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

[steve too]

23 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Yup - so in the event that the flying field is in a remote area, with no mobile reception, which is the case for one of my club fields, you wouldn't be able to have such a system being fully operational.

 

Indeed, which is why the system that the CAA want falls back to direct RID under those circumstances.

[Martin Dance 1]

If we start from the view of the CAA wishing to 'modernise' the use of the airspace, and that is not just the bit we model flyers use. Then it would seem to be logical to carry out a thorough risk asessment to establish the level of risk posed to other airspace users and the general public at the current level of use of the airspace by all users. I believe such a risk assessment would reveal that the level of risk is extremely low. Certainally well below the level that would justify introducing any level of external sujpervision or control. This existing level of risk includes multi rotor drones. So if the CAA is looking forward to a very substantial increase in the use of the airspace due to 'emerging technologies'. It would seem to be sensible to investigate technologies that will allow existing  and new users of the airspace to coexist safely together. This would seem to suggest the need to develop a system of conspicuity that can be readily applied to all aircraft (aerial systems) and a system which is reliable and provides data that is appropriate to each airspace user.

 

What seems to be happening at the moment is the suggestion that the electronic id is merely a tool that the Police and security services can use to supervise the recreational use of the lower airspace, there is no suggestion as far as I can discover in these proposals to enable the safe coexistance of existing airspace users with new and emerging airspace users. And because the existing RID syustems can relativley easily be removed/ disabled or simply not fitted to UAS systems used by those bent on crminal endeavours. It is all a bit of a waste of everyones time, so whether or not you are going to willingly fit RID or fight it to your dying breath is to a greater or lesser extent pointless. So far the CAA has not addressed the issue of how existing airspace users and new users are going to safely operate together. Any thoughts

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

4 minutes ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

If we start from the view of the CAA wishing to 'modernise' the use of the airspace, and that is not just the bit we model flyers use. Then it would seem to be logical to carry out a thorough risk asessment to establish the level of risk posed to other airspace users and the general public at the current level of use of the airspace by all users. I believe such a risk assessment would reveal that the level of risk is extremely low. Certainally well below the level that would justify introducing any level of external sujpervision or control. This existing level of risk includes multi rotor drones. So if the CAA is looking forward to a very substantial increase in the use of the airspace due to 'emerging technologies'. It would seem to be sensible to investigate technologies that will allow existing  and new users of the airspace to coexist safely together. This would seem to suggest the need to develop a system of conspicuity that can be readily applied to all aircraft (aerial systems) and a system which is reliable and provides data that is appropriate to each airspace user.

 

What seems to be happening at the moment is the suggestion that the electronic id is merely a tool that the Police and security services can use to supervise the recreational use of the lower airspace, there is no suggestion as far as I can discover in these proposals to enable the safe coexistance of existing airspace users with new and emerging airspace users. And because the existing RID syustems can relativley easily be removed/ disabled or simply not fitted to UAS systems used by those bent on crminal endeavours. It is all a bit of a waste of everyones time, so whether or not you are going to willingly fit RID or fight it to your dying breath is to a greater or lesser extent pointless. So far the CAA has not addressed the issue of how existing airspace users and new users are going to safely operate together. Any thoughts

 

Yep, plenty waffle, big words, big promises from them, that's how things usually go.

[Mike T]

I see that the BMFA has put out a 'call to action' urging all members to complete the CAA Consultation document and they include a link to the 'model response' prepared in consultation with the LMA.

 

Readers of this thread will need no urging I'm sure, but I think it's worth pointing out that as the BMFA/BDF/LMA are organising bodies, they are likely going to be quite measured in their responses.

 

I would urge those who have not yet completed the doc to be more bloody minded.  We've seen the way the previous analyses have been tabulated.  Reasonableness works against us.  'Somewhat agrees' and 'somewhat disagrees' just get lumped into a blurred middle ground.  Any suggestion or proposal which impinges further on us either financially or operationally should be responded to with outright opposition.  For us, it's the only valid response. 

