Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

DoJ Issues Guidance for Counter Drone in US

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

DoJ Issues Guidance for Counter Drone in US

Old 05-14-2020, 02:12 PM
  #101  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jcmors View Post
So maybe I'm over simplifying things here but, in many, if not most, sensitive areas where a threat would need to be detected, RID or not, restrictions on the airspace should be enough. For example, there shouldn't be ANY drones (properly RID equipped or otherwise) flying over an NFL stadium during a sports event there. Likewise around electric power plants, dams, prisons, airports etc. I would think that for the high risk locations, RID really wouldn't be much of a determining factor one way or the other. NO sUAS should be flying there, so any UAS flying in these areas need to be dealt with appropriately.
The Malicious Use of Drones section is only 20 pages long. I don't know why anyone would comment on it
without reading it first.

Old 05-14-2020, 02:13 PM
  #102  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,140
Received 154 Likes on 132 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
You're down to a nickel and dime argument. The app will be paid for with subscription fees. The 10-year present
value of subscriptions is $192M to $242M. Those 8 USS providers are developing the app based on that.

Again, remote ID allows a drone operating legitimately to be quickly eliminated as a threat using just a smart phone.
This is what you're trying to second-guess (Senior Vice President for Security for the NFL),

"Some drones can travel at more than 100 miles per hour, so we might only have three to five minutes to react and
disable the drone. We have hundreds of thousands of people in all these open areas and heavy queue lines. There is
no protective measure I can take in just a few minutes. For example, would it make sense to open all the doors and
pull people inside the stadium? That might just scare people and cause a stampede.

Even disseminating word about the threat to all of the police and security people would be impossible in three to five
minutes. We had dozens of police departments involved, 25 different federal law enforcement agencies, and 6,000
private security guards from four different companies. How are we going to communicate that weíve got a threat arriving
in three to five minutes? There were four different radio systems with 14 to 16 different radio channels being used at any
given time. We had 13 different command centers operating at the Super Bowl, so which command center gets the word?"

LOL, the drone that will create the scenario he describes WILL NOT have RID.
Old 05-14-2020, 02:23 PM
  #103  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
LOL, the drone that will create the scenario he describes WILL NOT have RID.
Obviously. That's the point of ruling out the others. What part of that don't you get?

*** It's a "she".
Old 05-14-2020, 02:33 PM
  #104  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,140
Received 154 Likes on 132 Posts
Default

There are already laws in place to keep UAS away from sports events, concerts etc. A UAS with RID is not going to be a threat to the degree the she implies, a UAS without RID will go unnoticed until too late. It's the same argument as gun control.
Old 05-14-2020, 04:43 PM
  #105  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
There are already laws in place to keep UAS away from sports events, concerts etc.
And they're working so well right? They continue to be a problem despite the "law in place".

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
A UAS with RID is not going to be a threat to the degree the she implies,
Now wait a minute. Haven't some argued in opposition to RemoteID because of fear that someone might "steal" their ID and use it for harm? In that case, the threat in question WOULD have RemoteID. It would just be someone else's.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
... a UAS without RID will go unnoticed until too late. It's the same argument as gun control.
Hence the effort to move every sUAS flying to eventually have RemoteID, one of the key reasons the FRIAs are planned to be temporary. Simply put, if you can't fly anywhere w/o RemoteID, it'll speed adoption.
Old 05-14-2020, 05:01 PM
  #106  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,140
Received 154 Likes on 132 Posts
Default

The bad players will circumvent RID, just like they do gun registration. Another " let's put up speed limit signs do nobody will exceed the speed limit " LOL. All this is nothing more then regulating one of the country's safest outdoor activity ( traditional LOS ) so the uninformed general public feels safe.
Old 05-14-2020, 05:35 PM
  #107  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
The bad players will circumvent RID, just like they do gun registration. Another " let's put up speed limit signs do nobody will exceed the speed limit " LOL. All this is nothing more then regulating one of the country's safest outdoor activity ( traditional LOS ) so the uninformed general public feels safe.
You're missing the whole point about remote ID and public safety. You're also off-base saying remote ID is just so the
uninformed general public feels safe. Remote ID is part of the mandate to bring in drones into the national airspace
system. The high profile drone incidents in the interim are the reason various government agencies are now heavily
involved, but remote ID was coming regardless.
Old 05-14-2020, 07:14 PM
  #108  
R_Strowe
Senior Member
 
R_Strowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Vermont
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
Obviously. That's the point of ruling out the others. What part of that don't you get?

