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

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, GaryWebb said:

Any Rc fliers that decided not to comply on that basis, no doubt it wud end their flying at club fields as BMFA insurance generally is a club requirement and I don't know of a club yet that permits non insure people top fly

 

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

Just a guess, but I'm guessing from that statement, that you haven't been a member of many clubs or clubs in different locations. The requirement for all club members to be BMFA members is really only for BMFA affiliated clubs. I've been a member of quite a few clubs, several of which had their own insurance and in which BMFA members were actually in a minority. So, the statement that BMFA insurance is generally a club requirement simply isn't the case - that is only true for BMFA affiliated clubs.

 

Agreed @leccyflyer. In a worst case scenario I can also see clubs de-affiliating from the BMFA if they believe the value proposition isn't the same under any potential new regs, though that would mean they also wouldn't benefit from the Art.16 authorisation either. We can't really predict much until the CAAs final proposal is made though.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

...I don't want to derail the thread, but I'm currently working on the conversion of an ancient Digimac III to 2.4ghz, using one of Phil Green's excellent 7 channel encoders and a Lemon 2.4ghz module. The set will be dedicated to a particular vintage model and it's my first foray into this sort of modification, which requires opening up the case and making significant changes to the electronics - in this case losing all the 27mhz circuity and just retaining the stick units with their potentiometers, meter and on-off switch. It'll scratch the itch that I always wanted one of those wee blue anodised sets in the early 70's but couldn't afford one. It did cross my mind yesterday evening whether such a modification met all of the requirements for legal operation on 2.4ghz, but I'm reasonably sure that it does

 

Unless you have modified the module or RX itself, you should be fine - it's the RF stage that has to be compliant in a homebuilt RC system, not the whole setup.

[steve too]

Looking at annex B of the retained version of 2019/947 UAS (operations in the specific category), before the clause was deleted it was the operator's responsibility to ensure that a remote ID system was fitted and it is the remote pilot's responsibility to ensure that a remote ID is up to date and active if one is fitted. I can't face looking through the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021, but I suspect that there is/was/will be a £2k fine for failing to do these things.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by steve too

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

If owt comes, it'll be a club meeting, be plenty angry words, some very colourful. Then we'll agree on the way forwards, it will not be the committee being turned into policeman that's a certainty.

 

Pretty certain the BMFA will have our clubs support whatever happens, we owe them, and there's more to being in there than just this issue. On a personal note, when I first came on here my opinion of the BMFA wasn't that favourable, paying more attention, meeting them, getting advice and help changed my opinion. Turning on our own achieves nothing, but may hasten our demise.

[David Elam]

23 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

If owt comes, it'll be a club meeting, be plenty angry words, some very colourful. Then we'll agree on the way forwards, it will not be the committee being turned into policeman that's a certainty.

 

Pretty certain the BMFA will have our clubs support whatever happens, we owe them, and there's more to being in there than just this issue. On a personal note, when I first came on here my opinion of the BMFA wasn't that favourable, paying more attention, meeting them, getting advice and help changed my opinion. Turning on our own achieves nothing, but may hasten our demise.

Correct.

Armies win wars, not lone snipers.

[GaryW]

2 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

Just a guess, but I'm guessing from that statement, that you haven't been a member of many clubs or clubs in different locations. The requirement for all club members to be BMFA members is really only for BMFA affiliated clubs. I've been a member of quite a few clubs, several of which had their own insurance and in which BMFA members were actually in a minority. So, the statement that BMFA insurance is generally a club requirement simply isn't the case - that is only true for BMFA affiliated clubs.

I've actually been with 7 clubs in total 2 of which I'm with now and yes all bmfa affiliated

[john davidson 1]

In line with Leccys post above our club has derived insurance for many years from our local sports  council. Thus every one is covered, but only at our site. However since many members have already BMFA insurance we  propose to cut  out double insurance  and make it a condition to have BMFA or Equivalent only .

[Nick Cripps]

For me as a committee member, one of the key benefits of the BMFA insurance is that it is extended to cover club officers' activities. It also provides member-to-member insurance, either (or both) of these may not be included in other insurance policies such as from a sports council (you'll have to read the small print).

 

We had a somewhat bloody AGM and subsequent EGM about 20 years ago in my club when we pushed BMFA affiliation through but i certainly feel it was worthwhile.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

17 hours ago, David Elam said:

Correct.

