For many recreational flyers and some commercial flyers using mini drones we just need a simple system. How can the regulators regulate without being able to demonstrate that they have suitably informed flyers…
So as a new drone user I tried to watch this, but what the hell is Sora and PDRA1 GVC System PCFO Piece? is it so complicated to own a fly a sub 249g drone? Why speak in abbreviations don't help the thick ones like me. This channel is definitely for geeks as you understand each other.
As explained during the show, we have content on Geeksvana for all levels. When we have broadcasts like this that are a little more detailed, we cannot stop to explain every industry term. Otherwise every show would be 3 hours long, and we would never make ant points. Aside from the terminology, the concerning issues raised impact every single drone user. There are lots of content on this channel for every level of user, though.
(Matt Williams) "it's easier to understand the rules for flying a Tornado at 540knots in a military low-flying area than to fly a drone". Says it all really.
Hi...If you Google CAA 722a it comes up with 52 sub sections each with reams of information and has now left me totally confused...plus having to re-sit another examination/ flying test...you don't even have to do this for driving a car where there is far more danger to life... so much for an organization that supposedly portrays safety...I'll be leaving the hobby soon...lotsaluck.
Remember that documents like 722a are for the specific category. At the moment, it is still easier for a sub 250g drone to fly in the UK than the previous decade. Sadly the red tape for the simplest of flights does mean many people leave the hobby.
You can safely ignore CAP722A unless you are developing an Operating Risk Assessment for use in the Specific Category. It is a template document just for that purpose. It’s not hobby guidance unless you are REALLY into the hobby.
CAA currently regulate all airspace from ground all the way into Outer space - it wouldn't seem sensible to me to remove their responsibility for regulating lower airspace
I got a DJI Mavic Pro (original) late 2017 and loved the new vantage point it gave to my photography. I flew safely without incident until my drone was rendered effectively useless a couple of years ago due to DJI ceasing to support the original flight app and ceasing to support my platform (my last annual CAA registration cost me £5 per flight effectively and my drone has sat in its bag gathering dust since then). I have been interested in getting back into flying, considering the DJI Air 3S with RC3, which would remove any reliance on phone apps. However I have to balance what I would get out of it against the hassle involved with regulation, and the risk that future changes in regulation might make it impossible to use the drone as I would intend. There is also the fact that the weather here in the UK limits one's opportunities to fly, and that increasingly it is impossible to find flight locations you actually want to cover that aren't empty of people. Wherever you go you can't avoid others these days, which makes flying 150m away from people while still getting the imagery you want out of a flight very difficult. The attitude of the public towards drones is another off-putting factor. I never really had any problems when I flew before (on the contrary most were friendly and inquisitive, keen to understand ho the drone worked, etc - not what you necessarily want either). With all the stuff about invasive drones around the world in the news, and a drone being found to have collided with a water plane in the LA fires, I fear this may change. So much as I would like to get back into the hobby, all the factors above are giving me serious pause. If I can't enjoy the hobby without worrying constantly about falling foul of potentially increasingly restrictive regulations and the attitude of others towards what I'm doing, I don't think its worth the investment at the moment.
That was an interesting show, for me the real take away was Marks comment about the CAA not needing his skill set going forwards....that really shows the direction the CAA want to take with commercial uav's, and we have already started to see it with AI controlled operations happening throughout the country. Its clear to see that Money is the only objective, with big businesses, with bigger pockets, getting the biggest say in how the lower airspace is used.
We are going to launch a letter campaign to MPs in a few days. This will request a Parliamentary Inquiry. There will be a specific video released for this.
Might the DfT and even the CAA themselves be persuaded to split the role currently played solely by the CAA into 2 separate agencies along the lines of how the roads are managed? In this analogy the CAA would become the DVLA of the skies, issuing licences and registrations and retain the regulation authority that they crave. The creation of a 2nd agency along the lines of the Highways Agency (maybe the Skyways Agency 🤔) could then empower them to deal with the practicalities of managing the airspace effectively for all users both recreational and commercial.
I personally would not trust the already broken CAA with more responsibility. We need to simplify things and remove the layers of regulation there simply to protect the regulator from risk. A separate lower airspace regulator could work, but only if by design it could escape the same errors over and over again.
