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

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, Futura57 said:

I've been following this topic, though not always staying engaged with some of the nuances and technicalities of the proposed legislation. Call me a grunt, but when cheap drones became available years ago, requiring no skill or safety discipline to operate, all the crankies would show them selves. Personally I think they are an abomination. Bussing airfields and aircraft landing or taking off has brought nothing but bad press to model flying in the eyes of the public, who don't differentiate. Use as a weapon of war and in the MSM nearly every day doesn't help. I for one would vote for the BMFA tomorrow to have nothing to do with drones or basically anything not being flown Line-Of-Sight. A case of too much diversity being a bad thing in my view. But I doubt it will make a jot of difference now. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Grunt signing off.

 

This viewpoint has been espoused many times on here by various BMFA members, but look at it from the BMFA's point of view and it becomes obvious why they chose this route:

• When multirotors (which I believe is what you are talking about here; I'm not calling them drones, as we've already discussed that moniker can include all sorts of means of propulsion/lift including traditional fixed wing models with autonomous systems fitted) first came into existence the law obviously didn't discriminate between them and model aircraft - they were just another form of SUAS. This is (in the main, with a few tweaks for those that carry cameras and/or fly via FPV) still true today, so it is quite hard for the BMFA to justify actively excluding them.
• Multirotor take-up was exploding at that point, with huge volumes of newcomers coming into the hobby, and national associations/CBOs dedicated to them at a nascent stage. This included a decent percentage of fixed wing LOS modellers who were long standing members of the BMFA
• Given the similarities in law, if the the BMFA had said "no multirotors or FPV" they are likely to have lost credibility with the CAA and UK Gov which would have substantially reduced their negotiating power. The BMFA (rightly IMO) decided that we were all collectively better off with a larger number of participants from more disciplines.
• BMFA membership has been flat/slightly declining for a long time, and the leadership know there is a demographic problem on the horizon as many baby boomers exit the sport in the coming years. I'm sure there would have been a few dissenting voices at the leadership level, but I suspect they realised they did not have the option of preventing multirotor and FPV pilots from joining even if that did annoy a percentage of their current membership.

You are right that the differing requirements of the two types of member now make it harder for the BMFA come up with solutions that suit all their members - the BMFA's response to this CAA paper shows that quite clearly. This cuts both ways though; multirotor pilots were not happy with the BMFA when the Article 16 stuff was signed off, as the CAA would not grant anyone the right to operate a model aircraft above 400ft unless multirotors were excluded. This led to a lot of disgruntlement amongst the multirotor community, and I can see their point to be fair - the org they had joined to help protect their rights had (from their perspective) sold them down the river to protect the traditional modellers.

 

Either way, this is all somewhat moot now. If the BMFA changed tack and threw out multirotor pilots from the association now, the reputational damage to the association within the CAA and UK Gov would be massive, and the small amount of negotiating power they do have would go up in smoke. The cards have been dealt, we just have to play the hand as best we can.

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by MattyB

[RottenRow]

2 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

some flights by free flight models are launched with the possibility that they will result in BVLOS flight and we have all either experienced, witnessed or heard of fly-aways of free flight models committed to the air. Does that put free flight in the same potentially BVLOS category as drones?

I doubt it. If the authorities were to take the view that a ‘flyaway’ free-flight model were to be of any significant danger to other ‘users’ of airspace then they would also need to include every bird in the country above about 12” wing span.

 

There again… that will probably be the next stage of their grab of the lower airspace to which we all should have equal right.

 

Having spoken to a few fellow club members whilst flying yesterday, I didn’t find one who had the faintest clue what the meaning of the CAA’s proposals were. Neither did they understand the BMFA’s response. They didn’t agree or disagree with it, they simply didn’t understand it. I suspect that will be the case amongst many, if not most, model aircraft fliers.

