Look at the hash DJI has made of that
There are three risks as I see it, and they genuinely are valid in all fairness.
The biggest risk, which I think is the one that has the CAA most triggered, is someone going out tomorrow, buying a drone and then flying it where they shouldnât (i.e. over gatwick). That is a legitimate concern. This would also include those who we regularly see on Facebook or Reddit / Youtube who like to see âhow far can I fly my droneâ.
But only happen because of one of two things.
A. They are being malicious.
B. They donât know the regulations and do so negligently.
To answer point A: It doesnât matter what regulations are put in place, RID included, a malicious user will simply ignore them or circumvent them.
To answer point B: This is already mitigated mostly by geofencing. Assuming the [DJI] database is correct (which is something that the CAA could work alongside to ensure) The only drones that wonât be stopped with geofencing are the FPV / home built ones - which goes back to my point earlier, in that I donât think there are that many people that would build an FPV drone or buy a RTF one that isnât aware of the rules (and therefore wouldnât fall in to this category). This is why I could see a valid argument being made to place a regulation on all retailers selling any RTF UAS to either enforce geofencing or at least have the user acknowledge that they are registered and have completed the minimum level of training.
The second risk, is that posed to people and property. But I really donât think this is valid, as there is no evidence to backup the claim that drones are hazardous - particularly the sub 250g models. Certainly, theyâre no more hazardous whatsoever than a kid playing baseball or football in a local park not to mention hazards posed by cars, dogs not on leads, or any number of other far less regulated activities.
The third risk, is to privacy. And this is the one that has the public triggered. The existing regulations (outside of the CAA, for example GDPR and data protection, trespass / nuisance etc) already prevent these so it is just a matter of policing. I suppose you could argue that RID would help police this, contrary to my point earlier about malicious users, as there probably are a small number of people out there who willing to buy a drone and use it to âspyâ on ex partners or whatever the case may be, but may not be willing to go to the lengths required to âhackâ and disable RID. BUT this is a very small minority of people, and should not be used to justify the implementation of RID.
The DJI GEO platform is an absolute joke. Itâs why we added the DJI layer to Drone Scene, so people could see exactly how inaccurate it is.
Itâs so bad, CAA published a Safety Notice in October warning drone operators not to trust it:
Incidentally, CAA do still recommend Drone Scene as one of only two CAA-approved safety apps 
But only by DJI 
Autel drones donât have any geofencing at all. What about Swellpro, Yuneec, Hubsan, Eachine and all the other manufacturers that donât have geofencing either 
What CAA could do, is insist that drone manufacturers use an approved third party for the geofence provision. The catch there though, is the cost to implement that vs the size of the UK drone market. Most manufacturers wouldnât get a return on that investment and would simply pull out of the UK market 
Agreed. CAA arenât fighting a losing battle. They lost the battle years ago.
One of these days Iâll have something positive to say about a CAA consultation 
The DJI GEO platform is an absolute joke.
Iâm aware of that, which is why I say theyâd have to consult with the manufacturers for that to become a reality.
But only by DJI
Which is why they would have to enforce it if thatâs a solution to go with.
Now unfortunately, as you rightly point out, that would be hugely costly for manufactures and it simply isnât in their best interest and it may well push them out of our market.
Which is why you can see that RID seems like a good solution on the surface.
It removes the requirement from the manufacturer, and puts the onus on the operator.
This COULD be seen as a good solution, until you dive further.
Without going in too much detail (already discussed to death over on the RID thread)
For example:
A. Malicious users - already discussed
B. Safety towards genuine users.
C. Can you imagine the increased burden that would place on the police to monitor and enforce?
But again, there is a separate thread to discuss RID so no need to go in to it more here, I think we all understand and agree on the issues with RID.
But the point is, there IS a problem. Fine, I get that. But there really isnât a solution.
I almost wonder if the CAA is just trying to do SOMETHING to appease the public who want our heads on spikes because of the Gatwick incident, some drugs in prisons, and a handful of people who have had their privacy violated.
I do still think though, that some of the proposals are way out of proportion to the problem.
