Field Evaluation of Remote Identification Broadcast Performance: Discrepancies Between Manufacturer Specifications and Operational Results
Keywords
Remote ID, UAS, sUAS, ASTM
Presenter Abstract
Remote Identification (RID) is a regulatory requirement for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operating in the National Airspace System, and the data it provides serves as a foundational input for a range of future UAS operations and services. To date, the real-world performance of commercially available RID devices has not been thoroughly characterized under operational flight conditions. This study presents the results obtained from a series of RID field tests in which multiple commercial off-the-shelf RID broadcast modules were evaluated for positional accuracy, broadcast continuity, and reception reliability. Testing was conducted using both stationary and dynamic flight profiles at varying horizontal distances, across different RID communication protocols and broadcast power levels. Results revealed significant discrepancies between manufacturer-advertised specifications and observed field performance, including signal dropouts at distances well below advertised detection ranges and degraded update consistency during flight. These findings raise questions about the reliability of currently published RID specifications for informing operational planning or integration into broader UAS services. Devices operating near the ASTM F3411-22a minimum broadcast requirements exhibited notably reduced performance compared to those transmitting at higher power levels, yet all were technically compliant with the standard. If RID data is to be relied upon for any operational function beyond basic identification, further refinement of compliance standards is needed. The results underscore the need for a standardized flight-test methodology that defines repeatable protocols for measuring key performance metrics under realistic conditions. Such standardization would enable consistent cross-vendor assessment, support future regulatory decisions, and encourage manufacturers to publish validated field-performance data rather than idealized specifications.
Presentations
Presented in Session 12: Research to Operations II
Field Evaluation of Remote Identification Broadcast Performance: Discrepancies Between Manufacturer Specifications and Operational Results
Remote Identification (RID) is a regulatory requirement for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operating in the National Airspace System, and the data it provides serves as a foundational input for a range of future UAS operations and services. To date, the real-world performance of commercially available RID devices has not been thoroughly characterized under operational flight conditions. This study presents the results obtained from a series of RID field tests in which multiple commercial off-the-shelf RID broadcast modules were evaluated for positional accuracy, broadcast continuity, and reception reliability. Testing was conducted using both stationary and dynamic flight profiles at varying horizontal distances, across different RID communication protocols and broadcast power levels. Results revealed significant discrepancies between manufacturer-advertised specifications and observed field performance, including signal dropouts at distances well below advertised detection ranges and degraded update consistency during flight. These findings raise questions about the reliability of currently published RID specifications for informing operational planning or integration into broader UAS services. Devices operating near the ASTM F3411-22a minimum broadcast requirements exhibited notably reduced performance compared to those transmitting at higher power levels, yet all were technically compliant with the standard. If RID data is to be relied upon for any operational function beyond basic identification, further refinement of compliance standards is needed. The results underscore the need for a standardized flight-test methodology that defines repeatable protocols for measuring key performance metrics under realistic conditions. Such standardization would enable consistent cross-vendor assessment, support future regulatory decisions, and encourage manufacturers to publish validated field-performance data rather than idealized specifications.