-
REGISTER-DRONES
FLYING DRONES AND MODEL AIRCRAFT IN THE UKWelcome to Register-Drones.co.uk
In 2018 the UK Government in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority updated the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016 into the Air Navigation (Amended) Order 2018. Civil Aviation Publication CAP 1763 explains the two amendments made. The "2019 amendment" became law in March 2019 and made changes to the distance a UAV could be flown near to an aerodrome whilst the "2018 amendment" becomes effective from 30th November 2019 and requires all model aircraft pilots (including drones) to register on a National database and to demonstrate their understanding of the law.
This website was created to highlight the flaws in this legislation and to make those responsible accountable for their actions.
-
About Us
Get involved
Who are we?
I am a model aircraft enthusiast that has flown fixed wing and multi-rotors/FPV as a BMFA member since 2012 and was a commercially qualified PfCO pilot from 2016 to 2019
Contact: admin @ register-drones.co.ukWhat do we do?
The UK Government has decided to impose a registration scheme on BMFA model aircraft hobbyists because of an irrational fear to the health and safety of the public of flying models in an already controlled manner. By naming ALL unmanned model aircraft as "drones", the CAA is creating a stereotype of illegal, feral and dangerous model aircraft users. This site aims to highlight their ignorance
Site updated: 1st January 2026
-
News
Comments and Videos03 NOVEMBER 2019: We're live! Pinned Post
If you are looking to register yourself or your drone, you have come to wrong place! The CAA website is register-drones.caa.co.uk
The CAA has incorporated the letters "CAA" into the TLD of the new registration website, without also registering the domain "register-drones.co.uk", leaving it free to be registered by anyone who might wish to hold them accountable(!)
This website is still being developed and will be updated as more information becomes available...
1 January 2026: Remote ID enforced upon UK RC Pilots
The UK Civil Aviation Authority has unilaterally imposed Remote ID onto UK RC Pilots - despite it being a failure in all other countries.
From January 1st 2028, any drone (The CAA classes anything that is remotely operated as a drone inc. fixed wing aircraft) to be fitted with a Remorte ID module broadcasting its position and the position of the pilot.
From 2026, the requirement is for the Remote ID to broadcast "Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth". This means that after spending £100-£200 for a bluetooth module, the range of the signal could be as low as 30m.
At the present time, there are no publically available technical specs of the legal requirements. The CAA does not give any information as to where pilots are supposed to obtain these legally require modules.
Obviously, the link given by the CAA is incorrect...
The CAA have also announced that Network Remote ID will be introduced "sometime in the future". No dates? So after you have updated all of your planes to bluetooth modules, the CAA will introduce mandatory upgrades to Wi-Fi enabled RID. But of course, this is after consulting Government, Industry and Operators, (Yeah right -Ed).
06 October 2023: All change at the top - but the same old story...
The UK Civil Aviation Authority has announced that Rob Bishton will take over the role as CEO of the CAA on 6th November 2023.
In an online post, Mr Bishton gave the following quote:
Second sentence! SECOND F***ING SENTENCE! The guy hasn't even started in his role and already he is gunning for drone users.
Understandably, Rob is GA pilot and has no experience of model aviation and how blanket resrictions and the potential of Remote ID into the UK will kill the hobby and any future innovation within the aviation industry.
[Not surprisingly, no mention of the recent NATS fiasco when a software bug severely disrupted UK airspace for several hours]
04 October 2023: FAA doesn't know their ar*e from their elbow
Kiwi Guru "xJet" (Bruce Simpson) has released a video exposing the glaring hypocracy of the US Federal Aviation Authority and their attitude towards "drone" pilots and the model aviation industry at large.
In an online YouTube video, Bruce shows an example of a hobbyist drone user in the US, who posts videos on a monetised YouTube channel. They were cold called by an FAA agent and told that they were effectively "gaining financially" and therefore must either cease or register as a Commercial Pilot.
However, in the same video, Mr Simpson then highlights a fixed-wing paraglider pilot, who is not legally able to operate as a commercial pilot, also posting monetised YouTube videos with apparent exemptions from the FAA.
