The articles linked to below were published in The Telegraph and also the daily trash (Mail Online) which report that the CAA are apparently looking into options for some kind of Remote ID for drones in the UK with a deadline date of 1st April 2026 (is it an April Fool? LOL).

It's hardly "Wild West" in the sky here  So that's just another sensationalist BS headline to try and stir up yet more unnecessary public hysteria around drones. You hardly ever see any drones, certainly not round where I live anyway. In my 4.5 years in the hobby I've only ever seen 3 people on 3 separate occasions flying a camera drone, and I've never seen another single person flying an FPV quad around here.

You can only read articles from The Telegraph if you pay a subscription, so for convenience I have copy/pasted the contents of the article below. I didn't pay. I got to the article using one of the known workarounds (turn off your internet connection before you start scrolling down the article or access it via https://12ft.io).

Mail Online: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/...e-11678681
The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01...d-west-sky

The Telegraph Wrote:Drone number plates to help tackle 'Wild West' in the sky

Concern is growing in Government that the registration scheme for the UK's 300,000 drone users is currently too hard to enforce

Drones will be forced to have electronic number plates so they can be tracked by police and the security services under plans being drawn up by regulators and the Government.

Drones would be equipped with "remote ID" technology, enabling their speed, location, height, user's location and take-off point to be tracked.

It comes as concern grows in Government that the registration scheme for the UK's 300,000 drone users lacks the technological back-up for it to be properly enforced. One source compared the situation to "the Wild West".

With 900,000 commercial drones alone predicted in the next five years, ministers want an aerial equivalent of the automatic number-plate recognition network of cameras for cars, vans and lorries which enables police and local authorities to identify law-breaking drivers.

The United States has already legislated for such a system which will go live in September this year under which every drone will have to have a “unique identifier” that it broadcasts along with the coordinates of its aerial position in real time, control station and take-off point.

The Civil Aviation Authority has commissioned Swiss firm Murzilli Consulting to "develop a strategy for any future remote ID requirement for UK drone and remotely piloted services".

It is understood officials are working towards a deadline of April 1 2026 to get a remote ID system running in the UK. The plans are due to be announced in March this year.

The move comes as the Government prepares to spend £8 million deploying anti-drone detectors around nuclear plants, transport hubs, oil rigs and other sensitive infrastructure across the UK to protect from aerial terrorist attacks.

Quote:The move comes as the Government prepares to spend £8 million deploying anti-drone detectors around nuclear plants, transport hubs, oil rigs and other sensitive infrastructure across the UK to protect from aerial terrorist attacks.

Why don't they go the whole hog, couple of SAM sites, Phalanx, Active Radar. Instead of these half measures. If there is a serious risk of terrorist using drones to bomb a nuclear plant, should you not deploy weaponry capable of dealing with said drones?

The thing is they are talking about big camera drones like Mavics and similar. They are the drones that cause all the problems. Whoops and probably anything 3" or less will get the same sub 250g waver, at a guess. Trying to put remote id on a 30g 1S whoop would be amusing, assuming it even had the power to transmit very far at that.

I don’t know about over there, but nuclear power plants in the US are built to be able to withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner.

I’m finding it really hard to imagine how a drone is a threat to them.

Also, I’m sorry that we’re exporting remoteID to you.

They are over here, but I think it would be cool to have a Phalanx system and radar at a Nuclear Power Plant. Just to occasionally hear that buzz they make, as they shred the odd Mavic that got to close. Also if DJI owners knew there were real world consequences to flying near sensitive sites, we might have less numptys in the air (or buying them).

As for RemoteID, it was going to come at some point. I think it's just one of the many curses of living in a First World country. If you lived in say Mongolia or Nepal, I doubt there are any drone laws full stop and as long as you use common sense, no one would bother you.

Hi guys,

@Snow,
Sorry about the Remote ID thing. I believe that you had already figured it was coming.
WE get in the USA, then you get it in the UK.

Unfortunately I think it's inevitable that Remote ID will ultimately end up being implemented in most of the first world countries including Europe, Australia and NZ amongst others who just seem to end up being sheep by adopting the same regulations as the USA.

I notice from my YouTube notifications that Bruce covered the same story in his most recent video which is linked to below. It looks like there is also some more bad news regarding Network Remote ID for FPV pilots in the USA which Bruce goes over in the same video.

