Registration of UK drone operators expanded in scope.

[ShyTorque]

(A moderator will probably move this topic but I post it here because quite a number of us fly model aircraft of various types for leisure purposes).

I've just received notification from the CAA that operators of ALL drones and model aircraft weighing more than 250g will be required by law to take an online test to qualify and to register annually (at their own expense).
This is from 30 November 2019, only five weeks from now.
Although the annual registration cost is a relatively low £9 I think this will result in many inadvertently breaking the law because no doubt thousands of model fliers have no contact with the CAA or even a model club.
My own model aircraft will remain in the loft!

[pontifex]

Go back to flying control models, they are not affected.

[ShyTorque]

Go back to flying control models, they are not affected.

Not sure what you mean by "flying control" but only "control line" models, which are in effect tethered, remain exempt.

[standbykid]

This is from 30 November 2019, only five weeks from now.
!

Just in time for Christmas!

[Feathers McGraw]

(A moderator will probably move this topic but I post it here because quite a number of us fly model aircraft of various types for leisure purposes).

I've just received notification from the CAA that operators of ALL drones and model aircraft weighing more than 250g will be required by law to take an online test to qualify and to register annually (at their own expense).
This is from 30 November 2019, only five weeks from now.
Although the annual registration cost is a relatively low £9 I think this will result in many inadvertently breaking the law because no doubt thousands of model fliers have no contact with the CAA or even a model club.
My own model aircraft will remain in the loft!

Well, that made me wonder, so I went off to look up the specs of my drone. Turns out to be 96g with battery.

I am not going to lose any sleep now I know this.

[Nige321]

(A moderator will probably move this topic but I post it here because quite a number of us fly model aircraft of various types for leisure purposes).

I've just received notification from the CAA that operators of ALL drones and model aircraft weighing more than 250g will be required by law to take an online test to qualify and to register annually (at their own expense).
This is from 30 November 2019, only five weeks from now.
Although the annual registration cost is a relatively low £9 I think this will result in many inadvertently breaking the law because no doubt thousands of model fliers have no contact with the CAA or even a model club.
My own model aircraft will remain in the loft!

If you have taken any BMFA proficiency test you don't need to do the CAA test...

[ShyTorque]

If you have taken any BMFA proficiency test you don't need to do the CAA test...

Correct - all explained on the CAA website, link here: https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Our-role/Drone-and-model-aircraft-registration/?mc_cid=ef3fce4f1f&mc_eid=b65c38c183

Interestingly, there appears to be no way of taking the online test at the moment - it's apparently not yet online!

[pilotmike]

Correct - all explained on the CAA website, link here: https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Our-role/Drone-and-model-aircraft-registration/?mc_cid=ef3fce4f1f&mc_eid=b65c38c183 (https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Our-role/Drone-and-model-aircraft-registration/?mc_cid=ef3fce4f1f&mc_eid=b65c38c183)

Interestingly, there appears to be no way of taking the online test at the moment - it's apparently not yet online!

The CAA were mandated to issue registrations to applicants from 1st October by the Air Navigation Order:

=left"Citation and commencement. 1. These Regulations may be cited as the Air Navigation (Minimum Age for Operators of Small Unmanned Aircraft) Regulations 2019 and come into force on 1st October 2019.... Article 94C of the 2016 Order sets out the circumstances in which the Civil Aviation Authority (“the CAA”) must issue a certificate of registration as an SUA operator to a person, or renew that person’s certificate of registration"
They failed to do this, so I wrote to the CAA on numerous occasions asking when they were intending to comply with the ANO. They completely ignored my enquiries.

I then wrote to Richard Moriarty, CEO of the CAA, informing him that I was asking my MP to make enquiries of the Secretary of State for Transport as to when the CAA would be complying with the ANO, and the response from the CEO's office of the CAA was spectacularly quick. They apologised for breaking the 1st October deadline, and have since told me the application process will be live from 5th November, giving less than 4 working weeks time to pass tests and to apply, compared to the almost 9 weeks we were assured would be available from the mandated 1st October opening date.

It appears to be spectacular incompetence by the CAA, who now appear almost incapable of providing the required means to take money from people who just want to fly toys with their kids etc.

[sxjack]

It appears to be spectacular incompetence by the CAA, who now appear almost incapable of providing the required means to take money from people who just want to fly toys with their kids etc.