Therefore none of these will submit responses; this won’t be due to apathy but down to a complete lack of understanding by ‘the average aeromodeller’. As others have suggested, this may be part of the plan by the CAA!

 

When I compose my response to the CAA’s request, for those areas about which I have little or no knowledge my response will indicate accordingly.

 

I feel that whatever replies we make might make little difference, but will still be better than keeping quiet and saying nothing at all.

 

Brian.

[Martin McIntosh]

I don`t know what the range of 2.4 gHz is at height but it is very short on the ground (we are only allowed a meagre 100mW of rf power) so somebody trying to use monitoring equipment would need to be rather close and have line of sight. It is not as if we have control say 10mls away.

 

Another point. Recently the local press said that a drone manufacturing company had set up at a disused airfield about 6mls away, intending to use what is left of the tarmac.

The whole site is still under strict security because it is used for the development of rocket motors etc.

The company decided to absolve themselves from the current drone legislation, why?!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Good post Matty.

 

[leccyflyer]

47 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

This viewpoint has been espoused many times on here by various BMFA members, but look at it from the BMFA's point of view and it becomes obvious why they chose this route:

• When multirotors (which I believe is what you are talking about here; I'm not calling them drones, as we've already discussed that moniker can include all sorts of means of propulsion/lift including traditional fixed wing models with autonomous systems fitted) first came into existence the law obviously didn't discriminate between them and model aircraft - they were just another form of SUAS. This is (in the main, with a few tweaks for those that carry cameras and/or fly via FPV) still true today, so it is quite hard for the BMFA to justify actively excluding them.
• Multirotor take-up was exploding at that point, with huge volumes of newcomers coming into the hobby, and national associations/CBOs dedicated to them at a nascent stage. This included a decent percentage of fixed wing LOS modellers who were long standing members of the BMFA
• Given the similarities in law, if the the BMFA had said "no multirotors or FPV" they are likely to have lost credibility with the CAA and UK Gov which would have substantially reduced their negotiating power. The BMFA (rightly IMO) decided that we were all collectively better off with a larger number of participants from more disciplines.
• BMFA membership has been flat/slightly declining for a long time, and the leadership know there is a demographic problem on the horizon as many baby boomers exit the sport in the coming years. I'm sure there would have been a few dissenting voices at the leadership level, but I suspect they realised they did not have the option of preventing multirotor and FPV pilots from joining even if that did annoy a percentage of their current membership.

You are right that the differing requirements of the two types of member now make it harder for the BMFA come up with solutions that suit all their members - the BMFA's response to this CAA paper shows that quite clearly. This cuts both ways though; multirotor pilots were not happy with the BMFA when the Article 16 stuff was signed off, as the CAA would not grant anyone the right to operate a model aircraft above 400ft unless multirotors were excluded. This led to a lot of disgruntlement amongst the multirotor community, and I can see their point to be fair - the org they had joined to help protect their rights had (from their perspective) sold them down the river to protect the traditional modellers.

 

Either way, this is all somewhat moot now. If the BMFA changed tack and threw out multirotor pilots from the association now, the reputational damage to the association within the CAA and UK Gov would be massive, and the small amount of negotiating power they do have would go up in smoke. The cards have been dealt, we just have to play the hand as best we can.

 

That - in bold - is the main point that I am making, in describing how I find it difficult to respond to what is the key question, to my mind, for model flyers in this so-called consultation document. I cannot, in all conscience answer Neither Yes or No to that question when, as a model flyer, my answer, from my perspective, has to be No. I do not consider that to be undermining the BMFA's efforts on our behalf and have always supported them, whilst recognising the  background to how BMFA came to be arguing for all SUAS rather than just for model aircraft.

[leccyflyer]

29 minutes ago, RottenRow said:

I doubt it. If the authorities were to take the view that a ‘flyaway’ free-flight model were to be of any significant danger to other ‘users’ of airspace then they would also need to include every bird in the country above about 12” wing span.

