CAA Call for Input: Review of UK UAS Regulations Aug 2023

[Ron Gray]

I know that it’s all speculation at the moment but assuming RID is required (and I’m dead against it!) will it stop me from flying? No. Any required device would have to be swapped around the models I decided to take up to the field but it’s going to be difficult to fit them to my F3K and F5J models. If (when) RID does become commonplace won’t  we then see most RXs with it already built in?

[Peter Jenkins]

32 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

 If (when) RID does become commonplace won’t  we then see most RXs with it already built in?

Good point Ron.  I'm sure that manufacturers will fall over themselves to offer RID Rxs - a lpotentially huge market.  See how long it takes for the first such Rx to appear in the USA - having been made in China of course!

[FlyinFlynn]

2 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

The units will undoubtedly get smaller, cheaper, and better as the US (and other areas) starts using them ahead of us.

 

If/when it comes, I'll not rush out and buy one for each aircraft - I'll buy one and swap it. That's what I used to do with my voltage telemetry thingy.  Yes, a pain, but if that's what it takes.......

It is worth noting that the US units are somewhat different to the units that are going to be used in Europe are. In the US they are using bluetooth to transmit the beacon and in Europe wifi is being utilised, so if you were expecting the volume of sales to pull the price down I fear you are going to be disappointed.

I can't see these things getting much smaller. I have built two now, based on different gps modules, to comply with the French regulations. They both come in around €20 for the parts on a one off basis so the expected 'up to $100' price tag for the commercial versions looks like a decent mark-up....even though some of the manufacturers claim to be not making a profit on every one they sell!!  Here, they are closer to €50..

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

15 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

Indeed - it gets my goat when I read that "it will only be £50-100 for one of these gizmos to be added to a model", so it's np big deal.. 

 

Nowhere did I say "It's only" £50- £100 Leccy, I did put some context to what we already spend without a murmur, some spend even more fitting telemetry, there's no legal requirement for it. £50-£100 is a big deal to me, when you go feed your Goat tell him I said hello.

[Cuban8]

2 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

I know that it’s all speculation at the moment but assuming RID is required (and I’m dead against it!) will it stop me from flying? No. Any required device would have to be swapped around the models I decided to take up to the field but it’s going to be difficult to fit them to my F3K and F5J models. If (when) RID does become commonplace won’t  we then see most RXs with it already built in?

For the life of me I can't see RID being required for LOS flying. No more use than registering and  sticking numbers on our aircraft now. Almost falls into a ritualistic process akin to crossing ones fingers when walking under a ladder or when telling a porkie.

The only reason I can fathom  that we might get lumbered with it, is purely because the legislators can lumber us with it. Don't want to give them ideas,  but they could just as easily rule that all flyers of any recreational UAV needs to wear hiviz or perhaps a brightly coloured head covering. How well would that work and how useful would it be?

We've got to resist this imposition as best we can. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Cuban8

[Ron Gray]

I agree that we should vote against it, but I do think that it will come. My feeling is that it won’t be necessary if you fly from a ‘registered’ club flying site but will be required if you don’t. 

[RottenRow]

The proposal states that the RID gizmo should transmit the operator’s registration number, serial number (of the remote ID gizmo presumably), altitude, route, speed and take off point.

Imagine a flying model aircraft carrying a remote ID gizmo. Something like a Wot 4 would be flying circuits, loops, stall turns etc. so would be, in effect, a moving target.

 

Of all of the above requirements, altitude, route and speed would be constantly changing in a seemingly random fashion (it would be random in a few cases I know of 🤣🤣). The data would be useless to predict the flight envelope of the model in a second or a minute’s time so couldn’t be used for collision avoidance by an approaching UAV unless it gave a very wide berth.

 

The reg. and serial numbers, and take off point would remain constant. This suggests to me that the RID gizmo may as well remain on the ground, next to the flier, all of the time that he is flying.

 

Perhaps we should install barrage balloons around our fields… they had some effect against a previous onslaught of UAVs.

 

Brian.

[Nigel Heather]

Anyone got a link to the BMFA responses.  I got sent an email last week and I planned to go through the response over the weekend but I can't find the email - might have accidentally deleted it.

 

Cheers.

 

Nigel

[GrumpyGnome]

Yes, it's likely to be a pain but not insurmountable.

 

Looks like the Spektrum one just plus into the rx. Add an extension lead and just place it in the battery bay, or under the  main hatch, when loading your battery.....

 

Of course some planes will be more challenging, and It's a pain, but not a hobby-killer.

 

If it comes, availability will probably be the major challenge.

Edited September 4, 2023 by GrumpyGnome

[Nick Cripps]

6 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

I agree that we should vote against it, but I do think that it will come. My feeling is that it won’t be necessary if you fly from a ‘registered’ club flying site but will be required if you don’t. 

 

I think you're spot on with that comment Ron.

 

I just hope that the CAA have the sense to make use of the model associations to administer the registration process like currently for models over 7.5kg flying over 400ft or registration of over 25kg models.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I'm sticking with the BMFA and others pulls a Rabbit out the hat.

Availability ? Doubt IF it comes it'll apply with immediate effect.

