The New Upcoming Autel Robotics EVO 2 Discussion Thread

[Jagerbomb52]

If you watch the video of Paul from Drone-U in post #64 of this thread you will hear him tell you that none of our existing UAV's will be able to fly after the new NPRM is passed and becomes law in the United States. I'm afraid anything from DJI or Autel or any other manufacture is not able to qualify for REMOTE ID that the FAA has chosen to use.

Executive Summary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Part 89) December 20, 2019

Stocking up only works if the old drones would get grandfathered. They won't. So every drone that has been purchased without these devices can only fly 400 ft and must still have an internet connection. Kinda messes up the Autel Evo 2 since that will be similar in which you do not need to fly...

autelpilots.com

 

[LeafPeeper]

So now we have conflicting answers....so I'm back to my original question. WOULD our existing drones support standard remote id IF the manufacturers provided software/firmware updates? I guess we don't know for sure. Heading to watch Paul's video now...

LP

 

[Crusader]

If you watch the video of Paul from Drone-U in post #64 of this thread you will hear him tell you that none of our existing UAV's will be able to fly after the new NPRM is passed and becomes law in the United States. I'm afraid anything from DJI or Autel or any other manufacture is not able to qualify for REMOTE ID that the FAA has chosen to use.

Executive Summary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Part 89) December 20, 2019

Stocking up only works if the old drones would get grandfathered. They won't. So every drone that has been purchased without these devices can only fly 400 ft and must still have an internet connection. Kinda messes up the Autel Evo 2 since that will be similar in which you do not need to fly...

autelpilots.com

Do you know that guy? I get the impression he wouldn't be fine with any new regulations passing. Truth be told, we do need some way of providing separation and deconfliction in the airspace. And some way of identifying violators. It's sad, but the video I posted up of the Bell passing under the drone in Florida had all kinds of comments calling it a fake and justifying the actions of the operators. Some even blamed the helicopter pilot. If common sense and general concern for the welfare of others won't keep drone pilots from causing a hazard to others' lives, then it'll have to be regulations and fines.

That's not to say that these people represent the majority of UAS operators, but you can go to the FAA website and get Excel files chock full of drone incidents and near misses. One of the common themes is, the manned A/C pilot DID NOT take evasive action. That's because we can't see the drone until we're within feet of it. The point is, the regulations are coming because a drone operated by an irresponsible or ignorant pilot is a very real threat. Both to the manned aircraft and to the people in the ensuing debris field.

Has anyone offered any alternative solutions to the proposed rulemaking? I get the gripes and all, but we'll need to be honest about what's going to happen and who these regs will benefit. Or more directly, exactly who will be capable of operating in compliance with them. Realistically speaking.

It's a good thing to keep in mind the value Aviation adds to the economy. They're going to protect that first. Public trust is part of that. The individual drone pilot is bottom rung here.

So who will these regs benefit? Delivery services. We are all tracking that, right?

 

[LeafPeeper]

Ok I just watched Paul's video, and it's no clearer to me. He does clearly state that our existing drones won't work because they don't follow the proposed serial number standard. However, he doesn't specifically say that they can't be made to work with a firmware or software update. In addition, near the end, it's pretty clear that it's really the internet connection and data collection requirement that is the biggest issue to him - not only because it ruins off grid flying, but because he goes back to citing the NPRM in that if internet is dropped, the broadcast system is acceptable. That same statement almost makes it sound like the existing broadcast system we have would be acceptable. Bottom line, I'm still confused.

The truth is, I would very much like to comment on the proposal, but I just don't know what to say. I'm fine with my drones sending out a registration number/license plate. I'm not ok with all the privacy issues - and further potential to dollarize access to my private info, nor am I ok with paying for some subscription service. I guess what bugs me most is that several years ago, I took flying lessons from an instructor friend of mine - in an old tail dragger Piper cub. There was no radio, and no transponder. It was fly by the seat of your pants, from a small grass airfield. You got in the pattern by watching all around you and looking for other planes. If MANNED planes can fly that way, it seems stupid to me to put these kinds of requirements on drones. Licensing, registration, training, prosecution, etc....I'm all for it...but this does sound a bit ridiculous.