 

There again… that will probably be the next stage of their grab of the lower airspace to which we all should have equal right.

 

Having spoken to a few fellow club members whilst flying yesterday, I didn’t find one who had the faintest clue what the meaning of the CAA’s proposals were. Neither did they understand the BMFA’s response. They didn’t agree or disagree with it, they simply didn’t understand it. I suspect that will be the case amongst many, if not most, model aircraft fliers.

Therefore none of these will submit responses; this won’t be due to apathy but down to a complete lack of understanding by ‘the average aeromodeller’. As others have suggested, this may be part of the plan by the CAA!

 

When I compose my response to the CAA’s request, for those areas about which I have little or no knowledge my response will indicate accordingly.

 

I feel that whatever replies we make might make little difference, but will still be better than keeping quiet and saying nothing at all.

 

Brian.

I had much the same experience in discussing this, though there were some members who fully understood the implications there were others who are far from up to speed on what is being proposed and what it means. So I agree, a lack of response may not be due to apathy, but may be deliberately engineered by those who seek to make the process as opaque and complex as possible, whilst hiding behind the outward appearance of having provided adequate consultation.

[MattyB]

8 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

"...You are right that the differing requirements of the two types of member now make it harder for the BMFA come up with solutions that suit all their members - the BMFA's response to this CAA paper shows that quite clearly."

 

That - in bold - is the main point that I am making, in describing how I find it difficult to respond to what is the key question, to my mind, for model flyers in this so-called consultation document. I cannot, in all conscience answer Neither Yes or No to that question when, as a model flyer, my answer, from my perspective, has to be No. I do not consider that to be undermining the BMFA's efforts on our behalf and have always supported them, whilst recognising the  background to how BMFA came to be arguing for all SUAS rather than just for model aircraft.

 

I totally agree. The BMFA's guidance is just that - guidance. Where members disagree, they should absolutely write what they believe, not slavishly follow the BMFA line. Also remember that (interestingly IMO) there is nowhere in the response form to put down whether you are a member of a national association or state which one, so we are all responding as individuals, not BMFA members.

 

36 minutes ago, RottenRow said:

I doubt it. If the authorities were to take the view that a ‘flyaway’ free-flight model were to be of any significant danger to other ‘users’ of airspace then they would also need to include every bird in the country above about 12” wing span.

 

There again… that will probably be the next stage of their grab of the lower airspace to which we all should have equal right.

 

Having spoken to a few fellow club members whilst flying yesterday, I didn’t find one who had the faintest clue what the meaning of the CAA’s proposals were. Neither did they understand the BMFA’s response. They didn’t agree or disagree with it, they simply didn’t understand it. I suspect that will be the case amongst many, if not most, model aircraft fliers.

Therefore none of these will submit responses; this won’t be due to apathy but down to a complete lack of understanding by ‘the average aeromodeller’. As others have suggested, this may be part of the plan by the CAA!

 

When I compose my response to the CAA’s request, for those areas about which I have little or no knowledge my response will indicate accordingly.

 

I feel that whatever replies we make might make little difference, but will still be better than keeping quiet and saying nothing at all.

 

Sadly I agree. A quick check on FB last night confirmed this - so many people don't understand this impenetrable document, what they are being asked, or the BMFA response.

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by MattyB

[John Lee]

Agreed. My view in responding was to argue about my own activities - 'conventional' model flying and let those who have other interests put forward their own case. So, for example, my response to Q14 was simply:

 

14 Should CAA implement Remote ID (Opportunity 11) and why?

Definitely no

Please provide detail on why you have selected your answer::

This answer is for recreational model aircraft flying only, I recognise the need for remote ID with other aerial activities. Remote ID for model flying, particularly from established model flying sites, is disproportionate and wholly unnecessary...

 

at least that way my opposition will get into the pie chart for those opposed to all encompassing remote ID.

