UK Drone Regulation

[electrotor]

I haven't yet had a chance to read these so cannot comment on how this may affect the recreational flyer.
BTW we seem at last to have a definition of a drone....

A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.

By this definition then free flight models are NOT drones but control liners are because they are remotely controlled. Remote does not mean only radio. That'll be interesting when it comes to separation distances.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/benefits-of-drones-to-the-uk-economy

[BlueFlyer]

So old man Grumpers who's been flying gassers down the local BMFA field for 30+ years, who's never hurt anyone, who's never been of any danger to full size aircraft, who's never broken the current CAA rules... is now lumped in with the cnuts who buy Phantoms and fly them over airports.

It's my personal opinion that the word drone is still used incorrectly, however if that's the definition they're going with I guess we'll have to lump it.

[electrotor]

I have to say that I was reasonably impressed with how balanced these new documents are. However it is vitally important that we as leisure users make our thoughts and feeling know and don't just simply moan about it here, in the pub or to our flying buddies then bitch like crazy when any new rules are brought in which we don't like or agree with. Too late by that time.

A quick review of the documents indicates that the Government is considering registration of drones over 250g and some kind of competency test. The parts to focus on are :

Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy : Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK
Chapter 4
Proposal B  Pilot competency, training and licensing
Chapter 5
Proposal D  Improving drone user awareness of the law
Proposal E  Improving deterrents
Proposal F  No Drone Flying Zones and Enforcement
Chapter 6
Proposal G  Registration
Each proposal has options and consultation questions.

Impact Assessment - Mandated guidance provision for drones

Impact assessment: registration requirements for drones

[electrotor]

So old man Grumpers who's been flying gassers down the local BMFA field for 30+ years, who's never hurt anyone, who's never been of any danger to full size aircraft, who's never broken the current CAA rules... is now lumped in with the cnuts who buy Phantoms and fly them over airports.

It's my personal opinion that the word drone is still used incorrectly, however if that's the definition they're going with I guess we'll have to lump it.

Sad fact of life BlueFlyer.
I too am not happy with the word drone, which the Airproxboard cannot, by their own admission, define. In addition the CAA have not responded to my request to offer a clear and unambiguous definition.
I note in the documents of the above link I posted, that whilst drone is defined, reference is also made to camera carrying drones and model aircraft. They also seem to think that most drones now carry cameras! Well having defined drones as "unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone" I would challenge their assertion that most drones now carry cameras. Most certainly do not and are widely and historically known as model aircraft. Already this is starting to come apart.

[BlueFlyer]

You're dead right.

For me, the requirement to say "unmanned" before the word "aircraft" says that you're talking about an aircraft that would normally be manned... but isn't. So the likes of the military drones such as the Reaper/Predator... they're effectively full sized planes but just don't have pilots on board.... That's an "unmanned" aircraft.

To call a DJI Phantom an "unmanned aircraft" is ridiculous... you wouldn't expect it to be manned lol

[BlueFlyer]

It's the naivety that shocks me.

While some misuse could be unintentional and may result from leisure
drone users being unfamiliar with the technology and law, other misuse is intentional
and both types can be extremely dangerous.

1. The guys who do it unintentionally probably don't even know they will have to register... therefore will not be on the "naughty list" when the times comes to search for a scape goat when there's a reported near miss, or god forbid an actual accident.

2. The guys who do it on purpose will definitely not register... therefore will not be on the "naughty list" either.

So the purpose of the registration has already defeated itself.

[mark1975]

I have a phantom 4 Chris but I'm far from being a  :censored:   and the flights near airports are allegations not a single one confirmed.

[electrotor]

I originally thought so too BlueFlyer but on reading this passage from 6.7 on page 40 of "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy : Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK" I had a bit of a rethink.

The Government is also interested in pairing such a registration scheme with a legal requirement to notify when you are flying a drone in a certain area via an app on your smart phone. This would allow identification of drone operators where necessary. Such a process could allow any member of the public seeing someone operate a drone, or a drone flying around without a visible operator, to log into the app and check if someone has notified that a drone flight or flights will be taking place. If the drone operator had done so, and was breaking regulations, they could then be identified to the Police, and if the drone operator had not identified themselves, this would be a good indicator to the authorities and security officials around sensitive sites that the drone might be being maliciously misused and require investigation.

However my rethink also made me consider the slightly Big Brother nature of what might happen. I am of course referring to George Orwell's scenario and not Channel 4's awful rubbish.

[FPVSteve]

And also "Mr Misery" at Number 47 who thinks all uses of drones are "misuse" simply because his newspaper told him he should be worried.

[BlueFlyer]

I have a phantom 4 Chris but I'm far from being a  :censored:   and the flights near airports are allegations not a single one confirmed.

It was an over-exaggerated statement to get my point across. Please don't take it personally.

If I could afford a Phantom 4 I would also be an owner. Its not phantoms, it's not phantom owners, it's phantom owners that fly them irresponsibly that are the problem.

If you're not one of those, then my statement wasn't aimed at you and we can both enjoy the rest of our night.

[BlueFlyer]

I originally thought so too BlueFlyer but on reading this passage from 6.7 on page 40 of "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy : Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK" I had a bit of a rethink.

The Government is also interested in pairing such a registration scheme with a legal requirement to notify when you are flying a drone in a certain area via an app on your smart phone. This would allow identification of drone operators where necessary. Such a process could allow any member of the public seeing someone operate a drone, or a drone flying around without a visible operator, to log into the app and check if someone has notified that a drone flight or flights will be taking place. If the drone operator had done so, and was breaking regulations, they could then be identified to the Police, and if the drone operator had not identified themselves, this would be a good indicator to the authorities and security officials around sensitive sites that the drone might be being maliciously misused and require investigation.

However my rethink also made me consider the slightly Big Brother nature of what might happen. I am of course referring to George Orwell's scenario and not Channel 4's awful rubbish.

Bloody hell, so not only do they want me to be on a watch list (that's effectively what it is) but they also want me to log into a smart phone app when I'm flying, so they DEFINITELY know where I am? Might as well smack ankle trackers on us FFS

I'm not even sure they treat paedophiles like this.

[BlueFlyer]

Well I've sent a polite email to them asking for a Word Document version of the consultation questions so I can give them my answers. I urge everyone else who's the remotest bit concerned to do the same.

[FPVSteve]

Smartphone app - what if you're not running iOS or Android .. or even have an old Nokia 3210 (and why not? :D )

This is all  :censored:  bollocks! Why are we even entertaining this instead of telling it how it is? This is a way to screw non-commercial pilots because of the value of the drone industry over the next few decades.

It's nothing at all to do with safety, it's nothing at all to do with Phantom pilots, it's everything to do with protecting commercial interests and I really hate that so many people are spending so much time trying to appease these draconian bureaucrats - we do not need any more rules, the CAA have already got a brilliant set which works FLAWLESSLY (no issues so far).

Why can't we use the pre-existing legislation. Why? The new rules add nothing over and above what we already have. They simply add more restrictions without due cause.

It's ridiculous.

[Gundummy]

Totally agree Steve. Some dickhead WILL at some point soon cause an incident with a UAV. The finger of blame will point to who?

Will the CAA take it on the chin or the awarding body that granted his 'drone qualification' assuming he had or needed one? The commercial sector will push for a ban on amateur use etc etc.

Need I go on

[BigT]

Well I've sent a polite email to them asking for a Word Document version of the consultation questions so I can give them my answers. I urge everyone else who's the remotest bit concerned to do the same.

If you get one perhaps you could put it up here as a sticky?