I’m genuinely considering this as the video title… 
6 Likes
According to Geeksvana, the CAA are now happy to receive ‘free form’ emails as a method of response for this consultation. As I see it, that means that you can just send your comments, in a way that works for you by email, without being constrained by the response form.
The email address to use is on the web site and on the form, but its:
vasregulatoryreview@caa.co.uk
Sean even said that if you have already responded but would like to send further info, that’s OK too.
I might send an email clarifying my total distaste of the Remote ID stuff 
I do not get why now we have left the EU I can not get a label on my mavic 3 to be able to fly in a different class. There were instructions on how to do it. Update firmware, show proof, apply for a sticker, send photo of the sticker on the drone and hey presto, class changed. I was trying to work it out with D J I and I asked him is it now because we are not in the E U as the menu was not there. After a while he said he spoke to a someone else in the department and the menu was removed from UK drone operator controllers. How much difference is a mavic 3 to a mini 3 pro when technology is concerned. The mavic 3 does handle wind very well and is very responsive to controls. Is the weight that important and not being in the E U. My personal thoughts
As far as I understand it … as we are no longer in the EU and therefore able to utilise Europe wide standards, we have to set up our own test/enforcement regime to allow us to allow class markings (another of the outstanding benefits of “taking back control “!!!)
In this hobby nothing is more important, take you back to the big meet how many people did you fly near or over ;o)
I do like good to go. Makes it easier to understand. Amazing though how much difference a Mini 3 Pro is to a Mavic 3. I love the mavic 3 but sadly it has a massive restriction.
Can I just say, well done Ian @ianinlondon for a passionate and well explained video on this bollox 
Echoed my feelings exactly.
3 Likes
Yeah, sorry it’s so long, and descended into a complete public rant, but really, the more I read, the more angry I got. And their Remote ID plans are just absolute crap.
For anyone wanting the full list of my responses, not to copy and paste, but to perhaps help with your own…:
Q1.
Neither agree nor disagree
It’s not clear exactly what the so-called evolving security and safety risks actually are, as no evidence is shown, but the fact remains that the majority of
users and flights are consumers flying intelligent, GPS lightweight (sub 1Kg) drones and therefore should benefit from the simplest categories and rules.
Q2: Should CAA adopt the following policy objectives for operational requirements and why?
Mitigate safety and security risks: No, to an extent
User-centric: Definitely yes
Enforceable: Yes, to an extent
Growth enabling: Yes, to an extent
Scalable: Yes, to an extent
Overall, existing rules and regulations could be sufficient, especially if more use of geo-fencing is made for sensitive areas. Mitigation should only be on a
proportional basis, based on actual evidence. Enforcement should again be proportional and only target those with a clear intention on disruption or
misuse, and not penalise users making simple errors.
Q3 Do you value international alignment in operational requirements, and why?
Yes, to an extent
International alignment makes things easier for visitors and crucially, will keep functionality uniform, without having to have different restrictions based
on different countries. We don’t have to follow them exactly and a slight divergence may allow for more freedom to fly based on intelligent design and
geo-restrictions.
Q4 Should CAA re-name operational categories and sub-categories (Opportunity 1) and why?
Yes, to an extent:
Only to make the names more meaningful. The term Open Category is as simple as it gets, but having sub categories called A1 A2 and A3 means nothing
to anyone, so yes, call them what they are: Over, Near or Far away
Q 5 Should CAA simplify how operational requirements are categorised (Opportunity 2) and why?
Definitely no
Keep rules for flying over people in congested areas separate from flights for far away from people in open countryside.
Q6 Should CAA update how model aircraft operations are regulated (Opportunity 3) and why?
Definitely yes
Model Aircraft, when flown / controlled directly from a flying club location, should absolutely have separate regulations as they present different technical
abilities, lower risk and usually higher flying skills of the operator.
Q7 Should CAA simplify exclusions from operational requirements (Opportunity 4) and why? Please describe any alternative exclusions that should be considered.
Definitely no
These small drones pose a near negligible threat to safety and their use is widespread. Reliance on geo-restrictions should be increased to avoid sensitive
areas.