Edited August 31, 2023 by John Lee

[Peter Christy]

The big issue seems to be distinguishing between conventional model aircraft and "drones". I have never understood this problem. Graham Lynn got it nearly right some years ago, as mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm sure I've said this before, but I'm going to repeat it here: "A traditional model aircraft is incapable of controlled flight outside of the pilot's LOS."

 

Simple. Think about it. Free-flight is not controlled flight. Control-line: By definition, always in LOS of the pilot. Traditional RC model: Will be out of control if it leaves LOS. It may fly away, but then it becomes Free-flight anyway.

 

Only "drones" can maintain controlled flight outside of LOS.

 

Now what is difficult about that?

 

--

Pete

 

[leccyflyer]

Looks like a perfectly workable and appropriate definition to me Peter - surely that would suffice?

[MattyB]

7 minutes ago, Peter Christy said:

The big issue seems to be distinguishing between conventional model aircraft and "drones". I have never understood this problem. Graham Lynn got it nearly right some years ago, as mentioned earlier in this thread. I'm sure I've said this before, but I'm going to repeat it here: "A traditional model aircraft is incapable of controlled flight outside of the pilot's LOS."

 

Simple. Think about it. Free-flight is not controlled flight. Control-line: By definition, always in LOS of the pilot. Traditional RC model: Will be out of control if it leaves LOS. It may fly away, but then it becomes Free-flight anyway.

 

Only "drones" can maintain controlled flight outside of LOS.

 

Now what is difficult about that?

 

Nothing per se. The problem is that (whether in controlled flight within LOS or not) the authorities believe these SUAS need to be electronically conspicuous in a world where BVLOS commercial use is widespread. Essentially they want to provide those BVLOS SUAS with an electronic version of "see and avoid" where your model aircraft can make it's presence known to that SUAS via remote ID.

 

 Don't shoot the messenger... 😉

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by MattyB

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

To us it may suffice, to the powers that be is another matter, it ain't your fellow modellers who get to decide sadly.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Perhaps we should put forward the argument that to be fit for purpose, any autonomous system should be capable of recognising and avoiding any object or creature likely to hazard its operation, whether ground based or in the air.

[leccyflyer]

Spot on Martin, that sounds like a much more sensible solution to a non-extant problem. Or are we, as a society going to  have to ensure that all trees, pylons, masts, tethered balloons etc are going to also be fitted with RID?

 

Such systems do exist - my little used Mavic Pro is claimed to be safe from flying into trees etc, because it has sensors which will stop it if that looks likely to happen, though they warn that you can reverse into a tree as there aren't backwards' looking sensors.

[John Lee]

Agreed, the technology certainly exists & is being developed every day. The active safety systems in new cars have optical, sonar & radar sensors to prevent collisions and 'self driving' capable vehicles have taken this to a new level, detecting threats at a considerable distance.

[leccyflyer]

It's a sound argument and one which I'll incorporate into my answer, especially since the non-existent  drones which will be needing to use that RID data are yet to be built and could therefore incorporate such technology within them,  without the need for us LOS flyers to do anything different than we already do, in terms of See and Avoid..

[Rich Griff]

I am sure slopers will be thinking of all other flyers of the line of sight type and free flighters, in relation to rid.

 

Let's hope lots of back scratching is going on.

 

Is there a list of "established" slope soaring sites I wonder

?

 

Maybe its time to start a thread on that subject, just in case.....

 

Printing off the caa and bmfa bumf tomorrow to formulate my responses......20p per page !

[steve too]

4 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

Does that put free flight in the same potentially BVLOS category as drones? Personally I don't believe it does, as the key differentiator is the under control aspect of the drone, whether it be by FPV or by autonomous flight path programming, it is under control of the remote pilot.

 

I am doubtless in a minority here, but I think that the lack of control makes it worse.

[steve too]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

The problem is that (whether in controlled flight within LOS or not) the authorities believe these SUAS need to be electronically conspicuous in a world where BVLOS commercial use is widespread. Essentially they want to provide those BVLOS SUAS with an electronic version of "see and avoid" where your model aircraft can make it's presence known to that SUAS via remote ID.