Armies win wars, not lone snipers.

Dare I say that we need a sniper to finish the ******* war.

[Zflyer]

Unless the proposed changes to our legally flying are so draconian and or expensive i do not see many giving up. In some instances it may be the final element or excuse for those already thinking of giving it up.

With any change in regulation there will be a corresponding change in how we go aboit things. We dont always like change but evolution takes its course anyway.

 

[MattyB]

31 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

Unless the proposed changes to our legally flying are so draconian and/or expensive i do not see many giving up. In some instances it may be the final element or excuse for those already thinking of giving it up.

If RID were to be required at club sites I suspect there will be rather a lot of fixed income retirees in their 60s and 70s for whom it could be the final straw. Many of those had second thoughts when registration came in, and that was a lower cost.

Obviously if a FRIA style solution is implemented then a large scale reduction in participation becomes a lot less likely, though I do worry about cubs and associations that operate from public land today 1 they will be at the mercy of the CAA to grant the FRIA approval, and as we have seen in the US it’s highly unlikely all established sites today will be approved.

Edited September 8, 2023 by MattyB

[Outrunner]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

If RID were to be required at club sites I suspect there will be rather a lot of fixed income retirees in their 60s and 70s for whom it could be the final straw. Many of those had second thoughts when registration came in, and that was a lower cost.

I'm in that group and it's not just the costs that would make me consider quitting it just wouldn't feel like fun anymore having to comply with ever increasing big brother laws.

I might just stick to sailing my RC yacht's with no Draconian laws governing my fun, yet.

[aidan mcatamney]

1 hour ago, Outrunner said:

I'm in that group and it's not just the costs that would make me consider quitting it just wouldn't feel like fun anymore having to comply with ever increasing big brother laws.

I might just stick to sailing my RC yacht's with no Draconian laws governing my fun, yet.

Very good point.  

[Cuban8]

6 hours ago, Outrunner said:

I'm in that group and it's not just the costs that would make me consider quitting it just wouldn't feel like fun anymore having to comply with ever increasing big brother laws.

I might just stick to sailing my RC yacht's with no Draconian laws governing my fun, yet.

I really don't see that RID is draconian - in certain situations it may well be a useful and appropriate tool. What I do see is that by imposing the  fitting of such a device, that as far as I understand things is an electronic numberplate for our LOS flown models, it would be of miniscule or close to zero safety value. Ask yourself why would we be pushed into it? 

[GaryW]

9 hours ago, MattyB said:

If RID were to be required at club sites I suspect there will be rather a lot of fixed income retirees in their 60s and 70s for whom it could be the final straw. Many of those had second thoughts when registration came in, and that was a lower cost.

 

 

Although I'm not as yet in the 60's & 70's category at only being 50 luckily, but I am certainly in the fixed income retiree category and I really don't see the costs of buying Remote ID units shud they actually come into play in the UK, If any costs were an issue coming back into the hobby over the past 11 months, with 16 or 17 different models now being a mix of Planes, 3 Helis & 2 Quads, the amount that lot all cost buying 2 or 3 Remote ID units wud be insignificant to the amount I've spent so far just coming back into the hobby..

 

Now saying buying 2 o3 Remote ID Units will be insignificant ,, Why buy only 2 or 3 rather than one for every model,, I only take 2 or 3 models to the club field each flying session at a time so for one session the units will be fitted in the models I'm flying that day, and for the next session the units will be in the models I fly that day ,,, using velcro changing a Remote ID from one plane into another will take mere seconds so fitting the units to  this weeks models from last weeks models taking a few seconds per unit really is no big deal and you really don't need 1 Remote ID unit per model although those out there many choose to fit a unit in every model and thats totally their choice so I do disagree with those who feel the introduction of Remote ID and us using them will be vastly expensive at all compared to how much some really expensive models cost

 

I Agree with Cuban 8 above I don't see the introduction of Remote ID as draconian,, anymore than I saw Operator Registration as Draconian,,, As I mentioned in another post its like any hobby where any laws/rules & costs apply, If you want to do a particular hobby then you must be prepared to follow and law/rule requirements & all costs said hobby incurs,, Ok like many out there I also own 2 ponds one being a nice sized Koi Pond,, No there are no rules or laws to follow and the koi wont need Remote ID units fitted to them ,, But the Costs of building both ponds 2 years ago and buying the fish total costs were easily north of £5K , How much I've spent in the last 11 months coming back into RC Flying... PASS, I really cudn't say as I haven't been counting all I can say its it's a 4 figure sum ..

