360Photography

Government officials are looking to add more than a simple license plate to UAVs.

It’s been an eventful week for the drone industry. One topic that dominated keynotes, seminars, and conversations at AUVSI’s annual XPONENTIAL conference was the urgency for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to finalize the remote identification of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

This past Monday, the same day XPONENTIAL kicked off in Chicago, two senators, Edward Markey, a Democrat, and John Thune, a Republican, urged U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to take action. ‘Remote identification will enhance safety, security, and privacy, and serve as a critical tool for law enforcement to respond to and address reports of illegal and unauthorized drone operations,’ the senators said in a letter to Chao.

Chao started proposing rules in January that will increasingly incorporate drones into the National Airspace Systems (NAS) including the ability for commercial remote pilots to fly over populated areas. However, the FAA noted that these measures cannot be implemented ‘without a remote identification rule in place.’

What is Remote ID?

Remote ID, in its simplest form, is the concept that drones should have a digital license plate. Unlike a plate on an automobile, a string of letters and numbers attached to a drone cannot be identified from the ground. Instead, there will be an electronic system that verifies the location and operator while it is airborne.

As sales of unmanned aerial vehicles are expected to increase rapidly over the next few years, this system needs to be in place to ensure transparency and responsibility. Remote ID, when implemented properly, will allow complex operations, including flights beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS), to be performed by enterprises and commercial remote pilots at scale.

A long, arduous journey in the making

At a Monday afternoon AUVSI panel, DJI’s Vice President of Policy & Legal Affairs, Brendan Schulman, acknowledged that he and fellow panel member Mark Aitken had spent a summer on the Remote ID Rulemaking Aviation committee. The resulting papers were submitted at AUVSI XPONENTIAL two years ago and ‘we still don’t have a proposed Remote ID rule,’ says Schulman.

‘Some of us at DJI believe this is an important solution to accountability, safety, security, as well as local laws like policy laws.’ Schulman went on to state that it will help hold people accountable when something bad happens. He also acknowledged that DJI has a huge stake in the outcome for Remote ID. The company has already proven the effectiveness of tracking drones in sensitive areas with its own AeroScope system.

Now, there really isn’t a viable excuse for any further delays as the group acknowledged that the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 gives the agency five years of predictable funding. Prior to the bill, there were numerous extensions filed, when funds ran short, that would halt progress on examining safety and security issues. ‘Imagine running a company and not knowing if you were going to be funded the next couple of weeks,’ said the Alliance for Drone Innovation’s Jenny Rosenberg.

PrecisionHawk’s Senior Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Diana Cooper, explained Remote ID and shared her stance to a standing-room-only crowd. ‘Remote ID is like an electronic license plate. We’re already used to driving around on roads and having some sort of an identifier. I think it’s absolutely reasonable for operators across the board to have a similar license-type plate system for enforcement and compliance.’

‘Remote ID is like an electronic license plate. We’re already used to driving around on roads and having some sort of an identifier. I think it’s absolutely reasonable for operators across the board to have a similar license-type plate system for enforcement and compliance.’

Cooper also delved into the history of how the FAA was formed. Initially there were two airspace regulators, civilian and military. The consequences included mid-air collisions that only ceased when the two branches merged. If two couldn’t effectively make airspace safe, 3,000 counties attempting to enforce their own regulations will result in further stagnation for growth in the commercial drone industry.

A business cannot thrive if it has to address a separate set of safety and compliance regulations across every city it plans to operate. There are too many costs to take if they have to deal with various rules, knowledge tests, and restrictions across counties. Remote ID needs a uniform policy to work. Rosenberg summed up the conundrum with one statement: ‘do we want our Air Traffic Controllers to be focused on their job, or do we want them to start being trained security professionals?’

‘One thing that I’ve noticed is that the relationship between policy outcomes and public sentiment is very close,’ said Schulman in the hopes that there will be more interest in commenting on a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Remote ID. He was not too pleased that a small fraction of certified remote pilots left remarks on two recent NPRMs.

When it comes to making Remote ID a success, it needs to be easy, simple, and low to no-cost. Otherwise the interest won’t be there and the system will ultimately fail. Some issues Schulman wants the public to think about and address when the time comes: what is this going to cost? For recreational users being pulled into the regulatory environment with the passing of Section 349, how can they be responsible? More than cost and complexity, the issue of privacy is also at stake. Where will flight information be stored and who is allowed access?

It’s time for execution

Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)