CAA – Review of UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations

[Squirrelnet]

The CAA have recently launched a consultation on a review of the current regulations for unmanned aircraft systems along with the introduction of some new requirements including Remote I.D.

Deep within the complex document are new regulations that would mean that those operating away from ‘approved’ sites would require Remote I.D. on aircraft (unless the aircraft is less than 250g and without a camera). What an approved site is is far from clear and RID could involve increased cost of up to £300  according to the BMFA and the use of Geofencing which could mean the end of manual radio control as this requires an autopilot.

Quite where this would leave free flight is also unclear


There is a consultation document on the CAA website which I would urge Uk flyers to respond to if you have not already.

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


The BMFA have provided a response to help you through it

https://9pj2f.r.a.d.sendibm1.com/mk/cl/f/sh/SMK1E8tHeG7uhtPR1Ou67NS9oxMr/M-b0waZEMmOh


Without the input of sufficient model flyers and drone users we run the collective risk of having unnecessary restrictions being imposed on us. We only have until the 9th January to respond



So that's a 'Happy Christmas' from the CAA then

[billdennis747]

Hi Chris
I left this until after Christmas but had a go today. Unfortunately I felt the familiar knot of frustration developing whenever I have to deal with online anything.
I am not going to try and make sense of the CAA document, because it contains far too many unexplained acronyms. I am grateful to the BMFA for producing their response but what do we do with it? Are we supposed to copy it out verbatim into all those CAA boxes? My idea was to just tick the advised 'Maybe somewhat agree' boxes on the CAA questionnaire but even they don't match up. Then I was just going to write in the final box what the BMFA said (essentially, we were ok before; just leave us alone). So for the sake of my "mental health" I'm leaving it for a few more days.
However, thanks for promulgating this.
Bill

[Squirrelnet]

Hi Bill . I think the idea with the BMFA response was to use it how you feel fit. I did copy and paste the answers but I'm not sure how useful that is as it's clearly a copy and paste return and they will (hopefully) have seen thousands . Hopefully it will provide the CAA with a more uniform response to the complex proposals from the model flying community. The feeling seems to be we can't stop this happening, it is happening in the US and Europe as well but we should try to minimise it's impact on our hobby wherever we can

I would hope a personal response would carry more weight than my copy and paste attempt but the main thing seems to be to get a good number of response to the CAA consultation as possible

[DavidJP]

Have submitted my response.  I agree largely with what Bill has said.  My problem is  simply that I am now a pretty casual flyer of small mainly rubber powered models.  Consequently I do not feel I am suitably qualified to give informed answers to the questions nor to assess the possible use and application of what the Association has provided. In short I do not know to what I am putting my name.  I recognise that some who are more talented and qualified than I may consider this unhelpful but I am afraid that is my decision. 

In passing I would say that the CAA are in my experience one of the few courteous and helpful government departments who are not workshy so would give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being realistic in matters of this type.

[che]

There is a much more significant problem with these regulations that have been identified by a recently retired bod who worked in MOD PE airworthiness so knows his away around such documents. He's identified that all models/drones must be under remote control, and thence FF is in effect not allowed even under Article 16, so forget about Remote ID for the time being.

The BMFA and FFTC have his responses and let's hope for some common sense but it appears that the CAA, ESA and the FAA all have similar wording. Accordingly there is work to be done to correct.

CHE

[Gary Dickens]

Accordingly there is work to be done to correct.

CHE

If, indeed, they intend correcting it... maybe that's part of the plan...

Gary

[3view]

For what it's worth, I've submitted my return.  All but three of the questions I didn't understand, so I just asked them not to destroy the hobby called aeromodelling.

I'm starting to side with the conspiracy theorists. Namely, they are ridding the skies of drones and model aeroplanes to clear the way for Amazon delivery drones.

How convenient it is for the CAA to call model aeroplanes drones. The emergence of the drone menace has allowed the CAA to sidestep the thorny problem of what to do with those pesky aeromodellers.

Steve 

[billdennis747]

Me too Mike. I just wrote in the first box that they should assume I agree with the BMFA response, then ticked all the 'I don't know' boxes. I said I could see no mention of FF and hoped that their proposals would not impinge on us any more than they do now.
I don't understand why the BMFA cannot just send in their response on behalf of 30,000 members.
I'd like to trust the CAA but I've just watched Mr Bates v. The Post Office, and have no faith in any of them.
Bill

[ChrisH]

I thought the reference to ‘class marking and product standards’ a bit alarming.    It makes me think of CE marks of product accreditation that we see on manufactured items, which seems far removed from scratch built models emerging from a sheet of balsa or block of insulation foam.

It does smack of an airspace clearance project, to enable hugely profitable exploitation of that same airspace by licensed commercial users.

The <250 gm category still allowed small or lightly built free flight modelling, but aspirations to reduce the weight limit to 100 gm, or 50 gm, will kill even that avenue.


Perhaps BMFA can build us some large sheds, or buy and renovate Cardington

[billdennis747]

aspirations to reduce the weight limit to 100 gm, or 50 gm, will kill even that avenue.

