New UK drone regs

[Split-Infinitive]

https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/25025

Just published. A few make sense but then a load of duplication and slight difference from the EU rulings for no obvoious reason.

Common theme was "a majority of responders were negative to this proposal but we're going to do it anyway)

Direct Remote ID moving to the far more sinister network remote id (ie unlimited range, permanent surveillance) over time. Also moving from geo-awareness to mandated geo-fencing.

 

[Johnmcl7]

Just published. A few make sense but then a load of duplication and slight difference from the EU rulings for no obvoious reason.

Common theme was "a majority of responders were negative to this proposal but we're going to do it anyway)

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?

If I'm understanding correctly, if I buy a C1 marked Mavic 3 I could fly it in the A1 category until 1st October 2028 at which point unless DJI certify it under the UK1 category it would be pushed down to A3 (or A2 if the license is held)?

I'm confused what the differentiation now is between A2 and A3, it details reducing the horizontal distance from people and buildings to 50m excluding to commercial buildings so is that the only advantage of A2? Or am I misreading the A3 changes?

 

[Felix le Chat]

https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/25025

Just published. A few make sense but then a load of duplication and slight difference from the EU rulings for no obvoious reason.

Common theme was "a majority of responders were negative to this proposal but we're going to do it anyway)

Direct Remote ID moving to the far more sinister network remote id (ie unlimited range, permanent surveillance) over time. Also moving from geo-awareness to mandated geo-fencing.

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.

It also shows what a lazy, complacent bunch we are... the high number of UAV owners versus the pathetically low number of responders... no wonder they think they can get away with shifting goalposts as they see fit.

It is nice to spot that any owner of a "legacy UAV" won't have their drones forced out of use... yet... and it was inevitable that RID would be introduced... I just hope they're bright enough to leverage the RID tech already built in to DJI drones (Aeroscope) which, while definitely Chinese flavoured, is 100% fit for purpose... I also hope that the red-under-the-bed paranoia stays on the other side of the Atlantic.

Also heartening to read that 'Geoawareness' will not be mandatory for legacy drones.

 

[Split-Infinitive]

RID tech already built in to DJI drones (Aeroscope) which, while definitely Chinese flavoured, is 100% fit for purpose... I also hope that the red-under-the-bed paranoia stays on the other side of the Atlantic.

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.
They'll use that.

 

[Felix le Chat]

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.
They'll use that.

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.

 

[Split-Infinitive]

That's their eventual goal with network based id. The sinister end game.
Until then it's normal rid direct (as the original consultation paper designed to get the answer they wanted showed).

All DJIs already broadcast all of that and more over 10km+ and have done since the phantom days.

 

[Felix le Chat]

That's their eventual goal with network based id. The sinister end game.
Until then it's normal rid direct (as the original consultation paper designed to get the answer they wanted showed).

All DJIs already broadcast all of that and more over 10km+ and have done since the phantom days.

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.

 

[Split-Infinitive]

The inherent range limitations prevent that and always will.
You're looking at 500-700m usable RID range (as opposed to Aeroscope/DJI ID).

The latter DJI or third party solutions are much more costly to deploy. RID is "anyone with a Samsung".
The consultation doc makes clear it wants to use the users own device to relay the network RID where available as opposed to 3rd party.

 

[Felix le Chat]

The inherent range limitations prevent that and always will.
You're looking at 500-700m usable RID range (as opposed to Aeroscope/DJI ID).

The latter DJI or third party solutions are much more costly to deploy. RID is "anyone with a Samsung".
The consultation doc makes clear it wants to use the users own device to relay the network RID where available as opposed to 3rd party.

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.

Reading through all the hoo-hah concerning the American forced introduction of the 'snoop-app' based geo location system, it struck me that it had more to do with the proprietor of the Aeroscope system (Chinese) than the efficiency, or privacy of the transmitted data.

