blood no foul seems to be the standard response.

If the FAA is going to use the existing laws as justification for including that our location in a publicly available packet of information, then they need to use them. And use them immediately, frequently, retroactively if possible, and very, very publicly. 

And inferring that we need “operate from a secure or restricted access location as necessary” illustrates just how out of touch some inside the FAA are when it comes to what we exactly do for a living. I cannot think of a single time I had the option of operating from a “secure or restricted access location”. It’s just not possible in the real world. Maybe in a controlled movie or commercial set. But that’s about it.

And community outreach? Although it’s not from lack of trying, the FAA can’t get all of the current 107 and recreational drone owners to understand the rules. And we all have a vested interest. How in the world can we expect the non-drone owning public to understand that they can’t shoot us down or threaten us? 

But we have faith in the FAA (please don’t prove us wrong). And a suggestion. As stated above, we strongly encourage the agencies mentioned to put out an NPRM that specifically addresses this concern. Or better yet, use emergency powers to put something out and the follow it up with official changing of  18 U.S. Code § 32 to specially include drones. And since it’s a simple change, we could safely assume it could easily be done before RID is fully implemented. And it’s been confirmed to us that the FAA is considering language that will solidify our stance that interfering with UAS or crew will carry the same penalty as interfering with manned crew or aircraft. So there is hope.

Partner with an organization like the NRA. Have them put out a PSA on the illegality of using weapons against unmanned aircraft. They have pull. Do something.

But let’s also keep in the back of our minds that this is all 18-30 months away. So don’t get too caught up in this. We can’t ignore it, but we can’t freak out about it either. 

The FPV community will not be pleased with this. Yes, there is the 0.55lbs exemption, and that will benefit some, but not all in the FPV community. Not many actually.

In a world were grams and seconds matter, adding GPS and RID components to an aircraft would be a huge burden. And very unlikely to be implemented by many, if not most. And it’s really not even necessary for most of them. FPV drones are limited in distance and size. On purpose. While there are certainly some that fly far and long, they are the rare exception to the rule.

FPV flyers don’t want a wide open area that a FRIA would provide. And that’s assuming you can get them to do anyway. They’ll show up for the odd race or two, but on the whole, they want to fly near obstacles and down buildings and though tree branches. Or the want to get together, set up gates and race each other. And that many flying that close together require finely tuned and agile machines. The added weight will make them less agile. FPV pilots are some of the most skilled operators you’ll ever run across. Don’t make RID handicap them.

The solutions are simple. Amend the RID to include the “notify and fly” system once it’s published. And/or have a system in place that would allow them to create short notice FRIAs. Scale it at the local FSDO level. There are times when an FPV club will decide on a Wednesday to get together that Saturday and fly a course. If the weather and location cooperate, they fly. And it’s one of the safest aviation activities you’ll ever witness. 

RID as written will seriously hamper the ability for the to continue to do that. 

The FPV community is known for being rebellious. Setting up a system that allows them safe and legal access NAS, and thus bringing them into the RID fold, will be a huge victory for the FAA.

DSPA applauds the FAA for taking the time to read the comments and incorporate many of the suggestions into the Final Rule. We appreciate your willingness to listen to many of our concerns and even address some of the ones that weren’t includes. And we strongly encourage you to seriously consider some of the additional suggestion not only in this article, but in articles published in the upcoming days.

And DSPA encourages the UAS community to look at the RID Final Rule as a very good start. It needs work, but it’s workable as is. Workable, not perfect. The changes made from NPRM to Final Rule show us that the FAA and other agencies are willing to listen as long as we provide a reasonable argument in a professional manner. And provide alteranate solutions. They don’t think like the UAS world. Only because the don’t have the experience. We can apply that same technique to try and get the rest of the RID Final Rule more acceptable to all stakeholders, both civilian and federal. 

This Final Rule proves we can work together and it doesn’t need to become an adversarial relationship. Let’s take what we have in this Final Rule, and build on it. Let’s grow the UAS industry and continue to make the NAS safe. Because both things can be done simultaneously.considering

A special thanks to KC Sealock for his FPV input, Taylor Albrecht with TNL Aviation and President of the Central Colorado UAS Club, and Desi Ekstein with Women and Drones. All invaluable input.

DSPA will be publishing more in-depth content though out the day. Please check back.

Executive Summary

Published RID Final Rule: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-15/pdf/2020-28948.pdf

Inside Unmanned Systems RID article.