Jump to content

New Issue CAA Operator Number


Capt Kremen
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Cassandra said:

People keep making this claim. Somebody on Facebook referenced this EASA means of compliance document in response to a similar comment saying that the the UK is not following it and it certainly looks like they aren't.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/amc_gm_to_commission_implementing_regulation_eu_2019-947_-_issue_1_amendment_1.pdf

<back to lurking>

That would have been truly useful if you'd provided a more specific link to the info, such a page number. Instead of a 54 page document!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 10:19 PM, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Zflyer - I think you'll find that the CAA would have been quite happy with the old system but this is a European wide format imposed on them.

My understanding is that we will have this number for life...unless someone changes the system!

I thought that last year - have a sheet of mine printed out in the workshop ready for any new models and have labelled 30+ models - now I have to throw those away, print a new batch, peel last years off and start again!

A bit annoying to say the least - thanks CAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't use Dymo tape, I just printed the ID onto ink jet compatible self adhesive vinyl - 30 or more to a sheet depending on Font used. Protected with a coat of clear Acrylic lacquer before cutting out, the labels worked OK on my models all last year.

Just finished replacing the OP IDs on my 12 most flown planes, so I am ready to go as soon as we are allowed out ?

Dick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have said

Why, oh why, does it have to be so long -19 characters.

Well 7 of them I assume are nugatory "GBR-OP-"

I wonder if the rest is truly random or whether there is some meaning to them - like identifying region or something.

 

The format of the unique part of mine is NAAAANAAAANN

N = number

A = letter

If they are truly random that allows for

16,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 registered operators

and people say the hobby is in decline ?

Or put another way that allows for 

 

2,000,000,000,000,000 operator IDs for each of every person on the planet

 

Cheers,

Nigel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems rather pointless discussing the length - although the last 3 are supposed to be a checksum and the leading digits are country identification characters so the variations are somewhat less than the previous calculations.  The format is decreed by EASA and the CAA have no discretion to supply or authorise any other format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed it is pointless arguing, it has been decreed, but we can surely discuss that it is a very strange approach.

My issue is less the length but the fact that they might change the number and format every year - let's hope that the first year was something dreamed up by CAA and now we have an EASA number and that they have now got something that they can stick with.

Cheers,

Nigel

Edited by Nigel Heather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to replace all the labels on the fleet today. It's a bit of a pain to have to do it and it will use a couple of rolls of tape for the label printer, but it was known right from the beginning that this would happen. Oh well, it's an opportunity for another close inspection of the models - most of those labels have never actually been used in anger, given the curtailment of flying last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke.  All my models, neatly labelled, now need labels removing and relabelling!  I have several perfectly good numbers the models already carry...my phone number quite conspicuously.

 

Why can't I at least keep LAST years number?  As my kids might say...CBA.  If you find my model...call the number not the CAA please.

 

And whilst Im in a grump...who the heck designed this new  website?  Yugh!

 

Gorra go...dark room calleth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/02/2021 at 23:10, Gary Manuel said:

It has been confirmed that the long number is final.

The snag is that 'final' doesn't appear to mean to them what it does to you and me. After more than 50 years of involvement in flying, full size & model in this country (and elsewhere),  I am certain that there is little which is actually 'final'. 

 

I thought the number we were each given last year was the EASA related one, while this effort is to show the CAA now 'going it alone', no doubt to demonstrate that we in the UK can do our own thing (sigh!).  If nit - why did we not wait a year - has anyone had their number checked? 

Why we need what sounds to be an impressively large  subset of Avagadro's number for such a simple thing beats me -  what was wrong with using our BMFA membership numbers anyway? -  perfectly traceable !  (And of course our numbers from last year are also traceable!) And as someone else said - what chance anyone noting that long string number will get it right?

How to make a difficult hash of something simple and in fact un-necessary. These are the people who tell us to understand the rules, criticise or prosecute us if we fail, make the darn rules hard to find or understand - try looking up Notams 'officially' - and then they tell us as pilots that keeping things simple and clear is good for safety. Ye gods!  (My apologies folks - a full size flying mini-rant as well as a n r/c modelling one ! ) 

My thought wrt the CAA match those of 'Zflier', sadly.  The best of them are superb, but all too often today they fall into bureaucracy mode. 

 

Sigh. Onwards & upwards - soon! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/02/2021 at 12:57, Cassandra said:

People keep making this claim. Somebody on Facebook referenced this EASA means of compliance document in response to a similar comment saying that the the UK is not following it and it certainly looks like they aren't.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/amc_gm_to_commission_implementing_regulation_eu_2019-947_-_issue_1_amendment_1.pdf

<back to lurking>

 

On 12/02/2021 at 13:29, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

I won’t claim to have read all that or understood it - thankfully the CAA has given us their more easily understood interpretation!

However, if I understand the point you were trying to make, it seems that the format is 16 digits plus a 3 digit checksum so I imagine that the UK format is compliant.

On initial inspection I thought that too, but I've had it confirmed offline by someone who submitted a FOI request to the CAA that the format is NOT compliant - quote:

"Q - You are issuing operator IDs with a randomly generated 12 character alpha numeric part, but these IDs are not compliant with EASA's AMC (which comes from EN 4709-002). Are you likely to be reissuing these IDs in the EASA format with a secret part and a checksum at some point in the future?"

"A from CAA - We will not re -issue the Operator IDs. We are not part of EU anymore and UK Operator IDs will start with GBR-OP"

Unfortunately that would appear to show the new format is not compliant. This causes two potential issues:

  1. Will we be able to use our UK ID for flying in Europe? Obviously an agreement between the CAA and EASA will be required whatever the format used, but that would seem less likely if the UK has ignored the standard in the EU documents
  2. If Remote ID comes in the ID will need to be broadcast by the transmitting device in your UAS. If we have a non-compliant number format without a checksum how will that work? Will it be as simple as UK sold transmitters having UK software to broadcast a UK ID, or will we all have to change again? What about the likes of DJI who sell all over the world?

In summary it's not great news, though in the short term the impact should be minimal. I would not consign that Dymo writer to the bin anytime soon though... ?

Edited by MattyB
Added info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...