 

Furthermore, in the commentaries, we should be firmly demanding that if any further financial burdens or operating restrictions are placed on us, it's the people who want to impose said burdens/restrictions who should foot the bill, whether they be commercial interests or Daily Heil-reading nimbys who think that 'this sort of thing should be banned'.

 

PS - to pick up Leccyfliers point - it should be for third parties to provide justification for further restriction and requirement, not for us to find resons to rebut them.  Burden of proof lies with 'them'.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Mike T

[Ron Gray]

5 hours ago, Zflyer said:

Gary is entitled to his view, which I suspect is nothing more than being content to follow the rules

Of course he is, as are others who are not, or at least have a more 'enquiring' mind.

 

5 hours ago, Zflyer said:

Justify why microlights, hang gliders, paragliders are not being compelled to do the same

That is a small part of it and has been noted by the BMFA/LMA and no doubt a lot of our replies will say the same.

 

5 hours ago, Zflyer said:

all future unmanned autonomous and rc controlled aerial vehicles will be chipped for N/RID at source

I would be interested to see where the evidence is for this suggestion.

 

5 hours ago, Zflyer said:

Your phone gives up your location, forget turning it off in some app or other, it remains detectable

Sorry, I must have missed your point, what has that got to do with flying? After all I can leave my 'phone at home but I need my models to go flying.

[Ron Gray]

5 hours ago, GaryWebb said:

Then you completely missed why in my previous comments

Don't think I have, you support it and are content to go along with it.

 

5 hours ago, GaryWebb said:

and to give you a positive... it will also help in stopping those who continuingly & regardlessly break the law which in part brings more laws & regs onto the rest of us

Sorry Gary you are in cloud cuckoo land if you think RID will make any difference to those wishing to use UAS for criminal activities.

[Ron Gray]

16 minutes ago, Mike T said:

it's the people who want to impose said burdens/restrictions who should foot the bill

Personally I believe that those who will financially benefit from the restrictions should be the ones who pay for it.

[GaryW]

6 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

 

 

Sorry Gary you are in cloud cuckoo land if you think RID will make any difference to those wishing to use UAS for criminal activities.

 

As and when RID does come in if being a legal requirement isn't good enough reason to fit them to our models then I really dont know what is

[Mike T]

6 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Personally I believe that those who will financially benefit from the restrictions should be the ones who pay for it.

Yes.  But those 'disinterested' parties who think we should be restricted may alter their opinion if required to contribute to the cost 😉 

[Mike T]

4 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

As and when RID does come in if being a legal requirement isn't good enough reason to fit them to our models then I really dont know what is

Gary, my friend, if we took that attitude to everything, then we'd all still be tugging our forelocks to his Lordship as he drove by in his carriage...

Edited December 21, 2023 by Mike T

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

1 minute ago, Mike T said:

Gary, my friend, if we took that attitude to everything, then we'd all still be tugging our forelocks to his Lordship as he drove by in his carriage...

 

Do we not already tug forelocks, money still rules if that changed I missed it.

 

[Zflyer]

16 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

I would be interested to see where the evidence is for this suggestion.

Selective editing Ron, tut tut.

I do agree we should not have to pay for any change and indeed state our case in a robust fashion.

[Mike T]

2 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

 

Do we not already tug forelocks, money still rules if that changed I missed it.

 

You're missing the point  If we don't use the opportunities we have to influence proposals in our favour, then we get bad laws handed down to us.  Nothing good ever happened to the ordinary Joe that he didn't go out and fight for himself...

 

[GaryW]

 @Mike T...... Now Mr T, Be nice or i wont let you see anymore piccies of that scorpion being flown the way it shud be........

[GrumpyGnome]

5 hours ago, Zflyer said:

 

If you really wish to extrapolate the existing and pending rules and regulations consider this, all future unmanned autonomous and rc controlled aerial vehicles will be chipped for N/RID at source. Your phone gives up your location, forget turning it off in some app or other, it remains detectable and can be turned on remotely.

