8 unmanned systems
inside
April/May 2017
M
ultiple sources tell me that our
drones have been held hostage by
our own FBI, which begs the ques-
tion: "Who does hostage negotiations
when you're held hostage by the FBI?" In
this case, it depends on whether we want
to negotiate or just meet their demands.
The Department of Homeland Security is
refusing to coordinate on the new Micro
UAS and Operations Over People rules
until the FAA requires a method to "elec-
tronically identify" drones in f light as
part of the rules. I say we drop the nego-
tiations and comply because this demand
makes sense. Electronic identification is
something the FAA should have insisted
upon from the very beginning in Part
107. I know the FA A has been under a
lot of pressure to cut red tape and avoid
over-regulating the drone industry, but
this omission is one that put everyone—
manned air traffic, people on the ground,
our leaders, our critical infrastructure—at
greater risk because we don't have a way
for either air traffic management or law
enforcement to tell who is f lying what
drone in our National Airspace System
(NAS). It looks like the FAA is now mov-
ing ahead on the issue; the Administrator
announced an Electronic ID Aviation
Rulemaking Committee at the FAA UAS
Symposium in March.
How should the FAA comply with this
demand? I hope they think it through
and devise rules that address the needs of
safety, security, air traffic management,
law enforcement and drone detect and
avoid. It would be easy to panic and rush
ADS-B:
ALREADY
MANDATORY
FOR MANNED
AIRCRAFT
LTE:
GOOD SECURITY,
NOT STANDARD
FOR AVIATION
RADIO:
CROWDED AND
HAS POWER
LIMITATIONS
RADIO
UNPROTECTED,
NOT STANDARD
FOR AVIATION
WiFi:
CROWDED AND
HAS POWER
LIMITATIONS
RADIO
UNPROTECTED,
NOT STANDARD
FOR AVIATION
RFID:
INEXPENSIVE BUT
LOW-POWERED
Photo courtesy of Oklahoma State
THE TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS
by JAMES POSS, MAJ GEN (RET) USAF, CEO ISR IDEAS
DRONES HELD HOSTAGE?
General Overview by James Poss, Maj Gen (RET) USAF