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

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

2 hours 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.  

It really really isn't. The CAA have been given a task by Government to enable BVLOS drone operations, there fore they are making proposals to integrate them into the airspace, which happens to be in the bit we are going to have to share with them.

 

If it was a CAA aim (or Govt) we would be out of the airspace. It really is that simple.

 

Our challenge, and I don't just mean the BMFA’s I mean the BMFA/LMA etc and all of us as individuals is to do all we can to ensure whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible.

[Simon Burch 1]

46 minutes ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

It really really isn't. The CAA have been given a task by Government to enable BVLOS drone operations, there fore they are making proposals to integrate them into the airspace, which happens to be in the bit we are going to have to share with them.

 

If it was a CAA aim (or Govt) we would be out of the airspace. It really is that simple.

 

Our challenge, and I don't just mean the BMFA’s I mean the BMFA/LMA etc and all of us as individuals is to do all we can to ensure whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible.

Andy, you're right - 'clear the airspace' is the wrong term.  

Perhaps 'control the airspace' would be more appropriate - ie 'you can only fly here if you carry certain equipment and comply with certain rules'.  That's how controlled airspace currently works.

 

To my mind, what the CAA's proposals do is, effectively, extend controlled airspace-type regulation (specifically rules and equipment) into airspace that is currently uncontrolled, and to apply those controls to aircraft types that are presently subject to minimal regulation.

 

We'll have to accept some of that.  As you rightly say, we need to do our best to ensure that:

'whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible'.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Simon Burch 1

[Mike T]

I flagged this up way, way back.  In May 2018, when the latest raft of regulations were imposed, a joint press release from the DoT, CAA and the Aviation Minister at the time (Baroness Sugg) stated, amongst other things:

 

"For model aircraft flying associations who have a long-standing safety culture, work is underway with the CAA to make sure drone regulations do not impact their activity."

 

(new drone laws - about half way down the page.  Italics/bold are mine).

 

That's a pretty unequivocal statement and the govt CAA should be reminded of it, politely but firmly.

 

Settling for "as little impact as possible" is a retreat from that position.  Give an inch...

 

 

[steve too]

28 minutes ago, Mike T said:

In May 2018, when the latest raft of regulations were imposed, a joint press release from the DoT, CAA and the Aviation Minister at the time (Baroness Sugg) stated, amongst other things:

 

"For model aircraft flying associations who have a long-standing safety culture, work is underway with the CAA to make sure drone regulations do not impact their activity."

 

I don't know how to break this to you Mike, but you can't trust politicians.

[leccyflyer]

2 hours ago, GaryWebb said:

 

I'm encouraging nothing so please leave my name out of it 

You've gone on the record in this forum strongly supporting the implementation of RID and essentially stating that anyone who does not support increased regulation of sites ought to just leave the hobby. It's difficult to imagine a more explicit encouragement of those measures.

[Mike T]

1 hour ago, steve too said:

 

I don't know how to break this to you Mike, but you can't trust politicians.

A given! 😂  And if you call them liars, they look upon it as an accomplishment!

[leccyflyer]

25 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:

 

That's not what I said, if you're going to quote someone at least quote them correctly.... I dont know what game you , Matty and others are playing more when you start twisting what people say.... but I will ask respectfully to leave me out of it and grow up,, all you guys have done is go on the attack on anyone that have a different view to you and wont play your game.. I for one am not playing your little game.. Thinks it's time to have a look at this ignore button myself now

Like I said, you've gone on the record explicitly supporting the implementation of RID. I can quote the posts in which you did that. No twisting required, all entirely your own words.

[leccyflyer]

On 21/12/2023 at 13:26, GaryWebb said:

 

I've just had a quick recap on my previous comments in the thread and I think i have already said why I support it which as i mentioned above that view is unchanged after now reading the documentation I dont know what else you want me to say ,, one thing I've not seen anywhere unless my cheap non-specsavers glasses as failed me for, is a compelling reason why Remote Id shud never be implemented???.. or a compelling argument for me any im sure many others out there to have a change of mind in view and to not support it.... I await patiently for such compelling reasons/arguments

 

I can say no more than that

 

On 24/11/2023 at 16:55, GaryWebb said:

