Enforcement of model flying regulations

[EarlyBird]

1 minute ago, Rich Griff said:

Just make sure your influence is to the max.....

More FUD?

[Cuban8]

It would be nice if a clear and coherent statement of exactly what risk model aeroplanes will be posing to the lower airspace in the next 10+ years and IMHO for ages after that. All we get are promises put out by the dreamers of how autonomous vehicles will be appearing in vast numbers over our heads, delivering consumer goods and offering flying taxi services blah blah blah and the CAA seem to be lapping it up. Not a shred of evidence that any of their brainstorms will be practical, let alone economic.

Yes, we do see certain specialist UAVs in very small numbers doing their stuff and very welcome they are, but some massive and broad based expansion that turns the airspace black with them or as busy as the existing road network is a mad fantasy. A warm up for what's to come - no need for hysteria, simply pick holes in the dreamers plans and show just how silly they are.

Be honest, what good has sticking on the little strip of numbers done and paying the ten quid tax? Is there an example of that system being put to use after an 'incident'? Dare I wonder how many have got bored with the idea and no longer bother or simply forget?

Edited December 10, 2023 by Cuban8

[Ron Gray]

Haven’t you read the PWC’s consultancy document commissioned by the CAA?

 

 https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/technology/drones/the-impact-of-drones-on-the-uk-economy.html

In my opinion an extremely biased document designed to deliver what the CAA wanted to see. Everything is based on best case scenario and no worst case is given, therefore the details should be taken with a pinch of salt. 

[Cuban8]

18 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:

Haven’t you read the PWC’s consultancy document commissioned by the CAA?

 

 https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/technology/drones/the-impact-of-drones-on-the-uk-economy.html

In my opinion an extremely biased document designed to deliver what the CAA wanted to see. Everything is based on best case scenario and no worst case is given, therefore the details should be taken with a pinch of salt. 

Jackanory, Jackanory.............😁

Yes I have read it and it's simply nonsense. Projections and guess work - and we know how well much of that stuff works out to be anywhere near the truth - turn on the TV news and take your pick.

 

Just to be clear - a lot of good stuff obviously in terms of surveying and security etc, but how that will affect us as model flyers or vice versa is not apparent. IMHO nowhere near the degree to which all the new proposed rules and  RID would have one believe.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Cuban8

[expat flyer]

22 hours ago, Geoff S said:

 

Nor does anyone own the sea.  No-one can stop you launching and sailing a boat, provided the bit of land you use before being afloat isn't private or restricted.  I sailed across the North Sea and no-one asked me if I had any documentation and neither did the Dutch authorities when we landed in Vlissingen  (although for my own security I had studied navigation 🙂 ).  The sky seems to be different - perhaps because a collision in the air is more likely to be serious than one at sea - though not necessarily.  At least a maritime accident is unlikely to affect totally unconnected people like an air accident can do.

 

I am, by nature or upbringing, a rule obeyer, so I've done everything to ensure I fly my models legally and responsibly.  I hope I'll be able to continue.  I know I won't be flying for much longer, so I don't expect to be affected by regulation change but I still hope other, younger enthusiasts will be able to after I'm gone.

It is OK to sail from the UK or with a UK registered boat, but the coastguard have impounded boats sailed incompetently, or by butters.

 

However, obviously the French think they own their bit of sea, and their regulations limit the operation of small boats. Distances you can travel from a safe haven are restricted according to category and there is a schedule of fines for not carrying mandatory equipment (from a chart pencil upwards ...).

Years ago an olympic sailor crossed from the mainland to Corsica on his racing catamaran and on arrival was heavily fined for exceeding the range limits for a "beach toy".

Before racing for the rich became a national sport, the French-organised Transat races had to start in Plymouth - at least that has changed.

 

People are easily put off by regulations, but my local model shop will sell anything to anybody, and the owner insists that qualifying to fly and registering are easy if you want to, so no problem. Clearly flying a large model or drone to endanger commercial or private aircraft or the public on the ground is what the rulemakers target whether you think it is overkill or not. Thermal gliders in particular want to reach heights beyond the general limits, but I assume that club sites have suitable authorization.