The bigger problem, is I donât think anyone truly understands what the problem is (i.e. how big it is). There are no concrete statistics to back anything up with regards to how many crimes are actually committed. Itâs all based on a handful of incidents, and a public perception that is fuelled by auditors and youtubers that are bent on spoiling the hobby for the rest of us in order to get a quick payday from their views.
The genuine criminals using drones, (prison drugs, Gatwick violators etc.) - well theyâre just going to keep doing crime regardless and the CAA are clever enough to know that. I wouldnât be surprised if any changes they make are just to make it seem like theyâre doing something when in reality there isnât a whole lot they CAN do.
1 Like
Iâd suggest the following key points:
- the CAA have ignored the key output from the call for evidence. Remote ID is seen as a totally unnecessary, over complicated, hugely expensive and has nothing to do with improving the safety of drone flying (in fact the local version âpublishesâ the location of the drone pilot to any busybody in the area ⌠actually increasing the risk to the drone pilot.
- the CAA want to introduce punitive restrictions on toys. How will children get into the hobby if they canât even fly a toy drone in their garden without becoming a fully registered flyer.
- it is clear from the consultation document that there is no evidence of a safety issue with drones. The CAA are intending to introduce these draconian measures, increasing restrictions and costs (due to Remote ID), to fix a non existent issue.
Basically, where is the evidence that changes are needed?
What is the justification for taking away the freedoms that we currently have?
All we actually need is better educationâŚ. But the CAA donât seem to want to sort that out!
I donât have a big problem with a properly implemented geo-fencing system, that can stop novice and other flyers unintentionally flying into restricted areas.
I hope this helps âŚ. Also see here:
Iâm not sure where Iâm looking Cameron mate but I canât see that at all
There absolutely is, but CAA just canât seem to find the correct answer
Call me cynical but I donât think the public come in to it. If anyone, CAA are trying to do something just to appease the DfT
I hadnât really ever considered that as their motivation, but it makes sense.
1 Like
Anybody else find they started out trying to answer constructively but degenerated to full-on snark by the end?
A3 What additional up front or ongoing costs do you expect to incur, in order to comply with these proposals?
Please provide an estimate of costs (ÂŁ) where possible or qualitative explanations.:**Difficult to say - as soon as the proposals are presented there will be another consultation to start the whole circus again and weâll be back to square one, waiting for clarification and wondering whether we have to replace our entire UAS fleet (or just leave the industry altogether)
Everyone whoâs ever flown a drone is guilty of this
Itâs very difficult to guess how much something is going to cost you when the requirements are still unknown, and no-one is yet selling the required hardware
I think the RID proposal should be mentioned. It actually makes us less safe as any neâer do well could track our location and relieve us of our expensive âtoysâ Also, I wish the CAA would desist from calling my Mini 3 Pro a â Toy with a cameraâ I actually see it as a semi professional bit of kit ( alright Tom Cruise isnât going to ask me to film his next stunt from an aerial perspective, but it takes 4k video and great photos from unusual angles ) 
Reply to my MP
Dear Paul
Thank you for your quick reply to my e-mail.
As you can imagine, the CAA consultation has been a hot topic in the hobbyist drone community, with many discussions taking place in online fora such as Grey Arrows Drone Club. Generally the feeling is that the CAA are addressing the wrong issue, proposing new and tighter regulations when the existing regulations should be perfectly adequate if properly enforced !
It is well known that the number of drone operators registered with the CAA falls far short of the number of drones sold in the UK, even allowing for people like myself owning multiple drones. This implies that a large number of people are buying and flying drones in total ignorance of the regulations they should be following â it is towards this group that the CAA should be directing its efforts. A campaign aimed at educating everyone who buys a drone that they must register with the CAA and pass a test to demonstrate their knowledge of the regulations before flying would bring greater benefits than the imposition of tighter regulations which would only affect those who are aware of them.