*** It's a "she".
Of course that is what RID is for. I knew that 2 1/2 years ago when the FAA began the latest push for RID.

The pushback from most modelers is not specifically about RID per se; What is really at issue is that, if enacted in it's unchanged form, it will relegate us to flying piss-poor, store bought toys. I personally have something north of $15 grand iinvested in my R/C stuff, and none of it is obsolete. And with the exception of RID (which will render it ALL obsolete), it would be completely, safely flyable for decades. But the DOJ, DOD, FAA, DHS completely disregarded the fact that long-time modelers have substantial investments in equipment, yet chose to design an RID system that is unusable for those modelers.

If the FAA would allow the development of an RID system, that could be retrofitted to current models, and did not have a cellular/wifi requirement, the pushback would be greatly reduced. The problem with many arguments (such as from the NFL) is that the NFL doesn't play it's games out in rural America (with a lack of cellular/wifi coverage); they play in urban centers. So explain to me why we are to be stuck with a system that only allows one to fly in essentially an urban center (where the problem exists), while this system will not allow one to fly in rural settings (where the problem is non-existent).

R_Strowe
Old 05-14-2020, 09:48 PM
  #109  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,292
Received 63 Likes on 54 Posts
Default

because they want to be able to "watch" you...
Old 05-15-2020, 03:35 AM
  #110  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,255
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
The bad players will circumvent RID, just like they do gun registration. Another " let's put up speed limit signs do nobody will exceed the speed limit " LOL. All this is nothing more then regulating one of the country's safest outdoor activity ( traditional LOS ) so the uninformed general public feels safe.
Originally Posted by mongo View Post
because they want to be able to "watch" you...

Yep , sometimes I agree with Franklin , and sometimes I don't . And this is one of those "DON'T !" times . There is no good reason why we should not be able to retrofit existing models with remote ID , Those of us who DO fly legally would have no problem doing that , and as Speedy so correctly points out , the terrorist ain't gonna be sending any signals from HIS drone unless they are fake "friendly drone" signals .

Feel good legislation , pure and simple , and will do NOTHING to stop the next "911" type attack (Those terrorists didn't follow too many laws in their endeavor , now did they ?????)

And now , where in the Hell is Dennis Propworn , Mr. "minions" himself , to see that not everything Franklin says here is automatically accepted as model airplane gospel
Old 05-15-2020, 05:10 AM
  #111  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,394
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
And now , where in the Hell is Dennis Propworn , Mr. "minions" himself , to see that not everything Franklin says here is automatically accepted as model airplane gospel
We are all pretty much on the same page at this point so there's really no "pot" to stir to work us "minions" into a frenzy. Granted, we are still talking semantics when we do disagree but we aren't really arguing about the AMA's success or failure anymore as we all know what the results of that are. All that said, IF we start hammering each other on the AMA's results, you can be sure the "worm" will return and with a vengeance
Old 05-15-2020, 05:29 AM
  #112  
scottrc
 
scottrc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: A TREE, KS
Posts: 2,811
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe View Post
Of course that is what RID is for. I knew that 2 1/2 years ago when the FAA began the latest push for RID.

The pushback from most modelers is not specifically about RID per se; What is really at issue is that, if enacted in it's unchanged form, it will relegate us to flying piss-poor, store bought toys. I personally have something north of $15 grand iinvested in my R/C stuff, and none of it is obsolete. And with the exception of RID (which will render it ALL obsolete), it would be completely, safely flyable for decades. But the DOJ, DOD, FAA, DHS completely disregarded the fact that long-time modelers have substantial investments in equipment, yet chose to design an RID system that is unusable for those modelers.

