There’s a definite home-built fpv and tinywho
Did you keep a local copy of your responses ?
I could reword them - #lazy
It sent me a link to a PDF containing them, but all I get is a blank page when I click on it. So no.
Yeah we love the source, but so many more registered hobbyists than private companies. Useful to use that data in your responses
1 Like
I was hoping that some members who have already responded and then following that the proposed responses by GADC committee could be shared as suggested responses,
with intent to
- encourage as many members as possble to submit responses individually
- reiterate key messages that are common amongst GADC membership.
So… does anyone wish to post a copy of their submitted or draft responses please?
If so, Many thanks in advance!
3 Likes
Please would you kindly consider posting your reponses so that others, like me, might reuse and adapt for our own responses? Thanks!
2 Likes
Sorry, I can’t get them. The pdf they send me is empty.
Haven’t even checked mine. I’ll take a look now.
my_response.pdf (43.3 KB)
Here’s mine, for what it’s worth. Obviously the answers are my own opinion and you may disagree.
1 Like
That’s a great help @Earwig Jez,
I have begun completeing mine (I do worry it may be a bit too rambling), but it’s great to see the points you raise… I particularly liked the bolt croppers from B&Q analogy … I’ll come up with a similar implausible scenario to stress this point.
1 Like
anybody suggested maybe a lower bvlos for FPV (60m?)… or 50m… anything… without need for a spotter?
if we accept rid… (is a given)… how about some concession for low level FPV?
1 Like
… cat amongst pigeons???
Just in case it’s helpful to others, this is what I submitted. It is probably a bit too rambling, but I wanted to make sure I covered as many bases as possible.
Clearly, you may not agree with my perspective, and I hope @PingSpike is OK with me pointing them to “Good 2 Go” 
my_response BudgieUK.pdf (28.2 KB)
1 Like
Jez, answer to #7 is spot on.
2 Likes
very helpful @BudgieUK
I have drafted my response - https://github.com/bmsleight/Review_of_UK_UAS_Regulations/blob/main/Response_CAA.md (Pull requests welcome)
I have also drafted a letter to my MP. https://github.com/bmsleight/Review_of_UK_UAS_Regulations/blob/main/Letter_to_MP.md
We are above the average age of the population - so more likely to vote. Our MPs know this - so we can write to our MP to make sure the consultation takes into account our views are drone users.
Feedback welcome. I re-read before submitting as dyslexic in me can proof read a document unless I step way from it .
1 Like
On the first section concerning security, I said something along the lines of, We already have government agencies / police/ others dealing with security. I always thought the CAA were concerned with controlling the skies. Leave security up to those agencies concerned with security. It simply serves to confuse the issues faced by drone users.
Can anyone throw light on what I’m missing here? Why do they mention A1 and A3, but not A2 for sub 250 gm models?
And why earlier on, in this truly awful document, do they consider combining A1 (over people) with A3 (far away from people). Surely combining A1 and A2 (over and near to people) would make more sense if you were going to combine anything?
Can anyone explain this to me?
3 Likes
And are they really looking at lumping all drones greater than 250 grams in with anything under 25 Kg? How the fk is the risk of a 700 gram drone comparable to a 20 Kg drone?
2 Likes
I still don’t understand why they don’t mention A2 flights. A2 is up to but over uninvolved people. This is a significant part of flying…
(Leaving aside the contradiction of the second bullet overriding the first bullet point. A sub 250 gram drone is a UAS weighing less than 25 Kg. )
What an utterly fuking useless document.
4 Likes
Great title for a video.
Is Ted going to be in it?
1 Like