It is obvious that the FAA has one rule for drone operators and another for GA pilots. (Yet again).
xJet has requested an online chat with representatives from the FAA to hear their reasoning for this discrepancy. Suffice to say, so far this request has gone unanswered.
06 September 2023: CAA Prelim Report into NATS failure 28/08/23
It must have appeared as a scene from The IT Crowd on the morning of 28th August 2023: "Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
At 08:32, a flight plan for a routine international flight through UK airspace was passed onto the UK National Air Traffic Services from its European counterparts and less than a minute later, both the primary Automated Flight Plan Processing Suite and its backup system had failed throwing the UKs airspace into chaos.
For several hours (long past the 4 hours of stored pre-processed flight plans had elapsed), junior engineers, senior engineers and even top management teams failed to re-boot the system and/or even know what the problem was. It took the software programming company to suggest that they read the "System Crash Log File" to gain an insight into why both systems had crashed (CAA doesn't like terminalogy like "crashed" - Ed).
Whilst Air Traffic Controllers were having to limit the flow of flights and manually process flight plans, engineers realised that a flight plan contained two different waypoints, but which shared the same identifier. [Despite knowledge of this querk, it was felt that since no two waypoints of the same "name" were ever that close to each other, it would never be a problem]
WRONG. Based on information supplied, the UK NATS system predicted the aircrafts entry point into UK airspace and then the exit point. However, since these were the same, the system crashed, sorry, went into uncontrolled shut-down. 20 seconds later, the backup system - which was evidently coded in exactly the same way, also ... abruptly terminated.
Lessons to be learnt. - Pre-check flight plans for duplicate waypoints and take additional steps to prevent them being assumed to be the same point. - Alternatively, rather than shutting down completely, the rogue flight plan should be flagged and marked for manual processing by a competant controller. - Read the manual. An error code was generated and this should have been spotted earlier.
The full CAA report can be read here
04 September 2023: EVEN more anti-drone propoganda
On 1st September 2023, the Daily Telegraph published the following article, by "Travel Writer" Sophie Dickinson:
The article contains numerous misleading statements, rehashes false claims and quotes news stories which have since been shown to be wrong.
Enough is enough. The model aviation community has had its full of media slurs and several (including yours truly) have lodged formal complaints about the article to the Independant Press Standards Organisation.
Whilst we await a ruling from IPSO, here's Bruces video:
02 September 2023: More anti-drone propoganda
On 21st August 2023, news broke on Twitter via @AviationBrk that an Emitrates A380 had been damaged by a drone on its approach to Nice Airport. At the time of writing this post had been seen by 473,000 Twitter readers.
In the very same series of posts, Aviation Breaking News continued "France's accident investigation board...could not yet confirm if a drone was involved". This post was seen by just 31,000 people.
Suffice to say, 440,000 people went about their day falsely believing that a plane had been hit by a drone. This is similar to the VASAviation misinformation video (24 September 2021), where a YouTuber wrongly implied that a drone had acted irresponsibly before simply renaming the video (without any apology) and allowed hundreds of unchallenged posts to spout hatred for an event that didn't happen.
If the false accusation had been made against a person, they would have been rightly accused of spreading wrongful libelous misinformation. However, model aviators are unable to bring any form of action against rogue journalists, police forces, politicians or social media.
Once again, Mr Simpson sums up the case:
31 December 2022: CAA proposes 20% increase in the Drone Registration Fee
The UK CAA has proposed to increase the annual Drone Registration Fee (Operator ID) in April 2023 from £10 to £12 - an increase of 20% This is on top of the 11% increase applied in 2022.
The CAA is seeking to increase its rates across the board by 13.5% due to the recent "economic downturn". However, since the Authority only deals in whole pounds, this is rounded UP to an increase of £2/year.
The reason to charge drone users (including toys over 250g and fixed wing models) was originally given as being necessary to establish a database of users. However, once set-up and with minimal overheads, the Drone Tax has ceased to be ring-fenced and will be used to bail out airlines seeing dwindling passenger numbers during the pandemic and energy crisis.
Further details and a link to a consultation document can be found on the FPV UK website: FPVUK
The closing date for responses to this consultation is 16th January 2023.
