ADS-B (remote ID transponder)

I was surprised to read that ADS-B will not be allowed on UA’s.
Who makes a remote transponder that can’t be turned off by the user. I am very confused how we / I can move forward in the US.
Any Ideas on how this can be done?

The final rule amends Parts 91 and 107 to prohibit use of ADS-B Out or ATC
Transponders on UAS unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, or if flying
under a flight plan and in two-way radio communication with ATC.
o ADS-B Out & ATC transponder authorization is likely for large UAS operating in
controlled airspace.
o Part 89 prohibits the use of ADS-B Out as a means of meeting remote ID

I had a similar reaction, especially to the phrase “tamper-proof” when used in combination with a retrofit-able module. Could simply cutting the power cable not be considered “tampering?” It would certainly disable the unit.

Seems like this might be a shot in the foot for hobby UAS.

If tamper proof wasnt a thing this could definitely be implemented through Dronekit and some RPi hardware. Not sure if they have anything in the plans but I see a cube carrier board being able to fit the requirements.

1 Like

(Cross-posting info from ArduPilot forums here)

Seems like that’s what the French are up to:

You’re 100% right that this could be done in a non-tamper-proof manner for under $40 of hardware. I wonder if drenching an RPi in epoxy could be considered tamper-proof? I haven’t found that section of the ruling yet.

1 Like

is an emp over the raspberry pi considered tamper

Looks like tamper resistance is defined around page 139 of the final rule document. Trying to summarize:

  • Tamper resistance is only for the RID module (in your example with the pi, only the Pi needs tamper resistance, not the Pixhawk)
  • “The FAA envisions the industry will find ways to comply without increasing the weight or cost significantly (for example, anti-tamper stickers), or introducing other cybersecurity or other threats.”
  • (page 444) “The [UA] must be designed and produced in a way that reduces the ability of a person to tamper with the remote identification functionality.”

It looks like the FAA doesn’t seem to know what it wants in terms of tamper resistance… so… I guess that’s up to you? I would consider an EMP to be more of a DoS-style attack rather than tamper.

[EDIT] I’m also realizing that I can’t find any expectations for what the system is supposed to do if the UA loses position data. Say it flies under a bridge and loses GPS lock… what is the RID thing supposed to report for position? Or if the UA isn’t equipped with a GPS at all? I suppose this could be the purpose of the emergency status indicator.

Thanks for the input.
My opinion and hope is that only drone manufacturers like DJI should be compelled to do this.
I am confused as to how this can be implemented in any open source drone. If this does come to law as I read it all my current boards will be illegal to fly under Part 107 rules.
Cube, Philip and many people that have invested time and money ADS-B, it’s tragic that this has been passed.

1 Like

I tend towards that opinion as well, but to play devil’s advocate for a moment:

We do the same thing for cars - they have to be road-worthy as certified by somebody qualified to do so, and have to have a license plate. If you can build your own car and get it to that state, then you can drive anywhere you want… should we not do the same for UAS?

It does also appear that the ruling may either exempt or make a path for exemption for home-built UASes. I believe that just about anybody can apply for a FRIA (RID-requirement-free area) for most purposes, including recreation/research/my-drone-doesnt-have-GPS. It also seems to exempt home-built UA from the requirements of “subpart F”, but I haven’t yet been able to track down what or where that is (I’m not a lawyer).

Thankfully, while they prohibit ADS-B Out, ADS-B In isn’t mentioned. We can continue to operate sensing-and-avoiding manned air traffic as usual… but you are right that a lot of work is being lost in things like the Ping transceiver.

I’m also curious to see how this gets enforced. If a drone isn’t RID equipped, will they follow it back until it lands? Shoot it down? Something inbetween?

It’s worth noting that the retrofit option does not require the same prevent take off ect as the built in option of the Remote ID.

For the most part the retrofit will simply be a standalone device with no connection to your craft. It does not have the same requirements as the built in.

I hadn’t yet worked my way through that legalese - good find! I wonder if manufacturers can then avoid having to do that requirement (block takeoff) by selling all their aircraft as the broadcast module option? Are manufacturers required to produce ‘standard’ RID drones after the 18 month mark?

No drone manufactures have to make it part of the flight system. Only self builds and legacy AC will be able to use module.

Manufactured products including bind and fly will need to comply.

Good days people.

The reality check arrive since the FAA on December 31, 2020 rule the mandatory ADS-B Out system to be install on UAV any size with one year for manufacture and 18 month for pilot to comply. my main concern is their possible deactivate de ADS-D in that comes with the pix-hawk orange in order to install a ping2020i or ping 2020 from uavionix? If we use the ping2020i that comes with GPS do we still need need other gps on the pix-hawk? their other small ADS-B small? DJI have not release any info or data to incorporate these items that why I’m change to pixhawk.

Remote ID is not ADSB.

The FAA have specifically banned ADSB OUT from UAS use.

I would suggest you go back and look at the regulations again.

The Cube ADSB In is unaffected by the Remote ID rules.

Here and now there is no modules or anything compliant for remote ID as it’s 30 months off for retrofit and 18 months off for Manufactures with RTF models. But again Remote ID is. It ADSB and must not be confused as such.