That sums it up well and I could understand going against the responders if they were wanting something ridiculous (like no rules whatsoever) but most of the responses seemed sensible particularly in regards to following the EU regulations. It's often not worth companies putting the effort in to license or regulate items just for the UK market so they often don't and I can see the same happening here. I just wonder why waste all the time and effort to get people's views if they're just going to be completely ignored?
Have yet to read through it fully, but agree that their response proves that they don't care about the opinions of those few of us who can be bothered to wade through their poorly worded, often ambiguous consultation questionnaires.
Remote ID is not the DJI telemetry from Aeroscope. Its a WiFi (or bluetooth) beacon broadcast unencrypted for anyone in range to receive on their phone or other device.
The RID the CAA are talking about is the variety used to monitor the use (and abuse) of commercially available drones... position: telemetry, UUID, etc... as clearly stated in a number of their previous official publications where they stipulate its use to build a database of 'compliant drone users', as well as the gathering of information concerning "...bad actors..." (their term) not the kiddies toy variety that Kevin or Karen can tune in to.
Hence it being the mature and proven RID solution capable of ticking every 'electronic conspicuity requirement' box a Government department could possibly dream up with the Aeroscope receiver system similarly mature, proven, easily networked and commercially available... which is already present around most UK airports.
The plug-and-play USB RID modules never struck me as being a sensible alternative to Aeroscope - which is a single receiver working on 2.4, 5.2 and 5.8gHz frequencies: having a 10km range and when networked into a web: you're looking at 100+km coverage, which is a viable UAS equivalent to 'proper' airspace monitoring.