At the end of the day just like Christmas,,, Remote ID is coming and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it  Personally in all 100% honesty I support and agree with the introduction of Remote ID

 

On 06/09/2023 at 14:41, GaryWebb said:

 

I'm very sorry but anyone openly saying they will stick 2 fingers up to whatever rules/laws are passed regarding what we are legally required to do to continue flying legally and legitimately shouldn't be in the hobby and anyone that refused to follow the laws & rules that ensure we do things above board i truly hope get caught and prosecuted in the same way you would for driving without a license, insurance, tax ,mot or worse still drink driving

 

And I'm gonna order a couple of Spektrum Sky ID units asap so i'm prepared for if and when remote id does come in to force

 

On 08/09/2023 at 18:13, GaryWebb said:

 

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

 

On 08/09/2023 at 20:39, GaryWebb said:

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

 

On 08/09/2023 at 21:34, GaryWebb said:

 

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

On 08/09/2023 at 18:13, GaryWebb said:

 

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

There you go Gary - all in your own words, no editing or twisting and your position is quite clearly in explicit support for the implementation of RID and restrictions on model flying fields.

[Ron Gray]

Careful guys or the mods will come in and say 'time to move on'.

[Ron Gray]

In a debate, arguments are put forward for common opposing viewpoints.

[Don Fry]

Don’t need a mod, move on lads and lasses. Note non sexist post.

[Ron Gray]

😢😭😢

[David Elam]

5 minutes ago, Tim Kearsley said:

Cheerio.  I think it's about time to pull stumps on this thread, there's little of value being said any more.

Sorry, but this CAA consultation is very much a live matter (deadline Jan10th) and also possibly the most important thing affecting our hobby, ever. I don't see why a very small proportion of people should cause this thread to be closed. The discussion should continue.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Ok, for obvious reasons, some of the last few posts have been removed as they broke the site’s COC.  
Thread remains open. 

[Don Fry]

A’men.

[nudge]

I am not sure where I stand on the RID thing. For starters I am not sure every model will be able to fit the module, I could probably get one on a 5 inch quad but there is no way I could get one onto the 3 inch quad, does that mean I can no longer fly the smaller one. I know they are saying we would probably not need it at a bmfa site but we do have an old building near here we occasionally fly at. Similarly a friend of mine flys dlg and having see some pics of his builds where he has had to cut servo lugs off just to get the kit in then there is no way he could fit a module in there. Again not an issue on a club site but he lives in Devon and can fly pretty much anywhere on dartmoor I believe.

Some sort of mobile app that logs your location has been suggested but not every area has a signal - my mate on dartmoor for example. Personally i wonder if we could have a website that allows you to pre-log your intention to fly, ie. log on in the morning to state where and when you will be flying that day. This would eliminate the need for modules or a phone signal and the authorities would still know who was flying where and when - obviously apart from those with bad intentions who are never going to comply with any regs anyway.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Best I can offer Nudge is, if they become required there will be money to be made in smaller devices, and we've a way to go yet time wise.

[MattyB]

10 hours ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

It really really isn't. The CAA have been given a task by Government to enable BVLOS drone operations, there fore they are making proposals to integrate them into the airspace, which happens to be in the bit we are going to have to share with them.

 

If it was a CAA aim (or Govt) we would be out of the airspace. It really is that simple.

 

Our challenge, and I don't just mean the BMFA’s I mean the BMFA/LMA etc and all of us as individuals is to do all we can to ensure whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible.

 

9 hours ago, Simon Burch 1 said:

Andy, you're right - 'clear the airspace' is the wrong term.  

Perhaps 'control the airspace' would be more appropriate - ie 'you can only fly here if you carry certain equipment and comply with certain rules'.  That's how controlled airspace currently works.

 

To my mind, what the CAA's proposals do is, effectively, extend controlled airspace-type regulation (specifically rules and equipment) into airspace that is currently uncontrolled, and to apply those controls to aircraft types that are presently subject to minimal regulation.

 

We'll have to accept some of that.  As you rightly say, we need to do our best to ensure that:

'whatever proposals are implemented are proportional and pragmatic so we can carry on our activities with as little impact as possible'.

They won’t say it, but I do believe the long game (I.e. beyond the current RID implementation proposal) of UK Gov is to clear the airspace below 400ft, at least in the vast majority of areas where commercial BVLOS is tenable and potentially lucrative.
 