One of the reasons (probably the only reason) that the system did not go live on the 1st October is that the Secretary of State, Grant Shapps MP, intervened early in September and told the CAA to reduce the registration fee from £16.50/year to below £10/year and to work with the four associations. Prior to this, the DfT had been dismissing all objections from the aeromodelling community, both direct and via MPs.

[Retired DC9 driver]

We have the same problem with the FAA in the US, if you want to fly model aircraft. As part of the FAA, Reauthorization Act of 2018, Model Aircraft flying is now restricted to 400' AGL or below. With no wavers being issued at this time. Also, any recreational flyers, have to register at the FAA, and pay a fee to obtain an "Aircraft Registration" number that has to be attached to all the pilots Model Aircraft. So many facets of Model Flying, for example Thermal Duration Sailplanes , F3B/F3F, etc, are effectively grounded, with this 400 foot "ceiling". . US pilots will be unable to train for International FAI contests too.

The organization that represents most Model Aircraft flyers here in the US, the Academy of Model Aeronautics , or AMA had been told, that AMA club fields, and flight in Class G airspace would not be restricted. Well that didn't happen. Not only that, but there is also a requirement for hobby flyers, to pass an Aeronautical Knowledge Test, just like the UK.
excerpt from Section 349, of this Reauthorization Bill, Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation
with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, other industry
stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall develop
an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, which can then be
administered electronically by the Administrator, a community-
based organization, or a person designated by the Administrator.

No sign of this "Aeronautical Knowledge and Safety Test yet....

Here is full text of the FAA Reauthorization Act.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?overview=closed&r=3 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/302/text?overview=closed&r=3)

At least BFMA members will still be allowed to fly Model Aircraft above 400 feet,
Members will continue to benefit from the existing permissions/exemptions already granted to the CAA recognised UK Associations (such as the permission to operate above 400ft with aircraft of less than 7Kg
https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/Arti...on-for-members (https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/ArticleID/2625/UPDATE-CAA-DRONE-AND-MODEL-AIRCRAFT-REGISTRATION-AND-EDUCATION-SCHEME-DRES-Information-for-members)

[TURIN]

What sort of drone weighs more than 250KG?

[TCAS FAN]

What sort of drone weighs more than 250KG?

One of these
https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrJ7KN2hLldCVwAqpKA3YlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNv bG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=watchkeeper&back=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dwatchk eeper%26ei%3DUTF-8%26_tsrc%3Dyfp-hrtab%26fp%3D1&no=1&fr=yfp-hrtab&h=640&w=960&imgurl=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploa ds%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fimage_data%2Ffile%2F22979%2FRJS_9539 g.jpg&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fnews%2Farmy-cleared-to-fly-next-generation-eye-in-the-sky&size=394KB&name=Army+cleared+to+fly (https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrJ7KN2hLldCVwAqpKA3YlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNv bG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=watchkeeper&back=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dwatchk eeper%26ei%3DUTF-8%26_tsrc%3Dyfp-hrtab%26fp%3D1&no=1&fr=yfp-hrtab&h=640&w=960&imgurl=assets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploa ds%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fimage_data%2Ffile%2F22979%2FRJS_9539 g.jpg&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fnews%2Farmy-cleared-to-fly-next-generation-eye-in-the-sky&size=394KB&name=Army+cleared+to+fly+next-generation+eye-in-the-sky+-+GOV.UK&oid=OIP.IHtf_TLz2MftoHYhz6rrSAHaE8&tt=Army+cleared+to+fly+next-generation+eye-in-the-sky+-+GOV.UK&sigr=12lks9jt9&sigi=136h432s1&sigb=12elk7cl7&sign=11rislp6k&sigt=11rislp6k)

A new civil version the Watchkeeper X to be flown shortly.

[ShyTorque]

What sort of drone weighs more than 250KG?No idea, but a lot weigh more than 250 GRAMS, as per the new regulations.

[RetiredBA/BY]

So the minimum age is 18. Dear gods, I was flying a REAL Jet Provost before I was 18 having soloed a glider at aged 14.

My 10 year old grandson will continue flying his electric powered model LONG before his 18th birthday, assisted, no doubt, by his 7 year old brother ! Do I expect a visit from the CAA enforcement branch, or the local plods ? They will get a very frosty reception !

