CAA Call for Input: Review of UK UAS Regulations Aug 2023

[steve too]

 

27 minutes ago, MattyB said:

Based on that table, the ICO pages on UK GDPR indicate a fair bit of that would be considered personal information

 

I await news of the test case from the EU.

[Martin McIntosh]

OK then, so much for article this that or the other, but nobody seems to have really grasped what I said about the private company which has set themselves up at an airfield (actually Westcott Venture Park) and unilaterally declared that they are exempt from any CAA regulations. We all know who will be blamed for any incidents which are bound to occur.

[steve too]

37 minutes ago, Martin McIntosh said:

OK then, so much for article this that or the other, but nobody seems to have really grasped what I said about the private company which has set themselves up at an airfield (actually Westcott Venture Park) and unilaterally declared that they are exempt from any CAA regulations.

 

"All drone operations at Westcott follow strict UK CAA regulations."

 

https://www.westcottvp.com/news-and-insights/news/world-leading-drone-centre-opens-at-westcott

 

NOTAM

 

A) EGTT B) FROM: 23/08/30 08:00 C) TO: 23/11/07 20:00

E) UAS OPR BEYOND VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT (BVLOS) UTILISING VISUAL OBSERVERS (EXTENDED LINE OF SIGHT) WI 1NM RADIUS OF 515018N 0005744W (WESTCOTT, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE). MAX HGT 800FT AGL. FOR INFO 01280 499019. 2023-08-0737/AU2

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by steve too

[Martin Dance 1]

I wonder whether we (model flyers) the BMFA the CAA might just all be getting our underwear in a twist about commercial drone operations, whether drone operations are seen as an 'opportunity' - government, entre preneurs- or as a 'threat' general aviation,  model flyers or as another headache CAA BMFA etc which they have to deal with.

You may have seen on several news feeds recently of a crash of a prototype air taxi. It was unmanned remotely piloted, no one hurt. It was a tilt rotor craft.What struck me was just how big it was compared to a black cab at least in terms of its footprint. No way is that going to operate from a city centre taxi rank and it certainly won't be able to land at the doorstep of my typical 1960's semi. So no hopping into an air taxi to bring home the goodies from a shopping expedition. So how will they be used? Perhaps to carry business men from a mainline station to an out of town  business park? So defined corridors can be used. 

 

Of course with improving technology the air taxis will get smaller. Yes, but it will still be carrying a 120Kg adult plus hand luggage. Of course the law of diminishing returns applies. New battery technology with batteries 50% lighter than the present generation will help, but there won't be a like for like reduction in air frame weight and the passenger wil still weigh 120Kg So batteries reduce in weight by another 50% so 75% percent reduction over today's technology and the airframe reduces by just a little, but the passenger still weighs 120Kg! And of course the air taxis footprint has seen very little reduction in size.

 

I think the same scenario will apply to delivery drones. I have a curious hobby of spotting model flying sites on Google earth, sad I know but try it some time. What does impress me is just how much space there is between model flying sites. Certainly drones won't need to thread themselves between closely packed flying sites or full size airfields or for that matter. large towns present a bit of a challange but hey ho.

 

This leads me to ask the questions why is any form of RID necessary for conventional LOS model flying, equally why is it necessary for those same models to be 'conspicuos? When model flying sites can be easily avoided as can general aviation airfields.

[Peter Jenkins]

After a good 5 hours of reading and then writing, I have finally sent in my response.  Gasp!

[Edgeflyer]

Hats off to you let's hope someone reads it

[Futura57]

9 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

After a good 5 hours of reading and then writing, I have finally sent in my response.  Gasp!

Exactly why I'm going to put 5 hours of my life to better use. Sorry to let the side down.

[Andy Stephenson]

Rather than reading through the BMFA's response and trying to formulate our own answers based on it, wouldn't it be better if we could have some guidance notes on what the questions mean in simple terms. Those of us not into researching dense government documentation will need some quick reference to various CAA jargon and terminology. This would allow more of us to answer this questionnaire without having to waste 5 hours on it.

