Martin_K

Maybe 20 years ago I was pleased to see an airship (Spirit of Dubai?) flying near my home, then again tethered, moored (not sure what the word is) at Fairoaks Airfield. Back then, I doubt the motivation was 'sustainable air travel'. I hope this venture proves longer lasting.

From the press release; "Industry partners will also undertake multiple industry-leading trials to explore new ways to operate drones beyond the visual line of sight and demonstrate electric aircraft – keeping accidents to a minimum and making the most of technological advances." You may still be 'collateral damage', Don.

A couple of practical notes if flying outside a club environment. A public space not used by a flying club has no landing strip. I find hand launch and belly landing the best under these circumstances. The limiting factor on the durability of landing gear is how strongly the undercarriage is attached to the fuselage. Fat tyres do not change that. If anyone is coming my way as I turn into my final approach I shout "stand still please"! An attempt to control the situation during landing. It makes me self conscious but when standing in a public place holding an RC transmitter you are the 'wacko'. Everybody else are the 'normal' people. If they keep walking towards the 'plane, abort the landing. Flying in public is not an easy option. (Assuming you can find anywhere local where it is legal).

Altitude Angel UTM Ready. Frequently Asked Questions.

Established flying sites could be a complicated list. Place name plus; Location coordinates? Club (if any)? Owner / Manager of land? Restrictions under which you can fly?

There is already international consensus among law makers on the mass of allowable small models, derived from the kinetic energy carried. That is 250 grams.

RID transmits flight data. A static test at home would not generate data showing a moving aircraft. Testing indoors can already present problems if a device you are using needs sight of GPS satellites. Geofencing could inhibit functionality too. I concur with Steve in the post above. A few years ago I was a member of a club inside the Heathrow FRZ. Already at that time the police were able to capture and decode some drone to controller transmissions. (I was on the field one day when they arrived with specific information about an incident).

CAA - Remote ID Integration Provider & Service Provider(s) The RID modules being discussed are part of a massive data processing system. The CAA issued a pre-procurement notice (on gov.uk) last summer advising service providers of a future invitation to bid for Remote ID Integration services. It indicates what will happen to the data after it leaves your model aircraft. Costs for us? RID module + network charge for sending the data + service charge?

I do not have a smartphone or an air time contract. Mobile phone (voice and text message), Pay as You Go. Network Remote ID requires subscription to the network, as well as the module in the 'plane.

Steve, Yes, emerging technologies was a bad choice of words by me. Different method of use of what is already out there would have been a better way to describe the FAA bringing Network RID back into the equation on their side of the pond.

For a review of Remote ID developments in America, under the jurisdiction of the FAA, see Network Remote ID vs. Broadcast Remote ID. A proposal has emerged to place Broadcast Remote ID receivers at selected locations. These would aggregate RID messages and upload them to a network. Yes, it is further wrinkle to the issue in America but I am sure the CAA will be following emerging technologies.

In all the above description of 'innovation' the CAA does not explicitly say, manage all aircraft within one air traffic control system, which is what I think they are working towards?

Thanks Bob. As you say, the result of the previous consultation is - another consultation. The new Consultation Review of UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations can be downloaded as CAP2610. The reference to model aircraft and remote ID is in Section 5.8.viii Model Aircraft: We recognise the good safety record of Model Aircraft flying in the UK, and the importance of Model Aircraft to many hobbyists. However, our view is that a blanket, unconstrained Remote ID exemption for all Model Aircraft flying would make UAS regulations challenging to enforce and create inconsistent security outcomes, due to the wide range of locations and aircraft currently used for Model Aircraft flying. Our aim is therefore to find a proportionate approach that supports the Model Aircraft community to fly safely and securely, without undermining the security benefits we aim to achieve through Remote ID. We are proposing for safe and secure Model Aircraft flights to be exempt from Remote ID requirements. Under our proposed approach, Model Aircraft flights would be exempt from Remote ID requirements, if: a. The aircraft meets the CAA’s definition and specification for exempt Model Aircraft; b. The pilot and UAS remain within the bounds of a designated Model Aircraft flying site, authorised by the CAA based on proximity to urban, sensitive or restricted sites; and c. The flight takes place within a Model Aircraft club, with an authorisation granted under Article 16 of UK Regulation(EU) 2019/947. This approach is similar to that taken by the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) in the USA. In practice, the detailed definition of Model Aircraft and criteria for designated flying zones would need to be established in parallel to this consultation, in collaboration with Model Aircraft stakeholders. These would be developed to ensure that flights taking place without Remote ID are limited to locations and aircraft that pose a sufficiently low security risk. Where these conditions are not met, Model Aircraft flights would be expected to meet the same regulatory requirements as legacy UAS – i.e. to have active Remote ID, delivered via a Remote ID add-on module (unless the aircraft is less than 250g without a camera). Under these proposals, Model Aircraft that fly at low-risk club or association sites and meet the definition of an exempt Model Aircraft would not be impacted by Remote ID. We expect for this approach to be implemented from 1st January 2028 onwards, aligning to our proposals for legacy UAS.