@@timmealing68 The real issue here is technology and the relentless pace uav technology has adapted and moved forwards of the past 5 years. The CAA wasn't set up to deal with this level of introduction, use or the needs of this fast evolving industry. They have ivolved with manned technologies, which takes decades to produce and operate from highly regulated airports and in strictly controlled airspace. The don't have the resources in place or the professional experience to cope with the changing use of the lower airspace. We watched 5 experts talk at length about regulations and the way those have been managed by the CAA. That's more expert knowledge than the CAA had in the team they set up to make those regulations! This not only shows in the mistakes being made, but more importantly in the companies like DJI who can quickly adapt and produce products that make the regulations redundant. The lower airspace in the future is a gold mine for business, and the government knows this and wants to exploit it. Let's face it, amazon would pay millions to use sub 500ft airspace for automated delivery drones, as would many other companies. If the CAA can't manage hobbiest or the commercial operators, with a simple set of regulations, then how can they manage what the government want in the future??
Documentation obviously definitely matters, everything from a general RA, drone assist RA and evidence of the planning for flight, radius, height, checking for FRZ’s email log of flight, flight records on the controller.. etc. if your drone flies away, falls, injures people or damages property you have the defence of due diligence of your capabilities and competence. It’s not when things go well, it’s when things go bad the evidence demonstrates what you had prior to the incidence.. accident, or near miss. Not having supporting info from the CAA is a real issue.. I’m incandescent with disappointment and hurt that they’ve let us all down..
Documentation obviously definitely matters, everything from a general RA, drone assist RA and evidence of the planning for flight, radius, height, checking for FRZ’s email log of flight, flight records on the controller.. etc. if your drone flies away, falls, injures people or damages property you have the defence of due diligence of your capabilities and competence. It’s not when things go well, it’s when things go bad the evidence demonstrates what you had prior to the incidence.. accident, or near miss. Not having supporting info from the CAA is a real issue.. I’m incandescent with disappointment and hurt that they’ve let us all down..
For many recreational flyers and some commercial flyers using mini drones we just need a simple system. How can the regulators regulate without being able to demonstrate that they have suitably informed flyers…
Could not agree more.
So as a new drone user I tried to watch this, but what the hell is Sora and PDRA1 GVC System PCFO Piece? is it so complicated to own a fly a sub 249g drone? Why speak in abbreviations don't help the thick ones like me. This channel is definitely for geeks as you understand each other.
As explained during the show, we have content on Geeksvana for all levels. When we have broadcasts like this that are a little more detailed, we cannot stop to explain every industry term. Otherwise every show would be 3 hours long, and we would never make ant points. Aside from the terminology, the concerning issues raised impact every single drone user.
There are lots of content on this channel for every level of user, though.
You are not thick mate
(Matt Williams) "it's easier to understand the rules for flying a Tornado at 540knots in a military low-flying area than to fly a drone". Says it all really.
Hi...If you Google CAA 722a it comes up with 52 sub sections each with reams of information and has now left me totally confused...plus having to re-sit another examination/ flying test...you don't even have to do this for driving a car where there is far more danger to life... so much for an organization that supposedly portrays safety...I'll be leaving the hobby soon...lotsaluck.
Remember that documents like 722a are for the specific category. At the moment, it is still easier for a sub 250g drone to fly in the UK than the previous decade.
Sadly the red tape for the simplest of flights does mean many people leave the hobby.
You can safely ignore CAP722A unless you are developing an Operating Risk Assessment for use in the Specific Category. It is a template document just for that purpose. It’s not hobby guidance unless you are REALLY into the hobby.
