Thanks for your thoughtful, logic based discussion on remote ID. Like you, I’m an airline pilot and used to following rules. I’m just starting out in RC aviation as my next, post retirement adventure. I see a lot of TH-cam commentary has been influenced by anti-government 2A enthusiasts. Once you filter that out, the primary concern is cost and that’s a real concern. I hope Your sober explanation in this video will be appreciated by those with cost concerns. I intend to be a full participant in this hobby, from building, to flying and volunteering and I will be following all the rules because that’s what pilots do.
Joe: Welcome to the hobby! It is a great time to join, just so many variations of RC flight. Lots of useful TH-cam videos on building, designing, etc. Great fun! I'd say the entire remote ID thing is a jolt to the thousands of new drone pilots who purchase a drone and go flying in the National Airspace System that afternoon, with zero awareness of regulations, airspace, etc. Go to www.FAA.gov and search for UAS Sighting Report. Amazing how many drones are flying in Class B, C and D airspace. Not quite sure where the Second Amendment fits in . . . I've even had several folks inform me that the FAA is not authorized by the Constitution to write regulations. 🙄 Tim
"As we pilots always say....never miss a chance to tell everyone that you're a pilot." I'd love to hear what the 2nd amendment has to do with any of this.
@gordonmckay4523 @joetheairbusguy1813 Now that you mention this, I have seen videos making this comparison. I'm not in favor of these remote ID rulings for LOS flying, but I certainly don't think one can make a valid comparison between one's God given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, and a perceived lack of freedom to play with toy airplanes. I've made comments stating as much on videos trying to make this comparison.
@@George-nt8uw I feel like people have a legitimate right to complain about infringements on their 2A rights because those rights are (supposedly) protected by the constitution. Sadly, there is no such protected 'right' to fly model airplanes. Making comparisons between Remote ID and 2A rights seems to diminish the significance of 2A rights. It seems like you wanted to rant....I hope you got it all off your chest. :)
The CubePilot $39 RID module is not going to be of *any* use to the vast majority of RC hobbyists because they don't have a CubePilot flight controller in their planes or helicopters. Even the most popular type of hobby drone (freestyle/racing quads) dont' run CubePilot FCs. The reason the CubePilot unit is so cheap is because it doesn't have a GPS and relies heavily on other electronics in the model to do the heavy lifting for it. This simply isn't applicable to models flown LOS or which do not have an expensive (Cube) FC and GPS receiver. We are still waiting for the FAA's $50 stand-alone RID module that can be fitted to *any* model and transferred simply by moving it from model to model.
@@grahamsrcmodels9662 What about the raft of RTF fixed-wing craft that often get people into the hobby? They are supposed to have had SRID built into them since last year but I still see Horizon Hobby selling the FMS SuperEZ RTF without any form of RID and it includes transmitter, battery, and airplane in a ready-to-fly configuration. SRID is also supposed to be "a thing" in the model aircraft market but it seems that compliance (so far) is near-zero. Good to see Horizon supporting those who wish not to comply with RID.
Your points regarding being part of the discussions is also a moot one -- because there is now ZERO representation for the hobby on any of the groups or consultative committees created by the FAA to help shape regulation. These groups and committees are now filled solely with commercial operators and corporations such as Google, Amazon, Boeing, etc. How can we (the hobby) be part of the discussion when we are being deliberately sidelined and denied a voice in these committees. The agenda becomes undeniable when the group that represents the single largest users of the 0-400ft airspace is denied any voice on those committees in favour of commercial interests?
@@TimMcKay56 Very likely they will be. But the reason to use drones will be to expensive for them anyway. How do I know? Companies are running point to point delivery's in Africa right now. It will be very, very expensive in the U.S. or Europe.
The problem with $39 cubepilot rid module is that it requires an Ardupilot flight controller to use. The stand-alone RID modules appropriate for your basic RC plane or drone cost $200 dollars and up and are too big for small planes and drones. The FAA hasn't approved one FRIA, so is it reasonable to believe they can accommodate the 2000+ AMA sites by Sept 16th, much less educational or other sites? The FAA's latest video on drones and RID is anti recreational flier. So I'm not sure the FAA is implementing this rule in a fair way that will allow us to comply in a way that allows most fliers to actually keep flying.
Tim, you are sadly misinformed as to exactly *why* changes were made to the original NPRM. It wasn't so much the AMA or its members that created the changes. The reason Network RID was replaced (at this time) with broadcast RID is simply because the technology partners who would have to provide the infrastructure (ie: ubiquitous internet coverage) advised the FAA that they could not deliver such services (at this time). Note that the phrase "at this time" appears many, many times in the narrated final rule for RID and there is very clear intention to implement many of the things that were originally proposed but subsiquently changed -- as soon as the technology allows for it. Also don't forget that the AMA represents only a *small* percentage of the hobbyists flying drones and RC these days. There are more than 800,000 registered drone/RC flyers in the USA and likely at least another 250,000 unregistered members of the hobby. What is the membership of the AMA again? The AMA is becoming increasingly irrelevant and they saw an opportunity to increase their relevance and boost members by selling out any real protest for the offer of special privilege in the form of FRIAs. Now they're asking for even greater privilege -- the right to issue their own FRIA status. Why didn't the AMA take a strong stand to distance the traditional LOS hobby from the DJI drones that have really been the catalyst for these changes? Because they were bought-off by the promise of special favor that would boost their membership. In a recent 50-minute-long livestream from the AMA I heard them mention "donations", "members" and "The Foundation" dozens of times -- but the phrase "the hobby" was mentioned just once. That shows the AMA's true focus these days.
Xjet: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Having spent 7 years in Washington participating in meetings of this nature, the FAA had very little maneuvering room on remote ID due to Congressional direction. Without the AMA we would gave been roadkill. Tim
I have to agree with XJet's points about differentiating types of UAV.. Just for the record, I absolutely love my registered flying club and intend to stay a member for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, model associations, to survive, have to consider themselves a separate entity to the rank and file park fliers. Ironically, the majority of their members started out flying at the park or at home and that is where their new members will continue to be generated. The average age of the members of MAAA in Australia is 61 years. We have a membership problem. The last thing we want is for needless regulation lumping rc models in with gps assisted drones. Hopefully as you say Tim, it will improve with time.
@TimMcKay56 Nonsense! In 7 years @ DC it never.dawned on you that Congress has no technical competence in Aviation?! Bolstered by hubris and guided by aides in whose ears lobbyists have been whispering sweet nothings, and girded by the fallacy that common sense is quite enough for understanding the complexities of aeronautics rather than the advanced education in numerous subjects that it normally takes, Members of Congress will charge headlong where angels fear to tread, revising or creating new laws that may fix nothing but may make safety and security take a step back. Or two. It's up to those who know to stand up and say something instead of helplessly rolling over and playing dead; so shame on the FAA for not pushing back against the push for RID in model airplanes. But who was whispering "RID" in Congress' ear anyway? P.S.: From the discussions here, the AMA appears to be grossly out of touch with the operational details of flying models, or had a touch of amnesia at a critical time.
@@petep.2092 I was extremely impressed with the technical (as well as legislative) competence of the various staffers I worked with in Congress. Really, a good group of folks faced with very difficult issues. Tim
My biggest problems with remote ID is and will always be, every person having access to pilot information, and private property use. If there was a provision that pilot details would only be available to FAA and law enforcement and private property could easily be registered and approved as a FRIA. If those provisions could be made and modules get cheap and readily available, I wouldn't have any issues. The world has to move forward and we do too, but we don't have to be pushovers about it either.
I agree with most of this but need to point out that pilot details are excluded from public view already. Karen can get your location but not who you are.
@Markevans36301 thank you for letting me know. I am terrible at understanding legal jargon so I did not fully understand that part of the issue. So again thank you!
@@Markevans36301 That is the problem though, Karen can get your location, so can any thug that wants to kick the sh!t out of you and steal your gear. Or they can follow you home, with all the dangers that entails.
@@TimMcKay56 A better solution to a problem that doesn't exist? I'd need to make a video 3 times the length of yours to explain why it's wrong, why it's not going to hold up in court and give less intrusive solutions that could work even better. Government overreach has been getting struck down in court often these days. It takes time but it will happen.
@@TimMcKay56 simple solution you don’t need it so you don’t use it! Be realistic… You’re destroying a hobby, and there has been no justification for safety reasons… you have laws in place.
Let’s be honest no one has a problem with commercially available drones like DJI, and other buy and fly’s, needing to come equipped with remote ID. A hobby built radio controlled experimental aircraft isn’t the same. This isn’t about safety. It’s about security and you know what you have to give up for security. This will never help stop a bad actor. This will simply turn, honest, responsible, hobbyist into violators.
No, I have the exact same problem with RID being integrated into ready to fly drones for the same reason I have a problem with having to add it to my drone. I was confronted one time by someone that simply drove past and saw me standing with a remote looking into the sky. They made crazy accusations about me spying on them. I was nowhere near their property and was taking video of a bridge that was being replaced while there were no workers around. The male Karen ultimately threatened me with physical harm. I called 911 on speaker phone and told them that I had an unmanned aircraft in the air that I was trying to safely control, was being threatened, and was prepared to protect myself. They could hear the idiot yelling in the background. So, why would I want my location to be known by idiots just looking to start trouble? As written, with RID anyone can see my location as well as the location of my drone. Make that information available only to the FAA and police and I might reconsider.
@@trentdowler7443 Yup, there will be interesting days ahead as RID becomes a reality. The areas of law for drone flights under, say, 400 feet AGL and over personal property are still to be worked out, as RC flyers traditionally flew at a more remote club site. Drones, on the other hand, fly everywhere. But, RID in some form is here to stay, will evolve for sure. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 FAA don't have the resources to keep themselves squared away. They can't even keep a schedule for flights, customer base doesn't have a kind word to say, and cops are so understaffed they honestly aren't going to be concerned about little Timmy flying his drone in some field somewhere. This only opens the doors for trouble makers being emboldened through use of a government sanctioned app. Shame on you pushing this bs
@@TimMcKay56 just shut and color, right?, pushing back -when the government goes too far is one of the fundamental rights of our Republic, don't take what I'm saying wrong. I like your work, Tim, but I do think the Gov has gone too far here, remote ID should only apply to populated areas only
@@markjannakos503 Well, no one "sat back and colored" on remote ID. I mean, the FAA received 53,000 comments, none of them supporting remote ID. If folks truly have a problem with RID, best to write your member of Congress. FAA just following Congressional orders here. Really. Tim
It indeed may, in some form be a reality. But is it the right approach. Where is the statistical argument for this approach. Where is an open discussion allowing our concerns to be addressed. Two way is communication.
I just checked out this little $39 wonder "CubePilot". Nice, let's see; it doesn't appear to be a standalone box but relies on a link to a flight controller for its brains. So, I guess I am supposed to put a $39 postage stamp paperweight on my DTFB/FliteTest foamie in addition, (if I expect the paperweight to actually work) add a flight controller of unknown $$$$ and weight??? Wow!! What a nice way to kill STEM as if it wasn't hard enough already to get kids into the hobby. The more I see, the more I begin to regret the money I spent for my wife and I to become AMA Lifers and the thousands $$$ more I have spent to promote RC model aviation!
Your price comparisons over time could be considered somewhat misleading. A better way to look at is that back in the 1980s, a top-tier Apple computer cost around $4K. Today, a top tier Apple computer still costs around $4K. Yes, the newer computer is far more capable but what you're seeing is *not* a reduction in price -- it's an increase in capability. Likewise, for the Kraft radio (the Cadilac of radios back in the 1970s) cost about as much as modern very high-end radios (such as the Futaba 32MZ which is around $3K just for the transmitter -- so once you add a receiver and high-end servos the price is about the same, if not more). Once again, the capabilities of this modern radio far exceeds the Kraft unit but what we're seeing is an improvement in capabilities, not a reduction in price.
I don't fly drones so my RC activities on my 800+ acres won't be altered one bit. My question is who and how is monitoring being done. Remote ID will NEVER stop a dedicated bad actors actions.
PRECISELY!!! If some dirt bag wants to make an RC cruise missile, do the mental brain trust at the FAA really think that dirt bag is going to put RID on it so they are FAA compliant? If they actually believe that, then I have an outdoor snow ski slope in South Florida I would like to sell them!
Implying in the video that Ukraine installed a RID module on their drones to make them capable of dropping ordnance is a bit misleading. Oh wait, the Ukraine military DID NOT have to install a RID module to drop ordinance. If a bad actor wants to drop something from a drone the last thing that is going to stop them is the need to install a RID module. Now, based on the number of full scale private and commercial airplanes that have been intentionally crashed into buildings, this is where the FAA should be focusing its attention, not a 10 year flying a foam airplane in a farm field. Bad enough the FAA levied a tax to fly a toy airplane, now there is the kick-back to the Federal Government for all the $300+ RID modules that will need to be purchased. The other day I built an airplane using a $2 sheet of foam board, now I have to install a $300 RID module to fly the airplane.
As others have mentioned, The $39 CubePilot can not perform any RemoteID by itself. It requires a separate flight controller and GPS in order for it to function. Add several hundred dollars and software complexity to the price tag.
Why does it need a flight controller? The data to be transmitted is: Module ID, Lat/Lon/Altitude, Velocity, Takeoff Lat/Lon/Alt, Time. All those will come from GPS, except the first, which will be in firmware.
@@petep.2092because it probably won’t connect directly to gps but us this module even going to get approved if it pulls data from flight controller … I can see a patch in betaflight / iNAV etc which just disables the GPS info and I can’t see this acting as an immobilisation system… I mean people take off without satellites in betaflight there is a slider to specifically allow this and it is great!!!!
In fact it's worse than that -- if you go look on the FAA's list of approved devices, the Cube ID is not listed. This device, which you can buy today, does not actually have a Declaration of Compliance with the FAA, so it is in fact not compliant. Maybe this will change, it's a matter of paperwork presumably, but as of right now it does not meet the requirements to my understanding.
@@TimMcKay56 You are comparing Apples and Oranges. I know the price will eventually come down but you cannot make that claim unless you only compare stand-alone units. Do not include RID devices that require other hardware to work as the price is hidden in the other required hardware.
You are incorrect when you say that RID is a step in airspace deconfliction. The FAA has clearly stated that RID is not designed nor intended to deconflict the airspace -- it is solely a way for authorities to associate an operator to a drone when it is flying. You mention "track" many times in respect to RID. The FAA said very unambiguously that RID is *not* a tracking technology, it is simply for LEO to locate and identify the operator of a drone. Now it appears that they have gone back on that statement and their recent video clearly shows that surveilance/tracking has become a part of the plan. How do you have respect for any regulator that repeatedly lies to those whose compliance they expect?
Xjet: Apologies for the confusion. Thought I was clear . . . RID has no ATC or airspace deconfliction role. Just for LE to know where drone took off, some idea of flight path. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 @11:46 you said _"Remote ID is a foundation for the building block of how the FAA is integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system.... the key thing from the FAA's viewpoint is that there is not a pilot in the cockpit of an unmanned aircraft and so a very fundamental concept of safety called see and avoid can not be implemented so how do you mix drone traffic with everybody else? Remote ID is a step in that direction"_ Yet... RID is not about deconfliction -- so how does that work then? It seemed that you were implying that Remote ID would play a role in deconfliction because of the lack of "see and avoid" with UAS.
@@xjet No worries. UAVs, both big and small, are pretty much a fact of life these days. And by most estimates, this industry will only grow. So the challenge faced by the FAA is how to integrate these unmanned aircraft in a mature ATC environment without the benefit of see and avoid. The only answer, really, is through technology (the airlines have made it crystal clear addition regualated airspace, say various drone corridors, will be fought tooth and nail). So, for a variety of reasons, RID is a first step in this huge effort. RID may well be a complete bust . . . no one knows . . . but for now the FAA wants this implemented and we'll see how it works. As I've said numerous times, all these drone pilots saying they will never comply with RID . . . within three years, as they purchase new drones, they will be compliant by definition. So, a journey of 10,000 steps begins with the first one. And fully agree, RID has nothing to do with airspace deconfliction or ATC control. Tim
@@gordonmckay4523 Here's the problem as I see it... The FAA keeps talking "integration" but that's exactly the WRONG approach. If you have craft that lack "see and avoid" you do not want to integrate them, you want to SEGREGATE them for obvious safety reasons. Up until now there has been little problem with RC models because they've (with only a few exceptions) stuck to the 0-400ft airspace where manned aviation does not usually operate (with only a few exceptions). This has meant that the number of evidenced collisions between manned aircraft and the hobby are a single-digit amount, over many, many years. The best analogy is that of freeways and sidewalks. Would anyone be stupid enough to suggest that we do away with sidewalks and try to "integrate" pedestrian traffic into freeway traffic -- reliant solely on the ability for pedestrians and motorists to "see and avoid" each other? Of course not, that would be ridiculously dangerous. So why oh why is the FAA seemingly hellbent on creating exactly this situation in the NAS by "integrating" RC/drone traffic instead of segregating it? Logic and commonsense seem to go out the door when powerful lobbyists start greasing the palms of greedy politicians to change regulations without any consideration of the real risks.