29 December 2022: CAA caught publishing fake photographs
The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety. However, this week it was reported (via Twitter) for using a photoshopped image of a drone "supposedly" flying past the window of an airliner implying that this is a major source of danger to aviation. In a "Daily Mail"-esque manner, the image was used in an official document: CAP2356 (page 24)
The authorities failed to convince the flying community that there was a drone at Gatwick in 2018 and so it is trying to subconsciously perpetuate the myth that drones are dangerous.
Whilst the use of RPAS aviation continues to increase, there is has been no reported fatality due to the mis-use or otherwise of an unmanned vehicle, whilst general aviation continues to report no end of incidents, mishaps and deaths. A quick look at the CAA's own website shows how many manned aviators have been prosecuted since 2005. The report suggests that there should be "more" incident reporting from RPAS users. Could it not be that model aviation is safer than its manned counterpart?!
Bruce (XJet) has uploaded his own response:
CAA caught fiddling the figures
In the same publication as above, the number of "known RPAS operators and flyers" is quoted as being approximately 500,000. This is supposedly sourced from CAA data.
According to an FOI request by Mark Wingad [see YouTube below], there were 191k Operator IDs and 308k recorded Flyer IDs in the UK in November 2022. The CAA has clearly added together Operators AND those with a Flyer ID - notwithstanding that almost all Operators will also hold a Flyer ID. Potentially, not everyone that has undertaken the drone awareness test flies regularly, (if at all). The CAA does not say how many registered flyers are under 18.
CAA's own website: "Most people get both a flyer ID and operator ID at the same time". Therefore, it is a classic schoolboy error to conclude that there are half a million active RPAS users in the UK.
It should also be noted that the Flyer ID is (now) valid for 5 years and therefore cumulative numbers do not represent actual numbers of "flyers" at any given time.
The whole point of this paper is questioning why there is a "lack of safety reportings" that would come from HALF A MILLION remotely piloted automated systems. (Ed - These are the same people that we trust to manage our skies!)
26 September 2021: Name and shame those who libel drone users
The following organisations continue to wrongly espouse that in December 2018, Gatwick Airport was the target of an incursion by a drone (or drones). Without any proof or valid evidence, they continue to perpetuate a common myth generated by the Police and exacerbated by the Media.
Organisations may have their names removed from the list by publishing a notice of retraction or by providing proof beyond reasonable doubt that a drone was responsible!!
15/09/2021
The Institution of Engineering & Technology
The North Wales Chronicle
The BBC
The University of Cambridge
The Evening Standard
24 September 2021: It's Official: There was no "drone" at Gatwick
Nearly three years after the closure of Gatwick Airport in London in December 2018, following an alleged drone sighting, the Government, UK Civil Aviation Authority and the Metropolitan Police have failed to produce any evidence (let alone proof) that any drone was present.
Despite Sussex Police stating it had received 115 credible witness statements [insert Sussex Police definition of "credible"], no photographic evidence has ever been presented to back up these claims. Even the official investigation ended in 2019. Despite this, hearsay and conjecture has continued to be used as an excuse to criticise and penalise the drone community and with no threat of libel, the authorities continue to assert that at least one drone was responsible, without having to use the caveat "allegedly".
Currently, most free-thinking commentators have conceded that there was no drone activity at Gatwick (until proven otherwise) and that the Government agencies involved have to maintain the charade in order to save themselves the ignominy and lawsuits that would go with such an admission.
A realistic appraisal of the events of December 2018 can be found here: The mystery of the Gatwick drone
COMMENT:
Unfortunately, mud sticks and the bad-name given to innocent drone users continues to be used as click-bait by ignorant YouTubers such as VASAviation. Whilst reporting incidents involving General Aviation on a nearly daily basis (pilot error, mechanical failure, airspace incursions and near misses), this is regarded as part and parcel of manned aviation.
However, a recent recording of an alleged drone incursion brought instant outrage from thousands of subscribers calling for the hobby to be outlawed. VASAViation: "Stop flying drones nearby airports, VASAviation orders you!"
It later transpired that the "drone" in question was in fact a balloon. [See here] Despite this, apart from changing the title of the video, VASAviation has not apologised or even removed his incorrect comments. His followers will have posted their condemnation and will never know the truth.
