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

[MattyB]

A new topic for discussion of the CAA Call for input from Aug 2023 (moving this topic out from the discussion of US RID regs seemed a better idea).

 

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Call for Input Review of UK RPAS Regulation v3_1 (CAP2569).pdf

https://bmfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BMFA-LMA-Response-to-CAP2610-8-Dec-2023_.pdf

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/rpas/review-of-uk-uas-regulations-consultation/consultation/intro/

[MattyB]

Exec summary for context...

 

 

Key topics of conversation within the doc - 3, 10, 11 and 12 are probably the most important, but as I said I've yet to read every word in detail:

Intro and context...

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

The approach to authorisations is discussed, but as very few of us will directly seek one of these (as we prefer to use one negotiated by the national associations) I won't post that section here.

 

I am not going to comment much on these initially, jsut post up the key sections for review...

 

Key area 1 - Categorisations

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

Key area 2 - Product Requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

Key area 3 - Remote ID (RID) and Geo-Awareness

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[John Lee]

https://bmfa.org/caa-call-for-input-review-of-uk-uas-regulations?fbclid=IwAR3Jqm4LPygF86Z4Lni3ZOpAo5NawzARckcNWfBaDzT2ETXZSSDDD7u7Fm0

 

[MattyB]

Key area 4 - Other (worrying!) "opportunities"

 

[MattyB]

5 minutes ago, John Lee said:

https://bmfa.org/caa-call-for-input-review-of-uk-uas-regulations?fbclid=IwAR3Jqm4LPygF86Z4Lni3ZOpAo5NawzARckcNWfBaDzT2ETXZSSDDD7u7Fm0

 

 

Thanks, I meant to put a link in post 1 to that, but forgot. 👍

[MattyB]

My thoughts, for what they are worth…

• Clause 2.12 on the changes to the future regulation of model aircraft sounds like it has potential for us, but we know that in recent years authorities could not agree a formal definition of “model aircraft” that they were legally happy with, so we should treat that with caution; see later.
• Clauses 2.15 and 3.13 are an “I told you so” for Bruce (Jet) regarding the potential elimination/adjustment of exclusions and allowances for models <250g. This is very worrying given other proposed changes later in the document (e.g. RID).
• Clause 3.6 discusses challenges with the current classification system for UAS. Again, it implies that the more onerous requirements in this proposal are likely to filter down to smaller, lighter machines given how they have increased in capability significantly in recent years.
• Remote ID (a combination of network and broadcast, which they are calling hybrid) and Geo-awareness are front and centre in this document. For those on this forum and elsewhere who have stated many times “it’ll never come here, it’s nothing to worry about”, it’s sadly time to eat those hats… 😉. As per clause 3.17, RID is required to be implemented by law by Jan 2026.
• Even worse, network RID will send data to a central database for future review (and potential enforcement?), and broadcast and network RID will be required to include the take-off point. This means modellers could be sought out and victimised by any Karen with a smartphone app. It’s also clearly stated that they are considering how to apply RID to legacy aircraft manufactured or built before 2026.
• Somewhat confusingly in clause 3.20 the CAA say the CAA say “However, Remote ID is not part of the Airspace Modernisation Space to enable UAS to integrate into airspace. airspace. We anticipate that other complementary technologies, such as Electronic Conspicuity, will be also required in some circumstances.” Clearly this needs some digging into - what is the difference between RID and Electronic conspicuity? Transmission range? Frequency band? Info transmitted? A combination of these? Something else? Understanding the difference and where EC will be required could be very important; definitely one for the national associations to go after.
• A crumb of comfort is offered to model flyers in the form of the statement in 3.19, where the CAA state that RID requirements could “…potentially exclude some UAS, such as model aircraft”. The problem is that this requires that agreed legal definition of model aircraft again… If they’ve never signed off on one before, how and why would they now?
• As a result it seems more likely to me that they would define RID exceptions based on something other than the model aircraft definition, most likely the requirement to fly from specific known locations and under agreed community guidelines (i.e. it being an official BMFA/LMA site), very much along the lines of the US FRIA model. As can be seen in the US, this approach is fraught with danger for modellers - the authorities can refuse any site they want, revoke the exception at any time, and may just do a “go slow” on review of a FRIA application meaning pilots are forced to add RID units to their craft anyway to stay legal.

In summary, whilst this may seem to be a friendly, touchy feely, “tell us what you think” type document, we shouldn’t be naive – the proposals within it are very wide ranging in scope.  If even a subset of these were implemented it would fundamentally change how modellers operate in the UK, putting up barriers to participation that many may deem too onerous to continue.