It looks like the CAA's plans to introduce Remote ID in the UK might have been partially scuppered, or at least delayed because there are reports that the DfT (Department for Transport) have refused the UK CAA the £15 million funding they needed for the scheme, which is very good news for UK pilots. See the article at the link below for more details. Credit goes to BadRaven for highlighting this news in another post HERE.

sUAS News Article: https://www.suasnews.com/2023/07/uk-caa-lose-rid-bid

sUAS News Wrote:

Back in June the CAA said this

As part of the UK’s overall Remote ID technical architecture, the CAA are intending to contract for the development, implementation and maintenance of the RID Integration Provider, which is a new system for the CAA. The Remote ID Integration Provider (often known as the InterUSS Layer or component) will serve as a critical communication backbone for the overall Remote ID service, enabling the efficient gathering and exchange of data between multiple network RID service providers (Section B of this RFI) and the Master Data Hub.

I am not sure if the money they were asking the DfT for was part of this but it must be in there somewhere.

Word has reached me that they have been denied the 15 Million, yes count them, 15 million pounds they were seeking. I hope the CAA has noticed folks able to easily spoof the ASTM system and will not be making the same mistakes as the USA. I have reached out to the CAA for comment but at the time of publishing received no response. Perhaps the money was for cakes that were eaten at this meeting:-

The UK is exploring whether and how to implement Remote ID (RID). This system enables a drone in flight to provide identification and location information that can be received by other parties. Any rollout will involve implementing the regulation and technology to enable RID and enable authorised parties to have access to RID data.

It is currently estimated that implementation of RID would take 18-24 months. The project is currently in the design phase until September 2023.

One of the major changes that is being explored as part of the RID system is mandating that drones will not be able to fly unless Remote ID is enabled.

To set clear expectations, as stated above, this work is at an exploratory design phase, and as with all major regulatory changes, there will be a public consultation phase which we anticipate will run in 2023/2024, and there may be an outcome that we do not proceed with implementing Remote ID at all in the UK.

Purpose of this engagement:

We wish to engage drone manufacturers to gather views on:

• The proposed Remote ID system and transmission methods
  
• Effort and timelines to implement changes
  
• Mandating that RID be enabled for all flights.
  

This will enable us to better understand your perspectives on the timescales to make the necessary technology changes, estimated costs and other considerations to be taken into account as part of the implementation planning and transition period.

The intention is to use this first engagement event to discuss:

• Scope and timelines of the UK RID implementation
  
• Impact on manufacturers of mandating that RID be enabled in terms of the technology requirements and feasibility
  
• Discussion of other implications for manufacturers
  

Based on the attendance and engagement at this first event, there may be further sessions held with manufacturers, including 1 to 1 sessions.

Details:

The event will be held on the 21st June from 10-12am, as a hybrid meeting. For those wishing to attend in person, there is a room in our Gatwick office.

If you wish to attend, then please confirm your attendance by email to [email protected] 

Hopefully, they don't figure out that they don't need funding for an initial implementation
of Remote ID. Push that onto the end user pilots. Start there like they are doing in the
USA, then work towards getting the back end pieces into place and spread out the funding
over time and in smaller portions. 

My post in the other thread.

RE:    "One of the major changes that is being explored as part of the (UK) RID system is mandating that drones will not be able to fly unless Remote ID is enabled."

Good luck with that! Not even remotely practical across the board.

Today I flew a fully freestyle capable FPV HD quad, it weighs 50g, and is so small there is literally NOWHERE that the stupidly long UK CAA code can be applied.  

Every full size plane in the world can be visually identified with a six character ident.  And we have to display a min 3.1mm text 19 characters long??

A five year old would come up with a better more practical solution than these numpties.


They should be putting their efforts into reducing the number of pilots crashing causing serious injury and deaths to themselves and passengers. A single example being stopping them "forgetting" to lower their crafts undercarriage.  How about all aircraft having to have automatic gear or a damn great hammer that bashes the pilot on the head to gain some attention?

Yeah. I guess we're supposed to stick a microscopic hand-written label on one of the prop blades 

Also, where is the Remote ID mandate for paramotors which are 100 x larger and heavier than any hobby drone and which can be flown without any type of license or registration. 

The big question is….how does this even remotely prevent terrorists from using drones to attack? i’m sure they will stick a remote id module on all their drones. China surely won’t make fc’s without remote id built in to give their partners untraceable drones…why on earth would they do that. It’s clearly meant to keep any hobbyists from ever engaging in such a dangerous hobby that I believe has killed one person since 1950’s and he flew his helicopter into himself, correct me if I’m wrong. It’s as usual just a bunch of expensive nonsense that now the governments can raise taxes to cover the expenses of these new government agencies, and to allow their paid partners unlimited use of the skies for their use only. I can’t imagine the backlash of drones delivering packages dropping out of the sky on unsuspecting Karen’s. It’s a natural fear reaction when something comes down from the sky! I’ll get the popcorn ready!

