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

[Outrunner]

5 minutes ago, MattyB said:

Just read from about pg 13 of this very thread, everything you need to know is there…. 

I remember it...

[Keith Billinge]

They sell us remote ID as a way to keep us safe from bad actors.....A bloke who buys a drone to drop drugs into prison is not going to sign up to the CAA and pay his subs neither is he going to bother with remote ID.
 

This is terrible proprosed legislation, which only inconveniences the people who are acting lawfully and safely already.

The man dropping drugs into prison already breaks several laws so there's no need to burden the rest of us with this rubbish.

Enforcement will be difficult at best and in practical terms impossible.

 

They've done this in the USA and so far it's been a failure as there are no units available and they are expensive. We do not need it here.

 

KB

[steve too]

15 minutes ago, Keith Billinge said:

They've done this in the USA and so far it's been a failure as there are no units available and they are expensive. 

 

I am not aware of any other country doing what the CAA are proposing (maybe one of the Gulf states or Singapore?). The US system is direct RID and is going ahead six months later than originally planned.

[MattyB]

@Andy Symons - BMFA, can you tell us when the BMFA will be releasing guidance on how it suggests members respond to the latest consultation please? If anything this one is even more difficult to understand than the last, which I'm certain is deliberate. I also find the timing (right over xmas period) rather cynical. These factors mean I am sure the BMFA is keen to get the word out to members asap to give the maximum time to respond - can we expect something in the coming days?

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

https://bmfa.org/caa-review-of-uk-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations

[Outrunner]

3 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

https://bmfa.org/caa-review-of-uk-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations

 

In the context of the UAS regulations, what is an "approved site"

[David Elam]

19 minutes ago, Outrunner said:

 

In the context of the UAS regulations, what is an "approved site"

The Consultation Review says this.

 

Under these proposals, Model Aircraft that fly at low-risk club or association sites and meet the definition of an exempt Model Aircraft would not be impacted by Remote ID. We expect for this approach to be implemented from 1st January 2028 onwards, aligning to our proposals for legacy UAS.

[PDB]

1 minute ago, David Elam said:

The Consultation Review says this.

 

Under these proposals, Model Aircraft that fly at low-risk club or association sites and meet the definition of an exempt Model Aircraft would not be impacted by Remote ID. We expect for this approach to be implemented from 1st January 2028 onwards, aligning to our proposals for legacy UAS.

 

What about slope soaring?

 

I'm hoping some form of smartphone app might become available whereby we can check-in our presence when flying such sites.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

3 minutes ago, PDB said:

 

What about slope soaring?

 

I'm hoping some form of smartphone app might become available whereby we can check-in our presence when flying such sites.

 

Not lucky enough to live near slope soaring sites, are some registered or whatever term applies ?

[David Elam]

The interesting words are "low risk". Not sure what they mean by that.

[PDB]

8 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

 

Not lucky enough to live near slope soaring sites, are some registered or whatever term applies ?

 

Some slope soaring clubs have formal arrangements with the likes of National Trust, English Heritage, etc. so may well be able to register but in my locality slope soaring is done on an informal basis.

[MattyB]

45 minutes ago, David Elam said:

The Consultation Review says this.

 

Under these proposals, Model Aircraft that fly at low-risk club or association sites and meet the definition of an exempt Model Aircraft would not be impacted by Remote ID. We expect for this approach to be implemented from 1st January 2028 onwards, aligning to our proposals for legacy UAS.

 

There is a big problem under the covers here with the proposals though, and many clubs in the US are finding out about it the hard way as the rules related to FRIAs are fairly similar in this respect.

 

Under the current regulations and Article 16 authorisation any club site can remain legal if the requisite RAs aredone and suitable precautions are taken to mitigate any risks posed by the fact there may be buildings/recreational areas etc. within the minimum defined distances. Under the new rules it's not enough for the national association to be happy with it - the CAA will get to decide if they think your current club site can be operated safely, and if they says it can't, decades of safe operations won't count for anything if your strip is 1m too close to something where you could be "endangering" third parties.

 

That means there is potential for large numbers of club sites that can only be used legally today under Article 16 becoming unusable at the whim of the CAA. And remember, with these restrictions they are highly unlikely to make it easy to apply for a new site with an exemption from RID given a) you won't have a history of safe operations from that location, and b) it's not in the interests of business and UK Gov to do so.

 

42 minutes ago, PDB said:

What about slope soaring?

 

I'm hoping some form of smartphone app might become available whereby we can check-in our presence when flying such sites.

 

37 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Not lucky enough to live near slope soaring sites, are some registered or whatever term applies ?

 

Only a tiny percentage of slope sites have nationally affiliated clubs operating from them, so if it goes anything like it has in France, RID will effectively be mandated for 99% of slope soaring. In theory that is a big problem, especially given the approach in the proposals is a high cost one because it features network ID from day 1. In practice the chances of enforcement on the average slope is so remote that I am sure most slopers will simply choose to ignore that requirements, especially as the nature of their sport means they are using airspace that is not likely to be "drone central".