CAA currently regulate all airspace from ground all the way into Outer space - it wouldn't seem sensible to me to remove their responsibility for regulating lower airspace
I got a DJI Mavic Pro (original) late 2017 and loved the new vantage point it gave to my photography. I flew safely without incident until my drone was rendered effectively useless a couple of years ago due to DJI ceasing to support the original flight app and ceasing to support my platform (my last annual CAA registration cost me £5 per flight effectively and my drone has sat in its bag gathering dust since then). I have been interested in getting back into flying, considering the DJI Air 3S with RC3, which would remove any reliance on phone apps. However I have to balance what I would get out of it against the hassle involved with regulation, and the risk that future changes in regulation might make it impossible to use the drone as I would intend. There is also the fact that the weather here in the UK limits one's opportunities to fly, and that increasingly it is impossible to find flight locations you actually want to cover that aren't empty of people. Wherever you go you can't avoid others these days, which makes flying 150m away from people while still getting the imagery you want out of a flight very difficult. The attitude of the public towards drones is another off-putting factor. I never really had any problems when I flew before (on the contrary most were friendly and inquisitive, keen to understand ho the drone worked, etc - not what you necessarily want either). With all the stuff about invasive drones around the world in the news, and a drone being found to have collided with a water plane in the LA fires, I fear this may change. So much as I would like to get back into the hobby, all the factors above are giving me serious pause. If I can't enjoy the hobby without worrying constantly about falling foul of potentially increasingly restrictive regulations and the attitude of others towards what I'm doing, I don't think its worth the investment at the moment.
That was an interesting show, for me the real take away was Marks comment about the CAA not needing his skill set going forwards....that really shows the direction the CAA want to take with commercial uav's, and we have already started to see it with AI controlled operations happening throughout the country. Its clear to see that Money is the only objective, with big businesses, with bigger pockets, getting the biggest say in how the lower airspace is used.
It is a concern.
Any worth having a petition? Do we have enough weight of drone numbers to push this?
We are going to launch a letter campaign to MPs in a few days. This will request a Parliamentary Inquiry. There will be a specific video released for this.
Might the DfT and even the CAA themselves be persuaded to split the role currently played solely by the CAA into 2 separate agencies along the lines of how the roads are managed?
In this analogy the CAA would become the DVLA of the skies, issuing licences and registrations and retain the regulation authority that they crave.
The creation of a 2nd agency along the lines of the Highways Agency (maybe the Skyways Agency 🤔) could then empower them to deal with the practicalities of managing the airspace effectively for all users both recreational and commercial.
More regulation is NOT the answer! We need a bonfire of regulations. It's bloody stupid.
I personally would not trust the already broken CAA with more responsibility. We need to simplify things and remove the layers of regulation there simply to protect the regulator from risk.
A separate lower airspace regulator could work, but only if by design it could escape the same errors over and over again.
@@timmealing68 The real issue here is technology and the relentless pace uav technology has adapted and moved forwards of the past 5 years. The CAA wasn't set up to deal with this level of introduction, use or the needs of this fast evolving industry. They have ivolved with manned technologies, which takes decades to produce and operate from highly regulated airports and in strictly controlled airspace. The don't have the resources in place or the professional experience to cope with the changing use of the lower airspace.
We watched 5 experts talk at length about regulations and the way those have been managed by the CAA. That's more expert knowledge than the CAA had in the team they set up to make those regulations! This not only shows in the mistakes being made, but more importantly in the companies like DJI who can quickly adapt and produce products that make the regulations redundant.
The lower airspace in the future is a gold mine for business, and the government knows this and wants to exploit it. Let's face it, amazon would pay millions to use sub 500ft airspace for automated delivery drones, as would many other companies. If the CAA can't manage hobbiest or the commercial operators, with a simple set of regulations, then how can they manage what the government want in the future??
Documentation obviously definitely matters, everything from a general RA, drone assist RA and evidence of the planning for flight, radius, height, checking for FRZ’s email log of flight, flight records on the controller.. etc. if your drone flies away, falls, injures people or damages property you have the defence of due diligence of your capabilities and competence. It’s not when things go well, it’s when things go bad the evidence demonstrates what you had prior to the incidence.. accident, or near miss. Not having supporting info from the CAA is a real issue.. I’m incandescent with disappointment and hurt that they’ve let us all down..
Perhaps they need to hear this but wonder what the CAA guy on the panels’ colleagues might think.. poacher turned gamekeeper?
Documentation obviously definitely matters, everything from a general RA, drone assist RA and evidence of the planning for flight, radius, height, checking for FRZ’s email log of flight, flight records on the controller.. etc. if your drone flies away, falls, injures people or damages property you have the defence of due diligence of your capabilities and competence. It’s not when things go well, it’s when things go bad the evidence demonstrates what you had prior to the incidence.. accident, or near miss. Not having supporting info from the CAA is a real issue.. I’m incandescent with disappointment and hurt that they’ve let us all down..