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

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

2 hours ago, Rich Griff said:

Bob said "

It looks like another review came out yesterday from the CAA with input by the 10th January. Remote ID has reared its ugly head. I only had a quick read, lots of reading to digest."

 

Thanks Bob.

 

May I ask, bmfa, as a matter of interest, when did the bmfa first know of this new "response request" please ?

 

Over to you Andy/bmfa...

 

 

 

Yesterday. 22nd. We knew it was imminent though as we had a meeting with them about it a week or so ago.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Andy Symons - BMFA

[Rich Griff]

Thanks for the reply Andy about how long you and the bmfa "may have known" a further "opinion gathering excercise" may be in the offing, making the caa's " wishes" easier for them to achieve.

 

 Social media is a very quick voice these days, a "heads up" or hint from the bmfa would have been a good move in my opinion, a knowledgeable forwarning  of possibilities to come so as to advertise the possible event.

 

At least this forum audience has learnt of this info gathering excercise by the caa in quick time .

 

I have not read the document yet but will print it out in the library on Monday, it's only 14 pages long as far as I know.

 

January is not long away.....

[David Elam]

42. Yes, 42 pages long! Guess what. It's NOT easy reading.

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Review of UK UAS Regulation - Consultation - v1.0_Final.pdf

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

20 minutes ago, Rich Griff said:

Thanks for the reply Andy about how long you and the bmfa "may have known" a further "opinion gathering excercise" may be in the offing, making the caa's " wishes" easier for them to achieve.

 

 Social media is a very quick voice these days, a "heads up" or hint from the bmfa would have been a good move in my opinion, a knowledgeable forwarning  of possibilities to come so as to advertise the possible event.

 

At least this forum audience has learnt of this info gathering excercise by the caa in quick time .

 

I have not read the document yet but will print it out in the library on Monday, it's only 14 pages long as far as I know.

 

January is not long away.....

We have to work with the CAA to get the very best outcome for model flyers. We were asked not to release anything until they released their documentation. So it was entirely the right thing to wait. 

 

There is plenty of time for everyone to respond. 

[Dickw]

19 minutes ago, Rich Griff said:

.................

 Social media is a very quick voice these days, a "heads up" or hint from the bmfa would have been a good move in my opinion, a knowledgeable forwarning  of possibilities to come so as to advertise the possible event.

 

At least this forum audience has learnt of this info gathering excercise by the caa in quick time .

.........................................

Rich

Just a bit of information. Anyone can get the latest news from the CAA by subscribing to SkyWise.

I regularly get notices of temporary "no fly zones", and got my notification of this latest "consultation" yesterday at the same time as the BMFA.

 

Dick

[Jonathan W]

On 04/09/2023 at 08:02, leccyflyer said:

That's all well and good, but won't it also require access to the power supply, so additional leads etc? Plus possibly taking the model apart to out the device in there. My fleet is set up so that each model is fully geared up, ready to take off the rack, put in the car, fit the battery on the flight line and go - a minority require any rigging at all at the field. That's how I like it.  Faffing about swapping and changing a needless piece of extra equipment, which is of no benefit to me as a model flyer will be an unnecessary annoyance. I like Martin's suggestion earlier - surely it is for these autonomous UAS to be properly equipped so that they can avoid any other flying object that they might encounter in the vanishingly unlikely event such an object should turn out to be a model aeroplane, rather than a bird, bat or uncharted tree. Also as David said some models simply do not have the space available to fit anything else in there - at least one of my gliders has to have the HS55, turned partially on it's side to fit in the fuselage, since space is so tight.

Drive at night and see how many cars have faulty lights. It's commonplace compared to decades ago. No police around to stop and ticket people. Cars without lights are a lot easier meat than chasing after toy planes as well! So I can't see much chance of regular enforcement with remote ID. I expect the enforcement will only occur in cases where there is a higher level incident which then leads to lack of remote ID becoming apparent.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

44 pages ? I'll wait for the concise version, plenty time.

[Rich Griff]

44 pages, £8.80 but a sheet of paper has two sides.

 

Seems the forum got the message out before the bmfa who had an inclin a document was coming, just saying.....

Edited November 23, 2023 by Rich Griff

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

6 minutes ago, Rich Griff said:

44 pages, £8.80 but a sheet of paper has two sides.

 

Seems the forum got the message out before the bmfa who had an inclin a document was coming, just saying.....

 

Saying what Rich ? Andy stated here, the BMFA was asked to let CAA announce it first, working relationships matter.

[Rich Griff]

Caa officially announced it yesterday I understand ?

[Peter Jenkins]

Having read the outcome of the results of the earlier consultation, the following stood out:

 

• Overall, the Call for Input received 2,568 responses via the online feedback form and 61 responses via email.
• Overall, the largest subset of respondents stated that the only UAS they own are drones, which made up 52.5% of respondents. Representation from Model Aircraft flyers was disproportionately high (my emphasis) relative to our expectations of the UAS flying population. Model Aircraft flyers made up 34.0% of the total respondents
• 34% of 2,568 = 873 model aircraft flyers responded.  (or 34% of 2629 = 893)
• Current BMFA membership = 28,000 – so, assuming all Model Aircraft responses were from BMFA members, probably unlikely, that means a maximum of 3.2% responded!

I don't know if a 3.2% response rate is good for such an exercise but it does mean that every one of us that responds to the latest consultation will be vital.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

And when the BMFA have a thought through comment to give us, they will, may need a tad of patience though.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Yes I have to admit to responding to the previous consultation before the BMFA guidance was issued.  Happily, I think my answers were broadly in accord but I will be waiting this time to read their thoughts on the matter before deciding on my responses. 