"........and yet I hear some politicians want to give 16 year olds the vote, but aha, you cant yet fly a model aircraft until the age of 18 , BUT you can hold a ppl and solo a powered aeroplane at the age of 17 or a glider at 14.

The logic of the loony bin. utterly beyond belief.

I do wonder which muppet(s) dreamed up this nonsense.

[sxjack]

So the minimum age is 18.

The minimum age for the operator (the person who has management of the UA) is 18.
There is no minimum age for the remote pilot at the moment although there will be when the EU regulations kick in next July (12 solo, none if supervised by somebody over 16).

[RetiredBA/BY]

Yes agreed, but still utter nonsense. As I read it youngsters below the age of 18 can’t go out flying on their own as they are then the “manager of the machine.

[Alanwsg]

From 'The register' ...Solution to 250g drone weight limit is 249g dronehttps://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/31/drone_database_excel_personal_info_caa/

[UltraFan]

So basically the British lawmakers' train of thought is as follows:

Drones were flown at Gatwick by some hooligans who knew they were doing something illegal but still opted to do so. And therefore the best way to combat them is to make all OTHER operators of drones who were flying them responsibly and outside of airports to obtain a drone pilot's license and a registration for their drones.

For the first time in my life since I was 11 months old, I'm speechless.

[beardy]

So basically the British lawmakers' train of thought is as follows:

Drones were flown at Gatwick by some hooligans who knew they were doing something illegal but still opted to do so. And therefore the best way to combat them is to make all OTHER operators of drones who were flying them responsibly and outside of airports to obtain a drone pilot's license and a registration for their drones.

For the first time in my life since I was 11 months old, I'm speechless.
It's the same principle with gun laws despite good representation.

[pilotmike]

Unlike UK car tax (Vehicle Excise Duty) or MoT test, where the full 1 year period is given when bought, the CCA, in their wisdom, have seen fit and appropriate to penalise enthusiastic early applicants by making the renewal date 1 year from application rather than the more honest and sensible principle of giving a whole year from when the registration is required, ie 30th November. Not big sums, but an important point of principle; don't bite the hand that feeds you!

What a thoroughly stupid way to alienate the honest, decent, law-abiding UAS / UAV operators, in an ill-considered scheme which will only be complied with by the honest, law-abiding operators. It does nothing to catch those who are going to wilfully flout the law and operate illegally and dangerously.

[Solar]

Not withstanding the obvious perils of flying drones/model aircraft in the proximity of airfields has there been any concrete evidence that Gatwick was disrupted by actual drones. At the time I wondered at the lack of pictorial evidence given today’s culture of using mobile phone to record just about everything.
I read a report somewhere in one of the flying magazine that there was some doubt as to what caused the Gatwick incident.

As for the CAA they certainly don’t do themselves any favors.

[Buster11]

For what it's worth I had heard that the reported sightings of drones suggested they came from someone with a good knowledge of Gatwick's internal communications systems and were made at exactly the right time after an earlier 'sighting' to re-ignite safety concerns. Another suggestion was that the whole charade was BALPA originated, as they were, understandably, keen to ensure drone-free approach and departure zones for the future. Not one single photograph ever appeared of one of the alleged drones, and as a result of politicians' "we must be seen to be doing something" attitude Britain's most popular air sport, model flying, has been seriously affected by the usual knee-jerk legislation, while none of it will deter drone users with malicious intent. One would think that after the ludicrous legislation post-Dunblane, which among other things, banned an Olympic sport in the UK, or the barmy Dangerous Dogs Act governments would have learned. But I suppose from experience by now one probably wouldn't...

[UltraFan]

There's a new formula of establishing guilt in Britain introduced by Mizz May. It is "highly likely" that drones were the source of trouble in Gatwick. Proof who?

[wiggy]

Another suggestion was that the whole charade was BALPA originated, as they were, understandably, keen to ensure drone-free approach and departure zones for the future. ...

Probably a suggestion made mostly by folks operating in serious tin-foil hat territory.

[UltraFan]

Probably a suggestion made mostly by folks operating in serious tin-foil hat territory.

With BALPA, nothing is tinfoil territory. The organization itself is pretty much a Bedlam. They praised May's "firm and swift" decision to increase the no-fly zone around airports from a few hundred meters to 5km.