We should also remember that , whilst the CAA and UK Gov may be legally required to engage with the public and UAS users in this way, that doesn’t mean they haven’t already decided what they want to implement already. History here and in the US tells us they are unlikely to move from that unless extreme and effective pressure is applied by both individuals and organisations such as the BMFA and LMA (the AMA completely failed in this regard in the US, and look what has happened there as a result).

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

The only potentially slightly, possibly good news in all of that is Para 2.12 and the faint possibility that model aircraft are reclassified to differentiate them from the other classes of UAS and hopefully apply some less onerous and much lighter touch of legislation. A forlorn hope I feel - but it is what should have happened in the first place, most model aircraft are not drones, do not carry cameras and are strictly operated within line of sight at very small distances of a few hundred metres at most.

 

Sorry Matty, you posted your comment whilst I was posting.

Edited August 17, 2023 by leccyflyer

[MattyB]

9 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

The only potentially slightly, possibly good news in all of that is Para 2.12 and the faint possibility that model aircraft are reclassified to differentiate them from the other classes of UAS and hopefully apply some less onerous and much lighter touch of legislation. A forlorn hope I feel - but it is what should have happened in the first place, most model aircraft are not drones, do not carry cameras and are strictly operated within line of sight at very small distances of a few hundred metres at most.

 

Indeed. from my perspective rounds 1 and 2 of the regulatory battle between modellers and the CAA/UK Gov probably ended honours even, but round 3 is about to begin, and undoubtedly the stakes are even higher this time - if this goes badly it could have a huge impact on participation from 2026 onwards. Ding ding, here we go...

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

Some other relevant posts and content from the original thread where this was first brought up...

 

13 hours ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

You may have received a CAA Skywise email a few days ago 'a call for input CAP2569'  A review of UK UAS regulations. Worth reading and responding. I get the feeling that the CAA is moving toward a light touch as far as conventional model aircraft are concerned. I think they have realised that conventional model aircraft and helicopters fly round in circles and operate from well known locations. There is no mention of BVLOS operations as such although they are saying that they need to bring rules up to date and be able to respond to emerging technologies. There also seems to be a realisation that those who would be using a UAS for criminal endeavours won't be fitting remote ID. I think remote ID being applied to commercial UAS is inevitable and probably sensible. It will allow the police and CAA to respond in  measured way to the Karens who will see  Drones spying on them at every corner.

 

45 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

May not be a bad idea to add our comments to our local MP, Councillors. In addition recommend increase of weight from 250g to 500g or 1kg. Also point out we dont have to follow the USA or indeed the EU  despite the latter implementation of the Regs.

And if we do respond perhaps get Government to have Councils ID areas to allow flying. 

If you want to beat us with a stick at least offer a carrot!!

 

19 minutes ago, MattyB said:

(From the CAA consultation doc)... It's clear the CAA and UK Gov are thinking of going in the opposite direction and reducing or eliminating the exceptions for lightweight models below 250g, presumably because their capabilities have increased in recent years. 😞

Original Document on CAA site - Call for Input: Review of UK RPAS Regulation

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

Original Document on CAA site - Call for Input: Review of UK RPAS Regulation

 

Mods, could you insert the link above into post 1 of this thread as well please? Apologies, I completely forgot to add it originally.

[Zflyer]

I have seen the argument about sub 250g, however there is nothing to stop us asking for a higher limit.

The 'Karens! issue makes me chuckle, I can really see someone going to the trouble of downloading an app to find me in a field to either berate me or steal my gear.

The Karens who object to the hiobby already leave me snotty notes or e mail me via the club website telling me I am trespassing or some such nonsense, I raise my eyes to the heavens and ask for their redemption.

It would be interesting to note whether a Freedom of Information Act request would elicit the names of the panel deciding on these regulations and from whence they are taking advice, further what safety issues that have been identified that need addressing. 

Having the opportunity to lay our opinions is only right and proper, BUT without VALID evidence of the reasons a meaningful response carries less weight.

I will be reading again the document issued by the CAA. I have little doubt that legislation will be passed which will mean a change in out look for our hobby, however it should not prevent us from enjoying it, not all of the obstacles will be too onerous, expensive of beyond our reach.

Smile guys, it worries people!

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Zflyer said:

I have seen the argument about sub 250g, however there is nothing to stop us asking for a higher limit.

 

...but plenty of evidence to suggest we have as much chance of success as brewing our next beverage in a chocolate teapot...

 

1 hour ago, Zflyer said:

The 'Karens! issue makes me chuckle, I can really see someone going to the trouble of downloading an app to find me in a field to either berate me or steal my gear.

