You guys are funny  

Paint some white reflective stripes on it and tell the authorities that you're streaming video in VLC player when they inquire what you're up to.

Hey, I should get one of those! I could use something to block the sun and gnats!

Do they do one that looks like a Dr WHO Tardis?

Best Remote ID information video that I have seen.

Unverified but believed genuine report as of 20/7/23 for RID within the UK.



UK CAA Denied £15 Million Funding for Remote ID System.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has hit a roadblock in its efforts to develop a Remote ID Integration Provider system, as it has been denied £15 million in funding by the Department for Transport (DfT).

Remote ID is a crucial element of the UK’s drone regulatory framework, allowing drones to transmit identification and location information to authorized parties. 

Despite this setback, the CAA is still determined to explore the implementation of Remote ID, engaging with drone manufacturers to gather their insights.


Interesting wording - "to authorized parties"?

Since the DOT is getting stick left right and centre for underfunding roads, limiting council repair, with a lot of our roads in deplorable and downright dangerous state, and that's a far more vocal lobby, making sure everyone knows of this potential waste of funds should be a main aim?

(21-Jul-2023, 06:15 AM)BadRaven Wrote: Unverified but believed genuine report as of 20/7/23 for RID within the UK.

UK CAA Denied £15 Million Funding for Remote ID System.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has hit a roadblock in its efforts to develop a Remote ID Integration Provider system, as it has been denied £15 million in funding by the Department for Transport (DfT).

Remote ID is a crucial element of the UK’s drone regulatory framework, allowing drones to transmit identification and location information to authorized parties. 

Despite this setback, the CAA is still determined to explore the implementation of Remote ID, engaging with drone manufacturers to gather their insights.

Interesting wording - "to authorized parties"?

Since the DOT is getting stick left right and centre for underfunding roads, limiting council repair, with a lot of our roads in deplorable and downright dangerous state, and that's a far more vocal lobby, making sure everyone knows of this potential waste of funds should be a main aim?

The refusal for funding is good news for UK pilots and will hopefully delay any of this RID this nonsense coming to the UK for at least a few more years than it's originally planned implementation date (which is already a few years away from now). I guess we need to watch this space and hope their plans get scuppered. EDIT: A link to the report is below for anyone interested...

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

Just like with the FAA implementation, if we get the same in the UK it is also going to fail in the same way, so the whole thing will just end up being a huge waste of money that is better spent on other more important things.

You are right about the roads. Over the last few years it's turned into pothole city where I live, only be made worse by the government trying to push people to buy electric vehicles which are 50% heavier and are tearing up the roads much quicker than non-EV's, so the whole pothole situation is just going to get worse and with EV owners paying ZERO road tax the bucket of money for repairing roads is going to start getting even smaller.

Hello Everyone,

Consider that in some ways, the FAA letting others foot the bill sort of takes government funding 
out of the equation. First, the government is not paying for the Remote ID modules, so, no need for 
funding there. For now, no government money is in it.

Even when one considers the Network Remote ID possibility, the government seems to want to use 
an already available system that is not government funded. The biggest issue here is that the "Internet" 
(Wi-Fi) is NOT an open network and does not really have broad scope coverage. The routers are basically 
short range and everyone who is paying for an ISP service is locking them down. Ok, maybe you can sit 
in the parking lot of Barnes & Noble, Starbucks, or somewhere else and get a free Wi-Fi connection,
but that is certainly not anywhere close to broad scope coverage of any open Wi-Fi internet especially
in rural areas which the USA has a lot of. 

With that said, there are factions within the USA that do want the government to fund an open Wi-Fi
internet service that is available everywhere (especially in "certain" areas) so that everyone can have
FREE Wi-Fi internet. Well that is definitely not in place at this point. Why Not? You guessed it, government 
funding. Plus, the endeavor would be huge and cost millions if not billions of dollars. Yeah, don't look 
for that anytime soon.