[beardy]

Why is it such a bad idea to ensure that the people who fly toys that can be dangerous understand the dangers and rules?
Is there any intention to deny the licence? (As can happen with pilots, drivers and gun owners)

[Buster11]

For umpteen years model flyers have been and still are bound by the ANOs, and that worked fine. What many regard as unacceptable is that legislation that arose from the proliferation of drones (i.e. multi-rotor devices, usually carrying a camera, and requiring minimal flying skills) now includes model aircraft, which have not been perceived to be a problem in the past century or more of the sport's existence. Flying a powered parachute requires no licence, no test and no fee, so how can an annual fee of £9.00 + a competence test be justified for model flyers?

[wiggy]

With BALPA, nothing is tinfoil territory. The organization itself is pretty much a Bedlam. They praised May's "firm and swift" decision to increase the no-fly zone around airports from a few hundred meters to 5km.

So you think it's credible that persons or persons unknown in an organisation run for and to some extent by professional licence holders sanctioned the flying drones in controlled airspace, airspace that some of it's own members were operating in or planning on operating in...???

Not impossible I guess (nothing is) but if you really want to spend time on conspiracy theories (and I don't) I'd respectfully suggest the obvious starting point would be some in HMG, the Police, Home Office....perhaps even those who manufacture drone defence systems.

[Surlybonds]

So you think it's credible that persons or persons unknown in an organisation run for and to some extent by professional licence holders sanctioned the flying drones in controlled airspace, airspace that some of it's own members were operating in or planning on operating in...???

Not impossible I guess (nothing is) but if you really want to spend time on conspiracy theories (and I don't) I'd respectfully suggest the obvious starting point would be some in HMG, the Police, Home Office....perhaps even those who manufacture drone defence systems.

You misunderstand, the premise is that no drones were flown anywhere near Gatwick - there were just phone calls reporting sightings of drones.

[beardy]

For umpteen years model flyers have been and still are bound by the ANOs, and that worked fine. What many regard as unacceptable is that legislation that arose from the proliferation of drones (i.e. multi-rotor devices, usually carrying a camera, and requiring minimal flying skills) now includes model aircraft, which have not been perceived to be a problem in the past century or more of the sport's existence. Flying a powered parachute requires no licence, no test and no fee, so how can an annual fee of £9.00 + a competence test be justified for model flyers?
Whilst being bound by the ANO and accepting that ignorance of the law is no excuse surely removing that ignorance can only be a good idea. £9 is a small fee, small change in a pub and one ticket in the cinema, so it seems like a very reasonable cost of administration.

[Sallyann1234]

How much do you spend on your hobby each year? Is £9 more really a problem?
As for competence, you would of course pass the test. Wouldn't you want others to meet the same standard?

[Nige321]

How much do you spend on your hobby each year? Is £9 more really a problem?
As for competence, you would of course pass the test. Wouldn't you want others to meet the same standard?

You miss the point.
BMFA members haven't been the problem, yet they are the ones who are paying up...
The registration scheme is a political knee-jerk, it solves nothing.

As for Gatwick, the rumour goes that the operator is known and has been questioned, but providing sufficient hard evidence for the CPS has been an issue...

[Sallyann1234]

We'll have to disagree then. Airspace is becoming increasingly busy, and inevitably there must be better regulation of those who use it. What has been possible before cannot always have a free pass into the future.

[Nige321]

We'll have to disagree then. Airspace is becoming increasingly busy, and inevitably there must be better regulation of those who use it. What has been possible before cannot always have a free pass into the future.
Again, you miss the point. BMFA members are already regulated, paying out £9 for nothing, changes nothing...

[beardy]

Again, you miss the point. BMFA members are already regulated, paying out £9 for nothing, changes nothing...
Regulated or self-regulated?

[Nige321]

Regulated or self-regulated?

Model flying is regulated under the ANO and CAPs 658/722...

Please explain how paying £9 to the CAA changes anything...?

[Rocchi]

As a country flyer Iv'e spent my £9 and I don't even have a drone in the fleet.
For those of us who stick by the rules CAP 658 was good enough to self regulate. Those who care nothing for the rules of any ANO or CAP will duly be disregarded and remain unregulated and will not give a *****.