 

Jerry

[leccyflyer]

2 hours ago, Rich Griff said:

This is the worry and it's coming ...

 

The easiest way for the caa to control model flying, what ever the model, a flying machine, is to ban all model flying, apart from model flying at a deserted registered flying site at least 5 miles from any "risk".

 

So anything seen flying outside of the registered area is an illegal flight.

 

Gone are all the very local sites used by country members probably, and the fantastic slope soaring sites that have not been registered.

 

So, a centralised known and registered local flying site that may be fifty miles away from you and organised at a club level probably....

 

When that situation has been achieved, caa close these "now only viable sites" one by one until only buckminster remains....

 

How long that process takes is up to your "influence"...

More palpable nonsense piled on top of your previous unsupportable scaremongering.

I believe I have asked before when did you last actually fly, since from your posts there is precious little evidence that you do actually currently fly model aircraft and lots of evidence that you just repeatedly post misinformation and ill informed speculation.

[GaryW]

7 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

That's not what this fleet rental company says. I presume they have taken legal advice:

'It is important to note that, from a legal viewpoint, a vehicle is considered to be a place of work. And companies have a duty of care responsibility to their drivers to make sure that vehicles are fit for purpose and that they are as safe as possible while out on the road, with adequate and appropriate insurance.'

Your duty of care obligatons to company car drivers - CLM

 

I dont dispute ur point but ultimately it's still the drivers responsibility at the end of the day

[GrumpyGnome]

4 hours ago, Ron Gray said:

Haven’t you read the PWC’s consultancy document commissioned by the CAA?

 

 https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/technology/drones/the-impact-of-drones-on-the-uk-economy.html

In my opinion an extremely biased document designed to deliver what the CAA wanted to see. Everything is based on best case scenario and no worst case is given, therefore the details should be taken with a pinch of salt. 

That's what consultants do - tell you what you already know or what you want to hear.....

 

Client: what time is it?

Consultant: what time do you think it is?

Client: 10:47

Consultant: after extensive research, we conclude it's 10:47. That'll be £100,000 please: payment expected within 30 days. If you need to know the time to the second, please raise a new contract.

Edited December 10, 2023 by GrumpyGnome

[steve too]

18 hours ago, MattyB said:

Increased regulation that is disproportionate, complex and highly unlikely to be enforced leads to increased rates of deliberate and accidental non-compliance, not higher club membership. If you think any new pilot who has bought a 150g toy with a camera on it are suddenly going to dutifully leap online to get flyer and Op IDs and join a club because the regs have changed, you’re in fantasy land.

 

Q9, Q11 & Q24.

[Eric Robson]

6 hours ago, expat flyer said:

It is OK to sail from the UK or with a UK registered boat, but the coastguard have impounded boats sailed incompetently, or by butters.

 

However, obviously the French think they own their bit of sea, and their regulations limit the operation of small boats. Distances you can travel from a safe haven are restricted according to category and there is a schedule of fines for not carrying mandatory equipment (from a chart pencil upwards 

 

Jerry

They don't seem to mind un_seaworthy overcrowded boats crossing the channel to England. 

[Martin Dance 1]

If you think the CAA is out to get us I suggest watching Jon Hunt (The flying reporter)'s latest Podcast,find it on YouTube. Two topics caught my attention. 1 The 10.8% rise in CAA fees. 5.8% is accounted for by inflation rise. The other 3% is to fund the CAA's need to update, upscale the management of the airspace to accomodate guess what? Yep commercial UAS. Jon did suggest that Amazon and similar operators should perhaps fund the cost of this. Remember Jon and his fellow GA pilots operate at altitudes above where we are not expecting drones to fly. Truly the CAA is the Committee Against Aviation! The second item was that about electronic conspicuity. Some recently published research suggests that electronic conspicuity is at best only effective about 50% of the time, reasons being that systems are incompatible or are not fitted to all aircraft. Where they are fitted the system may issue a warning about an aircraft ten miles away. The pilot then focusses his attention on that warning and may miss the non equipped  aircraft a mile away. Where does that leave the reliability of RID? 

