Direct RID/Remote RID modules.

[Cuban8]

1 hour ago, steve too said:

 

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.

 

The BMFA is our national association and I for one expect them to act in the best interests of us, i.e. its members - which I believe they are attempting to do. If it turns out that the crazy RID palava does indeed take on a life of its own and those that are pushing for it get their way, then if we can get an agreement that keeps us as BMFA members out of all the silliness, then I'd be happy with that.

I honestly don't think RID will be imposed on any hobby users of the lower airspace - it's just so much of a daft idea that just has to run its course before being consigned to the bin. The necessary evidence will be in plain sight, especially if in due course, a proper audit as to the usefulness v the expense of the new registration system that we manged perfectly well without since anyone first stuck a couple of sticks of balsa together, and chucked them into the air, shows what a waste of time that little idea is.

 

Edited January 8 by Cuban8

[FlyinFlynn]

On 07/01/2024 at 13:21, steve too said:

 

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.

 

 

Thanks for the link Steve - 

My impression of Appendix B is that the UK intends to follow prEN4709-002 which appears to me to be all about the standards for direct broadcast ID, not networkID and seeing as the UK has pulled out of U-Space (https://www.unmannedairspace.info/emerging-regulations/uk-to-leave-european-commission-and-easa-drone-and-u-space-regulatory-regimes/) it's requirements for network ID wouldn't seem to me to be valid for the UK

 

CAP2610 further states -

Operations not performed under the U-Space are not subjects to such supervision. To enable the “reading” of the registration number the drone should provide a direct digital access to it in a simple manner. To that end, the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 mandates that drones intended for operations in  the open category or under declaration embed in their design a DRI function.....

 

It seems to me that things may not be as cut and dried as you fear.... or am I missing something?

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

7 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

The BMFA is our national association and I for one expect them to act in the best interests of us, i.e. its members - which I believe they are attempting to do. If it turns out that the crazy RID palava does indeed take on a life of its own and those that are pushing for it get their way, then if we can get an agreement that keeps us as BMFA members out of all the silliness, then I'd be happy with that.

I honestly don't think RID will be imposed on any hobby users of the lower airspace - it's just so much of a daft idea that just has to run its course before being consigned to the bin. The necessary evidence will be in plain sight, especially if in due course, a proper audit as to the usefulness v the expense of the new registration system that we manged perfectly well without since anyone first stuck a couple of sticks of balsa together, and chucked them into the air, shows what a waste of time that little idea is.

 

The BMFA position on Remote ID is as stated in the suggested answers.

 

The whole premise of remote ID is an unnecessary imposition and burden on all UAS operators.

[FlyinFlynn]

Very telling - 

 

Model Aircraft

 

6.13.     The Call for Input asked what changes we could make to the regulatory framework for Model Aircraft, to support the Model Aircraft community. Potential changes include creating a separate operational sub-category for Model Aircraft and creating a clearer definition for Model Aircraft to differentiate between other UAS.

6.14.     Of those Model Aircraft flyers who provided a response, 50.6% respondents were neutral, 30.9% were in favour of the proposal and 17.5% were against it. Whilst some Model Aircraft flyers requested significant changes to the regulatory framework (such as removing Model Aircraft from the regulations altogether), others cautioned against the cost, complexity and impact of making substantial changes.

6.15.    Our view is that, on balance, the costs of change to government, the CAA and the Model Aircraft community outweigh the potential benefits from creating an entirely C new regulatory framework. As such, we intend to maintain the foundations of the current regulatory framework and continue to collaborate with the Model Aircraft community to improve how regulations are applied.

 

Who were these 68.1 per cent? (and what happened to the remaining 1%?)  It would appear that coming up with a definition of what differentiates a model aircraft and a drone isn't too hard after all.

[leccyflyer]

8 minutes ago, FlyinFlynn said:

Very telling - 

 

Model Aircraft

 

6.13.     The Call for Input asked what changes we could make to the regulatory framework for Model Aircraft, to support the Model Aircraft community. Potential changes include creating a separate operational sub-category for Model Aircraft and creating a clearer definition for Model Aircraft to differentiate between other UAS.

