Welcome to SkydioPilots.com
Sign up and join the discussion!
Sign up

Remote ID and Skydio 2 - should we worry?

Correct, FRIA zones aren’t the 400‘ sphere... my hast on small phone screen and 2 fingers not typing as fast as thoughts. The limited ID is 400’ sphere, and FRIA is containment zone with 400’ ceiling. In my opinion, the FRIA zones and Limited ID are both useless, I paid little attention to either... why bother, why purchase a pricy drone to buzz around a containment of airspace.

Actually the ADS-B isn’t part of the Remote ID, they don’t want the broadcasting of ADS-B. Our Mavic 2 series don’t meet standards for even limited ID, their controller isn’t broadcasting on internet. Currently all DJI platforms, excluding new models yet to be made will be restricted to the FRIA zone; That includes the Skydio S2 and other crafts as well. If it was ADS-B transponder, that would be an easy add-on mod for practically any older drone... 3rd party would be on that in a heartbeat.

i do hope to see modifications to the regulations and/or add-on mod products that meet the regulations that can be installed on older drones. I do see the ability to more easily meet limited ID requirement since that’s more focused on the controller... or tablet attached & interfaced; but for commercial projects, the 400‘ mark is useless.

The only current drone excluded for hobbyist to freely operate is the Mavic Mini, but not commercially. That too will probably change and be included.

Appreciate the reply but again, current Mavic drones have Remote ID that would conform to Limited Remote ID as they are capable of broadcasting info... Remember all the crying about DJI drones broadcasting info to China recently? Our Mavic 2 ED already has Airsense which has the ability to see ADS B equipped aircraft and plot them on a map. DJI has committed to having all flagship drones similarly fitted this year. I understand this is not ADS B out. The FAA has so far prohibited ADS B out in consumer drones. I'm hoping the ability to "see" other ADS B out aircraft (manned and commercial drones) and perhaps avoid them by automatically lowering altitude/evading added to existing NFZs and Limited Remote ID might find some traction with the FAA.
 
Well, based on other reporting... I disagree. It's been stated several times by multiple sites no DJI or current drone meets the standard or limited.

But disagreement is good... gives us something to look forward to understanding better.

Personally, I do hope there is a route to obtain standard. The limited is useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoomMeister
It was certainly not designed to have zero range - the controller is advertised as 3.5km and the beacon 1.5. The FAA proposal limits you to 400 feet if you do not have a separate ID built into the unit without the phone or controller! Unfortunately 400 combined vertical and horizontal range is much, much too short - at 70 meters vertical, you couldn’t even cover a 100 meter square (not even close). People are going way farther than that on their own properties and at parks, and with no cell reception, which happens to me all the time even in a coastal and highly populated area, you won’t be allowed to fly at all! If you think this is not very, very severely limiting you are mistaken.


Currently, without using a smartphone or tablet, and if just using the remote controller itself, the Mavic 2 is already limited by the DJI to only a tight 99 feet leash....
 
Currently, without using a smartphone or tablet, and if just using the remote controller itself, the Mavic 2 is already limited by the DJI to only a tight 99 feet leash....

Well you can't see where you're going... They're doing you and all your neighbors a favor!!!
 
Well you can't see where you're going... They're doing you and all your neighbors a favor!!!

Not every use case is about flying near neighbors, someones I just want to go to the park or beach or along empty stretch of something and fly visually with just the controller and not using a hookup to some ipad or phone. My first drone was a syma s107, sure that thing was basic, but did it require an app, connection to a tablet, did it have NFZ, did it need firmware updates, did it force user to take a "quiz" using the app before allowing to fly? No to all.... The point is there is nothing in the FAA rules that "require" the use of an smartphone or app to be connected to the remote controller, and there is nothing in the rules that dictate an artificial boundary of 99 feet! The vast majority of the time VLOS can be maintained well outside of the 99 feet limitation! It should be up to the user to follow the law not the DJI to artifically cap. I mean its illegal to drive upon the speed limit, does this mean Toyota should cap all cars to max of 50mph?

