Jump to content

CAA Review of UK UAS Regulations


Recommended Posts

Posted

There are some worrying things this CAA document, most notably remote identification. Comments are required by the 7th September.

Quote

As uptake of UAS grows, regulation needs to effectively mitigate safety and security risks, whilst meeting the needs of UAS users. The CAA have identified opportunities to improve regulation of UAS, including simplifying the categorisations of operational requirements, and adopting product requirements to ensure UAS are safe and secure by design.

This Call for Input seeks views from the UAS community on opportunities to improve regulation of UAS, to ensure it is fit for the future. Feedback will be used by CAA, in addition to other evidence and analysis, to inform a future consultation on the changes we propose to progress.

CAP2569: Call for Input: Review of UK UAS Regulations

Posted

The pretext of this document is really ridiculous. 

Quote:

As uptake of UAS grows, regulation needs to effectively mitigate safety and security risks, whilst meeting the needs of UAS users.

 

Okay, but how many users are we talking about. Surely at least the CAA knows how many there are the moment.

This paragraph 😅

Despite current UAS regulation, some UAS are used unlawfully for smuggling,
harassment, and infringement of sensitive sites. The police currently have a limited
ability to identify the person responsible for a UAS’s operation at the time of an
incident. In the future, technology will enable UAS to transmit operator and flight
data during flight. This technology, called Remote ID, could allow police to identify
malicious and/or incompetent operators, both in real-time and historically – leading
to re-education, fines, or convictions.

Yeah those smugglers are going to be fully compliant with the rules aren't they. 

 

Just another "consultation" box ticking exercise. 

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

As usual the law is only there for those who follow it .

 

and I’m sure it will be the law abiding folks that have to pay for all of this new legislation 

Edited by Andy_B
  • Thanks 1
Posted

The only use I could see is it's another law broken by those that choose to use drones illegally 

"No transponder sonny, you're nicked!, Saves all the hassle of deciding if smuggling drugs into a prison is against the law or not.

Posted
5 hours ago, MikeE said:

The only use I could see is it's another law broken by those that choose to use drones illegally 

"No transponder sonny, you're nicked!, Saves all the hassle of deciding if smuggling drugs into a prison is against the law or not.

Thought the whole point is they can’t catch the ones that are illegal 😂😂😂

Posted
On 17/08/2023 at 14:53, MikeE said:

The only use I could see is it's another law broken by those that choose to use drones illegally 

They could be used as lost model locators if you have a suitable device for receiving the signals.

I did some work on this last winter probably will pick it up again in November.

Posted

Shirley we have an exemption from the regular CAA regulations using the BMFA Article 16 Authorisation? We had fun before in this thread :)

 

Posted
On 18/08/2023 at 18:40, Steve J said:

They could be used as lost model locators if you have a suitable device for receiving the signals.

I did some work on this last winter probably will pick it up again in November.

so could the same device that isn't a remote ID.  You can use a GPS to get the model's location already. 

The "consultation" is nothing more than a box ticking exercise - the decision has already been made. More money and more power for the CAA. 

Posted
4 hours ago, tonym said:

Shirley we have an exemption from the regular CAA regulations using the BMFA Article 16 Authorisation?

Article 16 is part of the regulations. If the CAA want to add remote ID to our authorisation, there is nothing stopping them.

Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, satinet said:

Better than the alternative

Unless the alternative was a return to the original ANO 2016.

Edited by Steve J
Posted
2 hours ago, Steve J said:

Unless the alternative was a return to the original ANO 2016.

That would be nice but unlikely.

 

Posted

The CAA also need to work with the European authorities to stop the ridiculous situation we currently have when trying to fly in Europe. 

Tests are the same but not recognised by different authorities.

Posted
1 hour ago, MikeE said:

The CAA also need to work with the European authorities to stop the ridiculous situation we currently have when trying to fly in Europe. 

Tests are the same but not recognised by different authorities.

That is a decision made by the EU/EASA.

Posted

Well, I had to do CAA drone test for model flying in UK. It was your decision to leave EASA, not vice versa. Note that for example Norway and Switzerland are still inside EASA while UK is not.

Posted
1 hour ago, hpihl said:

Well, I had to do CAA drone test for model flying in UK. It was your decision to leave EASA, not vice versa. Note that for example Norway and Switzerland are still inside EASA while UK is not.

It was the UK's decision to leave the EU. The UK has a Trade and Co-operation Agreement with the EU. Presumably this agreement could have included unmanned aircraft operator/remote pilot stuff if both sides had wanted it to.

Norway and Switzerland are members of EASA because they are members of EFTA.

Posted (edited)
On 29/08/2023 at 14:43, Steve J said:

It was the UK's decision to leave the EU. The UK has a Trade and Co-operation Agreement with the EU. Presumably this agreement could have included unmanned aircraft operator/remote pilot stuff if both sides had wanted it to.

Norway and Switzerland are members of EASA because they are members of EFTA.

The decision to leave EASA was solely by the UK, nothing indicates that EASA (or EU) was pushing the UK out of EASA. Actually there was lot will (within the UK and EASA) and rational reasons to stay in EASA.

"The Department for Transport said: "Being a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency is not compatible with the UK having genuine economic and political independence."

Read more here.

Edited by hpihl
Posted
49 minutes ago, hpihl said:

The decision to leave EASA was solely by the UK, nothing indicates that EASA (or EU) was pushing the UK out of EASA. Actually there was lot will (within the UK and EASA) and rational reasons to stay in EASA.

"The Department for Transport said: "Being a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency is not compatible with the UK having genuine economic and political independence."

Read more here.

Ironically the form mentions regulatory alignment as benefit....

Maybe what they mean is just follow everything the FAA does without having to think or actually understand anything about the subject matter.  

Posted
1 hour ago, hpihl said:

The decision to leave EASA was solely by the UK, nothing indicates that EASA (or EU) was pushing the UK out of EASA.

EASA is an EU agency. The UK is not a member of the EU or EFTA. The UK cannot be a member of EASA.

  • Thanks 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.