I’m not fully sure the FAA has much of an idea of drone integration in the National Airspace System. That is a super tough challenge, utterly dependent on technology that really does not exist. Rather, RID is the current project. The FAA really needs to know who is doing what in the NAS. Right now, with drones, they do not. As an aside, will never know within a FRIA. It is pretty basic in flying, post 9/11 attacks, that we must know who is flying where. Tim
My main concern with RID is not just the cost of the module itself, it's the potential way it could be hacked or used nefariously! What happens if someone with bad intentions tracks down your position while you're flying, steals your RC aircraft and gear, then goes on to commit somekind of crime with your RID module that is registered to you! With that low cost and easy availability what happens when some nefarious person buys a handful of modules and places them around an airport or puts them in balloons filled with helium and releases them in a sensitive security area? I think there are a lot of security weaknesses the FAA are not considering. Let's face it a bad actor with nefarious intentions is not going to register or fit an RID module with their details, they're going to look for weaknesses in the system and exploit vulnerabilities.
@@TimMcKay56 I think you falsely believe the FAA have the model aviation hobbyists best interest at heart when they want RID on our models? Unfortunately there are some very bad people out there with nefarious intentions! I'm just trying to be realistic to the risks and what could go wrong with the system which is all meant to be about increasing 'safety'. How can you increase the safety of something which is already fundamentally safe. Model aviation IS the safest form of aviation. Why do you think ultra light aircraft and paramotors aren't required to be fitted with RID? Just think about that for a moment. This has never been about safety for model aircraft, it's about control. You do realise the next step is a subscription based 'pay to fly', once everyone has swallowed the RID pill. This 'cheap' additional module you mention, could be the difference between someone being able to just afford to fly in the hobby now but unable to when they have to fit this thing to all their models. This means RID makes flying models only accessible to those that can afford it, in my view that is discrimination when hobbyists are pushed out of the hobby for financial reasons.
@@pdtech4524 What I’m trying to say is that the FAA has a lot of competing issues they have to deal with on users of the airspace. They are not anti drone. Rather they can and will take action to ensure safety. It is in our interest to follow the very simple rules on remote ID. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 I'm all for increasing the safety of a hobby I enjoy. Show me the data that says RID is a benefit to safety and explain to us how secure and free from vulnerabilities it is! It's all well and good saying we've all got to comply because the FAA said so but let's see some balance and reasons why this could be a problem for us in the future ie leading us towards a pay to fly situation or at the very least a subscription based RID system?
This is nothing more than a social exercise in 'compliance'. The government doesn't belong in this arena period. Line-of-sight, non-regulated, remote controlled models have NEVER made it into the news as having perpetrated ANY 'catastrophic acts of terror' on U.S. soil in the 45 years I have been designing and flying R.C. models 'safely and responsibly' and almost always within a few miles of a local municipal airport without a manned tower. When I lived in Nashville 25 years ago, somebody touched off a small explosive in an RC model airplane and the only reason I know about it is because my friend owned a hobby shop and a chrome plating facility in the same building. The feds showed up and wanted him to turn over the names of his RC customers from 2 years prior to that date. He told them to go get a court order. They never returned. What does that tell you? The "bad actors" are flying full scale airliners into sky scrapers... while guys like me are designing and building manned ultralights and flying with impunity in states where it's legal to carry concealed firearms... yes even in the air... as long as you 'follow certain rules' . The 'rules' are only made for those who will adhere to them. The rest are referred to as 'outlaws' and 'criminals'. None of this really matters because the BIG "turd in the punchbowl" is the notion that... in less than 7 short years... "YOU will OWN NOTHING... and YOU will LOVE IT". I think we should be turning our concerns to how they are going to "motivate" us into 'relinquishing' our models and full scale airplanes, our homes, workshops, cars, boats, to 'COMPLY' with W.E.F. This is just an exercise in compliance... the creation of a mass social mindset that "compliance" in and of itself... following the rules... should be our only concern.
@@TimMcKay56 Agreed! With all due respect... Wise 'life forms' in general learn to adapt to new situations, otherwise they become extinct. My dream of becoming a full scale pilot started at my workbench at 10 years old after my self designed, Cox .020 powered free flight model flew much better than expected and vanished into the pine barrens. Something that should enter our minds tho... is the fact that this is definitely going to discourage a lot of would be, up-and-coming 'hobbyists' from becoming full scale pilots. And then there's the diminishing effect of the ideas and technologies that the military and the aviation industry both have been borrowing from us 'little guys' with our silly models that are suddenly posing a threat to arial package delivery industries whose well funded LOBBY is the true driving force behind this ridiculous folly. I guess I should adapt by satisfying my need to fly by piloting package delivery drones... nope, A.I. already has that covered. OK, ok, I'l triple mask myself and stay inside and afraid of BOTH the terrorist AND the federal agencies who seem to be after the same thing... I must add that, to 'adapt' does not necessarily mean by way of conforming. WE must HELP THEM to make these rules ADAPT TO OUR desires and needs AS WELL by pushing back and forcing the policy makers to COMPROMISE with US. But unfortunately WE don't have the bribe money that the lobbyists do. It takes BACKBONE as well. Give them THIS without a fight and they'll come for MORE... and every reader knows this...
fun fact there will be people many many years from now building their own drones from scratch and being remote id noncompliant just having fun flying their drone around without a care in the world.
Sadly, the cost is not about the dollars, the cost is the impact to the hobby, which is the catalyst to everything you have become over your years. As you pointed out, commercial pilot, been involved in government, this is nothing to you, and you see it all as clearly justified, which is fine. Getting people started / involved in the hobby, as a HOBBY, means not straining to understand compliance, not reading FAA rules, which was our days of past. It is much easier for kids to plug into Video Games and fly any way they want, not need for FAA/AMA/Club Drama. The red tape is now too deep, changing too much, and will continue to change. The AMA.... Did not have a seat at the table like the big boy manufacturers or lobbyist, and are in a self preservation mode that has not yielded the best results on our behalf. They are out to maintain their club revenue, but honesty rule areas where flying field are fewer and fewer, farther and farther away, the FAA limiting FRIA's numbers, is just going to make it worst. The CubePilot device, like others that are $50 I have seen, need to plug into a controller that has GPS existing, and be compatible pin outs. if I am wrong, please say so. I have around 20 aircraft from foamy to 50CC gas, none of which have any GPS or telemetry, this leaves me unsure $39.95 is the answer. I am also not 100% certain Network RID is done.
My point on the video is that the price point of RC gear is coming down. Which is correct. I’ve been flying RC for 52 years. This is the Golden Age for choice, convenience, etc. Folks truly need to calm down on RID.
@@TimMcKay56 Peoples choice to question the one size fits all rules is their choice and they should. Your 56 years is actually not relevant since the hobby changed and grew from 1 channel pulse to what it is today. I have been around a long time in this as well but support keeping the younger generation engaged, this is their hobby to support after us.. Today is technically different but the people growing in to supporting the hobby, are different as well. RC Gear is cheap, altering government over reach has never always been calm.
I have yet to see anything that would be easily incorporated into a hand launch glider. Many DLG's are just above the 250g limit, extremely sensitive to weight that would be added, and, it's hard enough to fit the normal equipment in to just make them flight ready. Aside from that, full carbon construction would require an external antenna that could also hinder performance. The FAA's requirement for planes like this to have RID shows their lack of care or understanding for the recreational flyer. Hopefully there is some re-evaluating in the future to eliminate some of the "ridiculousness" .
From what I understand, the ID is programmable, what is to stop a bad actor from programming an ID number he got off the phone app into his drone he intends to use nefariously? Oooh.... That is a tough question. The answer is "nothing". Good luck trying to prove it wasn't you. Is AMA insurance going to help with the legal fees? I don't think so.
Um, Tim. This $39 board doesn't have a built-in GPS chip or a GPS antenna. "It is suitable for GPS-equipped drones that are to be flown in the pilot’s visual line of sight."
As a newly retired Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor, Instrument Flight Instructor, and Advanced Ground Instructor, and a Part 107 License Holder, I appreciate your comments. If anyone can spend $800 to $3000 (for bundles) they should certainly be able to afford $39 to keep their legacy drones and airplanes flying. Let's hope it gets certified by the FCC and the FAA.
I bought my dji phantom 3 about 5 years ago. I have since retired. For me, this remote id stuff has grounded me. I had (have) hopes that a inexpensive standalone module would be available. This $39 module requires me to spend more money that I cannot afford. Just because I bought a $800 plus drone years ago does not mean that I "should be able to afford" it today. As I have already said, my drone is grounded now. Thanks FAA
If the RID module won’t reach my ranch front gate, whom am I broadcasting too? Who is monitoring? Class “G”airspace. Big Brother rarely makes it out this way. Always enjoy your show. Keep up the great work!
There is no connection to anybody at all unless you set up all the links and are in range. If you have cell phone service and connect your "drone" to your cell phone with Bluetooth and have your phone connected to a cell tower, maybe. Why would anyone ever do such a thing? If someone with a working cell phone could receive your Bluetooth signal and had the right software, they could read the I.D.
I still do not understand why your traditional fixed wing RC type aircraft needs to be complaint? No issues in the past so why now. A four prop drone I can understand, makes a good reason to go back to controline and regress technology. I see RID as another case of government intrusion where one size fits all. This is where I see the AMA falling down miserably.
Fixed wing RC may well be exempt at some point. I understand what you are saying . . . it is just a bridge too far with the original start up of RID. Tim
Fixed wing aircraft can still have flight controllers, GPS, cameras and video transmitters installed. They can easily be built capable of longer flight times and range than the average multirotor.
I have a DJI mini 2 SE that only weigh's 249g under the required 250g so I dont need to register or have the RID as long as I stay within the recreational guidelines. I was watching a video where the host was saying how he didn't think RID would last because it will be to much for the FAA to handle and that it had been delayed already and just wait till people who are angry about this start tossing RID modules next to airports shutting them down for hours till they can find it! but it's nice to know that there is an affordable option if needed Thank you.
Spektrum has introduced their standalone module. It is introductory priced at $69 through Spektrum. It will go up to $99 at some point. It only requires power, either plugging into your receiver, or you could use a small 1S battery attached to it and still be very light and moveable between aircraft. I have no interest in whether you go this route or not, but it seems to be the best solution for a standalone solution right now.
In about 1970 I bought a USED Kraft 4 ch for $400! A bargain at that time. It is amazing what $400 will buy today in terms of radio systems. However, the cost of airplanes has gone up measurably. Another price REDUCTION in the past few years has been brushless electric motors, speed controls, and lipo batteries! It's still an affordable hobby thank goodness.
I just bought the Cube ID for a Hubsan Zino Pro I have but to my surprise it came with no installation instructions. I don't even know if I can install it on my drone! I tried Cube ID's site but found no detailed info. Can you use this remote module for drones? By the way, love your instructional videos.
Thanks for taking the time to make this video and try to ease some concerns with Remote ID. I agree the AMA does a lot of behind the scenes work that many do not know about... I believe this is why they started a TH-cam channel to try to reach out and show what they are doing for us. I honestly believe that the Current Chartered AMA sanctioned fields should all be Grandfathered in as FRIA's. Oh the whole Model Aviators have posed little to no threat to the National Airspace System thanks to AMA rules and fields. I feel Remote ID should be more like ADSB where people using the NAS could see them. I think people attacking "Drone operators" is a legit concern as people just assume they are there to spy on them. Lets face facts though, anyone with nefarious intent is not going to add Remote ID to their aircraft and if they do it is not going to give information leading to them. In all seriousness though Law enforcement has little to no training on drones at all. Most over react in many cases I've seen not to say they are bad. I don't see the likelihood of enforcement being very good. If this is in the name of safety ATC, Pilots, Aircraft, and maybe Law enforcement need access to the data Remote ID provides, not John Q Public. The radio you mention sounds interesting. All I remember is Futaba from back in the day. I don't really remember many other options but that was around the time AM radios were being phased out and moving to FM. I've been in and out of the hobby operating many types of RC craft and it has been interesting to see the changes over the years. While I like drones as well I think that is when things started to go down hill for us, probably more so when they started to be sold ready to operate at non-hobby stores as very few had any idea about the rules of the sky set before them and began doing whatever they wanted as they saw fit. Hopefully one day things will get back to the way they used to be or at least moving in that direction again. It's probably wishful thinking though... I think see and avoid could be accomplished with FPV but that seems to be a bad thing for AMA and the FAA...
Pat 15 FCC certifications is self certified. The FCC never seen this item. Anyone can stick a part 15 sticker on an item and call it good. I built several Digital Transmitters over the years for many companies for alarming and detection for various equipment. The FCC only gets involved when it becomes an issue and the could take years. Also this will cost you a lot more than $39.00 with the associated equipment.
100 percent - this is part of the issue with this initial roll out… I sure hope that the FAA is trying to make RemoteID fail so that they can push back on corporate big wigs and get them to pay to use the air space
Great video Tim. Thankyou for your helpful research and good to hear of an affordable unit. I would have to say (from the information you've presented) the FAA would be crazy not to introduce network Remote ID. If I understand correctly, the reason for Remote ID, apart from law enforcement, is to monitor UAV movements, positions and numbers. Given the short range of Remote ID modules, I cannot see this as being possible with the current system. Without wider connectivity, the FAA will struggle to achieve all its objectives. One answer would be for mobile phones to run background processes and repeat the information and send it to FAA servers to collate the data. Probably not desirable for phone users due to extra data and battery consumption. Ground stations would be a huge and costly exercise without the UAVs sharing a high capacity system with manned aircraft. (ADS-B isn't capable) This should always have been the case to help eliminate any confliction issues. I have always felt that the concept was pushed through too quickly and will not achieve what congress wanted. (A system shared with manned aircraft TCAS would be the most ideal.) On another note, there is a huge difference in the skill and type of flying required between model aircraft, helicopter, racing drone flying and that of GPS assisted camera drones. (RC models, while being unmanned, fly close to the pilot, share control features, directional control, and situational awareness approaching that of manned aircraft) I stand to be corrected, but believe the bulk of reported FAA security and safety incidents involve GPS stabilized camera drones. We are in the position that these units are now sold with Remote ID already fitted. It would be nice if the FAA finally gave the RC model community, recognition for our distinguished skills and safety record, removing the need for RID on smaller RC model aircraft say, under a few kilos. Given this, it would save them a ton of work, reducing the number of FRIA approvals. Time will tell.
I do think that over time, once the dust settles, we can demonstrate to the FAA that fixed wing RC does not need RID like the drone folks do. Just two different ways to fly. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Fixed wing can still have FPV and are generally capable of much longer flight times and therefore longer range than multirotors. Many multirotors are flown line of sight without cameras, wings are not a distinction. Neither are cameras or FPV equipment as I could very easily set up a fixed wing aircraft without a camera that is capable of a 30 mile autonomous flight.
Yes great video but there are other implications in the pipeline…. Remote id is not in the current form the end or the final solution to his is just the beginning of a massive step in the wrong direction… at least in the UK there is a push to make the corridor a place for corporate delivery (makes sense for medical time critical delvery … it is tooth paste really critic me to deliver in under 20min? Maybe a pizza….. it are you willing to put up with the nose of a person in a low altitude evtol…. At least initially the people using these will be in massive mantions so when they arrive home and take off to go out they will not be disturbing neighbours…. It when they land next to your local park or the Sesto that is another matter…. Let’s wait for lower noise systems Bella and improved safety or at least a user pays model for the sky for evtol!!!!
Lot of good information but the question should be why. There was no problem that requires remote id they have made the problem and the answer all on there own?
The last part of your video (-last few minutes is great) maybe release that as a seperate video - problems with remote id why it is doomed to fail???? Just a thought.. thank you for sharing you really put lots of work into this video and it shows you clearly address many points!!! But RemoteID is the thin part of the wedge being hammered deeper into this air space!!!! Let’s act now and inform the public to the reality that large corporations and their shareholders should not just be given access to the sky’s for free
Thanks for checking in! RID is here to stay . . . if you accept the fact drones are here to stay. US Government objective is to someday integrate drones with manned traffic. Right now they fly is a segregated system. Remote ID is the absolute starting point for something like this. Tim
This module is meant to be used with an autopilot and not traditional rc aircraft. Something that runs ardupilot or px4 and has serial telemetry ports such as the cube orange.
We build our drones too. Those of us who build our own especially tiny whoops and other micro drones will need something really small and light. Especially the racing crowd will need something very small that will run on power from our existing small boards.
It amazes me that the Industry has had months to prepare and get these into production, but everywhere you go it's out of stock or pre-order blah blah blah. The response time here in my very large mid-west city is 45 minutes to 1 hour and a half for non emergency calls. Enforcement? It's laughable that this idea ever got traction. All those years of flying since 1976 with it makes little sense today.