[beardy]

Model flying is regulated under the ANO and CAPs 658/722...

Please explain how paying £9 to the CAA changes anything...?
Your licence administration is covered by your £9. Your licence shows that you understand the rules governing your hobby. Does membership of your hobby's association prove that you have read and understand the rules ie does it test your knowledge against the ANO or just against its own regulations? If against the ANO and the same level of knowledge as the new licence, then your association should apply for a derogation for its members.
In the meantime I see £9 as a very economic way of establishing a level playing field. You should welcome such a low fee for establishing the confidence of the general public.

​​​

[beardy]

Those who care nothing for the rules of any ANO or CAP will duly be disregarded and remain unregulated and will not give a *****.
Sort of true, they may disregard the rules, but they remain regulated. There were also those who were ignorant of the regulations, licencing should help inform them.

[Nige321]

Sort of true, they may disregard the rules, but they remain regulated. There were also those who were ignorant of the regulations, licencing should help inform them.

How does paying the CAA £9 help to inform them?
The (free!) 'Dronecode' has been around for years, what's different?

You keep on missing the point.
The only people registering and paying are the responsible model and drone flyers who aren't the problem.
The nutters at Gatwick won't register.
Where has this excercise got us?

[Nige321]

Your licence administration is covered by your £9. Your licence shows that you understand the rules governing your hobby. Does membership of your hobby's association prove that you have read and understand the rules ie does it test your knowledge against the ANO or just against its own regulations? If against the ANO and the same level of knowledge as the new licence, then your association should apply for a derogation for its members.
In the meantime I see £9 as a very economic way of establishing a level playing field. You should welcome such a low fee for establishing the confidence of the general public.

​​​
They have. You really haven't read up on this have you... :ugh:

[Maninthebar]

The purpose of much Regulation is to give a sanction against those failing to abide by it. You ask how this 'affects the nutters'. It affects them when they are identified and enables them to be the subject of a legal process that did not exist before. This is the point you are missing

The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences

[beardy]

Nige321 (https://www.pprune.org/members/73228-nige321)

It appears you don't have a derogation, you still have to pay a very modest fee to be recognised by the CAA as having an acceptable level of knowledge as provided by your Association.
Of course £9 is still £9.

The BMFA objectives seem to be:

The promotion, protection, organisation and encouragement of model aircraft building, flying and development in all its aspects in The United Kingdom, through the medium of clubs and individual members; assistance and guidance to model aircraft clubs or individuals; collaboration between members of the Society; and co-operation on behalf of members of the Society with the Civil Aviation Authority or other government departments and any other bodies and organisations in the United Kingdom and overseas.
To produce, collect and distribute information in connection with model aircraft or the model aircraft movement on such terms as Council shall think fit.
To encourage and support research in model aircraft design theory and construction.
To control and record model aircraft performance within the areas under the jurisdiction of the Royal Aero Club.
To act as promoters of National and International model aircraft meetings, contests and exhibitions; as publishers stationers and booksellers, general traders, dealers agents and manufacturers, both wholesale and retail' of any articles of any description which may assist the development of model aviation;
To establish and support, financially or otherwise or aid in the establishment and support of any educational scheme or establishment with benefit to the model aircraft movement;
This last point would seem to support registration and licencing despite it not belonging the association.

[Nige321]

Nige321 (https://www.pprune.org/members/73228-nige321)

It appears you don't have a derogation, you still have to pay a very modest fee to be recognised by the CAA as having an acceptable level of knowledge as provided by your Association.
Of course £9 is still £9.

The BMFA objectives seem to be:

The promotion, protection, organisation and encouragement of model aircraft building, flying and development in all its aspects in The United Kingdom, through the medium of clubs and individual members; assistance and guidance to model aircraft clubs or individuals; collaboration between members of the Society; and co-operation on behalf of members of the Society with the Civil Aviation Authority or other government departments and any other bodies and organisations in the United Kingdom and overseas.
To produce, collect and distribute information in connection with model aircraft or the model aircraft movement on such terms as Council shall think fit.
To encourage and support research in model aircraft design theory and construction.
To control and record model aircraft performance within the areas under the jurisdiction of the Royal Aero Club.
To act as promoters of National and International model aircraft meetings, contests and exhibitions; as publishers stationers and booksellers, general traders, dealers agents and manufacturers, both wholesale and retail' of any articles of any description which may assist the development of model aviation;
To establish and support, financially or otherwise or aid in the establishment and support of any educational scheme or establishment with benefit to the model aircraft movement;

This last point would seem to support registration and licencing despite it not belonging the association.

