Latest CAA consultation you need to read this one

A new caa consultation and this one’s big. It affects everything including under 250g drones. CAP2610: Consultation Review of UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations

only 21% of surveyed drone users had awareness of the 400ft UAS height restriction, without prompting

If this is truly the case then that is shocking - and illustrative of three things:

  1. The CAA have failed at educating the public or positioning themselves as an authority in the eyes of the public having had over a decade to get on top of this.
  2. The regulations are serve no purpose for hobby flyers - there have been zero injuries or incidents despite participants seemingly being completely oblivious to one of THE most basic and referred to rules.
  3. Drone users are no danger to manned aviation which we’re told is a major reason why we’re subjected to these regulations and registration.

Honestly - FPVUK and the BMFA should be left alone by the CAA, they are far better at educating their members about safety.


It is shocking and it’s also bad that they are using this data that is so vague it a joke. Remote ID and network ID are there and they are ripping up the under 250g drone apart. I was ok with the flyer ID change but dropping it to 100g is a joke. Now they are also looking at giving the c class rating a go again after scrapping it. I am not happy bunny

Chapter 5: Remote ID

5.8 (i) Technical approach

There is far too little here to validate the technical approach with regards to spoofing resistance or privacy. The approach may be reasonable for large commercial and long-range flights.

The requirement to use Network Remote ID within defined areas and to attempt usage of Network Remote ID in all areas makes it impossible to fly for fun without being spied upon - legislation justified in part by reports of stalking.

(ii) UAS in scope

To no surprise, if it’s over 250g or has a camera it must have Remote ID. This is proportional?

(vi) Data privacy, security and access

The pilot’s location and operator ID will be encrypted and limited to certain authorities (including all police?) when using Network Remote ID. These will not be protected in any way when using Direct Remote ID, “as it is not technically
possible to encrypt this data to only be viewable by certain user groups”. This is besides the point since there is no justification to include an Operator ID at all when using Direct Remote ID.

(viii) Model Aircraft

We are proposing for safe and secure Model Aircraft flights to be exempt from Remote ID requirements. Under our proposed approach, Model Aircraft flights would be exempt from Remote ID requirements, if:
a. The aircraft meets the CAA’s definition and specification for exempt Model Aircraft;
b. The pilot and UAS remain within the bounds of a designated Model Aircraft flying site, authorised by the CAA based on proximity to urban, sensitive or restricted sites; and
c. The flight takes place within a Model Aircraft club, with an authorisation granted under Article 16 of UK Regulation(EU) 2019/947.

Without detailing (a) what a model aircraft is, this definition is useless, and gives the CAA too much power to change the definition as and when they see fit. It may well exclude FPV drones or even anything that is not fixed-wing.

Part (b) apparently takes inspiration from the USA’s FRIA model which gives model flyers far too little: being dependant on a government body who has almost zero incentive to approve flying sites, especially private ones.

In essence, this is giving model aircraft flyers nothing: any aircraft not flown exclusively at an approved site would need to be outfitted for Remote ID anyway.

6.16. As is described in the Remote ID section, we have worked closely with our security stakeholders to consider how to balance security objectives without over-burdening the Model Aircraft community. Our proposed approach to Remote ID exemptions is set out in full in Chapter 5. This should ensure that low-risk Model Aircraft flights can continue, without being impacted by Remote ID requirements. If this proposal is taken forward, we expect to work closely with the Model Aircraft community to define an appropriate definition for exempt Model Aircraft and approach to locational exemptions.

Until these are addressed, the impact on Model Aircraft Flyers is as clear as mud.

Also looks very likely that anything with a camera will not get an exemption.

1 Like

We have a lot of freedom without article 16 EG can fly in any recreational area. Are they talking about putting us in clubs only?

They’re saying that remote ID will be required unless your aircraft is sub-250g or it’s a model aircraft (not yet defined, but I suspect it will exclude multi-rotors), and flying in a remote ID exemption zone.

It remains to be seen how those exemption zones will be defined. Or how many there will be… (The CAA doesn’t know / it is up for debate).