If the FAA would allow the development of an RID system, that could be retrofitted to current models, and did not have a cellular/wifi requirement, the pushback would be greatly reduced. The problem with many arguments (such as from the NFL) is that the NFL doesn't play it's games out in rural America (with a lack of cellular/wifi coverage); they play in urban centers. So explain to me why we are to be stuck with a system that only allows one to fly in essentially an urban center (where the problem exists), while this system will not allow one to fly in rural settings (where the problem is non-existent).

R_Strowe
Exactly the point, the problem is not me having to equipe my plane with RID, I can do that with a small TX, its the stupid regulation concerning point of manufacturing. Meaning that all UAVs must be from a certified manufacturer and any older models flying will be phased out of the system within three years.

What BS. I have a scale P51 I have been flying for 27 years and was kit built. Under the new regulation, I will not be able to fly it three years after the regulation goes into effect. PERIOD! Unless of coarse I got through Manufacturing Certification.

Then the crap about the FAA designating RC areas for us to fly our traditional models, yet then phasing them out by not premiting renewals?

Its a move to phase out anything that will allow us to be innovative.

And where is the AMA in all this? Not supporting the traditional modeler! The have their head so far into the UAV and Educational rear end of the spectrum that they fell right into the FAA web of entanglement and RC modeling is getting screwed.

EAA is doing a lot more than the AMA to push our case to the FAA, because they feel we tradional RC modelers are getting a bad rap, and are concerned that if the FAA gets their way and forces RC modeling into being obsolete, then they will do it for homebuilt and GA as well.

Scott
Old 05-15-2020, 06:09 AM
  #113  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,394
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

I would hit the "LIKE" button on Scott's post, if there were one
Old 05-15-2020, 06:41 AM
  #114  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Yep , sometimes I agree with Franklin , and sometimes I don't . And this is one of those "DON'T !" times . There is no good reason why we should not be able to retrofit existing models with remote ID , Those of us who DO fly legally would have no problem doing that , and as Speedy so correctly points out , the terrorist ain't gonna be sending any signals from HIS drone unless they are fake "friendly drone" signals .

Feel good legislation , pure and simple , and will do NOTHING to stop the next "911" type attack (Those terrorists didn't follow too many laws in their endeavor , now did they ?????)

And now , where in the Hell is Dennis Propworn , Mr. "minions" himself , to see that not everything Franklin says here is automatically accepted as model airplane gospel
Agree 100% that it isn't the concept of RID in and of itself that we all disagree with. A retrofit RID solution would be much more acceptable. Perhaps (extremely wishful thinking here and I don't actually believe this is the case) the FAA proposed draconian pre-built models and measures that will kill the hobby so that when they adjust things and allow some sort of retrofit solution we will all breath a sigh of relief and accept it much more widely! Maybe? Could be? Probably not but...?

Last edited by jcmors; 05-15-2020 at 06:44 AM.
Old 05-15-2020, 06:43 AM
  #115  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
I would hit the "LIKE" button on Scott's post, if there were one
Indeed, so would I!
Old 05-15-2020, 07:13 AM
  #116  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post

Feel good legislation , pure and simple , and will do NOTHING to stop the next "911" type attack (Those terrorists didn't follow too many laws in their endeavor , now did they ?????)
Remote ID is not "feel good legislation" it's part of the mandate (2016) for integrating drones into the national airspace.
National sercurity agencies became more involved because of high profile drone incidentst like the drone assassination
attempt in Venezuela in August, 2018.

Mainly, though, it's because drone flyers are basically idiots. There were 77 no-fly drone incursions at the Super Bowl this
year and 74 last year:

"If youíve never been to a Super Bowl, itís more than just the game itself. Itís 10 days of events in about 26 different
venues. On game day, there was an entire team of people to mitigate any drones that came into the airspace. We
had the ability to track drones up to 50 miles out, and on game day our no-fly zone was 30 miles out. And they could
mitigate a threat within a one-mile to three-mile radius.

There were 74 drones observed in the days leading up to the Super Bowl. They were running after drones constantly.
There were 10 drones observed on game day, and in fact the Blue Angels flyove was disrupted by a drone. The Blue
Angels actually had to elevate their altitude because of a drone."

