Are the CAA trying to destroy our Hobby? Why you HAVE to answer their Call for Input
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- The CAA are asking for our input on shaping the future of drones in the UK, and these new drone rules will have a massive effect on how we fly. Their proposals include the possibility of removing the exemptions that the Mini 3 Pro enjoys, and bringing in Remote ID in a way that will let them trawl back through flights and issue fines for flights you made months ago.
It's a long video but you really need to take the survey! Tell them it's Unacceptable!
Background Document: CAP 2569:
publicapps.caa...
Online Response Form:
consultations....
Email direct: uasregulatoryreview@caa.co.uk
** Check the pinned comment for full text of my responses....
And if you want, you can buy me a beer or coffee at www.buymeacoff...
**
Thinking of getting a DJI Drone? Help me & my channel by clicking through to DJI or Amazon to look at their offers.
DJI Mini 3 Pro: click.dji.com/...
DJI Air 3: click.dji.com/...
DJI Mavic 3 Classic: click.dji.com/...
DJI Avata: click.dji.com/...
Useful Stuff I use:
Anker 32W USB C Fast Charger for Mini2 & Mini 3s: amzn.to/3BqeqSJ
Omnicharge 20c+Powerbank: amzn.to/3S2FOxc
Sandisk Ultra high speed write: amzn.to/2QRsxdg
DJI Radio Mic: store.dji.com/...
Ultra fast USB Flash Drive: amzn.to/2UJiSJK
Freewell ND Filters: amzn.to/3WB2DJZ
Anker Portable Power station for charging: amzn.to/3I5qzQ2
Affiliate links don't cost you any more but do give my channel a small
commission which helps me buy more stuff to test and review for you.
** I disable mid-roll adverts on my videos to make things nicer to watch! You can buy me a beer or coffee at www.buymeacoff...
or
www.paypal.me/...
or better still, join my channel at www.youtube.co...
**
Images in multiple formats with easy shipping to USA, UK & Worldwide:
fineartamerica...
** The excellent Drone Scene app: dronescene.co.uk/
Now with 12 months £5m public liability insurance & access to all features for just £25 a year:
Get 10% off with code "IanInLondon": greyarro.ws/fa...
All run by the most useful & friendliest UK-based Grey Arrows Drone Club:
greyarro.ws/
Music in today's video: Epidemic Sound
Use the link for a free trial: www.epidemicso...
Happy flying everyone.... Ian
Email direct: uasregulatoryreview@caa.co.uk
Anyone can and must take the survey. Don't copy and paste; think of your own answers, but here's my answers in full to help you out.....
>>
Q1.
Neither agree nor disagree
It's not clear exactly what the so-called evolving security and safety risks actually are, as no evidence is shown, but the fact remains that the majority of
users and flights are consumers flying intelligent, GPS lightweight (sub 1Kg) drones and therefore should benefit from the simplest categories and rules.
Q2: Should CAA adopt the following policy objectives for operational requirements and why?
Mitigate safety and security risks: No, to an extent
User-centric: Definitely yes
Enforceable: Yes, to an extent
Growth enabling: Yes, to an extent
Scalable: Yes, to an extent
Overall, existing rules and regulations could be sufficient, especially if more use of geo-fencing is made for sensitive areas. Mitigation should only be on a
proportional basis, based on actual evidence. Enforcement should again be proportional and only target those with a clear intention on disruption or
misuse, and not penalise users making simple errors.
Q3 Do you value international alignment in operational requirements, and why?
Yes, to an extent
International alignment makes things easier for visitors and crucially, will keep functionality uniform, without having to have different restrictions based
on different countries. We don’t have to follow them exactly and a slight divergence may allow for more freedom to fly based on intelligent design and
geo-restrictions.
Q4 Should CAA re-name operational categories and sub-categories (Opportunity 1) and why?
Yes, to an extent:
Only to make the names more meaningful. The term Open Category is as simple as it gets, but having sub categories called A1 A2 and A3 means nothing
to anyone, so yes, call them what they are: Over, Near or Far away
Q 5 Should CAA simplify how operational requirements are categorised (Opportunity 2) and why?
Definitely no
Keep rules for flying over people in congested areas separate from flights for far away from people in open countryside.
Q6 Should CAA update how model aircraft operations are regulated (Opportunity 3) and why?
Definitely yes
Model Aircraft, when flown / controlled directly from a flying club location, should absolutely have separate regulations as they present different technical
abilities, lower risk and usually higher flying skills of the operator.
Q7 Should CAA simplify exclusions from operational requirements (Opportunity 4) and why? Please describe any alternative exclusions that should be considered.
Definitely no
These small drones pose a near negligible threat to safety and their use is widespread. Reliance on geo-restrictions should be increased to avoid sensitive
areas.
If it has a camera, it is not a toy and must have gps awareness.
Q8 Should CAA change transitional arrangements for users of UAS without class-marks (Opportunity 5) and why?
Yes, to an extent
There is no evidence to suggest that a drone bought today will suddenly become dangerous after 2026. The CAA abandoned C-classifications before they
had an alternative, which is already unfair to all UK flyers of these newer models with C1 label. So the transition arrangements should be changed to permit C-1 labelled drones to have the same freedoms enjoyed in Europe.
If NEW designs come out with new class markings that permit new exemptions or more freedom, then those new permissions can apply to those new models
Q9 Do you agree with the issues identified by stakeholders relating to product requirements, and why?
Definitely disagree
You don't advise who the stakeholders are, but fundamentally, the class markings are quite simple, with C0 and C1 models making up the vast majority of
models flown by amateurs and even professionals. These models already have specific technical requirements that have safety at their core, and are
accepted throughout Europe and cause very little confusion. What is trying to be fixed here?
Q10 Should CAA adopt the following policy objectives for product requirements, and why?
Mitigates safety and security risks: No, to an extent
User-centric: Definitely yes
Growth enabling: Definitely yes
Scalable: Definitely yes
Internationally aligned: Yes, to an extent
People intent on doing bad will always find ways to mis-use equipment. Mis-use of UAS can be summarised by flying a larger model too close to people -
smaller models present practically no risk here. And for criminals or so called auditors, then make more use of geo-restrictions help mitigate this. The
requirement for C0 sub 250 gram drones to have gps-awareness and comply with geo-fencing seems the easiest and least intrusive solution here.
Q 11 Should CAA implement manufacturer standards (Opportunity 8) and why?
Yes, to an extent
There is already a universally understood class system, where C0 and C1 cover almost all consumer drones bought today. It is wrong to combine these
and capture much heavier, riskier models. Just re-implement the EASA based C0 - C4 classes as these are understood and clear, and specifically focus on
C0 and C1 as these make up most models.
Q12 Should CAA implement a product labelling scheme (Opportunity 9) and why?
Yes, to an extent
Based on existing EASA based numeric C0-C4 labels.
Q13 Should CAA simplify exclusions from product requirements (Opportunity 10) and why?
Definitely no
The current exemptions for flying C0 models are fine; the only additional requirement should be the imposition of geo-awareness. The CAA’s role is to ensure safety in the skies, not enforce what information is captured; that’s for other agencies like the police to enforce. If police stations are considered
sensitive, then these should be geo-protected like prisons.
The safety risks posed by sub 250 grams drones are negligible, based on the total lack of incidents caused by them. The popularity of these small models should not be impacted by the actions of a tiny minority of users.
Q14 Should CAA implement Remote ID (Opportunity 11) and why?
Definitely no
Remote ID does not assist with flight safety in any way and is, in the CAA’s own words, simply a tool for re-education, fines or conviction.
Enforced geo-fencing is less intrusive to assist compliance with avoiding sensitive areas. Such data capturing of all car movements and driving would not
be permitted. There would be universal outrage if this was to be implemented for cars.
The CAA must stick to flight safety, not persecution and data harvesting.
Q 15 Should CAA to implement geo-awareness (Opportunity 12) and why?
Definitely yes
This is the key to preventing unauthorised flights by unsuspecting users. In my opinion all models, including sub-250 gram models with cameras, should have geo-awareness required. But at the same time, the geo-restricted areas programmed in need to better aligned with the actual areas restricted.
Height-based geo-restrictions are also under-used but could help massively. A drone flown under 30 metres high is no threat to any other aircraft, so height restrictions should be more widely used to allow more flow-level flying in more areas.
Q 16 Should CAA introduce requirements for manufacturers to provide user guidance during product set-up or pre-flight, via the controller or other interface (Opportunity 13) and why?
Definitely yes
You don’t drive a car without learning; basic user guidance makes perfect sense and is already present on all new DJI drones as part of the set up process.
Q17 Should CAA introduce user validation requirements on manufacturers (Opportunity 14) and why?
No, to an extent
You are mixing technologies and data from different bodies. You have to be able to register more than one drone against the same ID, so you will end up
with generic IDs posted online and the verification will be meaningless.
Q18 Should CAA simplify policy and guidance document structure (Opportunity 15) and why?
Definitely yes
Yes I would be very happy to see anything that simplifies and clarifies the rules for flying drones. I look at the rules for paragliding (they have none of the regulations that drones have) and I genuinely wonder why, given the near total lack of any real incident involving a drone, why does the CAA keep running
around tying itself in knots about the threats of drones that simply hasn’t materialised.
Q 19 What other opportunities to improve UAS regulation, beyond those described in this Call for Input, would you like to see progressed?
What other opportunities to improve UAS regulation, beyond those described in this Call for Input, would you like to see progressed?:
- Make the rules for smaller drones under 1 Kg simpler.
- Clarify VLOS and make it more relevant, based on seeing the area you’re flying in, not being able to see which way the drone is pointing. If there is any
danger from an approaching aircraft, DOWN is the only way you need to fly, so the current VLOS requirements are useless and risk being ignored by the
masses. - Bring in lower height restrictions to let smaller drones fly in more places.
- Use geo-restrictions to stop them flying near sensitive areas.
And above all, make policy based on evidence, not paranoia.
Another very informative video, thanks Ian 👍🏻
Huge thank you for doing this Ian it's such an important issue and we need to respond to this CAA document. You have certainly broken the back of all this complex information and made it far easier to respond.
Full agreed 👍 you should have 1 million likes just on this comment for the commitment of typing it out 💪
Thanks Ian. The brains (or lack of)who wrote this truly are f**ktards . Ridiculous. Thanks for taken the time to film this very informative video.
Trust a Yank under the FAA RID thumb.. FIGHT THIS!
What worries me even more is that they obviously do not want any of us to answer these questions - else they would have simply sent the questionaire to every single registered drone operator in the UK. They have not. They publish this without telling anyone and set a short deadline. Its scandalous.
I didnt know about it myself until coming here, glad I seen it Thanks to Ian and got to put my response in.
I shared this to 1 drone forum but I think we need everyone to get into this
Same, I'm PfCO and CoA2 and not a single email. I think that speaks volumes about their intent!
We're the home of posting notices on the wall of the planning department. It's literally how hitchhikers guide starts
They don't want input but just want to make it appear rc pilots got their say.
There's only one place for that document and its in the Bin. Biggest load of nonsense isnt it. Well said Ian
Love that Ian "make policy based on evidence,not paranoia" 👍👍👍👍
Ian I wish you were in charge of these committee's
You would clear up 90 % of the confusion just using common sense and a clear head.
I’m sorry Ian but this is the last straw
Any bloody hobby a law abiding citizen in this country has is tide up in so much law and cost. Wild camping ,photography ,fishing. Or flying a drone. So the CAA can go to hell. I will always be safe and I don’t need some stuffed shirt to take money off me or try and tell me what or how to spend my spare time. Sorry mucker but enough is enough
You have done nothing but try and help. And I thank you very much for your time and effort
This is the thing, people will just say FK it catch me if you can, the rules will become more draconian and more unenforceable.
The rules need to be there to stop cowboys from flying drones irresponsibly. As a GA pilot, I'm all for them. I'm sure there are responsible people using drones but have also had some near misses. Bring on the draconian laws if it means it stops the idiots our there. Fear mongering, you say? It only takes one incident to turn this on its head.
@@SW-yz4fvAs a 2000 hour GA pilot I have never found the CAA to be other than self serving. You should understand the objective, to reduce ALL GA flying, manned and unmanned to a minimum to allow fuller free movement of fee paying commercial operations. Look at a map of airspace today compared with twenty years ago, yet there is much LESS flying than there was then.
Where can we see your reports on the said near misses. Just askin'
@@MistralisArracant ,kinda hard to identify a drone when you are flying at 500 mph at high altitude, you could visually inspect it for a millisecond or two.................propaganda
I’m selling up, caa are going to make it so difficult or impossible to fly. Another hobby destroyed.
Yes, I've only had my DJI Mini Pro for few months & just got DJI Air 3 and a few flights with both, now thinking will have to sell both.
I sold up all my gear a few weeks back. I can see this heading in a bad direction so thought I would sell up while it had some value in it
I was happy to be part of this.... until I started reading and answering the questions... I just became very angry for about 2 hours! I would have said an over-zealous member of staff created this, but I believe they actually have a complete incompetent team 😥 the evidence is there for that!!!
Read my post in response. You’re 100% correct
Amazing presentation and argument Ian! The CAA just like the FAA here in the US pretends to care about the hobby but you can tell that this is all about money to be exchanged in greedy hands. It is beyond what is reasonable for safety. So sad. Too bad what happens there will probably happen here and in reverse. This hobby will eventually be completely destroyed by the authorities! Then flying will become illegal.
I will fly illegally before I ground myself
fuck these law makers- I'm doing nothing wrong
One of your best vids mate. Initially, I thought it was just me when I tried to complete this a couple of weeks back. It is a complete and utter clusterfuck of a document. And definitely the epitome of the challenges we face today with UAS rules and guidance here in the UK. After your comment on GADC, and with help from your vid, I have now completed the form and submitted it. I genuinely do not understand why the CAA are making things so overly complicated for the hobby ... it is nothing short of scaremongering. Cheers mate.
I salute you, Ian.
You fly these drones, you’re passionate and you are responsible.
You’re rant is appreciated and I support you✌🏻
Thank you squire! I should have been wearing your cap you gave me :)
*your. I wonder why so many people mix up the words "your, and you're"?
CAA moving to kill off a hobby for thousands of small drone owners. Very sad.
Not convinced they want to kill it off. What they want is data, they (the government) make millions from it, look at the NHS and Palantir. Why kill off something that can be regulated and then monetized. These people are interest in two things, money and control over peoples lives. We need to remember that these people have arseholes too (in some cases are arseholes) and the same thing comes out of theirs too.
I follow a lot of drone commercial forums and a lot of the guys want it to be harder for small drone flyers to fly no doubt about it, they are pushing for these rules to be made harder I believe.
@@JasonSturgesseven commercial flyers have to follow the same rules,they don’t get any diff rules than the rest of us
@@Northern-dronethey have the financial wherewithal to comply though. They know full well that the hobbyists will simply give up if enough hoops to jump through are placed in front of them.
I think they want as many restrictions on private drones as possible for the simple reason of public order and controlling the narrative. Imagine a situation of a public protest, the news is broadcast that the protesters began to riot and it was necessary for the police to baton charge them. Then suddenly a video appears on UA-cam in 4K, shot by a privately owned drone that shows the protesters were peacefully marching and the police attempted a kettling manoeuvre on them. The authorities want the only footage to be under their control and editing to show the official narrative. It’s happened before, just google the Orgreave riots.
From what I've seen in new Zealand on xjet channel Bruce has been in hobby flying for 30-40 years and a very wide spread of aircraft, but his local council has made his life hell 😮
What annoys me the most is that someone got paid a hell of a lot of money to sit in a room thinking up this shite! 😡
Its those anonymous 'stakeholders' that need exposing. We can suspect the large commercial operators are wanting the skies clear for their exclusive use.
The future of policing -Drones on the beat,
If thats the case I won’t use my drone but I got something for their drones, which I will use every time I see one.
Yup, the moment you see "Stakeholders" it tells you that the person writing the document knows all the buzzwords but little else.
I see no issue with your rant, it offers effective documented proof in what type of ineptitude we're having to work through with this CAA document. I think for the most everyone understands your points and appreciates your explanation. Unlike the CAA who as a body in charge has gone out of its way to demonstrate it doesn't understand what its talking about...unless there's an agenda, now there's a worry!?
from a fellow drone pilot 100% agree...here in Portugal they are not so strict but I have heard that they intend to follow the USA FAA rules....good job....
Does it not concern everybody that once it passes in one country.... it spreads... WORLDWIDE...
That should make you're pants brown, coordinated WORLDWIDE
Spot on, Ian! I’ll fill tomorrow, what a breath of fresh air you are! After having a look tonight , I just thought ‘what gibberish’ and set it aside to reconsider. I’ll go forth tomorrow and with your guidance, I’ll sling it back to them! Bless!
Straight to the point with a passion!! No click bait and no self importance.
The most straightforward video on this subject and I Thank You for that.
I would only add that going direct to the CAA website rather than several people linking from UA-cam.
Thank You Ian 🙂👍
My response, by email:
I have read the Call for Input document but am unable to understand much of what is being proposed and, even worse, how many of the questions relate to this document.
If the aim is to confuse then it is certainly successful.
I feel that this Call for Input is badly thought out, deliberately confusing and seems to be implying that there are major safety issues with the use of small drones. I have not seen any evidence to support such a position from the CAA. How many people have been injured or killed by UAV's in the UK in the last year?