If it has a camera, it is not a toy and must have gps awareness.
Q8 Should CAA change transitional arrangements for users of UAS without class-marks (Opportunity 5) and why?
Yes, to an extent
There is no evidence to suggest that a drone bought today will suddenly become dangerous after 2026. The CAA abandoned C-classifications before they
had an alternative, which is already unfair to all UK flyers of these newer models with C1 label. So the transition arrangements should be changed to permit C-1 labelled drones to have the same freedoms enjoyed in Europe.
If NEW designs come out with new class markings that permit new exemptions or more freedom, then those new permissions can apply to those new models
Q9 Do you agree with the issues identified by stakeholders relating to product requirements, and why?
Definitely disagree
You don’t advise who the stakeholders are, but fundamentally, the class markings are quite simple, with C0 and C1 models making up the vast majority of
models flown by amateurs and even professionals. These models already have specific technical requirements that have safety at their core, and are
accepted throughout Europe and cause very little confusion. What is trying to be fixed here?
Q10 Should CAA adopt the following policy objectives for product requirements, and why?
Mitigates safety and security risks: No, to an extent
User-centric: Definitely yes
Growth enabling: Definitely yes
Scalable: Definitely yes
Internationally aligned: Yes, to an extent
People intent on doing bad will always find ways to mis-use equipment. Mis-use of UAS can be summarised by flying a larger model too close to people –
smaller models present practically no risk here. And for criminals or so called auditors, then make more use of geo-restrictions help mitigate this. The
requirement for C0 sub 250 gram drones to have gps-awareness and comply with geo-fencing seems the easiest and least intrusive solution here.
Q 11 Should CAA implement manufacturer standards (Opportunity 8) and why?
Yes, to an extent
There is already a universally understood class system, where C0 and C1 cover almost all consumer drones bought today. It is wrong to combine these
and capture much heavier, riskier models. Just re-implement the EASA based C0 – C4 classes as these are understood and clear, and specifically focus on
C0 and C1 as these make up most models.
Q12 Should CAA implement a product labelling scheme (Opportunity 9) and why?
Yes, to an extent
Based on existing EASA based numeric C0-C4 labels.
Q13 Should CAA simplify exclusions from product requirements (Opportunity 10) and why?
Definitely no
The current exemptions for flying C0 models are fine; the only additional requirement should be the imposition of geo-awareness. The CAA’s role is to ensure safety in the skies, not enforce what information is captured; that’s for other agencies like the police to enforce. If police stations are considered
sensitive, then these should be geo-protected like prisons.
The safety risks posed by sub 250 grams drones are negligible, based on the total lack of incidents caused by them. The popularity of these small models should not be impacted by the actions of a tiny minority of users.
Q14 Should CAA implement Remote ID (Opportunity 11) and why?
Definitely no
Remote ID does not assist with flight safety in any way and is, in the CAA’s own words, simply a tool for re-education, fines or conviction.
Enforced geo-fencing is less intrusive to assist compliance with avoiding sensitive areas. Such data capturing of all car movements and driving would not
be permitted. There would be universal outrage if this was to be implemented for cars.
The CAA must stick to flight safety, not persecution and data harvesting.
Q 15 Should CAA to implement geo-awareness (Opportunity 12) and why?
Definitely yes
This is the key to preventing unauthorised flights by unsuspecting users. In my opinion all models, including sub-250 gram models with cameras, should have geo-awareness required. But at the same time, the geo-restricted areas programmed in need to better aligned with the actual areas restricted.
Height-based geo-restrictions are also under-used but could help massively. A drone flown under 30 metres high is no threat to any other aircraft, so height restrictions should be more widely used to allow more flow-level flying in more areas.
Q 16 Should CAA introduce requirements for manufacturers to provide user guidance during product set-up or pre-flight, via the controller or other interface (Opportunity 13) and why?
Definitely yes
You don’t drive a car without learning; basic user guidance makes perfect sense and is already present on all new DJI drones as part of the set up process.