Remote ID will at least allow security officials to focus on actual threats:

"This will help the law enforcement agents distinguish drones properly registered under Remote ID as belonging to
hobbyists from drones that are potential threats operated by criminals. If a drone approaches the event without this
automatic identification system, it will alert the agents that the drone is not registered, which can be considered a
factor in determining whether the drone constitutes a threat."




Old 05-15-2020, 07:54 AM
  #117  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
Remote ID is not "feel good legislation" it's part of the mandate (2016) for integrating drones into the national airspace.
National sercurity agencies became more involved because of high profile drone incidentst like the drone assassination
attempt in Venezuela in August, 2018.

Mainly, though, it's because drone flyers are basically idiots. There were 77 no-fly drone incursions at the Super Bowl this
year and 74 last year:

"If youíve never been to a Super Bowl, itís more than just the game itself. Itís 10 days of events in about 26 different
venues. On game day, there was an entire team of people to mitigate any drones that came into the airspace. We
had the ability to track drones up to 50 miles out, and on game day our no-fly zone was 30 miles out. And they could
mitigate a threat within a one-mile to three-mile radius.

There were 74 drones observed in the days leading up to the Super Bowl. They were running after drones constantly.
There were 10 drones observed on game day, and in fact the Blue Angels flyove was disrupted by a drone. The Blue
Angels actually had to elevate their altitude because of a drone."

Remote ID will at least allow security officials to focus on actual threats:

"This will help the law enforcement agents distinguish drones properly registered under Remote ID as belonging to
hobbyists from drones that are potential threats operated by criminals. If a drone approaches the event without this
automatic identification system, it will alert the agents that the drone is not registered, which can be considered a
factor in determining whether the drone constitutes a threat."
ECHO, understood about the use of RID as one of the factors used to determine a drone as being a potential threat. In the case however of drones at the Super Bowl. There should be NO drones flying at Super Bowl activities, therefor, RID equipped, or not, ANY drone flying within the 1 to 3 mile distance is unauthorized to be there and should be dealt with accordingly. In this case, RID or not shouldn't even be a factor in determining that there is a problem. Once RID is in effect, even an RID equipped drone is not legally allowed to be flying over the superbowl, or over a fire or emergency situation or.... many other sensitive areas where sUAS flight is not allowed.
Old 05-15-2020, 08:55 AM
  #118  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,394
Received 125 Likes on 119 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jcmors View Post
ECHO, understood about the use of RID as one of the factors used to determine a drone as being a potential threat. In the case however of drones at the Super Bowl. There should be NO drones flying at Super Bowl activities, therefor, RID equipped, or not, ANY drone flying within the 1 to 3 mile distance is unauthorized to be there and should be dealt with accordingly. In this case, RID or not shouldn't even be a factor in determining that there is a problem. Once RID is in effect, even an RID equipped drone is not legally allowed to be flying over the superbowl, or over a fire or emergency situation or.... many other sensitive areas where sUAS flight is not allowed.
True, but a RID equipped drone would tell the local LEOs who's drone it is and where to go to arrest the person that flew/allowed the drone to fly in the restricted airspace, that is unless the address is "counterfeited" and that would lead to a whole other can of worms
Old 05-15-2020, 09:08 AM
  #119  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
True, but a RID equipped drone would tell the local LEOs who's drone it is and where to go to arrest the person that flew/allowed the drone to fly in the restricted airspace, that is unless the address is "counterfeited" and that would lead to a whole other can of worms
Very true, good point Hydro.
Old 05-15-2020, 10:38 AM
  #120  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,244
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

I think we are going to find out very quickly after the RID system is implemented that many modelers will defeat it especially by people with ill intent. IMO the
FAA has things backwards instead of trying to keep track of all models in the sky they should only require RID to operate in certain locations or near
sensitive area like power plants or stadiums.