It seems that the CAA is trying to find solutions to problems that don't exist and trying to bring about major hurdles to the use of drones by the public.
I think the CAA should rethink this whole exercise and start again with detailed proposals, clear questions, clear definitions of terms and parties referred to in the document and state the objectives of the exercise. As this stands it is not fit for purpose.
Regards...
Excellent Response!
Such a great video perfectly explained! As a forma aircraft engineer I really do sympathies with you. I sat here laughing at your rants because I know exactly what you mean by the CAA making a mockery of what should be, to any sane person, a simple exercise to gather relevant and meaningful information. I have no doubt they will simply ignore the answers to the questionnaire and do exactly what they want, or what some shinny arse twat of a politician tells them to do to raise money from fines.
That is exactly what will happen.
What a complete and utter mess! Worrying thing is that the people writing such a nonsensical document are the ones that make the rules.
Fair play to you Ian for putting this out. Off to read and answer.
Thank you Ian for this very informative blog,I thought it was only me that was bursting blood vessels with this totally out of control Authority. They have the ability to put through good rules and understandable rules but seem to alway go in the opposite direction. I just hope they make the right decisions at the end of the day,but I am not too sure. I hope they see this blog and sit in a room to watch it and then action on it.
Thanks again well done.
There's no point. They won't listen to us. They'll just do what they want. This feedback is just a notion they have to go through.
The document and questions are impenetrable guff.
I wasted a couple of hours trying to make sense of it, without success.
I won't be responding because the questions are complete and utter bollocks.
They don’t want our input, they want to check a box saying that they asked for 😢
Great video Ian. Totally agree with just about everything you say. I thing you missed a trick to make this more entertaining to the viewing audience. You should have had a blood pressure monitor on and a display a real time live chart of it as you went through the docs. 😉
Hi Ian, Im 65yrs old and tried to fill in this form and my brain was totally fucked trying to understand their stupid questions. Yes we know we need to be safe and keep away from sensitive areas but looking at other countries and the rules they have to stick to, they are not making it fair for us in the UK, so can understand your frustration. It seems like CAA have now given us an email address to contact them directly and make our point. See how that goes. Im thinking I will have ceased flying by 2026 so fuck em. Good luck.
I am 76 and my brain is completely addled having tried to get to grips with "the survey", what a farce...
It's because the CAA are protecting commercial interests. They have killed general (light) aviation through overregulation and the consequent costs this means. Only the retired and very well off now fly; there are very few youngsters coming through. It has been long-said that the CAA is trying to get rid of as much non-commercial flying as they can. When you think that an F-15 can fly at low level through a mountain valley where there is no controlled airspace at all, often putting them in conflict with light aircraft just having a sightseeing tour, then you realise there is a very lopsided view of reality at the CAA. They are essentially panicking because of the growth in numbers, which is seen as an automatic threat, even though the vast majority wish to comply with reasonable rules, based on reasonable, evidenced concerns. Regulation is the CAAs answer not so much for safety of flight, but removal of types of flight that might impinge on commercial flight.
Ian, I tried to do this and it’s worse than getting to grips withe Magna Carta or war and Peace. Yes. The reason why they made it difficult is to get less input. They have an agenda and that’s to see us (hobbyists) out of the skies. They are working for big operators who are into various drone related businesses. It’s disgusting how people who are paid with our tax money work against us.
I don't feel they really care to be honest. It's just so they can tick a box and say they have gathered feedback ... they will do what they want irrespective of our feedback, thoughts or opinions. I'll still have my say & hopefully everybody else will too, but I think they have already made up their minds and this "opinion" gathering is merely for show.
Sad, but as soon as a body that regulates things in the UK gets involved it seems to not go very well. Incoherent rambling requirements are a hallmark it seems. I drive HGVs and the rules for HGV drivers are similarly apparently written with the intention of getting to fine drivers for minor cock ups vs some stupidly disjointed and multifaceted rules that could easily be consolidated and simplified. But this is the way of Gov bodies it seems.
Regulation is the problem. On a hobby that has not caused 1 single fatality in the entire history of the hobby. Regulation will not stop bad players from behaving badly! This has nothing to do with safety! and everything to do with the needs of corporate players who want to use the airspace for commercial deliveries. Its all about making life difficult for as many people. Vilifying the hobby in the eyes of the general population and persuading as many people as possible to abandon the hobby.
How can we take seriously, any group of bureaucrats and civil servants who believe that they can dictate to the rest of us, how best to do the things we've been doing for years?
I would love to see the levels of experience and competence that those making these rules can provide in respect to the discplines they're regulating. Surely they must prove their qualifications to dictate to us how we fly before we can take those diktats serious.
The more complex regulations become, the less likely they are to garner significant compliance.
One must also wonder why, if the way forward appears to be multiple levels of certification for operators, the regulations are so prescriptive.
Surely, if you've ascertained (by way of certification) that the operator has the knowledge, skills and necessary responsible attitude then they should only need "guidance" rather than hardcore regulation. The decisions that ensure safety are much better made by the operator with boots on the ground, on the day and who is fully aware of all the factors involved in those decisions. To allow a bureaucrat in a smart suit sitting behind a walnut desk in an ivory tower to make the decisions (by way of overly-prescriptive regulation) is lunacy.
You can either have highly prescriptive regulation or you can have certification -- to have both is unacceptable and constitutes massive over-regulation.
Ian, we need to lobby MP's. Other interest groups who have had their liberties threataned often publish a standard letter and a list of all the countries MPs and their email addresses so that subscribes can send the letter of concern to their MP in a couple of clicks. This has been done to huge beneficial effect. I recon you could do that and make it the subject and content of your next upload. Thatt would make a REAL difference.
One of my thoughts exactly, I managed to lobby your local MP. The majority of my drum work has benefited the local community with information about local issues, and so our MP should be very supportive of me being able to continue to do that.
