Remote ID in plain language: A summary of FAA's Part 89 drone rules
By: Joe Polastre
Tags: Faa, Regulation, Drones, Aviation, Uav

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

FAA released their final rule for drone Remote Identification (Part 89). There’s a lot of questions and even some misinformation floating around. I read the 470 pages and sum up the regulation-policy-speak as best I can.

The normal disclaimers: I’m not a lawyer, and this is my personal analysis.

If you’re here for the Q&A, like how much will this cost me? or is my current drone compliant? Just skip to the end!

Why Remote ID?

The first thing to understand is why the FAA is issuing a rule for Remote ID.

The point of this rule is to allow national security and law enforcement to detect and catch people doing bad things.

How do I know? It is on the very first page:

The remote identification of unmanned aircraft in the airspace of the United States will address safety, national security, and law enforcement concerns regarding the further integration of these aircraft into the airspace of the United States

The primary motivation for Remote ID is to appease the security agencies so that the FAA is unblocked to expand the use of drones in the US. The argument goes: if we can detect and catch bad actors, then the security agencies will go along with allowing drones to do more things (like operations over people, or operations at night). Why does the FAA need to do this? Because Congress told them to in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Bill.

In 2017, the FAA created an industry Identification Advisory and Rulemaking Committee (ARC) and one of the working groups was specifically focused on “the requirements for meeting the security and public safety needs of the law enforcement, homeland defense, and national security communities for the remote ID and tracking of UAS.” It is clear that the security community is motivating the Remote ID rule.

As further evidence, the original Part 107 rule references national security 31 times and law enforcement 25 times. Most of those references are to make a claim that UAS pose no threat under Part 107 to national security. In the Remote Identification rule, national security is referenced 46 times and law enforcement 209 times.

It is important to understand that the purpose of Remote ID is to satisfy needs from national security and law enforcement. While some elements of the rule can be used to further airspace safety, air traffic services, and enable more complex drone operations like Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS), those are not the primary motivators.

What does the rule require?

Let’s assume we are going to be compliant with Remote ID (and not operate without Remote ID, which is only permissible in a FRIA — out of scope for now).

To be compliant, you must:

Register your drone

Have a drone with Remote ID Accepted Means of Compliance or a module on the drone with Remote ID Accepted Means of Compliance (details below) (89.110)

Not takeoff if Remote ID is not working (89.110 & 89.115)

Not use ADS-B (89.125)

Register for Remote ID notifications and receive a “Confirmation of Identification” with your name, phone number, email address, physical address, mailing address, manufacturer, model, serial number, country of registry, and registration number (89.130)

What wireless technology can be used? Anything allowed under 15 CFR 47 where an FCC license is not required. What does this realistically mean? Each drone manufacturer can choose what they use — wifi (802.11b/g/n/ac/etc varieties), bluetooth, or even proprietary 2.4GHz, 5GHz, or 900MHz transmitters. Yes, there’s no standard wireless frequency or protocol required by the rule.

The Remote ID broadcast must include (89.305):

Identity (serial number or session id)

Control station latitude, longitude, and geometric altitude (position accurate to 100 feet, altitude to 15 feet)

Drone latitude, longitude, geometric altitude, and velocity (position accurate to 100 feet, altitude to 15 feet)

Time (in UTC)

Emergency status (unclear how this will be used)

What format will used to broadcast the data?

This is not specified at all, since it is a performance specification. The manufacturer can broadcast in any format. Furthermore, the information submitted by the manufacturer to the FAA for the Means of Compliance will not be disclosed: “the Agency is not planning on publicly disclosing the details or specification of any FAA-accepted means of compliance or related documents because they may contain proprietary data or commercially valuable information.” (p206)

All is not lost though — the FAA will disclose the frequency and broadcast message elements:

The FAA may disclose the non-proprietary broadcast specification and radio frequency spectrum so that sufficient information is available to develop receiving and processing equipment and software for the FAA, law enforcement, and members of the public. (p14)

I predict a number of small companies will pop up with the sole purpose of decoding the multitude of random Remote ID formats that emerge.

There is some optimism that industry will develop a standard for Remote ID message data, although I don’t see strong reasons for all of the industry players to do this. First, there’s no intrinsic commercial benefit to Remote ID messages for industry (aside from a few companies that provide services to law enforcement). Second, with one drone manufacturer capturing 70–80% of the market, adoption will hinge on that party (waving at you DJI). The FAA thinks that ASTM will update F3411–19 “in as little as 6 months” and “for these reasons, the rule establishes an 18-month compliance date.” (p330)

To sum up

Any wireless technology is OK as long as an FCC license isn’t required.

Data can be broadcast in any format of the manufacturer’s choosing as long as it includes all the elements. The FAA hopes industry will agree on a standard.

How will that work? What’s the catch?

“Means of Compliance”

For a drone to be flown under Part 89, it must have an Accepted Means of Compliance. Basically the drone manufacturer submits all the information in Part 89 Subpart F to the FAA, and waits for a response. If it is accepted, they submit a Declaration of Compliance, and drones can be flown under Part 89.

The question is, what process will the FAA use to accept Means of Compliance submissions? This is the subject of a very short, and very detail-free draft Advisory Circular.

Essentially, a manufacturer of a drone or module submits documentation for how they meet the minimum performance requirements. The FAA then has free rein at their discretion to accept or deny. It will be very interesting to see how this ultimately works out. I wouldn’t want to be first in line to submit.

The FAA is hopeful that industry will all get along and agree on a standard, they’ll accept it as a Means of Compliance, and everyone will adopt it.

FAA-accepted consensus standards are one way, but not the only way, to show compliance with the performance requirements of this rule. Accordingly, the FAA encourages consensus standards bodies to develop means of compliance and submit them to the FAA for acceptance. (p13)

Note that companies must retain records for 24 months beyond the end of offering Remote ID capabilities, and must agree to independent audits at the request of the FAA.