[Peter Jenkins]

6 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:

That's what consultants do - tell you what you already know or what you want to hear.....

 

Client: what time is it?

Consultant: what time do you think it is?

Client: 10:47

Consultant: after extensive research, we conclude it's 10:47. That'll be £100,000 please: payment expected within 30 days. If you need to know the time to the second, please raise a new contract.

I did actually have a client tell me what the desired outcome was as part of our initial interview!  That was in the public sector but I'd heard the same thing from a colleague working in the private sector.  Of course, it isn't always like that in consultancy as often the client doesn't have the time or resources to investigate an issue and calls in consultants to carry out the investigatory work and presents options.  At the end of the day, it's the client who decides what to do with the consultants recommendations.

[Philip Lewis 3]

1 hour ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

If you think the CAA is out to get us I suggest watching Jon Hunt (The flying reporter)'s latest Podcast,find it on YouTube. Two topics caught my attention. 1 The 10.8% rise in CAA fees. 5.8% is accounted for by inflation rise. The other 3% is to fund the CAA's need to update, upscale the management of the airspace to accomodate guess what? Yep commercial UAS. Jon did suggest that Amazon and similar operators should perhaps fund the cost of this. Remember Jon and his fellow GA pilots operate at altitudes above where we are not expecting drones to fly. Truly the CAA is the Committee Against Aviation! The second item was that about electronic conspicuity. Some recently published research suggests that electronic conspicuity is at best only effective about 50% of the time, reasons being that systems are incompatible or are not fitted to all aircraft. Where they are fitted the system may issue a warning about an aircraft ten miles away. The pilot then focusses his attention on that warning and may miss the non equipped  aircraft a mile away. Where does that leave the reliability of RID? 

Yes I watched that to (and commented on it), interesting how the CAA don't even mandate conspicuity for manned aviation at present which is what leads to the inevitable conclusion, that those that do have it think they are aware aof other aircraft but are in fact not, in fact they aren't even aware of other aircraft "broadcasting" because the systems themselves are incompatible, what regulator gets in to this mess is a mystery to me, it simply shouldn’t be allowed to happen, what a mess!

[GrumpyGnome]

6 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

I did actually have a client tell me what the desired outcome was as part of our initial interview!  That was in the public sector but I'd heard the same thing from a colleague working in the private sector.  Of course, it isn't always like that in consultancy as often the client doesn't have the time or resources to investigate an issue and calls in consultants to carry out the investigatory work and presents options.  At the end of the day, it's the client who decides what to do with the consultants recommendations.

Having been a client, a consultant, and an 'interested party'.... I know 🙂

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

10 hours ago, Eric Robson said:

They don't seem to mind un_seaworthy overcrowded boats crossing the channel to England. 

I brought a British twin screw 'Gin Palace' up from Paris to England a few years ago on one engine (😨) a nightmare through the French canals going down sideways, and not a twitter from any Police,,,

[David Davis]

If I wanted to use a drone, or any other model aeroplane for that matter, to drop a bomb on a barracks or to disrupt an airport I'd be sure to register it wouldn't I?

 

In France we've had to pass an on-line test which I thought was pretty meaningless, and to register each model we fly. Each model was then issued with a number which had to be stuck to the airframe and visible from 30 cms. I've stuck most of mine under the tailplane!

 

We've recently all been issued with an individual pilot's number which is nineteen digits long. These also have to be stuck to the airframe. Quite why we've been required to do this is beyond my understanding. The pilot could be easily identified from the model's registration number.

[Arthur Harris]

We are overlooking the fact that models 250gms or under are exempt from these regulations. I've never flown a model this small, so I don't know what they are like, but perhaps that is the new direction of our hobby? Everything is being miniaturized so it is worth bearing in mind.