This would be more true with controllers like the Spark and Mini that don't display telemetry, but with the Mavic controllers with the telemetry on the controller itself that gives all the awareness that is needed. The current FAA rules require VLOS but says nothing about the manufacturing mandating an electronic lease of only 99feet! That is like a car manufacturer making a speed cap at 60mph even though on some roads there allows 70mph! (on good days I can clearly see the Mavic Pro at 200 feet or more!) In addition, this wasn't locked down in the first version of the mavic because I clearly remember being able to do this, then later they retroactively locked it down with a firmware update, the important thing to note is that there is currently NO law that requires this, DJI simply decided to do it because it is control freak, and not only that, limited it to well within VLOS, I mean a could understand a limit of say 200 feet, but 99 feet is just ridicioulous! ... so it wasn't like this was a huge concern or oversight at the time that they later fixed. DJI made the decision to continue to force more and more training wheels. Why isn't there a setting for people who wish to override this? Even then, why isn't there a way to apply for DJI to get an exception or for example to have a more reasonable limit/radius, something that would still put the Mavic within VLOS but not as restrictive as merely 99 feet ?

I used to be able to go to this one park near my home, no NFZ zones for miles... Sometimes I wanted to fly the original Mavic Pro drone just by hand and only using the Remote Controller without having to connect it to any smartphone. It would let me do that and even when the original Mavic went pretty far away where it was only a dot in the sky, I could still bring it back using the parameters displayed on the RC itself in terms of distance to "dead reckon" myself back in the general direction until I could get a clear idea of the Mavic's bearing/heading and bring it back.

With the Mavic 2 Pro, recently I was doing a same flight at the same park and noticed that this time it was like an invisible bounding box or sphere/dome was keeping my Mavic from being able to be flown to any distance away past a short threshold. Of course if I connect it to my phone it allows it to fly further, but I hadn't put the MC2 in "beginner mode" and also hadn't put any kind of distance restrictions on it.

In any case, with the new FAA Remote ID rules requiring active Internet connection just to be able to start engines, takeoff and fly at all, this kinda converges into that rule to some extent...

Its sad that legislation and regulations will effectively kill off the hobby drone industry within 3 years. Probably why DJI is diversifying into nondrone stuff a lot more now, plus in 2020 dji will end up on US entity list like Huawei and ZTE
 
Last edited:
@Lon Denard that is interesting, actually the first I've heard on that limitation. Was that limitation as a radius like a sphere or horizontal only.... by your description I would assume horizontal but in principle I'd assume a sphere.

I'll have to check that on mine, because I've always understood the control is via the RC for the standard RC control & communications, and the tablet interface was to obtain higher level features and video. All DJI controllers have RTH button for that very reason, if tablet crashed/hung... and the DJI software RTH simply initiates the physical RTH procedure.

I've often tested a craft quickly by using RC only and easily gone out any distance as desired. But I haven't yet done on a M2P or M2ED yet.

If accurate and not unique issue for your RC, I'd assume it runs off a set of default parameters unless receive differently by tablet. I also haven't looked, but wonder if there is any adjustment within the DJI Asst software.

Good share... I agree you shouldn't need a screen for basic flying parameters. I'll try that and compare how it behaves on mine.
 
@Lon Denard Was a cold 25F, 30-35mph winds today so made hast to test the RC on M2P and M2ED.

You are certainly correct... Mine M2's get about 95 feet altitude and distance. It's contained in about a 100 Foot Bubble around the RC unit. Same results for M2P & M2ED.

To verify, connected to DJI Asst 2 just to see if there was a default setting that could be modified. I couldn't see anything to modify, so at this point I'm not certain if it can be overridden.

I read on an older thread... can't recall if MP or M2P... but related subject but concerning using Litchi app (which I also use frequently) There was reference the full parameters were not activated unless the DJI Go4App initializes a login. My practice when using Litchi is normally starting with Go4 to verify no update, NFZ or various issues. Then close Go4 and begin using Litchi... so this part I'm not certain, but sounds logical.

