Direct RID/Remote RID modules.

[Zflyer]

Just a quick question from idle curiosity as i dont think i have it mentioned anywhere.

What about hot air ballons and large kites....

 

[GaryW]

2 hours ago, steve too said:

 

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"?

 

The only true answer I can give you Steve is..... I'm as confident that they will be as much as I'm confident that they wont be,, I may be wrong but as I see it at this time it's one of those 50/50 questions that at this point noone can truly say with 100% certainty that they will or they wont ... To use one of my late fathers quotes,,, " We will just have wait to see which way the cat jumps "

Edited January 9 by GaryW

[Arthur Harris]

2 hours ago, Zflyer said:

Just a quick question from idle curiosity as i dont think i have it mentioned anywhere.

What about hot air ballons and large kites....

 

Good question. I think the CAA are only concerned about UAVs. Paragliders and balloons are currently exempt and probably will remain so. Kites will be classed as toys along with 250gm RC planes.

The problem we modest model fliers have is that there is no distinction between a model plane and a drone.

While the BMFA insists on bundling hobby fliers who fly smallish planes around a model airfield or a hillside together with people who: fly drones, turbine planes and FPV specialist planes over thousands of feet of altitude and tens of miles of distance, we have no representation.

Good luck to people who want to fly FPVs over the Highlands of Scotland and upload their videos, turbine pilots who want to beat up the sky, and glider pilots going for altitude records.

But they are creating difficulties for the average club flier. Just my opinion.

 

 

[Arthur Harris]

On 08/01/2024 at 21:06, GaryW said:

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

Isn't this what the BMFA want and not what the CAA are proposing? What we want may be very different to what we will get.

[Arthur Harris]

@Andy Symons- Do you think I am wrong in this post?: 

While the BMFA insists on bundling hobby fliers who fly smallish planes around a model airfield or a hillside together with people who: fly drones, turbine planes and FPV specialist planes over thousands of feet of altitude and tens of miles of distance, we have no representation.

Good luck to people who want to fly FPVs over the Highlands of Scotland and upload their videos, turbine pilots who want to beat up the sky, and glider pilots going for altitude records.

But they are creating difficulties for the average club flier. Just my opinion.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

15 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

@Andy Symons- Do you think I am wrong in this post?: 

While the BMFA insists on bundling hobby fliers who fly smallish planes around a model airfield or a hillside together with people who: fly drones, turbine planes and FPV specialist planes over thousands of feet of altitude and tens of miles of distance, we have no representation.

Good luck to people who want to fly FPVs over the Highlands of Scotland and upload their videos, turbine pilots who want to beat up the sky, and glider pilots going for altitude records.

But they are creating difficulties for the average club flier. Just my opinion.

yes, very wrong. Your 'I'm alright Jack' approach that throws other perfectly acceptable and lawful elements of the same sport/hobby under the bus because its not what you do is shameful. It would dilute the collective voice we have massively and make model aircraft flying pretty much an irrelevence with no voice.

 

BTW, the BMFA doesnt bundle any flying that doesnt take place within visual line of site of the remote pilot in as model flying.

 

Model flying is the flying of any small unmanned aircraft within visual line of site of the pilot for sporting and recreational purposes.

Edited January 9 by Andy Symons - BMFA

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

To me the fewer our numbers, the less in the kitty for future needs, the weaker our voice, the higher our fees, the less attractive we are to insurers. All negatives for zero gain.

[Arthur Harris]

7 minutes ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

yes, very wrong. Your 'I'm alright Jack' approach that throws other perfectly acceptable and lawful elements of the same sport/hobby under the bus because its not what you do is shameful. It would dilute the collective voice we have massively and make model aircraft flying pretty much an irrelevence with no voice.

 

BTW, the BMFA doesnt bundle any flying that doesnt take place within visual line of site of the remote pilot in as model flying.

 

Model flying is the flying of any small unmanned aircraft within visual line of site of the pilot for sporting and recreational purposes.

Thanks for replying, I admit I may be wrong. But I am not sure I am alone. I agree with the visual line of sight, but I think the CAA are going after the FPVs operators and we are getting sucked in with them.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

Thanks for replying, I admit I may be wrong. But I am not sure I am alone. I agree with the visual line of sight, but I think the CAA are going after the FPVs operators and we are getting sucked in with them.

They aren't going after the FPVs, they aren't particularly going after anyone.

 

The government have tasked them with modernising the airspace so they have come up with some proposals to do so, proposals within which they acknowledge the long record of safe and responsible model aircraft flying and have included provision within the proposals to exempt most model aircraft flying activity from the proposals.