Except it doesn't 'benefit' the model aircraft movement does it!.
1) All of the BMFA members who have passed an acheivment scheme test are exempt from taking either the BMFA or the CAA online test anyway.
They simply hand over their £9 for the priveledge of registering.
2) True there is new legislation, but the nutter at Gatwick will be charged with breaking the ANO when (if...) sufficient evidence is obtained.

The new scheme simply taxes law abiding airspace users and has zero effect on the people causing the problem...

[Nige321]

The purpose of much Regulation is to give a sanction against those failing to abide by it. You ask how this 'affects the nutters'. It affects them when they are identified and enables them to be the subject of a legal process that did not exist before. This is the point you are missing

The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences
How do you identify them if they haven't bothered to register, and even then the existing legislation would cover charges anyway, ie. breaking the ANO.

The purpose of much Regulation is to give a sanction against those failing to abide by it. You ask how this 'affects the nutters'. It affects them when they are identified and enables them to be the subject of a legal process that did not exist before. This is the point you are missing

The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences

A police officer acquaintance has informed me that the Police are supposed to be briefed 'shortly' on the new legislation.
He holds little hope of it actually happening...

[beardy]

Except it doesn't 'benefit' the model aircraft movement does it!.
1) All of the BMFA members who have passed an acheivment scheme test are exempt from taking either the BMFA or the CAA online test anyway.
They simply hand over their £9 for the priveledge of registering.
2) True there is new legislation, but the nutter at Gatwick will be charged with breaking the ANO when (if...) sufficient evidence is obtained.

The new scheme simply taxes law abiding airspace users and has zero effect on the people causing the problem...
Of course it benefits the model aircraft movement, by demonstrating a mature and responsible attitude to the law and changing the burden of proof for transgressors of that law and the ANO.

Do you have a better solution to the massive unregulated increase in toy ownership and use?

[ShyTorque]

The point to remember is that there will remain thousands of unregulated drones/ model aircraft flyers out there, many flyers will not have heard of the schemes as yet and there hasn't been a great deal of publicity outside aviation circles. As of 30th Nov, it was reported that less than half of the estimated 120,000 model aircraft owner/flyers in UK had registered for the scheme. The ones who have a desire to cause a problem with a drone would be totally mentally bereft if they chose to register their drone first!

I suspect this legislation is going to be another dog licence / TV licence debacle because it will be almost impossible to fully enforce.

[Buster11]

All-the-while, mind you, there is no scientific proof that toy drones present any danger to commercial airplanes. (The youtube video you just tried to find was a hoax disproved by aerodynamicists.) Their size is much smaller and lighter than, say, geese or swans, and their structure is more fragile than sparrow bones. Yet another "Y2K problem".
To put it into perspective, in the winter there are at the very least 253,000 birds weighing between 1.5 and 5kg flying in UK airspace, all of them uncontrolled, and much heavier than many model aircraft. (From RSPB data, a Canada Goose weighs from 4.3-5kg and 193,000 winter in the UK. A heron weighs between 1.5 and 2kg, with 63,000 wintering here). Between 2012 and 2016 there were between 4 and 5 bird strikes per 10,000 aircraft movements (CAA data). Even using the unrealistically large DfT figure of 170,000 SUAs in the UK, and taking into account that most SUA activity is below 400 feet, the likelihood of an SUA impacting an aircraft is far less than the probability of a bird strike. Putting transponders on that lot will be far more useful than doing so to model aircraft and drones, though probably a bit harder.

[WB627]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/735x413/rcvirgin_735x413_4ac4f7208c5f8164fe69de44864905b6235375e4.jp g

To put it into perspective, in the winter there are at the very least 253,000 birds weighing between 1.5 and 5kg flying in UK airspace, all of them uncontrolled, and much heavier than many model aircraft. (From RSPB data, a Canada Goose weighs from 4.3-5kg and 193,000 winter in the UK. A heron weighs between 1.5 and 2kg, with 63,000 wintering here). Between 2012 and 2016 there were between 4 and 5 bird strikes per 10,000 aircraft movements (CAA data). Even using the unrealistically large DfT figure of 170,000 SUAs in the UK, and taking into account that most SUA activity is below 400 feet, the likelihood of an SUA impacting an aircraft is far less than the probability of a bird strike. Putting transponders on that lot will be far more useful than doing so to model aircraft and drones, though probably a bit harder.

