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

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

7 minutes ago, FlyinFlynn said:

Maybe it is marked as a no fly zone BECAUSE it is registered

Ours is registered with the DGAC, as is our soaring site, our club site is a bit funny, the no fly zone is where our runway and fly zone is, the tables and chairs are in the pink zone. (30 metres )

[Wookman]

7 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

This is why I think we (model plane flyers) should disassociate ourselves from drones, large models, jet turbines and other models that draw attention to our hobby. Us electric flyers can keep our heads down and off the radar.

 

It has been impossible to create a separation between drones and models so we are in it together. The arguements over this have long since run out of steam. Any effort by anybody (and especially from within the aermodelling world) to divide us as a movement must not be allowed to gain traction. You electric flyers wil be equally affected. We must all stand together, electric park flyers and 1/3 scale carbon glass glider flyers and everybody in between.

 

[Brian Cooper]

Could this be one of the reasons why the CAA wants to regulate us? 

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Zapata introduced his Airscooter 6 months ago,less than 115 kilos !,  before that his Jet racer etc,,,

 

[FlyinFlynn]

1 hour ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Zapata introduced his Airscooter 6 months ago,less than 115 kilos !,  before that his Jet racer etc,,,

 

I'll be needing a larger unit to lift my body to the local Intermarche thankyou! 😉 

[Jonathan W]

My schoolboy French very rusty, but did he say, "Traverser le manche"? Go across the Channel in that thing? Notice no footage shown with passenger.

 

Actually, I was more wondering about the other headline, "Dinosaurs found inside a dinosaur"

[Ron Gray]

I would like to see the whole RID thing stood on its head. Let's for one minute assume that the criminal fraternity won't adopt RID so it will not have any effect on their activities, that then only leaves model flying. So rather than we have to have RID why not enforce those who are planning to use the lower airspace for commercial use to broadcast their presence then we can have mobile 'phone based scanners to see when one is approaching thus giving us time to take avoiding action. It is much the same procedure we adopt at our flying field, we have to have the radio scanner (set to SafetyCom frequency) on at all times and upon a call coming in we have to land. Obviously if all club flying sites were to be authorised then their location would be known to be avoided by the commercial UAS but us having scanners would cover those county members who do not fly from recognised flying sites.

 

Just food for thought.

[Wookman]

An eminently sensible suggestion but Rid is not designed to stop criminal activity. It is designed to initially extract money from people and ultimately clear the lower airspace for Uncle Jeff and his like to create all these thousands of high tech jobs and fly all their junk about.

Just another thought

[Ron Gray]

2 minutes ago, Wookman said:

but Rid is not designed to stop criminal activity

A large part of the (flawed) logic of the CAA's consultation document is that RID can help prevent crime, hence why I said 'let's assume.........'

 

 

[steve too]

9 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

I would like to see the whole RID thing stood on its head.

 

What was your reply to the RID question in the Call for Input?

 

9 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

...  we can have mobile 'phone based scanners ...

 

Mobile 'phones don't use 1090 or 978 MHz.

[Simon Burch 1]

1 hour ago, Wookman said:

An eminently sensible suggestion but Rid is not designed to stop criminal activity. It is designed to initially extract money from people and ultimately clear the lower airspace for Uncle Jeff and his like......

 

I agree - clearing lower airspace for government and commercial UASs is, I'm sure, one of the CAA's aims.  

Of course, the CAA can ban us, confine us to reserved areas and/or mandate RID and electronic conspicuity.   However, it can't ban birds.  Hundreds of canada geese live near our flying site, and they are big.  I understand that they can weigh in excess of 3kg.  Even a pigeon (18m in the UK) weighs around 500g.  

 

I wonder whether the risk of UASs hitting birds is being considered?  It must surely be massively greater than the risk of colliding with a model aircraft.

[Wookman]

35 minutes ago, Simon Burch 1 said:

 However, it can't ban birds.

I suspect they would if the could.

[Ron Gray]

2 hours ago, steve too said:

 

What was your reply to the RID question in the Call for Input?

 

 

Mobile 'phones don't use 1090 or 978 MHz.

Bluetooth

[leccyflyer]

51 minutes ago, Simon Burch 1 said:

 

I agree - clearing lower airspace for government and commercial UASs is, I'm sure, one of the CAA's aims.  

Of course, the CAA can ban us, confine us to reserved areas and/or mandate RID and electronic conspicuity.   However, it can't ban birds.  Hundreds of canada geese live near our flying site, and they are big.  I understand that they can weigh in excess of 3kg.  Even a pigeon (18m in the UK) weighs around 500g.  

