Jump to content
Please be aware of scammers when using the Sale/Wanted forum areas

Direct RID/Remote RID modules.

john stones 1 - Moderator
 Share

Recommended Posts

leccyflyer

leccyflyer

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Geoff S said:

 

So you take (say) 3 models up to the field with just one receiver and swap it to whichever model you've chosen to fly next?  That's what would seem to be necessary if you had just one RID module for all your models.

Yup.

 

Now given that you've just made a material change to the model's radio system, would that not also mean a range check with every switch of models?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaryW

GaryW

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, leccyflyer said:

Yup.

 

Now given that you've just made a material change to the model's radio system, would that not also mean a range check with every switch of models?

 

yes i wont disagree there,, im sure many out there will carry out range checks before flying as part of pre flight checks whether an rx has been moved to a model or not

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaryW

GaryW

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Seriously? You imagine for one second that those who break the law are going to fit RID to their UAS?

 

i dont doubt many havent got CAA OP ID either but thats the risk they take in being prosecuted or have equipment confiscated in the same way as what a youtube video linked on the other thread and to be honest if caught breaking the law then they deserve what they get to be honest just as anyone of us legitimate fliers can have happen shud we break the CAA laws... it also helps identify those said illegal fliers

Edited by GaryWebb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Philip Lewis 3

Philip Lewis 3

Posted
Posted (edited)

"As I've already pointed out - we aren't looking for reasons not   to fit RID, we are waiting for someone to post a legitimate reason for why we would fit RID. In other words a positive benefit."

 

Not just to model fliers but what is the point in the first place because I can't think of one, the question in my my mind is who would want or need to be able to see us and what benefit would they get from it? Electronic conspicuity in full size general aviation isn't even mandatory yet and different systems that don't even talk to each other are what is available. 

 

It leaves me wondering whether we should be talking to GA organisation such as AOPA who presumably also have a great interest in this as they have the airspace above what we use and below controled airspace and what about the full sixe gliding community?  

Edited by Philip Lewis 3
Spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaryW

GaryW

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Outrunner said:

 

How on earth is a RID going to stop them?

 

 

 

 

RID will help in identifying illegal fliers from those of us that follow the laws and regs ..... As and when RID does come in if being a legal requirement isn't good enough reason to fit them to our models and follow the regs as we have all been doing for decades if not longer then I really dont know what is 

Edited by GaryWebb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GaryW

GaryW

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Ron Gray said:

They're criminals, all part of their day to day job (and I'm not referring to YouTubers).

 

I mentioned that youtuber as just one example ,,,, there are many other normal people including some using local parks near me that dont give a hoot about the caa laws or joining a club or the BMFA thers even a few that continue to fly in the vacinity of rochester airport who also dont care ... form what i ahve been told by many i know in the hobby everyone went in uproar when caa op id was being proposed and like this matter loads of people rejected it in disagreement and still continued regardless but guess what ... we've got it now,,, so lets all do the same over RID and stick 2 fingers up to it and you never know we all may we'll get kicked out of our clubs if we're lucky 

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron Gray

Ron Gray

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

there are many other normal people including some using local parks near me that dont give a hoot about the caa laws or joining a club or the BMFA thers even a few that continue to fly in the vacinity of rochester airport who also dont care .

So how will RID make any difference if they don’t fit it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron Gray

Ron Gray

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Let it go please fellas.

Why? There are quite a few people I have spoken to (including some in the CAA / government) who have exactly the same view as Gary, that RID will help get rid of UAS criminal activity yet none of these, when asked, can give a reasonable answer as to how it will.
 

I’m sorry but saying that it will be breaking the law therefore that is sufficient to stop them just isn’t a sensible argument and shows a complete ignorance of human nature.

Edited by Ron Gray
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FlyinFlynn

FlyinFlynn

Posted
Posted (edited)

I wonder if anyone has done any proper scientific research and trials as to the level, if any, of degradation on the Tx/Rx link on 2.4GHz with having a RID transmitting on 2.4GHz inches away from the Rx antenna, I somehow doubt it with the modern modus operandi of putting the cart before the horse.

 

14 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

There probably isn't one in a hundred model flyers who would be in the market for home manufacturing such a device.

 

Really?  If you can solder a new battery connector on the switch you can build one of these things.