 

You are confusing remote ID with conspicuity. Direct remote ID is primarily intended as an electronic licence plate. Range will be similar to telemetry to phones and tablets (maybe a bit more with Bluetooth 5 LR coded), obviously more to counter-UAV systems with decent antennas. Image taken from the ASD-STAN document that I linked to above.

 

 

 

[steve too]

I appreciate that nobody follows links, but here is link to CAP 2238, Detect and Avoid for BVLOS Operations which was published a couple of years ago.

 

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=10789

[MattyB]

19 minutes ago, steve too said:

 

You are confusing remote ID with conspicuity. Direct remote ID is primarily intended as an electronic licence plate. Range will be similar to telemetry to phones and tablets (maybe a bit more with Bluetooth 5 LR coded), obviously more to counter-UAV systems with decent antennas. Image taken from the ASD-STAN document that I linked to above.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough. So in that case, RID itself is really only for enforcement of the regs at this point. When I first read it I did note that they had alluded to this difference in the CAA doc (it's on page 1 of this thread), but I had since forgotten that! Apologies. 

 

PS - That "interested observer" piece does worry me. What information will they have access to? Will they only be able to tell if a SUAS is registered legitimately or not, or will they be able to get personal information on the operator from it (as they can in the US)? The latter is completely unacceptable IMO (and luckily for us I think the UK equivalent of GDPR (which was grandfathered in at Brexit) should help here.

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

30 minutes ago, Rich Griff said:

I am sure slopers will be thinking of all other flyers of the line of sight type and free flighters, in relation to rid.

 

Let's hope lots of back scratching is going on.

 

Is there a list of "established" slope soaring sites I wonder?

 

Maybe its time to start a thread on that subject, just in case.....

 

No, nothing official, but then there isn't an "official" (as in formal and maintained by the CAA) list of club flying sites of any type where all pilots must be members of a national association. This isn't required at present, as the Article 16 authorisations aren't specific to given sites, they apply to all members of the associations who are operating within the text of the authorisation.

 

However, if we follow the US path though and exceptions to RID became site specific rather than just to all members of national associations, that would have to change. In that scenario national association members would presumably have to apply for club sites to become recognised FRIAs (or the UK equivalent); then the question becomes how many of these established sites do the authorities really want to sign off, and how hard will they make it to get new ones in future?

 

Edited August 31, 2023 by MattyB

[steve too]

Just now, MattyB said:

What information will they have access to? Will they only be able to tell if a SUAS is registered legitimately or not, or will they be able to get personal information on the operator from it (as they can in the US)? 

 

Joe Public cannot get personal information in the US. US IDs transmit a serial number and locations. At the bottom of this github page there is a useful table. Note that the people behind opendroneid were heavily involved in the development of the standards.

[Rich Griff]

So article 16 must be protected, else model flying of any type( other than control line ) will not be allowed, other than at "clearly defined official sites", along with the miles of red tape involved, which is probably what the caa/government/Amazon etc. want.

 

Any model seen flying other than at an official site is banned/shot down.

 

There will be exceptions, drones etc. Like police, fire, medical, Amazon, film companies etc., with special caa/government permission But will all have onboard id and collision avoidance tech.

 

If the Amazon drone delivery revolution is going to happen then this caa survey is just the start.....

 

I will have lots of reading to do this week end.

 

Long live article 16.

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, steve too said:

Joe Public cannot get personal information in the US. US IDs transmit a serial number and locations. At the bottom of this github page there is a useful table. Note that the people behind opendroneid were heavily involved in the development of the standards.

 

Based on that table, the ICO pages on UK GDPR indicate a fair bit of that would be considered personal information, though I can see it does not include name and address info which is reassuring.

Edited August 31, 2023 by MattyB