Moving on to Bluetooth, that is almost laughable. Let's just say that Bluetooth was never designed for
that type of service, so don't hold your breath there. From my perspective, that is simply a non issue.

NOW, consider the cellular option. Hmmm. Yes, cellular service is available almost everywhere in the
USA with extremely broad scope coverage. Yeah, there are still a few locations where cellular service
is less than stellar or non-existent, but those are mostly in extremely remote rural areas. So, cellular
would be the only real consideration for Network Remote ID. Ah, but the catch is that cellular providers
don't seem to have any open or "free" connectivity. Yep, you got to buy a plan. This network option 
would actually be possible and wouldn't cost the government anything because they would simply 
put the burden of cost on us. There might be some other details to work out, however, the cellular
option is actually viable from a workable standpoint. 

So, you see how it goes. The government doesn't need funding for it, they just let the user eat the
cost. Pretty darn slick if you ask me. 

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that there is NO funding going into it. However, what they are 
funding is for the future. The cost for the initial implementation of Remote ID is put on the end user.
To me it looks like spending that is smaller and spread out instead of some astronomical amount of
money right up front. There are spending limits that you can get away with and then those you can't.

Ok, let's move on to the "Remote ID Fails" concept. Consider this. The first implementation will definitely
be short range, will likely NOT get collected in mass (by anyone), is not networkable (regardless of what
some may tell you), and will likely not be that useful. Now, if none of those "bad" things happen that 
all of the Rant Videos are purporting, it will end up being accepted as just something you do that doesn't 
seem to matter anyway. Everyone just gets comfortable with it. Over time, things WILL change and WILL 
get put into place. For one, things like UAS Sentry will be implemented in some locations. The cellular option 
will be explored in more detail. The Remote ID features will be "upgraded". We won't even notice most of 
these things. Then, at some point, it will all come together including Network Remote ID, a drone Remote 
Disarm feature will be included, and tracking facilities will become operational. So, in about 5 years (give or 
take) or so, most of the things will come to fruition. 

From all of the data that I have seen, the overwhelming majority of UAS (drones) are factory produced
DJI (and others) camera drones that will have Remote ID installed at the factory. So, this is all going to 
happen with very little fanfare. It just will. Most people who buy a drone are less interested in flying the
drone and more interested in the cinematography aspect. They want to make videos. They do NOT want to
build and most don't want to freestyle or race. They want to make videos. 

Where do we (as DIY builder, FPV, users) come in. Consider that we are, by comparison, an extremely small
portion of the total drone user population. We are crying the loudest. YET, we will likely be effected the least.
Yeah, we are builders. We have the power to make what we want. We have the power to do what we want.
We have the most control over what we fly and how we fly. BUT, we are still subject to the FAA regulations.
Right?  

Just think about it  

Wouldn't they use a wifi signal that's being emitted by the drone to connect to any scanning cellphone that has wifi capability enabled, and then they can use the phone's cellular data to send any data desired back to base.
I think if desired, the networks are there, but that's a very complicated and error prone system and we've seen that government funded websites, apps, and services usually struggle a great deal to run smoothly.

(21-Jul-2023, 02:01 PM)FPVme Wrote: Wouldn't they use a wifi signal that's being emitted by the drone to connect to any scanning cellphone that has wifi capability enabled, and then they can use the phone's cellular data to send any data desired back to base.
I think if desired, the networks are there, but that's a very complicated and error prone system and we've seen that government funded websites, apps, and services usually struggle a great deal to run smoothly.

Hi FPVme,

Regarding the cellular issue. So, it would have to be the pilot's cellphone which would need to be on a
cellular call to the datacenter for the entire flight plus the phone would also need to have its "Hot Spot"
feature activated for the Wi-Fi connection to the Remote ID module. Is the doable? Well, I will say that
it is possible, but likely cumbersome. Plus, there are still places where even cellular has no coverage. 
But, why bother with that, just move to Remote ID modules with a cellular connection. Done. 

