Enforcement of model flying regulations

[steve too]

4 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

The pilot or ground control station location data would be visible to

those able to receive and interpret Direct Remote ID data, as it is not technically

possible to encrypt this data to only be viewable by certain user groups.

 

That statement in CAP 2610 is not correct. It would be messy, but there is a way to do it with ASTM F3411.

[Ron Gray]

Correct, but that is what’s in the document which is what we are responding to.

[GaryW]

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

 

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. 

 

I didnt say its the clubs and their member that decide if they get authorised I said is for the clubs & members to decide of they register  ( to get authorised )

[GrumpyGnome]

45 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

Except were the law says that they don't. The government could exempt the transmission of operator IDs from GDPR if they thought that is was an issue and wanted to.

There are many many things they could do - for example, they could legislate to transmit, say, your Social Security number....... but that's just speculation.

 

As it stands, I can't see anyone being identifiable from their Op ID if someone intercepts the data we're discussing.  I'm happy to be corrected.

[GaryW]

2 hours ago, steve too said:

 

Why do you think that the CAA will automatically authorise all clubs that apply? IIRC the US approval rate is between 80 and 90%.

 

Never said I think that the CAA will automatically authorise all clubs that apply?.. what I actually said was " down to clubs and their members to vote on & decided whether to register as an authorised flying site or not  "

[GaryW]

2 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

Your OP ID is personal data.

 

 

Unless you know something noone else does Remote doesnt transmit CAA OP ID..... It only transmits aircraft ground speed, altitude, position, heading, distance, time and unique serial number

[GaryW]

50 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

 

 

we will ensure that personally identifiable

information, such as Operator ID, is not made available to the general public, and

is protected by robust security controls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Well I'm clearly todays class dunce to then .. either that or your fears of your personal data gettiing out there along with your OP ID , you have just answered in you own comment  as show above

[Keith Billinge]

I still think they are using the massive sledgehammer tor crack a non-existant nut. What is the actual problem they are trying to solve?

Are we regularly crashing into manned aircraft and causing injury?

Are we toy plane enthusiasts causing trouble?

Are we threatening to topple governments?

Was a real aircraft ever really threatened by a model plane?

NO; we are a bunch of mainy middle aged and older blokes who stand in a cold, muddy field in the countryside playing toy planes........ We have a history of 100+years of safe flying.

 

Every now and then, we put a model in a tree, or crash it into said farmers field, or have a mid-air collision resulting in some foam snow. That's all the excitement we can stand.

 

Sometimes somebody with a sutable model will feed their hands into the propellers and cause themselves an injury. That's the level of risk we should be mitigating.

 

Swapping an expensive magic box in and out each and every time I fly a different model? Nah!

It's my model and until the CAA thought they could make some money out of me they weren't interested.

I've written my Flyer ID on my models and that should be sufficient.........Its a toy!

 

KB

 

 

 

 

[GaryW]

In all total 100% honesty,,, like other threads & comments regarding this subject ,, a lot of what im reading in the comments to this new thread????

 

Either i'm total nuts or this is all starting to look like nothing but scaremongering again as in the forementioned other threads & comments of the same subject

[MattyB]

58 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

From the response document:

 

we will ensure that personally identifiable

information, such as Operator ID, is not made available to the general public, and

is protected by robust security controls.

 

In the very next paragraph

 

The pilot or ground control station location data would be visible to

those able to receive and interpret Direct Remote ID data, as it is not technically

possible to encrypt this data to only be viewable by certain user groups. The pilot’s

location will therefore only be available publicly if Network Remote ID is not

enabled.

 

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...

[leccyflyer]

Just now, GaryWebb said:

In all total 100% honesty,,, like other threads & comments regarding this subject ,, a lot of what im reading in the comments to this new thread????

 

Either i'm total nuts or this is all starting to look like nothing but scaremongering again as in the forementioned other threads & comments of the same subject

Gary - you seem convinced that just by applying for a club site to be an approved site and therefore not requiring RID then that is bound to occur, so no problem for club flyers.

 

I've just looked and, by the letter of the regulations as set out, your own club field has a building within 50m of the flight line. If the CAA wanted to apply the letter of the regulations, as proposed, they  could refuse to register your club site as an approved site.

[GaryW]

2 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

I've just looked and, by the letter of the regulations as set out, your own club field has a building within 50m of the flight line. If the CAA wanted to apply the letter of the regulations, as proposed, they  could refuse to register your club site as an approved site.

 

What building??

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by GaryWebb

[MattyB]

26 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

As it stands, I can't see anyone being identifiable from their Op ID if someone intercepts the data we're discussing.  I'm happy to be corrected.

 

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? 

[GaryW]

7 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Gary - you seem convinced that just by applying for a club site to be an approved site and therefore not requiring RID then that is bound to occur, so no problem for club flyers.

 

 

 

Sorry to correct you here but I'm not convinced by anything ,,,,, nothing is as yet been set in stone so it would be good to wait and see what actually happens and how its going to happen and work when and only when the CAA officially give out such information then and only then will we all be sure and certain about what will happen and what will be required of us, our clubs & other rc fliers

[MattyB]

23 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

Sorry to correct you here but I'm not convinced by anything ,,,,, nothing is as yet been set in stone so it would be good to wait and see what actually happens and how its going to happen and work when and only when the CAA officially give out such information then and only then will we all be sure and certain about what will happen and what will be required of us, our clubs & other rc fliers

 

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.

Edited December 12, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

31 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

What building??

