ADS-B for RC models

[Jim]

AGENCY:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).


ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking.


SUMMARY:
This action would require the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems. The remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems in the airspace of the United States would address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft into the airspace of the United States while also enabling greater operational capabilities.


https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...rcraft-systems


https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...WnhwYXNpIn0%3D

[6PapaWhiskey]

This rulemaking is NOT about ADS-B - note the following text quoted from the NPRM:

"ii. Prohibition Against the Use of ADS-B Out and Transponders
The proposed rule also prohibits use of ADS-B Out and transponders for UAS operations under 14 CFR part 107 and part 91 unless otherwise authorized by the FAA. The FAA is concerned that the potential proliferation of ADS-B Out transmitters on UAS may negatively affect the safe operation of manned aircraft in the airspace of the United States. The projected numbers of UAS operations have the potential to saturate available ADS-B frequencies, affecting ADS-B capabilities for manned aircraft and potentially blinding ADS-B ground receivers. The FAA is therefore proposing that UAS operators, with limited exceptions, be prohibited from using ADS-B Out or transponders. The prohibition against the use of ADS-B Out and transponders is discussed in Section XVI of this preamble."

"X.B. Prohibition From Using ADS-B To Satisfy Remote Identification Requirements
The FAA proposes to prohibit the use of ADS-B Out to meet remote identification requirements in this rule. The FAA determined that both the ADS-B message elements and the infrastructure required to receive the ADS-B message elements are incompatible with the current need for remote identification at lower altitudes. ADS-B does not provide information regarding the location of a UAS control station. Thus, it would not advance the FAA's need to associate a control station with the actual unmanned aircraft it controls. Further, because ADS-B receivers do not provide sufficient low altitude coverage, ADS-B Out would not align well with the FAA's vision for the development of UTM. Finally, the FAA determined that the use of ADS-B Out by UAS would generate undue signal saturation and would create an overall safety hazard for manned aircraft due to the potentially high numbers of UAS which may be operating in the airspace at any given time. For these reasons, the FAA is proposing in § 89.125 to prohibit ADS-B Out equipment from being used to comply with the remote identification requirements of part 89."

There is more similar language in the NPRM prohibiting the use of transponders and ADS-B to satisfy the remote ID requirements for UAS. There are a number of technical reasons for this prohibition, some of which are cited in the NPRM. On of the most significant issues is frequency spectrum use. The frequencies used by ADS-B are protected by US and international laws for aircraft surveillance use and don't have the capacity to include the millions of UAS's that will be affected by this rulemaking.

Bottom line - relatively few UAS's already have ADS-B due to the airspace in which they operate (e.g. Class A) and the requirement for ATC to provide separation services. This new remote ID requirement cannot be satisfied by ADS-B. Further, widespread use of ADS-B by UAS's would overwhelm the ADS-B system.

Tom P.
Wagabond @ 08A

[Jim]

Hi,

You're right of course, it's a scaled version of a new location reporting equipment requirement that will be soon forced on modelers.

https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...g-Requirements

......"The rule would require most UAS, no matter whether they are “drones” or traditional model aircraft, to carry equipment that identifies the device and broadcasts its location. Additionally, many would be required to be equipped with “geofencing” systems that autonomously contain the craft within a defined altitude and lateral boundary."

[6PapaWhiskey]

One of the key features of this NPRM is the requirement to provide the location of the UAS ground control station. Given recent UAS airspace incursions and incidents, it's easy to understand the desire for this requirement. But, it is only a NPRM at this point and has to go through the public review/comment process before a final rule can be adopted. There are a number of alphabet groups that will weigh in on this - groups that represent Amazon and others that are pushing UAS package delivery and other missions that require access to more airspace. Whatever the final rule turns out to be, you can bet it will be designed to have minimum impact on the present ATC system and manned aircraft.

Tom P.
Wagabond @ 08A

[Jim]

Hi again,

I didn't post this as a threat to any "real aircraft" pilots. This was meant to make aware those that also dabble in other than full scale aviation. There are less than thirty days left in the public comment period to make your thoughts known to your representatives. The EAA is asking for our support for their efforts in containing another airspace grab by the controlling government branch. If it's not hurting, I guess it shouldn't be concerning to some lines of thought.

[TexasTailwheel]

You really ought to comment against this. There are a bunch of reasons why this proposed rule-making is bad, and if it goes through, don't be surprised when Pipers are next whether or not they are near the airspace classes.

[TexasTailwheel]

Hi,

You're right of course, it's a scaled version of a new location reporting equipment requirement that will be soon forced on modelers.

https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...g-Requirements

......"The rule would require most UAS, no matter whether they are “drones” or traditional model aircraft, to carry equipment that identifies the device and broadcasts its location. Additionally, many would be required to be equipped with “geofencing” systems that autonomously contain the craft within a defined altitude and lateral boundary."

As an aerial photographer and a pilot there are a LOT of problems with this proposed rulemaking. For one, it makes it to where if you cannot connect to the internet, you'd basically be grounded. Personally, I don't see the majority of drone operators on say some river bank in Alaska flying at 50 feet taking photos of their Beaver (Like some AOPA aviation photographers do) to be a threat to much of anyone. It IS a threat, if next thing you know, you can't go fly your Cub unless you give the FAA a proposed takeoff time, route of flight, and duration and are in trouble if you don't have internet connectivity, too.

[Jeff J]

The only proven threat is the people flying beyond line of sight and flying into areas they shouldn’t. Something needs to be done about them (I don’t know what) but traditional hobbyists should be left alone. We have flown for decades without causing any significant problems.

[Jim]

Hi,

Can you imagine needing to notify the FAA you'll be operating your model aircraft today?

Only two weeks remain in the comment period.

https://eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publica...d0FlWlwvIn0%3D

[dgapilot]

With this nonsense for models, ADSB for all aircraft can’t be far away. Sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk