The CAA have launched a new consultation for the review of UK UAS regs.
The CAA have launched a consultation on proposals to make it easier for drone users to fly safely and meet regulatory requirements.
The proposals are based on feedback from the drone community in a previous Call for Input. Proposals include introduction of product requirements for drones, extension of Flyer ID training to users of drones under 250g, introduction of Remote ID and extension of time period to adopt class-marked drones by 2 years.
Am I allowed to say Iām just too fkin bored with their endless rubbishā¦? Their whole Call for Input exercise was just a facade to pretend they were consulting the public for their already-decided agendaā¦
Theyāve lost all credibility and sadly many people just ignore their ever changing rules nowā¦
Gone through the entire thing in overview , but itās interesting they are using reports from the public to justify things like remote ID, not reports that were followed up and found to be illegalā¦ Itās like Karen standing on a motorway bridge counting cars she thinks are going a bit quick and basing numbers of cars speeding, and therefore road traffic laws on thatā¦
This latest document makes that point very clear. Over 60% of respondents were against RID, with just 15.3% for, so we are going to implement two RID systems, one of which centrally logs all UAV activity so we can prosecute you at our convenience. Astonishing, and although they mention over 18,000 reports to the police for drone related āconcernsā, they are strangely silent on how many of those actually had any merit and resulted in enforcement action. Iād be very interested to know!
(vi) Data privacy, security and access:
āUnder Network Remote ID, service providers would not display the pilot or ground control stationās location - this would be viewable by authorised persons only, such as the police.ā
which makes perfect sense to me, Iām happy for the position of only the drone to be logged.
so the new rules just mean Iāll have to jump a few more hoops, but it wont stop me, they wont be curtailing my enjoyment!
I agree that hiding the pilotās location is in principle good, but they later say that for technical reasons, this is only applicable to the network RID scheme. The local scheme that they are proposing as a fallback or within certain zones uses the standard unencrypted scheme that anyone with a phone and the right app can pick up.
My reading of it is that they will require UAS to use cellular data or similar to feed into the network scheme, or it falls back to standard RID as used in other countries.
Iām not opposed to some of the measures they propose -frankly some it it seems very sensible, but this particular issue seems like consultation in name only, on something thatās known to be contentious, and it appears to impose the need for additional hardware, while not completely resolving the privacy concerns.
IMO, they shouldnāt be imposing remote ID on UAS for safety reasons, unless they also mandate the use of electronic conspicuity in general aviation too, and you can then look at building properly interoperable collision warning systems that can alert in both directions.
Iāve only given the document a cursory scan but Iāve already tuned into the fact that they are hellbent on pushing the hobbyist out of the sky.
By hobbyist I donāt mean those that fly store bought, mainly DJI, models, though they are still begrudgingly accepting they exist. Iām referring to those of us that roll our own creations, whether they are single rotor, multirotor, fixed wing VTOL, or even unpowered.
If the changes were to do with āsafetyā, and not commercial pressure, thereād be just one rule, and that would be āDONāT BE A TITā.
Ironically the UK Government are currently looking at a similar system to the American Blue List, which is essentially sourcing UAS technology from within the UK. Fat chance of that happening when you canāt even get authorisation to fly a foam fixed wing BVLOS across Morcombe Bay.
brilliant haha
it might bring you business mate if you build your own you might get people like me coming to you for private builds to avoid all this nonsense.
"In the document āReview of UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations, Published: 22nd November 2023ā, mention is made of the number of drone related police reports made:
āBetween November 2020 and October 2023, police received 18,290 reports of drone flights
involving a legal, nuisance, criminal or safety concern. Police received 5,005 such reports
between 1st January and 6th October 2023 - a 10% increase over the same period in 2022.ā
As this number is being used as justification for further restriction of UAS operations by private individuals, especially given the propensity of some individuals to complain about anything they personally donāt like, I would like to know the following:
How many of the 18,290 reports were followed up and fully investigated
Of reports fully investigated, how many were found to be valid complaints with drone operation being at fault
Of reports fully investigated, how many were found to NOT be the fault of drone operation
If this information is not available, then I would suggest that the CAA would be basing its decision making regarding UAS operation on baseless accusations, to the detriment of the UAS hobby community
In reality the vast majority of complaints will have been made by people who donāt understand the regulations. Unfortunately these regulations are thought up by the āwe have all the facts figures and statistics and know everythingā Whitehall brigade. Maybe educating the public should be a requirement.
