No positives at all as far as I can see 
1 Like
My Yuneec ST16 controller for my Typhoon has its own GPS, as the RTH is always to the controllers position (no matter how much I’ve moved about during the flight), not the original take off location as I believe is the case with DJI.
The instruction manual was indeed my source, but also while I’m flying the controllers shows:
- The drones location
- The home point
- But also the controllers location (which moves as I move around)
So logically the controller must’ve had it’s own GPS. It also has it’s own compass so the map also shows if you’re looking at the drone or not.
1 Like
I wish the DJI had that option, or at least to RTH to the last KNOWN position of the controller.
I plan to use my drone from a moving boat so it would be nice to know that the home point will update to my location at least for as often as it has connection.
In the DJI Fly app (at least on my M4P) there is an option to update the Home point under Settings - Safety. If you tap the controller icon in the upper right of that screen the home point will change to the current position of the controller.
1 Like
Yeah I know I can manually update it, but if I’m moving at 10mph and I forget to update it for 2 minutes I’m already going to be over 500m away already.
It would be nice if I could have it just fly back to the last known location. That way if I lose connection, all I have to do is stop the boat and the drone should come back to at least roughly where I am.
I have just resigned to the fact that if my controller dies, then I’ve likely lost the drone at sea.
What I’ll probably end up doing is disabling RTH and just have the drone hover instead.
Or consider Litchi (you’ll need a legacy DJI drone) its had dynamic home point for ever.
Or Autel
I was just watching a short video on this, I thought I’d seen this option somewhere.
For those who may not know
If we could keep this thread roughly on the subject of Remote ID please 
I agree with all the above… No real positives for honest flyers…
In my CAA consultation response I replied in all sections that I don’t trust ‘them’ with the use of RID… They lost my trust when they lied about Gatwick…
And as others have said… Criminals will hack it or disable it… So the only people this may protect against are the general ignoramus cluster who refuse to register or are just luddites…
1 Like
hmm… seems like a bit of a harsh statement, as I too am one that is considering not playing ball on this one as i don’t see the need or point of it. I’m afraid i don’t see myself as an ignoramus or a luddite.
If there was merit in something I would support it.
I can not see the fines happening on remote data.
For Traffic Speed Camera alot of work has to go into keeping the calibration correct and a chain of evidence for the calibration to be clear. The equipment need to be ‘type’ approved. (This is abreif summary I could bore the pants off anyone)
For my drone. I do not keep the GPS calibrated nor the barometer. The electronics will have drift, the parts get changed etc.
I am clear it is reasonable to suggest that my equipment is not calibrated and hence I can not see how a fine can be upheld.
The evidence a court would have to rely on is a Police Officer locating me via RID then a speed gun or similar. (Spoofing extra drones appears legal and simple)
Not a lawyer, not a expert witness for drone (Traffic was in past career). This is not advice …
1 Like
i can appreciate that lots of people are getting hot under the collar for RID.
at first I was not bothered, hey ho, my data gets recorded everywhere and every day, do I care… no. just don’t allege me of anything or I will bite, as you better be damn certain that it WAS me… a number plate (or RID tag) won’t cut it.
now i just fail to see the point of it. yes I see the point of masses of data being stored, yes i see the point of freeing up airspace for other UAV activities so that UAV’s or manned aircraft could avoid RID data (possibly)…if that is a genuine use of the data.
I just cannot see widespead use of UAV’s in the lower airspace (below 400ft / 120m) for some time as there is a lot of testing and certification that will be required before they are given authorization and widespread use outside of specific corridors. will RID allow for flight within these corridors… not likley! they will just close the corridors… because RID will be said to be unreliable … or intermittent in reception and transmission of data to a flying uav flying bvlos… so again i’m just not seeing the point of rid.
1 Like
Perhaps you misunderstood my statement…
Here I am referring to the folks who know they should register for flyer IDs and Operator IDs but don’t because they’d like to buck the system… Or the folks who just buy a drone and totally avoid any research or rules etc to get the gist of what’s right or wrong… And go fly where ever they feel like with no limits…
Sorry of this offended… Not intentional
if I saw and understood the point of RID I’d do it.
before RID comes in, ALL manned aircraft MUST implement ADS-B, or that requirement MUST be done at the same time.
it’s like driving with side lights and tail lights and using indicators and brake lights… if only 5% of the cars employ visual aides (to indicate their presence and intentions to other motorists), why just ask bicycles (or pedestrians) to employ a flashing light… makes no difference to the other traffic on the road.
if the need (and I’m really not seeing that) is that EVERYTHING airborne is visible to each other, then let’s make sure EVERYTHING is…
anything flying during low light conditions (say 30mins before sunset and 30mins after sunrise) must have visual illumination that can be seen from X distance, and it must remain illuminated from takeoff to landing.
I appreciate that ADS-B requires special equipment to transmit… and receive I presume… so it’s not something a pilot should rely on… neither would RID!
Just another thought, if we have RID fully implemented, and the purpose is to make our drones visible to other aircraft, then surely we could then make an argument to allow BVLOS? Because if we’re transmitting our position, then surely we no longer need to be able to visually deconflict with other aviation?
Much like how manned flight can fly IFR (although I know that also requires communication to ATC).
otherwise the only benefit I can see to RID is for prosecution which shouldn’t be how the law is enforced.
That is not what it’s for and other aircraft will not be able to receive RID
Anyone with a phone that has an RID app or standalone device able to receive RID, will be able to monitor your flight and your location in real time but the distance will be limited
There is also talk of a network connection to record such flights but this does not exist at present
As I see it the purpose is to allow other parties to monitor our flights in real time and maybe record them to a database
I thought the whole justification was to allow for ‘drone taxis’ and the like to operate in the lower airs?
So surely that would require the ability for other aircraft to see your drones position in live.
… not so sure…
yes that may be the actual purpose but it is being put forward by documents and futuristic visions such at this, which then “should” or “would” allow for everyone to be aware of each other… in an ideal world with £1b investment
in reality it’s not likely to get to that level in my lifetime (and I’m not that old… more likely less to go than what’s been)… the catch is the technology would have been replaced probably 3x by the time it reaches that Eutopia… hence saying it’s a £1b dream probably is not far off by the time it comes to fruition… probably a lot more the way gov it projects go and deliver
Let’s put this in perspective
Whatever the CAA goals are 
at this present time, in its original format. My £4 Aliexpress ESP32 can mimic RID
and that is where we are today
Also, all this is happening in the States, they are a few years ahead of us but the launch date keeps getting extended
1 Like