As a second test... I connected my tablet & GO4 while Mavic was On & connected.
Prior to flight, I disconnected the Tablet and the M2P was able to freely fly as normal. So evidently, it requires the Mavic to connect with the App just long enough to verify.

Something new to me... wasn't aware of that limitation.
Incidentally, attempting to fly the 100 ft sphere gave me a little associated feeling for the proposed Limited RemoteID 400ft sphere. Much shorter but same contained feeling... No Good!
 
@Lon Denard Was a cold 25F, 30-35mph winds today so made hast to test the RC on M2P and M2ED.

You are certainly correct... Mine M2's get about 95 feet altitude and distance. It's contained in about a 100 Foot Bubble around the RC unit. Same results for M2P & M2ED.

To verify, connected to DJI Asst 2 just to see if there was a default setting that could be modified. I couldn't see anything to modify, so at this point I'm not certain if it can be overridden.

I read on an older thread... can't recall if MP or M2P... but related subject but concerning using Litchi app (which I also use frequently) There was reference the full parameters were not activated unless the DJI Go4App initializes a login. My practice when using Litchi is normally starting with Go4 to verify no update, NFZ or various issues. Then close Go4 and begin using Litchi... so this part I'm not certain, but sounds logical.

As a second test... I connected my tablet & GO4 while Mavic was On & connected.
Prior to flight, I disconnected the Tablet and the M2P was able to freely fly as normal. So evidently, it requires the Mavic to connect with the App just long enough to verify.

Something new to me... wasn't aware of that limitation.
Incidentally, attempting to fly the 100 ft sphere gave me a little associated feeling for the proposed Limited RemoteID 400ft sphere. Much shorter but same contained feeling... No Good!

Hey I'm grown too but there are some limitations I understand. Flying a drone like a M2P miles away without being able to see where you are going or anything around you, just seems like a really bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Hey I'm grown too but there are some limitations I understand. Flying a drone like a M2P miles away without being able to see where you are going or anything around you, just seems like a really bad idea.
I agree with anything BVLOS as you are not situationally aware of anything around you except where the camera is pointing. 400’ is an arbitrary value contrived so LE can I.D. the UAS and pilot. Total BS in my opinion. VLOS has to do with pilot’s visual acuity and the size of the aircraft as well as any obstructions in the area. I can maintain VLOS on my TH Pro out to about 2600 feet in good conditions. Smaller aircraft like my Hubsan is somewhat less than 400’. VLOS is subjective and putting a hard limit on it is ridiculous.
 
Agree on the VLOS limitation based as a specific distance as not valid. Even the name “VLOS” stipulates the meaning as intended, not a footage. A sky grey Mavic Mini disappears quickly in view, an M600Pro in a clear sky can easily exceed 4000’ and a M210 at crop height can easily be viewed at 2500’.

The BVLOS isn’t, nor intended for a Mavic2 platform. The ability to obtain BVLOS for any non-purpose designed built platforms will continue to be near impossible. The various threads discussing BVLOS and current VLOS platforms in my opinion has been misunderstood and will continue in my opinion misunderstood without separating the crafts & piloting as unique classifications. Personally in my opinion, they shouldn’t be referenced within the same regulations. The VLOS prosumer platforms should continue with limitations & rules close to current and if needed, add an easily useable RemoteID. The current attempt to treat all within one category is too stringent for VLOS platforms and probably after in operations will be found too lenient BVLOS crafts Operated by large Corporations.

I personally think BVLOS has purpose for security, remote unmanned monitoring (zoned land, company compounds,etc), medical expedited transport, etc. Using for Consumer package delivery as a main stimulus is absolutely ridiculous and will probably generate more negative opinion by public. They’ll be bigger crafts than public is used to seeing in their neighborhood and not welcomed by many.
 
