Xjet

[Zflyer]

I am sure a lot on here have seen the xjet channel on youtube. Bruce Simpson, who is its originator/author and commentator, produces a range of videos varied in their content. These can be interesting, funny and also educational.

 

The current one, regarding a drone manufacturer and the FAA , I have to say is a little 'wayward'. The emphasis is mainly directed at the USA and as such has no bearing elsewhere, that said the EU and others may well go down a similar route of remote ID. Some of his comments are trite and certainly incorrect. I fully understand his concern about over regulation and it can be seen as overkill, certainly in light of the known recorded damage to people and property caused by drones. (this is essentially drone oriented legislation).

 

Laws are only ever followed by the law abiding, the lawless will continue regardless, top of the ladder being the terrorist, bottom rung the ignorant.

Our own (UK) implementation of CAA registration was certainly poorly thought through but it's here and I don't know of anyone who has left the hobby as a result. The Government missed a trick with it.

 

Why my post ?    Discussion piece!

[John Wagg]

I've watched a few Xjet and I'm under the impression that he said he is not allowed to fly.

Is that correct ?

Yes the recent video is about USA legislation but can easily imagine it coming to the rest of the world especially when flying taxis are on the horizon.

[Geoff S]

I think Bruce's problems with flying are medical - he's said he has Parkinson's disease so his motor control will be compromised and hence make flying difficult.

 

I heard on the news today that Japan is trialling automated delivery via some kind of electric ground vehicles which travel at a brisk walk (8kh?) and controlled (presumably) by GPS.  How they stop their being robbed, I don't know!  However, I suppose it's a step towards automated delivery by air or air taxis, which is really the reason for the interest in remote ID for low altitude air traffic - like our models.  I've no doubt it will probably come but won't affect me  - I'm 83 next week 😞

[EvilC57]

My understanding is that ground based delivery robots have been on trial in Milton Keynes for some time now. Look here.

 

The video doesn't make it clear, but I imagine theft is prevented by the lid not opening unless the robot 'eye' is presented with a barcode on a smartphone - or some similar system.

[Cuban8]

Great....so the techies have becomed bored with widespread domestic drone delivery or the money for experiments has dried up. So what's next? Why, it's your friendly neighbourhood postman or courier being ousted by.......delivery robots!!

You really can't make this stuff up.

 What does indeed work within the confines of a warehouse or similar closed area just won't cut the mustard out in the wild and dangerous world. They know that already but while the £s, $s, or whatever keep flowing, the press releases will keep on coming.

Technology is getting so clever now that humans can send autonomous space probes across hundreds of millions of miles to Mars and have them put a lander down within a few metres of a target area. Brilliant!

Obvously Mars isn't Earth and therefore Perseverance and the earlier Curiosity rover haven't had to put up with human interference on the surface and have been able to get on with their tasks unhindered.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Cuban8

[Cuban8]

1 hour ago, EvilC57 said:

My understanding is that ground based delivery robots have been on trial in Milton Keynes for some time now. Look here.

 

The video doesn't make it clear, but I imagine theft is prevented by the lid not opening unless the robot 'eye' is presented with a barcode on a smartphone - or some similar system.

Thanks for posting the link....funniest thing I've seen for ages. They can't be serious, can they?

[Don Fry]

Nicked car, bit of speed, rock and hard place, ie against a brick wall, and I reckon the lid will open. But probably more difficult than bringing drones down.

Bruce I dislike. He makes a habit of shades of untruths and causes mischief. 

[GrumpyGnome]

3 hours ago, EvilC57 said:

My understanding is that ground based delivery robots have been on trial in Milton Keynes for some time now. Look here.

 

The video doesn't make it clear, but I imagine theft is prevented by the lid not opening unless the robot 'eye' is presented with a barcode on a smartphone - or some similar system.

Lots of them delivering fast food in Cambridge....

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Watch out Geff, if you fall over one of those things and break a leg don't go running back to the delivery company.