 

This building, presumably related to the solar panel array, it's ~86m from what I assume is the flightline, so well within the 150m separation suggested by the proposed amended regulations.

 

 

Now, I'm convinced that the presence of that building there ought not affect your site at all, more than likely it is within a no fly zone,  but, as I said, by the letter of the regulations as proposed, it could provide an excuse for the site to be denied an authorisation.

[GaryW]

2 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

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 to these proposals. 

 

No I haven't read it, Im not interested in the politics of it all ,,,, As to my " BOHICA approach to it " as you put it..... I had to come out of the hobby 6 yrs ago due to ill health and disability which back then even the OP ID Registration existed,,,,, I only learnt about that and what is now being proposed since coming back to the hobby a year ago........ However if i was around in the hobby when OP ID Registration did come in , Honestly I would have supported it in the same way I'm in support of RID when it comes in to play ,,,, As RC Fliers we have been regulated by rules and laws such as the ANO for many years and now we have OP ID and RID coming into play in a few years time .....The way I see it here in the real world is what ever we do in everyday life and the hobbies we do there are rules and laws regulating what we do and how we do it  which we have 2 choices ,, we play by the rules and laws therefore knowing we are doing what we do legally and legitimately or we ignore the laws and rules and if caught we get prosecuted.... 

 

Now having CAA OP & Flier Registration with RID coming in later basically there is nothing we can do to stop it happening but when it happens and it become rule/law then if it means I personally have to abide by those rules/laws to be able to carry on enjoyng the hobby and keep flying models then so be it and what ever extra costs and financial outlay that occurs , then all the time its what I feel is affordable then all well and good but as and when it is no longer all well and good then that will be the time to move away from the hobby.... so coming back to your " BOHICA approach to it " ,, How wrong you are.

[leccyflyer]

25 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

Sorry to correct you here but I'm not convinced by anything ,,,,, nothing is as yet been set in stone so it would be good to wait and see what actually happens and how its going to happen and work when and only when the CAA officially give out such information then and only then will we all be sure and certain about what will happen and what will be required of us, our clubs & other rc fliers

I've read your posts in this and in other threads and you have consistently been of the opinion that RID is not a problem at all and that you welcome it arriving. The consultation document has been put out to undertake what is in all likelihood a box-ticking exercise of asking our opinions, as those who are likely to be affected by changes in the regulations. That's what this thread is about.

[GaryW]

3 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

This building, presumably related to the solar panel array, it's ~86m from what I assume is the flightline, so well within the 150m separation suggested by the proposed amended regulations.

 

 

Now, I'm convinced that the presence of that building there ought not affect your site at all, more than likely it is within a no fly zone,  but, as I said, by the letter of the regulations as proposed, it could provide an excuse for the site to be denied an authorisation.

 

In your last comment you said it was 50m from the flight line ,, which actually its situated behind the flightline...... Also as it seems you now want to get into what is club matters in regards what is there or around the club field which I don't believe I have identified in my comments on this thread what club I'm with , As to what is there beit official or unofficial that would be a matter for a member of the clubs committee to discuss with you should they choose to ,, so on that basis I cant take this matter with you any further

[leccyflyer]

Just now, GaryWebb said:

 

In your last comment you said it was 50m from the flight line ,, which actually its situated behind the flightline...... Also as it seems you now want to get into what is club matters in regards what is there or around the club field which I don't believe I have identified in my comments on this thread what club I'm with , As to what is there beit official or unofficial that would be a matter for a member of the clubs committee to discuss with you should they choose to ,, so on that basis I cant take this matter with you any further

No, what I said was that it was within 50m, being the recommended distance of separation for a building. Sorry, that was a typo, I meant 150m, as laid out in the regulations.

[MattyB]

12 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

This building, presumably related to the solar panel array, it's ~86m from what I assume is the flightline, so well within the 150m separation suggested by the proposed amended regulations.

 

 

Now, I'm convinced that the presence of that building there ought not affect your site at all, more than likely it is within a no fly zone,  but, as I said, by the letter of the regulations as proposed, it could provide an excuse for the site to be denied an authorisation.

 

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.

Edited December 12, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

Yep - it's best to be careful what you wish for.

[GaryW]

5 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

I've read your posts in this and in other threads and you have consistently been of the opinion that RID is not a problem at all and that you welcome it arriving. The consultation document has been put out to undertake what is in all likelihood a box-ticking exercise of asking our opinions, as those who are likely to be affected by changes in the regulations. That's what this thread is about.

 Actually as per the Thread Title above,, the thread is about " Enforcement of model flying regulations " which wud mean all rc flying regulations not just OP ID or RID

 

And yes youre correct I have and still have the opinion that RID is not a problem at all and that I did,still do welcome it arriving

[GaryW]

3 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

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.

 

I will again say as I said in my last comment above....

 

as it seems you now want to get into what is club matters in regards what is there or around the club field which I don't believe I have identified in my comments on this thread what club I'm with , As to what is there beit official or unofficial that would be a matter for a member of the clubs committee to discuss with you should they choose to ,, so on that basis I cant take this matter with you any further

[leccyflyer]

1 minute ago, GaryWebb said:

 Actually as per the Thread Title above,, the thread is about " Enforcement of model flying regulations " which wud mean all rc flying regulations not just OP ID or RID

 

And yes youre correct I have and still have the opinion that RID is not a problem at all and that I did,still do welcome it arriving

It's not an opinion held by all flyers, or even most flyers. It's a significant intrusion into our model flying operations and I certainly do not welcome it.