Drone rules printed in todays Press

[kc]

The BBC Ceefax and website has an article on the "new" rules for drones which come into force today. The question is do we think they accurately report the situation and inform the public correctly?

Seems lacking in important facts in my view. In particular camera carrying drones having different rules about how close to buildings. My understanding is that camera carrying drones even under 250 grams could not be flown in any normal garden because the house next door would be too close ( within 50 metres isn't it? ) If thats the rule then it needs to be made very clear.

The same comments apply to aTV sales programme this month which clearly said their camera carrying drones could be flown anywhere because they are under 250 grams which seems misleading.

Or is it me who has not understood the rules correctly?

Edited By kc on 31/12/2020 12:06:50

[J D 8]

Many people do not care about Coronavirus rules to save lives, the same lot/type wont care about drone rules unless there is more publicised enforcement in both cases.

[kc]

OK I accept that what I wrote is incorrect and Steve's info has clarified it a lot. Actually I studied the CAA info a few weeks ago I couldn't find anything as clear as that - that latest info was not to be found then.

The good news is we a can all take photos for commercial purposes ( if I understand that correctly ) but the bad news is next doors kids can fly in a garden & spy on anyone with their under 250 g camera drone because they don't have to be 50 m from buildings.

But shouldn't the BBC etc have given much clearer guidance if they published anything?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Under 250g camera equipped drones are NOT exempt from registration and applicable legislation.

[Stuart C]

• A3 - drones weighing more than 2kg must be flown well away from people

That's quite specific!

[flight1]

Well what determines your <250g drone to be a 'toy' under the new regulations because if it is a 'toy' then the only restriction is not to endanger anyboddy etc ??

[kc]

It seems to be right that drones with cameras  ( when flown outdoors ) need registration even if under 250 g.  So why didn't the BBC make that clear? Why didnt they state you have to take a test and pay 9 pounds?   Many ( most?) drones sold as Christmas presents are likely to have cameras fitted so the fact that they need registration should surely be the main feature of the BBC's piece on drones. But they don't mention it! In fact it's as bad as Fake News if it doesn't mention this important change to legislation that affects many.

I have just done a Google search for CAA+ drones and it didnt find anything that I could see that had the CAP2008 Fact Sheet. It's well hidden! The only way I found it was Steve's link. The links on BBC didn't bring the fact sheet up either.

Edited By kc on 31/12/2020 16:41:47

Edited By kc on 31/12/2020 17:17:11

[Bob Cotsford]

You could send them a comment pointing out this oversight, journalists have never been renowned for looking too closely at details have they? They could also have emphasised the fact that all drones > 250gm or having a camera need registering and the pilot needs a flight cert.. It's there, but only as a bit of a footnote.

[kc]

Bob- The comment should come from the BMFA.

The headlines should have read " Shock Horror all camera drone fliers have to pay £9 and pass a test " would have been a much better story and it would be true! Any competant journalist on this story should have looked at this and other forums to research the subject. But it would appear they didn't bother..........of course that could still be tomorrows headline if they are reading this........

[Peter Christy]

The motto of the old "Red Top" journalists was "Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story!".

Looks like the Beeb are starting to slide down the same path...

--

Pete

[kc]

Again Steve you are right..........but I spent a long time trawling through the CAA pages and didnt notice that and I don't think many people looking for drone advice would have found it either! The clear basic simple info needed is concealed within masses of jargon instead of being right at the very beginning! And it's not linked on the Drone animated logo either. There are just too many pages and too many words.

I am still looking to find the full definition of A1, A2, A3, AO that applies now ( 2021 )it's not clear but the Flying as a Hobby page is the best i can find but it's confused with comments about 2023.

[kevin b]

If all drones under 250gm require the owners to be registered, then there are going to be a lot of unhappy bee keepers.

"Yawn" here we go again !

[kc]

It's only drones under 250g WITH cameras that need to register! Beekeepers can relax.

[GONZO]

This issue of sub 250gm with cameras was taken up with the CAA by Simon Dale of FPVUK. He requested a definitive answer to the clause using the word 'capture' and the CAA understanding and definition of the word. In brief if there is no recording of the images and the camera is used solely for the controlling and monitoring of the aircraft then it's allowable. The link is to the thread and post 9 is the informative one.

sub 250 with camera and no video recording.

Thus, no need to register.

Edited By GONZO on 31/12/2020 20:39:12

[Eric Robson]

Posted by kevin b on 31/12/2020 19:09:36:

If all drones under 250gm require the owners to be registered, then there are going to be a lot of unhappy bee keepers.

"Yawn" here we go again !

Beehive yourself Kevin. Happy 2021 everybody'

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 31/12/2020 20:41:37:

Posted by kc on 31/12/2020 19:17:22:

It's only drones under 250g WITH cameras that need to register!

As GONZO says, this is not strictly true as the CAA themselves acknowledge in CAP 722 section 1.3.

Edited By Steve J on 31/12/2020 20:42:04

Is it not the case that this only applies to live video output which is not recorded in any form?

I think we're in danger of clouding the message by drawing attention to the semantics. If my interpretation is correct, any sub 250g camera equipped drone capable of recording "personal data" requires registration. This is the message that needs to be broadcast.

