<story><title>U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered</title><url>http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-will-require-drones-be-registered-n446266</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>neurotech1</author><text>One thing about the RPV&amp;#x2F;Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don&amp;#x27;t use ADS-B transponders.&lt;p&gt;The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL) These RPV-grade ADS-B transponders could use a limited signal output, to avoid nuisance pop-ups from longer distances. The transponder Mode-S ID uniquely identifies the RPV.&lt;p&gt;It would be possible for a transponder to use an alternate channel frequency, similar to how many General Aviation aircraft use 978Mhz ADS-B. Even with an alternate RPV channel, the RPV operators would still be alerted to regular aircraft operations.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>swingbridge</author><text>Interesting idea although there are a lot of technical issues that would make what you describe more challenging. A simpler approach is positive enforcement. Force manufacturers to hard code drones to not fly near airports or other restricted areas and not fly above 200 ft.&lt;p&gt;Model aircraft have existed for a long time and there&amp;#x27;s been a good relationship with the FAA and few incidents. The challenge is that technology has advanced to the point that these modern &amp;quot;drones&amp;quot; are almost too easy to fly. Any idiot can watch some YouTube videos and then they think they&amp;#x27;re a pilot. Given that, to the extent possible the aviation regulations should be enforced at the device level to make these things as idiot proof in terms of busting airspace regs as they are idiot proof to fly.</text></comment>
<story><title>U.S. Will Require Drones to Be Registered</title><url>http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-will-require-drones-be-registered-n446266</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>neurotech1</author><text>One thing about the RPV&amp;#x2F;Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don&amp;#x27;t use ADS-B transponders.&lt;p&gt;The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL) These RPV-grade ADS-B transponders could use a limited signal output, to avoid nuisance pop-ups from longer distances. The transponder Mode-S ID uniquely identifies the RPV.&lt;p&gt;It would be possible for a transponder to use an alternate channel frequency, similar to how many General Aviation aircraft use 978Mhz ADS-B. Even with an alternate RPV channel, the RPV operators would still be alerted to regular aircraft operations.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>olex</author><text>Just how accurate is this 2000$ GPS supposed to be? Because my 40$ Ublox M8N GNSS modules on several copters produce a solid lock with constant HDOP&amp;lt;1.5 under normal conditions, averaging around ~1.5m horizontal position deviation, and altitude is locked in via barometer down to several cm. To get more position accuracy, you really need DGPS, which AFAIK planes don&amp;#x27;t normally use either... and do those couple meters really matter?</text></comment>