Agreed, however not all model aircraft are that small. My Dad in a Chipmunk from Manston, (many years ago 1970's IIRC), had a near miss with one of about 6ft wingspan near Dover. He wasn't amused :oh: and it did get reported :=. So this is not a "new" problem.

[switch_on_lofty]

Bit of incorrect science/misinformation above comparing birds with drones (including model aircraft for sale of argument).
On impact with something at high speed the bird's body essentially behaves as a fluid, dissapating energy and without hard points of impact which can penetrate or shatter hardened structures.
A drone is basically some heavy lumps of metal (motors and batteries) held together by light plastic frame. On impact it's the metal bits that do the damage. They don't disintegrate. Vs leading edges, radomes at high speeds the drone will likely penetrate. Vs helicopter rotors it will likely break the blade of even a decent size one, likely causing a fatal accident.
CAT aeroplane windscreens are pretty well protected at below 250kts.
Source: UK govt study of mid air risks from drones.

[beardy]

Second, a "fluid" hitting an object at 250kts will do as much, if not more, damage as a solid object.
You have never flown through rain nor hail then, nor suffered ricochet damage on the range.

[WB627]

On a slightly different track (pun intended) there is a story that, when designing the APT, British Rail borrowed Rolls Royce’s chicken cannon to test the strength of their windscreens. After several unsuccessful tests with a lot of damage inside the cab, they asked RR’s engineers for advice – they looked at everything and said “you need to defrost the chickens first”.

Possibly just one of those urban myths.

[beardy]

You have never seen a steam turbine blade after it was hit by a single droplet of water. Nor have you seen waterjet cutters.
Yes, I have seen both on my University course. The destruction of a generating turbine by wet steam was particularly impressive, but not particularly relevant to this discussion. The water cutter relies on pressure more than speed. I have seen photographs of a finger cut through by hydraulic fluid from a weeping leak.
I have flown through both rain and hail and seen the damage from each, I have also had ricochet damage from both mud and spent rounds. The hard things do a lot more damage.

[Water pilot]

Third, anyone who has ever dismembered a chicken for cooking purposes will seriously doubt that a bird's head is less dense or rigid than a batteryI have carved a fair number of turkeys and have help lift a fair number of batteries out of holds and can conclusively state that batteries are far more rigid and dense than birds heads. Seriously, looks are deceptive. Try picking up a li-ion bike battery sometime, you will be surprised by the weight versus its size. I have some telecom style batteries that are the size of a very small briefcase, and it takes two burley men to pick them up safely. That said, neither birds nor batteries are good things to have impacting jets or helicopters, but we have more ability to control drones than we do birds. In my view the drone hobby craze will soon pass, but commercial use of drones is expanding exponentially and will continue to do so, making it prudent for regulators to consider this issue and take early action to ensure that the skies remain as safe as possible.

[Maoraigh1]

There's no reason to expect hobby drone use to decrease, as it enables pictures and videos to be taken. Including ones invading privacy, but mainly views of yourself climbing or sailing.
​​​​​​Recently a large number of drones were stolen from a US retailer.
Registration will not affect illegal use. Few people are so stupid as to register stolen property.

[pilotmike]

​​​​​​Recently a large number of drones were stolen from a US retailer.
Registration will not affect illegal use. Few people are so stupid as to register stolen property.
I don't follow your logic.

It is the operator / pilot who is registered, not the drone.

[WB627]

You could not make it up...…

"David Tait, Acting Head of the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s Innovation Team, said: “Enabling everyday drone flying beyond visual line of sight is a game changer, providing the opportunity for unmanned vehicles to monitor critical infrastructure, make deliveries and support our daily lives in an efficient and environmentally friendly way."