Thanks very much for that Ian very useful. The form was a bit confusing for sure not an easy one to answer. Another UA-cam channel Geeksvanna has been in touch with his CAA contact and they have now provided an Email address for general comments to be sent in and considered for those who don’t have time to complete the form.
You have made some great points on your reply though. The Mini, Air and Mavic are almost intrinsically safe unless flown completely irresponsibly. Personally I think the DMARES test should be improved and made compulsory and include some elements from the A2 CofC.
I’m looking to introduce lightweight UAVs up to 1.5kg in to our business and am proposing that all our staff who use them get the A2 even for the sub 250g.
I personally think the 25kg in A3 is too high which is why I’m proposing to limit to 1.5kg which covers some great devices up to the old Phantom 4 (1.4kg). I would also be wary about the so called ‘toy’ drones ie without proper stabilisation systems, which could easily hit buildings, cars and injure children or pets, maybe these should be limited to extent of garden or 50 m bubble.
It's an absolute mess. A document produced using the most confusing CAA-ese, designed to enable pre-determined outcomes.
Huge thanks Ian. Good coverage of the problem, of which I was unaware. The restricted time for formal response is appalling given the complexity and breadth of the subject. I’ll be getting on with replying tomorrow.
Ian, never seen you so angry… but you are a absolutely right. You are always balanced on your channel. I have read this and again, you’re right, not clear. My view is either some people writing this, don’t truly understand OR they have done this to purposely confused the people that make the final decision. CAA DO need to share example why, what’s happened to allow us to make informed decisions on this survey. Geo fencing is the way, or consider ALL drone flyers to do a CofC just to support skill and understanding. Hope they sort this out. Ian, keep doing what your doing and thank you for your videos.
Well it’s certainly started a good few conversations that’s for sure. Having worked in government and still having friends there I can assume with a good degree of certainty that the rise of so called ‘audit’ videos and the pressures from companies who have been on the receiving end of these, on the government to do something has had a massive influence on these regulatory proposals
The CAA need to watch this video and adjust their piece of crap. I was totally shocked by the lack of any information provided by them. We love our little drones and do everything to make a safe fun flying video for our friends and family. I think every single reply and response you gave to the obscure questions is correct. Much love fella & thank you. 🙏🏼
They are approaching a hobby with the same attitude that they approach 'proper' aviation (I'm a private and drone pilot). The CAA is not used to much other than telling aviators what to do. It overregulates everything, including general light aviation. It is not the first time that the CAA has been accused of wanting to destroy anything other than commercial aviation through regulation and costs.
I WAS considering purchasing a 'proper sub 250g drone' a DJI or similar ( I bought a cheap toy one first just to see if I liked the hobby) only to find now that legislation will probably deter me . I agree there should be some form of control or monitoring but this , in my opinion, is going to take things to a ridiculous degree.
I rarely, if not at all, hear about drones crashing or causing threat to life but the authorities seem hell bent on limiting the pilots enjoyment and usage whilst at the same time turning a blind eye to all the other misdemeanors that take place out on our roads each and every day from cars being driven without tax or insurance through to illegal electric scooters causing havoc on the pathways . Indeed I've watched police patrol cars pass these scooters and take no action ! I know I've gone off point a bit here but , as a retired person, I was really looking forward to engaging in a harmless hobby , I even have a flyer and operator ID, I doubt that I'll move forward with this hobby now .
Enjoying your videos and advice all the same .
Not living in the UK, but I enjoy you addressing this issue and I hear very sensible arguments...
I'm curious where EASA is heading to in the EU.
I'm flying the Mini 4 Pro, having registered as a drone operator, and I even plan to take the A1 exam just in case the drone exceeds the 249g "border", e.g. if you attach an anti-collision strobe.
And yes, "VLOS" is very vague. Can anyone spot a mini drone flying against a backdrop of trees??
One thing I always do: activate screen recording every flight again... just to be able to interpret reactions of the drone after the flight :)
Happy flying!
Hi Ian. Excellent video and hopefully people will use it to help consider and frame their responses. I have read the guidance and questions a number of times and like you, got incredibly angry at how inept the survey is. Sean at Geeksvanna makes an excellent point that the CAA is bound by the regulators code to provide simple and straightforward ways to engage with
those they regulate and hear their views. This is about as far away from this as possible! On a different note, the obvious overture to introducing Remote ID is ridiculous and won't help in any way. It beggars belief that the CAA are even looking to introduce it under the premise it will help improve air safety. It would fall foul of Article 8 ECHR (the right to respect for your family and private life, your home and your correspondence) on the basis that GDPR defines GPS data (as in mobile phones) as personal data. The exact definition is: personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person. Drone GPS data being gathered by the UK mobile phone network using Remote ID (the only way this could work) would meet this criteria perfectly. The restriction regarding gaining access to such data are understandably strict. If anyone (CAA/police) want to gain access to it there is a raft of investigatory legislation which sets certain conditions as to why access is required. It has to have some basis of reason (i.e. the suspicion an offence has occurred) be necessary and proportionate to the offence under investigation and not available via any other means. This is the same provisions that all GPS enabled mobile phones are given, rightly so as you mobile is always broadcasting your location for a government agency to collect should the criteria be met. So cart blanch access to the CAA for Remote ID data would never be granted unless similar conditions are met. I would expect if it is introduced some drone loving barrister to challenge it in court! Needless to say all of the above made it into my CAA response (it was a big RANT!🤣). Thanks again and keep up the good work. Cheers. SAA
Evening Ian, I listened to some, but not all, of Sean's take on this and to be honest I got lost... yours I got.
The fact that you have given us your answers to read through, and give us less intelligent people an idea what to say helps enormously.
I have three days off work and I'm going to be working through the 19 questions - being a fairly new drone user no way do I want my investment sitting on the bookshelf gathering dust!
Many thanks
I would actually dive into the questionnaire and skip document now... Much quicker...
Hi Ian.
Im brand new to drone flying. I purchased the Dji MP3 4 weeks ago and was completely hooked. I finally found a hobby that made me feel happy.
