MattyB

Indeed. Doesn’t look like he will be making any more of those statements, though…

No, you only need an additional exemption if the model is >7.5kgs. The BMFA Article 16 Auth has no height limit for models <7.5kg:

So in other words, “Your hobby is not my hobby, but despite your current operations being entirely legal, I don’t care; I’m quite happy to throw you under the regulatory bus as long as I can carry on”. We already have the CAA and UK Gov looking to erode our access to the airspace below 400ft, yet “friends” like you and Gary are eager to encourage the authorities to regulate anything that doesn’t fit your narrow definition of model flying out of existence. It really is dispiriting to hear such narrow minded views expressed here. Personally I hope that new participants from other disciplines such as @nudge and long established ones such as @David Elam are able to continue flying their models of differing types legally and safely for many years to come, and I will be responding to the consultation using arguments that are based on preserving the rights of all modellers, not just those disciplines I participate in.

Sky ID would not be compliant with the proposals as put forward by the CAA. It only does broadcast ID (e.g., local via Bluetooth), not network ID (which leverages mobile phone technology). I’m not aware of devices that would comply being available anywhere at this point, and they will certainly cost much more than the broadcast only units. However it remains possible that CAA will “listen” to us and allow only broadcast ID in the final regs, which is std government tactics for this kind of thing (suggest something awful, then fall back to something slightly less awful but still bad, and brand it as graceful concession).

Yes...

Based on what I'm seeing locally, those that have been following regulatory matters for a while already understand responding is important and will do so. However the vast majority of club members who fly for a relaxing pastime don't (and have never) wanted to get involved in the bureaucracy, and don't want to spend the time trying to understand the consultation and work out how to respond. I therefore sadly doubt any additional banging of the drum by the BMFA/LMA etc. will make much difference to response rates.

Remember this thread was originally created to discuss the consultation released in Aug, hence why the links to the most recent consultation are not on the first page. Obviously these could be added by mods, but as the thread originator I no longer have edit rights to that post to be able to add this content.

Thank goodness for that. I don't have any problem with anyone having a different view to me. I do have a problem with those who are too lazy to read the documentation put out there by the authorities and national associations, then proceed to repeatedly tell those who have done so that any debate/discussion of the topic is pointless because "what will happen will happen".

The national associations and many of us here certainly know a heck of a lot more about the likely endgame than you. That is because we have actually READ hundreds if not thousands of pages of white papers, consultations and proposals on future UAS integration and regulation from government agencies across the world since the mid 2010s. By contrast you have told us that you have not read the latest CAA consultation, don't intend to respond, and will bend over and acquiesce to whatever regulation they pass regarding RID. On that basis I struggle to see why you continue to contribute in these threads - we all know your views by now, so if you don't want to hear discussion amongst modellers who actively want to challenge this ridiculous regulatory over-reach, just don't participate.

The commercial organisations lobbying UK Gov for improved access to the low level airspace are no UK corner-shops - they are huge multinationals like Google, Amazon, DHL etc., a majority of whom are headquartered in the US. These are the organisations that have been calling for globally harmonized regulations to enable their BVLOS commercial operations to take flight since way back when (Riga 2016 at least), with (probably fantastical) promises of significant regional investment, jobs and tax £££s for those countries that can get there first. That is what UK Gov are chasing, and that is why they are likely to look to places like the US where RID implementation is further along when deciding how to implement it here. That may well be the case, but the problem with your argument is that if the CAA is more conservative than the FAA, they will be less prepared to outsource FRIA authorisation to national associations, not more. Information on the FRIA authorisation processes in countries other than the US seems to be very hard to come by online, but other than the US (where it is definitely done by the FAA), does anyone know of any countries that have implemented RID but outsourced the authorisation of FRIAs to their national model flying associations? @steve too, do you know how they do site authorisations in Japan and France (for instance)? I agree the two party system and the split of power across the Congress and the Senate does make it a very different system, but I doubt anyone who has watched more than 30 mins of the Covid enquiry currently places trust in this particular government, whether they voted for it or not! The last study by the ONS indicates UK trust in government is very low these days, and scandals such as Rishi's wife's non-dom status and the recent rowing back by Baroness Mone regarding PPE doesn't indicate to me that we our politics is less driven by money than anywhere else. Better shut up though, this is heading dangerously close to murky political waters now....!

I am sure that is what the national associations will go for, but it is not how it works in the US, where applications are via CBO to the FAA. Are the BMFA aware of another jurisdiction where they have implemented RID but devolved site authorisation to national associations? I'm not, but if there were that would be a useful precedent. Either way, whilst I'd love to believe the CAA are happy to leave site authorisation to the BMFA, LMA and FPVUK, I just don't believe their political lords and masters will sanction that - it cedes too much control in terms of their ability to clear useful areas of low level airspace for potential commercial use.

Correct, we don't, but how many of those 400ft+ for <7.5kg permits do they process a year at present? Only a small percentage of clubs hold them today, so the time and cost to the CAA will be minimal. If every club/organised group affiliated to a national association were to apply for the UK equivalent of a FRIA, that will be >1000 sites, which is an awful lot of new work for the CAA. Assuming that will be done for free seems rather a large stretch, so I will definitely be commenting in my response that the costs to applicants should either be very minimal (<£10/site/annum, subsidised from DMARES if needs be), or the site authorisations should be handed off to the national associations. I severely doubt the lobbyists and UK Gov will sanction the latter though, as it's not in their interests to do so.

With regards to the possible requirement for site authorisation from the CAA in order to avoid the requirement for pilots to fit RID, I decided to check the current costs for an Article 16 authorisation (it is pretty much the only item on the CAA's charge book that would appear semi-related to the activities that would be involved in the review and approval of a club site for operation without RID). This document shows the initial costs is just over £2k, based on 7 hours of work by the CAA at £290 an hour, with renewal of ~£600/year: Key point - based on their charge book, the CAA don't do anything for free, so we shouldn't assume RID site authorisations will be. For that reason respondents to the call for consultation may wish to mention these eye-watering numbers when responding. Even if they were halved for club RID exceptions vs an Article 16 auth, they would still add a hefty chunk to the membership costs of many clubs and associations, and there is no guarantee the CAA will say yes having assessed your application. That first year could certainly be a nice little money-spinner for the CAA, dwarfing the annual take-home from the DMARES scheme... 🤨😬

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.