The Karens who object to the hobby already leave me snotty notes or e mail me via the club website telling me I am trespassing or some such nonsense, I raise my eyes to the heavens and ask for their redemption.

 

Probably a fair comment for the UK; I can see why it is considered a bigger problem in the US though given there is significantly higher chance that Karen will be carrying a concealed firearm!

 

1 hour ago, Zflyer said:

It would be interesting to note whether a Freedom of Information Act request would elicit the names of the panel deciding on these regulations and from whence they are taking advice, further what safety issues that have been identified that need addressing. 

1. Freedom of information requests are easily dodged, all they have to say is it's too expensive/time consuming/irrelevant etc. and they don't have to give a meaningful response.
2. This has never been about safety; it's always been about commercial access to the skies below 400ft, way back to the Riga declaration in 2015. "Improvements in safety" are just the way they sell the idea of greater regulation to Daily Mail readers... 😉

1 hour ago, Zflyer said:

Having the opportunity to lay our opinions is only right and proper, BUT without VALID evidence of the reasons a meaningful response carries less weight.

 

Agreed - I guess that is why the BMFA have hold us to hold our horses, they want to give members some hard facts to quote and use in their responses.

 

1 hour ago, Zflyer said:

I will be reading again the document issued by the CAA. I have little doubt that legislation will be passed which will mean a change in out look for our hobby, however it should not prevent us from enjoying it, not all of the obstacles will be too onerous, expensive of beyond our reach.

Smile guys, it worries people!

 

Err, it absolutely should worry people! Handled poorly as in the US (with deadlines for compliance looming but almost no FRIAs granted and almost no RID units available for sale), this could lead to the criminalisation of model flyers. We have 2 1/2 years to react - the challenge to modellers and national associations here is how to do that in the most effective way that protects as much as possible of model flying here in the UK.

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[John Stainforth]

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

My thoughts, for what they are worth…

• Clause 2.12 on the changes to the future regulation of model aircraft sounds like it has potential for us, but we know that in recent years authorities could not agree a formal definition of “model aircraft” that they were legally happy with, so we should treat that with caution; see later.
• Clauses 2.15 and 3.13 are an “I told you so” for Bruce (Jet) regarding the potential elimination/adjustment of exclusions and allowances for models <250g. This is very worrying given other proposed changes later in the document (e.g. RID).
• Clause 3.6 discusses challenges with the current classification system for UAS. Again, it implies that the more onerous requirements in this proposal are likely to filter down to smaller, lighter machines given how they have increased in capability significantly in recent years.
• Remote ID (a combination of network and broadcast, which they are calling hybrid) and Geo-awareness are front and centre in this document. For those on this forum and elsewhere who have stated many times “it’ll never come here, it’s nothing to worry about”, it’s sadly time to eat those hats… 😉. As per clause 3.17, RID is required to be implemented by law by Jan 2026.
• Even worse, network RID will send data to a central database for future review (and potential enforcement?), and broadcast and network RID will be required to include the take-off point. This means modellers could be sought out and victimised by any Karen with a smartphone app. It’s also clearly stated that they are considering how to apply RID to legacy aircraft manufactured or built before 2026.
• Somewhat confusingly in clause 3.20 the CAA say the CAA say “However, Remote ID is not part of the Airspace Modernisation Space to enable UAS to integrate into airspace. airspace. We anticipate that other complementary technologies, such as Electronic Conspicuity, will be also required in some circumstances.” Clearly this needs some digging into - what is the difference between RID and Electronic conspicuity? Transmission range? Frequency band? Info transmitted? A combination of these? Something else? Understanding the difference and where EC will be required could be very important; definitely one for the national associations to go after.
• A crumb of comfort is offered to model flyers in the form of the statement in 3.19, where the CAA state that RID requirements could “…potentially exclude some UAS, such as model aircraft”. The problem is that this requires that agreed legal definition of model aircraft again… If they’ve never signed off on one before, how and why would they now?
• As a result it seems more likely to me that they would define RID exceptions based on something other than the model aircraft definition, most likely the requirement to fly from specific known locations and under agreed community guidelines (i.e. it being an official BMFA/LMA site), very much along the lines of the US FRIA model. As can be seen in the US, this approach is fraught with danger for modellers - the authorities can refuse any site they want, revoke the exception at any time, and may just do a “go slow” on review of a FRIA application meaning pilots are forced to add RID units to their craft anyway to stay legal.

In summary, whilst this may seem to be a friendly, touchy feely, “tell us what you think” type document, we shouldn’t be naive – the proposals within it are very wide ranging in scope.  If even a subset of these were implemented it would fundamentally change how modellers operate in the UK, putting up barriers to participation that many may deem too onerous to continue.