19 February 2021: CAA criticised after a 95kg home-made drone falls from the sky
The UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has announced its report into an accident that occurred on 4th July 2019, where a 95kg (3m long) prototype unmanned drone fell out of the sky from a height of approximately 8000 feet. The following build-video shows the Alauda Team constructing the prototype model and getting some basics very wrong. Forgetting to calibrate motors, spending more time worrying about Instagram followers and running out of duct tape.
Seemingly overjoyed at "hovering" just a few inches off of the ground, the Team flew the craft at Goodwood in 2019 and immediately after take-off, the 95kg machine promptly went out of control and sped upwards 8000ft before crashing to the ground once the batteries had depleted.
Here is a video of the AAIB report:
The full text of the report can be seen here: Alauda_Airspeeder_MkII.pdf
Basic RC Aircraft Flying 101 states that any model aircraft should have an automatic failsafe in the event of a loss of signal. Traditionally, the motors of a powered aircraft will switch off if the signal to a transmitter is lost (or "return to home" if a GPS system is used) or the control surfaces of a fixed wing aircraft may be automatically set to nose down the aircraft into a controlled spiral towards the ground. This machine had no automatic failsafe. Instead it relied upon the remote pilot flicking a kill switch. However, in the event of signal loss, this was impossible. Without any GPS or telemetry link, the drone was unable to fly itself.
Of the 15 recommendations, the first states that "all aircraft should be safe and airworthy". Duh. The last invites the EU Aviation Safety Agency to buck up its safety codes. The other THIRTEEN recommendations are aimed at the UK Civil Aviation Authority and their inadequate guidance notes on the construction, testing and operation of prototype drones. Yet, the UK Government along with others around the world are looking at filling our skies with delivery drones operated by people without any understanding or experience of building, flying and operating radio controlled aircraft.
The BBC also takes the view that 13/15ths of the blame rests with the CAA in their online report of the incident here >> BBC News
22 January 2021: AirMap lets the mask slip
The drone App "AirMap" has "inadvertently" announced via Twitter that it is keen to "monetise" previously uncontrolled airspace below 200 feet. In a Tweet made today, the company announced:
AirMap seeks to make a profit out of taxing both recreational and commercial drone pilots, who currently fly their craft in this airspace.
Users of the App - which encourages drone pilots to register their flight-plans in return for airspace NoTAMs - have expressed their displeasure of being used as a cash-cow and many have deleted the App, but not before expressing their feelings towards the developer.
More information can be found at AirMap.Live
29 January 2021: UK CAA discovers gravity
Over 350 years after Sir Isaac Newton watched an apple fall from a tree in Lincolnshire and contemplated Gravitational Theory, someone at the Civil Aviation Authority has been watching Boeing 737-Max aircraft falling out of the sky and deduced that "things always fall downwards".
For this reason, the Drone Code has been updated to prevent people from flying within 50m of people and structures in a horizontal direction only (ie a cylinder of restriction), rather than in all directions (ie a bubble). Previously, the CAA believed that flying 50m directly above people and structures maintained "clear separation". How anyone believed that flying over anyone "at a safe altitude" was safe in the first place just shows how out of touch these bureaucrats are.
Everyone taking their first "Flyer ID" test this year will be aware of the changes. Those that took their test in the last year will find out in another 4 years. Those that hold a recognised BMFA Flying Competency Certificate will never know, because the CAA & BMFA believe that passing a "fixed wing exam 40 years ago" makes you knowledgeable of ALL drone laws FOREVER.
The changes are shown in the graphic below.
17 January 2021: Blundering Sussex Police UAS pilot crashes £60,000 drone
In an online article of the Daily Mail, it has been reported that a Police UAS Pilot accidentally managed to remotely switch off all four motors keeping a £60,000 drone in the air, causing it to crash into a lake.
The pilot, who only had 6 hours flying experience, wrote off the thermal imaging Aeryon SkyRanger R60. The incident, which happened AT NIGHT, was operated by the same force that oversaw the Gatwick Fiasco of 2018.
16 January 2021: Sussex Police continue to lie about the Gatwick fiasco
In a video posted on Twitter by Yorkshire based UAVHive, Giles York the Chief Constable for Sussex Police states that despite there being 109 "credible" sightings of a drone "up to half a mile away", no-one was able to capture it on film.