[MattyB]

32 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

We are overlooking the fact that models 250gms or under are exempt from these regulations. I've never flown a model this small, so I don't know what they are like, but perhaps that is the new direction of our hobby? Everything is being miniaturized so it is worth bearing in mind.

 

Congratulations, you have just proved that you haven't read the latest consultation document. Look again...

 

Background starts here:

 

Edited December 11, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

20 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

We are overlooking the fact that models 250gms or under are exempt from these regulations. I've never flown a model this small, so I don't know what they are like, but perhaps that is the new direction of our hobby? Everything is being miniaturized so it is worth bearing in mind.

That is only as it stands. There is no guarantee that will remain the case. Having flown lots of models under 250g they are great fun, but it's definitely not the same as the full range of models available for us to fly at present. As far as I can see nobody is overlooking that the regulations are not applied to sub 250g models, but reading the various proposals put forwards points towards that by no means being necessarily true in the future, with the ridiculous proposal that a Flyer ID may be required in future for sub 250g models even if not equipped with a camera.  That's the absurdity, which has been pointed out that little Johhny getting a micro drone for Christmas isn't going to be taking a CAA competence test and applying for 1 Flyer ID online.

[MattyB]

52 minutes ago, David Davis said:

We've recently all been issued with an individual pilot's number which is nineteen digits long. These also have to be stuck to the airframe. Quite why we've been required to do this is beyond my understanding. The pilot could be easily identified from the model's registration number.

 

Almost certainly because that ID has been formatted with RID in mind i.e. it has a checksum incorporated in line with the EU requirements (this has been discussed before, do a search on "checksum" in this forum).

Edited December 11, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

52 minutes ago, David Davis said:

If I wanted to use a drone, or any other model aeroplane for that matter, to drop a bomb on a barracks or to disrupt an airport I'd be sure to register it wouldn't I?

 

In France we've had to pass an on-line test which I thought was pretty meaningless, and to register each model we fly. Each model was then issued with a number which had to be stuck to the airframe and visible from 30 cms. I've stuck most of mine under the tailplane!

 

We've recently all been issued with an individual pilot's number which is nineteen digits long. These also have to be stuck to the airframe. Quite why we've been required to do this is beyond my understanding. The pilot could be easily identified from the model's registration number.

There was no 19 digit registration number on the drone that killed 7 people and blew up several vehicles firing missiles and with an onboard machine gun and anti-personnel bombs which featured on telly last night. Vigil's  Suranne Jones had to identify it from the two letters and the number 1 on the side of the drone.

[MattyB]

Yeah, I haven't watched it yet but as soon as I saw the premise for Vigil's second season I knew it was definitely going to "help" us... 🤨

Edited December 11, 2023 by MattyB

[MattyB]

13 hours ago, Martin Dance 1 said:

Some recently published research suggests that electronic conspicuity is at best only effective about 50% of the time, reasons being that systems are incompatible or are not fitted to all aircraft. Where they are fitted the system may issue a warning about an aircraft ten miles away. The pilot then focusses his attention on that warning and may miss the non equipped  aircraft a mile away. Where does that leave the reliability of RID? 

 

To save @steve toohaving to point it out 😉, RID is not the same as electronic conspicuity, even seemingly in it's hybrid form requested by the CAA. Resources:

 

From the first CAA consultation earlier this year (see highlighted yellow text)... 

 

 

Steve's clarifying post on this later on...

 

[Martin Dance 1]

I know that RID and electronic conspicuity are not the same my question mark is about reliability of these systems. Following on from that if the existing conspicuity sytems are incompatible, I presume commercial UAS will have to be electronically conspicuous, both to each other, General aviation and to recreational flyers i.e us. What do you think the chances of that happening are ? Far better, and cheaper, to legislate us out of the air and price recreational GA out of the air.

[leccyflyer]

4 hours ago, MattyB said:

Yeah, I haven't watched it yet but as soon as I saw the premise for Vigil's second season I knew it was definitely going to "help" us... 🤨

I don't think my post is much of a spoiler, you would have got all that from the first five minutes of the programme.  Second episode on this evening.