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

[Martin_K]

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.

[Cuban8]

Just now, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

 

Agree C8, but that's the issue we have, plus trying to limit the damage it does to our hobby going forwards.

I know, John. It simply blows my mind when folks just seem to be willing to go along with a bad idea just because it doesn't bother them. OK, I can see that fitting a small unit in your model won't bring the sky down on you and if the cost is only going to be a few pounds,  maybe akin to the cost of a reaonably decent servo - Q. then why all the fuss?

A. it's a bad idea (fill in reasons as one sees fit.)

[GaryW]

15 minutes ago, Kim Taylor said:

How big are the oxo cubes you buy?

This unit is nearly 1.5" square.

You undermine any argument you are trying to make by posting nonsense such as this. 

 

I confess,, I can't honestly hand on heart say I've ever tried measuring the size of an oxo cube,,,, but then why wud i need to??......

Edited December 21, 2023 by GaryWebb

[Kim Taylor]

13 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

I confess,, I have never tried measuring the size of an oxo cube,,,, but then why wud i need to??......

Because you're using it as a size comparison.

 

[Cuban8]

1 minute ago, GaryWebb said:

 

I confess,, I have never tried measuring the size of an oxo cube,,,, but then why wud i need to??......

I use Bovril Cubes - bigger than OXO so we'd better start a new thread about the merits of comparison, and the data thus gleaned to decide on the effects for those stakeholders involved in moving the targets for interested agencies, and their proposals for finalising the fiscal dynamics of a flexible, outwardly contained organically growing aviation infrastructure......

Been reading too many proposal documents and I fear it's starting to have an effect😖

[GaryW]

Just now, Cuban8 said:

I use Bovril Cubes - bigger than OXO so we'd better start a new thread about the merits of comparison, and the data thus gleaned to decide on the effects for those stakeholders involved in moving the targets for interested agencies, and their proposals for finalising the fiscal dynamics of a flexible, outwardly contained organically growing aviation infrastructure......

Been reading too many proposal documents and I fear it's starting to have an effect😖

 

Now I must admit I like Bovril more than OXO or even Marmite..... Thickly spread Bovril on Toast with a nice big piping hot mug of bovril specially this time of year

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Calm it down fellas, it's just a discussion on a forum.

[leccyflyer]

14 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

I know, John. It simply blows my mind when folks just seem to be willing to go along with a bad idea just because it doesn't bother them. OK, I can see that fitting a small unit in your model won't bring the sky down on you and if the cost is only going to be a few pounds,  maybe akin to the cost of a reaonably decent servo - Q. then why all the fuss?

A. it's a bad idea (fill in reasons as one sees fit.)

Bottom line here is that Gary is adopting the attitude that is isn't going to affect him, or he cannot see any way in which it is going to affect him, so he's stated that he's supportive of it's implementation. He has not described any possible positive benefits for model flyers, just that he will comply with whatever is implemented.

 

The question should not be centred on finding reasons why we should not fit RID devices, it should be around why on earth we should fit them. If the powers that be declared that all models must be painted bright orange, with the OP ID in letters 12 inches tall and with Network RID fitted, the quesion remains - why? Why is the onus not on those intended users of the lower airspace to make their UAS capable of operating safely in the existing aerial environment?

 

Gary believes he won't have a problem and isn't concerned with other flyers who might find that they have a problem. Personally I think he's not thinking it through. It's already been shown that his existing club site could very easily have a significant problem in obtaining an approved site exception to RID being mandatory. Since he appears unconcerned, perhaps thinking "Well fair enough, we'll just fly with RID and carry on", whilst ignoring that there's a good chance that as soon as they do carry on, with RID providing the positional data that they are flying within 150m of those solar arrays then that's it. Game over.

[Outrunner]

 

Well I've completed my CAA review form and I must confess that I mostly cut and paste my answers from the BMFA putting my faith in them, although I did change the wording on some answers.

 

I don't think it will make a blind bit of difference to what will happen in the future as I believe this is just another government department  box ticking exercise and they have already decided what is going to happen, but at least I did my bit.

 

I'm alarmed with the attitude of some people who just roll over at any bit of proposed legislation and not a least question; why should I have to do this?

 

 

 

 

[GaryW]

21 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Bottom line here is that Gary is adopting the attitude that is isn't going to affect him, or he cannot see any way in which it is going to affect him, so he's stated that he's supportive of it's implementation. He has not described any possible positive benefits for model flyers, just that he will comply with whatever is implemented.

