CAA Review of UK UAS Regulations

[Dave Elam]

Coincidence that the Telegraph publish this? Full of the usual alarmist nonsense of course.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/drone-bring-down-jet-emirates-gatwick-airport-ukraine-war/

[Steve J]

12 hours ago, Dave Elam said:

Coincidence that the Telegraph publish this?

It's funny how these stories appear in the MSM whenever the authorities are proposing regulatory changes.

[Steve J]

On 31/08/2023 at 10:10, satinet said:

The idea that people are going to want to setup a device with their ID number, model details etc on each and every model in bananas.

The way that they are implementing this in the US, you don't have to program the RID although you do have to link the RID's serial number to your ID. The Japanese have gone to the other extreme requiring the RID to interface to an app to allow the loading of the operators ID and a cryptographic key.

[satinet]

2 hours ago, Steve J said:

It's funny how these stories appear in the MSM whenever the authorities are proposing regulatory changes.

It's also purely coincidental that the suggestion of remote id comes at the same time that other aviation authorities in completely different parts of the world brought in the same thing. Monkey see monkey do. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by satinet

[Steve J]

6 minutes ago, satinet said:

It's also purely coincidental that the suggestion of remote id comes at the same time that other aviation authorities in completely different parts of the world brought in the same thing.

Remote ID is in the EU regulations. Shapps removed some of it from the retained version of 2019/947. He is no longer Secretary of State at the DfT and the CAA want to bring it back.

I would not be surprised if DJIs and Parrots bought in the last six months are transmitting RID.

[cirrusRC]

Done

Reminder "Responses to this Call for Input are required by 7th September 2023"

[Steve J]

CAP 2609: Call for Input Response Summary

CAP 2610: Consultation Review of UK Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations

Yes, the result of the 'call for input' is a consultation.

[Steve J]

CAP 2610 is awful. For anything over 250g, it's fly at an authorised club site or livestream your flight to a server somewhere using a module that currently costs c. €300.

[Pete in Northiam]

How do we register flying fields? We (ESSA) have about 20 local slopes on the South Downs we use (legally and with permissions) to suit the wind. Can we register all of them? Maybe should be on everyone's AGM agenda?

[Steve J]

10 minutes ago, Pete in Northiam said:

How do we register flying fields?

That is a question for the BMFA who hopefully asked this question of the CAA.

All that is in 2610 is this 

 

 

 

[wookman]

From the:

Call for Input Response Summary:
Review of UK Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Regulations

Overall, the Call for Input received 2,568 responses via the online feedback form and 61
responses via email.

BMFA membership 34,000

[wookman]

1 hour ago, Pete in Northiam said:

How do we register flying fields? We (ESSA) have about 20 local slopes on the South Downs we use (legally and with permissions) to suit the wind.

Same situation with Dartmoor and various other rural sites in the South west.

[Steve J]

11 minutes ago, wookman said:

BMFA membership 34,000

Current BMFA membership is < 30k, but yes, the response could have been better.

[satinet]

R.i.p slope soaring.

 

Caa absolute scum.  

[Dave Elam]

2 hours ago, Steve J said:

CAP 2610 is awful. For anything over 250g, it's fly at an authorised club site or livestream your flight to a server somewhere using a module that currently costs c. €300.

Spektrum RID's are advertised at $100 so based on other current Spektrum pricing would be a little over £100.

Compulsary fitting of these devices is still four years away so you have to assume that all manufacturers will have products available that by then are both cheap and easy to fit into our models. It's probably likely that RID will be incorporated into receivers as well which would certainly make installation a lot easier.

Surely the simple solution to this 'user and model visibility' issue is to use a smartphone app that provides a location and operating radius to the central database?

[Steve J]

Just now, Dave Elam said:

Spektrum RID's are advertised at $100 so based on other current Spektrum pricing would be a little over £100.

That is direct RID. The CAA are going network RID. The FAA originally wanted network, but backed off after 50k responses to their proposal.

[oipigface]

50 minutes ago, satinet said:

R.i.p slope soaring.

 

Caa absolute scum.  

Not sure that your second remark is helpful, Tom, but I understand how the proposed restrictions could impact on flying from some sites. It will probably be possible to register any site that is used regularly by members of clubs, and especially those that are used regularly for competitions. For many clubs, there are long-standing agreements with landowners, some of which involve payment. I don’t know if the CAA would require the landowner to be party to registration.  The agreement we have (via, I believe, the BMFA) with the National Trust may make it comparatively easy to ‘batch register’ all NT land.

How these issues can be communicated effectively to the BMFA, I don’t know. They seem more interested in tethered cars than slope soaring..

 

11 minutes ago, Steve J said:

That is direct RID. The CAA are going network RID. The FAA originally wanted network, but backed off after 50k responses to their proposal.
 

Big brother is watching you!

[satinet]

5 minutes ago, oipigface said:

Not sure that your second remark is helpful, Tom, but I understand how the proposed restrictions could impact on flying from some sites. It will probably be possible to register any site that is used regularly by members of clubs, and especially those that are used regularly for competitions. For many clubs, there are long-standing agreements with landowners, some of which involve payment. I don’t know if the CAA would require the landowner to be party to registration.  The agreement we have (via, I believe, the BMFA) with the National Trust may make it comparatively easy to ‘batch register’ all NT land.

How these issues can be communicated effectively to the BMFA, I don’t know. They seem more interested in tethered cars than slope soaring.

 

Big brother is watching you!

It's not helpful just an expression of reality.

The reality is that the rules are unnecessary for model flying and only exist for the caa to feather its nest.  Nothing more than daylight robbery and infringement of people's freedom to actually enjoy life. So basically the norm these days.

We need to stop pretending that the caa is acting in any sort of good faith and it's got anything to do with reason or reality.  No point getting worked up about how many people did or didn't respond to the call for consultation or whatever it was. Makes no difference at all. Lots of lovely pointless jobs and pensions in all this 

 

Edited November 24, 2023 by satinet

[paul w]

As has been the case all along, it's absolutely despicable that all the risk they are trying to legislate against has absolutely nothing to do with our community, and yet they're still adamant that a separate legislative umbrella for us would be unworkable.

All we can do is put as strong a representation as possible forward in response to this 'consultation'. Though, as already demonstrated, any majority view from our side will just be steamrollered (rant over!).

Anyone know the definition of an 'association site' ? (see page 26 of CAP261).

[Steve J]

2 minutes ago, oipigface said:

It will probably be possible to register any site that is used regularly by members of clubs, and especially those that are used regularly for competitions.

I wonder how much the CAA will charge to authorise a site.