Considering that the 'security' of the transmitted data was the whole reason this load of bunkum was introduced across the USA, it is ironic that such a Heath-Robinson effort was adopted that provides an even greater degree of unfiltered private information to anyone with a cell phone... and the biggest joke of all?

It still doesn't work properly, whereas Aeroscope is as reliable as a heartbeat.

 

[Split-Infinitive]

DJIs problem now is Aeroscope isnt the only game in town. Since it got reverse engineered and they were shown to have lied (again) about encryption, or lack of, there are plenty of third party systems to decode, receive and spoof DJI Drone ID broadcasts. You can build your own ESP32 based receiver and spoofer for a few hundred dollars.

BUT this cant be the RID solution - its DJI only and works on Occusync so all the non DJI drones that use their own protocols wont be shown or detected on it.
Thats why they tried Remote ID.
I dont have an issue with Drone ID where its hard or costly for non-interested parties to monitor. I have an issue with Remote ID where anyone in range can access that data whether they have a legitimate need of it or not.

 

[Felix le Chat]

DJIs problem now is Aeroscope isnt the only game in town. Since it got reverse engineered and they were shown to have lied (again) about encryption, or lack of, there are plenty of third party systems to decode, receive and spoof DJI Drone ID broadcasts. You can build your own ESP32 based receiver and spoofer for a few hundred dollars.

BUT this cant be the RID solution - its DJI only and works on Occusync so all the non DJI drones that use their own protocols wont be shown or detected on it.
Thats why they tried Remote ID.
I dont have an issue with Drone ID where its hard or costly for non-interested parties to monitor. I have an issue with Remote ID where anyone in range can access that data whether they have a legitimate need of it or not.

Sorry about the (very) late reply... I don't have notifications switched on.

Aeroscope only a one-trick pony? (only picks up proprietary Ocusync broadcasts)... not true at all.

It also picks up Lightbridge signals. On top of that: independent tests undertaken show that Aeroscope picks up a wide range of control/position/telemetry broadcasts from drones produced by Autel, Yuneec, Parrot, Husban etc. on the main transmission bands (2.4 & 5.8gHz).

At the same time, the flight app leverages the 3rd party location and live positioning hardware built into every mobile phone and tablet with a SIM card in it, using that network to broadcast as well.

 

[Split-Infinitive]

At the same time, the flight app leverages the 3rd party location and live positioning hardware built into every mobile phone and tablet with a SIM card in it, using that network to broadcast as well.

Simply isnt true.

 

[zocalo]

Getting away from the Aeroscope discussion and back on-topic, has anyone found any more reliable info on what is going to happen with currently shipping UAVs that carry the older Class markings or, better still, some official word from the CAA or DJI yet? My Google searches are coming up blank, but with less than 2 weeks to go I'd have thought we'd have at least some clarity by now. e.g. will the Mavic 4 Pro or Air 3S start shipping with the new UK markings from January 1st, will DJI send out stickers to registered users, some other solution, or are they just going to be consigned to Legacy when the time comes?

I get the UK market isn't a massive fraction of global sales, but I can't be the only one looking to buy a new drone for upcoming trips (M4P in my case) but won't splash the cash until I have some clarity on this, and that's got to be costing DJI sales. I highly suspect the lack of readily available info is more down the CAA, not DJI though...

 

[Felix le Chat]

Simply isnt true.

I suggest you take a close look at the updated UK RID regulations coming into force Jan 2026, while you're at it: work through the EU papers from the last three years - one of the cornerstones of the new EU/UK drone policy is a secondary positioning/UUID broadcast sent from the flight app loaded onto the mobile device connected to the controller.

 

[zocalo]

I suggest you take a close look at the updated UK RID regulations coming into force Jan 2026, while you're at it: work through the EU papers from the last three years - one of the cornerstones of the new EU/UK drone policy is a secondary positioning/UUID broadcast sent from the flight app loaded onto the mobile device connected to the controller.