 

The question should not be centred on finding reasons why we should not fit RID devices, it should be around why on earth we should fit them. If the powers that be declared that all models must be painted bright orange, with the OP ID in letters 12 inches tall and with Network RID fitted, the quesion remains - why? Why is the onus not on those intended users of the lower airspace to make their UAS capable of operating safely in the existing aerial environment?

 

Gary believes he won't have a problem and isn't concerned with other flyers who might find that they have a problem. Personally I think he's not thinking it through. It's already been shown that his existing club site could very easily have a significant problem in obtaining an approved site exception to RID being mandatory. Since he appears unconcerned, perhaps thinking "Well fair enough, we'll just fly with RID and carry on", whilst ignoring that there's a good chance that as soon as they do carry on, with RID providing the positional data that they are flying within 150m of those solar arrays then that's it. Game over.

 

With the greatest respect , please do not assume you know what I think or believe and I'm getting fed up with the constant attacks on my views on the matter further more may i make it quite clear for the final time .... I have not and will not discuss matter on here relating to my clubs flying field and I have not and will not discuss club matters than is not for me to discuss on open forum that is for a club committee member shud they choose to.

 

Further more I have not at any time attacked or ridiculed anyone that disagrees with or will not support RID or any other changes in the law and regulations so please find someone else to direct your anger towards its unfair & immature for  you to continue to bash ridicule and have a go at me or anyone that doesnt see things the way others do and to be totally honest I am now thinking whether it is worth remaining a forum member going into 2024 and quite frankly i cant see a good reason to,,, its the kind of attitude I'm seeing from many on here that was also one of the reasons i walked away form the hobby almost 7 years ago,, clearly shows nothing has changed only got worse with many peoples attitudes

Edited December 21, 2023 by GaryWebb

[leccyflyer]

1 minute ago, GaryWebb said:

 

With the greatest respect , please do not assume you what I think or believe and I'm getting fed up with the constant attacks on my views on the matter further more may i make it quite clear for the final time .... I have not and will not discuss matter on here relating to my clubs flying field and I have not and will not discuss club matters than is not for me to discuss on open forum that is for a club committee member shud they choose to.

 

Further more I have not at any time attacked or ridiculed anyone that disagrees with or will not support RID or any other changes in the law and regulations so please find someone else to direct your anger towards its it unfair you you to continue to bash ridicule and have a go at me or anyone that doesnt see things the way others do and to be totally honest I am now thinking whetehr it is worth remaining a forum member going into 2024 and quite frankly i cant see a good reason to

I tend to find that when a post is prefaced with the expression "With the greatest respect.." that very often there is very little respect involved.

 

I am responding to the points that you are putting up in your posts and I am doing so calmly and with not the slightest expression of anger. TBH, like others have said, I'm finding it bewildering to read your constant repetition on the very simple premise that you have promoted, namely that you will do whatever is required to operate in accordance with whatever is coming down the line, with no comment or response to the request for consultation. You have also stated that anyone who doesn't do so should just find another hobby. I think that is offensive and note that you certainly have made disparaging remarks to those who are treating this matter seriously.

[steve too]

51 minutes ago, Martin_K said:

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.

 

That is not really "emerging technologies". Both types of RID use off the shelf tech. You can pick up direct/broadcast RID with a laptop with a WiFi monitor and Bluetooth long range coded (the latter being the awkward bit).

[Martin_K]

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. 

[Ron Gray]

2 hours ago, GaryWebb said:

I dont know what else you want me to say

I asked the question because so far I have not seen one positive that can be gained by implementation of RID so was hoping that you could fill in the missing space for me. From what I have seen all you have stated is that you support it but with no reasons why.

[steve too]

2 minutes ago, Martin_K said:

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. 

 

Realistically what that article is talking about is only going to happen near airports and critical infrastructure and I would be surprised if the counter-UAS systems at UK airports aren't already picking up direct RID.

[Zflyer]

Until the evaluations have been made, and I may suggest, someone may have put a comment in the consultation document that gets picked up as being a good/alternative idea, nothing is decided. 

Gary is entitled to his view, which I suspect is nothing more than being content to follow the rules.

The continuing thread of 'why? who does it benefit?  its only being done to clear the airspace for commercial use' is well trodden.

The question that needs asking not only of the CAA but the Politicians loudly and repeatedly using the above continuing thread is, Justify why microlights, hang gliders, paragliders are not being compelled to do the same. Our models do not carry people, they do. 