In 2018, following a huge payout by Sussex Police to a wrongly arrested couple detained for 36 hours, Mr York stated that "...there may have been some confusion caused by his force launching its own drones in the hunt for the rogue craft".
Note to Editors: This particular Chief Constable has a history of incompetence.
10 January 2021: NZ CAA - The Truth about Drone Regulations
The NZ CAA has finally admitted what everyone else already knew. Drone regulations aren't about Safety or Compliance, they are about public perception; keeping ahead of the mob and will only be enforced if it is the publics interest (ie doesn't cost too much and there is a good chance of a conviction).
29-07-20: Mr Simpson deliberately flew a sub-50g drone around his own property, without a spotter, in contravention of regulation 101.209 and invited YouTube users to record a complaint on NZ CAA's website - which I did along with over 100 "angry" people.
The NZ CAA replied that it would investigate. After a lengthy debate in which Safety was clearly not an issue and clearly compliance had not been met, the CAA announced that "no further action" would be taken in the light of public interest! After months of warning of zero tolerance, the CAA has been backed into a corner and sent me a lame excuse as to why not to prosecute someone for breaking their own laws. I passed this email onto Mr Simpson.
30-10-20: Bruce announces to the world what the priorities of the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority really are. I AM PARLER!!
02-11-20: Following a general election in New Zealand in October 2020, the disgraced Transport Minister Philip Twyford was sacked!
29 September 2020: New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority - "Unfit for purpose"
NZ CAA has gone into meltdown over its unique system of carrying out a full safety investigation should anyone submit a complaint against the use of drones and/or RC model aircraft.
The national authority for air safety in New Zealand has been in confusion over its own legislation, and over the last few months NZ resident and RC safety advocate Bruce Simpson has been subjected to a barrage of unwarranted criticism from NZ CAA over his use of sport drones and latterly he has been caught up in the investigation and witch hunt of two 14 year old boys who flew under his supervision.
The timeline is as follows (with XJet YouTube links):
09-04-20: NZ CAA investigates drone use during lock-down
28-04-20: NZ CAA reverses its ban on recreational flying after an internal communication mix-up
27-05-20: NZ CAA receives an unsolicited complaint against Mr Simpson and immediately issues an unwarranted warning
03-06-20: NZ CAA investigates complaints against Mr Simpson and is upset when he refuses to incriminate himself
22-06-20: Mr Simpson shows a video of a safe recreational drone flight by an UNKNOWN pilot
14-07-20: Two 14 year old's fly under Mr Simpsons supervision - see below
29-07-20: NZ CAA blames Mr Simpson for flights undertaken by ANOTHER unknown pilot
29-07-20: Mr Simpson flies sub-250g drone "illegally" and asks to be investigated
05-08-20: NZ CAA tells Mr Simpson to stop submitting complaints about illegal flying
27-09-20: NZ CAA begin investigations into flights made on 14-07-20 - see above
28-09-20: NZ CAA is in meltdown over failed investigations, missed FOI deadlines and its own incompetence.
14 June 2020: Sussex Police Payout £200k over Gatwick Fiasco
An innocent couple arrested by Sussex Police on suspicion of flying a drone over/near Gatwick Airport in December 2018 have received a £200,000 payout after winning a case of wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Even though the couple did not even own a drone, they were held for 36 hours whilst the Police made investigations.
To-date no-one else has been arrested for the chaos caused by the CAA closing the airport. So far, the Police have failed to produce any evidence of any drone(s) being flown - other than spurious sightings of possibly a police drone! It continues to be accepted elsewhere that the airport was closed for internal technical reasons and the "threat" from a rogue drone was used as a cover story to panic the public and to quickly bring in anti-drone legislation.
8 June 2020: 2.5kg drone crashes into manned Helicopter - forcing it to land
A helicopter with 3 persons on board was hit by a Skyranger R60 remotely operated unmanned aircraft in February this year. However, the incident was not documented until 2nd June. The 2.5kg drone was completely destroyed whilst the helicopter was able to land safely despite the pilot reporting "vibrations".