 

[Dickw]

1 hour ago, Futura57 said:

Exactly why I'm going to put 5 hours of my life to better use. Sorry to let the side down.

The CAA and the relevant government departments were caught unawares last time by the scale of response from aeromodellers and so were forced to take note.

This time they seem to have devised a consultation process that will lessen the chance of a similar mass response. Unfortunately that approach appears to be working.

I would like to continue enjoying my hobby of many years which is why I did spend a few hours on it, despite having many other important/urgent things that required my attention.

Dick

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

We spent far more than 5 hours tapping the keyboards and reading threads on here, do your bit and fill it in.

[GaryW]

To be totally honest,, With every will in the world with people responding and giving their input on the subject,,, At the end of the day if the CAA changes regulations and rules or brings in new ones or introduces RID to further govern how we all fly our models including drones ,, then basically there's nothing we can do about it to stop it happening ,, All we can do is 2 things,,,, 1, Either accept the new rules & regs and carry on enjoying the hobby flying whatever we fly.. & 2, If you cant or wont agree to the changes , then its time to give up and walk away from the hobby..

 

That's my completely honest 2 pence worth view on this

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There is a third option - engage with the process and try to influence the outcome. 
 

While it may be seen as a futile exercise, isn’t it worth the effort if there’s any chance that even part of the message gets through?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

1 minute ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

There is a third option - engage with the process and try to influence the outcome. 
 

While it may be seen as a futile exercise, isn’t it worth the effort if there’s any chance that even part of the message gets through?

 

Correct, fill it in.

[Martin McIntosh]

Thanks for the update re Westcott, I was only repeating what they told the press at the time. The site is en route to Heathrow, Luton etc and there is a lot of very low level military activity over it, not to mention a vast amount of private aircraft and helis, many of which will be way below the quoted 800ft.

[GaryW]

On 01/09/2023 at 10:56, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

There is a third option - engage with the process and try to influence the outcome. 
 

While it may be seen as a futile exercise, isn’t it worth the effort if there’s any chance that even part of the message gets through?

 

Yes that certainly is an option however I'm an RC Flier ( planes, helis, drones well basically anything that leaves the ground and flies )  not a politician, I'm in the hobby for the enjoyment the hobby brings which i come back into after a 6 year break due to health issues, not the politics, Yes some things have changed while I was away from the hobby that I may or may not agree or  disagree with  but those changes happened of which I do comply with like a good friend said to me only a few months ago,,, All I wanna do is go to the field fly what I fly and go home again without getting involved with all the politics and official stuff the hobby brings with it

[Peter Jenkins]

3 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

Yes that certainly is an option however I'm and RC Flier ( planes, helis, drones well basically anything that leaves the ground and flies )  not a politician, I'm in the hobby for the enjoyment the hobby brings which i come back into after a 6 year break due to health issues, not the politics, Yes some things have changed while I was away from the hobby that I may or may not agree or  disagree with  but those changes happened of which I do comply with like a good friend said to me only a few months ago,,, All I wanna do is go to the field fly what I fly and go home again without getting involved with all the politics and official stuff the hobby brings with it

I'm sorry, but that is a very naive view.  If you choose to do nothing then if we get onerous rules lumped on us you will not be able to continue with your hobby without it being impacted.  It might be a small or very large impact, but asking you to give up a bit of time to respond will help all of us to continue down the current route of carrying on as before albeit paying a silly registration fee.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

23 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

There is a third option - engage with the process and try to influence the outcome. 
 

While it may be seen as a futile exercise, isn’t it worth the effort if there’s any chance that even part of the message gets through?

Exactly this! Both the previous call to actions from the BMFA influenced the outcome. First the initial consultation on registration when they were proposing £16 for Operator Registration and the last pricing consultation when the CAA were proposing a 20% increas of £2.00 , reduced to just a 33p increase after the most responses ever to their annual consultation on fees.