The FAA originally wanted Network Remote ID, but decided to remove that requirement from the final 
rule due, in part, to the many complaints from the drone community and likely due to the fact that all 
of the "back end" pieces like a traffic management system to validate the flight nor a central datacenter
to collect the data are in place yet. That said, it will likely re-surface in the future. Give it some time.

You know, I have worked with networks for decades both professionally and privately. Now, you take your
laptop anywhere you think that you want to fly and tell me how many open Wi-Fi internet connections 
that you find. We have tried this some in the past and you can't hardly find any (not counting Starbucks
or something like it) especially where you might want to fly. 

Yes, most businesses and private homes have a Wi-Fi router, but these are, for the most part, locked down.
Any connection to the internet requires a connection to an ISP. Yep, they all charge for this. It is NOT free.
So, I don't expect to see many open wireless Wi-Fi connections anytime soon. 

The open Wi-Fi networks are not actually there whether desired or not. The cellular network is the only
one that I know of that actually has the coverage enough to even come close. I will add that in some
rural locations around where I live, the cellular coverage is either nonexistent or not reliable.

Funny, I will occasionally come across someone who thinks that free, government funded, Wi-Fi to the
internet is either already here or just around the corner. Interestingly, these people are NOT network
technicians and really have no clue how networking actually works. They tend to be more visionaries
with minimal technical knowledge.  

Now, if you know of some publicly available, open, Wi-Fi (internet) networks, 
then please enlighten me. 

Later, iFly  

You know, there is actually one other network which is actually global and that
is satellite communications. I normally don't think about this one because it is
not practical for most applications. Yes, some automakers do offer a satellite
("On Star") system, but the hardware costs are buried in the "expensive" cost
for the vehicle. Plus, I doubt that this hardware would fit on a drone.  Plus,
the monthly service charge is not cheap either. So, the obstacles for using the
Sat-Com network would likely not be considered for the Remote ID network.

Over the network will operate similar to all devices that currently use it do. Similar to Amazon and whispernet. You don’t need much bandwidth to transmit the data required for RID. The amount of comms that should be free but isn’t is astounding.

(21-Jul-2023, 09:38 AM)SnowLeopardFPV Wrote: The refusal for funding is good news for UK pilots and will hopefully delay any of this RID this nonsense coming to the UK for at least a few more years than it's originally planned implementation date (which is already a few years away from now). I guess we need to watch this space and hope their plans get scuppered. EDIT: A link to the report is below for anyone interested...

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

Just like with the FAA implementation, if we get the same in the UK it is also going to fail in the same way, so the whole thing will just end up being a huge waste of money that is better spent on other more important things.

You are right about the roads. Over the last few years it's turned into pothole city where I live, only be made worse by the government trying to push people to buy electric vehicles which are 50% heavier and are tearing up the roads much quicker than non-EV's, so the whole pothole situation is just going to get worse and with EV owners paying ZERO road tax the bucket of money for repairing roads is going to start getting even smaller.

Like I've said in the past, there is no money for priority services, let alone stuff like RID.  The world is financially up shit creek at the minute.  Not just in the UK.  But over here it seems to be especially bad a late.

Standard infrastructure is falling apart, like roads, water systems, electrical systems, etc.  people talk about climate change all the time, but not how we are going to finance all these changes.  Wind turbines and solar panels don't grow on trees.  Most people can't afford to spend 20-30k on an electric car and the charging infrastructure isn't there, nor the ability to produce enough power to charge all these vehicles.

I think the CAA is unlikely to get RID for quite some time.  No one who flies is going to pay for it.  They could bill big companies for the privilege I guess, but then I think i read somewhere about that being problematic, because they then go from whatever entity to being a business and at that point it brings up legal problems related to a business running the skies.  So for now they are stuck.  I'm not unhappy with this situation.  iI think the country should concentrate on things that matter, not frivolous fringe activities.

(19-Jul-2023, 06:26 PM)sevro Wrote: Paint some white reflective stripes on it and tell the authorities that you're streaming video in VLC player when they inquire what you're up to.

Or growing tomatoes?