Enforcement of model flying regulations

[steve too]

36 minutes ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

Following on from that if the existing conspicuity sytems are incompatible, I presume commercial UAS will have to be electronically conspicuous, both to each other, General aviation and to recreational flyers i.e us.

 

A year or so ago the CAA published CAP 2498 which details the current state of EC in the UK (ADS-B and FLARM) and gives a few options for the future. IIRC (I can't face reading the whole thing again) the selected option puts commercial BVLOS UAVs on 978 MHz UAT and UAs with network RIDs could be made visible to aircraft with UAT.

 

 

Presumably network RID would be another input to the distribution box.

Edited December 11, 2023 by steve too
Added the figure.

[steve too]

14 hours ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

Some recently published research suggests that electronic conspicuity is at best only effective about 50% of the time, reasons being that systems are incompatible or are not fitted to all aircraft. Where they are fitted the system may issue a warning about an aircraft ten miles away. The pilot then focusses his attention on that warning and may miss the non equipped  aircraft a mile away. 

 

I have seen it argued on a GA forum that recreational manned aircraft pilots are better off spending their money on stick time rather than gadgets.

[EvilC57]

4 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

There was no 19 digit registration number on the drone that killed 7 people and blew up several vehicles firing missiles and with an onboard machine gun and anti-personnel bombs which featured on telly last night. Vigil's  Suranne Jones had to identify it from the two letters and the number 1 on the side of the drone.

A better start at least than the inside of the supposed nuclear submarine which appeared in the first series of Vigil, which resembled the inside of the Tardis. I seem to remember it received a lot of derision in the press for the ridiculous amounts of space there seemed to be for the cast to move around in.

[steve too]

5 hours ago, David Davis said:

We've recently all been issued with an individual pilot's number which is nineteen digits long.

 

4 hours ago, MattyB said:

Almost certainly because that ID has been formatted with RID in mind ...

 

UK operator and flyer IDs are also 19 characters long. 19 is the maximum (or very close to the maximum) length that will fit in an individual ASTM F3411 direct RID message.

[Arthur Harris]

On 10/12/2023 at 00:02, MattyB said:

So let me get this right… You believe increased regulation and a (theoretical) uptick in enforcement activities would improve participation? Can you explain this logic?

 

On 10/12/2023 at 10:05, RottenRow said:

It sounds as though you are trying to get a job with the CAA… you seem to have their kind of mindset.

 

As a member of a couple of power clubs, and also sometimes a ‘rogue’ flying willy-nilly off cliffs (to use your terminology), I believe that the CAA shouldn’t favour one over the other, and the BMFA should back every one of its members, not just those in clubs.

 

Perhaps you could define the ‘us’ for which it would be a win-win.

 

Brian.

No, I'm suggesting that if all model flyers belonged to clubs, and those clubs were regulated, the authorities would not pursue them. The same way as the police don't harass the average motorist but go after people who ride unregistered bikes on bridle paths and uninsured motorists on public roads. I'm just thinking pragmatically- I'd rather not be restricted to planes under 250gms, (but I do think these smaller planes may have possibilities for the hobby in the future).

Let's face it, life is changing, in 2030 or 2035 all new IC cars will be banned- with all the upheaval that will cause I don't think any government will be worried about model flyers. We are very small fish in the scheme of things.

[Keith Billinge]

So Remote ID..... Who does this benefit? Who is actually going to be safer because of Remote ID? Who'se lives will be saved? Will accidents be prevented?

 

The law abiding BMFA memeber will have to fork out for ID electronics on all his models and the bad actor won't bother.

 

There will be nobobody monitoring or policing this until they shut down Gatwick again and cry "Drone"

 

Meanwhile, It'll cost much more than necessary to fly my 1KG RIOT over a deserted bit of farmland in the middle of Essex.

 

Is somebody going to check my flight logs to see if I accidentally went too high or something?

 

This is bad bad legislation done in a hurry to sell the airslapce over our heads to drone delivery by Amazon or whatever. I don't remember it being in the manifesto we may have voted for and its certainly no use to law abiding model flyers.

 

 

KB

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Keith Billinge

[Ron Gray]

Playing Devil’s Advocate 

 

24 minutes ago, Keith Billinge said:

Will accidents be prevented?

Manned and UAS with the right equipment (UAT) will be able to ‘see’ UAS thus be able to avoid them.

 

24 minutes ago, Keith Billinge said:

ID electronics on all his models

Not necessarily, the equipment could be swapped between models in the same way that Rx can.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Ron Gray

[Ron Gray]

25 minutes ago, Keith Billinge said:

It'll cost much more than necessary

Yes but the cost will be shared over the number of models if you swap the kit between them.

 

26 minutes ago, Keith Billinge said:

Is somebody going to check my flight logs to see if I accidentally went too high or something?

Real time so could be checked whilst you fly.

 

 

[Ron Gray]

Sorry about the 2 separate posts, they should have been one!

