Enforcement of model flying regulations

[MattyB]

7 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

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

 

You may not want to talk about it here, but assuming that is your club I do suggest you discuss it with your club mates and the committee. That looks like exactly the sort of site the CAA could easily refuse to authorise for a RID exception for multiple reasons. Why not ask their opinion and see if they understand that if this goes badly the CAA may not authorise them as a RID-free location - I wonder if they will welcome the prospect of £300/device RID with open arms as you do? You may want to put on your crash helmet before doing so, though...!

[GaryW]

5 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

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.

 

Whether people are in agreement or disagreement with what has been already put on us , being proposed or what will be out on us in future,,,,, everyone is going to have their own views thoughts and acceptance/non acceptance of things,, thats everyones right ot choose, Personally I dont see it as an intrusion,, I see it as another way to ensure we continue to enjoy the hobby flying our models in a safe and legal way , now if that means the are going to be new laws we have to abide by then so be it ,,,,  either that or we all say stuff what the law says the whole hobby defines and rebels and we either end up with even more tougher laws or god forbid it shud happen rc flying gets banned .. end of the day I personally will carry on doing what I enjoy doing in the hobby in what ever way i have to legally however long my health and disability allows me to

[GaryW]

8 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

You may not want to talk about it here, but assuming that is your club I do suggest you discuss it with your club mates and the committee. That looks like exactly the sort of site the CAA could easily refuse to authorise for a RID exception for multiple reasons. Why not ask their opinion and see if they understand that if this goes badly the CAA may not authorise them as a RID-free location - I wonder if they will welcome the prospect of £300/device RID with open arms as you do? You may want to put on your crash helmet before doing so, though...!

 

Let me repeat for the last time 

 

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]

7 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

You may not want to talk about it here, but assuming that is your club I do suggest you discuss it with your club mates and the committee. That looks like exactly the sort of site the CAA could easily refuse to authorise for a RID exception for multiple reasons. Why not ask their opinion and see if they understand that if this goes badly the CAA may not authorise them as a RID-free location - I wonder if they will welcome the prospect of £300/device RID with open arms as you do? You may want to put on your crash helmet before doing so, though...!

Yup. I know that my old club site, that we spent thousands of pounds and thousands of man hours ensuring that we were able to operate adjacent to an industrial facility - our landlords - with what many would see as onerous restrictions and stringent operating procedures would not stand a chance of being granted an authorisation to operate under the proposed regulations. The club have moved on from that site some years ago and hopefully their new site will be okay, but we really cannot afford to be complacent in terms of what these proposals could mean for us, as model flyers.

[Ron Gray]

Goodness me Gary, all Matty did was offer a suggestion!

[leccyflyer]

4 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

Let me repeat for the last time 

 

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

Just for the record Gary, you've certainly posted here in the past which club you belong to, such that I was easily able to locate that club with just a simple search on this forum.

Edited December 12, 2023 by leccyflyer
typo

[Ron Gray]

1 minute ago, leccyflyer said:

but we really cannot afford to be complacent in terms of what these proposals could mean for us, as model flyers.

Exactly so, my approach is to view the worst case scenario, my club cannot get authorisation. 

[GaryW]

24 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Just for the record Gary, you've certainly posted here in the past which club you belong to, such that I was easily able to locate that club with just a simple search on this forum.

 

Whether I have or not said which club im with in the past is not the point.. The point is Im not obligated to discuss club business on here that wud be for a club committee member to do so if they wish to and I'm not going to discuss what is  club business on here

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by GaryWebb

[GaryW]

@Martin Harris - Moderator, @David Ashby - Moderator,,, Hi Martin & David, Can I request this thread be closed/removed please as all it appears to be becoming is another thread to bash out what is being discussed in the other threads relating to RID ...... and I see no point on there being 2 open threads for the same subject I also feel like others threads on this and similar subject this thread is on the verge of being filled with yet more scaremongering

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by GaryWebb

[steve too]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

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? 