I agree this is frustrating. Congress ordered the FAA to “do something” and here we are. Per Spektrum, a RID module is harder to make than a six channel receiver with gyro stabilization. GPS is the hard part. My guess is enforcement for recreational flyers will be minimal and the Sept 16 date will be slipped. Tim
Tim, I bought the $39 CubePilot you presented and I can say they are not ready for prime time. The item is not consumer friendly as install instructions or even a basic overview diagram of how this interfaces with your R/C plane or quad are non-existant. Right now its just a waste of money.
According to the CubePilot website this module is applicable to uav that already have gps. While the point about lower cost evolution of electronics is well taken, we aren’t there yet with this module. “Most” non-drone recreational UAVs do not have GPS embedded in there rx.
Tim, I too am a retired USAF B-52G/H Instructor Pilot and have flown airline passengers under part 121. I'm impressed with the $39 cost of the remote ID. But wait, what about the cost of the Ardupilot (PIXHAWK) flight system to install in my trainer? I'm guessing it is over $300 plus the cost of my trainer. I'm one of maybe 6 fliers in our 300 member club that has configured Ardupilot. I have never flown a mission using my 450mm quadcopter. Given the specs, it will do a perfect job for the typical BVLOS 'quad'copter pilot. The FAA document you read so eloquently, specifically states "AIRPLANE", yet they and you talk about people flying airplanes in restricted airspace. Wait a minute; the FAA defines an "AIRPLANE" as "Airplane. An engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.". No DJI UAV I have ever seen has wings. No 'UAV' in the FAA 'approved' list has wings! Why is that? Please stop conflating "airplane" with "quad/hex/octo'copters. That is because a fixed wing RC airplane is generally too hard to fly! Maybe 1 out of a 100,00 people might be able to successfully fly a 6 to 8 minute mission and safely land a RC airplane. I recently trained a 747 Captain and retired USAF AWACS Command Pilot how to fly the E-Flite Apprentice. He has over 15,000 flight hours and no way could he fly the Apprentice without using the SAFE system. This training was LOS training. The FAA is really concerned with the 'Off the Shelf', GPS controlled UAV's that can the same weapons I used to carry and drop on the range; 500 and 750 lb conventional bombs. Well, I highly doubt 100 DJI drones can lift one MK-82, 10 feet in the air. As far as dropping grenades into old rusty tanks, with enough practice, it would be possible. However, in the USA, I haven't seen any road side ammo stands selling grenades. I can't even find a reliable supplier of shotgun primers and powder! I believe in RID; but blue tooth transmission with a range of 2 miles is ridiculous! My voice will carry farther than that! The threat to the 'target' is the most important issue. What is the 'target'? A car, a police station, a school, an airplane, space station, military fuel storage area, my home, the RC airport, ah..., the electrical grid!!!! What does the FAA's "RISK ASSESSMENT" state the 'target' is? What are they protecting with the implementation of RID? We need to know the answer! Years ago the commercial on TV stated "Where's the beef"? Now the AMA needs a commercial; "What's the target at risk"? RID must be used to notify the party at risk!
Aw come on Garry, lets you and me go out and drop some of those 500 lb bombs at the range, it will be fun. My ears are weak from listening to those B-52's though. I ran the electric grid for a while and I don't want anybody to damage it, so we need to put up some drones to watch over it.😁
they tried that in the mid 90s for rc helicopters and planes we beat it by simply saying no . we will beat it again by saying no. i refuse to register my hobby i been building and flying since 1986
Thanks for your research on RID. As you stated you fly RC airplanes and RID is here to stay……. The big question that no one is answering is what about the Karen’s and bad actors ? One pilot hurt is one too many !
My Fixed Wing, does not have a Ardupilot flight controller. Only Rx, ESC, Battery and Servos. So this unit will not work. Respectively have to disagree about the AMA, they totaly did not have the Hobbyist back on this one. Unfortunately, it is now too late. Many will be droppping their Subs.
Tim, I am a long time RC modeler, AMA member, and private pilot license holder. I'm strictly a fixed wing recreational RC pilot, no interest in "drones" or commercial operations. I appreciate your low key approach to the subject of Remote ID. But, having read the comments to this video, apparently, the broadcast module devices available now are not practical for recreational users. I don't believe hobby manufacturers will be able to meet the broadcast requirement by September, only 2 1/2 months away. I do think the FRIA concept is viable, but, unless the AMA or other CBOs are able to self designate FRIAs, this won't happen by September either. I have my FAA registration and have taken the AMA TRUST course, so, I'm trying to comply with the rules , but, it seems we're in a period of "trial and error" in the implementation of Remote ID. One idea that makes sense to me is to raise the weight limit for exemption from RID to something compatible with the most popular RC trainers...maybe a full kilogram? Also, I have recommended to the AMA that the first year membership dues be cut drastically to encourage new members, especially youth, to join. As you've said, and I agree, the AMA is, by far, the strongest voice we have against the Washington bureaucracy. Keep up the good work with your timely videos. Ted
Ted: Great inputs, fully agree. The 1 KG weight limit may well happen. Sept 16 is not that far away. There really are no broadcast modules for sale yet. And FRIA approvals should start in mid-July. All in all, I’d grade the FAA a “D” for the time management on this important project. My guess is Sept 16 date will slip, but we will not know until the last moment. 😊🙀 Tim
It makes me sad the way this is rolling out and the way it will effect the hobby. We need to do things that promote the hobby, not put red tape around it. I’ll have no compassion for the FAA when the pilot shortage continues to multiply.
I am a full scale aircraft owner and an RC enthusiast. I do not understand to what this remote module will communicate. My ADS-B in module in my full scale airplane doesn't receive bluetooth. What is the point if I can't see an rc aircraft from my airplane?
Remote ID is for law enforcement and the FAA to have some idea of what drones are operating in the National Airspace System. The RID system transmits a low power signal giving information on the drone lat/long, altitude, some identification and the takeoff location. This information is transmitted only while the drone is flying. Range is generally less than 2 miles. RID has not interface with any ATC traffic control function . . . to have that capability would put the cost of the system completely our of reach for modelers. Tim
See my video on “Why are no FRIAs approved yet?” There is some obscure environmental impact approval the FAA had to go thru for FRIAs. My guess is we’ll see first approvals mid-July. Tim
Hey Tim, do you think there's any chance we might see a Remote ID version 1.1 down the road? The biggest shortcoming, and the burr under a lot of folks saddle blankets, is the fact that the current release gives away the operator's base location to just anyone, as opposed to authorized people like law enforcement with a need-to-know. I think there'd be a lot less push back if they'd just fix that one thing.
Absolutely. I am working on a video for "next steps with remote ID, " with a lot of research on what was contained in the 2018 FAA Authorization Act. This is where remote ID took root for the commercial UAS industry. RID will evolve for sure. I see eventually some sort of national tracking system, that could essentially mask the takeoff location, and allow controllers to at lease know of drone flight activity in their sectors. Lots more to follow, RID is not going away. Tim
@TimMcKay56 You might do a video on what RID does for the pilot. It probably varies, but they do feed back telemetry. I was less against them once I learned that they weren't pure parasites, but could actually provide useful data.
the whole thing is an expensive pain in the A_s. Im just going to focus my time on my other hobbies, in other words, they rouined it for me, I'm out! I'm my opinion, Remote-id is only going to hurt those who comply, I can just imagine the Gov mixing up my I.d..number with someone else number. who has broken the rules, and wondering how much time and money it will cost me to prove my innocents, how are they going to enforce this realistically? remote-id should only apply to populated areas only!. and most importantly. Pushing back -when the government goes too far is one of the fundamental rights of our Republic,
As a hopeful to be approved FRIA airplane club, I would like to know if there is a way to verify a FAA # for a new or renewing member. concerned with a person just writing some numbers down and making up a FAA card.
Hi Tim. Just thought I'd pipe up on this one. First off, thank you for your sensible, rational video. In my opinion, those folks that rant and rave about rid do nothing to help the cause. Again, my opinion. I also feel that the AMA dropped the ball years ago by not seperating the traditional modelers from the drone community. I feel they saw an opportunity to increase the membership, which didn't happen, and grow the organization. And the bank account. Now, however, they are paying the price by having to bow to the FAA in order to get some sort of benefit that they can tell us members they fought so hard to get us. The line should have been drawn in the sand years ago. Again, my opinion. The real problem I see with this is that I don't have a problem putting some sort of device on my airplane. I won't pay $300 or whatever to get it....I'll wait for a less expensive "knockoff". I will not, however, have anything on my transmitter that allows anyone to track where I am, who I am, etc. This is pure bs. Law enforcement? Sure, go ahead. I'm not doing anything wrong so come on out and we'll talk model airplanes. I'm not leaving the hobby anytime soon either.....I'm too stubborn for that, but I just can't see where a lot of the provisions that we will be required to follow are at all necessary to go out and fly a model airplane. It just doesn't make any sense that a person can build an ultralight aircraft, get in it, fly it, crash it, or whatever, and has to do absolutely nothing in order to follow or promote his hobby. Ridiculous. Again, thanks for the sanity.
Joel: I think we are pretty much aligned on this. But, Remote ID is here to stay. The wisest approach is to stay engaged and help shape the outcome. Ultralights keep coming up, and I may do a video on the Part 103 fliers. In a nutshell, the FAA was about ready to come crashing down on the community in the mid-1980s once hobbyists started putting motors on hang gliders. Luckily, the US Hang Gliding Association got with the FAA and they reached an agreement. Various restrictions on Part 103 flight (max weight around 252 lbs, single pilot only, max speed of 55 mph, etc. If the ultralights kept their nose clean (airspace violations), the FAA would let them be. And this is how it is worked today . . . I think Part 103 is two pages long. Tim
Hi Tim. Thanks for the reply. I also believe that rid is here to stay. Like it or not I doubt there's a whole lot we can do about it. Personally I just can't see how its at all legal that your transmitter must be broadcasting where you're at and who you are. I might not be correct about that. I guess we'll see how this all turns out, but who is going to be responsible when a young kid gets accosted and his equipment is taken, or worse, he or she is taken. Opens up an entirely different situation that did not exist before rid. Just something to think about. I'm not worried about it as I live in a rural small town where pretty much everybody knows everybody else. I'm just that goofy guy that plays accordion for a living, drives around in a hearse, and flies model airplanes. Time will tell what actually happens with all this, and thanks again for the discussion.
@@joelzwerk4162 Joel, RID will work out. Really. Complete overreaction by a lot of drone pilots. Also, your transmitter does not broadcast RID info. Rather, that is a system in the drone/RC plane that transmit this information for around 0.9 of a mile . . . not that far. Tim
@@joelzwerk4162 How does the TX broadcast anything when the Bluetooth RID is in the plane? Its not impossible, but I doubt it is what is happening. I have an FCC 2nd class license and am an amateur WA7VQR. My guess is it is broadcasting where it took off from and an ID number, but you can block the location from all but law enforcement.
Not sure if a part 107 pilot should need to have remote id on their 60 gram tiny whoop it is not going to bring down a manned aircraft even if it was flying above the tree line
Agree. This is why what is going on now with RID is simply a first step. Huge technical changes and improvements head, need to keep in the loop with the FAA. Tim
Thanks Tim for the RID info. I looked at Cube Pilot's page and found the information daunting. It might not be useful for me. I have an off the shelf drone. The controller is not going to work with this system. I thought I would only need to provide power, not so. It is a module after all. FRIAs will do nothing for me as I consider my drone a camera and I only use it to for photographs. I'll keep watching your channel in hopes you find a stand alone RID. I doubt I will be buying a new drone in the near future, prices are out of my reach.
Tim, so I've been searching and found that Dronetag DRI "also" lacks documentation needed to tie it into a drones electronics. It is likely anything "but" plug and play, and I can find no other modules out there suitable for installation inline into a drones electronics at this time. I do hope "something" is released soon as I am not interested in the size "or" cost of the stand alone module types like the Dronetag Mini or the Dronetag Beacon Direct. If you see anything on the horizon I'm sure you'll let us know. Thanks, John..
RID boils down to compliance. You said you're a commercial pilot so I'm sure you're aware that there are many different manned aircraft that are not registered (no N number) or have ADS- that provides location to other aircraft. Those of us flying under Part 103 with no N number cannot even obtain use of ADS-B. Yet, as a UAS pilot we're expected to comply with RID? Makes no sense.
I have zero Part 103 flying experience, but it seems you folks by and large know where to can and cannot fly. I do not see too many Class B airspace violations by the Part 103 crowd. Not so much with drones. We literally have hundredes of thousands of drone pilots flying everywhere in the National Airspace System with zero training, something had to be done to at least know where these folks are located. Hence RID. RID is here to stay, will evolve over time. Tim
Well, hard to say. 100% of drones being sold today are RID compliant. While I am by no means a drone expert, these RID systems are embedded in the drone software architecture. It is going to be a bit tough to somehow turn it off. Of course bad guys are, by definition, bad guys. Some will find a way. But this is a start in the larger problem of knowing who is flying where in the National Airspace System. Tim
I understand where you are coming from but I dissagree about the "Combat Operations Concern" because if you were going to use a drone to drop a bomb or use it for any other nefarious act you would definitely make sure you are using Remote ID and that your name and location is Accurate.. It's kinda like saying "make drugs illegal then nobody will do drugs." Overall great video it was very informative.
Hi Tim, I enjoy your channel - found it by your Guillow's RC conversions! My current project is the 16" Spitfire, framed and ready for RC installation RFID is here to stay. Working for a National Laboratory, I can attest to this staying with us. The only reason we have this issue, is because certain people with "drones" thought flying near Fullsize Aircraft and over the neighbors fence was "cool"! Wow. Great idea. Modeling has been with me since ~1962, and is very important to me - this episode has been tough for me to watch. I will be purchasing my RFID unit in the next few minutes... Thank for you excellent channel, and wisdom of our craft. =Eflyer7=
I have a feeling this is a huge waste of time. It’s likely going to end in mass none compliance. The ATF is learning that now with all the firearm cases they keep losing. We can’t regulate every single thing in this country. I don’t think it will stand
RID will stand as it is a requirement for integrated operations of manned and unmanned aircraft. The first iterations of RID for recreational flyers may not work, and FAA likely does not have resources to pursue. But RID is here to stay. Tim
@TimMcKay56 so if Frias ever come into existence, would flying there supercede your 107 requirements to put a separate RID module on each piece of equipment that goes up in the air large or small?
If the FAA decides to pull a fast one... or slow one? And they just never approve any FRIA locations, do you have a plan B? They have now established that they can shift the guidelines ever so slightly with no consequences. I expect nothing less from our government.
I'm not in the US but I follow this closely, as it is likely to proliferate. I'd take issue on a few remote ID points: 10g isn't nothing, nor is the size. On a 250g craft that is 4%, that type of variation in my experience is noticeable if performance flying is what you are into. On a lighter craft it is more noticeable. OK, you will say, but you don't need remote ID on anything smaller. Trouble is, the recreational / educational exemption is so tightly drawn that a lot of sub 250g flying is going to be outside the exemption, whether the flyer realises it or not. Therefore, technically if I fly my 25g AUW FPV whoop in a way that gets outside the exemption, I would need remote ID. Personally, I think that is ridiculous, and it wouldn't fly in any meaningful sense anyway. Secondly, I wonder if the 250g limit will last or get reduced as more flyers dive underneath it - it's a fairly arbitrary limit. Time will show. Swapping modules. These things are very fiddly at the best of times. I often take several craft out to fly, and I'm not going to try swapping boards in and out in the field. In fact the nature of the wiring and connector types tend to mean continually swapping parts leads to unreliability. So, probably in practice one module is not really on. Unless of course one designs a robust interface designed for repeated changes - more weight. The craft has a very sensitive 2.4Ghz receiver on board. This adds a 2.4g transmitter maximised for range. OK, Bluetooth is spread spectrum as is the Rx with different hopping patterns, but band separation, bleed over and side band generation isn't perfect, so I think it remains to be seen if the remote ID module compromises Rx range. $39 isn't nothing - and others seem to be more. Typically craft I build would be $100-130 in US terms (I do it on a budget). That is a substantial proportion. There is the information transmitted. I do not want my doings broadcast to all and sundry, especially someone who can see where I am standing. I don't do anything illegal, but I just don't want that, it's about freedom. It is also now very likely from their recent video that even without networking the FAA are going to build a database of movements and operations. Finally, I believe the way it is actually worded, FPV is not actually allowed with broadcast remote ID, it has to be standard, ie craft manufactured and tamperproof from an FAA audited organisation. They have said this is not the intention, but as far as I am aware, so far they have neither changed this wording nor put anything out in writing to clarify the intent of the existing wording. It may come, of course, but to me it says something about their mindset in all this. Acceptance or not probably depends on your starting point. You seem to come from the commercial airline industry where all this regulation and control is embedded - no doubt with good reason in most cases. Hobbyists probably don't, I don't. The way I see it is that I fly small craft at close range very low, always below the treeline or roof line. I do not see what right the regulator has to interfere in that (right, not power). I hit golf balls much higher than I fly. So, as far as I can see, all this stuff is acceptable in some form once you get outside an envelope of range, height, weight and size, but within that envelope - usually known as shielded operations - these regulations do not have a place. You may be right it is here to stay, there may be no move to shielded operations, it may proliferate over here, but if that is so, that will be me done. Pity, but there it is.
