Using their own figures +the FOI value means that proportionally 60.4% of the 192l,185 registered fliers would NOT approve of remote id. That’s 116,049 people do not want it (thats about 3 or 4 constituencies 
.
Since we also have the above number we can work out the total number of flights vs the complaints stat and ask the question… Is the cost to the public purse worth the effort in terms of benefits and enforcement.
We’re going to end up with exactly the same regulations they have in the EU. In an attempt to stick to the rules, their manufacturers criteria will limit us to 120m from take off point. All because the manufacturers criteria will be written the same as the EU’s by some faceless bureaucrat , who reads the drone rules and sees a height limit of 120m but doesn’t realise it’s 120m from the nearest point on Earth . ( just saying like )
In certain cases e.g. flying over populated areas built on rising ground, this incorrect implementation in software of the rules could result in it being impossible to comply with the actual rules
Start off at 120m, but due to rising ground, end up less than 30m above someone’s garden
Has anyone had an email from the CAA informing them of the consultation? I had this reply when i emailed them and asked why none of us had been informed and what the risk assessment for flying within 150m of a single building was:
"Thanks for this prompt – we have since emailed CfI respondents with a link to the consultation.
Re: risk assessments – all I can do is point you to the rationale and information provided in the consultation document.
Thanks"
Whilst thats’s unlucky, technically ok? Think my “worst” was 33 in a 30. Annoying but legit?
Only mistake is us thinking +10% ok!
No, that was DJI AeroScope in use, not RID (they’re two very different things).
Quite a few forces have it.
Very few car speedos in the uk are callibrated, but for some reason an officer that records your speed does not have to apply a tolerance. They are however allowed to apply common sense. Fixed speed cameras, as far as I’m aware have a built in tolerance. I know for a fact that my work van at 70mph on the speedo is actually 67mph. I have tracked it with 4 different gps devices. Do I drive at 73mph? No. 3mph extra on a 120.mile journey doesnt make a difference to me.
Yes, I had an email from the CAA … it was from CAA Skywise on Friday
This is a link to the online version of the email:
Thanks Ben - I used your version in my FOI rquest
I note their response seeks furhter clarification from you.
Did you progress?
If so I’d like to mimic your final updated request that does get validated by them so that they CAN REPLY please.
Thanks.
Me? 
There has been no response to the FOI yet:
Just recieved this, anybody going to be there(on line) tomorrow 8PM
Cheers, for the life of me i couldn’t remember where to put it(age creeping up)
What worries me is this bit regarding RID.
“ More specifically, UAS operators would register themselves on DMARES and receive their Operator ID (and a ‘secret key’ used for validation). UAS operators would set up their UAS, inputting their Operator ID and secret key and ensure the required form of Remote ID is enabled based on their location for their UAS to be able to take off.”
If they introduce this bit, it’s another hoop to jump through before flying, and what would happen if you’re in a remote area with no mobile signal nor wifi to communicate with the systems that would effectively prevent you from taking off ?
Quoted from this CAA publication
You’d hope / imagine that you only need to do that once, not every single time you want to take off.
Some basic math as to the proportionality of the proposed measures
Registered drone pilots 192,185.00
Responders 2,629.00
% of Pilots flying weekly 60.5%
Using the above data we can see that 116,271.93 total weekly flights
Flights per year 6,046,140.10
Flights per month(4.3 weeks in month) 499,969.28
Months in reporting period 35
Total flights in reporting period 17,498,924.71
Number of reports 18,290
%complaints vs flights 0.001045
The only assumptions made was to assume correlation between responders and total numbers being the same, and that all complaints were valid which of course in the real world are not
I really cant understand why they are putting this much effort into further restricting something that has shown itself to be incredibly safe.
If they really want to improve safety, make ADS-B mandatory for all manned flight!
Here’s hoping ( but not convinced) I reckon it will be every time you take off as going by the wording, it seems it will be location based.
Ahh, the CAA assume quite a lot. Nothing they do seems to be based on empirical evidence. I remember earlier in the year, they assumed there were thousands upon thousands of drone crashes that went “unreported” ( probably right as I didn’t tell them that time I clipped a rose bush in my garden, hurting nothing but my pride) 
I agree with your reckoning. The way I read it is that the UAV/UAS will attempt to phone home via the data network before taking off - I assume this would be a pre-flight operation - and if it failed to connect would report at a later time when a connection could be achieved. Failure to connect should (IMHO) not stop a flight taking place! I’m also well aware that many flights take place in mobile “not-spots” so they need to take that into account.
Finally, all this extra data transmission will surely take a toll on the device batteries, so it looks like a few more minutes could be shaved off our already limited flight times. 