6.14.     Of those Model Aircraft flyers who provided a response, 50.6% respondents were neutral, 30.9% were in favour of the proposal and 17.5% were against it. Whilst some Model Aircraft flyers requested significant changes to the regulatory framework (such as removing Model Aircraft from the regulations altogether), others cautioned against the cost, complexity and impact of making substantial changes.

6.15.    Our view is that, on balance, the costs of change to government, the CAA and the Model Aircraft community outweigh the potential benefits from creating an entirely C new regulatory framework. As such, we intend to maintain the foundations of the current regulatory framework and continue to collaborate with the Model Aircraft community to improve how regulations are applied.

 

Who were these 68.1 per cent? (and what happened to the remaining 1%?)  It would appear that coming up with a definition of what differentiates a model aircraft and a drone isn't too hard after all.

Like I have said many, many times - we've been told ad nauseum that such a definition is impossible - yet here it is, again, in black and white, straight from the horses mouth.

 

Anyway, I'm done. A horrible day spent wrestling with a horrible document.

 

The silliest part?  Asking for input on the Appendix A - costs and benefits of the proposals. How on earth can anyone be expected to produce a reasoned and reasonable account of that the likely costs are and as for the benefits - some of the beneficiaries listed are Law Enforcement and Prisons. If it requires a complete rehash of the leglislation of the airspace to deal with drug dealers using drone to take contraband into prisons and the CAA seriously imagine that requiring everyone to have RID fitted will make the slightest difference to that then we really are in crazy town.

 

[leccyflyer]

1 hour ago, steve too said:

 

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.

 

Perhaps you could dial back on the rudeness in referring to Andy Symons?

 

This isn't Eton you know.

[GrumpyGnome]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

Perhaps you could dial back on the rudeness in referring to Andy Symons?

 

This isn't Eton you know.

Beat me to it.

[Martin Dance 1]

If the CAA's remit is to investigate and propose changes in the management of the airspace, in particular the use of the airspace below 500 ft then what they should be proposing are methods which allow the safe integration of the anticipated new users of the airspace with all existing users of the airspace. So electronic conspicuity, proposing how new users navigate the airspace should be at the top of their agenda. Remote ID in any form does not achieve that end, it is simply a method of further supervising the population. It certainly is not going to reduce crime or even, in reality, assist in the apprehension of criminals, at best it will if  a drone using criminal is arrested be another charge to be added to the list of other offences he/she is alleged to hae committed. At enormous cost to law abiding citizens.

[GaryW]

If I may...... Did anyone actually spot this...?? 

More specifically this part.....

 

On P.25/6

 

[ We are proposing for safe and secure Model Aircraft flights to be exempt from
Remote ID requirements.

 

Under our proposed approach, Model Aircraft flights
would be exempt from Remote ID requirements, if:

a. The aircraft meets the CAA’s definition and specification for exempt Model
Aircraft;

b. The pilot and UAS remain within the bounds of a designated Model Aircraft
flying site, authorised by the CAA based on proximity to urban, sensitive or
restricted sites; and

c. The flight takes place within a Model Aircraft club, with an authorisation
granted under Article 16 of UK Regulation(EU) 2019/947. ""

 

AND on P.26

 

Under these proposals, Model Aircraft that fly at low-risk club or association sites and meet the definition of an exempt Model Aircraft would not be impacted by Remote ID. ]

 

 

So to most RC fliers / Club fliers RID shudnt really be an issue worth worrying about, and  what I get from that is that if im right it will only from whats actually being proposed be implemented on drones that are  flown outside a club field environment  At least that's what myself and some of my fellow Rc flying friends get from the above

[leccyflyer]

Haven't we done this bit before, more than once?

[GaryW]

Apologies @Leccyflyer if I have mentioned what i posted above before although I don't recall having mentioned it but then being the wrong side of 50 now my brain isnt what it use to be im afraid.. either that or its time i started blowing into blocked fuel pipes on my planes when all these years I must have been sucking on them...