LP

 

[Crusader]

Ok I just watched Paul's video, and it's no clearer to me. He does clearly state that our existing drones won't work because they don't follow the proposed serial number standard. However, he doesn't specifically say that they can't be made to work with a firmware or software update. In addition, near the end, it's pretty clear that it's really the internet connection and data collection requirement that is the biggest issue to him - not only because it ruins off grid flying, but because he goes back to citing the NPRM in that if internet is dropped, the broadcast system is acceptable. That same statement almost makes it sound like the existing broadcast system we have would be acceptable. Bottom line, I'm still confused.

LP

Seems to me like it would be a simple programming solution. An easy fix for compliance of consumer drones. Off the grid flying will need some other type of internet connection. Another type of device, but that sounds like a business opportunity rather than a problem.

 

[LeafPeeper]

Seems to me like it would be a simple programming solution. An easy fix for compliance of consumer drones. Off the grid flying will need some other type of internet connection. Another type of device, but that sounds like a business opportunity rather than a problem.

That's where I'm parked too....until I hear someone tell me differently.

As I amended my post above, I am worried a bit about the privacy issues and dollarized access to my personal info though...

LP

 

[LeafPeeper]

At the risk of getting my butt chewed out again though, as a 107 pilot, I am sick and tired of people breaking rules and flaunting it. It doesn't seem to be as prevalent in this forum, but the facebook groups are full of people stating how they constantly ignore the rules, and that's why they chose Autel instead of DJI. The minute you say something, you get piled on like some kind of narc. I say bring on the restrictions....but let's make them achievable and enforceable - and in a way that won't make our thousands of dollars of current investments worthless.

LP

 

[Jagerbomb52]

If you are on Facebook Drone u is live right now

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=807048556386450

 

[Crusader]

That's where I'm parked too....until I hear someone tell me differently.

As I amended my post above, I am worried a bit about the privacy issues and dollarized access to my personal info though...

LP

Sorry, that made me LOL. You might as well dispense with the idea that your personal data is going to be protected. It seems like I get a letter ever year or so where some company apologies for "losing" my personal info in a hack. The Office of Personnel Management even lost my data. That's just the reality of it. I don't like it, either.

On the same note though, if someone were using their drone irresponsibly or to do damage to my property, I'd like a system in place so I could identify them. It might even be a deterrent. I don't think there should be an expectation of privacy for someone to anonymously operate their drone to violate my privacy, when there's a reasonable expectation of it.

 

[LeafPeeper]

Sorry, that made me LOL. You might as well dispense with the idea that your personal data is going to be protected. It seems like I get a letter ever year or so where some company apologies for "losing" my personal info in a hack. The Office of Personnel Management even lost my data. That's just the reality of it. I don't like it, either.

On the same note though, if someone were using their drone irresponsibly or to do damage to my property, I'd like a system in place so I could identify them. It might even be a deterrent. I don't think there should be an expectation of privacy for someone to anonymously operate their drone to violate my privacy, when there's a reasonable expectation of it.

I've already had my identity stolen...pretty severely. It's not about whether my data will be sold or compromised - because you're right. We're all at the mercy of the irresponsible behavior of the companies with whom we do business....or even not. Hell...even Equifax f*ked up....the company that OWNS THE DATA THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING! For me now it's just about minimizing how many places I have to share it if I can. I don't like the idea of paying for a subscription service for someone else to lose my data.

I disagree on your second point though. I don't want just anybody to be able to look me up, just like I wouldn't want anyone to be able to look up my license plate. I'd want it to be limited to law enforcement...

LP

 

[Crusader]

I've already had my identity stolen...pretty severely. It's not about whether my data will be sold or compromised - because you're right. We're all at the mercy of the irresponsible behavior of the companies with whom we do business....or even not. Hell...even Equifax f*ked up....the company that OWNS THE DATA THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING! For me now it's just about minimizing how many places I have to share it if I can. I don't like the idea of paying for a subscription service for someone else to lose my data.