Got the flyer ID, operator ID and insurance, read all the do's and dont's and fly very early mornings or later evenings so I dont intrude on the public.
But having watched your excellent video here, Im already beginning to question myself as a drone enthusiast.
With the amount of red tape we may have to go through to get off the ground, will it be worthwhile? Retrospective fines?! Dear God, we'll be on par with South Korea in 10 years time.
Thanks again for this and the many other wonderful videos you produce mate
One thing to include in comments about Remote ID is to point out how it is unjustifiable under the data protection principles of the data protection act. Every organisation, including the CAA, has to obey the data protection act.
Yes, I did wonder that....
Until this government repeals it, that is.
They can justify it fully under 'crime prevention and detection'. @@IaninLondon
Brilliant Ian lets hope they can see some sense in our collective responses and stop this paranoia, which is just killing off the industry and peoples freedom! Your help in understanding this farcical document is really appreciated, and I hope the outcome of all of this doesn’t mean having to sell my drones due to this endless red tape! 😢
Ian. Bravo, sir! I feel your pain, frustration and anger with the CAA. I have spent the last three days trying to make sense of this document and my conclusions pretty much mirror everything you discussed in your video. CAA paranoia, hidden agendas, lack of proportionality, lack of evidence, drone auditors, vague documentation and persecution of a small number of drone users versus a huge population of unregulated car drivers. I’ve literally been tearing my hair out whilst my wife keeps telling me to calm down in case my blood pressure hits the roof. My answers have turned into War & Peace so it was useful to see your succinct answers to many of those the ridiculous questions. Hope you grabbed a beer after completing the survey 👍 🍺 Thx again
Thank you for posting this, I can see your passion. I have made a response and have to say I may not have done if I had not seen your video. I know that regulation will only get tighter and If response to this 'CALL' is poor that will happen very quickly. It does seem that the objective is to destroy drone operation with remote id. It is a bit like gun law though, you can legislate all you like, the idiots will prevail and the harmless user will pay the price.
Totally agree and share your frustration with the confusion and ineptitude of it all!….😡
Really well said Ian. Thanks for articulating concerns/worries so clearly. Will be responding.
Why doesn't the CAA email all the registered pilots and how did they put out their call for input? If it wasn't for the likes of you and Geekvana most pilots would never know about their call! Sorry Ian but I'm cynical and I think it's a done deal and the CAA already know what new regulations they will impose.
I've mentioned already why hasn't Caa emailed registered drone owners, crazy they didnt
Shocking document and an example of how not to have a public consultation. I won't be filling it in, but I will be writing to the CAA to complain, as well as to my local MP.
Think this is nearer the answer
Stupid Questions Questions that cant be answered How can a 25kg Drone be even mentioned in the same survey as a 250 gsm One
Its sheer stupidity and actually makes you wonder how the CAA can make sensible and safe easements of our aircraft
I think we mneed tro raise this with parliament
@@richardsimmons6470 are they trying to pave the way for the big massive dangerous almost military commercial drones by mixing the categories?I don't fancy one of them above my head.
Thanks for putting this out Ian. This has really helped me. I was getting lost in the weeds of the CAA document. The CAA have lost an opportunity here. Could of put out something straightforward, but no again smoke and mirrors, over complex, vague and contradictory. Unfortunately i think the document continues to build on a poor CAA experience and reputation with the Drone flying community. An opportunity lost.
Hi Ian I'm in US but totally agree. They are trying to add different restrictions too. They even have a bill to downright ban DJI drones. We already have Remote ID. Big mess for us that mind our own business and follow the rules. Thank you Ian.
Well put...with passion! We're going through a similar rule review period in Canada, but thankfully the process and level of communication is much better. Simplification is certainly the key.
Cheers Don! Best of luck at your end!
Giving us and "Stakeholders" 28 days to read, digest and respond to the CAA is laughable. As Ian also pointed out, who the hell are the "Stakeholders" ? Or Rather the "Stakeholders" apart from us ? Amazon ? The Police ? MP's with private estates ? Airlines ? County councils ? Entertainment venues ? National Trust ? who knows ?!!! I will give it a go but seriously, the CAA take the biscuit on this one. I have serious concerns about the questions, how they are worded and more importantly how they might be analysed. The statistics derived can easily be manipulated depending on the range of answers and their interpretation. Clearly some are designed to direct the user to a particular answer. This form and the accompanying "explanatory" document would not pass the basic statistical analysis requirements for a survey. Note: If I had not been actively following Ian and Geeksvana on UA-cam I would have no idea of this questionnaires existence. That informs me that there are like tens of thousands of drone owners, or "Stakeholders" as the CAA call them, that will not get a chance to comment but will be directly effected. Suddenly they may wake up and find that their expensive drone is no longer legal to fly in the place where they have been happily and safely flying for years. The first they will know of it is when they receive a letter, a hefty fine and a criminal conviction with no way to appeal.
We have already a system of regulation in the UK - it's called controlled airspace. There is a continuing problem with a minority of 'real' pilots infringing controlled airspace, but the CAA doesn't launch a panicked consultation every time it happens, or moves to ban general aviation (though it has long been accused of trying to do so). We are all being tarred with the brush of being terrorists in waiting, which is not how a democracy is meant to work.
Unfortunately I am going off this hobby now, you can tell we are not wanted by officialdom.
Dont be such a defeatist...who cares about ''officialdom'' really.
Your comnments surely resonate with each and every one of us. Nice work Ian, many thanks.
Ian your enthusiasm needs applauded for this video. But i think we're too far down the rabbit hole. They will do what they want .Will be a few drones getting sold or put on the shelf. Might have to look out my old kite.
That sir, is a staggeringly good video. You have neatly summarised the key points on this form, and have highlighted many of the hidden risks with ‘lumping things together. I have already submitted my response, but I will email some follow up comments (the CAA have now confirmed that you can just email and not answer in the format they provide). I do worry that they will ignore all the written comments and just count up the tick boxes (70% said yes or partially yes!!!!)