[MattyB]

7 hours ago, Zflyer said:

I am sure a lot on here have seen the xjet channel on youtube. Bruce Simpson, who is its originator/author and commentator, produces a range of videos varied in their content. These can be interesting, funny and also educational.

 

The current one, regarding a drone manufacturer and the FAA , I have to say is a little 'wayward'. The emphasis is mainly directed at the USA and as such has no bearing elsewhere, that said the EU and others may well go down a similar route of remote ID. Some of his comments are trite and certainly incorrect. I fully understand his concern about over regulation and it can be seen as overkill, certainly in light of the known recorded damage to people and property caused by drones. (this is essentially drone oriented legislation).

 

I haven’t yet watched the video but here it is for reference…

 

 

I’ll reserve comment until I’ve watched it later, but in general find that whilst Bruce does sometimes make some well considered observations, they’re often so wrapped up in hyperbolae and self publicity that he undermines his message. YMMV.
 

[MattyB]

10 hours ago, Zflyer said:

The current one, regarding a drone manufacturer and the FAA , I have to say is a little 'wayward'. The emphasis is mainly directed at the USA and as such has no bearing elsewhere, that said the EU and others may well go down a similar route of remote ID. Some of his comments are trite and certainly incorrect.

Ok, I’ve now watched this, and surprisingly I found it to be one of Bruce’s more balanced videos tbh. I’m struggling to see where he’s “certainly incorrect” - the obligation under the current US RID regs are undoubtedly with the manufacturer, and Rotor Riot are trying to sidestep them with a tactic that doesn’t look like it was ever reviewed by a lawyer.
 

@Zflyer, can you enlighten us? Have you read the current RID requirements in detail? 😕
 

https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/remote_id

 

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by MattyB

[Zflyer]

I have indeed read the FAA document.

All drone pilots required to register their UAS must operate their aircraft in accordance with the final rule on remote ID beginning September 16, 2023, which gives drone owners sufficient time to upgrade their aircraft.

This coupled with the disclaimer is the loophole.

 

 

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, Zflyer said:

I have indeed read the FAA document.

All drone pilots required to register their UAS must operate their aircraft in accordance with the final rule on remote ID beginning September 16, 2023, which gives drone owners sufficient time to upgrade their aircraft.

This coupled with the disclaimer is the loophole.

 

 

But as per my post above, manufacturers (which Rotor Riot are) have to comply with the manufacturer specific aspects from September 16th 2022, and that includes implementing standard RID for any RTF SUAS. If you don't believe Bruce or I, read this DJI (the accepted world leader in camera drones) blog where they explicitly state all manufacturers are required to ship new drones with Standard RID from Sept 22nd 2022:

 

FAA Remote ID: What it Means for You and Your DJI Drone

 

 

 

Sure, operators cannot be snagged for not using RID til next year, but the manufacturers are on the hook to sell compliant SUAS today, and they can't just palm off that that responsibility to the customer or retailer.

 

Edited January 4, 2023 by MattyB

[Zflyer]

I dont see them palming anything off. If the authorities want to come down on Rotor Riot I have no doubt they will, the clue in reading the above is the first line, "the dead line for new products"

Its quite clear that all drones have to comply by the 16 Sept 2023, hence the expectation that drone opertors will install the necessary equipment or retire it and purchase the new stuff.

Think of it this way, the gun manufacturers dont expect you to go round killing people, and they wouldnt be contravening any law if you did. Hence the disclaimer.

[MattyB]

Whilst I'm inclined to agree that enfocement against manufacturers is unlikely until Sept of this year, I can't understand how you can conclude a manufacturer can avoid the requirements put on them with such a disclaimer.

 

A final resource aimed specifically at manufacturers and standards bodies that (to me) proves the point, this time from the FAA themselves - it seems pretty unequivocal... (key extracts below):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 by MattyB
Typos

[leccyflyer]

I'd venture to suggest that if this completely over the top and unnecessary complexity is ever proposed to be adopted here in the UK - the third means of operating within the rules is likely to be more relevant to flying model aeroplanes, rather than camera equipped drones.