I disagree on your second point though. I don't want just anybody to be able to look me up, just like I wouldn't want anyone to be able to look up my license plate. I'd want it to be limited to law enforcement...

LP

Fair enough, but imagine this: Hacker drone lands on your roof, hacks into your wifi, and then starts collecting data from your phone, computer, and TV. Wouldn't you like to know who it is?

Or imagine this: you wake up, scratch, start the coffee maker, and walk outside to get the paper in preparation for your normal morning "business" routine. Except now, some rando drone pops down and shoots a picture off of you. Why? Since it's anonymous, who knows? Maybe it's a company, contracted to collect data. Maybe it's little Billy, down the street, just being a ornery kid. Or maybe, it's a sophisticated burglar (who stole the drone, by the way...) establishing a pattern of life (POL) and reconnoitering neighborhood. You call the cops, but they're busy and don't show in time to corroborate your story. With Remote ID, you get serial number. You take the number and submit it to the FAA who discovers that drone was stolen 3 counties over. See where I'm going with this?

The FAA has a Tail Number Registry. If I get an N-number of someone flying over my field at 30 ft, I can look them up and ask them what they were up to. And if they give me the business, I can call the FSDO and let them know some jackhole was buzzing my property. With minimal investigation, the FAA can confirm and take action. It should be the same with drones.
Remember the swimming pool/teenage daughters incident? Remote ID seems like a much safer form of redress for the affected than shooting the drone down.

I've listened to the guy from DroneU talk about license plate number confidentiality. He's misinformed. FOIA gives people access to that data. And there are "services" that have capitalized on the FOIA access. You can pay to find anyone through their license plate lol. Except govt vehicles... now ain't that something.

One last thing, what I'm talking about with the technology is something called "Human Terrain Mapping." This is the age of data. Collection, consolidation, aggregation, and finally, data products. We're comfortable with Google and Amazon having access to pretty much the whole of our daily lives, including spending habits, routines, even our private conversations. They realized a long time ago that data was a new currency. Our laws have not kept pace with the tech, so the way I see it is... the only way to fight it is to devalue that currency.

 

[LeafPeeper]

Ok - I get it...but I guess I'd still prefer it to be a registration number that someone has to consult with an authority - FAA, law enforcement, whatever - to get more detail.

LP

 

[Crusader]

Ok - I get it...but I guess I'd still prefer it to be a registration number that someone has to consult with an authority - FAA, law enforcement, whatever - to get more detail.

LP

Have you seen Slaughterbots? 6:48 up on the screen behind the presenter ... This is obviously only a partial list. With a little bit of imagination, you can see how human terrain mapping can be leveraged. This video kept me up for 3 whole days. It's a revelation.

I have a whole different approach to this that dronies won't like. The old Roman law said you owned everything above and below your property. From Space to Hell. While that might be a little excessive, I think the average person should have rights to some of the airspace above their property. Personal Airspace. Class Papa.

There's a company in Seattle called Echodyne. It's products are notebook sized radar arrays capable of interrogating manned and unmanned aircraft. With the right setup, a property owner should be able to delineate their airspace and allow or deny entry to any aircraft up to a reasonable ceiling. Within that Class P airspace, approved countermeasures are authorized for violator drones. Additionally, the govt would have the ability to assume control of these systems in a linked together network. In the event of a slughterbots-type event, the collective of the C-UAS tech could be used as a national defense mechanism to protect persons, property, infrastructure... This was what got me interested in UAS tech to begin with. These aren't just benign toys. They have the capability of doing quite a bit of damage. The Govt is waking up to that fact and that's another reason we're seeing Remote ID.

 

[DanielG]

I am not completely opposed to the new system, but I am opposed to buying an Evo 2 if in 3 years I am restricted to no more than 400ft from me and in a designated area if it can't be updated to the new law. Why would anyone by an Evo 2?? It's going to depreciate like crazy as the rules get closer. It's a very good question to pose to Autel.

