The CAA has published a ‘Call For Input’ as part of its review of UK UAS Regulations.
This Call for Input seeks views from UAS stakeholders on opportunities to improve regulation of UAS. Feedback will be used by CAA, in addition to other evidence and analysis, to inform a future consultation on the changes we propose to progress.
Please read our FPV UK response document (which contains the CAA’s preamble and questions, and then our answer and rationale) and then comment here and respond to the CAA before 07.09.2023.
FPV UK CAA Call for Input response document (PDF):
FPV UK CAA Call for Input response document YouTube video:
Personally I rely heavily on our Open Category infographic (fpv.uk/openinfog) to explain the rules to those who ask me questions. The infographic does its job well, but does the fact I need to use that suggest that the rules themselves are too complex? (Or do the CAA just need to use our infographic widely!)
Perhaps, rather than A1, A2, A3, something like ‘Basic’,‘Advanced’ or ‘Low risk’, ‘High risk’ might be easier to understand? What do you all think?
Does diverging from the EU rules matter, since there is no agreement with the EU to allow us to fly our drones there anyhow? Unless there is a plan to implement a bilateral agreement to allow that, I can’t see a good reason to continuing to be aligned with Brussels with our drone rules.
Hello All,
I joined this thread with the desire to join the dialogue & assist in creating the formal responses used by both FPVUK and by FPVUK members.
I also want to encourage all members to respond individually,
reiterating some of the key messages created for the FPVUK response.
As a starter, two points I would like to put forward for discussion:
I am ok with simplification of regulations, in principle, however, this must not be at the expense
of some categories of aircraft which currently enjoy more relaxed operational
requirements (such as existing sub-250g aircraft) being aligned with those categories
that have more onerous requirements.
Request that the CAA, for any amended or new operational requirement:
clarifies the specific risk(s) and the pragmatic and specific ways in which
the new operational requirements mitigates such risk(s).
i.e. provide transparent justification for changes as opposed to a vague notion
that it will deliver improvements.
I would go even futher to suggest that part of the response to Question 2
is an addtional objective whereby the CAA creates system of
ongoing assessment/improvement: whereby the effectiveness of new
(specifically risk/safety) operational requirements must be able to be and IS measured,
such that analysis of statistics allows decisions to be made to adjust
(i.e. expand or even eliminate ineffective) requirements in the future.
A declaration of intent by the CAA to publish targets and subsequent measurements
against these targets would be even more welcome.
Any feedback on these initial suggestions is warmly welcomed.
Has everyone heard about the new CAA consultation. What are people’s thoughts on this. It still looks like they do not realise that illegal operators that do not follow rules will not follow more rules especially remote ID which is a big part of this consultation. Article 16 is mentioned as well. There is talk of remote ID on under 250g drone in some circumstances but they do not say what they are. I hate paperwork but I will be do this consultation in fact I’ve already read it. Just got to answer the question. Anything we should say as a group Simon Dale?
here is the consultation.
Beat me to it guys.
So far I’ve just skimmed through the documents but remote ID stuck out. Great intentions from the CAA point of view but as per DronePilot01’s they do not realise that illegal operators do not and will not follow rules. There are also issues with range of remote ID (wi-fi & Bluetooth!!!) and signal coverage if working via a network,
Also, in speaking yesterday to a major operator Flight Safety Officer, the crews do not want to be further swamped with input if overflying way above a field full of UAV models.
However, just one point to mention. To me; remote ID and electronic conspicuity are two (slightly) different things.
Remote ID is supposed to give someone on the ground an ‘electronic numberplate’ for a drone overhead.
Electronic conspicuity is the part that might alert another aircraft about your drone.
The CAA certainly keeps the two things quite separate internally. I’m on the electronic conspicuity group call, remote ID is not mentioned.
Remote ID is being pushed more by the NPCC and DfT I believe.
When I fly full size, I have my PilotAware set to only show me traffic within 1000ft vertically. Otherwise my screen is full of airliners going into Gatwick, etc. Likewise, an airliner could presumably filter out drones more than 1000ft below, etc.
It like a tracker in your car keys. So I do not get the licence plate statement. It’s false because we do not have trackers in car keys. I already use drone assist so this seems a point less exercise and added expense for no reason. They just have to make it compulsory to use drone assist. This whole thing is strange?? I personally don’t have a problem with any of this apart from the fact that we’re not being told the real purpose and it feels dishonest somehow.
I would happily put all my flight on drone assist so I do not get what the difference is. Look at American it was supposed to be a $50 item but the cheapest I seen so far is $300.
