MattyB

I have Giv kit, but chose to use the Octopus scheme as it looked slightly more generous and I already have Home Assistant running. If I didn't have the latter though the GivBack one looks like an easier option (if it works).

You don't need anything as expensive or high end as that tbh. I've used a reversed aquarium aerator (~£25) for stuff where low vac is needed (e.g. laminating sheet onto foam wings), and an old nebulizer for high pressure stuff (composite skins), gathered free from Freecycle. Hacks and bodges rule ok in this sphere, though I do agree a vac switch and gauge is a good idea to give you good control of the setup.

Probably not now, given that most of them will no longer receive a paper copy (hoo-bloomin-ray, long overdue IMO)...!

Model flying won't become illegal - that's a whole lot of work for the authorities, probably wouldn't have great optics to the eyes general public, and would be easier to challenge in court than what they are really planning. It's far easier to make it just difficult and expensive enough to put off most recreational participants from bothering, freeing up the airspace for commercial use. Even if model flying were to become illegal, as we've just pointed out buying land is pointless - it doesn't make it any more legal, just more expensive. One passer by, one complaint, one visit from PC Plod and your whole (expensive) undertaking comes crashing down.

Indeed. Under the current regs and new proposals you'd still need to be registered as a pilot and operator, and still need RID for anything over 250g. For this reason those who intend to go guerilla will save themselves the time and expense of buying land and just go flying in places where the chances of enforcement is minimal. I suspect the chances of you finding 10 members in your locale who'd support the plan you propose is extremely minimal, let alone the 100s you'd actually need to make it economically viable.

In the vast majority of cases it's true, but I've seen a fair few low priced ARTFs that either didn't follow that rule, or had a typo in the instructions resulting in a CG that was way out. I always check the CG using an online calculator an a TLAR check before first flights - costs nothing, takes seconds, but will always tell you if there is a major discrepancy between what is printed and what is needed!

The problem is that we are not dealing with reasonable people - it's politicians and lobbyists that are at the heart of this. The CAA are to an extent the fall guy IMO - they provide a degree of insulation between disgruntled members of the public and UK Gov, and essentially just have to do what they are told. I am sure they know the great UAS delivery drone myth is exactly that (at least for the next 10 years), but they aren't really in a position to challenge politicians who at the end of the day are their boss.

I agree, I don't see how anyone could identify you as an individual from the Op ID alone. TBH I am more concerned by the launch position data, which does strike me as a potentially dangerous piece of information to give to the public unencrypted, though not as dangerous as it would be in the US...!

For future clarity (and because it's eminently clear Gary does not read anything official posted by the CAA, UK Gov, national associations etc), here is the relevant excerpt from the current legislation linked to by @steve too in his post above... A class C1 or C2 UAS shall comply with the following: ..... (12) have a direct remote identification that: (a) allows the upload of the UAS operator registration number required in accordance with Article 14 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and any additional number provided by the registration system; the system shall perform a consistency check verifying the integrity of the full string provided to the UAS operator at the time of registration; in case of inconsistency, the UAS shall emit an error message to the UAS operator; (b) ensures, in real time during the whole duration of the flight, the direct periodic broadcast from the UA using an open and documented transmission protocol, in a way that it can be received directly by existing mobile devices within the broadcasting range, of at least the following data: i) the UAS operator registration number and the verification code provided by the [F4CAA] during the registration process unless the consistency check defined in point (a) is not passed; ii) the unique physical serial number of the UA compliant with point (11); iii) the time-stamp, the geographical position of the UA and its height above the surface or take-off point; iv) the route course measured clockwise from true north and ground speed of the UA; v) the geographical position of the remote pilot or, if not available, the take-off point; and vi) an indication of the emergency status of the UAS; (c) reduces the ability of tampering the functionality of the direct remote identification system.

Members here don't get to decide which threads are closed just on the grounds they don't agree with the views posted. Given you have admitted you have neither read nor understood the CAA's latest proposals or the national association's responses, I fail to see how you are able to classify the content posted by other members who HAVE read this content as "scaremongering". If you don't want to participate on this topic then fine, don't post. However, if you continually post uninformed views that don't bear any relation to the information we all have to hand from the CAA, BMFA and FPV UK, then I don't think you can come over all hurt that people call you out for them.

You may not want to talk about it here, but assuming that is your club I do suggest you discuss it with your club mates and the committee. That looks like exactly the sort of site the CAA could easily refuse to authorise for a RID exception for multiple reasons. Why not ask their opinion and see if they understand that if this goes badly the CAA may not authorise them as a RID-free location - I wonder if they will welcome the prospect of £300/device RID with open arms as you do? You may want to put on your crash helmet before doing so, though...!