Remote ID is here to stay . . . there is so much more work going on in the background regarding RID I almost feel sorry for the drone hobbyist pilot. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 from your wording "... almost feel sorry ..." I therefore assume that you do actually support the FAA in their introduction of remote ID and other similar incursions into the FPV hobby.
@@gordonmckay4523 I didn't actually ask about following regulations, I asked if you supported the FAA in their current introduction of remote ID and the way it affects FPV hobbyists. But I assume from your answer you do support the FAA, unless it is that you believe FPV hobbyists should just passively just accept what they are doing, regardless?
I agree that Remote ID makes sense and is here to stay. The complaint I have with the FAA is that they feel they have the authority to regulate all airspace in the US starting at the ground level. This is not consistent with their Congressional authorization and several SCOTUS rulings. The problem is they have an army of lawyers that are paid by our tax dollars that make it very expensive to challenge this view in court.
@@TimMcKay56 I agree. I (and others) think the FAA has overreached their authority by seeking to regulate the airspace above private land and I think that will likely not be settled for years. For now, the only choice you have is to follow the rules or be willing to spend the $$$ to take the issue through the courts. Also, I think some in the FAA probably know that the current SCOTUS would likely rule against them so I suspect they will try to avoid any conflicts that might result in a precedent that they would not like.
I would love to comply. I just don't see how that's supposed to happen. I currently see zero appropriate products (FAA approved) for my models and there are 2 FRIAs in my entire state and the AMA Headquarters in Muncie ISN'T one of them! All of that being said, after Sept 16th I will not "just fly anyway" because I remember my 9-11 laws. I know what "enemy combatant" means. I'm not about to be labeled a terrorist for playing with my toys.
Steve: I appreciate your approach to this issue. The real missing piece is a viable remote ID module for recreational flyers. Recreational flyers need just one module, they can switch between airplanes. I will do a video later today (Aug 4) of a very new and exciting development, the Spektrum SkyID remote ID module. Tim
The FAA RID doesn't impact me, the only way I could legally fly is if I had a permit per scheduled flight. Permits range in price from $350 to $700 per day of flying and permit days cannot be changed in the event of inclement weather. In the US it seems that you will very soon be in a very similar position. Unmanned Aircraft and Manned Aircraft are seperated by roughly 100 feet in the US, and by distances from landing spots. Unmanned Aircraft have been around for decades almost, my grandfather flew RC planes and gliders for many years. Also remember that Ultralight Aircraft have much less regulation surrounding them, and they kill people, this has nothing to do with safety. Also the fact that anyone can see the pilot position is concerning if you are alone and flying or if a kid is flying. These flights won't be tracked "For now." that means that they will require it in the future, I foresee that criminals will absolutely use this as a way of enabling their criminal acts. Also criminals will now just build a kit drone or plane without RID to do their criminal acts anyway., I don't think this RID is fit for the purpose they proclaim it to be.
I still think this whole thing is blown out of proportion.Nobody has ever been hurt or killed as a result of model flying and models were never used by terrists to kill people.
In 2013 a NY man was killed when his helicopter chopped off the top of his head. That's just one of many. Do a Google search. RID will do nothing to prevent accidents, though.
@@lamarw7757 Very sorry to hear of any decapitation. RID is not a safety feature per se, rather a means to start and know what unmanned aircraft is flying where in the National Airspace System. RID is being driven by the commercial UAS industry, now at $29B. Their goad is fully integrated flight operations with manned aircraft. RID is foundational to this. Tim
FAA is charged with regulating aviation. They are given a new class of aircraft to regulate and what do you expect them to do, but regulate the new class using the model they employed for older classes. To a man with a hammer everything looks a little like a nail!
Seems like for this module to work your module will also need a compatible gps module additional cost and complexity…. Also two months from requirements to use in USA and it is not yet approved. I agree things will get less expensive… but personally I am not a fan of government overreach…. But more importantly in the long term evtol and delivery is gaining access to the sky… these companies profiting should not be pushing the externalities to hobbyists they should absorb the cost and I would even argue that in order to fly above a property below a certain height these mega corps should be paying people to be in that air space. The evtol should be paying everyone they fly over … for inflicting danger and noise pollution… if you don’t want evtol overhead you should be able to opt out and not have payment but also you should not have anyone flying close to your property at these low altitudes… not in manned aircraft for sure!!!! The user pays for roads when did my backyard or park become a free for all? I would like to have the mega corps like Amazon who have a lot of power over government be charged for using the sky… and anyone wealthy enough to have an evtol can surely pay 💰 for flying over the road to the council or over a property to the owner just like KM’s for trucks which run on dies in and which are heavy causing additional road wear. The FAA needs to push back and tell these companies that to use the sky you are going to need to pay. I am fine with jumbo jets way up high which you can not hear but anyone who lives or whom has lived next to a rail road / busy highway or an airpor knows exactly what this means for property value people are not keen on having all this happening unless there is some sort of compensation and I know the local cities could do with a cash boat as anaxon workers are replaced with robots and delivery trucks and trains are deploying drones for last mile drop off
Let's see . . . . Fees for use of airspace. That fight has been going on forever with general aviation ($10 per ILS approach, etc.). Hopefully we do not get to that point with drones. Tim
Hi Tim. I'm still watching from the UK, hoping for a reasonable solution to this issue as I'm sure the US system will become the blueprint for elsewhere. Thanks for trying to add some facts and reason to the RID debate. Couple of questions or concerns you might have ideas on with your wider aviation knowledge: (1) What's the requirements for small "manned" private aircraft to have a transponder? It seems like most do here (in UK) as they don't always show up on aircraft tracking apps. That would seem to be a bit of a double standard if everyone's required to put an RID transmitter into their model!? I've recently witnessed both fixed wing and helicopters flying low over model flying areas whilst models were in the air. I know we're supposed to get out of the way but wonder how low flying is supposed to be 'policed' if the manned aircraft cannot be identified!? (2) Our airwaves are becoming ever more congested with radio signals for our transmitters and receivers to screen out. Particularly near populated areas. Lately it's the introduction of 5G mobile networks but WiFi and Bluetooth transmissions are also ever more present around us. Due to legislation, we also have reduced power output on our transmitters in Europe and UK. Is there not an increased chance of control signals to the receiver getting swamped, having another (RID) signal generator actually inside our models? Would welcome any relevant facts and thoughts you can offer. Thanks. 👋
Andrew: Greetings from across the pond! All your points are spot on. Both the airways and electronic spectrum are getting more and more crowded. And as you point out, even the recent introduction of 5G cell phone towers caused huge interference issues with airliner radar (or radio) antennas, needed for Cat II and III approaches. So private aircraft are not required to install as transponder. But most do, as you will not be allowed to fly into a LOT of airspace without a transponder. And they really do not cost that much and are very easy to use. As for aircraft flying over an RC field, this is the old dilemma of flying in uncontrolled airspace. See and be seen, as imperfect as that may be. I really think we need to wait a bit and see how things really shake out after Sept 16, when a lot of folks will be flying with RID. As this is a whole new program, there is a lot than others do not know. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Thanks for the fast response Tim. Agree that this is such a seismic shift we'll be sorting out the consequences for some time to come. Wasn't aware of the issue between 5G and Airliner radar. There's actually serious speculation at my local model club currently about additional instances of interference since 5G masts were installed close by last year. We're now trying to collect data on instances for possible investigation +/or resolution by the Telecoms regulator. 🤞🤞Not ideal when you're learning to fly!
If the module is just to identify the pilot I guess the system is workable, but if it has to identify the plane/drone as well then how will it be swappable without reprogramming with that new information ?
It is done via the FAA DroneZone website, where you enter RID information and your aircraft description. I have a video on this. This will become a bit clearer after the Sept 16, 2023 start date. Tim
An add-on RID module transmits the ID of the module, which becomes the ID of the drone it is attached to at the time. A drone with built-in RID transmits the drone's ID. The registration of the module and/or drone at the FAA's website is where the owner's identity is linked to the drone.
So my $50 Berkley Super Aerotrol single channel TX and RX in 1952 would be $500 today. Not including batteries and tuning meter. The 1929 Philadelphia Storage Battery Company TRF that I had was bought 2 weeks before the crash for $650 and in today's money would cost $11,051.Did you actually try the cube-id? It seems not to be a stand-alone unit but needs an ardupilot controlled drone to operate plus some software manipulation. That would not be compatible with a standard model airplane. It will cost me $50 not $39 just for this module which will not be a complete system.
Thank you for your rational commentary. The majority of the youtube vids I've seen are insultingly inaccurate, spouting absolute rubbish, and perhaps more interestingly, the vast majority of them have just started appearing within the last month. Where have they been for the past couple of years? Is ignorance bliss? I've been flying drones with remote-id in Class "D" airspace for months, and where I fly and when I fly haven't changed at all. I'm still getting making the same Laanc requests. I have a couple of "mature drones" which I'll have to address with a beacon, but so be it.
@@TimMcKay56 Unless you are part 107 certified, then it is. From what I have researched, if you are making ANY income from you flying you should be 107. This includes monetised videos on YT.
@@TimMcKay56 That will most likely happen with conditions , but there are things in the works that will make that even an issue soon enough from what I am hearing
It wasn't because there were more pilots. Or more drones in the air. No. I think it's because now the average citizen can now easily, very easily and economically fly around and photograph or video those Civil Servants or governmental employees and they don't like that.
@@TimMcKay56 Accountable to no one and have ruined the model flying hobby because someone said they saw a drone over Gatwick or Heathrow! (never proved) Never did a risk assessment and now control every aspect of my hobby, which I have been following for the last 75 years. That's out of control, there's no one controlling the FAA or CAA.
Its too bad that the Cube isnt stand alone. I live on a SS income and do only fixed wing so I guess I will be priced out of the hobby as I live in a small town and the closest club field is an hour and a half away.
I am not sure if the comparison of remote ID modules with desktop computers is a good one. First of all, desktop computers significantly increased productivity and had a huge impact on our personal lives and the world in almost every way. That will not be the case with remote ID modules. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that the item would be relatively unpopular even if it was free. Secondly, prices plummet singificantly when there is either competition among producers of the item or siginifcant growth of the customer base. Both applied to desktop computers and other electronic communication devices. There certainly will be some competition between manufacturers of RID modules for a while. I doubt however that there will be a significant growth of the customer base regarding stand-alone RID modules. Those who feel they need to buy one, will buy one. But there will not be unmanned aircraft system in every home and pocket. Thirdly, if an item is required there is little incentive to drop prices. Fourthly, technological progress can result in various improvements. However, if an RID module I can purchase in the next few months is small and light enough, can easily move from plane to plane, can survive crashes, and FAA regulations stay the same, ... why would I buy another one in 3 years? Or a second one? Personally, I won't mind installing a durable RID module in the ~$40 range that fits in my small airplanes and that they can carry easily. I hope you are correct with your predictions. As you often say, let's wait and see.
I get the feeling that remote id may be here to stay…. But I can’t see it working in the current form… the spoofing and general approach is way to flaky and insecure
Also it is a privacy nightmare with the level of publicly accessible information… are you feeling confident that in these desperate times some people with guns are not going to show up and take you and your friends gear??? It makes do little sense for this information to be made public…. I mean from the perspective of child safety to adult safety. Personally I would rather not have a gun or knife fight over some gear…. But it is just a matter of time before this happens unless you fly inside a secure bunker like the hero’s who work in the US military
The justification for remote ID and security. Supposed problem is interference with Maned aircraft or someone doing spy surveillance or dropping bombs. Anyone intent on either one of those illegal behavior is not going to fly something with remote ID. My flying my fixed-wing aircraft in the local park or school yard isn't going to endanger anyone nor risk National security.
… but it might bump into a pizza delivery drone. I suspect that s partly the driver of the need for the ID. The 0.9 mile bluetooth transmission radius makes no sense for violator tracking or intrusion detection… you'd need a bluetooth antenna grid with 1.8 mile spacing! But a drone-to-drone TCAS would only need a signal from traffic that could be a collision risk, say within a mile radius…
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for your thoughtful, logic based discussion on remote ID. Like you, I’m an airline pilot and used to following rules. I’m just starting out in RC aviation as my next, post retirement adventure. I see a lot of TH-cam commentary has been influenced by anti-government 2A enthusiasts. Once you filter that out, the primary concern is cost and that’s a real concern. I hope Your sober explanation in this video will be appreciated by those with cost concerns.
I intend to be a full participant in this hobby, from building, to flying and volunteering and I will be following all the rules because that’s what pilots do.
Joe: Welcome to the hobby! It is a great time to join, just so many variations of RC flight. Lots of useful TH-cam videos on building, designing, etc. Great fun!
I'd say the entire remote ID thing is a jolt to the thousands of new drone pilots who purchase a drone and go flying in the National Airspace System that afternoon, with zero awareness of regulations, airspace, etc. Go to www.FAA.gov and search for UAS Sighting Report. Amazing how many drones are flying in Class B, C and D airspace. Not quite sure where the Second Amendment fits in . . . I've even had several folks inform me that the FAA is not authorized by the Constitution to write regulations. 🙄 Tim
"As we pilots always say....never miss a chance to tell everyone that you're a pilot."
I'd love to hear what the 2nd amendment has to do with any of this.
@@sps3172 That's the point we were trying to make . . . 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with remote ID. Yet it keeps coming up. A lot. Go figure. Tim
@gordonmckay4523 @joetheairbusguy1813 Now that you mention this, I have seen videos making this comparison. I'm not in favor of these remote ID rulings for LOS flying, but I certainly don't think one can make a valid comparison between one's God given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, and a perceived lack of freedom to play with toy airplanes. I've made comments stating as much on videos trying to make this comparison.
@@George-nt8uw I feel like people have a legitimate right to complain about infringements on their 2A rights because those rights are (supposedly) protected by the constitution. Sadly, there is no such protected 'right' to fly model airplanes. Making comparisons between Remote ID and 2A rights seems to diminish the significance of 2A rights. It seems like you wanted to rant....I hope you got it all off your chest. :)
The CubePilot $39 RID module is not going to be of *any* use to the vast majority of RC hobbyists because they don't have a CubePilot flight controller in their planes or helicopters. Even the most popular type of hobby drone (freestyle/racing quads) dont' run CubePilot FCs. The reason the CubePilot unit is so cheap is because it doesn't have a GPS and relies heavily on other electronics in the model to do the heavy lifting for it. This simply isn't applicable to models flown LOS or which do not have an expensive (Cube) FC and GPS receiver.
We are still waiting for the FAA's $50 stand-alone RID module that can be fitted to *any* model and transferred simply by moving it from model to model.
My point is the cost of RC items is decreasing.
Thank you Bruce, when we get one, please 🙏 let us know.
@TimMcKay56 I bet the cost of a good pistol brace is pretty cheap too.
Comparing apples to oranges never did quite work. Model aircraft pilots (not drones) can only sensibly compare stand alone RID units.
@@grahamsrcmodels9662 What about the raft of RTF fixed-wing craft that often get people into the hobby? They are supposed to have had SRID built into them since last year but I still see Horizon Hobby selling the FMS SuperEZ RTF without any form of RID and it includes transmitter, battery, and airplane in a ready-to-fly configuration. SRID is also supposed to be "a thing" in the model aircraft market but it seems that compliance (so far) is near-zero. Good to see Horizon supporting those who wish not to comply with RID.
Your points regarding being part of the discussions is also a moot one -- because there is now ZERO representation for the hobby on any of the groups or consultative committees created by the FAA to help shape regulation. These groups and committees are now filled solely with commercial operators and corporations such as Google, Amazon, Boeing, etc. How can we (the hobby) be part of the discussion when we are being deliberately sidelined and denied a voice in these committees. The agenda becomes undeniable when the group that represents the single largest users of the 0-400ft airspace is denied any voice on those committees in favour of commercial interests?
AMA is part of government discussions. FRIAs are a perfect example of this. Any Amazon or Google interest in a FRIA? 😊
@@TimMcKay56 Very likely they will be. But the reason to use drones will be to expensive for them anyway. How do I know? Companies are running point to point delivery's in Africa right now. It will be very, very expensive in the U.S. or Europe.
@@tedmoss Precisely, which is why they will need to demonstrate the business case. It might not be there. Tim
100% @xjet
The problem with $39 cubepilot rid module is that it requires an Ardupilot flight controller to use. The stand-alone RID modules appropriate for your basic RC plane or drone cost $200 dollars and up and are too big for small planes and drones. The FAA hasn't approved one FRIA, so is it reasonable to believe they can accommodate the 2000+ AMA sites by Sept 16th, much less educational or other sites? The FAA's latest video on drones and RID is anti recreational flier. So I'm not sure the FAA is implementing this rule in a fair way that will allow us to comply in a way that allows most fliers to actually keep flying.