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by MattyB

[steve too]

46 minutes ago, Outrunner said:

In the context of the UAS regulations, what is an "approved site"

 

The word used in CAP 2610 is authorised, @Martin_K posted the relevant bit of 2610 section 5.8 a week ago.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by steve too

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, David Elam said:

The interesting words are "low risk". Not sure what they mean by that.

 

As per the post I just made above, it essentially means they get to decide if a site and the way it is operated is ok or not, not the club or the national association. Given where the lobbying £££s and political will are at this point, how kind do you think they are likely to be to the average club operating on the edge of a town or city? Hmmm, I think the military have a term for this....😉

 

No doubt @GaryWebb will be along in a moment to tell us we should embrace this wholeheartedly as "a cost of taking part". I wonder if he will take that same viewpoint if his club site is not approved by the CAA when network and direct RID is mandatory at ~£300 a pop...

Edited November 30, 2023 by Martin Harris - Moderator
Link substituted for one without "4 letter" words

[GaryW]

On 30/11/2023 at 17:47, MattyB said:

 

 

No doubt @GaryWebb will be along in a moment to tell us we should embrace this wholeheartedly as "a cost of taking part". I wonder if he will take that same viewpoint if his club site is not approved by the CAA when network and direct RID is mandatory at ~£300 a pop...

 

Considering I spent a four figure sum on a huge box of water & system to put a few koi carp into ,, personally £300 to keep enjoying this great hobby is a bargain price compare to the £3,500 price tag of my koi pond...... But seriously it's like any hobby that incurs a financial cost,,, Do the hobby & it costs money,,, Don't spend the money... No more hobby

 

And as RID units are around say £99 for the SKY ID units from Spektrum,, I wud only need one or 2 of them to fit into whatever models im taking to the field each flying day which will easily fit into all my models and as I only take at most 2-3 models for a day flying  I wud be looking at a RID total cost of £300 for 3 RID Units

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

so if it goes anything like it has in France, RID will effectively be mandated for 99% of slope soaring.

Where did you read this ?.

[Ron Gray]

Like Matty I’m a bit concerned about the potential for the CAA to decide if a site is safe or not and the cynic in me says that they will look at ways of not issuing permits! There is also the unknown likely cost of the hybrid RID units to suit the ‘world leading’ requirements of the CAA.

[leccyflyer]

Me too - it's ridiculous to claim that RID isn't going to be expensive based on the assumption that you will only need a couple of units at £99 each. If the CAA require Network RID as opposed to the non-network type then the cost could be much greater, not to mention the massive inconvenience. The experience in the USA has been that lots of sites are denied the FRIA that they have applied for. None of this is good news.

[Peter Jenkins]

Just in csse you think the CAA has it in for us, they have published this public consultation on 29 Nov requiring responses by 22 Dec for public civil and military air displays -  https://consultations.caa.co.uk/ga/copy-of-cap403-2023/?mc_cid=764d7a82d2&mc_eid=0960923b60

 

Interestingly, model aircraft are covered but as part of full size displays.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Peter Jenkins

[Zflyer]

Again we are making our minds up with no concrete facts.

But I will say this, should the CAA deem a site unsuitable, despite the fact it may have been located and used for many years I think claims for compensation MUST be sought. certainly if you have paid a rent in advance or have a lease running, I would expect and urge the BMFA to go to Court on this matter and maybe even go to Court to overturn a CAA decision. And members of the BMFA should encourage it to do so as OUR national body.

However we need to see the factual proposals before we can make a considered response. 

[Ron Gray]

Whilst the CAA may not give a site a permit it doesn't prevent flying there, it would just mean that everyone would be required to have RID. Therefore I think there wouldn't be a case to be answered.

 

7 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

Again we are making our minds up with no concrete facts

Not necessarily, we have the CAA document and these are all discussions around that. I do agree that it would be 'dangerous' to assume that the Spectrum offering will satisfy the CAA's requirements though! 

[Zflyer]

Ron you are correct we have a document with points for discussion, the document being a fact.

If there is no approval and one can fly with RID why go down the approved site path. You could argue that by non approval and the requirement to have RID imposes an unwarranted 'burden/expense' on fliers and that would certainly be one to be challenged as it would be arbitrary.

I can think of all manner of gremlins lurking but until we know more I do not wish to stir the pot, let alone give the regulators the opportunity to consider money making schemes which they have not thought of. 

[Ron Gray]

7 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

why go down the approved site path

To show that they are 'fair' - yeah right! 

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Where did you read this ?.

We have discussed this before Paul…

As per that thread and plenty of other resources online, RID is required in France for anything over 800g flown outside an officially registered site. Since the vast majority of slopers will weigh more than that (I think I only have one slope glider lighter than 800g) and i understand there are very few registered slope sites, then RID is pretty much mandatory, at least in theory. That thread doesn’t suggest enforcement is high on the average gendarmes list, though!

Edited November 30, 2023 by MattyB

[Martin Dance 1]

Worth watching Geeksarnas live stream on the latest consultation. My view is the document is woolly, the 'evidence ' is anecdotal and probably compiled by a Daily Mail journalist. It's long on safety and security and remarkably short on proposals to manage the lower airspace to safely accomodate existing users alongside the expected growth in commercial UAS. A poor effort CAA could do better Must improve next term D.