MattyB

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…

So let me get this right… You believe increased regulation and a (theoretical) uptick in enforcement activities would improve participation? Can you explain this logic?

PS - @Simon Chaddock, hoping to get at least one of mine done over the xmas period, family commitments permitting. PPS - Do you have any tips on how to connect up the lightweight pull-pull, or a video that describes it? I've done a few of these way back in the day for larger models, but always avoided them for small stuff, but accept it's definitely the best option in this case. What do you use, kevlar thread?

That sounds like a decent starting point, but it can be easily checked by giving it a gentle chuck (switched on) over some long grass, that way even if it's a long way out, you can correct it without any damage being done.

Good stuff, glad you've been able to test it. Did you try a dive test to check the CG? I know it isn't everyone's favourite technique, but I have found it's good at telling me if I'm in the ballpark, and generally I've found getting the CG further back tends to reduce the flap/elevator mixing requirement and improve the dead air glide performance (as long as you don't go to far and end up with it getting twitchy on pitch).

Thanks. I am waiting to see what the BMFA guidance says, though if it is similar to the last consultation I suspect will not be agree with many elements of it and respond based purely on my own views. I am certainly interested to see what they say about the hybrid (network and broadcast) RID proposal and the CAA site authorisation process.

He wasn't "just realising it", he was pointing out to @leccyflyer that the CAA definition does include non-autonomous multirotors flown FPV and LOS, which is different to leccy's proposed definition. Because CAA made it very clear they were not prepared to give an exception to multirotors over 400ft to association members, officially for "safety and security reason" reasons, but probably also in part because the negative optics of doing so for the lobbyists who are bending their ears. A post on this topic from 2018 when the Article 16 authorisation was granted... "Some interesting commentary from the BMFA themselves on FB when asked about this... "The Government was concerned that those wishing to operate multi-rotor drones unlawfully would join the associations solely to benefit from our permission/exemption in order to evade the 400ft limit. There is a lot of data to support permissions for model flyers operating 'conventional' model aircraft (which is why we were able to negotiate the permission), but unfortunately there is also a lot of data showing significant numbers of unlawful multi-rotor drone flights, many of which are at much greater heights than 'conventional' model aircraft would operate (which is why the CAA would not include multi-rotors drones)."

I have it on good authority from a friend in the civil service that they design these consultation processes to be drawn out, complicated and require submission at awkward times precisely to generate those kind of feelings amongst potential respondents. That (plus the well known tactic of proposing something truly horrendous, then falling back to an alternative that is mildly less bad and branding it a "we've listened to you" concession) makes it that much easier for them to slowly erode the rights of minority groups such as ourselves over time until UK Gov has what it is looking for. 😞

I assume you are talking about the CAA regs consultation and not BMFA fees? If that's the case there's no magic bullet, but there are two other actions we could theoretically take beyond what the national associations have done to this point (e.g. advise members on how to engage with the various consultation processes): Direct action (petitions, protests, etc.) - Probably not tenable for us; there are unlikely to be enough UAS/model flying members who would come out, and even if we did the public are unlikely to get behind it as there's nothing really it for non-model flyers. The legal route - Consult with some legal eagles, identify the points in the process where a legal challenge of UK Gov/the CAA is possible, pick a strategy and try and hold them to account for all these made up "facts" and projections in some kind of court. A challenge may come before the law is changed, or might have to wait until some poor soul is hauled over the coals for a transgression (again, the national associations would need to consult with lawyers as soon as the final proposed law was known to identify what the best strategy is likely to be). Expensive (the national associations would probably need to band together), not guaranteed to work and potentially risky for any individual being prosecuted, but probably the only way to really challenge the CAA and UK Gov if they were to ignore all our feedback and implement onerous new regulations that will significantly affect participation. PS - I've seen 2 used in a work context, and it can be very effective even when it's little guy against huge corporations and governments if done well. The problem is it needs pretty big resources plus the patience and confidence to play the long game. Unfortunately we probably don't have the former at this point, I suspect there won't be a body of members prepared to get behind such action since the majority of us fly for fun and relaxation,and will just choose to do something else if it all gets too stressful.

What? I asked if there was a more concrete example of how the BMFA centre adds benefit in the eyes of regulators, and one has been provided by Andy. What exactly is wrong with that on either side, unless of course you prefer living in a communist state where any question of the authority figure/organisation pretty much banned?! I'd looked at the National Centre website and done a Google, but could find no obvious publicity coverage of such visits, or anything other than general "it makes us look good in the eyes of the regulator" type statements. OK, fair cop, that was lazy words and incorrect. However, on a practical level I'm not sure how many members would want to sit on the committee of a club that a) used a site/sites that were only legal when flown under Article 16, and b) was not affiliated, so the committee would not be covered by indemnity cover.

Yes, I've seen a few of those, but I'm pretty sure that filming would just have happened at another physical location had Buckminster not existed - after all, the BMFA has supported that kind of stuff prior to the national centre. In terms of value, I was thinking more about whether we are using the centre to host the CAA, show them the value of the hobby up close and win over a few hearts and minds (maybe - you can but dream...!). Has that been happening on a regular basis? I am not too worried about this years increase, and agree it is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. It's the next 5-6 years that is more concerning based on the BMFA's own projections of costs and falling membership. The numbers complaining now may be small, but that won't remain the case if membership were to dip significantly in 2026 if RID comes in and fees have to increase to fill the gap. Re: the Legal battle, I am not advocating we should have taken this path before now - playing the regulators game was the right thing to do, as not trying to show partnership with the CAA early on would have been counter-productive. As to whether it would work now, I don't honestly know, but even if the chances are slim that still feels better than playing along via the current pathway where the CAA and UK Gov make up the rules and data to suit whatever measure they wish to propose. Ultimately though you are right - that money is gone, we can't get it back, so any legal challenge is financially untenable unless a monster donor comes along out of the blue. I agree country members could vote with their feet and go to an LMA or FPV UK, but I suspect the rise this year won't be sufficient to trigger that at any great scale. From a club perspective, many are reliant on the Article 16 authorisation to continue operating. If clubs are to de-affiliate from the BMFA they would have to win over members that would be required, do all the admin, then join one of the other associations straight away, all within a few weeks. That is an awful lot of admin and faff for committee members to do in a short period, so I doubt the vast majority of clubs will even consider it at this point unless there is a huge clamour from members (which seems unlikely).

I don't agree that we'd be better off if multirotors had not been invented. There are lots of great uses for them from TV to crop surveys, as well as BVLOS fixed wing drones to deliver critical medical supplies etc. I have also flown a few myself, and they can be lots of fun. The problem is just that when something genuinely new is invented, initially it is can only be subject to legislation made up for a time before it existed. Of course the authorities could have chosen to separate camera carrying quadcopters from LOS model aircraft relatively simply at the outset, but they actively fought every attempt by the associations to do this because it wasn't in their interest - it's far easier to regulate and enforce if every type of craft under one umbrella.