I'm not sure how this seemingly went under the radar because I've not seen it publicised or mentioned by anyone, but on 1st January 2024 Remote ID became a mandatory requirement for all UAS aircraft including those flown in the open category, and it appears from the information on the EASA website that this includes privately built drones (i.e. FPV quads) which all fall within the A1 subcategory (if under 250g) or the A3 subcategory (if over 250g but under 25kg). I don't see any Remote ID exemptions listed for quads under 250g which suggests that all privately build quads regardless of their weight will also need to be equipped with a Remote ID module including tiny whoops.

If anyone in the EU knows any more about this or any specific legislation that makes privately built drones exempt from Remote ID then please feel free to chip in on this thread with comments and/or any relevant informational links.

Details can be found in the article below which was published by EASA back in September 2023...

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-l...nes-across

The "Open" category regulations are detailed on the following web page. There is a section near the bottom headed "Remote Identification"...

https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/domains/ci...vil-drones

EASA Wrote:Remote identification

Starting from 1 January 2024, all drones operating in the open category (with limited exceptions) need to be equipped with a remote identification system. Some companies have already placed on the market modules providing a direct remote identification system, providing the ‘EU Declaration of Conformity’ and you can find a list below. Please be aware that EASA did not verify the compliance of such components and the declaration of conformity is submitted under the sole responsibility of the manufacturer.

A couple more articles on the subject are linked to below:

• Drone By Drone Article (5th December 2023): https://www.dronebydrone.com/en/news/744...tions.html
  
• Cybernews Article (7th December 2023): https://cybernews.com/security/certifica...ots-europe
  

I doubt many pilots will use them nevertheless. Will be interesting though to see how long until it hits the fan.

The Dronetag BS is the cheapest and lightest that I've seen at 89€, but it still requires multiple add-on antennas. Gotta double the UAV's cost just to fly something that weighs the same as five sheets of copy paper. Regulators are making no friends.

I can't see anyone who flies freestyle in Europe using one. They mostly fly places you would be lucky to see a cop or anyone except maybe junkies, urbexers and taggers. It's not a hobby you do in a very public place to start with.

How typical for EASA bureaucrats ... I'm already pissed now. Nowhere was the official mention that something similar is being prepared. We have the second week from the beginning of the year 2024 and there is absolutely no mention of this matter on the official website of the National Aviation Authorities in the UAV category. That's a terrible mess. Especially that the fools gave this validity since the beginning of 2024. Is this even possible? Or do I miss anything?

(12-Jan-2024, 01:27 AM)Suros Wrote: The Dronetag BS is the cheapest and lightest that I've seen at 89€, but it still requires multiple add-on antennas. Gotta double the UAV's cost just to fly something that weighs the same as five sheets of copy paper. Regulators are making no friends.

It's interesting that DroneTag were the first company to design and manufacture a Remote ID module even before Remote ID got legislated in the USA, when that company is based in Czechia. It makes me suspect that they probably had inside information and already knew that Remote ID was going to become legislation in Europe before anyone in the public domain was made aware  With the enforcement of Remote ID in the USA being officially delayed until March/April this year, it means that the EU has actually implemented Remote ID legislation and enforcement before the USA has.

I read it again and it's just unclear to me. It is written exactly this:

"All Drones Operating in the Specific Category and All Drones with Class Marks Operating in the Open Category Will Be Required to Operate with An Active and up-to-date Remote Identification System"

Thus, it is necessary to have a C0 to C6 on the UAV. Our DIY or BNF quads simply do not have these class marks, so according to this text it should not apply to us. I am waiting for answers from national authority.

(12-Jan-2024, 09:20 AM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: It's interesting that DroneTag were the first company to design and manufacture a Remote ID module even before Remote ID got legislated in the USA, when that company is based in Czechia. It makes me suspect that they probably had inside information and already knew that Remote ID was going to become legislation in Europe before anyone in the public domain was made aware  With the enforcement of Remote ID in the USA being officially delayed until March/April this year, it means that the EU has actually implemented Remote ID legislation and enforcement before the USA has.

I know about these guys, the company is located a few tens of kilometers from me, and yes, it stinks. Their advertising for RID started to do in the community as early as 2020. And they met with a clean contempt for the whole community, not only quad guys, but also old airplane modelers.