 

The EU/EASA don't appear to have thought that there was a problem transmitting operator ID when they drafted regulation 2019/945 and the relevant bits of the regulation are still UK law.

 

As I said above, if necessary, the government can decide that GDRP doesn't apply when they change the regulations.

[Arthur Harris]

4 hours ago, GaryWebb said:

As to the costs of Remote ID and the need for us to even have Remote ID units,,,,, I would think If flying at your local club which no doubt will register the flying site as a BMFA/CAA approved flying site ,, then Remote ID will not be needed in the the same way its not needed at approved/FRIA flying sites in the USA which if this is to be the case then there wont be any costs for remote ID to fly at approved flying sites and  club fields

 

If there is any future costs involved ,, as Iv'e said many times on other threads and posts... its the same with any hobby that involve costs,,, if you want to do or continue that hobby then you have to be prepared to pay the costs it involves but if youdont want to or wont pay those costs then your are left with no option than to give that hobby up

This is what I was trying to say about the importance of being registered as belonging to a club.

[MattyB]

13 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

@Martin Harris - Moderator, @David Ashby - Moderator,,, Hi Martin & David, Can I request this thread be closed/removed please as all it appears to be becoming is another thread to bash out what is being discussed in the other threads relating to RID ...... and I see no point on there being 2 open threads for the same subject I also feel like others threads on this and similar subject this thread is on the verge of being filled with yet more scaremongering

 

Members here don't get to decide which threads are closed just on the grounds they don't agree with the views posted. Given you have admitted you have neither read nor understood the CAA's latest proposals or the national association's responses, I fail to see how you are able to classify the content posted by other members who HAVE read this content as "scaremongering".

 

If you don't want to participate on this topic then fine, don't post. However, if you continually post uninformed views that don't bear any relation to the information we all have to hand from the CAA, BMFA and FPV UK, then I don't think you can come over all hurt that people call you out for them. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by MattyB

[GaryW]

14 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

Members here don't get to decide which threads are closed just on the grounds they don't agree with the views posted. Given you have admitted you have neither read nor understood the CAA's latest proposals or the national association's recommendations, I fail to see how you are able to classify the content posted by other members who have read this content as "scaremongering". If you don't want to participate on this topic then fine, don't post, but if you post uninformed views that don't bear any relation to the information we have to hand from the CAA, BMFA and FPV UK, then I don't think you can come over all hurt that people call you out for them. 

 

My apologies I didnt realise you was either a forum moderator or either Martin or David.... However I will await their input,reply & decision if you dont mind as they are the ones to make that decision not you

 

What I dont agree with is the Authoritarian manner and views  you and others put on other members when they have a different view to you all because like so many you are throwing your toys out the pram having a paddy over changes that none of us can stop happening

Edited December 12, 2023 by GaryWebb

[leccyflyer]

28 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

Whether I have or not said which club im with in the past is not the point.. The point is Im not obligated to discuss club business on here that wud be for a club committee member to do so if they wish tom and I'm not going to discuss what is  club business on here

 

I don't particularly want to discuss club business - your club or any particular club - and haven't specifically identified the club - though that information is there, posted by you, for anyone to see. I posted the comment and imagery to point out that it is far from certain that our club sites will automatically be granted approved status. That is what the experience of the model flyers in the USA has indicated.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

If you keep it civil and within the CoC, the thread stays open.

[GaryW]

1 minute ago, leccyflyer said:

I don't particularly want to discuss club business - your club or any particular club - and haven't specifically identified the club - though that information is there, posted by you, for anyone to see. I posted the comment and imagery to point out that it is far from certain that our club sites will automatically be granted approved status. That is what the experience of the model flyers in the USA has indicated.

 

 I never said or implied  it was  certain that club sites will automatically be granted approved status.. if I recall correct i was saying its the way i feel or think it may go

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Sorry Gary, we can see no reason why the thread should be closed or deleted. 

[leccyflyer]

If Gary doesn't want the imagery of his club site to be shown, then I'm perfectly happy for the moderators to remove that attachment from my posts, I feel that the point has been made sufficiently.