I did. The flight regulations and requirements for RID are all clear enough, what is not so clear is what happens to drones that are currently on the market, and will continue to be sold in 2026 - like the entirety of DJI's current lineup (AFAIK, the number of drones shipped with the marking applied so far is exactly zero). Brand new/updated models of drones released from Jan 1st will - presumably - come with the relevant markings and all is good, but what isn't at all clear is what happens with the current range, especially given that ALL of those drones would likely qualify for the relevant class marking were they able to go through the certification process. e.g., I have no idea how to answer any of the following (using the M4P as an example):

Can DJI get the M4P certified and get the class markings applied in the factory to any models shipped after it has that certification? e.g. will the M4P just start coming with the class marking applied at some point in 2026?

If so, can DJI retrospectively issue a class marking sticker to existing owners of exactly the same model M4P drone it just got certified? (If not, then that might explain some of the radio silence, I guess, since anyone that buys one of the unbadged models would be SoL).

If DJI makes some minor tweaks and releases the "M4Pa", would that be eligable for certification & the class marking?

If DJI just re-releases the existing M4P, spec unchanged, as the "M4Pa", would that be eligable for certification & the class marking?

Or, worst case, are we just going to be waiting for the DJI to release the Mavic 5 range in order to get the new class markings? (Which will presumably crater sales of existing models once that becomes clear, unless you can work within the new regulations).

 

[Felix le Chat]

I did. The flight regulations and requirements for RID are all clear enough, what is not so clear is what happens to drones that are currently on the market, and will continue to be sold in 2026 - like the entirety of DJI's current lineup (AFAIK, the number of drones shipped with the marking applied so far is exactly zero). Brand new/updated models of drones released from Jan 1st will - presumably - come with the relevant markings and all is good, but what isn't at all clear is what happens with the current range, especially given that ALL of those drones would likely qualify for the relevant class marking were they able to go through the certification process. e.g., I have no idea how to answer any of the following (using the M4P as an example):

Can DJI get the M4P certified and get the class markings applied in the factory to any models shipped after it has that certification? e.g. will the M4P just start coming with the class marking applied at some point in 2026?

If so, can DJI retrospectively issue a class marking sticker to existing owners of exactly the same model M4P drone it just got certified? (If not, then that might explain some of the radio silence, I guess, since anyone that buys one of the unbadged models would be SoL).

If DJI makes some minor tweaks and releases the "M4Pa", would that be eligable for certification & the class marking?

If DJI just re-releases the existing M4P, spec unchanged, as the "M4Pa", would that be eligable for certification & the class marking?

Or, worst case, are we just going to be waiting for the DJI to release the Mavic 5 range in order to get the new class markings? (Which will presumably crater sales of existing models once that becomes clear, unless you can work within the new regulations).

In the UK: RID is introduced in two stages. New models and in production drones manufactured and sold after 01.01.26 should have the relevant UK class mark and will be RID ready. Drones made and sold before that date come under the classification of 'legacy' drones and have an extra two years grace (2028) before requiring RID registration.

 

[zocalo]

In the UK: RID is introduced in two stages. New models and in production drones manufactured and sold after 01.01.26 should have the relevant UK class mark and will be RID ready. Drones made and sold before that date come under the classification of 'legacy' drones and have an extra two years grace (2028) before requiring RID registration.

Well, if true, that's great and pretty much what I'd hoped for because it means I can get an M4P once they come with class markings and forget about 2028 or waiting for the M5, but that "should" still leaves a lot of wiggle room. Do you have a credible source for that position though, because that's what I've been looking for (inclucing in the CAA's CAPs, etc.) and failing to find - just lots of unsubstantiated opinion (I have one of those too, and it's somewhat less optimistic than yours).