 

[Ansia]

That is true. Autel is going to suffer a lot this year with it's new drone coming up. If it doesn't comply with the proposed Remote ID, it will deter people from buying them.

 

[DanielC]

At the risk of getting my butt chewed out again though, as a 107 pilot, I am sick and tired of people breaking rules and flaunting it. It doesn't seem to be as prevalent in this forum, but the facebook groups are full of people stating how they constantly ignore the rules, and that's why they chose Autel instead of DJI. The minute you say something, you get piled on like some kind of narc. I say bring on the restrictions....but let's make them achievable and enforceable - and in a way that won't make our thousands of dollars of current investments worthless.

LP

I agree with the sentiment. These new rules will open up opportunities for some and make some think twice before investing in a drone and many will still fount the rules/laws. I look forward to a more efficient way to fly legally and within the rules. Right now because there are so many questions and opinions and continuously changing rules it makes it hard even for those who are trying to fly legal to fly legal all of the time.

 

[DanielG]

That is true. Autel is going to suffer a lot this year with it's new drone coming up. If it doesn't comply with the proposed Remote ID, it will deter people from buying them.

I doubt the Evo 2 would comply with this new situation. I wonder if they will delay release to see what happens in the next few months. Maybe if they hold off until end of summer they may be able to add something if necessary?

 

[Jagerbomb52]

I would not be to worried if the new EVO 2 will comply and how it will effect Autels bottom line. If these new regs\law comes into effect the EVO 2 will be old news by then and hopefully Autel will be building the EVO 3 by then to stay with the competition.

It might take a while but I really don't think network based ID will happen as the FAA wants it, it will be more then likely broadcast only which means 80% or so of the UAV's out there will comply with the new rules\law. This seems to be how most in the know are leaning to now that the smoke is starting to clear. Let hope so.

If interested you can sign up here for the next Webinar:

Next Webinar Registration

Topic: NPRM - Info and Strategy Follow Up

Time: Jan 14, 2020 04:00 PM in Mountain Time (US and Canada)

Welcome! You are invited to join a webinar: NPRM - Info and Strategy Follow Up. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the webinar.

Join us as we dive further into: ~Sessions and what they entail ~The difference between broadcast and internet via wifi ~FRIAs and their eventual demise ~More on the importance of privacy of pilot location ~UAS Registration and what it entails ~USS requirements, the data they collect & what they...

zoom.us

 

[DanielG]

I would not be to worried if the new EVO 2 will comply and how it will effect Autels bottom line. If these new regs\law comes into effect the EVO 2 will be old news by then and hopefully Autel will be building the EVO 3 by then to stay with the competition.

It might take a while but I really don't think network based ID will happen as the FAA wants it, it will be more then likely broadcast only which means 80% or so of the UAV's out there will comply with the new rules\law. This seems to be how most in the know are leaning to now that the smoke is starting to clear. Let hope so.

If interested you can sign up here for the next Webinar:

Next Webinar Registration

Topic: NPRM - Info and Strategy Follow Up

Time: Jan 14, 2020 04:00 PM in Mountain Time (US and Canada)

Welcome! You are invited to join a webinar: NPRM - Info and Strategy Follow Up. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the webinar.

Join us as we dive further into: ~Sessions and what they entail ~The difference between broadcast and internet via wifi ~FRIAs and their eventual demise ~More on the importance of privacy of pilot location ~UAS Registration and what it entails ~USS requirements, the data they collect & what they...

zoom.us

Let's just say I think people will be disappointed. I am pretty sure the FAA and the backers of the new proposal would absolutely like to eliminate 80% of the drones from qualifying. The goal is to get hobbyists out of the sky. If you make all existing stock useless and make regs very difficult, you could eliminate most from staying in the air. That is what is coming. It makes logical sense, when you think of the continued over reach of big government. Anyways, I will not be getting any drone until things are much more clear. And yes, I would not buy a Evo 2 if it was useless in 3 years, and suspect I am not alone in that.

 

[butch]

The sky is fallling....................