UK Gov won’t try to ban recreational model flying of course - that makes them look overly officious, and is probably more easily challenged in the courts - but make it just onerous and costly enough that all but the keenest recreational users can’t be bothered, and it becomes a far easier place for commercial and military users to operate. I doubt they will care that the odd recreational slope soarer or camera equipped UAS flies in remote places in contravention of any new RID regs, as long as major cities and key pathways between them can be kept clear (I.e. no annoying FRIAs causing routing issues), and enforcement is easy whenever they want/need to do so. We will only truly find out though when the final process for authorising the UK equivalent of FRIAs is announced after responses to this “consultation” are reviewed, analysed and duly ignored by the CAA… 🙄

Edited December 24, 2023 by MattyB

[Peter Jenkins]

Well Matty, I disagree with your general thrust that the Government is trying to make life as difficult as possible for model flyers.  However, we will have to wait for the full plan to be rolled out over a number of years before either of us can be sure of what might or might not happen.

 

I can see that there might be merit in some form of "airway routing" in the below 400 ft area.  However, if we have our flying sites identified then it shouldn't be that difficult to allow direct point to point routing and avoiding all the identified model flying sites, full size airfields, danger areas and other notified sensitive areas.

 

At the moment, if it comes down to no RID or NRID required at notified sites then I suspect the vast majority of us will not see much difference.  The issue then becomes how do you go about getting new notified flying sites since we can easily lose a site with a change of owner or planning change.

[Brian Cooper]

Merry Christmas. 

[ken anderson.]

Merry Christmas Brian.....apart from all the consultation stuff and rules and regs we now operate under... I'm optimistic about what is going to happen in reality....I take the Andy Symons view that if we were to be removed from the sky...they would do it without consulting us etc...

 

Ken Anderson...ne...1 Christmas/0ptimistic dept.

Edited December 25, 2023 by ken anderson.
Spellin

[Ron Gray]

7 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

However, if we have our flying sites identified then it shouldn't be that difficult to allow direct point to point routing

But what about those (slopies etc) who don’t fly from ‘recognised’ sites? I’m against RID as much for them as for me.

 

Merry Christmas btw. 

[Simon Burch 1]

1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:

But what about those (slopies etc) who don’t fly from ‘recognised’ sites? I’m against RID as much for them as for me.

 

Merry Christmas btw. 

 

You're right, and I'm not sure that RID is the only problem.  As I see it, if geo-fencing becomes a msndatory requirement too, it would effectively mandate an autopilot as well as RID equipment.  

 

Merry Christmas!

[ken anderson.]

Well reading this Thread....opinions are full of if's and buts.....and I'm all for the different views.....but as I've mentioned Andy(BMFA) has said .... they would have banned model flying if they want the sole use of the sky......I will put my faith in the BMFA,LMA and the rest.......just hope that the new regs aren't too prohibitive......and we don't get Kapowed financially.....to fly our models.

 

Ken Anderson....ne ....1 optimistic dept.

 

 

 

 

[FiddleSticks]

Hi guys, skim read the first two pages, noticed a few points I can make..

 

Many of our laws cannot be policed as we have very few resources. They rely on the goodwill of the public obeying them.

 

The reality is that you can get away with a lot in this hobby and most aren't really bothered but if the law exists and something bad happens it gives the authorities a chance to take action. I once heard someone describe this as "it's there if they want to" type of law or "pick and mix" if that makes it easier.

 

Insurers will always try to wriggle out of a payment. That is the nature of their business - take your money and keep it. If you don't play by the rules, they'll use that to leave you on your own. If that's the case and you end up owing stacks of cash to someone, the Bailiffs could end up seizing your RC collection anyway so it's probably best to comply.

 

The CAA has to be seen to be doing *something* to protect the citizens below is airspace. The reality is that they know they cannot police every single modeller, the police also know they can't too. Be considerate and you'll be left alone, be a problem and they can haul you over the coals and quote the law and punishments at you.

 

Many authorities already have the legal right to break into your house - from the fire brigade to HMRC. They don't use these powers though unless they need to. 

 

Drones are the real problem the CAA is facing along with anything else that can self navigate.