This guy sounds like he is on the payroll of the FAA to sway our minds.
See my video on why no FRIAs approved yet.
@@TimMcKay56 they have denied clubs their Fria status
@@jeffs7915 Yes, I have heard of this. FRIA denial is a monumental problem. Tim
Yeah, the environmental thing is definitely not the whole story
Tim, you are sadly misinformed as to exactly *why* changes were made to the original NPRM. It wasn't so much the AMA or its members that created the changes. The reason Network RID was replaced (at this time) with broadcast RID is simply because the technology partners who would have to provide the infrastructure (ie: ubiquitous internet coverage) advised the FAA that they could not deliver such services (at this time).
Note that the phrase "at this time" appears many, many times in the narrated final rule for RID and there is very clear intention to implement many of the things that were originally proposed but subsiquently changed -- as soon as the technology allows for it.
Also don't forget that the AMA represents only a *small* percentage of the hobbyists flying drones and RC these days. There are more than 800,000 registered drone/RC flyers in the USA and likely at least another 250,000 unregistered members of the hobby. What is the membership of the AMA again?
The AMA is becoming increasingly irrelevant and they saw an opportunity to increase their relevance and boost members by selling out any real protest for the offer of special privilege in the form of FRIAs. Now they're asking for even greater privilege -- the right to issue their own FRIA status.
Why didn't the AMA take a strong stand to distance the traditional LOS hobby from the DJI drones that have really been the catalyst for these changes? Because they were bought-off by the promise of special favor that would boost their membership. In a recent 50-minute-long livestream from the AMA I heard them mention "donations", "members" and "The Foundation" dozens of times -- but the phrase "the hobby" was mentioned just once. That shows the AMA's true focus these days.
Xjet: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Having spent 7 years in Washington participating in meetings of this nature, the FAA had very little maneuvering room on remote ID due to Congressional direction. Without the AMA we would gave been roadkill. Tim
I have to agree with XJet's points about differentiating types of UAV.. Just for the record, I absolutely love my registered flying club and intend to stay a member for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, model associations, to survive, have to consider themselves a separate entity to the rank and file park fliers. Ironically, the majority of their members started out flying at the park or at home and that is where their new members will continue to be generated. The average age of the members of MAAA in Australia is 61 years. We have a membership problem. The last thing we want is for needless regulation lumping rc models in with gps assisted drones. Hopefully as you say Tim, it will improve with time.
@@Coops777 Changing times for sure. Best approach, I will offer, is not ignore what is going on in Washington with various drone rules. Tim
@TimMcKay56 Nonsense! In 7 years @ DC it never.dawned on you that Congress has no technical competence in Aviation?! Bolstered by hubris and guided by aides in whose ears lobbyists have been whispering sweet nothings, and girded by the fallacy that common sense is quite enough for understanding the complexities of aeronautics rather than the advanced education in numerous subjects that it normally takes, Members of Congress will charge headlong where angels fear to tread, revising or creating new laws that may fix nothing but may make safety and security take a step back. Or two. It's up to those who know to stand up and say something instead of helplessly rolling over and playing dead; so shame on the FAA for not pushing back against the push for RID in model airplanes. But who was whispering "RID" in Congress' ear anyway?
P.S.: From the discussions here, the AMA appears to be grossly out of touch with the operational details of flying models, or had a touch of amnesia at a critical time.
@@petep.2092 I was extremely impressed with the technical (as well as legislative) competence of the various staffers I worked with in Congress. Really, a good group of folks faced with very difficult issues. Tim
My biggest problems with remote ID is and will always be, every person having access to pilot information, and private property use. If there was a provision that pilot details would only be available to FAA and law enforcement and private property could easily be registered and approved as a FRIA. If those provisions could be made and modules get cheap and readily available, I wouldn't have any issues. The world has to move forward and we do too, but we don't have to be pushovers about it either.
I agree with most of this but need to point out that pilot details are excluded from public view already. Karen can get your location but not who you are.
@Markevans36301 thank you for letting me know. I am terrible at understanding legal jargon so I did not fully understand that part of the issue. So again thank you!
😊👍🏻 Tim
@@Markevans36301 That is the problem though, Karen can get your location, so can any thug that wants to kick the sh!t out of you and steal your gear.
Or they can follow you home, with all the dangers that entails.
@@Stambo59 oh I'm aware of that facet as well.
Disagree with your opinion with regards to with electronic ID!
Government is going to far… 😮
Disagreement is fine, all about a healthy democratic debate. But . . . unless you can come up with a better solution, remote ID is here to stay. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 A better solution to a problem that doesn't exist?
I'd need to make a video 3 times the length of yours to explain why it's wrong, why it's not going to hold up in court and give less intrusive solutions that could work even better.
Government overreach has been getting struck down in court often these days. It takes time but it will happen.
@@tenlittleindians Copy!
@@tenlittleindians Unenforceable laws fade away.
@@TimMcKay56 simple solution you don’t need it so you don’t use it! Be realistic…
You’re destroying a hobby, and there has been no justification for safety reasons… you have laws in place.
Let’s be honest no one has a problem with commercially available drones like DJI, and other buy and fly’s, needing to come equipped with remote ID. A hobby built radio controlled experimental aircraft isn’t the same. This isn’t about safety. It’s about security and you know what you have to give up for security. This will never help stop a bad actor. This will simply turn, honest, responsible, hobbyist into violators.
Copy.
YUP!
No, I have the exact same problem with RID being integrated into ready to fly drones for the same reason I have a problem with having to add it to my drone.
I was confronted one time by someone that simply drove past and saw me standing with a remote looking into the sky. They made crazy accusations about me spying on them. I was nowhere near their property and was taking video of a bridge that was being replaced while there were no workers around. The male Karen ultimately threatened me with physical harm. I called 911 on speaker phone and told them that I had an unmanned aircraft in the air that I was trying to safely control, was being threatened, and was prepared to protect myself. They could hear the idiot yelling in the background.
So, why would I want my location to be known by idiots just looking to start trouble? As written, with RID anyone can see my location as well as the location of my drone. Make that information available only to the FAA and police and I might reconsider.
@@trentdowler7443 Yup, there will be interesting days ahead as RID becomes a reality. The areas of law for drone flights under, say, 400 feet AGL and over personal property are still to be worked out, as RC flyers traditionally flew at a more remote club site. Drones, on the other hand, fly everywhere. But, RID in some form is here to stay, will evolve for sure. Tim
Remote ID is just the wrong solution for a problem that just doesn't exist in model aviation.
Spartan: Remote ID is here to stay. Smart pilots learn to adapt. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 FAA don't have the resources to keep themselves squared away. They can't even keep a schedule for flights, customer base doesn't have a kind word to say, and cops are so understaffed they honestly aren't going to be concerned about little Timmy flying his drone in some field somewhere. This only opens the doors for trouble makers being emboldened through use of a government sanctioned app. Shame on you pushing this bs
@@TimMcKay56 just shut and color, right?, pushing back -when the government goes too far is one of the fundamental rights of our Republic, don't take what I'm saying wrong. I like your work, Tim, but I do think the Gov has gone too far here, remote ID should only apply to populated areas only
@@markjannakos503 Well, no one "sat back and colored" on remote ID. I mean, the FAA received 53,000 comments, none of them supporting remote ID. If folks truly have a problem with RID, best to write your member of Congress. FAA just following Congressional orders here. Really. Tim
It indeed may, in some form be a reality. But is it the right approach. Where is the statistical argument for this approach. Where is an open discussion allowing our concerns to be addressed. Two way is communication.
I just checked out this little $39 wonder "CubePilot". Nice, let's see; it doesn't appear to be a standalone box but relies on a link to a flight controller for its brains. So, I guess I am supposed to put a $39 postage stamp paperweight on my DTFB/FliteTest foamie in addition, (if I expect the paperweight to actually work) add a flight controller of unknown $$$$ and weight??? Wow!! What a nice way to kill STEM as if it wasn't hard enough already to get kids into the hobby. The more I see, the more I begin to regret the money I spent for my wife and I to become AMA Lifers and the thousands $$$ more I have spent to promote RC model aviation!
Things will work out.
Your price comparisons over time could be considered somewhat misleading. A better way to look at is that back in the 1980s, a top-tier Apple computer cost around $4K. Today, a top tier Apple computer still costs around $4K. Yes, the newer computer is far more capable but what you're seeing is *not* a reduction in price -- it's an increase in capability.
Likewise, for the Kraft radio (the Cadilac of radios back in the 1970s) cost about as much as modern very high-end radios (such as the Futaba 32MZ which is around $3K just for the transmitter -- so once you add a receiver and high-end servos the price is about the same, if not more). Once again, the capabilities of this modern radio far exceeds the Kraft unit but what we're seeing is an improvement in capabilities, not a reduction in price.
Copy!
I don't fly drones so my RC activities on my 800+ acres won't be altered one bit. My question is who and how is monitoring being done. Remote ID will NEVER stop a dedicated bad actors actions.
Copy!
Just pass a law that ought to do it!
PRECISELY!!! If some dirt bag wants to make an RC cruise missile, do the mental brain trust at the FAA really think that dirt bag is going to put RID on it so they are FAA compliant? If they actually believe that, then I have an outdoor snow ski slope in South Florida I would like to sell them!
Implying in the video that Ukraine installed a RID module on their drones to make them capable of dropping ordnance is a bit misleading. Oh wait, the Ukraine military DID NOT have to install a RID module to drop ordinance. If a bad actor wants to drop something from a drone the last thing that is going to stop them is the need to install a RID module. Now, based on the number of full scale private and commercial airplanes that have been intentionally crashed into buildings, this is where the FAA should be focusing its attention, not a 10 year flying a foam airplane in a farm field. Bad enough the FAA levied a tax to fly a toy airplane, now there is the kick-back to the Federal Government for all the $300+ RID modules that will need to be purchased. The other day I built an airplane using a $2 sheet of foam board, now I have to install a $300 RID module to fly the airplane.
@@midwestairwingrc3547 Apologies for any implication of RID for drones used outside the US, especially in a combat situation. Tim
As others have mentioned, The $39 CubePilot can not perform any RemoteID by itself. It requires a separate flight controller and GPS in order for it to function. Add several hundred dollars and software complexity to the price tag.
😊👍🏻 Tim
Maybe you should update the title of your video. It seems to be misleading at this point in time.
Why does it need a flight controller? The data to be transmitted is: Module ID, Lat/Lon/Altitude, Velocity, Takeoff Lat/Lon/Alt, Time. All those will come from GPS, except the first, which will be in firmware.
@@petep.2092because it probably won’t connect directly to gps but us this module even going to get approved if it pulls data from flight controller … I can see a patch in betaflight / iNAV etc which just disables the GPS info and I can’t see this acting as an immobilisation system… I mean people take off without satellites in betaflight there is a slider to specifically allow this and it is great!!!!
In fact it's worse than that -- if you go look on the FAA's list of approved devices, the Cube ID is not listed. This device, which you can buy today, does not actually have a Declaration of Compliance with the FAA, so it is in fact not compliant. Maybe this will change, it's a matter of paperwork presumably, but as of right now it does not meet the requirements to my understanding.
CubePilot / Pixhawk is a $650 flight controller, this board adds RID functionality and is a not stand alone device.
Roger. My point is the price is coming down.
@@TimMcKay56 Copy. FWIW, about a year ago, ExpressLRS developers showed a working proof of concept RID signal via an elrs rx software update.
@@TimMcKay56 You are comparing Apples and Oranges. I know the price will eventually come down but you cannot make that claim unless you only compare stand-alone units. Do not include RID devices that require other hardware to work as the price is hidden in the other required hardware.
You are incorrect when you say that RID is a step in airspace deconfliction. The FAA has clearly stated that RID is not designed nor intended to deconflict the airspace -- it is solely a way for authorities to associate an operator to a drone when it is flying. You mention "track" many times in respect to RID. The FAA said very unambiguously that RID is *not* a tracking technology, it is simply for LEO to locate and identify the operator of a drone. Now it appears that they have gone back on that statement and their recent video clearly shows that surveilance/tracking has become a part of the plan.
How do you have respect for any regulator that repeatedly lies to those whose compliance they expect?
Xjet: Apologies for the confusion. Thought I was clear . . . RID has no ATC or airspace deconfliction role. Just for LE to know where drone took off, some idea of flight path. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 @11:46 you said _"Remote ID is a foundation for the building block of how the FAA is integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system.... the key thing from the FAA's viewpoint is that there is not a pilot in the cockpit of an unmanned aircraft and so a very fundamental concept of safety called see and avoid can not be implemented so how do you mix drone traffic with everybody else? Remote ID is a step in that direction"_
Yet... RID is not about deconfliction -- so how does that work then? It seemed that you were implying that Remote ID would play a role in deconfliction because of the lack of "see and avoid" with UAS.
@@xjet No worries. UAVs, both big and small, are pretty much a fact of life these days. And by most estimates, this industry will only grow. So the challenge faced by the FAA is how to integrate these unmanned aircraft in a mature ATC environment without the benefit of see and avoid. The only answer, really, is through technology (the airlines have made it crystal clear addition regualated airspace, say various drone corridors, will be fought tooth and nail). So, for a variety of reasons, RID is a first step in this huge effort. RID may well be a complete bust . . . no one knows . . . but for now the FAA wants this implemented and we'll see how it works. As I've said numerous times, all these drone pilots saying they will never comply with RID . . . within three years, as they purchase new drones, they will be compliant by definition. So, a journey of 10,000 steps begins with the first one. And fully agree, RID has nothing to do with airspace deconfliction or ATC control. Tim
@@gordonmckay4523 Here's the problem as I see it...
The FAA keeps talking "integration" but that's exactly the WRONG approach.
If you have craft that lack "see and avoid" you do not want to integrate them, you want to SEGREGATE them for obvious safety reasons.
Up until now there has been little problem with RC models because they've (with only a few exceptions) stuck to the 0-400ft airspace where manned aviation does not usually operate (with only a few exceptions). This has meant that the number of evidenced collisions between manned aircraft and the hobby are a single-digit amount, over many, many years.
The best analogy is that of freeways and sidewalks.
Would anyone be stupid enough to suggest that we do away with sidewalks and try to "integrate" pedestrian traffic into freeway traffic -- reliant solely on the ability for pedestrians and motorists to "see and avoid" each other?
Of course not, that would be ridiculously dangerous.
So why oh why is the FAA seemingly hellbent on creating exactly this situation in the NAS by "integrating" RC/drone traffic instead of segregating it?
Logic and commonsense seem to go out the door when powerful lobbyists start greasing the palms of greedy politicians to change regulations without any consideration of the real risks.
I’m not fully sure the FAA has much of an idea of drone integration in the National Airspace System. That is a super tough challenge, utterly dependent on technology that really does not exist. Rather, RID is the current project. The FAA really needs to know who is doing what in the NAS. Right now, with drones, they do not. As an aside, will never know within a FRIA. It is pretty basic in flying, post 9/11 attacks, that we must know who is flying where. Tim
My main concern with RID is not just the cost of the module itself, it's the potential way it could be hacked or used nefariously!
What happens if someone with bad intentions tracks down your position while you're flying, steals your RC aircraft and gear, then goes on to commit somekind of crime with your RID module that is registered to you!
With that low cost and easy availability what happens when some nefarious person buys a handful of modules and places them around an airport or puts them in balloons filled with helium and releases them in a sensitive security area?
I think there are a lot of security weaknesses the FAA are not considering.
Let's face it a bad actor with nefarious intentions is not going to register or fit an RID module with their details, they're going to look for weaknesses in the system and exploit vulnerabilities.
Sounds like you live in a scary world.
@@TimMcKay56 I think you falsely believe the FAA have the model aviation hobbyists best interest at heart when they want RID on our models?
Unfortunately there are some very bad people out there with nefarious intentions!
I'm just trying to be realistic to the risks and what could go wrong with the system which is all meant to be about increasing 'safety'.
How can you increase the safety of something which is already fundamentally safe.
Model aviation IS the safest form of aviation.
Why do you think ultra light aircraft and paramotors aren't required to be fitted with RID?
Just think about that for a moment.
This has never been about safety for model aircraft, it's about control.
You do realise the next step is a subscription based 'pay to fly', once everyone has swallowed the RID pill.
This 'cheap' additional module you mention, could be the difference between someone being able to just afford to fly in the hobby now but unable to when they have to fit this thing to all their models.
This means RID makes flying models only accessible to those that can afford it, in my view that is discrimination when hobbyists are pushed out of the hobby for financial reasons.
@@pdtech4524 What I’m trying to say is that the FAA has a lot of competing issues they have to deal with on users of the airspace. They are not anti drone. Rather they can and will take action to ensure safety. It is in our interest to follow the very simple rules on remote ID. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 I'm all for increasing the safety of a hobby I enjoy.
Show me the data that says RID is a benefit to safety and explain to us how secure and free from vulnerabilities it is!