 

Of course the devil will be in the details, details that do not exist yet. However the BMFA will continue to fight to minimise the effect of any new regulations on our activities.

 

[FlyinFlynn]

15 hours ago, Andy J said:

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?

I think perhaps you have D1 as the #Define GPS_RX_PIN D1 (or #Define GPS_TX_PIN D1)  For the super mini the correct designation for the pins is just the number without the 'D'. So delete the D to leave #Define GPS_RX_PIN 1. Also remove the D in the #Define GPS_TX_PIN (whatever) statement. 

 

If that doesn't work perhaps start a new thread Andy? 

 

TinyGPSplus and TinyGPSplusplus are both in the archive so nothing else is required

[steve too]

13 hours ago, Bruce Collinson said:

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

 

If a non-club slope site in controlled airspace is authorised then I will be very happy as it probably means that all the slope sites that I use will be authorised.

 

Those of us who have been paying attention have been expecting something like CAP 2569/2610 to hit UK modellers for over five years. When it arrived what was the BMFA's reaction? 

 

Quote

14. Should CAA implement Remote ID (Opportunity 11) and why?
A. Neither yes nor no
 

15. Should CAA implement geo-awareness (Opportunity 12) and why?
A. Neither yes nor no

 

(BMFA response to 2569. Yes, I know that the BMFA put lots of text after the "Neither yes nor no" but, unsurprisingly, most of that didn't make it to the Response Summary.)

 

Despite this over 60% of the people who answered the CAP 2569 RID question said no. The CAA ignored us when they produced CAP 2610 saying that "The CAA, Home Office, Department for Transport and Police maintain the view that the security benefits of Remote ID will be important in preventing unlawful UAS operations and enabling UAS regulations to be enforced." and citing some dodgy statistics.

 

So I am pessimistic, but I don't think that I am "unduly pessimistic".

 

Edited January 10 by steve too

[GrumpyGnome]

Maybe the police etc. can make a more compelling argument than what may well be a minor inconvenience to the minority of lawful model fliers.....

 

I do feel it's unfair to infer you've been paying more attention than the BMFA - we have (well I have) no idea what meetings/correspondence the BMFA and CAA may have been involved in. 

 

Also, the BMFA also support our multi-rotor colleagues who may already have geo awareness/fencing and forms of remote id in their machines...

 

I personally am neither pessimistic, nor optimistic at this point. We don't know what will happen so it's all simply  speculation.

[Martin Dance 1]

You might hav emissed this little gem unless you subscribe  to Skywise a CAA publication.

 

Today's session will introduce the Integration Sandbox, provide some background on the Airspace Modernisation Strategy and CAP 2533 Airspace Policy Concept,

 

This session starts at 14:00 today. It's worth digging out CAP2533 and having a read, and consider the possible implications for us.

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

I do feel it's unfair to infer you've been paying more attention than the BMFA - we have (well I have) no idea what meetings/correspondence the BMFA and CAA may have been involved in. 

 

Also, the BMFA also support our multi-rotor colleagues who may already have geo awareness/fencing and forms of remote id in their machines...

 

I don't think Steve was inferring the BMFA have not been paying attention. He is simply pointing out that the BMFA response to the (entirely predictable and much anticipated) questions about RID and geo-fencing in the August 23 request for response were a) delivered quite late in that consultation process which won't have helped with response rates, and b) not reflective of the majority of views of their members.

 

Even so, when 60% of respondents disagreed with these proposals/"opportunities", the CAA totally ignored that feedback created the more formal proposals in CAP2610 where hybrid RID and geo-awareness/fencing are both front and centre. The only "concessions" were a few hazy promises that model flying will be protected thrown in, none of which are worth much until we see the final proposed rules. Given that, why should we believe the result will be suddenly be different this time around?

 

As I've stated before, I have friends who have operated within civil service who tell me that central Government is often pretty directive (off he record) in "consultations" like this, tasking the agency in question (in this case the CAA) with a target output. They have confirmed cynical tactics are often used, such as:

• proposing extreme solutions they can water down to their (always intended) final version, so that they can show they "listened" to the consultation
• wording questions to make them harder to understand and more time consuming to respond to
• iming the release for periods where response rates are likely to be lower (e,.g. over xmas or summer holiday periods) are regularly used.

