Direct RID/Remote RID modules.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I don't know that "They" are insisting on the UK going it's own way ? But we did have the chance to reply to that question in the survey, plus the BMFA gave advice on responding to it.

My answer was aligning with others, reasons seem obvious, so I wont bore you with em.

 

[Arthur Harris]

On 31/12/2023 at 20:08, Zflyer said:

 Identified shopl8fters and pick pockets cannot have their pictur3s displayed in areas were they act because of Human Rights Legislation. Ssshhh 

This is nonsense. Stores have kept pictures of known shoplifters for the use of their security for decades. What people can't do, is post or display pictures of people they claim have committed a crime- it leads to vigilantism and anarchy. It's why we have a police force and a justice system.

(There is the well-known case when a paediatrician was attacked in Gwent some years ago, because the mob thought "pediatricians" were child molesters, and a man stabbed to death by "mistake" in Essex.)

[Arthur Harris]

On 31/12/2023 at 18:03, FlyinFlynn said:

Not a snowballs chance in hell would the French accept that!    I assume Andy J was thinking the UK might adopt the same sort of requirements the EU and the US have with regards to both the info and the transmission method meaning the French firmware could be used in the UK with a UK issued ID.

 

Once the device is fired up you can use any wifi enabled device to see the web page the firmware generates and the info transmitted.

The UK has abandoned the separate UKCA safety mark and now accepts the CE mark (needless duplication of safety tests and it is just impractical for some small parts, eg grommets and such like in medical devices). And with a change of government quite likely, we will probably adopt international (EU) regulations.

,

[Arthur Harris]

On 31/12/2023 at 11:38, Edgeflyer said:

I've never quite understood the concept that introducing new laws will stop those who habitually break the law.

 

On 31/12/2023 at 17:17, Geoff S said:

 

Well I've had friends who had several similar motorcycles who swapped registration numbers to suit which was taxed 🙂   In fact one guy had 2 Ariel trials sidecar outfits parked in his yard with the same number plate and was queried by a passing police officer - he just said as neither of them was on the public highway "So what?" . Nothing came of it.

 

You're right. The whole thing is total nonsense. 

The only way I see RID working as intended is by manufacturers being forced to build it into Rxs. That would be feasible with a large market like the EU (with the UK tagging along). That would mean everyone would use it, and few would have the technical know-how to disable it- in fact, it could be made tamper-proof.

[FlyinFlynn]

Postie brought me another gps module yesterday and it is now another functioning RiD module.

 

 

 

 

 

It consists of an esp32-c3 Super Mini board which features an on-board ceramic wifi/bluetooth antenna, so no wired antenna sticking out, and a HT1818Z3G5 gps module that also features an on-board ceramic antenna for gps signal reception. It is slightly larger than the Quectel L80-R gps module but its terminals line up completely with the esp32.

 

 

 

It can be powered by 3.3 to 6.0v and weighs in at -

 

Cost around $3.50 and $4.50 for the modules, one off  delivered.

 

 

I came across another version of the project firmware the other day, it is from another French modeler, there are sketches for esp01s and esp32 and a separate receiver module to collect the positional data transmitted from the model and squirt that out on bluetooth to an Android app which is also supplied. The designer states that the airborne unit does not generate a hotspot or broadcast bluetooth for fear of interference with the Rx, he states the tiny transmission of the data for a few milliseconds does not disturb the R/C Rx whereas the transmission of a web page or bluetooth adverts potentially would. 

 

For those French speakers or those adept at Google translate the entire package is here

 

https://www.tranquille-modelisme.fr/balise-dgac-signalement-electronique-a-distance-drone-aeromodelisme.html

 

ho-hum.....another order for supplies needed!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FlyinFlynn]

On 30/12/2023 at 19:25, steve too said:

Is there a decent Android app for receiving French IDs?

 

I don't know of any app that will decode and display the data from the airborne RiD device directly, there are hardware options though, option one is a ground based unit to receive the airborne data packets and  generates both a hotspot that you can connect your mobile to and display the data in a browser window and it also retransmits the data via bluetooth for an Android app to display. This 'receiver' is just an unmodified (apart from the firmware!) esp32. Details here. The sketch is in the 'recepteur_esp32_web_BT folder and the Android App is in the 'appli-smartphone' folder. I found the bluetooth to be very flaky but I only have an older smartphone - perhaps you will have better luck. Original author's site is here

The second option I know of is an esp32 with an integral display that displays the frame data directly, it runs on a LilygoTTGO-T-Display. The sketch is here. in the balise-scanner folder. This option seems more bulletproof to me as it seems to display all the frames I throw at it while option 1 baulks if the frame is not the 'standard' it is expecting. Original author's github

 

[steve too]

On 01/01/2024 at 09:20, FlyinFlynn said:

Until the actual format for the UK is finally decided upon there is little to be gained by arguing the toss about what is and what is not going to work.