  • Love
Reactions: DoomMeister
98% of my flying is in locations that you can't travel to in a car or truck so until they start deploying hunter/killer drones which I think will eventually happen in some areas it'll be business as usual for me. If the shoe was on the other foot and I planned to fly near populated areas or beyond LOS I'd be concerned on how this new rule plays out with the current tech. The other thing is if I had to jump through the hoops with internet connections and all that this new rule entails I'd probably ditch the drone.

I totally get where this is coming from though, I recently watched a YT video of a guy flying above the clouds when he lose control of the drone. Not only couldn't he see where his drone was flying, he couldn't do anything to avoid something that might be a risk of hitting the drone. Should an airliner be brought down for something like this it's likely we'd all be grounded, at least for awhile. Unfortunately the few ruin it for the many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skydioconvert
For those of you who are in any way "Interested" in the topic of this thread, you should take some time to read over the NPRM and then take some time to formulate a concise, respectful, and informative response.

Don't post things like "This is BS and unconstitutional" or "I don't think this is right/legal/ethical..."

Also do NOT use a FORM reply..... if it's markedly similar to others they will all be lumped together and counted as a single entry.

Here's a link to this particular NPRM and how you submit a response:

If you don't take the time to read/understand the proposal and don't take the time to create a response then you don't have a dog in the fight once this goes into effect. And YES you can bet your bottom dollar some form of this will go into effect in the next few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod
In addition, several reputable sources have offered to present a strong response in behalf of Others as Proxy. This does provide a list of names that adds to the count, not 1 voice. Plus, you can respond more than once... join several proxy lists and yourself. Several Training sites are discussing a proxy response, and well known YouTubers and 3rd Party Developers.

Not fully up on the UK equivalent (similar) proposal, but read I think on DroneDJ that DJI‘s new offering were encouraged after the UK proposal fell short and sounds like a gain for the sUAV Owners.
 
If not mistaken and @BigAl07 can confirm this you could sign
one of those and it have 1000 names on it but they will
only count it as one. I would suggest all comment alone even if it contained the same comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skydioconvert
If not mistaken and @BigAl07 can confirm this you could sign
one of those and it have 1000 names on it but they will
only count it as one. I would suggest all comment alone even if it contained the same comment.
I'm not certain either, going on "read" knowledge gained. From several sources, that are suggesting to be proxies as it nears timeline and have reviewed the material in depth; their offer to be proxies to me has merit.

If that is factual, the proxies gain strength by Owners communicating to Owners; if later turns out to be false, and each is counted as "one", it certainly hasn't harmed the collection.

Although, based on past events... govt & politics. Proxy and large representative lists have provided much impact, often greater than the response of individuals to the "cause" or political action. A petition signed by a neighborhood Owners, a city‘s collective, or a national issue petition is essentially a proxy list representing a large group, and is received by number on the list not the 1 Drafting the petition. I'll lean more towards the Proxies having a positive impact both in numbers on the Proxy lists and the presented content drafted by a very knowledgeable and detailed writer could provide instead.
 
Last edited:
It depends on how it's submitted to the FAA but if they get the exact same submission multiple times the "system" will count them as a single submission. In terms of "Proxy Submissions" I can't say for sure but I can run that question up the ladder and see if I can get some type of reply one way or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod
I'm not certain either, going on "read" knowledge gained. From several sources, that are suggesting to be proxies as it nears timeline and have reviewed the material in depth; their offer to be proxies to me has merit.

If that is factual, the proxies gain strength by Owners communicating to Owners; if later turns out to be false, and each is counted as "one", it certainly hasn't harmed the collection.

Although, based on past events... govt & politics. Proxy and large representative lists have provided much impact, often greater than the response of individuals to the "cause" or political action. A petition signed by a neighborhood Owners, a city‘s collective, or a national issue petition is essentially a proxy list representing a large group, and is received by number on the list not the 1 Drafting the petition. I'll lean more towards the Proxies having a positive impact both in numbers on the Proxy lists and the presented content drafted by a very knowledgeable and detailed writer could provide instead.

I think you're right considering the weight petitions often have on governing bodies.
 

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
1,600
Messages
12,368
Members
2,364
Latest member
ViktorSinatorov0fup