[Ron Gray]

7 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

I don't know if a 3.2% response rate is good for such an exercise

I think that it was a pretty poor show and I would have (maybe naively) hoped for at least a 10% response. Maybe the vast majority just don’t care, or expect the BMFA to do all the work!

[RottenRow]

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

I think that it was a pretty poor show and I would have (maybe naively) hoped for at least a 10% response. Maybe the vast majority just don’t care, or expect the BMFA to do all the work!

A likely third reason for the lack of response was that for a large majority of model fliers the language of the previous consultation was pretty much incomprehensible. As was the language of the BMFA’s response.

 

As I stated back at that time, of several members of different clubs of which I am a member that I spoke with, I was the only one to actually respond to the previous consultation. None that I spoke with could really understand the wording of the document.

 

There is nothing wrong with the expectation that many had that the BMFA would be responding in the best interests of its membership.

 

Brian.

[Ron Gray]

9 minutes ago, RottenRow said:

None that I spoke with could really understand the wording of the document.

Our club meeting explained, in layman's terms, what this meant.

[Brian Cooper]

Response from just 3.2% of BMFA model flyers is fairly poor. 

 

But maybe apathy has crept in. 

Let's face it, there has been an overwhelming response of about 600,000 people to the ridiculous  20mph speed limits in Wales, but that response is being totally ignored. 

 

The CAA is going through the motions of pretending to have a consultation and, regardless of the response, the "outcome" has probably already been decided. 

[Peter Jenkins]

11 minutes ago, Brian Cooper said:

Response from just 3.2% of BMFA model flyers 

 

The CAA is going through the motions of pretending to have a consultation and, regardless of the response, the "outcome" has probably already been decided. 

Well, I suppose if only 3.2% (and that's assuming all were from BMFA members which is generous) of the largest model flying community in the UK, I would say that the authorities would be quite justified in ignoring that input as it's clearly not a big issue for a tiny number.

If you can't be bothered to take the time to respond then don't complain afterwards. 

I will be responding as well as writing to my MP.

[Andy Stephenson]

I nearly didn't fill the CAA response form because the questions were couched in such a way as to put off anyone who wasn't familiar with government-speak. My answers probably didn't accord with anything they were expecting as a response but I laboured through it to try and make my thoughts known.

[GrumpyGnome]

10 hours ago, Rich Griff said:

Caa officially announced it yesterday I understand ?

 

My Skywise mail arrived Wednesday at 16:27

 

Not sure what you're expecting BMFA to have done?

[Ron Gray]

5 minutes ago, Andy Stephenson said:

I nearly didn't fill the CAA response form because the questions were couched in such a way as to put off anyone who wasn't familiar with government-speak. My answers probably didn't accord with anything they were expecting as a response but I laboured through it to try and make my thoughts known.

That is where the BMFA’s guidelines came in handy, even if you didn’t necessarily agree with their suggested responses (I didn’t for some).

[leccyflyer]

30 minutes ago, Brian Cooper said:

Response from just 3.2% of BMFA model flyers is fairly poor. 

 

But maybe apathy has crept in. 

Let's face it, there has been an overwhelming response of about 600,000 people to the ridiculous  20mph speed limits in Wales, but that response is being totally ignored. 

 

The CAA is going through the motions of pretending to have a consultation and, regardless of the response, the "outcome" has probably already been decided. 

Yep - as a  number of folks pointed out at the time, this was purely a box-ticking exercise and the CAA is just going to do what it was always going to do. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the regulations come into force, but whilst a 3.2% response is nothing short of a disgrace you can rest assured that there will be a lot more than 3.2% who rail against the BMFA for not having done more to stop this happening.

[leccyflyer]

11 hours ago, Rich Griff said:

Thanks for the reply Andy about how long you and the bmfa "may have known" a further "opinion gathering excercise" may be in the offing, making the caa's " wishes" easier for them to achieve.

 

 Social media is a very quick voice these days, a "heads up" or hint from the bmfa would have been a good move in my opinion, a knowledgeable forwarning  of possibilities to come so as to advertise the possible event.

 

At least this forum audience has learnt of this info gathering excercise by the caa in quick time .

 

I have not read the document yet but will print it out in the library on Monday, it's only 14 pages long as far as I know.

 

January is not long away.....

Just out of interest - did you actually respond to the initial consultation?

[RottenRow]

11 minutes ago, Andy Stephenson said:

 

I nearly didn't fill the CAA response form because the questions were couched in such a way as to put off anyone who wasn't familiar with government-speak.

 

My point entirely.

 

17 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

 

If you can't be bothered to take the time to respond then don't complain afterwards.

It isn’t always a case of ‘can’t be bothered’, as mentioned above you can’t respond to something that you can’t understand.

 

4 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

11 minutes ago, Andy Stephenson said:

 

That is where the BMFA’s guidelines came in handy, even if you didn’t necessarily agree with their suggested responses (I didn’t for some).

Yes exactly. However, a better explanation of the BMFA’s responses would have been useful in helping those amongst us who aren’t so adept at understanding the terminology to compose their replies.

 

51 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

1 hour ago, RottenRow said:

 

Our club meeting explained, in layman's terms, what this meant

This time around, the consultation will coincide with many clubs’ AGM period so hopefully many more clubs will do a similar thing.

 

Brian.

[leccyflyer]

11 hours ago, Jonathan W said:

Drive at night and see how many cars have faulty lights. It's commonplace compared to decades ago. No police around to stop and ticket people. Cars without lights are a lot easier meat than chasing after toy planes as well! So I can't see much chance of regular enforcement with remote ID. I expect the enforcement will only occur in cases where there is a higher level incident which then leads to lack of remote ID becoming apparent.

Hi Jonathan I'm not seeing how your post is related to anything in my post from a couple of months ago that you've quoted. Did you intend to quote my post?