If every grass area that is not near a prison or an airport could be defined as a remote ID exemption zone, then that might work. But I suspect it will only be existing model clubs.

And my worry is that only fixed wing UAS will meet their new definition of a model aircraft anyhow.

They reckon DJI, et al will simply push a firmware update to make them compliant with the remote id requirement. They said that is what happened in France.

None of it is desirable!

Yes I was think that they are planning on putting us in boxes and after what we have had already this is a very bad idea. Trying to drum up support in the drone groups is hard work. Some believe it won’t affect them at all and the others just don’t care. I’ve had to stop talking about it a few day because of frustrating answers. If we don’t do something we are going to lose more than just green areas. They have not say whether the rules will align to the new flyer ID requirement so will we lose the flying near people because now flying ID is the barrier to the over 250g rules. There are gaps where things could be added later as well. The reporting figures is a load of rubbish and we should be able to dismantle it easily. I must admit this consultation has got me quite frustrated and the only good I can see is the C class rating but I heard that the A2 cofc is more than likely going to be scrapped so these c class system is only going to be available to GVC operators. So even that I ended up being disappointed. The A2 cofc bit Sean talked about on geeksvana.:+1:

I’ve decided not to renew my CAA registration and FPVUK membership this year.

In short, I feel like no matter how legitimate I try to be, no matter how many competency tests I pass, no matter how much money I pay - it will never be enough. The goalposts are constantly being moved. The CAA seem determined to kill the hobby and for me, they have succeeded - at least in terms of being “legitimate”.

Whenever I go out, I no longer enjoy flying as I feel like a criminal and (perhaps it’s just me) but the regulations are so convoluted, prone to change, etc I am not confident enough in my ability to communicate my legitimacy to anyone who questions me (i.e. the police) anyway so it’s a moot point as to whether I am compliant or not.

This is not something I wish to worry about as a hobbyist and the fact that I feel like a criminal anyway, I may as well be one… so I shall simply fly and take the risk from now on. It’s a fair cop, guvnor.

They can stick their consultation and regulations up their arse - I’m not interested any more.


No way. More and more are saying this and the professional operator are dropping like flies as well. I can’t let them beat me so the harder they try the more determined it makes me. Sorry to hear you are leaving. We need all the people we can get to fill out the consultation. :+1:

1 Like

Maybe I was a little rash … I think I will renew after all. I’m just so sick of this nonsense, you know?

I hope so I know it looks bad but if we can get people to fill out the consultation we may be able to swing it enough to male a difference. I am glad to hear you are reconsidering. :+1:

1 Like

I’m not wasting my time filling it in - filled it out every time for years … they already have a plan, it’ll happen regardless. We’re just along for the ride.

No, I think I’ll just keep my insurance and my “good lad” ID card, then do whatever I please like I have done for the last decade :joy:

FPV UK’s response document:

Please feel free to have a read before you complete the consultation.

Off topic, but you keep telling people that the A16 OA can be used in ‘any recreational area’. That is not true Paul.

There is no such thing as a ‘recreational area’ defined in the operational authorisation, or elsewhere. (You’re getting confused with ‘a built-up area which is only used substantially for recreational purposes’ I presume).

The A16 OA can be used in any suitable area. I.e. anywhere, except built-up areas.

(A built-up area which is only used substantially for recreational purposes may be considered a suitable area. Operation within such an area must be supported by a risk assesment.) (E.g. a public park.)

Yes, I know that. I did not see the need to say it all to someone who already knows what it is.

Sorry, it was my English play-up again. it was supposed to say. We have a lot of freedom with Article 16. EG can fly in any recreational area. Are they talking about putting us in clubs only? With these freeas

its the same thing ant it?

Where else can you use article 16? I obviously know about recreational areas which is what I call it and I don’t understand the difference accept maybe I’m not mentioning the rest of the requirements but I was not taking about in a built up. I was talking in general. Where did I mention build up area?

I am talking about the consultation and the remote ID freera stuff