Thank you for trying to interpret this. I have written to the CAA to complain about this document.
Could I suggest you write the questions simply for them.
Ian loved your video, your enthusiasm and anguish is felt and understood, thanks for your input and it gave me a clear understanding of how to answer this shocking document. Jesus was it their idea to put people off from answering due to the format it took, was this read by anyone before it was official.... thanks again Ian.
BTW if you're every in Scotland let me know, would love to meet and chat... happy safe flying.:)
Thanks for this video. I feel exactly the same way. I find the way this has document has been written very concerning. It has been written to confuse the average drone user with impossible questions that are not explained, that contradict later questions asked, to suite the CAA’s agenda which is to ban the use of consumer drones here in the UK which is fast becoming a police state.
The current rules in the UK are 99.9 % identical to the EU-rules, so why not fully align (similar to what Norway and Iceland have done). I am a licensed Irish drone pilot (A1, A2, A3) and am licensed to fly anywhere in EU, Norway and Iceland, but not less than 2 hours drive away in Northern Ireland. Why does the UK always have to be different for the sake of being different and cannot agree to a pan-european approach eventhough the current rules are almost identical. UK demands EU visitors to apply for UK (operator and pilot) licences before they can legally fly. It is madness and similarly UK drone pilots will need EU licences if they want to fly there.
The whole thing is a nonsense only for this reason, if the CAA believe that a 250g is dangerous and needs regulation then in no way whatsoever can a commercial drone weighing 25kg be allowed to fly especially out of Vlos, A 250g drone might bruise someone's head if it goes wrong, anything above 10kg and its a fatality, at 25kg it will kill someone in a car I purchased my Mini pro 3 months ago, if the CAA want to restrict drones to make the hobby not worthwhile then they should buy back the drones, and commercial operators before being allowed to fly should be required to do so
The way that document rambles on reminds me of the document regarding the environment agency trying to rob boat owners blind by upping the river license fee by 60%,it was absolutely ludicrous but it was challenged by thousands of people and they backed down,I wonder if it’s the same company that wrote the document
Although now professionally retired, I have been involved in aviation for over 50 years, often in positions where I have had senior level dealings with the CAA. This is the worst document I have ever seen from them (and that is saying something!). To me, this makes the CAA look very very stupid and incredibly amateur.
Agreed....
That document, as you say, is a rambling mess. It's almost like they have set their minds on a certain path and the questions are designed to lead give them the answers they need to follow it.
Answering the questions won’t make a difference as they already know what they want to do , this is just a ticking box exercise for them . The fact they haven’t emailed every registered drone user is evidence enough
Thanks for this video. The document you have shown us and the answer to the questions required by the CAA looks to be too confusing for me to complete.
Let's be honest, this type of (proposed) legisation will only affect the law abiding and conscientious flyers out there. Anyone intending to do mischief with a drone is just going to ignore all these supposed sdafeguards.
Thankyou for this open and honest response. I think this may really help a lot of people, including myself, to understand the farce that the CAA have released and to frame our own answers.
Have sent in my reply but it will be waste of time the powers that be, will do what they want, they don't want us in the air they want the low airspace for the big corporations
All these regulations do is encourage people to do things illegally,
The safety risk is not an issue conventional model aircraft has been around for 100yrs and no safety issues
Sorry just my opinion they have already done you up the Derik by asking you to answer there madness’s I am getting rid of my drone I will never bow and abide by there nonsense
Well you can see how Amazon's delivery drones flying BVLOS, carrying heavy loads over people's houses can create a serious safety risk. Any draconian exclusions against demonstrably low-risk sub 250g drones, would surely be even more problematic for these remote commercial operations. I'm wondering how they are going to square that circle. You can be sure the Delivery Lobby is banging persistently at the CAA. I'll give them my input.
Thanks for taking the time to explain and wade through that weighty document. As you mentioned in your video any new rules will be ignored by the very people that continue to fly anywhere, anytime with total disregard to to whatever the CAA will publish. These few rogue fliers are destroying what was such an enjoyable experience.
What a Brilliant Video Ian, excellent explanation and love the odd RANT - great channel - & thank you for your hard work its much appreciated (UK)
Excellent video Ian and thankyou for the time taken to explain the questions etc. The document is typical of a government department who probably know little of the subject. I showed it to a friend who flies a microlight and he couldn’t believe the level of legislation drone fliers are faced with. Unbelievable!!!! Thanks again for all your videos
One of the problems with geofencing is it can actually lead to MORE accidents, not fewer. Drones can stop dead in the air and pilots become confused by lack of responsiveness, leading to battery exhaustion and crash. The goal is to legislate the hobby out of existence.
11:25 FPV drones don't have GPS though and they shouldn't be required to do so.
Ian great video as usual, I’m afraid to say I’m one of those people that started to read the documents & questions and thought, this is way to complicated & I don’t have two or three hours to waste replying. Personally I think this was intentional by the CAA, my reasons for this are they have the email address of every registered flyer in the UK and they’ve contacted anyone to request they answer these questions. I think you’ve also missed one point in your assessment, they talk about “collecting private or sensitive data without consent” this is doesn’t fall within the remit of the CAA, this falls under the responsibility of the ICO in the UK. How is the CAA going to prevent anyone with a camera taking a picture from a plane of an airport or a prison or police station all of which a plane can fly over? They are totally over reaching their authorities photography in public is not a crime. But maybe in this new planned police state of monitored flights it might be come illegal.
The trouble is that the CAA has started from a position of fascism: it doesn't bother to present the evidence of harm - it only asserts it. This is Johnsonian democracy - no democracy at all.
Done it, took a few hours, but thanks for bringing this into light. The CAA should really, of emailed every registered user, to inform them. 👍
Some psychologist wrote this for answers they wanted. Its a con.
