FAA Transponders?

[Power_Broker]

I just heard on a robotics podcast that the FAA is/has implemented some sort of a UAV/RC transponder rule. Does anyone here know of this rule and where one can buy such transponder? I tried a quick google and oddly came up empty

 

[churchjw]

I just heard on a robotics podcast that the FAA is/has implemented some sort of a UAV/RC transponder rule. Does anyone here know of this rule and where one can buy such transponder? I tried a quick google and oddly came up empty

There is the new Remote ID regs beginning to be implemented (part 89)
We do not need to get broadcast modules until September of 2023.
manufactures just got specs last month so there really is not a commercial option yet.
There are two versions and an option to not need one in specially designated areas.
Here is link to FAA’s summary: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/remote_id

 

[skymaster]

I got one question . if i am flying on a designated area do i still need this Id tag and why?

 

[tamuct01]

It's a gigantic cluster-bleep because the clock has run out on the FAA's rulemaking. This stuff is supposed to be ready for general consumption and we have very few commercial products approved by the FAA for Standard Remote ID. Some of the products on the list don't meet the stipulations in the rules (see Xjet's video on the DJI Avata). The FAA has yet to release specifics on 1) how to become a CBO and 2) how to register a site to be a FRIA.

It's all messed up and it's fine if you want to try to play by the FAA's rules, but I foresee near massive non-compliance with any of this because the FAA has made it near-impossible to comply. This is an example of more rules that make criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens.

 

[churchjw]

I got one question . if i am flying on a designated area do i still need this Id tag and why?

If you are flying at a FRIA (designated area) you do not need any additional equipment/broadcast module.
why? That is what the new rules say. The designated area (or FRIA) will be marked by FAA as airspace special for RC aircraft (or some such designation for all aviation people to know where it is)

 

[Captain Video]

With the addition of the local constabularies, I would till follow those rediculous rules as suggestions. The local cops have better things to do but if you make a nuisance of yourself they can make an example of you. Take the test, id your plane and the local cops won't typically bother you unless you are being stupid. The township cops where I fly in Westerville Ohio like to watch me and my sons fly.

 

[FoamyDM]

The Aviation RC Noob Podcast has episodses 17, 29, 41, 44, 56 on this subject, (likely one this weekend on the latest deadline)
Also Quadcopter youtubers tend to be up on it. as mentioned already Xjet, and Joshua Bardwell's weekly FPVnews update with ItsBlunty.
The deadline for manufacturing will not be enforced through December 16th 2022.

 

[Piotrsko]

Right now I am wondering what's going to show up on approach screens when the local amazon starts flying their stuff a hundred at a time

 

[Power_Broker]

Oh my gosh. I just read the current transponder design requirements on the FAA's website and, as an electrical engineer specializing in UAV avionics, they have 0 clue what they're doing.... Unless they fix their requirements, either nobody will be able to produce a working product (as per the requirements) or the entire system will simply not work.

 

[Piotrsko]

Unless the equipment has really trick software to weed out odd stuff, it's going to be like looking at fog. KEDW had tours at LA approach and you saw Trucks on The freeway driving along

 

[Power_Broker]

You know, I think I misunderstood where the FAA is coming from here. I was assuming this remote ID stuff was supposed to work like ADS-B so that rc planes/quadcopters can do collision avoidance, but I think the real intent is different. I think they want to be able to find a downed rc vehicle (while it's still running?), connect to it, find the owner, etc.

In that case, it probably will work, but I also think it's a huge missed opportunity. With a few more requirements, you could "build-in" the ability for planes and quadcopters to do collision avoidance AND to allow cops to pull remote IDs at much longer ranges (possibly when the rc plane/copter is still in flight).

Oh well...

 

[FishbonesAir]

You know, I think I misunderstood where the FAA is coming from here. I was assuming this remote ID stuff was supposed to work like ADS-B so that rc planes/quadcopters can do collision avoidance, but I think the real intent is different. I think they want to be able to find a downed rc vehicle (while it's still running?), connect to it, find the owner, etc.

In that case, it probably will work, but I also think it's a huge missed opportunity. With a few more requirements, you could "build-in" the ability for planes and quadcopters to do collision avoidance AND to allow cops to pull remote IDs at much longer ranges (possibly when the rc plane/copter is still in flight).

Oh well...

Yup. They want to know where the drone is, and even more so, where the operators are, so that they can come arrest them if that drone wanders into airspace where the FAA doesn't want it. See also the Seahawks/Falcons game this past Sunday. They're under the delusion that everyone will just register their stuff because "We're the FAA, and we told you too!"

Legit hobbyists like us will, but the clown that was flying over that game? I think not. The FAA won't even have this half-baked rule completely out of the oven and cooled before hackers will be publishing ways to circumvent the "baked in" Remote ID - mark my words.
No, I am NOT promoting, encouraging or condoning such behavior, I'm simply stating a fact.