It's all well and good saying we've all got to comply because the FAA said so but let's see some balance and reasons why this could be a problem for us in the future ie leading us towards a pay to fly situation or at the very least a subscription based RID system?
@@pdtech4524 Absolute key point is to stay involved and responsible in discussions with the FAA. Ignore these meetings at your peril! 😊🙀 Tim
This is nothing more than a social exercise in 'compliance'. The government doesn't belong in this arena period. Line-of-sight, non-regulated, remote controlled models have NEVER made it into the news as having perpetrated ANY 'catastrophic acts of terror' on U.S. soil in the 45 years I have been designing and flying R.C. models 'safely and responsibly' and almost always within a few miles of a local municipal airport without a manned tower. When I lived in Nashville 25 years ago, somebody touched off a small explosive in an RC model airplane and the only reason I know about it is because my friend owned a hobby shop and a chrome plating facility in the same building. The feds showed up and wanted him to turn over the names of his RC customers from 2 years prior to that date. He told them to go get a court order. They never returned. What does that tell you? The "bad actors" are flying full scale airliners into sky scrapers... while guys like me are designing and building manned ultralights and flying with impunity in states where it's legal to carry concealed firearms... yes even in the air... as long as you 'follow certain rules' . The 'rules' are only made for those who will adhere to them. The rest are referred to as 'outlaws' and 'criminals'. None of this really matters because the BIG "turd in the punchbowl" is the notion that... in less than 7 short years... "YOU will OWN NOTHING... and YOU will LOVE IT". I think we should be turning our concerns to how they are going to "motivate" us into 'relinquishing' our models and full scale airplanes, our homes, workshops, cars, boats, to 'COMPLY' with W.E.F. This is just an exercise in compliance... the creation of a mass social mindset that "compliance" in and of itself... following the rules... should be our only concern.
Remote ID is here to stay. Wise pilots learn to adapt to new situations. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Agreed! With all due respect... Wise 'life forms' in general learn to adapt to new situations, otherwise they become extinct. My dream of becoming a full scale pilot started at my workbench at 10 years old after my self designed, Cox .020 powered free flight model flew much better than expected and vanished into the pine barrens. Something that should enter our minds tho... is the fact that this is definitely going to discourage a lot of would be, up-and-coming 'hobbyists' from becoming full scale pilots. And then there's the diminishing effect of the ideas and technologies that the military and the aviation industry both have been borrowing from us 'little guys' with our silly models that are suddenly posing a threat to arial package delivery industries whose well funded LOBBY is the true driving force behind this ridiculous folly. I guess I should adapt by satisfying my need to fly by piloting package delivery drones... nope, A.I. already has that covered. OK, ok, I'l triple mask myself and stay inside and afraid of BOTH the terrorist AND the federal agencies who seem to be after the same thing... I must add that, to 'adapt' does not necessarily mean by way of conforming. WE must HELP THEM to make these rules ADAPT TO OUR desires and needs AS WELL by pushing back and forcing the policy makers to COMPROMISE with US. But unfortunately WE don't have the bribe money that the lobbyists do. It takes BACKBONE as well. Give them THIS without a fight and they'll come for MORE... and every reader knows this...
fun fact there will be people many many years from now building their own drones from scratch and being remote id noncompliant just having fun flying their drone around without a care in the world.
Copy.
Sadly, the cost is not about the dollars, the cost is the impact to the hobby, which is the catalyst to everything you have become over your years. As you pointed out, commercial pilot, been involved in government, this is nothing to you, and you see it all as clearly justified, which is fine. Getting people started / involved in the hobby, as a HOBBY, means not straining to understand compliance, not reading FAA rules, which was our days of past. It is much easier for kids to plug into Video Games and fly any way they want, not need for FAA/AMA/Club Drama. The red tape is now too deep, changing too much, and will continue to change. The AMA.... Did not have a seat at the table like the big boy manufacturers or lobbyist, and are in a self preservation mode that has not yielded the best results on our behalf. They are out to maintain their club revenue, but honesty rule areas where flying field are fewer and fewer, farther and farther away, the FAA limiting FRIA's numbers, is just going to make it worst. The CubePilot device, like others that are $50 I have seen, need to plug into a controller that has GPS existing, and be compatible pin outs. if I am wrong, please say so. I have around 20 aircraft from foamy to 50CC gas, none of which have any GPS or telemetry, this leaves me unsure $39.95 is the answer. I am also not 100% certain Network RID is done.
My point on the video is that the price point of RC gear is coming down. Which is correct. I’ve been flying RC for 52 years. This is the Golden Age for choice, convenience, etc. Folks truly need to calm down on RID.
@@TimMcKay56 Peoples choice to question the one size fits all rules is their choice and they should. Your 56 years is actually not relevant since the hobby changed and grew from 1 channel pulse to what it is today. I have been around a long time in this as well but support keeping the younger generation engaged, this is their hobby to support after us.. Today is technically different but the people growing in to supporting the hobby, are different as well. RC Gear is cheap, altering government over reach has never always been calm.
I have yet to see anything that would be easily incorporated into a hand launch glider. Many DLG's are just above the 250g limit, extremely sensitive to weight that would be added, and, it's hard enough to fit the normal equipment in to just make them flight ready. Aside from that, full carbon construction would require an external antenna that could also hinder performance. The FAA's requirement for planes like this to have RID shows their lack of care or understanding for the recreational flyer. Hopefully there is some re-evaluating in the future to eliminate some of the "ridiculousness" .
😊👍🏻 Tim
From what I understand, the ID is programmable, what is to stop a bad actor from programming an ID number he got off the phone app into his drone he intends to use nefariously? Oooh.... That is a tough question. The answer is "nothing". Good luck trying to prove it wasn't you. Is AMA insurance going to help with the legal fees? I don't think so.
Copy!
Really appreciate your thoughtful takes on remoteID.
Glad it was helpful!
Um, Tim. This $39 board doesn't have a built-in GPS chip or a GPS antenna. "It is suitable for GPS-equipped drones that are to be flown in the pilot’s visual line of sight."
Fully agree . . . this is more of a first look of what will hopefully work for everyday modelers. Tim
As a newly retired Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor, Instrument Flight Instructor, and Advanced Ground Instructor, and a Part 107 License Holder, I appreciate your comments. If anyone can spend $800 to $3000 (for bundles) they should certainly be able to afford $39 to keep their legacy drones and airplanes flying. Let's hope it gets certified by the FCC and the FAA.
SG: Welcome aboard! Fully agree with your take on safety. I’m very interested in how the Spektrum SkyID system will work out. Tim
I bought my dji phantom 3 about 5 years ago. I have since retired. For me, this remote id stuff has grounded me. I had (have) hopes that a inexpensive standalone module would be available. This $39 module requires me to spend more money that I cannot afford. Just because I bought a $800 plus drone years ago does not mean that I "should be able to afford" it today. As I have already said, my drone is grounded now. Thanks FAA
@@jimb3900 Things will work out for RID. Tim
I don’t want the FAA to know where and when I am flyers. I’m courteous and I never bother the other people in the park.
👍🏻
Sorry. BUT THIS IS WRONG INFORMATION.
THAT UNIT($39.00) IS NOT STAND-ALONE UNIT, IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL GADGET.
Correct. The point I am trying to make is the cost of RC gear is heading down. Which it is. Tim
We have these available as well, but THESE ARE NOT STANDALONE UNITS. They must be used with a compatible Ardupilot flight controller.
Correct!
If the RID module won’t reach my ranch front gate, whom am I broadcasting too? Who is monitoring? Class “G”airspace. Big Brother rarely makes it out this way.
Always enjoy your show. Keep up the great work!
No worries, thanks for checking in!! Tim
There is no connection to anybody at all unless you set up all the links and are in range. If you have cell phone service and connect your "drone" to your cell phone with Bluetooth and have your phone connected to a cell tower, maybe. Why would anyone ever do such a thing? If someone with a working cell phone could receive your Bluetooth signal and had the right software, they could read the I.D.
I still do not understand why your traditional fixed wing RC type aircraft needs to be complaint? No issues in the past so why now. A four prop drone I can understand, makes a good reason to go back to controline and regress technology. I see RID as another case of government intrusion where one size fits all. This is where I see the AMA falling down miserably.
Fixed wing RC may well be exempt at some point. I understand what you are saying . . . it is just a bridge too far with the original start up of RID. Tim
Fixed wing aircraft can still have flight controllers, GPS, cameras and video transmitters installed.
They can easily be built capable of longer flight times and range than the average multirotor.
I have a DJI mini 2 SE that only weigh's 249g under the required 250g so I dont need to register or have the RID as long as I stay within the recreational guidelines. I was watching a video where the host was saying how he didn't think RID would last because it will be to much for the FAA to handle and that it had been delayed already and just wait till people who are angry about this start tossing RID modules next to airports shutting them down for hours till they can find it! but it's nice to know that there is an affordable option if needed Thank you.
Frank: No worries, you have the correct “sight picture “. RID is here to stay, really is not that big of a deal. Tim
Spektrum has introduced their standalone module. It is introductory priced at $69 through Spektrum. It will go up to $99 at some point. It only requires power, either plugging into your receiver, or you could use a small 1S battery attached to it and still be very light and moveable between aircraft. I have no interest in whether you go this route or not, but it seems to be the best solution for a standalone solution right now.
Roger that! I saw the email, just purchased my SkyID. Tim
In about 1970 I bought a USED Kraft 4 ch for $400! A bargain at that time. It is amazing what $400 will buy today in terms of radio systems. However, the cost of airplanes has gone up measurably. Another price REDUCTION in the past few years has been brushless electric motors, speed controls, and lipo batteries! It's still an affordable hobby thank goodness.
Fully agree, thanks for checking in! Tim
I just bought the Cube ID for a Hubsan Zino Pro I have but to my surprise it came with no installation instructions. I don't even know if I can install it on my drone! I tried Cube ID's site but found no detailed info. Can you use this remote module for drones?
By the way, love your instructional videos.
Julio: I do not know anything more on the Cube than the website. Fully agree with you that it is not plug and play. Tim
its junk dude you get what you pay for!
Thanks for taking the time to make this video and try to ease some concerns with Remote ID. I agree the AMA does a lot of behind the scenes work that many do not know about... I believe this is why they started a TH-cam channel to try to reach out and show what they are doing for us. I honestly believe that the Current Chartered AMA sanctioned fields should all be Grandfathered in as FRIA's. Oh the whole Model Aviators have posed little to no threat to the National Airspace System thanks to AMA rules and fields. I feel Remote ID should be more like ADSB where people using the NAS could see them. I think people attacking "Drone operators" is a legit concern as people just assume they are there to spy on them. Lets face facts though, anyone with nefarious intent is not going to add Remote ID to their aircraft and if they do it is not going to give information leading to them. In all seriousness though Law enforcement has little to no training on drones at all. Most over react in many cases I've seen not to say they are bad. I don't see the likelihood of enforcement being very good. If this is in the name of safety ATC, Pilots, Aircraft, and maybe Law enforcement need access to the data Remote ID provides, not John Q Public. The radio you mention sounds interesting. All I remember is Futaba from back in the day. I don't really remember many other options but that was around the time AM radios were being phased out and moving to FM. I've been in and out of the hobby operating many types of RC craft and it has been interesting to see the changes over the years. While I like drones as well I think that is when things started to go down hill for us, probably more so when they started to be sold ready to operate at non-hobby stores as very few had any idea about the rules of the sky set before them and began doing whatever they wanted as they saw fit. Hopefully one day things will get back to the way they used to be or at least moving in that direction again. It's probably wishful thinking though... I think see and avoid could be accomplished with FPV but that seems to be a bad thing for AMA and the FAA...
Great points, thanks for checking in! Tim
Pat 15 FCC certifications is self certified. The FCC never seen this item. Anyone can stick a part 15 sticker on an item and call it good. I built several Digital Transmitters over the years for many companies for alarming and detection for various equipment. The FCC only gets involved when it becomes an issue and the could take years. Also this will cost you a lot more than $39.00 with the associated equipment.
Thanks! Tim
100 percent - this is part of the issue with this initial roll out… I sure hope that the FAA is trying to make RemoteID fail so that they can push back on corporate big wigs and get them to pay to use the air space
Great video Tim. Thankyou for your helpful research and good to hear of an affordable unit. I would have to say (from the information you've presented) the FAA would be crazy not to introduce network Remote ID. If I understand correctly, the reason for Remote ID, apart from law enforcement, is to monitor UAV movements, positions and numbers. Given the short range of Remote ID modules, I cannot see this as being possible with the current system. Without wider connectivity, the FAA will struggle to achieve all its objectives. One answer would be for mobile phones to run background processes and repeat the information and send it to FAA servers to collate the data. Probably not desirable for phone users due to extra data and battery consumption. Ground stations would be a huge and costly exercise without the UAVs sharing a high capacity system with manned aircraft. (ADS-B isn't capable) This should always have been the case to help eliminate any confliction issues. I have always felt that the concept was pushed through too quickly and will not achieve what congress wanted. (A system shared with manned aircraft TCAS would be the most ideal.)
On another note, there is a huge difference in the skill and type of flying required between model aircraft, helicopter, racing drone flying and that of GPS assisted camera drones. (RC models, while being unmanned, fly close to the pilot, share control features, directional control, and situational awareness approaching that of manned aircraft) I stand to be corrected, but believe the bulk of reported FAA security and safety incidents involve GPS stabilized camera drones. We are in the position that these units are now sold with Remote ID already fitted. It would be nice if the FAA finally gave the RC model community, recognition for our distinguished skills and safety record, removing the need for RID on smaller RC model aircraft say, under a few kilos. Given this, it would save them a ton of work, reducing the number of FRIA approvals. Time will tell.
I do think that over time, once the dust settles, we can demonstrate to the FAA that fixed wing RC does not need RID like the drone folks do. Just two different ways to fly. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Fixed wing can still have FPV and are generally capable of much longer flight times and therefore longer range than multirotors.
Many multirotors are flown line of sight without cameras, wings are not a distinction. Neither are cameras or FPV equipment as I could very easily set up a fixed wing aircraft without a camera that is capable of a 30 mile autonomous flight.
Yes great video but there are other implications in the pipeline…. Remote id is not in the current form the end or the final solution to his is just the beginning of a massive step in the wrong direction… at least in the UK there is a push to make the corridor a place for corporate delivery (makes sense for medical time critical delvery … it is tooth paste really critic me to deliver in under 20min?
Maybe a pizza….. it are you willing to put up with the nose of a person in a low altitude evtol…. At least initially the people using these will be in massive mantions so when they arrive home and take off to go out they will not be disturbing neighbours…. It when they land next to your local park or the Sesto that is another matter…. Let’s wait for lower noise systems Bella and improved safety or at least a user pays model for the sky for evtol!!!!
@@flowstate_link Copy!
Lot of good information but the question should be why.
There was no problem that requires remote id they have made the problem and the answer all on there own?
Remote ID has been in the works for several years. RID will evolve but is now here to stay. Tim
The last part of your video (-last few minutes is great) maybe release that as a seperate video - problems with remote id why it is doomed to fail???? Just a thought.. thank you for sharing you really put lots of work into this video and it shows you clearly address many points!!! But RemoteID is the thin part of the wedge being hammered deeper into this air space!!!! Let’s act now and inform the public to the reality that large corporations and their shareholders should not just be given access to the sky’s for free
Thanks for checking in! RID is here to stay . . . if you accept the fact drones are here to stay. US Government objective is to someday integrate drones with manned traffic. Right now they fly is a segregated system. Remote ID is the absolute starting point for something like this. Tim
Thanks so much for this. I hope this relaxes so many fears of the uninformed.
I hope so too!
It is my understanding the the cube ID is just a transmitter with a serial port you still need to know what to transmit.
Copy!
Very happy to finally see modules out for Arupilot and PX4. Price is where it needs to be, insane companies are asking $200 for this crap.
Eric: I am waiting to see what Spektrum comes up with. Their silence is deafening. Tim
This module is meant to be used with an autopilot and not traditional rc aircraft. Something that runs ardupilot or px4 and has serial telemetry ports such as the cube orange.
Copy!
To me the AMA supposed to represent the members and fight for their rights, but they are representing the FAA what a shame.
What?!?
We build our drones too. Those of us who build our own especially tiny whoops and other micro drones will need something really small and light. Especially the racing crowd will need something very small that will run on power from our existing small boards.
Agreed! Tim
That $39 Cube Pilot RID module requires a compatible flight controller. It is not a stand alone unit. Why didn't you mention that?
Agreed, should have made this clearer.
It amazes me that the Industry has had months to prepare and get these into production, but everywhere you go it's out of stock or pre-order blah blah blah. The response time here in my very large mid-west city is 45 minutes to 1 hour and a half for non emergency calls. Enforcement? It's laughable that this idea ever got traction. All those years of flying since 1976 with it makes little sense today.