Not responding certainly doesn't work, responses in large numbers has shown itself to have an influence.

[GaryW]

8 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

I'm sorry, but that is a very naive view.  If you choose to do nothing then if we get onerous rules lumped on us you will not be able to continue with your hobby without it being impacted.  It might be a small or very large impact, but asking you to give up a bit of time to respond will help all of us to continue down the current route of carrying on as before albeit paying a silly registration fee.

 

I rather think of it as I'm living in the real world than being naïve and is no different to accepting and complying with any changes to rules and laws we all follow on a daily basis in everyday life,, As for the silly registration fee as you call it ,, Yes I may have disagreed with it at first but I accepted it and happily paid it and will continue to do so in future years that way I know I'm doing what I do in the hobby legally and above board

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Dickw said:

The CAA and the relevant government departments were caught unawares last time by the scale of response from aeromodellers and so were forced to take note.

This time they seem to have devised a consultation process that will lessen the chance of a similar mass response. Unfortunately that approach appears to be working.

I would like to continue enjoying my hobby of many years which is why I did spend a few hours on it, despite having many other important/urgent things that required my attention.

 

Indeed. It does feel like I have seen this playbook run somewhere before though; I wonder...

• CAA Call for input 2023 - Opened 9th Aug 2023, Close 7th Sept 2023, consultation period 29 days, online responses allowed
• BMFA National Centre vote 2015 - EGM announcement 10th June 2015, EGM vote 4th July 2015, review period 24 days, proxy or in-person voting only

😉🤣

 

Note - I don't want to go back over old ground; the BMFA did follow it's AoA (even if I and many others don't like them), and the National Centre is there now. It is (even to my eyes) a partial success, even though it has a far more limited scope than the vision initially portrayed and the financials still worry me long term.

 

I am just pointing out that this tactic has been used many times before, and is likely to be used on us again in the future to provide cover for the CAA and UK Gov to push through regulatory change with the minimum of resistance. As Andy says, we have to be ready to respond quickly, politely and at volume each and every time they do this, no matter how hard they make it.

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by MattyB

[GaryW]

Say the CAA bring in Remote ID tomorrow,, yes ok i admit that's an impact but to continue in the hobby I would happily comply and fit whatever RID Units needed to my models regardless of the costs,, In the same way i look at the costs of lipos, & glow/diesel fuel,,, which yes over the past 6 years have jumped up in price a lot...  If I want to carry on flying I pay the price of the fuels the same as i pay for petrol when i want to drive my car ,, or I dont pay the price it costs and go nowhere fast

 

Anyway I've given my view on this now and will leave you all to continue the discussion,, as I mentioned earlier I'm not interested in the politics of it all and just want to enjoy what i fly

[steve too]

1 hour ago, Dickw said:

The CAA and the relevant government departments were caught unawares last time by the scale of response from aeromodellers and so were forced to take note.

 

We were lucky last time that the Secretary of State changed to someone sympathetic at the right time.

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by steve too
typo

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Agree that Schapps seemed more willing to listen than Baroness ? But you're only at the begining of this round, we'll achieve nothing constantly going over old ground, apart from filling others with negativity and they'll not respond to the consultation, not much of a plan is it ?

[steve too]

14 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

... I would happily comply and fit whatever RID Units needed to my models regardless of the costs ...

 

If it ends up being just direct RID then you are looking at £50-£100/ID. If it ends up being cellular then it will be more like £200-£300/ID.

[Peter Jenkins]

Shapps is now S of S for Defence.  He will have an interest in this as the MoD have been working on getting UAVs to be cleared to fly outside their ranges.  His new interest is no longer aligned with our interests - let's hope he's still interested in this topic through his PPL side.

[steve too]

25 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Agree that Schapps seemed more willing to listen than Baroness ?

 

Shapps replaced Grayling. Baroness Vere is still an Under-Secretary of State in the DfT.

 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."