Namely

1. Operate (without remote ID equipment) (PDF) at specific FAA-recognized identification areas (FRIAs) maintained by community-based organizations or educational institutions. FRIAs are the only locations unmanned aircraft (drones and radio-controlled model airplanes) may operate without broadcasting remote ID message elements.

Designating all model flying sites around the country as areas where model aircraft may be encountered would seem to be a much less intrusive mode of operation for the vast majority of model flyers than having to retrofit completely overly complex remote IOD equipment, which isn't even required on some manned aerial conveyances. Hopefully this particular legislation doesn't actually come to land on these shores. It's far from ideal that the wording identifies those FRIAs as being the only legitimate locations to operate without a silly remote ID onboard- that certainly won't help the hobby, but if it provides a means to fly a model without having that extra complexity then it can't be ignored.

 

Also interesting to note that that particular legislation has somehow managed to achieve the impossible of differentiating between drones and radio-controlled model airplanes (sic).

[EvilC57]

On 03/01/2023 at 15:38, EvilC57 said:

My understanding is that ground based delivery robots have been on trial in Milton Keynes for some time now. Look here.

 

The video doesn't make it clear, but I imagine theft is prevented by the lid not opening unless the robot 'eye' is presented with a barcode on a smartphone - or some similar system.

Going back a few days to my earlier post on this. The YouTube ‘algorithm’ has just recommended this, which might answer some of the questions regarding security of the contents being delivered.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

A cardboard box and some masking tape, and order ice cream when it's 30 degrees outside,,

[MattyB]

Bruce just poked the bear, and somewhat surprisingly they responded almost immediately to confirm they aren’t totally sure how the regs they have implemented should be applied to BNFs…! 🤨

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

Our Kiwi friend is definitely not overly impressed by the FAA's response, and I can see his point...

 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

 

...so it looks they are not going to enforce this at all, probably due to their imprecisin in defining "producers" and "manufacturers" in the Final rule My comment against he video on Youtube...

 

When I first watched this video I felt sure you must be incorrect on your assertion that it was only the original manufacturer (e.g. FMS in the case of the Super EZ) who were accountable, not the US distributors suc as HH who are selling them. However, I managed to dig through the final rule and found this...

 

"89.515 Production requirements for unmanned aircraft without design approval or production approval issued under part 21.

Except as provided in § 89.510, after [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AND 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], no person may produce an unmanned aircraft for operation in the airspace of the United States unless—

(a) The unmanned aircraft is designed and produced to meet the minimum performance requirements for standard remote identification unmanned aircraft established in § 89.310 in accordance with an FAA-accepted means of compliance; and

(b) All of the following conditions are met:

(1) Inspection requirements for production of standard unmanned aircraft. A person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must, upon request, allow the Administrator to inspect the person’s facilities, technical data, and any standard remote identification unmanned aircraft the person produces, and to witness any tests necessary to determine compliance with this subpart.

(2) Audit requirements. A person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must cause independent audits to be performed on a recurring basis, and additionally whenever the FAA provides notice of noncompliance or potential noncompliance, to demonstrate the unmanned aircraft listed under a declaration of compliance meet the requirements of this subpart. The person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must provide the results of all such audits to the FAA upon request.

(3) Product support and notification. A person responsible for the production of standard remote identification unmanned aircraft must maintain product support and notification procedures to notify the public and the FAA of any defect or condition that causes an unmanned aircraft to no longer meet the requirements of this subpart, within 15 calendar days of the date the person becomes aware of the defect or condition."

 

(From page 453/454 of the Final rule - https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/remoteid-final-rule)

 

Personally I find this completely baffling - if they had wanted to enforce this effectively they had to incldue the US entities distributng the RTF models, but they haven't done that. Perhaps the lack of precision in the language is there to allow them flexibility to interpret it however they want? Either way, it is lazy, ineffective regulation that will clearly have no positve effect in any regard.