 

We can get a pretty good idea from CAP 2610 (especially Appendix B) which way the CAA/DfT plan to go.

 

From a technical viewpoint, I like the "Arrêté du 27 décembre 2019" RIDs. They are simple and easy to homebuild. They are available commercially for c. €40.  It would be great if the UK adopted them, but they aren't going to.

 

 

[Bruce Collinson]

Not been following this very lengthy thread, but whilst at Buckminster Fri/Sat the message was firm and clear, if enough of us respond to the Consultation along the lines suggested in Andy's last email, it is thought that RID is quite unlikely to be a requirement for most recreational plane fliers.   We have until this Weds if I read it correctly.

 

I have asked my club Hon Sec to re-send it, to try to get everyone's attention.

 

BTC

[steve too]

Just now, Bruce Collinson said:

... it is thought that RID is quite unlikely to be a requirement for most recreational plane fliers ...

 

Define 'most'.

[steve too]

On 02/01/2024 at 10:21, FlyinFlynn said:

... Another problem will arise if the UK powers that be require the transmitted info in a specific, so far, unused format ... 

 

There are almost certainly more F3411/4709-002 direct RIDs out there than there are French "Arrêté du 27 décembre 2019" ones.

 

4 hours ago, FlyinFlynn said:

I don't know of any app that will decode and display the data from the airborne RiD device directly ...

 

That confirms what I thought. I've looked for a French RID app a couple of times and found nothing. I appreciate that you can use a microcontroller that has WiFi (or a suitable laptop) to pick up the beacon frames but, if I am forced to use these things, I want a protocol that my phone or tablet will pick up and a decent app so that I can use them as lost model locators.

 

Edited January 7 by steve too

[Andy J]

Tried today to compile the French ESP32 code for the RID sender but got stuck at an early point to include the TinyGPS++.h file which came back with the error no such file. Having included the TinyGPSPlusPlus  library onto the IDE and included it in the compile the IDE still throws an error stating no such file. Tried renaming the French code at line 63 to include TinyGPSPlusPlus.h rather than TinyGPS++.h but that threw up the same error.

Anyone got an idea as to what I am doing wrong.

[Phil Green]

Hi Andy, the configured library path in the IDE is probably different to where you actually installed the library.

In previous versions it used to be in C:\Program Files (x86)\Arduino\libraries  but its now just a Libraries folder within your sketches folder.

TinyGPS++ works quite well, I use it in my free-flight tether and my camera tracker.

 

[Bruce Collinson]

5 hours ago, steve too said:

 

Define 'most'.

As I understand it, BMFA club fliers and fliers at other non-sensitive sites which are acknowledged by the State.

[Rich Griff]

Hi Bruce,

 

So the "state" has a list of "officially recognised" flying sites acknowledged by the  "state" ???

 

I am thinking along bmfa " country members" flying sites lines, but are these sites officially recognised !

 

Where can one view this "list" please, to make sure the sites I use as a country member are actually on it...!

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

5 minutes ago, Rich Griff said:

Hi Bruce,

 

So the "state" has a list of "officially recognised" flying sites acknowledged by the  "state" ???

 

I am thinking along bmfa " country members" flying sites lines, but are these sites officially recognised !

 

Where can one view this "list" please, to make sure the sites I use as a country member are actually on it...!

They don't have a list yet. Very early days in the process yet. All just proposals at the moment.

Edited January 7 by Andy Symons - BMFA

[Rich Griff]

Thanks Andy...

 

Might the bmfa have a procedure to get country members flying sites "registered", officially know of/about, recognised as "a regular flying site"....other than a bmfa affiliated site/club. ?

 

Thanks...

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

16 minutes ago, Rich Griff said:

Thanks Andy...

 

Might the bmfa have a procedure to get country members flying sites "registered", officially know of/about, recognised as "a regular flying site"....other than a bmfa affiliated site/club. ?

 

Thanks...

That is the hope and plan. Assuming the CAA proposals  come in which isn't a foregone conclusion.

 

At the moment we just need as many model flyers as possible to respond to the consultation.

Edited January 7 by Andy Symons - BMFA

[FlyinFlynn]

16 hours ago, Andy J said:

Tried today to compile the French ESP32 code for the RID sender but got stuck at an early point to include the TinyGPS++.h file which came back with the error no such file. Having included the TinyGPSPlusPlus  library onto the IDE and included it in the compile the IDE still throws an error stating no such file. Tried renaming the French code at line 63 to include TinyGPSPlusPlus.h rather than TinyGPS++.h but that threw up the same error.