 

I should also point out that I am not in favour of RID for many reasons not least of which is that my data will be ‘out there’ and, imo, the proposed hybrid system, when in RID, as apposed to NRID, mode could be extremely vulnerable. The CAA confirm that it is not technically possible to encrypt the data when in direct RID mode so security is, imo, quite poor. This data will include your OP ID and your (model’s) location. 
 

Regarding the costs of RID, which relates to the post above, we just don’t know but best guesses are £100 - £300 for the kit. But you also have to think about when it is operating as NRID, who is going to pay for the data transfer when flying? The cheapest data only SIM card deal I have found for our flying site’s security camera is £5 per month. I think @steve tooor @MattyBalso mentioned other potential costs as well.

[GaryW]

16 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

I should also point out that I am not in favour of RID for many reasons not least of which is that my data will be ‘out there’

 

What data of yours will be out there?? .... From what I know of Remote ID so far.... They do not transmit any personal data .. they only Transmits aircraft ground speed, altitude, position, heading, distance, time and unique serial number....

 

Theres more chance of your personal data getting out there from buying things online whether it be on a computer or you mobile phone,, as for the CAA OP ID part of it your data is already out there as anyone can check or obtain your CAA registration details

https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/check-a-registration

 

Mine as an example below

Edited December 12, 2023 by GaryWebb

[GaryW]

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

Edited December 12, 2023 by GaryWebb

[GaryW]

35 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

 

 

I should also point out that I am not in favour of RID for many reasons not least of which is that my data will be ‘out there’

 

 

24 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

What data of yours will be out there?? .... From what I know of Remote ID so far.... They do not transmit any personal data .. they only Transmits aircraft ground speed, altitude, position, heading, distance, time and unique serial number....

 

Theres more chance of your personal data getting out there from buying things online whether it be on a computer or you mobile phone,, as for the CAA OP ID part of it your data is already out there as anyone can check or obtain your CAA registration details

https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/check-a-registration

 

Mine as an example below

 

 

So forgive me if I really am that dumb Ron ,,, but your personal data is already out there

[steve too]

11 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

... I would think If flying at your local club which no doubt will register the flying site as a BMFA/CAA approved flying site ...

 

The wording in CAP 2610 is "authorised by the CAA". If it goes like it has in France and the US, not all association sites will be authorised.

[GaryW]

1 minute ago, steve too said:

 

The wording in CAP 2610 is "authorised by the CAA". If it goes like it has in France and the US, not all association sites will be authorised.

 

Thats down to clubs and their members to vote on & decided to register as an authorised flying site or not but the that do then Remote Id will therefore be  irrelevant

[MattyB]

7 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

Thats down to clubs and their members to vote on & decided to register as an authorised flying site or not but the that do then Remote Id will therefore be  irrelevant

 

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. 

[steve too]

3 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

Thats down to clubs and their members to vote on & decided to register as an authorised flying site or not 

 

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

[Ron Gray]

39 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

They do not transmit any personal data

Your OP ID is personal data.

41 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

Theres more chance of your personal data getting out there from buying things online

Nope, RID, not NRID, has very little security, as agreed by the CAA!

[Ron Gray]

36 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

your are left with no option than to give that hobby up

 

there are other options, not least of which is to try and fight this rather than , like you, roll over and 'do please scratch my tummy' 🤣

[steve too]

6 minutes ago, MattyB said:

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. 

 

Gary is not alone in his views. The committees of two of the clubs that I am a member of think that putting themselves on the BMFA's map will mean that they are authorised and don't want to hear that this might not be the case.

[leccyflyer]

24 minutes 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. 

That's the worry. Perfectly usable flying sites, which have been operating safely for decades could easily be rejected by the CAA for something as simple as a little used building being 149m from the threshold of the site or a footpath or road, behind the flight line, but less than 30m from the site boundary.

[GrumpyGnome]

33 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Your OP ID is personal data.

Nope, RID, not NRID, has very little security, as agreed by the CAA!

 

You can't be identified from your Op ID, so under GDPR, it's probably not classed as Personal Data. If the Data Protection authorities believe it is Personal  Data, I believe it needs to be encrypted and protected.

 

Like everyone else, the CAA have to comply with GDPR.

 

(To check a registration, per a post above, you need Op ID and name).

[Ron Gray]

39 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

You can't be identified from your Op ID

Yes you can.

[Ron Gray]

It's all well and good believing that your flying site will become an authorised site and it may well be the case but think about all of our other fellow fliers who fly off private land, slopes, fields etc, what about them? They will almost certainly be 'forced' into having RID. This isn't about your own flying circumstances, it's about model flying in the UK.

 

So if, as @GaryWebb you think it's a good idea, I would like to know why? because at the moment I am struggling to find just one positive thing about it.

[steve too]

47 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Like everyone else, the CAA have to comply with GDPR.

 

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.

[Ron Gray]

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.