Another search:
Drone Open Category - Applicable requirements to fly from the 1st of January 2024 | EASA (europa.eu)

"Requirement for drone remote ID
Also, from 1st of January 2024 all drones marked C1, C2 and C3 and those operated in the specific category below 120m, will be required to operate with an active and updated remote identification (Remote ID). Drones marked C1, C2 and C3 will be sold already equipped with a remote identification system, which will locally broadcast the information related to the UA, such as the drone’s position and the operator registration number. This is done for security reasons and to allow to easily identify drones which may not be flying in compliance with the applicable rules. Also legacy drones (unless they are lighter than 250 g) are recommended to be equipped with a remote ID. If not already embedded in the drone, a remote ID module that fulfill the requirements of the drones regulation may be purchased and attached to the drone. On the open category page you will find a list of modules already available on the market."

Now it is perfectly clear ... WTF.

(12-Jan-2024, 09:58 AM)MomoBrut Wrote: Also legacy drones (unless they are lighter than 250 g) are recommended to be equipped with a remote ID. If not already embedded in the drone, a remote ID module that fulfill the requirements of the drones regulation may be purchased and attached to the drone.

The keyword there is "recommended". So that suggests to me that it's not compulsory to install a Remote ID module on legacy drones, unless they have just misworded that sentence. As with everything from these bureaucrats, what they have written down is as clear as mud which just leaves everyone confused. At least they seem to have left the sub-250 quads alone which is better than what the UK are doing.

I have no idea why this whole thing went completely unannounced. It didn't even get covered by any of the Camera Drone or FPV influencers from what I can see. It only came to my attention when a related article popped up in my news feed yesterday morning. It doesn't even look like there was any kind of public consultation like there was in the US and the UK. We all know full well that the bureaucrats just ignore the responses from those consultations anyway and plough on with their original plans, but some kind of prior public interaction from the authorities would have been nice instead of it just being forced upon everyone with almost zero notice period.

It seems that none of the first world countries are going to escape the wrath of Remote ID. Authorities in those countries are just copy / pasting what the USA have done which was what everyone had feared would happen.

I really hate them.
"The keyword there is "recommended". So that suggests to me that it's not compulsory to install a Remote ID module on legacy drones, unless they have just misworded that sentence."
That's right, they put it there on purpose so they can edit it later to suit them, of course over time it will turn into compulsory, as much as I hate them.

Guess I was incorrect then. Doesn't lessen my hate for them though. If they're going to push rules and regulations that they obviously care a great deal about, they should at least have the balls to loudly announce it and be clear about everything. Bureaucrats remain my least favorite kinds of people. Hoping you guys are as welcoming to this junk as here in the USA. The only module I've ever seen get used was in Bardwell's demonstration video.

Any decent lawyer will be able to shoot these regulations full of holes.  I'm waiting to hear about a big public case getting into court in the USA to see how the RemoteID survives legal scrutiny.  I suspect it will not.

(12-Jan-2024, 05:42 PM)segler999 Wrote: Any decent lawyer will be able to shoot these regulations full of holes.  I'm waiting to hear about a big public case getting into court in the USA to see how the RemoteID survives legal scrutiny.  I suspect it will not.

You will probably never see one. If it ever gets to that stage you can be sure that the authorities will settle out of court along with an NDA to keep the plaintiff gagged, because if any case was to successfully make it through the courts as a win for the plaintiff it would then set a precedence in law for any cases that came after it, and the FAA would not want that to happen.

Something similar happened here in London last year where a guy took Transport for London to tribunal over £11,500 (~15,000 USD) of penalty charges he received for taking his non-compliant vehicles into the Low Emissions Zone area of London without paying the scam £300 daily charge to do so, citing that the signage was unlawful. He won his case and got his money back, but TfL never took it any further (court) because they knew full well that if they lost a legal case it would then open the flood gates for further cases against them which would then be won by default (by the plaintiff) due to any precedence that had already been set.

I've spent over an hour asking about it, and I'm still not entirely sure how it is, but maybe I'm right and I've been given the right information.

It's a war of words! Mandatory RID applies to two categories of drones, for drones labeled C1 to C3 directly from the manufacturer and for so-called legacy drones. And so the key is what is a legacy drone. A legacy drone is a drone that was manufactured by the manufacturer and put into operation before the mandatory marking with a C label. It's just an older DJI drone. So it should not apply to DIY drones, the category of privately made drones is not mentioned.

Although it does not apply to me, it follows from the above that the DJI Avata falls into the open category A3 according to the rules newly valid in the EU. So the Avata must not be flown near people under any circumstances, even though it is so small, because it is heavy, the minimum distance from people and infrastructure is 150 m. The same rules apply to it as to larger quads. And the same applies to all DJI (and other consumer) drones weighing just 1g over the value of 250g.