Will the introduction of Remote ID even at club fields in needed be Draconian as many call it and spoil my fun of flying my models.... NOT A CHANCE !

 

Will the Price it will cost me to get Remote Id Units so I can carry on flying my models .... Again NOT A CHANCE !

 

I've been interested in RC Flying since as far back as I can remember & I've actually been flying for 36 years starting back in 1987,, I've blown down & sucked on so many blocked fuel tank pipes & spat out probably more mouthfuls of glow fuel than years I've been flying so rather than having Alcohol in my bloodstream ..My bloodstream by now must be in the 100% Nitro bracket by now so YES..... I really can say the hobby is in the blood

Edited September 8, 2023 by GaryWebb

[Ron Gray]

There is one heck of a difference between a piece of paper with an OP ID on it and an RID that could, potentially, be transmitting a lot of personal info. So it’s not just the potential cost it’s the potential remote monitoring / data capture of my personal info.

[Cuban8]

Just to be clear, in my book registration with sticky labels on our LOS models along with RID if it's implemented, are far from draconian but simply worthless excercises - solutions looking for non-existent problems.

I'm afraid that accepting any bad legislation by simply saying that "oh well the law is the law" is tantamount to asking "how high"? when commanded to jump for no good reason. We accept that our hobby follows certain rules and laws that are self evidently reasonable and put in place for a purpose that wouldn't be disputed by anyone with a modicum of common sense.............don't turn up at your local GA aerodrome and endanger aircraft by flying one's model over their runway would be a good one.

I submit that we've had some bad law applied to us recently and possibly more in the pipeline - not saying it's all bad per se, but just inappropriately applied.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Cuban8

[GaryW]

38 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

There is one heck of a difference between a piece of paper with an OP ID on it and an RID that could, potentially, be transmitting a lot of personal info. So it’s not just the potential cost it’s the potential remote monitoring / data capture of my personal info.

 

Personal Info...?? What Personal Info...? They transmit .....

• aircraft ground speed, altitude, position, heading, distance, time and unique serial number & possibly OP ID...

What possible Personal Info could say a Spektrum Sky ID possibly transmit that you are so worried about.. as to potential costs,, was you really thinking about the costs when you was spending all that money , hundreds if not thousands of pound when buying your models...??? I very much doubt it Maybe someone will one day think of real genuine reason Remote ID shud never come into force 

[GaryW]

Assuming Remote ID does actually come into force in the Uk for ALL RC Flying whether you fly drones, planes, helis, gliders etc... & lets hypothetically say the CAA will say similar to that of the FAA in the US and Remote ID will only be needed if you fly outside a FRIA , or in our case in the UK anywhere other than a BMFA Affiliated Club,,, All the time you fly at the Club Field Remote Id wont be an issue as it wont be needed but if your fly at your local park then it will be needed.....

 

End of the day if you disagree with Remote ID so much, then only fly at your Club Field & not the local park.... then there wont be any costs of Remote ID units,, and the wont be anything to to disagree with or get upset about... even a 6 year old can work that one out... So many people disagree with/are against and moaned about Pilot/Operator Registration but I bet they are all CAA Registered ,,,, So please I ask ... " What real harm can or will us all having Remote ID really and genuinely cause or even do ....????? ",, So far from talking to people and reading all your previous posts & comments I'm still yet to see a truly real genuine reason why we should'nt have remote ID

[leccyflyer]

Just goes to show, different perspectives - I haven't seen a truly genuine reason whey we should have remote ID, given a century of safely operating model aircraft without it.

[GaryW]

32 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Just goes to show, different perspectives - I haven't seen a truly genuine reason whey we should have remote ID, given a century of safely operating model aircraft without it.

 

In My view Leccy.... With everything going on in the world with drone attacks and before anyone jumps on me it's not just that I'm thinking of here....

 

We all remember the airport Security alerts involving drones and UK Airports a few years ago which a totally innocent person was wrongly arrested as being involved, Now I don't recall they ever found out who was actually responsible since then not only have we had to register with the CAA/Drone Registry to get our OP ID Numbers and new rules/laws have been bought in which so far haven't really made our hobby any less enjoyable,,, Now theres the possibility we will have to have Remote ID aswell,,, Now,,, say Remote ID was about when those Airport Security Risks happened.. it would have been far easier to trace those responsible and prosecute where needed.....

