Right now, AeroScope is pretty much the only widely used tracking product on the market, because it can decode the proprietary identifiers contained in several generations of specialized DJI radio link (the hardware is hilarious - it's basically a gigantic mainboard with every generation of DJI chipset stuffed onto it).
However, with the new FAA requirement for standardized remote ID, anyone will be able to track drones which transmit using ASTM F3411 approved ID methods, using even a normal Android phone and software like https://github.com/opendroneid/receiver-android .
So, it's only a matter of time before an "ADS-B aggregator site but for drones" appears, at which point this type of tracking data will be always on and always available. I suspect that within a few years, it won't be able to fly a compliant drone in the US without having your flight appear online.
Unless it weighs less than 250g - like many small FPV race drones, in which case it's exempt. Or you buy a motion control/IMU, radio, and other parts from Hobbyking [1] and build it yourself.
Between MEMS IMUs, open-source flight control software, BLDC motor and lipo power density, flying vehicles that couldn't be built at any price 30 years ago can be assembled by anyone in their garage.
I haven't built anything personally in the last couple years, but I'm concerned that my old fixed-wing builds will become illegal to fly, and that the promised $20 bolt-on transponders haven't materialized.
[1]: https://hobbyking.com/en_us/aircraft/drones/flight-controlle...
A couple of notes/thoughts on this:
Commercial drones like the new DJI Mini 3 pro still include Remote ID despite being sub-250g, most likely because it's possible to install a bigger battery and make it heavier. But I also suspect that bigger vendors will default to including this hardware because of the trend towards more and more tracking, i.e. the rule could change at any time.
The other thing to note is that any commercial use of drones under Part 107 must comply with the Remote ID rule regardless of the drone's weight.
This is further incentive for commercial drones to include it by default, as any drone that doesn't is automatically not usable in a commercial setting.
Commercial use would include drone shots intended for sexier instagram posts, if those IG posts are monetized.
https://dronescout.co/dronebeacon-mavlink-remote-id-transpon...
https://ardupilot.org/dev/docs/opendroneid.html#opendroneid
I'm waiting to care until the deadline actually approaches.
I don't think I have a problem with this. However, the transmitter of that ID can't be that powerful as it's just on a drone. There would need to be a global network of receivers to make this a viable thing to constantly be reading every single drone everywhere all the time.
Instead, I just see it as some form of LEO seeing a drone in a restricted space, pulling out their device to get an ID from said drone, enter some form of ticket into some sort of database, drone owner receives warning/fine/etc. I'm okay with all of that. Your drone is already recording GPS info, so if you feel the LEO was wrong, you can submit your GPS info with the time of the "offense" to support your claim it wasn't an illegal flight. What could possibly go wrong? /s
This is how map views like [0] function. Lots of enthusiasts collect and share ADSB data to aggregator sites that then publish these global views. I don't know much about the Remote ID tech, but it's not hard to imagine existing global flight tracking networks expanding to include drone traffic.
Most of these ADSB receivers are raspberry Pis and similar running SDR software, which would make such a thing seem highly plausible.
Why do you think you should be the one to make that decision for someone else?
Is there a “safe” vendor of drones, or has this turned into another “all smart TVs are wiretaps by default” situation that we’re expected to just accept?
- you can't fly over private property,
- pretty much _ALL_ parks&rec departments and counties in the Bay Area prohibit flying in their public parks,
- flying over e.g. public parking lots and the likes is probably a gray area as there's potentially people around,
- airspace at least around here is often regulated anyway, many airports, hospitals with heli pads (not 100% sure about legality of flying within their "zone") and national/state parks that are also no-fly.
I tend to fly in smaller parks and just risk the $500 (?) fine and getting the drone confiscated :( It will just get better once this can happen retroactively :/
But this is mostly why I got a DJI Mini, it's pretty quiet and doesn't draw a lot of attention.
Yes, you can. The FAA regulates airspace; the state has no jurisdiction.
> pretty much _ALL_ parks&rec departments and counties in the Bay Area prohibit flying in their public parks,
They can restrict taking off, landing, and "operating from".
> airspace at least around here is often regulated anyway, many airports, hospitals with heli pads (not 100% sure about legality of flying within their "zone") and national/state parks that are also no-fly.
In most cases it's as easy as a LAANC request, made through a mobile app and approved instantly.
It's worse in some places than others but I had no problem flying in Santa Cruz a few months ago. San Diego is a nightmare, between military bases and the civilian airport there.