This "better mousetrap" the FAA came up with looks an awful lot like a piece of two by four, propped up by a stick to me... and they forgot the string to pull out the stick.

 

[Foam Folder]

It's a gigantic cluster-bleep because the clock has run out on the FAA's rulemaking. This stuff is supposed to be ready for general consumption and we have very few commercial products approved by the FAA for Standard Remote ID. Some of the products on the list don't meet the stipulations in the rules (see Xjet's video on the DJI Avata). The FAA has yet to release specifics on 1) how to become a CBO and 2) how to register a site to be a FRIA.

It's all messed up and it's fine if you want to try to play by the FAA's rules, but I foresee near massive non-compliance with any of this because the FAA has made it near-impossible to comply. This is an example of more rules that make criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens.

Simple solution, Phone FAA give location,---------taking off------------turning------------turning again--------------ask permission to loop---------repeat----------landing----------- signing off!!!!!!!!!!!!! Repeat-----repeat--------more repeat!!!!

 

[Piotrsko]

Have you ever called a tower? I have, needed to get clearance and it's a real pain even if they do answer the phone. Sometimes they ignore you over the radio.

I can't speculate what they are actually attempting to do but it has the concept for mismanaged over control

 

[FoamyDM]

If you are flying at a FRIA (designated area) you do not need any additional equipment/broadcast module.
why? That is what the new rules say. The designated area (or FRIA) will be marked by FAA as airspace special for RC aircraft (or some such designation for all aviation people to know where it is)

Is it still and 400' radius sphere? That was how it was originally stated, in the 420+ page rule set (mostly responses) I could find the FRIA boundary conditions. do you know exactly where I can find it?

 

[FoamyDM]

You know, I think I misunderstood where the FAA is coming from here. I was assuming this remote ID stuff was supposed to work like ADS-B so that rc planes/quadcopters can do collision avoidance, but I think the real intent is different. I think they want to be able to find a downed rc vehicle (while it's still running?), connect to it, find the owner, etc.

In that case, it probably will work, but I also think it's a huge missed opportunity. With a few more requirements, you could "build-in" the ability for planes and quadcopters to do collision avoidance AND to allow cops to pull remote IDs at much longer ranges (possibly when the rc plane/copter is still in flight).

Oh well...

The intent is to locally ID where the UAV and pilot are. (forced culpability?) Regarding missed opportunity, you aren't the first person to suggest it, and many of us are thinking it.

 

[Taildragger]

I don't want to self incriminate but in such rural areas as I live in what if I just don't comply. What if I want to fly on MY private property? My flying field is far enough away from roads that I'm pretty sure a cop driving by wouldn't even be in range of a transponder.
Just some scattered thoughts.

 

[bisco]

firstly, i don't think local cops are going to have any knowledge of these rules.

secondly, i don't think the faa is going to be anywhere except airports and sensitive locations.

 

[churchjw]

Is it still and 400' radius sphere? That was how it was originally stated, in the 420+ page rule set (mostly responses) I could find the FRIA boundary conditions. do you know exactly where I can find it?

What I could decipher from final rule and draft advisory circular 91-57C. Is that the application process will ask the CBO/requester for boundary lat/long that defines the requested designated area, GIS files are preferable(from draft circular).
from final rule:

“5) the physical address of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area; (6) the location of the FAA-recognized identification area in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator”

Draft circular states request will require lat/long of boundary of proposed area
But understand your question will only be answered once the FAA releases the advisory circular. That is what we are waiting for.

Sources
Final rule: page 187ff paragraph D

Draft advisory circular 91-57c. Paragraph 3.5.4. Page 3-10 (or page 18 of entire document)
https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/AC_91-57C_Coord_Copy.pdf

Understand my post and knowledge/interest does not equal support/agreement with the new rules. Just stating what is known to best of my ability.
And I might have spent some time in aviation safety/failure investigations in a previous life😏

 

[FoamyDM]

What I could decipher from final rule and draft advisory circular 91-57C. Is that the application process will ask the CBO/requester for boundary lat/long that defines the requested designated area, GIS files are preferable(from draft circular).
from final rule:

“5) the physical address of the proposed FAA-recognized identification area; (6) the location of the FAA-recognized identification area in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator”

Draft circular states request will require lat/long of boundary of proposed area
But understand your question will only be answered once the FAA releases the advisory circular. That is what we are waiting for.

Sources
Final rule: page 187ff paragraph D

Draft advisory circular 91-57c. Paragraph 3.5.4. Page 3-10 (or page 18 of entire document)
https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/08/AC_91-57C_Coord_Copy.pdf

Understand my post and knowledge/interest does not equal support/agreement with the new rules. Just stating what is known to best of my ability.
And I might have spent some time in aviation safety/failure investigations in a previous life😏

Excellent! Thank you for the Concise reply. That is helpful. Seems like some 233 flying locations have already been inserted.
per page 1-1 of linke AC above. - 8. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Facility Map: https://udds-faa.opendata.arcgis.com/.