 

However since I was last here a lot has happened for me here which I've been very busy with things   in my forum downtime and Im now playing catch up

 

Edited January 8 by GaryW

[Keith Billinge]

Let's try and help......

 

 

[Don Fry]

Is that Bruce the 

[Keith Billinge]

I think Bruce has got it right and we should be calling out the unecessary Over-Regulation of our hobby. Remote ID is like the ultimate "Big Brother" scenario where every flight you make will have to be logged in a system centrally somewhere. No sneaking away from work to fly a model for an hour.

Who will use this data? They could just decide to start sending out the equivalent of "speeding tickets" one day.

Your model was over height, or, your model strayed 5meters into a restricted place etc etc etc.... Here's your fine and how to pay, or you can elect for a court hearing etc etc

 

Also if remote ID is of the networked kind you can bet you'll have to pay a network connection charge or buy a sim card for your models to ring up and check if you're allowed to fly. No connection, no flight. We estimate from where you took off and where you model was logged could not possibly have been in visual line of sight, so here's another ticket and another fine.

 

All things that criminals will not bother doing and all things that will turn us ordinary law-abiding folk into criminals if we don't comply.

It's just not how laws are supposed to happen. Laws are meant to be made with the consent of the public and I beleive the public are not being told the truth about drones and model aeroplanes and if they understood the ramafications of these proposed laws they wouldn't stand for it.

 

Think of all the money wasted, so far, on picking on us and proposing the new laws. That money would have been better spent by Government improving some schools or repairing some hospitals. It's a bloody farce!

 

KB

[Arthur Harris]

I may be wrong, but... if a RID device is required, why can't a club activate just one when club members are flying? At the risk of being accused of trolling again, just to give a real-life example:

4 of us turn up at the field. On a very good day, there may be 15. No government agency is going to count the number of RIDs in use, and they will all be milling about infrequently in a tiny radius over the model airfield anyway. Why shouldn't one club member activate a RID until we have finished flying? It doesn't even need to be in a plane, it can be on a table. Even if our own club required us to have a RID in each model, who is going to check? Is the club going to have a designated RID inspector to ask us to take our planes apart so they can look? And what if it is built into the Rx (or not)- the check won't show anything? If the club doesn't have a RID inspector, who will do the checking? Will the CAA have a roaming inspectorate?

Am I missing something?

 

 

[Arthur Harris]

2 minutes ago, Keith Billinge said:

I think Bruce has got it right and we should be calling out the unecessary Over-Regulation of our hobby. Remote ID is like the ultimate "Big Brother" scenario where every flight you make will have to be logged in a system centrally somewhere. No sneaking away from work to fly a model for an hour.

Who will use this data? They could just decide to start sending out the equivalent of "speeding tickets" one day.

Your model was over height, or, your model strayed 5meters into a restricted place etc etc etc.... Here's your fine and how to pay, or you can elect for a court hearing etc etc

 

Also if remote ID is of the networked kind you can bet you'll have to pay a network connection charge or buy a sim card for your models to ring up and check if you're allowed to fly. No connection, no flight. We estimate from where you took off and where you model was logged could not possibly have been in visual line of sight, so here's another ticket and another fine.

 

All things that criminals will not bother doing and all things that will turn us ordinary law-abiding folk into criminals if we don't comply.

It's just not how laws are supposed to happen. Laws are meant to be made with the consent of the public and I beleive the public are not being told the truth about drones and model aeroplanes and if they understood the ramafications of these proposed laws they wouldn't stand for it.

 

Think of all the money wasted, so far, on picking on us and proposing the new laws. That money would have been better spent by Government improving some schools or repairing some hospitals. It's a bloody farce!

 

KB

No one will police this nonsense. If the government can't track small boats, they won't be able to track small planes!