Anyone got an idea as to what I am doing wrong.

Phil is right, I have a TinyGPSPlus-master folder in my arduino/libraries folder, inside that folder is the required TinyGPS++.ccp and .h files. 

These days I believe it is usual to import new libraries by downloading the zipped library (from https://github.com/mikalhart/TinyGPSPlus ), then from within ArduinoIDE select the Sketch/Include Library/Add a .zip library and navigate to the downloaded zip file and select it. The IDE should unzip it and put it in the correct place... then re-try your compile/load.

[steve too]

On 30/12/2023 at 19:38, Keith Billinge said:

I see the BMFA just rolling over and having their tummy tickled when they should be strongly restisting what the regulators are doing.

 

It certainly looks like the BMFA have conceded on all the major issues (UK wide network RID, authorised sites, geofencing) and that their main priority is begging the CAA to authorise affiliated club sites.

[Cuban8]

12 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

It certainly looks like the BMFA have conceded on all the major issues (UK wide network RID, authorised sites, geofencing) and that their main priority is begging the CAA to authorise affiliated club sites.

That is not the impression that I get from Andy's recent email sent to all BMFA members. What we're dealing with is a cadre of people within the great monolith that is the CAA, who have got a bee in their bonnet about a trendy and techy solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Why someone within that organisation doesn't throw their hands up and say "hang on a minute, this doesn't ring true" (sound familiar?) is quite beyond me.

IF by some mad injustice, our hobby is destined to be constricted by a wasteful and quite useless straightjacket - which is what RID in any form will be to this hobby - then surely someone, somewhere, with an ounce of brainpower will stand up and say "this has gone far enough, the bureaucrats have had their fun, now lets get some truth and honesty going".

 

[leccyflyer]

I'm four hours into trying to answer this latest call for consultation and have to say that if it's the CAA's intention to just grind us down and do what they were going to do in the first place then they're more than likely winning in that regard. I doubt that we'll get better than the 3-4% that spent the time to answer the last one.  A clubmate asked me yesterday morning what it was all about and I tried my best to explain, but I'm afraid that they have finally worn me down. I deliberately didn't answer before Christmas, as I didn't want to spoil that, so always intended answering the call this week but what a convolute load of nonsense it is, it's soul destroying to go through the motions.

[Martin Dance 1]

Well, I've completed and submitted my response to CAA2610. I've taken my time doing so. In the course of compiling my response I guess I have read the document four or five times.. I have to agree with Bruce Simpson it should be withdrawn, its a woolly ill constructed document which presents no substantiated data to support any of the proposals. By that I'm not just talking about model flying but also the existing multi rotor drones and any innvoations that might happen in the future. My guess is that the CAA is operating under the direct instruction of the government. In order to make the task as easy as possible it was handed to an unpaid intern and then published without being reviewed by someone more senior! Mentions of the aim to produce a world leading system and mentions of making it different to the EU, all part of the 'Brexit bonus' I guess, a bit like being able to buy pints of wine, except no wine bottle maker makes pint wine bottles and furthermore is unlikely to do so .

My response is pretty scathingj. If these responses are read by a human being I hope it will goad someone into contacting me. Otherwise I will believe, as most others do, that it is simply a box ticking exercise and the responses are simply 'filed' and the CAA will do exactly as they please. 

 

Happy New Year

 

 

[leccyflyer]

What is really getting on my nerves at this exact moment is that, despite having been told endless times that it is not possible to differentiate between model aircraft and drones the very document that we are replying to contains sentences like - Please explain your answer, and consider our proposed approach to UAS in scope, legacy UAS and model aircraft:" 😠

[steve too]

3 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

That is not the impression that I get from Andy's recent email sent to all BMFA members.

 

My earlier post is precisely what Symons' email says. The BMFA don't care about geofencing and RID so long as they are exempt (or mostly exempt). This shouldn't surprise anybody as it what they said in their response to the Call for Input.

 

Edited January 8 by steve too

[steve too]

23 minutes ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

... In order to make the task as easy as possible it was handed to an unpaid intern and then published without being reviewed by someone more senior! Mentions of the aim to produce a world leading system and mentions of making it different to the EU ...

 

CAP 2610 is the DfT/CAA getting back on the EU/Single European Sky U-Space roadmap. Of course, the CAA are gold plating things because that is what they do. Look at the standards in Appendix B, they are mostly ASD-STAN or EUROCAE.