I’m not and never have been reckless with my flights. I’ve never lost sight of my drone. Remote ID if implemented will mean my drone never leaves the ground ever again.
That, sadly, is what the CAA are aiming for.
On a daily basis it becomes more difficult to operate in this hobby, only started 18 months ago when first set rules came in, I adhere to the rules yet in forums & Facebook groups you clearly see members that don't & have a don't care attitude. I still see people asking the question I want to buy a drone is there anything I need? These kind of things should be so obvious that people shouldn't need to ask. The actions of many are ruining for those who do things right
Of course they are, they’ve already decided what they want to do and the way the questions are worded make that clear.
We need to go back to the “I’m not gonna comply” stance that happened when Chris Grayling first announced the new regulations and refused to discuss anything with anybody about them, that stance sent shivers down the spine of the CAA because they though they would look stupid the first time a kid or their grandad got sent to jail for flying a small foamie in the local park, their stance was idiots will still be idiots no matter how tight the regulations are and the existing ANOs already make this stuff illegal.
The BMFA threw their members under the bus for a seat at the table shortly after Grayling was replaced by Shapps and this shit got worse and worse ever since to the point where I’m even considering finding another hobby as the regulations are just too tight, for hobbyists they should be don’t endanger other people, don’t fly near sensitive places (airports etc) don’t be a dick and maybe have insurance. Leave the 268 pages of regulations off commercial users.
Thanks for the helpful video and sharing your responses. I've previously owned model aircraft and a racing drone, and whilst I don't own a 'camera drone' today it's something I want to do, so I have submitted a response.
A lot of very good points, very well made. Collectively we drone fliers give the CAA a lot of money via registration fees, yet receive nothing in return apart from gobblydegook documents and ever more restrictive rules which are obviously formulated by people with no experience or understanding of hobbyist drone operation. An obvious example is the proposals for Remote ID, which are much more stringent than any applied to light aircraft and microlights, things which obviously pose much greater risks than a drone weighing less than a kilo. The whole VLOS concept is supposed to protect low flying aircraft, but I don't see why we should restrict our hobby to cater for others not complying with flight rules by flying below 500 feet - will they be subject to retrospective convictions for flying too low ?
Thank you Ian for all your hard work, it is very much appreciated, sadly I think the CAA would be very happy to ban all drone flying.
Thank you for breaking this down, I have really struggled with this questionnaire. I watched geeksvana's discussion and found it very hard to follow. I simply wanted everything broken down so that I ( a layman) could understand. You've made it very simple to follow and explained how to answer correctly. Thank you.. a fantastic informational and instructive video.
its all a scam to make money.!!
It's time to get a burner drone.
FULL of excellent and informed information! Go and have a cup of tea, Ian, before you burst a blood vessel! With this help, I forced myself to finish it.
Having had a read through, but also having not responded yet, the whole thing is bonkers and it reads like it has been written by someone who doesn't have a grasp on the current rules and regs, never mind proposed new ones.
I think it is also important to be able to ensure that if we are to have Police interpreting these rules, that they understand them themselves. Not sure we can guarantee that tbh.
I am seriously considering selling my Mini 2, as besides anything else, I can't guarantee that I know which direction it is pointing in at all times. 🙄
well done Ian, very well presented and certainly all true. I filled the form in about 2 weeks back and wish that I had waited until after I had seen your video.
Heaven help us all!
I just wonder if CAA makes it so confusing as to bamboozle us all and then they will say that we are not sufficiently interested to respond
Nice one Ian. Very useful to take your comments and craft my own, which is now complete. I hope they don't bugger this up for us. cheers fella, your work on this is appreciated.
As a registered flier and operator the CAA sent me this by email before Geeksvana or Ian mentioned it, and it took me over four hours to read and complete. I’m not sure if it is poorly constructed or indeed very cleverly designed to drive what responses stakeholders can actually be bothered to make in a particular direction . I’m immediately suspicious of a document that lumps safety and security together, and suggests that sub 250gm devices can be in the same risk category as 25kg ones - I wouldn’t want a bag of cement falling on me from 400ft, but wouldn’t really have a use for my Mini 3 pro of it was relegated to flying in the middle of nowhere along with my “legacy” original Mavic Pro.
I don’t like the enforcement part as we already have seen that the law enforcement do not know the rules or make up their own to justify themselves. Everything has to be very clear so that EVERYONE understands.
Great video Ian, Canada is going through same bs of drone rules especially towards foreign pilots and insane fees. Looks like EU is the best place to fly a drone.
I'll say this unless time proves me wrong - Ever since the "Heathrow 2 day drone incident" - it was obvious to me the lawmakers did NOT want people flying camera drones - it's obvious they want to ban this entirely, if you follow the simple logic that is repeated every single time they want to stop something.
If you believe a drone can fly for 2 days without landing, and without being traced, or you think a drone could come and go multiple times, so it appears as though it is flying for much of 2 days over Heathrow, and still not be caught/tracked/followed/traced in any way - then I don't know what to say to you. The busy period was no accident - great way to turn people against drones.
(There was no drone - to state the obvious for the few who still need it) but it scuppered the flights of hundreds of thousands.
Suddenly the average guy & gal who couldn't care less about drones (so long you don't fly it up against my window, buzz it near my head, or go poking about my property) are now against drones.. This way the door is wide open to roll out ever increasing amounts of restrictions (the outright ban is the real goal).
Who's going to be upset? The public are sick of hearing about "such and such an aircraft had to take evasive action to dodge a drone" or such stories. They're bored of the B-roll footage, between content on peoples videos, and it's not worth the cancelling of their next holiday.
Just a couple more stories about some overweight, greasy haired, jar jar bottomed cross eyed weirdo flying a drone on some women as she gets out the shower, and the final nail will be in the coffin. They will make the restrictions increasingly difficult and awkward and expensive, to price and inconvenience the casual enthusiast (as myself) out of the equation.
They will NEVER ease off the restrictions, it, like anything once they set the goal, is only a 1 way journey.