[Cuban8]

13 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

I may be wrong, but... if a RID device is required, why can't a club activate just one when club members are flying? At the risk of being accused of trolling again, just to give a real-life example:

4 of us turn up at the field. On a very good day, there may be 15. No government agency is going to count the number of RIDs in use, and they will all be milling about infrequently in a tiny radius over the model airfield anyway. Why shouldn't one club member activate a RID until we have finished flying? It doesn't even need to be in a plane, it can be on a table. Even if our own club required us to have a RID in each model, who is going to check? Is the club going to have a designated RID inspector to ask us to take our planes apart so they can look? And what if it is built into the Rx (or not)- the check won't show anything? If the club doesn't have a RID inspector, who will do the checking? Will the CAA have a roaming inspectorate?

Am I missing something?

 

 

If despite all of the best efforts by the BMFA and others to show the silliness of RID and it actually becomes a requirement (I really, really don't believe it will) then a single 'RID beacon' singing out its little tune from the top of your field's club house or other suitable location immediately adjacent to the flying strip, would be quite sufficient to warn off wandering delivery, flying taxi, or surveillance drones, and keep the techy bureaucrats happy I'd have thought.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Just a thought, but maybe soon you could give 'Amazon' your Rid number and get  your stuff delivered to where you are, it would be nice to receive your £1000 + new Saito engine on the model field, out of site of your wife.😜

[leccyflyer]

4 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

If despite all of the best efforts by the BMFA and others to show the silliness of RID and it actually becomes a requirement (I really, really don't believe it will) then a single 'RID beacon' singing out its little tune from the top of your field's club house or other suitable location immediately adjacent to the flying strip, would be quite sufficient to warn off wandering delivery, flying taxi, or surveillance drones, and keep the techy bureaucrats happy I'd have thought.

The case that is being put forward suggests that flying at approved sites would negate the requirement for any RID. However I wonder whether the approach you describe could be utilised at slope soaring sites which are not under the auspices or administration of a particular club, so aren;t club sites as such. Though there would still likely be issues with network service provision in hilly, remote locations, would it potentially be enough to have one RID unit in a box, on site, on the ground, rather than trying to shoehorn the blasted things inside slender glider fuselages?

[Bruce Collinson]

13 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

The case that is being put forward suggests that flying at approved sites would negate the requirement for any RID. However I wonder whether the approach you describe could be utilised at slope soaring sites which are not under the auspices or administration of a particular club, so aren;t club sites as such. Though there would still likely be issues with network service provision in hilly, remote locations, would it potentially be enough to have one RID unit in a box, on site, on the ground, rather than trying to shoehorn the blasted things inside slender glider fuselages?

Or cause the site to become registered in the same way as a club site would be; e.g. round here, Baildon Moor is a popular slope soaring site but not associated with any specific club as far as I am aware.   It would be high on the list to register it and thereby exempt it from RID ... good RIDdance?   That is my understanding of where BMFA hopes to direct this.

[Andy J]

Got a little further in compiling the original French code but now stuck in the TinyGPSPlusPlus code which throws an error in line 89 that 'D1' was not declared in this scope.

 

One thing I did note is that the TinyGPSPlusPlus library uses TinyGPSPlus.h. Is that correct or have I a further issue as to what library I should be calling in the main code?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Anyone recall how long it took for response to the last consultation ?

 

[steve too]

1 hour ago, Bruce Collinson said:

... Baildon Moor is a popular slope soaring site ... It would be high on the list to register it and thereby exempt it from RID ... 

 

Baildon Moor is in Leeds Bradford Airport Control Zone. Good luck.

[steve too]

21 hours ago, GaryW said:

So to most RC fliers / Club fliers RID shudnt really be an issue worth worrying about, and  what I get from that is that if im right it will only from whats actually being proposed be implemented on drones that are  flown outside a club field environment  At least that's what myself and some of my fellow Rc flying friends get from the above

 

How confident are you that your site(s) will be approved by the CAA? 

How confident are you that all of your models will be "exempt Model Aircraft"?

[Bruce Collinson]

40 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

Baildon Moor is in Leeds Bradford Airport Control Zone. Good luck.

So is NLMFC’s site.   We co-exist and co-operate with LBA quite satisfactorily.   Some of my club mates fly off Basildon regularly, as have I, and there has never been an issue with LBA as far as I am aware.

 

With the greatest of respect, you do seem to be unduly pessimistic about this situation.