No it doesn’t. “Standard remote identification” drones would be required to have a base station that’s capable of connecting to the internet, but the drone could still operate where there’s no service:

> If the internet is available at takeoff, the UAS would have to do the following from takeoff to landing: (1) connect to the internet and transmit the required remote identification message elements through that internet connection to a Remote ID USS; and (2) broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft.

> If the internet is unavailable at takeoff, or if during the flight, the unmanned aircraft can no longer transmit through an internet connection to a Remote ID USS, the UAS would have to broadcast the message elements directly from the unmanned aircraft from takeoff to landing.

However, for “limited remote identification” drones, which lack the hardware to broadcast directly and thus broadcast only via the internet, the base station would be required to have an internet connection [edit: and also be within 400 ft of the drone].

I read that part the same way; for standard remote ID drones, transmission over internet to a USS should be made if possible, but as long as the drone can continue an ADS-B like (but specifically NOT ADS-B) transmission it remains compliant. That's the big question here I think, because there are a lot of places you can fly that don't have internet connectivity, such as rural farms where drones are currently very useful.

Yes, it does. It requires that the drone be internet connected or, with almost exactly the same risk/hassle profile, that the base station within 400ft of the drone be internet connected. That's a crazy requirement, and a crazy extra risk.

There has to be a base station somewhere, unless the drone is fully autonomous and not even indirectly controlled by anyone, which appears to be in violation of other regulations anyway. If the drone is capable of broadcasting directly (“standard remote identification”), then that base station doesn’t have to be within 400ft; it must have the capability to connect to the internet, but the drone can operate even if it’s out of service.

That could add some cost. However, AFAIK (not an expert), the most popular drones are already designed to be connected to a phone – either directly (for short-range amateur models) or with a controller that you attach your phone to. Those devices could presumably use the phone‘s internet connection, so there would be no added cost, although I guess the phone would go from optional to mandatory(?).

I don’t know what you mean by “risk”. Risk of the base station being hacked over the internet? It’s a possibility, but it doesn’t seem like the end of the world, especially since the base station would only need to make outbound connections to specific servers.

You keep stating the rule over and over as if the details make it better. They do not. Under the proposed regulation:

* Drones are only ever as reliable as the internet connection.

* Drones cannot be used outside of locations with internet.

* A small number of centralized servers are given authority over a large number of drones. This is a very real risk.

The internet connection is only required if the drone is incapable of broadcasting its own local ID signal. This will not be a problem for the kinds of drones that have practical uses in remote areas.

Also, as with many other drone regulations, this does not apply to lightweight units.

From a quick skim of the unpublished document it seems like a compliant transmitter could be built from hobbyist parts for under $100 and weighing a few ounces. Commercial options should have no trouble beating both of those numbers.

It seems like those with drones at the absolute bottom end of the "registration required" range could be limited by this but as long as your drone could handle having a basic flip phone attached to it you shouldn't have trouble with this.

You're raising valid points generally but read 89.110 for Standard Remote Identification. If internet is not available the drone must broadcast the information elements directly. This does preclude 'limited remote identification' UAS from operating without any local internet and of course no remote identification UASes will be stuck in the FAA sandboxes.

Definitely some rough edges in this that will hopefully get eviscerated in public comments.

> There has to be a base station somewhere,

When I fly, the "base station" is the controller in my hands. It has no greater or lesser ability to be internet connected than the bird itself. No phone is involved in the operation of any of my machines.

whats the extra risk?

Block quote for mobile users. Please use block quotes (>) for quotes, rather than indenting which causes horizonal scrolling on mobile

> Standard remote identification UAS would be required to broadcast identification and location information directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit that same information to a Remote ID USS through an internet connection. Limited remote identification UAS would be required to transmit information through the internet only, with no broadcast requirements; however, the unmanned aircraft would be designed to operate no more than 400 feet from the control station.

dang, if you are reading this, can you let us know if there are any plans to fix this long standing mobile UX problem?

Horizontal scrolling is great some times, ex. when you don’t want the text to be broken on mobile.

I like when quotes are italicized by using quotes.

Guide: https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

> I like when quotes are italicized by using quotes.

I tend to do both the standard email syntax (>) and italics, but it breaks down when you want to preserve italics from the original text.

My bad I tried that at first but it didn't seem to work. I'll use them in the future.

Angle brackets don't actually create block quotes here, but if you just put one in front of the long wrapping text people will get the idea. The indent formatting works best for code, as it doesn't wrap and preserves newlines, but on mobile it will cause scrollbars within the comment for the same reason, making it very hard to read. It feels weird to use a single angle bracket for it all because we're conditioned by mail clients to do one per line, but that just doesn't work well here.

Alternatively, italicizing quoted text with asterisks around the block usually works, since the core of what you usually want is just to visually distinguish something you are repeating for context and your own comments on it.

> Alternatively, italicizing quoted text with asterisks around the block usually works, since the core of what you usually want is just to visually distinguish something you are repeating for context and your own comments on it.