 

1801935470_circuitdiagram.thumb.jpg.9e523ece0ddf7fd0269cad8826d2d215.jpg

 

These are 4 connections between the two devices and two of those line up when placing them on top of each other so really only two wires to run.

 

You don't have to design the firmware or the modules, just connect them together.

 

However, at the moment, not much use to those in the UK

 

A also agree with Ron, RID legislation is never, ever going to stop those that don't want to comply with the regulations so the whole enterprise is doomed to fail in its core purpose.

Edited by FlyinFlynn
added a comment
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leccyflyer

leccyflyer

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, FlyinFlynn said:

I wonder if anyone has done any proper scientific research and trials as to the level, if any, of degradation on the Tx/Rx link on 2.4GHz with having a RID transmitting on 2.4GHz inches away from the Rx antenna, I somehow doubt it with the modern modus operandi of putting the cart before the horse.

 

 

Really?  If you can solder a new battery connector on the switch you can build one of these things.

 

1801935470_circuitdiagram.thumb.jpg.9e523ece0ddf7fd0269cad8826d2d215.jpg

 

These are 4 connections between the two devices and two of those line up when placing them on top of each other so really only two wires to run.

 

You don't have to design the firmware or the modules, just connect them together.

 

However, at the moment, not much use to those in the UK

 

A also agree with Ron, RID legislation is never, ever going to stop those that don't want to comply with the regulations so the whole enterprise is doomed to fail in its core purpose.

Yes really. I've found, having recently dabbled in such things, that many folks who do electronics as part of their hobby tend to massively overestimate the fine soldering skills of their fellow modellers. It's a completely different skill than changing battery connectors and cobbling together 8swg piano wire undercarriages. It's a delicate motor skill and it also assumes a familiarity with electronic components and their assembly. I know that without a lot of help from Phil and others on the net-zero forum, I certainly wouldn't have felt competent to do a transmitter conversion and I've been doing my own battery connections for over 25 years.

 

As you say though, something of a moot point anyway, in terms of not being able to do what is being asked of the technology, namely ensuring that everyone complies with the regulations and operates in a totally controlled, legal manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron Gray

Ron Gray

Posted
Posted (edited)

Being a bit of a cynic (what me? really?) I see this as another opportunity for some Government bod to decree that any RID gear has to be purchased from an 'approved' source, which just so happens to be a mate / family member of that same bod.

 

Sorry Mods if that appears too 'political' but it is also topical given recent revelations.

Edited by Ron Gray
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steve too

steve too

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, FlyinFlynn said:

I wonder if anyone has done any proper scientific research and trials as to the level, if any, of degradation on the Tx/Rx link on 2.4GHz with having a RID transmitting on 2.4GHz inches away from the Rx antenna, I somehow doubt it with the modern modus operandi of putting the cart before the horse.

 

I wouldn't describe it as proper scientific research, but I have flown with both WiFi and Bluetooth 5 RIDs alongside my Spektrum receivers and observed no change in the number of fades.

 

I also receive telemetry from my models while having a mobile phone in my pocket and/or standing alongside others with transmitters and phones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steve too

steve too

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Thought I'd start a specific thread to discuss these things, many like myself know little or nothing about them.

 

This document from ASD-STAN is a reasonable primer on direct remote ID.

 

https://asd-stan.org/wp-content/uploads/ASD-STAN_DRI_Introduction_to_the_European_digital_RID_UAS_Standard.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Geoff S

Geoff S

Posted
Posted

The thought of needing to move an RID module from model to model at the field horrifies me.  On my most recent model (Durafly Gladiator) it would easy - just a matter of lifting the cockpit/hatch for access and no tools needed, but on the Sopwith Pup I'm working on right now it means removing the bottom wing which involves removing the rigging, the interplane struts and the aileron linkages; not difficult but hardly convenient.

 

I know all this is to use the airspace modellers have been using for upwards of a century for commercial use - the fictitious drone deliveries to your back garden (if you have one, that is).  Last week I picked up a kit I'd bought from Newport Pagnell near Milton Keynes. As II was trying to locate the address, I got a glimpse of something crossing the road ahead.  When I got closer, I saw it was a little 4 wheeled, remotely controlled delivery truck trundling along the pavement doing its 'thing' all alone.  So delivery drones do exist but not in the air.  It was about 100 metres ahead of me when it crossed the (quiet) road - I wonder if it looked before leaving the pavement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...