I agree this is frustrating. Congress ordered the FAA to “do something” and here we are. Per Spektrum, a RID module is harder to make than a six channel receiver with gyro stabilization. GPS is the hard part. My guess is enforcement for recreational flyers will be minimal and the Sept 16 date will be slipped. Tim
Tim, I bought the $39 CubePilot you presented and I can say they are not ready for prime time. The item is not consumer friendly as install instructions or even a basic overview diagram of how this interfaces with your R/C plane or quad are non-existant. Right now its just a waste of money.
Very good, appreciate your input. I do think that affordable remote ID modules will be available some day, just not now with the CubePilot. Tim
According to the CubePilot website this module is applicable to uav that already have gps. While the point about lower cost evolution of electronics is well taken, we aren’t there yet with this module. “Most” non-drone recreational UAVs do not have GPS embedded in there rx.
Gordon: Fully agree. Idea is that electronics there days are by and large affordable. I do think we'll get there with RID modules. Tim
Tim, I too am a retired USAF B-52G/H Instructor Pilot and have flown airline passengers under part 121. I'm impressed with the $39 cost of the remote ID. But wait, what about the cost of the Ardupilot (PIXHAWK) flight system to install in my trainer? I'm guessing it is over $300 plus the cost of my trainer. I'm one of maybe 6 fliers in our 300 member club that has configured Ardupilot. I have never flown a mission using my 450mm quadcopter. Given the specs, it will do a perfect job for the typical BVLOS 'quad'copter pilot. The FAA document you read so eloquently, specifically states "AIRPLANE", yet they and you talk about people flying airplanes in restricted airspace. Wait a minute; the FAA defines an "AIRPLANE" as "Airplane. An engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.". No DJI UAV I have ever seen has wings. No 'UAV' in the FAA 'approved' list has wings! Why is that? Please stop conflating "airplane" with "quad/hex/octo'copters.
That is because a fixed wing RC airplane is generally too hard to fly! Maybe 1 out of a 100,00 people might be able to successfully fly a 6 to 8 minute mission and safely land a RC airplane. I recently trained a 747 Captain and retired USAF AWACS Command Pilot how to fly the E-Flite Apprentice. He has over 15,000 flight hours and no way could he fly the Apprentice without using the SAFE system. This training was LOS training. The FAA is really concerned with the 'Off the Shelf', GPS controlled UAV's that can the same weapons I used to carry and drop on the range; 500 and 750 lb conventional bombs. Well, I highly doubt 100 DJI drones can lift one MK-82, 10 feet in the air. As far as dropping grenades into old rusty tanks, with enough practice, it would be possible. However, in the USA, I haven't seen any road side ammo stands selling grenades. I can't even find a reliable supplier of shotgun primers and powder!
I believe in RID; but blue tooth transmission with a range of 2 miles is ridiculous! My voice will carry farther than that! The threat to the 'target' is the most important issue. What is the 'target'? A car, a police station, a school, an airplane, space station, military fuel storage area, my home, the RC airport, ah..., the electrical grid!!!! What does the FAA's "RISK ASSESSMENT" state the 'target' is? What are they protecting with the implementation of RID? We need to know the answer! Years ago the commercial on TV stated "Where's the beef"? Now the AMA needs a commercial; "What's the target at risk"? RID must be used to notify the party at risk!
Interesting days ahead. 😊 Tim
Aw come on Garry, lets you and me go out and drop some of those 500 lb bombs at the range, it will be fun. My ears are weak from listening to those B-52's though. I ran the electric grid for a while and I don't want anybody to damage it, so we need to put up some drones to watch over it.😁
they tried that in the mid 90s for rc helicopters and planes we beat it by simply saying no . we will beat it again by saying no. i refuse to register my hobby i been building and flying since 1986
Copy!
Thanks for your research on RID. As you stated you fly RC airplanes and RID is here to stay……. The big question that no one is answering is what about the Karen’s and bad actors ? One pilot hurt is one too many !
Agree! I am working a a video ref the future of remote ID. Tim
My Fixed Wing, does not have a Ardupilot flight controller. Only Rx, ESC, Battery and Servos. So this unit will not work. Respectively have to disagree about the AMA, they totaly did not have the Hobbyist back on this one. Unfortunately, it is now too late. Many will be droppping their Subs.
Copy!
Tim, I am a long time RC modeler, AMA member, and private pilot license holder. I'm strictly a fixed wing recreational RC pilot, no interest in "drones" or commercial operations. I appreciate your low key approach to the subject of Remote ID. But, having read the comments to this video, apparently, the broadcast module devices available now are not practical for recreational users. I don't believe hobby manufacturers will be able to meet the broadcast requirement by September, only 2 1/2 months away. I do think the FRIA concept is viable, but, unless the AMA or other CBOs are able to self designate FRIAs, this won't happen by September either. I have my FAA registration and have taken the AMA TRUST course, so, I'm trying to comply with the rules , but, it seems we're in a period of "trial and error" in the implementation of Remote ID. One idea that makes sense to me is to raise the weight limit for exemption from RID to something compatible with the most popular RC trainers...maybe a full kilogram? Also, I have recommended to the AMA that the first year membership dues be cut drastically to encourage new members, especially youth, to join. As you've said, and I agree, the AMA is, by far, the strongest voice we have against the Washington bureaucracy. Keep up the good work with your timely videos.
Ted
Ted: Great inputs, fully agree. The 1 KG weight limit may well happen. Sept 16 is not that far away. There really are no broadcast modules for sale yet. And FRIA approvals should start in mid-July. All in all, I’d grade the FAA a “D” for the time management on this important project. My guess is Sept 16 date will slip, but we will not know until the last moment. 😊🙀 Tim
It makes me sad the way this is rolling out and the way it will effect the hobby. We need to do things that promote the hobby, not put red tape around it. I’ll have no compassion for the FAA when the pilot shortage continues to multiply.
@@stevemartin9498 Copy!
I am a full scale aircraft owner and an RC enthusiast. I do not understand to what this remote module will communicate. My ADS-B in module in my full scale airplane doesn't receive bluetooth. What is the point if I can't see an rc aircraft from my airplane?
Remote ID is for law enforcement and the FAA to have some idea of what drones are operating in the National Airspace System. The RID system transmits a low power signal giving information on the drone lat/long, altitude, some identification and the takeoff location. This information is transmitted only while the drone is flying. Range is generally less than 2 miles. RID has not interface with any ATC traffic control function . . . to have that capability would put the cost of the system completely our of reach for modelers. Tim
Thanks for the update. Leo.
Leo: Good to hear from you! Tim
As of today i dont know of one Fria space, this is pure govt overeach into a educational and enjoyable hobby.
See my video on “Why are no FRIAs approved yet?” There is some obscure environmental impact approval the FAA had to go thru for FRIAs. My guess is we’ll see first approvals mid-July. Tim
There are around 1,800 FRIAs, they are working out just fine. Flew in one this morning.
Hey Tim, do you think there's any chance we might see a Remote ID version 1.1 down the road? The biggest shortcoming, and the burr under a lot of folks saddle blankets, is the fact that the current release gives away the operator's base location to just anyone, as opposed to authorized people like law enforcement with a need-to-know. I think there'd be a lot less push back if they'd just fix that one thing.
Absolutely. I am working on a video for "next steps with remote ID, " with a lot of research on what was contained in the 2018 FAA Authorization Act. This is where remote ID took root for the commercial UAS industry. RID will evolve for sure. I see eventually some sort of national tracking system, that could essentially mask the takeoff location, and allow controllers to at lease know of drone flight activity in their sectors. Lots more to follow, RID is not going away. Tim
@TimMcKay56 You might do a video on what RID does for the pilot. It probably varies, but they do feed back telemetry. I was less against them once I learned that they weren't pure parasites, but could actually provide useful data.
@@kf4293 😊👍🏻 Tim
the whole thing is an expensive pain in the A_s. Im just going to focus my time on my other hobbies, in other words, they rouined it for me, I'm out! I'm my opinion, Remote-id is only going to hurt those who comply, I can just imagine the Gov mixing up my I.d..number with someone else number. who has broken the rules, and wondering how much time and money it will cost me to prove my innocents, how are they going to enforce this realistically? remote-id should only apply to populated areas only!. and most importantly. Pushing back -when the government goes too far is one of the fundamental rights of our Republic,
Remote ID is a sea change in the RC world. I really wish the FAA did a better job rolling this out. Tim
This is a perfect world didn't you know? If a person is operating illegally, he will not have an I.D.
As a hopeful to be approved FRIA airplane club, I would like to know if there is a way to verify a FAA # for a new or renewing member. concerned with a person just writing some numbers down and making up a FAA card.
No idea on what to say for your request. Tim
Hi Tim. Just thought I'd pipe up on this one. First off, thank you for your sensible, rational video. In my opinion, those folks that rant and rave about rid do nothing to help the cause. Again, my opinion. I also feel that the AMA dropped the ball years ago by not seperating the traditional modelers from the drone community. I feel they saw an opportunity to increase the membership, which didn't happen, and grow the organization. And the bank account. Now, however, they are paying the price by having to bow to the FAA in order to get some sort of benefit that they can tell us members they fought so hard to get us. The line should have been drawn in the sand years ago. Again, my opinion. The real problem I see with this is that I don't have a problem putting some sort of device on my airplane. I won't pay $300 or whatever to get it....I'll wait for a less expensive "knockoff". I will not, however, have anything on my transmitter that allows anyone to track where I am, who I am, etc. This is pure bs. Law enforcement? Sure, go ahead. I'm not doing anything wrong so come on out and we'll talk model airplanes. I'm not leaving the hobby anytime soon either.....I'm too stubborn for that, but I just can't see where a lot of the provisions that we will be required to follow are at all necessary to go out and fly a model airplane. It just doesn't make any sense that a person can build an ultralight aircraft, get in it, fly it, crash it, or whatever, and has to do absolutely nothing in order to follow or promote his hobby. Ridiculous. Again, thanks for the sanity.
Joel: I think we are pretty much aligned on this. But, Remote ID is here to stay. The wisest approach is to stay engaged and help shape the outcome. Ultralights keep coming up, and I may do a video on the Part 103 fliers. In a nutshell, the FAA was about ready to come crashing down on the community in the mid-1980s once hobbyists started putting motors on hang gliders. Luckily, the US Hang Gliding Association got with the FAA and they reached an agreement. Various restrictions on Part 103 flight (max weight around 252 lbs, single pilot only, max speed of 55 mph, etc. If the ultralights kept their nose clean (airspace violations), the FAA would let them be. And this is how it is worked today . . . I think Part 103 is two pages long. Tim
Hi Tim. Thanks for the reply. I also believe that rid is here to stay. Like it or not I doubt there's a whole lot we can do about it. Personally I just can't see how its at all legal that your transmitter must be broadcasting where you're at and who you are. I might not be correct about that. I guess we'll see how this all turns out, but who is going to be responsible when a young kid gets accosted and his equipment is taken, or worse, he or she is taken. Opens up an entirely different situation that did not exist before rid. Just something to think about. I'm not worried about it as I live in a rural small town where pretty much everybody knows everybody else. I'm just that goofy guy that plays accordion for a living, drives around in a hearse, and flies model airplanes. Time will tell what actually happens with all this, and thanks again for the discussion.
@@joelzwerk4162 Joel, RID will work out. Really. Complete overreaction by a lot of drone pilots. Also, your transmitter does not broadcast RID info. Rather, that is a system in the drone/RC plane that transmit this information for around 0.9 of a mile . . . not that far. Tim
@@joelzwerk4162 How does the TX broadcast anything when the Bluetooth RID is in the plane? Its not impossible, but I doubt it is what is happening. I have an FCC 2nd class license and am an amateur WA7VQR. My guess is it is broadcasting where it took off from and an ID number, but you can block the location from all but law enforcement.
Not sure if a part 107 pilot should need to have remote id on their 60 gram tiny whoop it is not going to bring down a manned aircraft even if it was flying above the tree line
Agree. This is why what is going on now with RID is simply a first step. Huge technical changes and improvements head, need to keep in the loop with the FAA. Tim
Here to stay like FCC rules and regulations for CB radio.
Copy!
Thanks Tim for the RID info. I looked at Cube Pilot's page and found the information daunting. It might not be useful for me. I have an off the shelf drone. The controller is not going to work with this system. I thought I would only need to provide power, not so. It is a module after all.
FRIAs will do nothing for me as I consider my drone a camera and I only use it to for photographs. I'll keep watching your channel in hopes you find a stand alone RID. I doubt I will be buying a new drone in the near future, prices are out of my reach.
Fully agree. We need a "plug and play" RID module, not here yet. My bet for one of the first will be Spektrum, but we will have to wait and see. Tim
Tim, so I've been searching and found that Dronetag DRI "also" lacks documentation needed to tie it into a drones electronics. It is likely anything "but" plug and play, and I can find no other modules out there suitable for installation inline into a drones electronics at this time. I do hope "something" is released soon as I am not interested in the size "or" cost of the stand alone module types like the Dronetag Mini or the Dronetag Beacon Direct. If you see anything on the horizon I'm sure you'll let us know. Thanks, John..
John: Will do! Tim
Is it a problem that the RID transmits on 2.4G and most receivers also work on 2.4?
Should not be. 2.4 GHz transmitters do some technical magic during binding to only connect and work with the binded receiver. Tim
RID boils down to compliance.
You said you're a commercial pilot so I'm sure you're aware that there are many different manned aircraft that are not registered (no N number) or have ADS- that provides location to other aircraft. Those of us flying under Part 103 with no N number cannot even obtain use of ADS-B. Yet, as a UAS pilot we're expected to comply with RID? Makes no sense.
I have zero Part 103 flying experience, but it seems you folks by and large know where to can and cannot fly. I do not see too many Class B airspace violations by the Part 103 crowd. Not so much with drones. We literally have hundredes of thousands of drone pilots flying everywhere in the National Airspace System with zero training, something had to be done to at least know where these folks are located. Hence RID. RID is here to stay, will evolve over time. Tim
Let's be honest, the "bad guy" that would drop a hand grenade from a drone is NOT going to fly with or register his RID. Period.
Well, hard to say. 100% of drones being sold today are RID compliant. While I am by no means a drone expert, these RID systems are embedded in the drone software architecture. It is going to be a bit tough to somehow turn it off. Of course bad guys are, by definition, bad guys. Some will find a way. But this is a start in the larger problem of knowing who is flying where in the National Airspace System. Tim
it is not $39. That thing doesn't even have GPS on it. You're talking like several hundred dollars at least to build a ship that has ardupilot
Point was price point coming down. Tim
I understand where you are coming from but I dissagree about the "Combat Operations Concern" because if you were going to use a drone to drop a bomb or use it for any other nefarious act you would definitely make sure you are using Remote ID and that your name and location is Accurate.. It's kinda like saying "make drugs illegal then nobody will do drugs." Overall great video it was very informative.
Thanks for checking in! Security is a huge concern from any USG agency working drone issues. Interesting days ahead!! Tim
EXCELLENT !! Well Done. A solid, rational, explanation.
Buddy: Many thanks! Tim
Hi Tim, I enjoy your channel - found it by your Guillow's RC conversions! My current project is the 16" Spitfire, framed and ready for RC installation RFID is here to stay. Working for a National Laboratory, I can attest to this staying with us. The only reason we have this issue, is because certain people with "drones" thought flying near Fullsize Aircraft and over the neighbors fence was "cool"! Wow. Great idea. Modeling has been with me since ~1962, and is very important to me - this episode has been tough for me to watch. I will be purchasing my RFID unit in the next few minutes... Thank for you excellent channel, and wisdom of our craft. =Eflyer7=
Thanks for checking in . . . I am sure we'll all get through this OK. Tim
Also, best of luck with the 16" Guillow Spitfire. That is a small model to convert!! Tim
I have a feeling this is a huge waste of time. It’s likely going to end in mass none compliance. The ATF is learning that now with all the firearm cases they keep losing. We can’t regulate every single thing in this country. I don’t think it will stand
RID will stand as it is a requirement for integrated operations of manned and unmanned aircraft. The first iterations of RID for recreational flyers may not work, and FAA likely does not have resources to pursue. But RID is here to stay. Tim
How are you going to implement RID on that plane on the bench? Since you are on TH-cam you must be 107 right?
Correct.
@TimMcKay56 so if Frias ever come into existence, would flying there supercede your 107 requirements to put a separate RID module on each piece of equipment that goes up in the air large or small?
If the FAA decides to pull a fast one... or slow one? And they just never approve any FRIA locations, do you have a plan B? They have now established that they can shift the guidelines ever so slightly with no consequences. I expect nothing less from our government.
@@stevenwebb3007 FRIAs can be used only for recreational flights, not Part 107.
@@stevenwebb3007 I am pretty sure that FRIAs are for recreational flight only . . . Part 107 operations are not "allowed" in a FRIA. I think. Tim
I'm not in the US but I follow this closely, as it is likely to proliferate. I'd take issue on a few remote ID points:
10g isn't nothing, nor is the size. On a 250g craft that is 4%, that type of variation in my experience is noticeable if performance flying is what you are into. On a lighter craft it is more noticeable.