 

The other thing I'm looking at .. Is say you have a flyaway resulting in damage being caused or god forbid it shud happen.. someone gets hurt ... The information a Remote ID unit can give the relevant powers that be can make all the difference in determining what and how it happened not only being a away to ensure RC fliers are operating & flying their models legally & legitimately and not in an area they shudnt be or in a way that was cause significant issue damage or injury and we all all continuing to fly our models in a legal and safe way  

 

Many many years ago we didnt need driving licences, mot, tax & insurance or even take a driving test ... now we have all of those and our driving is monitored/observed so shud we do wrong beit get fined for speeding or drink driving, damage someones car or proper or worse still injur or kill someone.... with things like licences & log books  the police know who is responsible and where to find them ... So Remote ID for our models is what you could call the log book for our models or in another way its that little black box you might find in full size aircraft only for RCD models so its not just a safety thing,, its to ensure we are all doing what when shud be doing when flying our models ,, and if at anytime we operate outside of what legally required then its no different to getting caught doing anything else illegally

 

Yes I know many will disagree with me and have a different view but I will also go as far as saying ... which I know many will probably be ibn dispute with me over & yes my view may very well become unpopular with many but.......... In 100% all honesty.... if the CAA DO,, actually bring Remote ID in to force in the UK I will fully be 100% in support of it & if the introduction of Remote ID helps to ensure this great hobby continues for another century then I say BRING IT ON !

 

Now if anyone reading the above gets confused with my view on it  I apologise now .. I never said it wud actually make any complete sense .....LOL

Edited September 8, 2023 by GaryWebb

[GrumpyGnome]

35 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Just goes to show, different perspectives - I haven't seen a truly genuine reason whey we should have remote ID, given a century of safely operating model aircraft without it.

 

That's because there really isn't one...... at least that I can see

[Ron Gray]

1 hour ago, GaryWebb said:

What possible Personal Info could say a Spektrum Sky ID possibly transmit that you are so worried about

If you re read my post you will see that I said 'potentially'. We may, or may not have RID similar to that in the 'states forced upon us or we may have a different approach were more information is transmitted, who knows - none of us at the moment. As I keep saying, this is all guesswork at the moment so neither you nor I know what will happen so please don't make judgment,ents based on your flawed arguments.

 

1 hour ago, GaryWebb said:

End of the day if you disagree with Remote ID so much

Please do take the time to read my posts before you rant on, when I first commented on the potential (see there's that word again) amount of data I referred to NRID.

1 hour ago, GaryWebb said:

as to potential costs,, was you really thinking about the costs when you was spending all that money , hundreds if not thousands of pound when buying your models...???

My own finances are my business but once again if you took a bit more time to read my posts I've already stated that, for me, it is not the potential (see that word is here again)cost it is my personal data that is of concern.

 

At the end of the day, as has previously been stated, there are differences of opinion. 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Ron Gray

[Zflyer]

I am in the fixed income retiree group. As I stated it may be the final straw for some.

Regarding 'bad law' it doesnt get changed by ignoring it !

We have placed our thoughts and provided them to the CAA. The outcome is awaited.

I have no intention of packing it in, nor do i see modules, should they be required be prohibitive in cost, unless of course manufacturers decide to milk it.

Less hysteria and a little patience is the order of the day.

[GaryW]

16 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

If you re read my post you will see that I said 'potentially'. We may, or may not have RID similar to that in the 'states forced upon us or we may have a different approach were more information is transmitted, who knows - none of us at the moment. As I keep saying, this is all guesswork at the moment so neither you nor I know what will happen so please don't make judgment,ents based on your flawed arguments.

 

Please do take the time to read my posts before you rant on, when I first commented on the potential (see there's that word again) amount of data I referred to NRID.

My own finances are my business but once again if you took a bit more time to read my posts I've already stated that, for me, it is not the potential (see that word is here again)cost it is my personal data that is of concern.

 

At the end of the day, as has previously been stated, there are differences of opinion. 

 

So Potentially your are obsessed with the word " Potential "..... just having a bit of banter nothing personal intended

Edited September 8, 2023 by GaryWebb