And painful as it maybe for some it has not been decided, with the drive by the BMFA and those who have responded to the consultation document a measured approach may prevail.

If you really wish to extrapolate the existing and pending rules and regulations consider this, all future unmanned autonomous and rc controlled aerial vehicles will be chipped for N/RID at source. Your phone gives up your location, forget turning it off in some app or other, it remains detectable and can be turned on remotely.

And don't worry about voice activated gizmos, i.e. Alexa

[GaryW]

58 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

I asked the question because so far I have not seen one positive that can be gained by implementation of RID so was hoping that you could fill in the missing space for me. From what I have seen all you have stated is that you support it but with no reasons why.

 

Then you completely missed why in my previous comments ,, Even Zflyers picked up on why in his above comment/post... and to give you a positive... it will also help in stopping those who continuingly & regardlessly break the law which in part brings more laws & regs onto the rest of us

Edited December 21, 2023 by GaryWebb

[ken anderson.]

24 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

Until the evaluations have been made, and I may suggest, someone may have put a comment in the consultation document that gets picked up as being a good/alternative idea, nothing is decided. 

Gary is entitled to his view, which I suspect is nothing more than being content to follow the rules.

The continuing thread of 'why? who does it benefit?  its only being done to clear the airspace for commercial use' is well trodden.

The question that needs asking not only of the CAA but the Politicians loudly and repeatedly using the above continuing thread is, Justify why microlights, hang gliders, paragliders are not being compelled to do the same. Our models do not carry people, they do. 

And painful as it maybe for some it has not been decided, with the drive by the BMFA and those who have responded to the consultation document a measured approach may prevail.

If you really wish to extrapolate the existing and pending rules and regulations consider this, all future unmanned autonomous and rc controlled aerial vehicles will be chipped for N/RID at source. Your phone gives up your location, forget turning it off in some app or other, it remains detectable and can be turned on remotely.

And don't worry about voice activated gizmos, i.e. Alexa

Well said Z,I actually enjoyed reading Your words..

 

Ken Anderson....ne...1....Z's dept.

Edited December 21, 2023 by ken anderson.
Change

[Martin_K]

46 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

.... If you really wish to extrapolate the existing and pending rules and regulations consider this, all future unmanned autonomous and rc controlled aerial vehicles will be chipped for N/RID at source. Your phone gives up your location, forget turning it off in some app or other, it remains detectable and can be turned on remotely.....

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.

[leccyflyer]

Yup - so in the event that the flying field is in a remote area, with no mobile reception, which is the case for one of my club fields, you wouldn't be able to have such a system being fully operational.

[Peter Jenkins]

Just sent the latest AirProx Board Newsletter in which the issue of Electronic Conspicuity features in a near miss between a full size glider on a final glide and a light aircraft in a head on but crossing path.  The key point is that EC is not a panacea for look out and look out is not a panacea in its own right!  The interesting thing is that the glider pilot took immediate evasive action when they got the warning of the other aircraft.  The light aircraft received the warning too late to take evasive action.  Might be worth referring to this report in our responses.

[Ace]

As an alternative to each having an airborne identifier could each flying location not have a beacon with power to transmit say 1k radius and give a height reading of say 400', 600' or whatever is permitted for the size of aircraft being flown. That would also cover slope flyers and allow overflying of sights when not in use? Admittedly that would make everyone else fly around us so maybe a non starter - but it could be an alternative.

[FlyinFlynn]

 

 

3 hours ago, Kim Taylor said:

How big are the oxo cubes you buy?

This unit is nearly 1.5" square.

You undermine any argument you are trying to make by posting nonsense such as this. 

 

Dimensions (L × W × H) 35mm x 23mm x 16.5mm.... is not nearly 1.5" square

 

You undermine any argument you are trying to make by posting nonsense such as this.  😉  I built a broadcast RID without the sim card slot and it measures 21x18x14mm plus the stickon bluetooth antenna... Just a smite bigger than on old skool oxo cube.

[steve too]

6 minutes ago, Ace said:

As an alternative to each having an airborne identifier could each flying location not have a beacon with power to transmit say 1k radius and give a height reading of say 400', 600' or whatever is permitted for the size of aircraft being flown.

 

https://uavionix.com/projects/ukobsbeacon/

[steve too]

1 hour ago, Zflyer said:

... Justify why microlights, hang gliders, paragliders are not being compelled to do the same. ...

 

They would like those to have low power 1090 MHz ADS-B.