While no-one wants Remote ID in the UK, it does unfortunately look like it will be coming, but at least the CAA seem to be listening to people's concerns about the location of the pilot being broadcast. Watch Sean's video below...

(21-Jul-2023, 06:25 PM)Kevin2112 Wrote: The big question is….how does this even remotely prevent terrorists from using drones to attack? i’m sure they will stick a remote id module on all their drones. China surely won’t make fc’s without remote id built in to give their partners untraceable drones…why on earth would they do that. It’s clearly meant to keep any hobbyists from ever engaging in such a dangerous hobby that I believe has killed one person since 1950’s and he flew his helicopter into himself, correct me if I’m wrong. It’s as usual just a bunch of expensive nonsense that now the governments can raise taxes to cover the expenses of these new government agencies, and to allow their paid partners unlimited use of the skies for their use only. I can’t imagine the backlash of drones delivering packages dropping out of the sky on unsuspecting Karen’s. It’s a natural fear reaction when something comes down from the sky! I’ll get the popcorn ready!

Hi Kevin,

I know that we are now talking about the UK, so things are a bit different, but let's take
a look from a more general public or security point of view.

You know, it may or may not be about terrorists. But, let's look at it like this. If a facility has
a security system (maybe UAS Sentry), they will likely have radar and other devices that will
detect an approaching drone. If no Remote ID is detected, then it becomes an automatic
threat. The facility may have the authority to disable any approaching threats and perhaps
even take them out of the sky. 

If you read the Department of Homeland Defense documents, they want the ability to
remotely disarm or disable any "drone" that they determine is a threat. The remote ID
helps to determine that the drone is not a threat. 

Now, let's consider the UAS (drone) Airtraffic Management System which, by the way,
is less about "big" business and more about 10s of millions of consumer drones all over
the place (ok, rural folks will likely be fine). This is the real issue. Can you just imagine
the number of idiots that will have drones. Yeah, all those new DJI quads will already
have remote ID. 

You know, I have flown at parks where I am right out in the open for anyone and everyone
to see and have only been approached once and that was by a deputy sheriff, not a Karen.
If anyone can see my quad, then they can certainly see me. We are keeping our craft 
within visual line of sight, Right. I do fly craft that are very quiet and I fly them at high 
altitude. Basically, no one even knows that they are there. What does disturb Karen are
loud, fast, crazy maneuvering "Buzz Saws" in the sky. Or, hovering over her home or near
any child's play area. If you don't disturb or irritate Karen, then she will likely not bother you.

As for thugs wanting to steal your high priced gear, seriously? Thieves don't want your gear,
they only want things that will convert to money. Take one of your quads to a local pawn
shop and see how much the dealer will give you for it. Yeah, you might be appalled at how
little they are actually worth. Also, any thieves will be confronting two of you because you
always have a co-located spotter when flying FPV, right? Here in the USA, one or more of
the flight crew might also be "packing". Thieves want fast and easy. Dealing with FPV gear
is more complicated that they like. Besides, where in the world would you be flying that
you thought was questionable for your personal safety? 

Unless you have a regular fly schedule at the same location, how is anyone going to know
that there might be a quad in the air and try to locate the pilot. Do folks just sit around
looking at their phone hoping that a drone will come into range?

My first RID module arrived the other day. I can't wait to see if I can attract a Karen.
Of course, I am not going to change my flying style which is quiet, lower throttle,
high altitude flying. 

Happy Flying. Later. iFly 

So in the CAA consultation paper published yesterday there is a proposal that all sub 250g drones have their current exemptions lifted which means they will be subject to registration and Flyer ID test requirements. They would also require a Remote ID device to be fitted to them if they are equipped with a camera. As it stands, that proposal would include whoops because they have an onboard camera.

This is going to be a fun time for any micro quad flyers in the UK 

Likelihood of me ever using RID, kinda comes under the "not going to happen" heading. I will continue to fly away from people and probably avoid bandos if this becomes a thing. Just fly at places that are hard work to get to. How many cops can you see traipsing 4 miles on foot to get to some remote location to see if someone has RID. They can't even solve major cases, let alone do stuff like this.