Of course there are also a small number of people who wilfully ignore the regulations, such as those who call themselves âauditorsâ, and those who operate drones with malicious intent. Imposing new regulations will not stop these as they will simply continue to ignore them, but better enforcement of the existing regulations should at least reduce their numbers. Additionally a greater effort could be made to educate police officers as to the legalities of drone flying, as anecdotally there have been a number of instances where ill informed officers have accosted people who were flying in a fully legal manner.
There is also the matter of evidence â the CAA has admitted in response to my FOI request that they have made no attempt to analyse the 18,290 police reports they mention in the consultation document, so it is unknown just how many valid complaints or incidents have occurred, or how many are some âKarenâ fed on tabloid hyperbole complaining about perfectly legal activities. Even in the incident at Gatwick there is no actual solid evidence that a drone was involved, and many of the ânear missâ reports take place at altitudes and speeds which would rule out all but military UAVs. The CAA simply do not have the evidence that more regulation and expensive new systems are required to control hobby drone use.
The biggest worry to most hobbyist drone fliers like myself is the proposed imposition of Remote ID. This would be a very complicated and hugely expensive system to implement, both for the CAA and for drone owners. Obviously no details are yet publicly available, but systems which would automatically impose fines if they detected what they were programmed to define as improper use are apparently being discussed. Quite how such fines would stand up in court could be problematical, as unlike speed cameras for instance, drone GPS systems are not calibrated to any legal standard, so the exact location of a drone will always be subject to error.
Technically many older drones would require the fitting of Remote ID modules, which are both expensive ( especially if each individual drone owned requires a dedicated module ) and difficult to retrofit to many drone designs. I for one would simply be unable to afford to fit a dedicated RID module to my drones ( I have 8 ), and in some cases the added weight of the module would cause the drone to exceed the 250g weight limit for operating in the Open A1 class.
Another concern regarding Remote ID is that of safety and privacy â it is reported that not only will the location of the drone be broadcast but also that of the flier. There are already stories emanating from the US that drone fliers whose location has been revealed by their Remote ID system have been assaulted or had their equipment stolen. I personally would not feel safe if I knew anyone with phone app could determine the location of me and my expensive equipment when flying.
Again, while Remote ID could potentially help track those using drones for nefarious purposes, it is unlikely anyone operating a drone with malicious intent would do so without first disabling the RID system on it, so once again only the law-abiding users would be impacted.
In summary the CAA have ignored the call for solid evidence that drones are an issue, and apparently want to impose an expensive âsolutionâ, while ignoring the actual issue of needing better education for new drone users. Basically, where is the evidence that changes are needed ? What is the justification for taking away the freedoms that we currently have ? Registered drone users pay an annual registration fee to the CAA, but receive nothing in return except ever more restrictive regulation.
Sorry for such a wordy reply, but as you may understand I am rather worried that the CAA are going to stop me indulging in a hobby I love.
Kind Regards
Martin Goldsack
3 Likes
only trouble is, will it be heardâŚ
Ahh, the eternal question. We all know MPâs have lots of work to do. Filling in expenses forms, ordering exotic food, fine wines and beers in the Commons bars and restaurants. Voting on whether to accept the latest pay rise etc, etc. Doesnât leave much time for them to bother about us plebs. Am I cynical ? You bet your life I am.
1 Like
hahah, yea, good job it aint darren henry ha! he will get his staff to just email a generic B.S lertter but we can only hope your email gets some response and spoken about etc
Well he asked for a reply to my original mail to him, so I guess he will read it
2 Likes
I was out flying today and bumped in to quite a few other drone flyers.
I was near portchester castle which sits right outside an FRZ and I couldnât believe how none of the other pilots I met were even aware that there was an FRZ.
One group of them even told me how they were flying at hill head beach the other day which sits directly under the approach patch of lee on Solent airport. They said âthe app doesnât show it as a restricted areaâ to which they were referring to DJI.
So itâs little wonder that the CAA want to introduce RID.
although again, that probably wouldnât have stopped this group as they still wouldnât have been aware it was an FRZ.
DJI really ought to be held accountable for their geofencing.
The fact that they HAVE geofencing appears to lead people to believe they have done their due diligence - a false sense of security if you would.
But it does
Other manafacturers are available.