Q17 Should CAA introduce user validation requirements on manufacturers (Opportunity 14) and why?
No, to an extent
You are mixing technologies and data from different bodies. You have to be able to register more than one drone against the same ID, so you will end up
with generic IDs posted online and the verification will be meaningless.
Q18 Should CAA simplify policy and guidance document structure (Opportunity 15) and why?
Definitely yes
Yes I would be very happy to see anything that simplifies and clarifies the rules for flying drones. I look at the rules for paragliding (they have none of the regulations that drones have) and I genuinely wonder why, given the near total lack of any real incident involving a drone, why does the CAA keep running
around tying itself in knots about the threats of drones that simply hasn’t materialised.
Q 19 What other opportunities to improve UAS regulation, beyond those described in this Call for Input, would you like to see progressed?
What other opportunities to improve UAS regulation, beyond those described in this Call for Input, would you like to see progressed?:
- Make the rules for smaller drones under 1 Kg simpler.
- Clarify VLOS and make it more relevant, based on seeing the area you’re flying in, not being able to see which way the drone is pointing. If there is any
danger from an approaching aircraft, DOWN is the only way you need to fly, so the current VLOS requirements are useless and risk being ignored by the
masses. - Bring in lower height restrictions to let smaller drones fly in more places. - Use geo-restrictions to stop them flying near sensitive areas.
And above all, make policy based on evidence, not paranoia.
11 Likes
A lot of very good points, very well made.
Collectively we drone fliers give the CAA a lot of money via registration fees, yet receive nothing in return apart from gobblydegook documents and ever more restrictive rules which are obviously formulated by people with no experience or understanding of hobbyist drone operation.
An obvious example is the proposals for Remote ID, which are much more stringent than any applied to light aircraft and microlights, things which obviously pose much greater risks than a drone weighing less than a kilo.
The whole VLOS concept is supposed to protect low flying aircraft, but I don’t see why we should restrict our hobby to cater for others not complying with flight rules by flying below 500 feet - will they be subject to retrospective convictions for flying too low ?
Good job on the video and explanation @ianinlondon
I’ve added your video to the first post in this thread to get more eyes on it 
1 Like
I think I may have to do a follow up 5 minute long “What are the issues and how to respond” video. Which sounds impossible…
5 Likes
And thank you for my main opening quote of the video… 
4 Likes
This is an awesome video and highlights the key points. I urge everyone to take the time to watch and understand this. I learnt a lot from Ian’s explanation and discussion
1 Like
More than welcome mate. Flattered that you deemed it worthy of quoting - but chuffed too 
2 Likes
Excellent video, Ian. Your clear fury matches mine; the questions are structured so badly, but appear designed to encourage the reader to tick the button they want you to tick, so as to provide the desired result.
I fear the entire thing is a sham - a “consultation” produced simply because they have to, but with the way forward already decided.
I still think we should all respond, but equally I feel every single one of us should email and express our thoughts more directly, including raising the subject of evidence. There is no evidence of harm to the public - despite the behaviour of a handful of idiots - and modern drones are probably one of the safest, most reliable bits of kit on the market! I’ve flown Piper Cubs for god’s sake - 90 year old airframes, instruments that are ridiculously inaccurate by modern standards, and a door you could literally fall out of, that can be flown in uncontrolled airspace, with no flight plan, no contact with anyone at all if you don’t want to. Tiny 250g bits of plastic are apparently more worthy of attention because of “safety”? Hmmmm…
5 Likes
Yes please
1 Like
In my view some people buy drones and have no intention of reading the rules or even registering their drone. They don’t know the law, or if they do they don’t care.
So making more laws won’t effect them.
More laws only affect people who abide by current laws.
3 Likes
Sad but true 
3 Likes
Excellent video. Agree 99%.
@ianinlondon You are eloquent and knowledgeable on the subject - though about expressing your views to your MP ?
Ultimately the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Aviation, Maritime and Security) ?
1 Like
When Priti Patel is your MP, you’re kinda stuffed if there’s no photo opportunity for her to just bowl up and pretend she’s done something…
1 Like