steve too

I don't know what they are flying or how old they are, but the vast majority of registered operators/remote pilots are not members of the BMFA, LMA or SAA never mind affiliated clubs. (CAP 3035)

Indeed. A long standing club in North Yorkshire is losing their site at the end of this month.

Use a multicopter power distribution board, e.g. https://www.flyingtech.co.uk/product/matek-xt60-quad-pdb-with-5v-12v-bec-outputs-36x36mm/ .

I have been known to screw a hook in on the recommended CoG and hang the model from it in order to balance it laterally.

Depends on the foam. For the foams that don't mind regular cyano, I would probably start with a tight hole and use medium cyano. If it pulls out, open up the hole and use PU (the only problem with PU is holding everything in place while it foams). If it pulls out of the PU, glue it back in with cyano. If practical, position the magnets so that not all the force when you pull them apart is on the glue.

My regulator/indicator and the plain regulator that I usually use.

@Erfolg You might find it easier if you bought one of these which includes a regulator that will go down to 1.25V and indicators. https://www.banggood.com/LM2596-XL4015-5A-3A-Voltage-Current-Dual-Digital-Display-Buck-Converter-2_5-35V-Input-1_25-35V-Output-High-Efficiency-Voltage-Regulator-Module-p-2023556.html

Don't know why you quoted me on this. IMO nothing more valuable than a Grob should be parked in the open on RAF bases and the people who broke into Brize should have been shot long before they reached the Voyagers.

The topic where these were first discussed (or one of them) -

Whether or not there was a drone at Gatwick in December '18 doesn't matter. The problem was that Gatwick didn't have the systems in place to tell them if there was or there wasn't (in Gatwick's defence, I doubt if any airport did). It took the RAF Regiment using the counter-UAS gear that they were testing at the time to give Gatwick situational awareness of their ATZ. IIRC after the incident Gatwick leased or bought a military spec radar system. The first question whenever there is a drone incident at a (top 10 ?) UK airport should be "What did the UAS detection system show?".

@MattyB @FlyinFlynn There are multiple drivers behind RID. Integration of commercial UAV operations is one (see SESAR's 2018 (?) U-Space roadmap), but identification is not conspicuity. The CAA plan is for BVLOS UASs to use 978 MHz UAT (CAP 2498A/B/C, Ofcom statement). Security is definitely another one. (CAP 2610) (letter from the SoS at the DfT at the time of the consultation via my MP) The first part of ASD-STAN's Introduction to the European UAS Digital Remote ID Technical Standard is worth reading for some of the thinking behind RID. @MattyB Videos are an awful less authoritative than published documents.

You have just made a good argument as to why slope soarers should have RID.

What is your argument as to why the CAA should do this? Why shouldn't slope gliders be identifiable? Are slope soarers significantly safer than flat field power models?

I have an ASP 180 four stroke that I really should find an airframe for. My notes say that the last time I used it it was spinning a wood 17x10 at 7500 rpm.

The RS10DS is a 10 channel dual conversion PCM receiver.

Good spot. Unfortunately that is the only site that I could find that had specs for the crystals.

This Czech site gives channel frequency vs crystal frequency for various manufactures. Assuming that Graupner = JR, Futaba and JR crystals are not interchangeable. https://www.krystaly.cz/en/products/quartz-crystals/crystals-for-hobby-modeller-radio/overview-of-modeller-crystals/

At this stage in the process (10 years after the Riga Declaration on drones and after I hate to think how many 'consultations'), this is just wilful ignorance.

An Article 16 authorisation costs £2,317 (initial cost, no change renewals are £663), so I suspect the former.

Why is a UK site selling a unit that is for the US variation on ASTM F3411 (ASTM F3586-22)? UK RIDs will almost certainly require slightly different firmware.

When they went through this in the US, site applications had to come through a an approved body (e.g. the AMA), but all applications were checked by the FAA and not all were approved. I will not be surprised if the CAA charge 20-30 minutes per site. The data is going to end up in an big, expensive geoawareness database. The CAA are going to be looking for money to pay for this database. I expect the BMFA to look after the interests of their members. Remote ID (and especially the hybrid system that the CAA really want) is not in any of their members interests.

I wonder if the CAA will be charging per site that is declared/registered/approved and if they do, how much the charge will be. The CAA's hourly rate is currently £330 (ORS5 441).

What is difficult to understand? This is what the CAA are proposing. From your posts you are going to fail to meet the 3rd criteria, so it's remote IDs or fly illegally. For an example of a direct remote ID, see the Spektrum Sky ID (UK IDs may have slightly different firmware to US ones depending on what messages the CAA/DfT want them to transmit). No autonomous capability is already in the Article 16 authorisation.

It is being driven by a combination of empire building bureaucrats and politicians who have been convinced that there is gold at the end of the drone regulation rainbow. The Riga Declaration predates both the incidents that you mention. Very good. Are you here all week?

The problem is not coming up with a definition, the problem is coming up with one that doesn't throw up too many anomalies. Using the Article 16 definition, my quadcopter is a model aircraft, but my ZOHD Drift isn't so I have to fly it in Open A3. IIRC the old (pre 2015) ICAO definition was unmanned and used for sporting/recreational purposes.