OK, you will say, but you don't need remote ID on anything smaller. Trouble is, the recreational / educational exemption is so tightly drawn that a lot of sub 250g flying is going to be outside the exemption, whether the flyer realises it or not.
Therefore, technically if I fly my 25g AUW FPV whoop in a way that gets outside the exemption, I would need remote ID. Personally, I think that is ridiculous, and it wouldn't fly in any meaningful sense anyway.
Secondly, I wonder if the 250g limit will last or get reduced as more flyers dive underneath it - it's a fairly arbitrary limit. Time will show.
Swapping modules. These things are very fiddly at the best of times. I often take several craft out to fly, and I'm not going to try swapping boards in and out in the field. In fact the nature of the wiring and connector types tend to mean continually swapping parts leads to unreliability. So, probably in practice one module is not really on. Unless of course one designs a robust interface designed for repeated changes - more weight.
The craft has a very sensitive 2.4Ghz receiver on board. This adds a 2.4g transmitter maximised for range. OK, Bluetooth is spread spectrum as is the Rx with different hopping patterns, but band separation, bleed over and side band generation isn't perfect, so I think it remains to be seen if the remote ID module compromises Rx range.
$39 isn't nothing - and others seem to be more. Typically craft I build would be $100-130 in US terms (I do it on a budget). That is a substantial proportion.
There is the information transmitted. I do not want my doings broadcast to all and sundry, especially someone who can see where I am standing. I don't do anything illegal, but I just don't want that, it's about freedom. It is also now very likely from their recent video that even without networking the FAA are going to build a database of movements and operations.
Finally, I believe the way it is actually worded, FPV is not actually allowed with broadcast remote ID, it has to be standard, ie craft manufactured and tamperproof from an FAA audited organisation. They have said this is not the intention, but as far as I am aware, so far they have neither changed this wording nor put anything out in writing to clarify the intent of the existing wording. It may come, of course, but to me it says something about their mindset in all this.
Acceptance or not probably depends on your starting point. You seem to come from the commercial airline industry where all this regulation and control is embedded - no doubt with good reason in most cases. Hobbyists probably don't, I don't. The way I see it is that I fly small craft at close range very low, always below the treeline or roof line. I do not see what right the regulator has to interfere in that (right, not power). I hit golf balls much higher than I fly. So, as far as I can see, all this stuff is acceptable in some form once you get outside an envelope of range, height, weight and size, but within that envelope - usually known as shielded operations - these regulations do not have a place.
You may be right it is here to stay, there may be no move to shielded operations, it may proliferate over here, but if that is so, that will be me done. Pity, but there it is.
Remote ID is here to stay . . . there is so much more work going on in the background regarding RID I almost feel sorry for the drone hobbyist pilot. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 from your wording "... almost feel sorry ..." I therefore assume that you do actually support the FAA in their introduction of remote ID and other similar incursions into the FPV hobby.
@@edcbabc Absolutely. It's quite simple: Pilots should follow FAA regulations when flying. Tim
@@gordonmckay4523 I didn't actually ask about following regulations, I asked if you supported the FAA in their current introduction of remote ID and the way it affects FPV hobbyists. But I assume from your answer you do support the FAA, unless it is that you believe FPV hobbyists should just passively just accept what they are doing, regardless?
I'm not buying or COMPLYING using anything that is not 100% self contained including a battery, so it is an RFID backpack.
Copy!
I agree that Remote ID makes sense and is here to stay. The complaint I have with the FAA is that they feel they have the authority to regulate all airspace in the US starting at the ground level. This is not consistent with their Congressional authorization and several SCOTUS rulings. The problem is they have an army of lawyers that are paid by our tax dollars that make it very expensive to challenge this view in court.
Remote ID is here to stay. 😁 Tim
@@TimMcKay56 I agree. I (and others) think the FAA has overreached their authority by seeking to regulate the airspace above private land and I think that will likely not be settled for years. For now, the only choice you have is to follow the rules or be willing to spend the $$$ to take the issue through the courts. Also, I think some in the FAA probably know that the current SCOTUS would likely rule against them so I suspect they will try to avoid any conflicts that might result in a precedent that they would not like.
@@connecticutaggie We’ll see. I do think if you have hundreds of local governments setting airspace rules it will be chaos, but we’ll see. 😊 Tim
I would love to comply. I just don't see how that's supposed to happen.
I currently see zero appropriate products (FAA approved) for my models and there are 2 FRIAs in my entire state and the AMA Headquarters in Muncie ISN'T one of them!
All of that being said, after Sept 16th I will not "just fly anyway" because I remember my 9-11 laws. I know what "enemy combatant" means. I'm not about to be labeled a terrorist for playing with my toys.
Steve: I appreciate your approach to this issue. The real missing piece is a viable remote ID module for recreational flyers. Recreational flyers need just one module, they can switch between airplanes. I will do a video later today (Aug 4) of a very new and exciting development, the Spektrum SkyID remote ID module. Tim
Ah, come on. AMA’s input didn’t accomplish squat for models.
Not even close. 😊🌝🤔 Tim
The FAA RID doesn't impact me, the only way I could legally fly is if I had a permit per scheduled flight.
Permits range in price from $350 to $700 per day of flying and permit days cannot be changed in the event of inclement weather.
In the US it seems that you will very soon be in a very similar position.
Unmanned Aircraft and Manned Aircraft are seperated by roughly 100 feet in the US, and by distances from landing spots.
Unmanned Aircraft have been around for decades almost, my grandfather flew RC planes and gliders for many years.
Also remember that Ultralight Aircraft have much less regulation surrounding them, and they kill people, this has nothing to do with safety.
Also the fact that anyone can see the pilot position is concerning if you are alone and flying or if a kid is flying.
These flights won't be tracked "For now." that means that they will require it in the future,
I foresee that criminals will absolutely use this as a way of enabling their criminal acts.
Also criminals will now just build a kit drone or plane without RID to do their criminal acts anyway., I don't think this RID is fit for the purpose they proclaim it to be.
Copy!
I still think this whole thing is blown out of proportion.Nobody has ever been hurt or killed as a result of model flying and models were never used by terrists to kill people.
Seriously? Google "Ukraine drone attacks" and you might, perhaps, get a different viewpoint. Quite interesting videos. Tim
In 2013 a NY man was killed when his helicopter chopped off the top of his head. That's just one of many. Do a Google search. RID will do nothing to prevent accidents, though.
@@lamarw7757 Very sorry to hear of any decapitation. RID is not a safety feature per se, rather a means to start and know what unmanned aircraft is flying where in the National Airspace System. RID is being driven by the commercial UAS industry, now at $29B. Their goad is fully integrated flight operations with manned aircraft. RID is foundational to this. Tim
FAA is charged with regulating aviation. They are given a new class of aircraft to regulate and what do you expect them to do, but regulate the new class using the model they employed for older classes. To a man with a hammer everything looks a little like a nail!
Do take a look at my most recent video of how the FAA regulated ultralights. Exactly the situation you describe for us. Tim
Seems like for this module to work your module will also need a compatible gps module additional cost and complexity…. Also two months from requirements to use in USA and it is not yet approved.
I agree things will get less expensive… but personally I am not a fan of government overreach…. But more importantly in the long term evtol and delivery is gaining access to the sky… these companies profiting should not be pushing the externalities to hobbyists they should absorb the cost and I would even argue that in order to fly above a property below a certain height these mega corps should be paying people to be in that air space. The evtol should be paying everyone they fly over … for inflicting danger and noise pollution… if you don’t want evtol overhead you should be able to opt out and not have payment but also you should not have anyone flying close to your property at these low altitudes… not in manned aircraft for sure!!!!
The user pays for roads when did my backyard or park become a free for all? I would like to have the mega corps like Amazon who have a lot of power over government be charged for using the sky… and anyone wealthy enough to have an evtol can surely pay 💰 for flying over the road to the council or over a property to the owner just like KM’s for trucks which run on dies in and which are heavy causing additional road wear.
The FAA needs to push back and tell these companies that to use the sky you are going to need to pay.
I am fine with jumbo jets way up high which you can not hear but anyone who lives or whom has lived next to a rail road / busy highway or an airpor knows exactly what this means for property value people are not keen on having all this happening unless there is some sort of compensation and I know the local cities could do with a cash boat as anaxon workers are replaced with robots and delivery trucks and trains are deploying drones for last mile drop off
Let's see . . . . Fees for use of airspace. That fight has been going on forever with general aviation ($10 per ILS approach, etc.). Hopefully we do not get to that point with drones. Tim
Why not just put RID inside the battery packs since everything uses a pack it's always on your craft and needs power supply to work
Or, as everyone uses a receiver, make all receivers RID compliant. We may get there some day. Tim
Hi Tim. I'm still watching from the UK, hoping for a reasonable solution to this issue as I'm sure the US system will become the blueprint for elsewhere. Thanks for trying to add some facts and reason to the RID debate. Couple of questions or concerns you might have ideas on with your wider aviation knowledge: (1) What's the requirements for small "manned" private aircraft to have a transponder? It seems like most do here (in UK) as they don't always show up on aircraft tracking apps. That would seem to be a bit of a double standard if everyone's required to put an RID transmitter into their model!? I've recently witnessed both fixed wing and helicopters flying low over model flying areas whilst models were in the air. I know we're supposed to get out of the way but wonder how low flying is supposed to be 'policed' if the manned aircraft cannot be identified!? (2) Our airwaves are becoming ever more congested with radio signals for our transmitters and receivers to screen out. Particularly near populated areas. Lately it's the introduction of 5G mobile networks but WiFi and Bluetooth transmissions are also ever more present around us. Due to legislation, we also have reduced power output on our transmitters in Europe and UK. Is there not an increased chance of control signals to the receiver getting swamped, having another (RID) signal generator actually inside our models? Would welcome any relevant facts and thoughts you can offer. Thanks. 👋
Andrew: Greetings from across the pond! All your points are spot on. Both the airways and electronic spectrum are getting more and more crowded. And as you point out, even the recent introduction of 5G cell phone towers caused huge interference issues with airliner radar (or radio) antennas, needed for Cat II and III approaches. So private aircraft are not required to install as transponder. But most do, as you will not be allowed to fly into a LOT of airspace without a transponder. And they really do not cost that much and are very easy to use. As for aircraft flying over an RC field, this is the old dilemma of flying in uncontrolled airspace. See and be seen, as imperfect as that may be. I really think we need to wait a bit and see how things really shake out after Sept 16, when a lot of folks will be flying with RID. As this is a whole new program, there is a lot than others do not know. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Thanks for the fast response Tim. Agree that this is such a seismic shift we'll be sorting out the consequences for some time to come. Wasn't aware of the issue between 5G and Airliner radar. There's actually serious speculation at my local model club currently about additional instances of interference since 5G masts were installed close by last year. We're now trying to collect data on instances for possible investigation +/or resolution by the Telecoms regulator. 🤞🤞Not ideal when you're learning to fly!
@@andrewfairweather1340 We’ll get there. 😊 Tim
If the module is just to identify the pilot I guess the system is workable, but if it has to identify the plane/drone as well then how will it be swappable without reprogramming with that new information ?
It is done via the FAA DroneZone website, where you enter RID information and your aircraft description. I have a video on this.
This will become a bit clearer after the Sept 16, 2023 start date. Tim
An add-on RID module transmits the ID of the module, which becomes the ID of the drone it is attached to at the time. A drone with built-in RID transmits the drone's ID. The registration of the module and/or drone at the FAA's website is where the owner's identity is linked to the drone.
@@petep.2092 😊👍🏻 Tim
Will the RID module have to be programmed to broadcast my UAS certificate number?
No idea of specifics.
Thanks....! I ordred one. I hope it comes with instructions and helpful hints on how to program, etc.
Good luck! Tim
So my $50 Berkley Super Aerotrol single channel TX and RX in 1952 would be $500 today. Not including batteries and tuning meter. The 1929 Philadelphia Storage Battery Company TRF that I had was bought 2 weeks before the crash for $650 and in today's money would cost $11,051.Did you actually try the cube-id? It seems not to be a stand-alone unit but needs an ardupilot controlled drone to operate plus some software manipulation. That would not be compatible with a standard model airplane. It will cost me $50 not $39 just for this module which will not be a complete system.
Yup, this is a good time to fly RC. Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Any time is a good time to fly.😁
Thank you for your rational commentary. The majority of the youtube vids I've seen are insultingly inaccurate, spouting absolute rubbish, and perhaps more interestingly, the vast majority of them have just started appearing within the last month. Where have they been for the past couple of years? Is ignorance bliss? I've been flying drones with remote-id in Class "D" airspace for months, and where I fly and when I fly haven't changed at all. I'm still getting making the same Laanc requests. I have a couple of "mature drones" which I'll have to address with a beacon, but so be it.
Craig: Great observations, thanks for checking in! Tim
So how is the module going g to work with that ultra micro 3 Chanel receiver you showed flying on a 200ma single cell?
Well under 250 grams. No registration or RID required.
@@TimMcKay56 Unless you are part 107 certified, then it is.
From what I have researched, if you are making ANY income from you flying you should be 107.
This includes monetised videos on YT.
@@Stambo59 Correct. Tim
How many RID modules have your purchased and intend to use ?
I have no RID modules myself. Planning on my AMA field to get FRIA status. Tim
@@TimMcKay56good luck with that
@@TimMcKay56 That will most likely happen with conditions , but there are things in the works that will make that even an issue soon enough from what I am hearing
It wasn't because there were more pilots. Or more drones in the air.
No. I think it's because now the average citizen can now easily, very easily and economically fly around and photograph or video those Civil Servants or governmental employees and they don't like that.
😊👍🏻 Tim
You don't need one, save yourself 39$ the FAA is out of control.
FAA out of control? 😳 Tim
@@TimMcKay56 Accountable to no one and have ruined the model flying hobby because someone said they saw a drone over Gatwick or Heathrow! (never proved) Never did a risk assessment and now control every aspect of my hobby, which I have been following for the last 75 years. That's out of control, there's no one controlling the FAA or CAA.
@@FrancisWeston-m3h Scary world!
Its too bad that the Cube isnt stand alone. I live on a SS income and do only fixed wing so I guess I will be priced out of the hobby as I live in a small town and the closest club field is an hour and a half away.
I truly believe prices will come down. Plz hang in there!! 😊 Tim
Is this compatible with FS receivers?
No idea, apologies. Tim
Nice to see some reasonably priced modules showing up. Oh, and I spent $600 on my World Engines Expert 5 channel TX and RX in the '70's.
😊👍🏻 Tim
I am not sure if the comparison of remote ID modules with desktop computers is a good one. First of all, desktop computers significantly increased productivity and had a huge impact on our personal lives and the world in almost every way. That will not be the case with remote ID modules. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that the item would be relatively unpopular even if it was free. Secondly, prices plummet singificantly when there is either competition among producers of the item or siginifcant growth of the customer base. Both applied to desktop computers and other electronic communication devices. There certainly will be some competition between manufacturers of RID modules for a while. I doubt however that there will be a significant growth of the customer base regarding stand-alone RID modules. Those who feel they need to buy one, will buy one. But there will not be unmanned aircraft system in every home and pocket. Thirdly, if an item is required there is little incentive to drop prices. Fourthly, technological progress can result in various improvements. However, if an RID module I can purchase in the next few months is small and light enough, can easily move from plane to plane, can survive crashes, and FAA regulations stay the same, ... why would I buy another one in 3 years? Or a second one? Personally, I won't mind installing a durable RID module in the ~$40 range that fits in my small airplanes and that they can carry easily. I hope you are correct with your predictions. As you often say, let's wait and see.
Agree!!
I get the feeling that remote id may be here to stay…. But I can’t see it working in the current form… the spoofing and general approach is way to flaky and insecure
Also it is a privacy nightmare with the level of publicly accessible information… are you feeling confident that in these desperate times some people with guns are not going to show up and take you and your friends gear??? It makes do little sense for this information to be made public…. I mean from the perspective of child safety to adult safety. Personally I would rather not have a gun or knife fight over some gear…. But it is just a matter of time before this happens unless you fly inside a secure bunker like the hero’s who work in the US military
Agree, RID is here to stay. This first generation will have a lot of flaws, will be follow on systems for sure. Tim
Happy that these are coming in reasonably priced and not too heavy. I will not be risking getting fined or worse for $39.00. Cheers
You and me both!
Its going to cost you much more than $39.
The justification for remote ID and security. Supposed problem is interference with Maned aircraft or someone doing spy surveillance or dropping bombs. Anyone intent on either one of those illegal behavior is not going to fly something with remote ID. My flying my fixed-wing aircraft in the local park or school yard isn't going to endanger anyone nor risk National security.
Copy.
… but it might bump into a pizza delivery drone. I suspect that s partly the driver of the need for the ID. The 0.9 mile bluetooth transmission radius makes no sense for violator tracking or intrusion detection… you'd need a bluetooth antenna grid with 1.8 mile spacing! But a drone-to-drone TCAS would only need a signal from traffic that could be a collision risk, say within a mile radius…