But what if I just buy a self built drone in a Ready To Fly state? 
Which also isnāt possible on self builds 
/removes devils advocate hat
1 Like
A total no value qualification (always has been)
I built my first drone with a self-built flight controller (using a blue pill) and didnāt have a clue about regs
I wonder who is buying those though; I imagine probably someone who knows the regulations?
The only people unlikely to know the regulations, are the ones that wouldnāt know how to fly an FPV drone or are intimidated by the RTF style ones and are instead buying the likes of DJI drones which are simpler to buy, setup, and fly.
But otherwise, Iād argue those RTF ones would have to come under the same requirements of a DJI drone I guess.
Arguably, someone unaware of the rules, and buying a RTF FPV drone is the most dangerous scenario.
Honestly, a 249g DJI is not very dangerous. Theyrāe hard to crash, and typically arenāt flown very fast. Whereas someone unaware, buying a racing FPV Drone, is the one most likely to go to their local park and fly in to the face of an uninvolved child or through someoneās window.
Strangely, thatās not even what I suspect the āpublicā are scared of (and therefore isnāt what the CAA are trying to prevent). Itās someone taking a picture of them sunbathing in their garden that theyāre scared of that the regulations seem to be trying to prevent.
You donāt think?
I actually found the A2 CofC to be a pretty good qualification.
At least through most training providers I think.
Sure, itās pretty easy. But the fact you have to pay for it, makes sure that most people study sufficiently to pass the test. It covers all the regulations which is the main thing. Plus the tests are invigilated. If you have done that training, you cannot plead any ignorance.
The Flyer ID training and test I donāt even remember - plus itās an open book test (nothing prevents you from having the answers open in another tab).
I imagine thatās a fairly outlying case though - I canāt see many people successfully building a drone without at least somehow stumbling across the regulations.
A qualification that requires no flight test.
Liken to letting a 17 year old drive a (small) car alone after passing their theory.
Iāve been out with loads of people who have done it and donāt know their left from their right.
Throw a camera drone in the air in atti then tell me you can fly one
(rant over)
But thatās why I think itās a good incremental step. Limit those who have only done the theory element to flying further from people (50m).
Using the driving analogy, it would be similar to getting your provisional license (learners permit) in the USA where you have to do the theory test before you can start learning on the road.
Except here, we are saying they can fly further from people instead of them being supervised.
Then after a test which includes a practical element you can fly close to people.
Throw a camera drone in the air in atti then tell me you can fly one
You know that though, only because youāve done it already.
I bet of all those drone related āincidentsā that get harped on about in the CAA review, I reckon most are relating to DJI drones which are renowned for being easy to get in to and fly. Theyāre just simply less intimidating.
Although all that being said, I do now remember at 15 buying an RC helicopter. I donāt think I was aware of any regulations back then - not sure if there were any then because it didnāt have a camera. But at the same time, I also wasnāt flying anywhere public or much above head height. It also didnāt last very long because it had no gyro assistanceā¦
Because it should be a part of the test or any learning.
Bring back the PfCO I say
1 Like
Anyone who doesnāt have time time or the skill required to build their own FPV drone from scratch will often buy a RTF drone:
This kind of thing:
These people are the <0.x% edge-case though 
Everyone agrees, even CAA, thatās why they picked that weight and gave it so much free reign of the skies over a drone weighing 251g or more 
I see even Ian Mads Tech let his PDRA-01 expire just recently as itās just simply too much hassle to keep renewing it.
1 Like
It saddens me when I see a self professed āDrone Pilotā incapable of flying towards themselves LOS, and will invariably do a 180 and fly it in backwards.
Back to the task in handā¦
Iām personally finding it very hard to respond to this consultation document. To be inferred that something Iāve been doing since I was 9 or 10 years old, without any incidents to people or property, now represents a serious risk to safety and security, the latter of which the CAA have no jurisdiction over, has caused me to delete and rewrite my answers multiple times.
I received an email from the BMFA politely reminding me that they want money. Included in the email was a link to their response to the consultation document, and on the whole their answers align with those from FPV-UK. However itās still evident that they are still not welcoming of FPV and other camera platforms as they reference objections to cameras when it comes to the sub-250g category and proposed changes to how a toy is characterised.
Iām also concerned by the fact that Article 16 is referenced only once in the whole consultation document. The reference is to RID and that those flying with A16 authorisation at a recognised flying site MAY be exempt from RID requirements. This just enforces that the CAA choose their use of nomenclatures (when is a drone a SUAV but not a model aircraft?) to suite their own needs. Not everyone who uses an A16 authorisation is a member of a flying club with its own flying site. I thought the A16 authorisation was to recreational flying as the A2 certificate was to commercial flying with respect to craft greater than 250g.
Iām the worst when it comes to filling in forms. Thatās why even though I canāt walk Iāve not applied for any disability assistance, I donāt even have a blue badge parking permit, BUT I do intend to finish my response to this sham of a consultation even if it kills me, and the likelihood of that happening is quickly becoming a reality.
2 Likes
How many fields do BMFA have under their name? Is it more than 100?
Thereās approximately 850 BMFA affiliated clubs, I would hazard most of these have a flying site.
Thanks Nidge, was just looking to understand the scale 
According to the BMFA site they have approx 1000 flying sites.
The stepped training requirement seems to make sense, but it doesnāt cover those that have no knowledge of the ārulesā and these are probably the most risky flyers.
I keep coming back to the point ā¦. What problems are the CAA trying to resolve.?
Contrary to what the CAA imply in the opening section of the consultation, drones are incredibly safe and there is no obvious reason why any changes are needed.
The only part of the consultation that I do agree with is the imposition of the geo-fencing feature (on the assumption that the geo-fence zones are correctly implemented)