They could also quite easily argue the solar farm as a whole is an "industrial site", and with so many panels well within the 150m minimum distance it would be very difficult to challenge. Based on the photo, I don't believe you could fly that site legally under the current regs without a national association Article 16 authorisation.

Have you actually read what the national associations have put out in their recommendations? They are not suggesting we "wait and see", but are actively encouraging members to respond, and for most of the question around RID they are disagreeing with the proposals. In short, they don't favour your BOHICA approach which would only lead to the CAA and UK Gov over-reaching as far as they possibly can to erode our access to the lower airspace and long held flying sites.

My instinct is to agree, but the wording in that proposal is very specific in stating Op ID would be classified as personal information under UK GDPR, so perhaps that is the legal advice they have received?

Indeed. That whole section of the document is a mess, and my comments on those questions will point that out. They certainly didn't do a QA check...

No, it's not - read the proposal! A flying site can apply for authorisation, but in the current proposals it appears to be the CAA that get to decide whether it get's authorised, as in the US and France. That means, many established flying sites could be ruled out just because the CAA doesn't like a distance to an individual building or some other relatively minor factor, and that's it - you are using RID or packing up at that site. And don't forget, any new site that you try and find will also then need to be authorised before you can fly RID free, so finding sites that meets the CAA's gating recommendations adds another layer of complexity to site moves.

@Graham Davies 3, based on my testing with those RM RXs using known good TXs and those threads mentioned by John Muir with less than positive feedback(!), the best thing to do here is junk the Radiomaster RXs and focus on identifying whether satisfactory performance can be extracted from your current TX using the XJT and/or internal MPM modules. The best way to do that is to flash the XJT and Frsky RXs to matching firmware, then redo the tests using the same Frsky RX and in D16 mode using both the MPM and the XJT module, comparing range test and RSSI data for both. That will at least tell you if the MPM has a more fundamental issue. If the results are still mixed/inconsistent and you still aren't confident at that point, do some of the tests mentioned by @RottenRow above; they are all good suggestions that will allow you to eliminate one potential point of failure at a time.

To save @steve toohaving to point it out 😉, RID is not the same as electronic conspicuity, even seemingly in it's hybrid form requested by the CAA. Resources: From the first CAA consultation earlier this year (see highlighted yellow text)... Steve's clarifying post on this later on...

It is, but as I said, it's common knowledge that Silvestri sets up all his models with very forward CGs, well further forward than most people like them. Why he does that I don't know, but every Sebart I've seen has ended up with a CG further back than the marked point in the manual. That can't just be random chance... This sounds pretty much bang on what I'd expect in terms of the amount the CG moved from stock position on a 50e sized Sebart. 20-25mm back from the marked position is (from memory) pretty much where I have ended up with my Miss Wind - the 6S pack has to sit right at the very back of the battery bay, and I think I needed a tiny bit of tail weight to achieve the final position. PS - Someone else who found 145mm to be too far forward...

Yeah, I haven't watched it yet but as soon as I saw the premise for Vigil's second season I knew it was definitely going to "help" us... 🤨

Almost certainly because that ID has been formatted with RID in mind i.e. it has a checksum incorporated in line with the EU requirements (this has been discussed before, do a search on "checksum" in this forum).

Congratulations, you have just proved that you haven't read the latest consultation document. Look again... Background starts here:

I need to give it another more detailed read, but my instant reaction is that (as expected) the BMFA/LMA response is a little too conciliatory for my taste; I don’t believe they used “Definitely disagree” anywhere. I will be being a fair bit more robust in my response when it comes to challenging the “evidence” presented and the rationale for RID for model flyers, especially in such this high cost and complex hybrid (network and broadcast) form.

Sebart factory CGs are notoriously nose heavy; every modeller I’ve seen with a Sebart (including me on my Miss Wind) end up flying them with a CG well behind where the manual recommends. I would not worry too much if you can’t achieve their position if it looks reasonable n a TLAR check.

Increased regulation that is disproportionate, complex and highly unlikely to be enforced leads to increased rates of deliberate and accidental non-compliance, not higher club membership. If you think any new pilot who has bought a 150g toy with a camera on it are suddenly going to dutifully leap online to get flyer and Op IDs and join a club because the regs have changed, you’re in fantasy land. As for the slope sparing example, well, you can’t have done much sloping or met those who enjoy it… Do you really believe the average sloper is going to pack up their hobby and join a power club, or fit RID at great expense inside skinny composite fuselages that block transmission, or travel hundreds of miles to a registered slope site where RID is not required? The chance of enforcement at the average slope is literally zero - hmmm, I wonder what option people will choose…