I will be very happy to be proved wrong, but I do believe UK Gov (not the CAA; they are just operating under their direction) have already decided what is going to happen here, and are going to implement it whatever the feedback says. Ultimately though we do have to play along and respond, even if that is ultimately futile - the time for legal challenges etc. is not yet here.

[leccyflyer]

Anyone with a passing familiarity of the M.O. of such fictional Civil Servants as Sir Humphrey Appleby ought not be too surprised at the employment of such tactics.

 

I also agree that, whilst I support the BMFA and am grateful for their endeavours in this and other arenas, I remain disappointed that I feel their response to the issues of RID in particular has been compromised by the desire to include provision for areas of UAS activity that are definitely not model flying as is typically understood. That must have fed into that very weak, neither yea or nae response to the questions on RID back in August.

[Learner]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

proposing extreme solutions they can water down to their (always intended) final version, so that they can show they "listened" to the consultation

This is a common ploy in a lot of things  now.

House builders are notorious for planning for double the amount of houses they want, then after listening to people pretend to be the good guys by halving the original amount.

 

[steve too]

On 09/01/2024 at 22:46, Arthur Harris said:

... Just my opinion.

 

I don't agree with most of what what you say in this post, but we don't have a definition for an "exempt Model Aircraft" (CAP 2610 5.9 (viii) a). It is not inconceivable that the definition will have mass or energy limits, 6.16 refers to "low-risk Model Aircraft flights".

 

 

[steve too]

22 hours ago, MattyB said:

• wording questions to make them harder to understand and more time consuming to respond to

 

I see the "Please provide detail" box as part of this. There is no need fill in such boxes.

[GrumpyGnome]

I'm willing to bet my mortgage that if there were no such boxes, there would be multiple posts on here complaining that there was nowhere to put comments.....

[Martin Dance 1]

I watched the CAA broadcast introducing the 'sandbox' which is a space aimed to give developers of BVLOS UAS systems a way of interacting with the CAA to gain permissions to operate in the airspace. Much of this is about integration of BVLOS UAS into the airspace used by LOS UAS and manned  (crewed)aircraft. I take from this that this will include our conventional model aircraft, recreational drones and light aircraft, those that operate up to about 3,000 ft. Much of the discussion centred around how to apply and the way in which appolicants will be chosen. The time scale for this original trial selection is some three months. The time frame for the trials seemed to about a year. So at the earliest that commercial operations could happen will be early 2026.  There was mention of see and avoid systems  being needed, the use of ADSB was mentioned in this context. Notably no mention of RID. Could it be that the group driving this bit of the CAA know nothing of the bit driving our bit oif the CAA?

As I'm on their mailing list I shall watch and see.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

1 hour ago, GrumpyGnome said:

I'm willing to bet my mortgage that if there were no such boxes, there would be multiple posts on here complaining that there was nowhere to put comments.....

Dammed right, I thing I wrote something in all but one box,,,

[Andy J]

On 10/01/2024 at 09:00, FlyinFlynn said:

I think perhaps you have D1 as the #Define GPS_RX_PIN D1 (or #Define GPS_TX_PIN D1)  For the super mini the correct designation for the pins is just the number without the 'D'. So delete the D to leave #Define GPS_RX_PIN 1. Also remove the D in the #Define GPS_TX_PIN (whatever) statement. 

 

If that doesn't work perhaps start a new thread Andy? 

 

TinyGPSplus and TinyGPSplusplus are both in the archive so nothing else is required

Thanks FlyinFlynn, that appeared to work so will now need to connect up the GPS which arrived yesterday to get the device working.

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

I watched the CAA broadcast introducing the 'sandbox' which is a space aimed to give developers of BVLOS UAS systems a way of interacting with the CAA to gain permissions to operate in the airspace. Much of this is about integration of BVLOS UAS into the airspace used by LOS UAS and manned  (crewed)aircraft. I take from this that this will include our conventional model aircraft, recreational drones and light aircraft, those that operate up to about 3,000 ft. Much of the discussion centred around how to apply and the way in which applicants will be chosen. The time scale for this original trial selection is some three months. The time frame for the trials seemed to about a year. So at the earliest that commercial operations could happen will be early 2026.  There was mention of see and avoid systems  being needed, the use of ADSB was mentioned in this context. Notably no mention of RID. Could it be that the group driving this bit of the CAA know nothing of the bit driving our bit oif the CAA?

As I'm on their mailing list I shall watch and see.

 

RID is not the same as electronic conspicuity. That is yet another stage that  uses different tech and would follow a RID rollout. Give it 5 years and they will probably start a similar consultation exercise for how we need that onboard too...