To be sure he understands, while on the ground with radio and aircraft ask him to explain pitch, roll, yaw, and stall speed. Can he talk you through basic manoeuvres, demonstrating moving the relevant control surfaces with the radio? If he cannot, he 'does not know what to do'. Edited to add - only just saw Peter's post above!

Regarding "Nothing stopping somebody who has just been given a quad for their birthday from going to a nearby field and flying it, being totally oblivious to any legislation." The "catch all" approach is listening to and decoding the radio transmissions associated with Unmanned Aircraft. How many protocols, what level of decode, how many listening stations, who is paying for it? Questions not answered in the Altitude Angel press release of 24 July 2023. From the release; Incorporating purpose-built ADS-B and Mode S receivers, as well as comprehensive SDR (Software Defined Radio) capabilities, the network is also capable of detecting existing and future ‘Remote ID’ broadcasts from transmitters on drones, as well as collecting transmission information from the common control systems used to pilot them. This means the sensor network will detect drones which are intentionally electronically broadcasting their location, as well as many which are not. And due to the detection technologies used by Altitude Angel, low-flying crewed aviation can be detected and located using other passive sensors even when they are not broadcasting any signal.

With this review the CAA have raised the possibility of changing the path we were on under European legislation. I have taken the opportunity to differentiate between self built model aircraft operated traditionally, i.e. with no onboard flight navigation, as opposed to UAVs with software based, built in, 'mitigations'. How much of a possibility we have to influence the outcome I have no idea, but on this occasion my own interests in model aircraft diverges from guidance provided by the BMFA.

Andy, Yes, you can save your work, go back and revise. Browser cookies must be enabled for this to work. When saving you will get a link by Email from the CAA. This takes you back to the start of the form, not where you left it. Easier to keep your head clear in a number of sessions rather than one long session, I think.

I finished filling in the response form yesterday, saved, but did not submit it, waiting to see what guidance would be forthcoming. My focus was on self built, fixed wing, model aircraft and the mis-match between the traditional operation of these and regulation of manufactured UAVs and commercial drone operations. Interesting to see that the BMFA guidance makes only one reference to self build, instead focusing on the activity of flying. I will go over my submission again in a couple of days, having had time to digest the complexities.

Which is why I asked for confirmation that my input would be accepted. If not I will go back to the form. So far not even an automated acknowledgement from the CAA.

I only went a short way into the form because answers were required in all areas. I would have been making up answers to things about which I have no experience to get to the bit I wanted to comment on. I gave up on the form but did send my desired comments to the CAA enquires Email address, asking them to confirm if they would forward my message to the review team. That was Thursday evening. So far no reply to say whether they will or will not accept my input.

There is no short summary of the proposals, it is a broad review of the regulatory framework. I will attempt a summary of the process. The response form requires input to all the questions raised in the review. This means someone who wants to comment only on 'traditional model aircraft' cannot do so. It will be interesting to hear from the BMFA how they suggest members contribute.

My motivation for getting into aero modelling was the idea of resurrecting an ancient control line model. That didn't happen as there is nowhere I could fly control line. While investigating I did start the engine. An ED Bee (ED Mark I, Series I). The serial number tells me it was made in 1953. Bought second hand by my brother. I liked the way you can hear when the engine starts to suck fuel in and when the compression is about right for ignition. Deeply satisfying. Start up video shot in June 2018.

I found this release from ARPAS UK (Association of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems), dated 1 September. Much the same as above, but contains a bit of additional information.

The site admin acknowledges the downtime on the homepage (scroll down to see); Latest Site Updates 04/09/2022: General News: Site back online now at 15:42. Apologies for the downtime. A couple of things have happened on the server while I have been away this weekend. Am back now, so should all be back to normal service from now onwards.

The domain "outerzone.co.uk" is still valid, registration expires 20 April 2023. outerzone.co.uk resolves to 109.104.94.246 so DNS is working. 109.104.94.246 is in the UK, possibly Leeds? Error 500 is a response from the web server, so it is online. In short, OuterZone is still there but the server has an unspecified fault. Depending on how good are the service provider's (Heart Internet?) housekeeping routines the fix may be easy, or not. I am assuming OuterZone are still paying the service provider's bills! It is a popular site so may be costly to run.