Last edited by ira d; 05-15-2020 at 10:47 AM. Reason: Add content
Old 05-15-2020, 10:54 AM
  #121  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jcmors View Post
ECHO, understood about the use of RID as one of the factors used to determine a drone as being a potential threat. In the case however of drones at the Super Bowl. There should be NO drones flying at Super Bowl activities, therefor, RID equipped, or not, ANY drone flying within the 1 to 3 mile distance is unauthorized to be there and should be dealt with accordingly. In this case, RID or not shouldn't even be a factor in determining that there is a problem. Once RID is in effect, even an RID equipped drone is not legally allowed to be flying over the superbowl, or over a fire or emergency situation or.... many other sensitive areas where sUAS flight is not allowed.
I think you ansered your own question. Once RID is in effect a drone flyer would know if their drone was equiped
with remote ID they'd get caught, meaning fewer nusiance drones the authorities have to worry about.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about RID narrowing the actual threats security officials have to worry about.
It's the consensus of top security experts that RID is critically important for that very reason, to identify the non-threats.
Old 05-15-2020, 01:30 PM
  #122  
R_Strowe
Senior Member
 
R_Strowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Vermont
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24 View Post
I think you ansered your own question. Once RID is in effect a drone flyer would know if their drone was equiped
with remote ID they'd get caught, meaning fewer nusiance drones the authorities have to worry about.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about RID narrowing the actual threats security officials have to worry about.
It's the consensus of top security experts that RID is critically important for that very reason, to identify the non-threats.
Itís not about understanding why RID is needed, it is more about how the NPRM states that RID needs to be a complete system, and that retrofitting of existing systems will not be allowed. Additionally, requiring either cellular or wifi is a non-starter, as many safe, rural flying sites are not covered.

R_Strowe
Old 05-15-2020, 02:02 PM
  #123  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe View Post
Itís not about understanding why RID is needed, it is more about how the NPRM states that RID needs to be a complete system, and that retrofitting of existing systems will not be allowed. Additionally, requiring either cellular or wifi is a non-starter, as many safe, rural flying sites are not covered.

R_Strowe
Exactly this! So without being able to retro-fit an RID device on existing models or amateur built aircraft, what happens to those who buy these completely built RID enabled packages after a crash (not that I would even be interested in buying one to begin with)? I have had instances where my model heli or plane needed repairs to the extent that it was very nearly a complete re-kit. I don't get the impression that we would be allowed to rebuild a model around the RID unit afterwards. So these will be what? Disposable? You buy the complete RID equipped model as an entire unit and if something happens you just throw it away and buy another complete package?
Old 05-15-2020, 02:06 PM
  #124  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,140
Received 154 Likes on 132 Posts
Default

Echo, I think the root of our disagreement is that you think RID will,be a deterrent whereas I do not. Keep in mind that the same government that think we need RID is the same that thought stricter gun laws was going to reduce the number of shootings in Chicago, and the same that want to budget millions of dollars toward RID while Flint Mi. still has undrinkable water. Those 8 companies currently developing RID, who is funding that? I don't see them self funding as developing apps for just 1M perspective coustomers does not make much financial sense. With that said, off to the flying field I go.
Old 05-15-2020, 03:56 PM
  #125  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Echo, I think the root of our disagreement is that you think RID will,be a deterrent whereas I do not. Keep in mind that the same government that think we need RID is the same that thought stricter gun laws was going to reduce the number of shootings in Chicago, and the same that want to budget millions of dollars toward RID while Flint Mi. still has undrinkable water. Those 8 companies currently developing RID, who is funding that? I don't see them self funding as developing apps for just 1M perspective coustomers does not make much financial sense. With that said, off to the flying field I go.
It's not me that who thinks remote ID will be a deterent, it's the nation's top security officials. Your dissagreement is with
their expert opinion. And it's not a deterent per se for secrity officials. For the umteenth time, it's to identify non-threats.

It's the FAA who sees remote ID as a deterent:

"Unmanned aircraft operators who know they cannot easily be identified are more likely to engage in
careless, reckless, or dangerous behavior because they believe they will not be caught.

Your gun analogy might work if guns had remote ID. They don't.

Last edited by ECHO24; 05-15-2020 at 04:05 PM.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.