Drone law changes to boost use on construction sites | Construction Enquirer (http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2019/12/10/drone-law-changes-to-boost-use-on-construction-sites/)

[Viscount Way]

There has been intense lobbying by Amazon and others to gain acceptance for their kind of drone operation. Their ambition is to use 200 - 400 feet AGL. A kind of “dronosphere” as it were, for package delivery. UPS have approval to start in the US I believe. They claim to have Part 135 certification. A UPS drone pilot needs to hold “Commercial Pilot certificate and Part 107 Certificate” according to the UPS website. Mr Tait seems to be a bit behind the curve already. Innovation has arrived!
Oh well, I’ll just keep to stick and tissue for now!

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/french-sailor-allegedly-assaults-scottish-drone-operator/

French sailor allegedly assaults Scottish drone operator

What started as a routine drone flight quickly spiralled into a violent confrontation for a Scottish drone operator at the Port of Leith, Edinburgh.

The incident led to allegations of physical assault, ensuing charges, and a contentious legal debate that’s garnering attention.Dave Cullen was piloting his 249g drone near a French naval ship berthed in the port, the FS Chevalier Paul. While the flight was within the parameters set by existing legislation, the drone’s presence prompted four sailors to demand the operator obtain permission from the ship’s command.

This confrontation swiftly escalated, resulting in the operator alleging that he received a punch to the shoulder.

Following the incident, a spokesperson for Police Scotland confirmed that an assault report had been filed at Ocean Drive in Edinburgh around 3.25pm on Sunday, 7 May. The spokesperson added, “No one was injured,” and revealed, “A 24-year-old man has been charged in connection with the assault and issued with a recorded police warning.”

However, the assault isn’t the only legal trouble stemming from this incident. The drone operator himself now faces charges regarding his drone’s operation. According to the Police Scotland spokesperson, “A 48-year-old man has been charged in connection with offences relating to the use of a drone. He will be the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal.”

This legal predicament has led to questions about the legitimacy of the charges laid against the drone operator. An expert in drone flight operations has told me that the operator’s flight was within the boundaries set by the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) and the guidelines from the Drone Code issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The operator maintains that he kept the drone within visual line of sight and at a safe distance from the docked ship, something backed up by flight logs I have viewed.

Adding a layer of complexity to this case is the fact that there were no flight restrictions in the area at the time of the flight. This information supports the operator’s assertion of compliance with local airspace regulations. The operator’s flight logs and considerable drone operating experience further substantiate his claims of the flight’s legality.

According to a drone flight expert I spoke to, “This flight was not reckless,” casting doubt on the charges brought against the operator. He added, “Assuming the drone is a sub-250g model. The drone was operated close enough for visual line of sight and never dangerously low or close.”

Following this incident, the operator found himself facing charges of culpable and reckless conduct from the Procurator Fiscal, who issued a conditional offer of a fiscal fine or a court appearance. This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures, thereby posing a threat to the public as “reckless endangerment”.

Let’s take a closer look…..

[MechEngr]

"the drone’s presence prompted four sailors to demand the operator obtain permission from the ship’s command."

Why do that when the ship's command could have sent one sailor to extend permission?

"This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures"

Maybe a better understanding of the nature of terrorism is in order?

This guy has a drone - they have a warship. How do we know they aren't about to launch a salvo on the city? Would they have had a similar reaction to a kite?

I would like to know how the anti-terrorism system is triggered. My guess, it's someone saying "There's a drone!" (but in French) and Chicken Littleing their way along the ship. But thanks to this over-reaction actual terrorists have more insight into problem-causing efforts they might make. Good Job! Attack the good guys and tell the bad guys what they need to know.

[Maoraigh1]

This may have constitutional implications. Aviation is not delegated to the Scottish Parliament. The drone most be flown to UK CAA rules, which have been issued.
To charge someone under other rules might be construed as extending Scottish Authority unconstitutionally.
(The CAA Rules would be interpreted as Scottish Law.)

[Bill Harris]

This is deja vu all over again. As noted, we in the US of A went thru this UAV registration and licensing several years ago. We're going through the motions of regulating a hobby...

--Bill

[ORAC]

I was chasing down info on the drone doing resupply trials on the Prince of Wales and found this - a new UK Ofcom decision to introduce a new BVLOS UAS operator licence. (Dated 16 Dec 2022)

Legally limited to the UK, obviously, but assuming Starlink or some other satphone constellation presumably also usable anywhere in international airspace.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/249664/drone-statement.pdf