Yep, I've found that combining the two works well. Start with an angle bracket, then use the asterisks to italicize and it's readable on mobile/PC and it's clear that you're quoting someone and it's clear what the quoted content is.

Even so, it’s silly that people have to invent their own formatting to represent blockquotes when HTML has an element already built into it specifically for that purpose.

Heh, I've seen enough people do this that I assumed the angle bracket actually did something, formatting wise. Now my original post sounds a bit silly. It's very effective. :)

" Start with an angle bracket, then use the asterisks to italicize and it's readable on mobile/PC and it's clear that you're quoting someone and it's clear what the quoted content is. "

What's wrong with quotation marks?

"" Start with an angle bracket, then use the asterisks to italicize and it's readable on mobile/PC and it's clear that you're quoting someone and it's clear what the quoted content is. ""

"What's wrong with quotation marks?"

They get messy, quick.

    ----- BEGIN QUOTATION -----

They get messy quick.

    -----  END QUOTATION  -----

How about this?

That doesn't solve the problem of quoting multiple levels of the thread.

>> This is a time-honored way of identifying a grandparent comment.

    ----- BEGIN QUOTATION: macintux -----

    ----- BEGIN QUOTATION: yellowapple -----

How about this?

    -----  END QUOTATION: yellowapple  -----

That doesn't solve the problem of quoting multiple levels of the thread.

    -----  END QUOTATION: macintux  -----

Hold my beer :)

    ----- BEGIN QUOTATION: macintux -----

>> This is a time-honored way of identifying a grandparent comment.

    -----  END QUOTATION: macintux  -----

Indeed it is, at least in email and Markdown. However, email quotations also usually include the "On $timestamp macintux wrote:" blurb in front to designate who wrote the quotation.

My eyes hurt now.

lol, so do mine. I wouldn't suggest this as an actual quoting method, needless to say. More of a thought experiment around what elements we'd need in a well-designed quoting method.

From what I understood skimming the full PDF linked by another comment, it's the base station which is required to be Internet connected, not the drone. Still a crazy requirement, but less crazy.

The extra crazy part is that the safest places to fly a drone tend to be places where there is no internet service. I live on the edge of a metro area and I drive 20m into the middle of nowhere, up an unmarked dirt trail to launch and fly around looking at the pretty scenery. By going that far out, I know for sure there are no other people, certainly no aircraft under 500 ft and no chance I'm going to injure, bother or even be seen by anybody.

I go there because it's so safe and stress-free. If I were to even hear a vehicle or aircraft in the distance, I'd land immediately (though that's never happened). Where I fly, not only is there no internet service, there's no cellular voice service.

So the FAA has basically assured that I have little incentive to follow their rules. I don't want to start flying within cellular data service range because people, property and aircraft tend to be in those places.

That is the opposite of my understanding based on two parts. As part of the protocol the UAS needs to be able to transmit:

> An indication of the emergency status of the UAS, which could include lost-link or downed aircraft.

I suppose this could possibly be done from the base station as well but manufacturers are going to have to get this certified for operation and I bet this will be sticking point.

The other one is this one:

> UAS would be required to broadcast identification and location information directly from the unmanned aircraft and simultaneously transmit that same information to a Remote ID USS through an internet connection.

While I suppose it could be read that the "directly from unmanned aircraft" might not apply to the internet connection portion I'm willing to bet that is the intent.

p.111 of the regulations gives an example specifically of a UAS that uses the internet connection of a paired smartphone:

> Charlie’s UAS is designed to pair with his smartphone to transmit the remote identification message elements through an internet connection to a USS. Because Charlie’s UAS cannot broadcast [i.e. radio] remote identification message elements, it does not function unless his smartphone is connected to the internet and transmitting through that internet connection to Bravo USS.

That doesn't seem remotely practical. Even the tiniest hobby drones can easily and safely get 150ft away along the ground and are allowed to go up to 400ft.

Have you tried connecting to a phone's hotspot or bluetooth line of sight from 50ft away? 75ft? That's like half a second of flight time for drone then it's supposed to just "stop operating". Sounds incredibly dangerous and ineffective to me.

If its from the base station that would probably make more sense but that would require replacing controllers which are the most costly portion of amateur setups (besides FPV setups).

The proposed document contains answers to most of your questions. I'd recommend using search to jump around to the areas you seem interested in.

> For both standard and limited remote identification UAS, at this time the FAA has not proposed any requirements regarding how the UAS connects to the internet to transmit the message elements or whether that transmission is from the control station or the unmanned aircraft. The FAA understands, however, that there are concerns about the impact that connecting to the internet directly from the unmanned aircraft (as opposed to the control station) could have on networks that use radio frequency spectrum, including interference, network stability, or other effects.

If you want to fly 400 ft away, it doesn't seem too onerous to require a communication setup that's capable of staying in contact with your drone.

You wouldn't even need a "base station", surely your phone in your pocket would work.

So basically ads-b for drones.