"...... chipped for N/RID at source....." ?  Someone's going to enter my workshop and chip my kit-built aeroplane? How?

 

Not everyone has a phone; phones can be switched off...... 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Just now, Mike T said:

You're missing the point  If we don't use the opportunities we have to influence proposals in our favour, then we get bad laws handed down to us.  Nothing good ever happened to the ordinary Joe that he didn't go out and fight for himself...

 

 

No Mike, my response has probably been much like yours and many others on here, and responded everytime.

 

[Zflyer]

Not everyone has mobile phones, correct.

Break into your workshop and chip your kit, that's not what was said. I implied the electronics will be chipped at source and again it is merely speculation on my behalf, something I I made a point of saying in an earlier post wasn't helpful and here I am doing it.

 

If I was really going hard at it I could provide  a fictional briefing by the CAA to a Police Force to carry out an operation at a flying site. 

[Mike T]

8 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

 

No Mike, my response has probably been much like yours and many others on here, and responded everytime.

 

OK.  In that case, (to misquote Shakespeare), "Those of you who have forelocks to tug, prepare to tug them now..."

 

(this slaphead gets a free pass 😂)

[GrumpyGnome]

17 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

"...... chipped for N/RID at source....." ?  Someone's going to enter my workshop and chip my kit-built aeroplane? How

@ZflyerYou said rc controlled ariel vehicles will be chipped at source. Perhaps you are predicting that all receivers produced in the future (at some point), will be so equipped. That's just spreading FUD.

[Ron Gray]

To be fair to @Zflyeri think he was speculating that it would be possible to have that technology forced’ upon manufacturers, however legacy systems will still be around in their thousands (I have 60+).

[FlyinFlynn]

11 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

"...... chipped for N/RID at source....." ?  Someone's going to enter my workshop and chip my kit-built aeroplane? How?

 

Not everyone has a phone; phones can be switched off...... 

 

Don't all DJI type drones now come with geo-fencing 'chipped at source'?    Not too difficult to see future Rx's having network RID designed in at the factory and legacy kit needing to be retro-fitted.

 

But are you SURE your phone it is switched off?

[FlyinFlynn]

10 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

That's just spreading FUD.

 Funny how FUD has a tendency to become reality.....

 

[Ron Gray]

Taken from the DJI website:

 

By default, GEO limits flights into or taking off within zones that raise safety or security concerns. If a flight within one of these locations has been authorized, GEO allows users with verified DJI accounts to temporarily unlock or self-authorize their flights. The unlocking service is not available for sensitive national-security locations.

 

The GEO system is advisory only. Each user is responsible for checking official sources and determining what laws or regulations might apply to his or her flight. In some instances, DJI has selected widely-recommended general parameters without making any determination of whether this guidance matches regulations that may apply specifically to you.

[GrumpyGnome]

Yes, I can see receivers being so equipped at source - a nightmare for manufacturers as there will, no doubt, be myriad 'solutions'.  

 

I suspect many of us have multiple receivers so, if a solution is needed, it would be an after market add-on,nor it'd take years to make any difference.

 

Re FUD, throw enough pooh at a wall and some will stick of course. It's only these that seem to be remembered........ 

[Zflyer]

CAA consultation submitted. It was good to see in the BMFA response some of the issues that occurred to me.

I also noted in the preamble from the CAA the mention of the Gatwick 2018 incident in which they counted the costs involved.

If anyone cares to look its recorded as a 'malicious Incident' by the Police and there is no positive evidence of it being a drone, to my mind a somewhat disingenuous use of information on behalf of the CAA.

Further there is no breakdown of the 18K+ incidents reported to the police and I note were reference is made to previous consultation and the use of percentage to indicate positive or negative outcome the figures tend to be high and in some instances closely matched, when they mention some or a few no figures are given. 

Manipulation at its best.