[GaryW]

Just now, David Ashby - Moderator said:

Sorry Gary, we can see no reason why the thread should be closed or deleted. 

 

Thanks for you reply David.. I will retire from this Thread as its not bringing anything new or beneficial I feel to what has been so bashed out in other threads. and i do feel its all just going round in never ending circles

[GaryW]

1 minute ago, leccyflyer said:

If Gary doesn't want the imagery of his club site to be shown, then I'm perfectly happy for the moderators to remove that attachment from my posts, I feel that the point has been made sufficiently.

 

With greatest respect I cant stop you posting imagery as thats not my decision to make just refraining from talking about something that may constitute as club business which im not in the position to do

[Ron Gray]

1 minute ago, GaryWebb said:

 

Thanks for you reply David.. I will retire from this Thread as its not bringing anything new or beneficial I feel to what has been so bashed out in other threads. and i do feel its all just going round in never ending circles

Personally I think that it is keeping open awareness of some potentially draconian and ridiculous laws that are being proposed based on incorrect and misleading information. The more and louder we talk about it the better. 

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, GaryWebb said:

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

 

For future clarity (and because it's eminently clear Gary does not read anything official posted by the CAA, UK Gov, national associations etc), here is the relevant excerpt from the current legislation linked to by @steve too in his post above...

 

A class C1 or C2 UAS shall comply with the following:
.....
(12)
have a direct remote identification that:

 

(a) allows the upload of the UAS operator registration number required in accordance with Article 14 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 and any additional number provided by the registration system; the system shall perform a consistency check verifying the integrity of the full string provided to the UAS operator at the time of registration; in case of inconsistency, the UAS shall emit an error message to the UAS operator;

 

(b) ensures, in real time during the whole duration of the flight, the direct periodic broadcast from the UA using an open and documented transmission protocol, in a way that it can be received directly by existing mobile devices within the broadcasting range, of at least the following data:

i) the UAS operator registration number and the verification code provided by the [F4CAA] during the registration process unless the consistency check defined in point (a) is not passed;

ii) the unique physical serial number of the UA compliant with point (11);

iii) the time-stamp, the geographical position of the UA and its height above the surface or take-off point;

iv) the route course measured clockwise from true north and ground speed of the UA;

v) the geographical position of the remote pilot or, if not available, the take-off point; and

vi) an indication of the emergency status of the UAS;

 

(c) reduces the ability of tampering the functionality of the direct remote identification system.

[Arthur Harris]

With regard to concerns about our personal information- we are on dozens of different data bases anyway. Hobby King know my address and that I am over 18 (so does my postie, come to that). I know people who are worried about facial recognition being used at airports, even though their passport has an actual photograph of them in it, which they show to a stranger at passport control. Or miss out on Tesco offers because the Clubcard would have details of their spending habits- when everyone at a checkout can see their spending habits anyway.

[john davidson 1]

T o change the theme slightly Is any one up to date on the present situation with with full size light planes? I used to subscribe to Pilot magazine and they were up in arms about transponders, many old aircraft have no electrical system to power them , relying on good old eyesight and landing and take off procedure etc. Some did carry hand held radios though.

[Erfolg]

This thread demonstrates the threats/ restrictions or changes to model flying could occur both specifically or yet to be formulated. It is now that we need our representatives to both be alert to, and present arguments to authorities, that realistically can and should be reasonably resisted.

 

Personally I am sometimes taken aback, when some take a view that nothing materially is being changed or imposed, when it is obviously the case.

 

I accept that some will have no objection, which is a little different to arguing all will be remaining the same.

 

In this specific case, there does appear to be long reaching implications, in addition to the immediate, yet does not necessarily have to be the case. The feel is one where Salami Slicing is potentially being contemplated.

 

I hope that our representatives are alert to the issue and hope that already started engagement in the political processes. I imagine that those involved will recognise that not only is the fate of the  hobby potentially at stake, over this, or future issues, so are the jobs of many, from retailers, distributers, manufacturers and of course those engaged in our representation.

 

All the same, the hobby may just continue.