I guess that's the crux of the problem. Here we are - just 10 days from go live - and a definitive answer to the most obvious question drone buyers will have isn't easy to find, and may not even exist. What we do have is a lot of vague wording, speculation, and what might be well-informed opinion but is impossible to tell for sure since it lacks a link to a credible source, like the CAA or one of the larger vendors. That opinion ranges from what you wrote above, to in-production models are all going to be legacy in 2028 (no retrospective stickers or post-2026 certification), or a more honest "we just don't know".

Frankly, that's not inspiring much confidence in the CAA or how seriously it takes drones, and I wasn't exactly impressed to start with.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Well, if true, that's great and pretty much what I'd hoped for because it means I can get an M4P once they come with class markings and forget about 2028 or waiting for the M5, but that "should" still leaves a lot of wiggle room. Do you have a credible source for that position though, because that's what I've been looking for (inclucing in the CAA's CAPs, etc.) and failing to find - just lots of unsubstantiated opinion (I have one of those too, and it's somewhat less optimistic than yours).

I guess that's the crux of the problem. Here we are - just 10 days from go live - and a definitive answer to the most obvious question drone buyers will have isn't easy to find, and may not even exist. What we do have is a lot of vague wording, speculation, and what might be well-informed opinion but is impossible to tell for sure since it lacks a link to a credible source, like the CAA or one of the larger vendors. That opinion ranges from what you wrote above, to in-production models are all going to be legacy in 2028 (no retrospective stickers or post-2026 certification), or a more honest "we just don't know".

Frankly, that's not inspiring much confidence in the CAA or how seriously it takes drones, and I wasn't exactly impressed to start with.

You'll find all the info on the RID section in the CAA website. If you log into your user account: you'll also find out what your unique RID 'number' is (even though it's primarily an alpha-string). There is a hidden suffix that is your private RID terminator. You have to enter this, including the final alpha numerics into the registration box located in the app menu tabs.

 

[zocalo]

You'll find all the info on the RID section in the CAA website. If you log into your user account: you'll also find out what your unique RID 'number' is (even though it's primarily an alpha-string). There is a hidden suffix that is your private RID terminator. You have to enter this, including the final alpha numerics into the registration box located in the app menu tabs.

Thanks, but you are still addressing a different point to my question. I've read the CAPs & December's site update from the CAA, which explains RID and the class/category system, including how the A2 CofC fits in, very well. I get the RID requirements, UK vs. C class and A1-A3 category stuff, and since I don't do stupid things with my drones, I'm not bothered by RID and think the new EU/UK rules are both quite reasonable.

What I'm asking is does anyone have any clarity on what might happen to existing models of drone (like the Air 3S, Mavic 4 Pro, etc.) that do not currently have a UK marking, come 2028. e.g. which of the following will happen (assuming DJI, or whoever, goes through the certification process for them):

A) Retrospectively be issued a sticker/certificate by the manufacturer/CAA confirming them in the relevant UK class and essentially grand-fathering already bought models with the marking into the correct UK class after 2028.
B) Drones manufactured and shipping after the specific model is certified will come with the UK marking, those already purchased will become legacy in 2028.
C) As an existing model, it is not eligable for certification, and only a upgraded varient (my example of an "MP4a") or a brand new model (a Mavic 5) would be needed for the certification.
D) Some other option I'm overlooking.

Or, to put it another way: if someone has a M4P without a class marking, what Class / Category will it be in on Jan 1st 2028? On specs alone, it qualifies for UK2/A3 (A2 with the CofC). Without the sticker, it's legacy, and I highly suspect that the CAA (and EU) will gradually tighten the screws on what these can and cannot do.

 

[Felix le Chat]

Already pointed that out. They're lumped into the 'legacy' classification, with the exception of those manufactured and sold closest to the 01.01.26 date... in those cases: you'll probably get the option to apply to DJI for a classification sticker (like with the mini 3 and mini 4 pro's).

I'm used to the CAA treating us like mushrooms and until the due date: I really don't expect clarification. All I can do is look at similar circumstances with previous drone models and EU classification: then extrapolate based on established precedent... Until next week...