They will get what they want instead of the other way round. I do get what you saying the legacy consultation that had a hidden question about c Mark drones that we never got to answer seems dishonest to me. Especially when they scrapped the whole thing.
Remote ID is not a good thing in the consultation - They talk about RID like the USA has and the FAA Royally cocked that up then they have Mention Network RID (thats pay to fly basically so really bad) They need to do Electronic Conspicucy for Manned Aviation 1st - then if that works roll it out to drones. Important to remember Manned Aviation hits manned Aviation every month some where yet the CAA / NAAs around the World consider that Risk to be Fine.
Then theres the Scary Check Flyer ID before a drone can take off - Yup read it and its there and thats scary what Drone manufacturer would consider that and then what about all the kit out there that cannot do this - This is NOT good news at all.
Then there is the part about capturing data / photography again this is NOT Good as how will they treat people in planes landing or take off who can film from a plane - same as personal phones etc - The CAA Remit is not GDPR or Data capture - There remit is airspace.
These are just some of horrors that need a strong no bloody way too by the way.
I did not read you statement untill after I had responded so I do find it interesting that I have mentioned most of what you have said in my answers and completely in my own words as well. I was guilted to see your statement after I had read it I’m no longer worried because it looks like we agree which was lucky.
I asked for simplification but not at the expense of the privileges we already have because if you read between the lines there could be way more restrictions coming even and maybe especially with the under 250g drones.
I will never forget my first consultation which was the legacy consultation which had a hidden c class system questions that we never got to answer that should have been there. So its not the best introduction into consultations but maybe they did not realise untill after which I also have to consider at least untill I hear different.
Have you tried to see if we can make a difference or do you not trust the whole thing? Which by the way is what I’m doing now seeing if we can make a different. They have promise to release the results in full so we should notice if something’s off I hope.
I continue to think the regulations are massively overcomplicated and inappropriate for a hobby that has survived for decades with zero issues.
I don’t think the CAA really care about the results of any consultation - it just has to be seen to be performed but you can guarantee that internal plans have been drawn up years in advance of whatever it is we’re currently seeing. It’s government. I will play no more part in the charade.
CAA Call for imput lol I ain’t going to. Met some CAA members in a photography show in Newport a few months ago, (can add the pic also of me with them as proof), like I previously said. All I was advised to do, was fly safe, stay within the laws and boundarys of 249g, and everything will be fine, and nothing to worry about. So why didn’t they say to my face all change in the next few months? I told them too may restrictions, and was about to sell up from it all as goalposts moved to often.
I plan by using Drone Assist, even looking at Flight Radar also…for example. The Cotswolds last week. Checked the location, yellow circle zone, which was Enstone training aerodrome at the edge of my flight path. Spoke on the phone to a really nice lady and gentleman, they asked me my plan, I asked for clearance to fly for still shots and some footage off a 249g drone. I knew their were regular take offs/landings, and compromised between 90-150ft, they were in complete agreement with that.
I said my flight time was around mid day, and would land if I see any activity, and bringing 3x battery, with around 1hr in the air. All I had to do was ring them when I was finished, which I did so, now built up a rapport if I ever want to fly that location again. Ain’t this what this hobby is all about? Having fun, being honest, and asking permission from ATC on security, privacy or safety concerns?
All this form filling, and change of rules is too much head games, confusing some, and putting 249g enthusiasts off.
I will also inlcude in my response that, in my view, the CAA need to clearly separate the issues of safety and security, specifically where security relates to invasion of privacy.
I would even go as far to say that the invasion of privacy MUST BE EXCLUDED from the remit of the CAA.
Instead, existing protection of privacy rights regulations (in relation to photo/video footage taken by any means - not only UAS cameras) should be aplied WITHOUT CAA needing to get involved in either regulating or monitoring this.
combine parts of these responses into my own response
(where they share my perspective).
share my respones in this forum.
My hopes were that this DH forum topic would have shared draft or submitted responses
for comment and potential reuse by other members to amplify our combined consulation feedback.
Do you intend to create and share sample / suggested responses?
I welcome and highly appreciate your considered views and insight as input
to shape my (and hopefully other members’) responses please.
The deadline approaches. However, I’ll gladly wait to submit my reponse
if you identify when you plan to share your suggested responses.
please can you confirm a date/time and where you will share?
@JubFPV Sorry, our messages crossed in the ether (because yours was held in a queue). I know you’ve now read and given me feedback on my response (Which was positive, I’m happy to say!)
