I have an opposite question, does anyone know if there any related Ofcom regulations on how strong can it be?
I mean, if the direct RID is to follow EU/FAA the bands would be 2.4 GHz/5.8 GHz i.e. basically WiFi/BT (because it is essentially either WiFi or BT). As far as I understand, 5.8 GHz is capped at 25 mW (~14 dBm) in the UK, whereas 2.4 GHz is way down to 10 mW (10 dBm) unless using a FHSS modulation which doesn’t seem to apply in principle. On the other hand it’s just 1-2 Hz pings anyway, making the “FHSS only” rule be pretty philosophial as the channel utilisation is extremely low.
Both 10 dBm at 2.4 GHz and 14 dBm at 5.8 GHz are way too little for practical use for both surveillance (unless using a directional antenna) and inter-UAV collision avoidance too (because UAVs will definitely have omnis anyway). If Ofcom treated them as FHSS now that would be some usable range, but they technically aren’t, even though the effect on the spectrum is even smaller than FHSS such as transmitters.
Got my Atom 2 but only powered it on, connected, firmware & browsing the settings, yet to fly. I wasn’t sure what to put in the RID fields so thanks for explaining, I’ll try it later.
I read elsewhere that the RID is the 16-digit code on the square label under the drone.
Added a nickname, Flyer & Op ID to the Atom 2’s settings and hovered. OpenDroneID saw it straight away. First flight just to get used to the controls so didn’t check how often it updated but it’s very easy to set up, and remove. The 20-digit code under the drone is the ID OpenDroidID reported, along with the data I entered.
Recently signed up for email notifications from “Skywise” with the CAA and seen a notification on their consulting re “Consultation on Electronic Conspicuity – Initial Technical Concept of Operations” bit technical for me but if you have a look at the questions included in the survey it sound like it will have a bearing on the introduction of Remote ID on drone. Just thought it may be of interest, sorry have been unable to provide direct link but a search should do it. PS survey closes Oct 2025
The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is seeking views on its draft Initial Technical Concept of Operations (ConOps) for Electronic Conspicuity (EC).
EC enables aircraft to “detect and be detected” electronically, helping to reduce the risk of mid-air collisions and improve situational awareness. This ConOps sets out our proposed technical requirements, equipage standards, and operational use of EC to support the safe integration of new and existing airspace users, including uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS), in the UK’s airspace.
This consultation invites feedback on each of the nine proposed policy positions described in the ConOps. We are seeking input from a wide range of stakeholders, including:
General Aviation (GA) pilots and organisations
Unmanned Aircraft operators
Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP)
Aerodrome operators
Manufacturers and developers of EC technology
Government departments, regulators, and policy stakeholders
Any individual or organisation with an interest in UK airspace
We also include a short Call for Evidence to support our early thinking on a potential future EC mandate, which is being explored separately by the CAA and Department for Transport (DfT).
I realise that there is some resistance here to drone ID being available to ‘the authorities’, but I don’t see a problem unless a droner is behaving illegally, in which case he/she deserves to be caught, or a totalitarian police state develops, in which case we have bigger worries than drone-tracking…
If it improves air safety and situational awareness I’m all for it, but flying in a fairly average-sized city urban environment the amount of time my drone is anywhere near close to either another drone (not including the meetup last Friday when we all knew where each others’ drones were) or any other type of aircraft operation is negligible, in point of fact to the best of my knowledge non-existent, owing to my compliance with the CAA’s drone code… Will model gliders, balloons, or kites be a part of this proposed system, by which means will I be electronically aware of their presence? I want my drone to be conspicuous, including electronically conspicuous, to prevent other people from crashing their drones, model aircraft, kites, balloons tethered or otherwise, or manned aircraft into it.
I absent-mindedly put the drone up within the Cardiff Prison FRZ a couple weeks ago, and the drone alerted me to this within a second or so of taking off and told me to land immediately, so I said ‘oh shit’ and landed immediately, probably my shortest flight ever! I was actually only a few yards inside the FRZ and sheilded from the prison by big office blocks, but whatever the system already in place is, it did it’s job admirably! I do not know if the warning was generated by DJI software or something else, and don’t really care; I was warned and I reacted!
Apparently, sub-900g drones are to be included in the same class as sub 250g drones from next January. I’m wondering if this and the ID move are in anticipation of easing of the VLOS restrictions (which, lets be honest, are more often than not honoured in the breach, I generally know where my drone is but cannot always see it immedieately!). At increased risk, this would make commercial and hobby drones far more useful, but awareness of proximate traffic would ease the risk. Just thinking aloud, in print…
Certainly not me, and we deserve to be caught and punished. I’ve never conciously, intentionally, or deliberately set out to behave illegally with the drone, though; sometimes the drone itself is less well-behaved…
Double-negative confusion, no doubt mea culpa; I was trying, and failiing, to say that I have of course broken the law unwittingly & accidentally many times as we all do, but not ever set out with the specific intention of doing anything illegally. ‘I’d wager none’, next post response ‘Certainly not me’. Lost VLOS loads of times, gone into a hover and used the screen map and compass to locate the little bugger, we’ve had this discussion before, it’s pretty much impossible to fly eyes on 100% of the time, you have to check the screen, surrounding airspace, all sorts.
I can genuinely and fully honestly state that I have never gone over 400’ AGL and have set my height limit to prevent this. Never TOAL’ed from land that I knew I needed permission from the owner or his/her representatives; why would I, I can always overfly at a decent height and there’s always legal locations to TOAL from. I try my best to fly within the guidelines of the CAA’s Drone Code, and mostly succeed.
Not my place to police others or comment on their flying habits, legit or otherwise, or complain when I see, as I often do, video posted here that is clearly taken BVLOS, that’s none of my business. I don’t do that mysefl, I just do the best I can as much as I can…
The thing is, apps will be/ are available to the general public. These show not only the location of the drone, but also the location of the operator. That’s what operators are resistant to. I’d say 99% of us operators fly within the rules. Would you like to be flying on your own and have your location made available to every Tom, Dick and Harry ?
Hmm. Not especially keen on my whereabouts being known to any Tom, Dick, or Harry, but I still think EC is a good idea for general safety reasons. Will it identify me by name, or just my locattion as an anonymous drone operator? I think I’d be even less keen if my actual identity was being broadcast to all & sundry!
If I am not identified by name, only my position, it’s not all that different to most of my flying, where I can be clearly seen holding the RC and, if asked, can show my CAA Flyer/Opertor code number, which is on the side of my drone and on my GADC membership card. EC will presumably mean that my location can be determined from anywhere, rather than just within VLOS.
Authorities are one thing. But Remote ID as it stands makes it available to EVERYONE with a mobile phone or above.
Any Karen or angry resident that hates drones can see any drone within a few hundred meters, including the serial number, where the operator is standing and everything else.
Theres a good argument for authorities having access to that data, ive yet to see any valid argument for giving anyone else access to the same data.
The Atom 2 remote Id settings let you key in your operator & flyer IDs along with a name field. No validation that I noticed but it also transmits a 20 character unique ID that’s coded to the drone, non-changeable, which is also printed under the drone.
I thought DJI did that! It was an on-screen reminder/warning that alerted me to the transgression, and I landed immediately. It must have been clear to anyone monitoring that it was a genuine oversight with no criminal intent. I suspect that reporting it would not have gone down well in a busy city-centre police station, and I’d have simply been told to fuck off and don’t do it again!