Is that being considered? I haven't seen it

[Squirrelnet]

aspirations to reduce the weight limit to 100 gm, or 50 gm, will kill even that avenue.

Is that being considered? I haven't seen it

I haven’t seen that . I don’t think there are any plans to change from the 250g limit at present

[ChrisH]

Perhaps I am interpreting the CAA Consultation Document incorrectly.   I refer to 3.7 on page 16, and item 10 of Appendix C on page 39.   If adopted, could this become the new lower weight level above which registration etc. would be required?

[billdennis747]

Perhaps I am interpreting the CAA Consultation Document incorrectly.   I refer to 3.7 on page 16, and item 10 of Appendix C on page 39.   If adopted, could this become the new lower weight level above which registration etc. would be required?

Having submitted my response, I seem unable to go back in and look. I fly free flight; something that seems to be under the CAA radar. I would be less bothered about the weight limit because I passed their test ("You are flying your drone and a blizzard starts just as an air ambulance appears over the horizon. Do you a) put a thicker coat on, b) have a drink out of your flask to keep your core temperature warm or c) land?"). I'm more worried about being told "You can't fly that thing here - can't you see the Amazon drones?"
I would hope for a clearer explanation from the BMFA of what is at stake for FF modellers.

[SP250]

Despite many aeromodelling people stating they don't understand the questions - I did think of not bothering with it.  However, I took the time to read each proposal item and the BMFA suggested response, then formatted my replies adding in my own take at each point.  Took me 3 full evenings to understand it (I may be a bit slow in my old age) and 3 hours to do the reply on the document.  But at least they have my response.  And those who know me, will know I didn't hold back on anything!

In conjunction with the request to locate every club flying site and many of the slope soaring sites onto a drone map (as a first pass).  Only club secretaries have seen this, so the majority of club member modellers and all BMFA country members have not seen it.  I personally got the BMFA to add a new category for occasionally used sites (2x aerotow meetings per year at a private airstrip).

This is for the use of commercial drone companies to route any flight corridors away from/around model flying sites and slopes.  I really now believe that this consultation and this drone map are combined to ensure that traditional model flying is "ring fenced" and that the commercial drone operators will have to take all of us old farts flying toy aeroplanes into account in future.  The CAA will then be able to charge commercial operators vast amounts of money to use the lower airspace and us modellers will be able to carry on pretty much as before because the commercial drones won't be flying over or though our airspace locations.

John M

[billdennis747]

  I really now believe that this consultation and this drone map are combined to ensure that traditional model flying is "ring fenced" and that the commercial drone operators will have to take all of us old farts flying toy aeroplanes into account in future.  The CAA will then be able to charge commercial operators vast amounts of money to use the lower airspace and us modellers will be able to carry on pretty much as before because the commercial drones won't be flying over or though our airspace locations.

Hello John I applaud your optimism. I wonder what will happen with all the modellers who currently are able to just wander out to some convenient nearby grass and have a chuck. It will not be on any official list of sites.

[Arnold S]

I think the drone delivery companies will have far more to worry about.

A quick pot shot or two with a BB gun might present more of a risk to them, at the end of the day no one in the flying machine will get hurt and it will be like the bran tub for the fella that brings it down.  A New IPhone makes a useful prospective prize worth the risk of mugging them in mid air.  Sort of reminds me of the start of the film “Air America”

Andrew

[SP250]

Well yes Bill, I am optimistic and I am aware that it won't be perfect in capturing every single open space to be registered on the drone map.  But it is a start and the BMFA have said that this is just the first pass to capture flying sites. 
There are moves afoot (certainly around here) for regular users of a site outside of a club (flat fields and slopes) to form an association or club then get the site registered on the map.  That way at least we have done all possible.  Those sites where there are only one or two people using them then they need to get off their arses contact Andy Symons and Dave Phipps and ask how they can be registered otherwise apathy will have won again. 
Want to keep your site - then do something about it (not aimed at you personally Bill, just a call to action for all).
Even though a well informed source (he works for them) tells me that the rail companies and commercial drone companies are discussing using the railway network as the major route for drone flight routing.  Keeping within 50m horizontally and vertically to form a 'drone tunnel' for the major flight paths.  Possibly because the rail companies increasingly use drones to inspect the overhead electric wires and gantries and so are already conversant with drone use.

John M

[DavidJP]

Have only just seen this - I think you should be careful about putting a field on the map without the consent of the owner.  You see I have a grace and favour arrangement but as the owner said “I don’t mind you or a couple of chums, providing it does not interfere with my farming activities, but I don’t want to see a load of people turning up now and then”.  Fair enough I think.  And that was how it was when I was in my teens. No one took much notice of a few of us flying in the local park or Heath or even a farmers field because we were pretty unnoticeable.   I also have a few thought about how I would handle the situation if “officials” were to turn up and challenge me.  But will keep that to myself.  Our Country’s laws today permit almost a free hand to avoid prosecution under most laws and in some instances immunity.  And of course I would suspect the police would regard their involvement as low priority - if they did not regard it a “civil matter” and not their business.