 

I wonder whether the risk of UASs hitting birds is being considered?  It must surely be massively greater than the risk of colliding with a model aircraft.

Not really, since birds are equipped with rather efficient see and avoid systems of their own. The main reason that bird strikes with full sized aircraft occur is that they are just too big and fast for the birds to get out of the way. That probably wouldn't be the case with drones.

[MattyB]

On 23/12/2023 at 10:10, Arthur Harris said:

This is why I think we (model plane flyers) should disassociate ourselves from drones, large models, jet turbines and other models that draw attention to our hobby. Us electric flyers can keep our heads down and off the radar.

 

On 23/12/2023 at 11:33, Arthur Harris said:

I don't think it unreasonable. Business will win in any battle with aeromodelling if we tackle them head on. After all, ours is a niche hobby.

A case could be made for small EP models (say, under 2 kg) operating in a defined area. That would preserve aeromodelling as a pastime and might be acceptable to the CAA.

So in other words, “Your hobby is not my hobby, but despite your current operations being entirely legal, I don’t care; I’m quite happy to throw you under the regulatory bus as long as I can carry on”.

We already have the CAA and UK Gov looking to erode our access to the airspace below 400ft, yet “friends” like you and Gary are eager to encourage the authorities to regulate anything that doesn’t fit your narrow definition of model flying out of existence. It really is dispiriting to hear such narrow minded views expressed here. Personally I hope that new participants from other disciplines such as @nudge and long established ones such as @David Elam are able to continue flying their models of differing types legally and safely for many years to come, and I will be responding to the consultation using arguments that are based on preserving the rights of all modellers, not just those disciplines I participate in. 

[Keith Billinge]

I know a lot of you don't like Bruce but give him a listen....
 

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Watched it this morning Keith,, a lot of interesting facts 'could' come out of his video.

[Simon Burch 1]

54 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

The main reason that bird strikes with full sized aircraft occur is that they are just too big and fast for the birds to get out of the way. That probably wouldn't be the case with drones.

 

Interesting point - I wonder what the statistics are regarding that?  

 

My own full-size flying background is in helicopters, which are usually smaller than commercial aircraft and fly comparatively slowly.  Birdstrikes were a fairly regular occurance; I experienced one at low speed - around 40kts - which is a typical drone or model aircraft speed.  Birds were certainly a hazard for us slow-movers in the low-level environment, and I'm sure the same would apply to UAS.  

 

I don't remember any collisions with model aircraft, although there were certainly some airprox incidents.  Model flyers could hear us coming, and the overwhelming majority moved out of the way quickly.  That might have changed now.
 

[steve too]

50 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Bluetooth

 

Bluetooth 5 RID has a range similar to that of telemetry from our receivers and support for it on phones is patchy. Even if a passing BVLOS UA was transmitting it, the UA would have passed before you had time to do very much about it.

[Zflyer]

Bruce aka xjet can and does provide useful and informative videos. I have been a subscriber to his channel and remain so. Now here is the but, a little ott on occasions and his dissection of a document which in itself is not always accurate is reflected in the same way by his presumptions. 

Yes we have to be mindful and we should use our own judgement when we have HONEST fact and data present3d to us, from all facets of the issue.

This is not a critisism of Bruce but an observation.

[steve too]

17 minutes ago, Keith Billinge said:

I know a lot of you don't like Bruce but give him a listen....

 

I'd rather stick needles in my eyeballs.

[leccyflyer]

Fair points, well made Simon😎👍. My comment was mainly based on regularly being chased by swallows, model flying in proximity with flocks of geese and birds of prey, all of which are more than capable of keeping out of the way of our models. I don't have any statistical basis for my assertion.

Edited December 24, 2023 by leccyflyer
Added ID of post replied to

[Ron Gray]

5 minutes ago, steve too said:

the UA would have passed before you had time to do very much about it

Rather does depend upon the speed somewhat! Whilst I agree with your point I still believe that any warning is better than none.

[steve too]

19 minutes ago, Simon Burch 1 said:

I don't remember any collisions with model aircraft, although there were certainly some airprox incidents.  Model flyers could hear us coming, and the overwhelming majority moved out of the way quickly.  That might have changed now.

 

There have been a few helicopter/unmanned aircraft collisions. The Blackhawk/DJI incident in the US and the incident where a Canadian police UA and helicopter collided because one was using feet and the other metres spring to mind.

 

PS https://verticalmag.com/news/rcmp-drone-flying-wrong-altitude-collided-helicopter/

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by steve too

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

7 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

I'd rather stick needles in my eyeballs.

I do believe that could be a first. I find myself in complete agreement! Must be Christmas!!! Happy Christmas Steve.