[GONZO]

It's as it says in my link and as confirmed by Steve J. No recording on plane, ie no 'go-pro' types and no recording of video by goggles means no registration of sub 250 with live FPV. The FPV video is only used to guide and monitor the planes flight and not 'capture'(record and store) data. That's clear enough surely. There is a wrinkle here that perhaps has not been considered and I will not mention or give any clues.

[Stephen Smith 14]

I wouldn't worry about it, how many coppers understand it or even care, only time anyone would look at what you was doing is if you hurt someone or cause massive damage.

[Roger Jones 3]

Best to check the CAA official site for the rules AND TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE.

Pointless looking at newspaper's and the BBC's possibly incorrect reports or the BMFA's 'interpretation'.

In fact you will find the CAA has somewhat 'relaxed' the rules on  some points to line up with the EU's rules.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 10:16:50

[Cuban8]

January 1st and another year begins without our skies being infested with delivery drones - watch this space this time next year

Happy new year chaps, but I fear we shouldn't be expecting too much in the way of normality for a while yet.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 10:15:18:

Best to check the CAA official site for the rules AND TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE.

Pointless looking at newspaper's and the BBC's possibly incorrect reports or the BMFA's 'interpretation'.

In fact you will find the CAA has somewhat 'relaxed' the rules on some points to line up with the EU's rules.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 10:16:50

That's actually quite bad advice. The CAA official site does not carry the details of the Article 16 Authorisation that BMFA members can operate under.

Better looking at **LINK**

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 01/01/2021 10:52:19:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 10:15:18:

Best to check the CAA official site for the rules AND TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE.

Pointless looking at newspaper's and the BBC's possibly incorrect reports or the BMFA's 'interpretation'.

In fact you will find the CAA has somewhat 'relaxed' the rules on some points to line up with the EU's rules.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 10:16:50

That's actually quite bad advice. The CAA official site does not carry the details of the Article 16 Authorisation that BMFA members can operate under.

Better looking at **LINK**

I have nothing against the BMFA having been a member of the SMAE/BMFA for 55 plus years. And not just for the insurance.

But I suspect that the majority of 'drone' flyers (meaning quadcopters and similar) have never heard of the BMFA and would not join if they had. Also a lot of 'conventional' flyers are not in it either.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Stephen Smith 14 on 01/01/2021 09:20:22:

I wouldn't worry about it, how many coppers understand it or even care, only time anyone would look at what you was doing is if you hurt someone or cause massive damage.

I agree 100%. Fly it on the police station front lawn and the police might tell you to go away but that will be all. They certainly aren't going to carefully study the 238 pages of CAP 722

 

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 01/01/2021 14:27:09

[Dickw]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 11:51:01:

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 01/01/2021 10:52:19:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 10:15:18:

Best to check the CAA official site for the rules AND TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE.

Pointless looking at newspaper's and the BBC's possibly incorrect reports or the BMFA's 'interpretation'.

In fact you will find the CAA has somewhat 'relaxed' the rules on some points to line up with the EU's rules.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 10:16:50

That's actually quite bad advice. The CAA official site does not carry the details of the Article 16 Authorisation that BMFA members can operate under.

Better looking at **LINK**

I have nothing against the BMFA having been a member of the SMAE/BMFA for 55 plus years. And not just for the insurance.

But I suspect that the majority of 'drone' flyers (meaning quadcopters and similar) have never heard of the BMFA and would not join if they had. Also a lot of 'conventional' flyers are not in it either.

It seems you are both right.

If you are a member of the BMFA, LMA, FPVUK, or SAA you need to be looking at the Article 16 Authorisation, and Andy's link is good for that.

The rest, as you say, will have to search on the CAA website.

Dick

[Roger Jones 3]

It seems you are both right.

If you are a member of the BMFA, LMA, FPVUK, or SAA you need to be looking at the Article 16 Authorisation, and Andy's link is good for that.

The rest, as you say, will have to search on the CAA website.

Dick

Dick,

My purely personal view.

I have no interest whatsoever in 'drones' (meaning quadcopters and similar), I am only interested in 'conventional' model planes and to a lesser extent conventional model helicopters. Plus the occasional model boat.

I suspect very few 'drone' flyers have any interest in conventional model planes or helis. They are mostly used as camera and video 'platforms' so they can bore their friends with poor quality videos. And unlike the equally boring holiday pictures their victims cannot quickly flick though them while pretending to be interested.

'Drones' are basically 'tall camera tripods' and their place is in photography/video magazines, not model aircraft magazines or model flying clubs - ours already places severe restriction on their use at our field though NOT at my instigation..

They have given us a bad name, thus resulting in all these 'knee jerk' rules that exist only to show the public the authorities are 'doing something'. I suspect they are a 'fad' that will vanish sooner or later when the next toy arrives, but unfortunately the rules they have caused will remain.

It might even get worse. There is talk within the authorities of making all our models have 'squawk boxes' (of the type commercial aircraft often carry) to identify the 'drone' when ir is bathed with air traffic control radar. The authorities don't seem to have considered that this will require a huge expansion of ATC facilities. .