 

[Martin Dilly 1]

2 hours ago, Nigel Heather said:

Anyone got a link to the BMFA responses.  I got sent an email last week and I planned to go through the response over the weekend but I can't find the email - might have accidentally deleted it.

 

Cheers.

 

Nigel

Since nobody else has bothered, here's the link. A couple of days to the deadline.

https://bmfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/BMFA-Response-to-CAA-Call-for-Inputv2.pdf

[GrumpyGnome]

9 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

I'm sticking with the BMFA and others pulls a Rabbit out the hat.

Availability ? Doubt IF it comes it'll apply with immediate effect.

 

True enough, but most will wait to see if prices drop ...... 🙂

[Andy Stephenson]

I've decided to complete this questionnaire but can someone point me to the exact CAA link where I can find it and once completed how is it submitted.

 

Thanks.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

15 minutes ago, Andy Stephenson said:

I've decided to complete this questionnaire but can someone point me to the exact CAA link where I can find it and once completed how is it submitted.

 

Thanks.

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/rpas/call-for-input-review-of-uk-uas-regulations/consultation/intro/

 

[Andy Stephenson]

OK done, answered from the point of view of a traditional hobbyist model flyer.

[MattyB]

On 03/09/2023 at 21:20, David Elam said:

The other problem is that with many gliders, especially moulded ones, available space in the fuselage is taken up with the receiver, battery and servos. Fitting a SkyID would be impossible.

Another possible problem is the installation of such a device within a carbon fuselage? I can't see any antenna in the image of the Spektrum offering so unless I'm mistaken how could it transmit through CF?

 

Sounds ideal to me... "Yep, it's definitely on board and transmitting Officer, it's dat nasty carbon foo-see-large that's the problem, nowt I can do about it..." 😉 

Edited September 5, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

On 04/09/2023 at 12:56, Ron Gray said:

I agree that we should vote against it, but I do think that it will come. My feeling is that it won’t be necessary if you fly from a ‘registered’ club flying site but will be required if you don’t. 

 

That is certainly how it seems to have gone in France, and that is the broad model in the US, with the caveat no-one is sure exactly how many FRIAs are actually going to be allowed. certainly there are plenty of well established model flying sites that have been turned down, though I've given up following the details of it at this point as it appears we have our own battle to fight here that I am (selfishly I suppose!) more invested in!

[steve too]

On 03/09/2023 at 21:20, David Elam said:

The other problem is that with many gliders, especially moulded ones, available space in the fuselage is taken up with the receiver, battery and servos. Fitting a SkyID would be impossible.

Another possible problem is the installation of such a device within a carbon fuselage? I can't see any antenna in the image of the Spektrum offering so unless I'm mistaken how could it transmit through CF?

 

Then use use a Dronetag BS and not a SkyID. There aren't going to be many models that you couldn't fit a Dronetag BS with external antennas in.

[leccyflyer]

3 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

Then use use a Dronetag BS and not a SkyID. There aren't going to be many models that you couldn't fit a Dronetag BS with external antennas in.

Ninety quid?

[steve too]

On 04/09/2023 at 10:16, FlyinFlynn said:

In the US they are using bluetooth to transmit the beacon and in Europe wifi is being utilised, so if you were expecting the volume of sales to pull the price down I fear you are going to be disappointed.

 

Both the FAA and EASA rules allow Bluetooth 4/5 LR and WiFi based direct RID.

 

On 04/09/2023 at 10:16, FlyinFlynn said:

I have built two now, based on different gps modules, to comply with the French regulations.

 

"Arrêté du 27 décembre 2019" IDs would require different firmware to comply with the ASTM/ASD-STAN regulations.

 

I doubt if the government will allow homebuilt IDs. The FAA don't appear to be doing so.

 

PS prEN 4709-002 says "The Direct Remote Identification system shall reduce the ability of tampering the functionality of the
direct remote identification system."

Edited September 5, 2023 by steve too

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

https://dronetag.cz/news/2023/05/15/dronetag-bs-basic-remote-id-solution/

[steve too]

17 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Ninety quid?

 

If they go network ID it's a lot worse.

[Martin Dance 1]

Well, I've just submitted my response, So starting on Friday some person(s) is going to start reading them and presumably extracting key points from each one☺️. or not as the case may be. Perhaps the CAA has invested in AI and the documents will be fed to a computer which will provide an analysis.  " model fliers are grumpy old men opposed to change. Whilst commercial drone delivery companies and potential air taxi operators are truly enlightened.   Reccomendation dump the grumpy old men and make lots and lots of money out of the gullible commercial guys. Simples.

[Peter Jenkins]

36 minutes ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

Well, I've just submitted my response, So starting on Friday some person(s) is going to start reading them and presumably extracting key points from each one☺️. or not as the case may be. Perhaps the CAA has invested in AI and the documents will be fed to a computer which will provide an analysis.  " model fliers are grumpy old men opposed to change. Whilst commercial drone delivery companies and potential air taxi operators are truly enlightened.   Reccomendation dump the grumpy old men and make lots and lots of money out of the gullible commercial guys. Simples.

Previous experience has shown that this was not the case.  I expect that the BMFA will be included in any discussion that happens post the analysis phase.  I have faith that the system will not throw us to the wolves.