We should also remember that , whilst the CAA and UK Gov may be legally required to engage with the public and UAS users in this way, that doesn’t mean they haven’t already decided what they want to implement already. History here and in the US tells us they are unlikely to move from that unless extreme and effective pressure is applied by both individuals and organisations such as the BMFA and LMA (the AMA completely failed in this regard in the US, and look what has happened there as a result).

 

The AMA have not "completely failed" in the US. I think they did a pretty good job liasing with the US government during the development of the new regulations, which in practice are not very onerous at all.

 

Any idea that the UK can part significantly from the standards being set for aviation elsewhere (in the EU, US etc) as a result of leaving the EU, is wishful thinking or political propaganda. The new regulations are largely safety-driven and are converging on a common "best-practice" world-wide.

[PDB]

20 minutes ago, MattyB said:

Handled poorly as in the US (with deadlines for compliance looming but almost no FRIAs granted

200 FRIA approvals reported 8 days ago https://youtu.be/1XjTbsoYVNc 👍

[Ron Gray]

Well laid out Matt, thanks. 

[MattyB]

33 minutes ago, John Stainforth said:

The AMA have not "completely failed" in the US. I think they did a pretty good job liasing with the US government during the development of the new regulations, which in practice are not very onerous at all.

 

There are huge volumes of modellers in the US who would disagree with you. The majority perception seems to be that AMA pretty much threw anyone not flying at an AMA site under the bus, presumably because they thought the fact the only way out of RID was to become a member of a community based association (e.g. the AMA) and fly from one of their sites. See some of the comments under this AMA video for a flavour.

 

Also bear in mind that there are precious few commercially available RID modules available at this point, and despite the FAAs <$50 estimate, the ones that are nearing release are at least double that, so complying on Sept 16th would appear to be pretty onerous to me unless you are one of the lucky few whose site has been designated a FRIA.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

34 minutes ago, PDB said:

200 FRIA approvals reported 8 days ago https://youtu.be/1XjTbsoYVNc 👍

 

200 does = almost none I'm afraid! Estimates for required FRIAs vary, but most are between 1500 and 4000 (FAA's own estimate) applications by the deadline on Sept 16th, with at least 1200 submitted to the AMA to date. The AMA alone has nearly 2500 clubs listed on it's website, and many of those will have more than one flying location. 200 is therefore a drop in the ocean, and plenty of established sites are getting rejected too. 

 

Unless the FAA ramp up their approvals rate massively there are going to be a lot of well established sites without approvals come the deadline.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by MattyB

[Zflyer]

I laugh, safety driven show me the evidence.

Best practise, who has the best lobbyist's

 

FRIA's in the USA. I would suspect the cut off point would be legally challengeable as the infastructure for dealing with applications is not there. Enforced closure because of lack of process by enforcing agents would be well challengeable.

Just because there is an opportunity to dodge an FIA request doesnt mean it shouldnt be done Matt, does it

Edited August 17, 2023 by Zflyer
Addendum

[Brian Cooper]

The CAA has a long-standing reputation for meaning "Completely Against Aviation".

 

Never pat a burning dog. . . and never trust a snake. 

 

Whatever they have in mind, it won't be for the advancement or benefit of R/C model flying.  

[MattyB]

5 hours ago, Zflyer said:

FRIA's in the USA. I would suspect the cut off point would be legally challengeable as the infastructure for dealing with applications is not there. Enforced closure because of lack of process by enforcing agents would be well challengeable.

Yes, I agree. It’s a lot of faff and cost to do so though which most modellers wouldn’t be able to afford or stomach.

 

5 hours ago, Zflyer said:

Just because there is an opportunity to dodge an FIA request doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done Matt, does it

 

I suppose not, but if we know it won’t advance our cause, I’m not sure what the point is other than to temporarily make us feel better that we’re doing something. It is after all extremely doubtful the CAA or UK Gov would release anything that would paint them in a bad light - they will have plenty of stats and “evidence” demonstrating why they have chosen the route they have.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I don't recall anyone saying RID will never happen, who are the people who're gonna be eating their hats ?

 

[Zflyer]

Matty B: The beauty of stats is they can work in the opposite direction, its the methodology used that holds the key. 

I also think they use 'Class Action' in the USA, I am sure if enough modellers and even members of the AMA, if not the AMA itself, went down this road it would force a response even if it only opened up media exposure. Something Xjet (Bruce Simpson) seems keen on. Surprised no one is considering it.

Apologises to all who are reading the discourse between Matty B and I, and have no interest.

Like Matty B, I am not a fan of over regulation, certainly not regulation for regulations sake.

I watch and listen with interest to the ongoing issues.