Where did this happen? Why haven't you seen it in the news? The incident happened in Canada and both the drone AND the helicopter belonged to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Despite the seriousness of the incident and the potential loss of life, the Canadian CAA has dismissed this and classified it as "a learning exercise not for public discussion". It seems that no further action will be taken. The main lesson learnt here is that if a drone hits a manned aircraft, it's OK if the drone is flown by the Police.
The incident report was brought to the publics attention by YouTuber Alan Yu (see below). As always, you may also be interested to see Bruce Simpsons reaction.
16 May 2020: Drone registration doesn't work!
On 12th May, a drone was used to film a display of The Blue Angels in Detroit, Michigan. Film later uploaded by the drone pilot shows the flight formation narrowly missing the drone - with no time to react had the drone been 100ft higher. The FAA are aware of the incident, but only because the drone user "foolishly" uploaded his footage and made it public. Had this not been the case, the drone pilot would have made his escape and had a private video as a souvenir of the event.
Although the incident took place in the States, the CAA in the UK argues that the registration of drone pilots and their aircraft will stop incidents like this from happening. It didn't and will not, because people that break the law do not follow the law.
The video footage can be seen here, along with an analysis by XJet channels Bruce Simpson...
7 March 2020: UK to leave EASA at the end of 2020
In an announcement today, the UK's Transport Secretary said that the UK will cease to be a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) at the end of the Brexit transition period on 31st December 2020. However, it is unlikely (at the moment) that any existing/future rules regarding drone use will change.
The CAA has forced all of the UKs hobby aircraft flyers to pay and register their model planes and helicopters as part of EU legislation which becomes live in June 2020. The new laws, which are EU wide, aim to standardise "drone" use across the EU by registering all flyers in all of its member states.
The reason? "...new drones will have to be individually identifiable, allowing the authorities to trace a particular drone if necessary. This will help to better prevent events similar to the ones which happened in 2018 at Gatwick and Heathrow airports". Because we all know that terrorists put their Operator ID on their drones!.
5 March 2020: Freedom of Information Request
An FOI request to the UK's Civil Aviation Authority has been answered.
"The volume of operator ID issued from 3 November 2019 to 29 February 2020 was 109,450".
The CAA originally estimated that 170,000 UK Operators would register over an 18 month period, by averaging 770k registrations in the US (equivalent to 202k weighted for the UK population) and 9,000 in Ireland (weighted to 128,000 in the UK).
The "averaging" theory sounds great in practice, but there are serious statistical anomalies. Firstly, the US is less densely populated than the UK and has greater opportunities to "fly in the wilderness" than in the UK. Almost double as it turns out. Secondly, extrapolating a low figure of just 9,000 Irish registrations into a UK equivalent figure by multiplying it by 20 is not best-practice.
It is not known how many more "drone" operators will register over the next 12 months and the FOI response is vague in that it states "the number issued", rather than the number applied for. Given that the CAA was still issuing Operator IDs to BMFA members until very recently, it is unclear whether there are applications that have not been counted.
22 February 2020: BMFA confirms CAA won't hit its deadline
The BMFA has finally confirmed in another Statement what everybody else already knew - that the CAA will not be able to issue its Operator ID numbers in time.
Despite being assured that the £9 fee would be used to invest in "state-of-the art" technology, the UK's Aviation Authority - who has control of our skies and airborne safety, are unable to take 19,000 bits of data (already processed by an external supplier in a format specified by the CAA), produce a random hash encrypted ID number and issue it to the email specified.
In 2019, the CAA estimated that the cost of the registration scheme, between October 2019 and March 2020, would be £1.3m (inc VAT). However, it seems that despite pre-planning, it is unable to manage a smaller than anticipated number of applications.
"Earlier in the week we reported that the CAA expected BMFA members to receive their Operator I.D. numbers by the end of the week. However, as of Friday afternoon, only 4000 BMFA members I.D. numbers had been processed due to a technical problem with their system." No shit. My old laptop running Windows XP is able to generate thousands of hash-7 IDs in seconds. Specialist business servers allow 2,000 emails to be sent in any 24 hour period. This could all be done in just over a week.
"The DMARES guys have informed us that they will be working over the weekend to process the remaining records." The CAA have had the information for two weeks, issued 4000 IDs in a week, but expect to issue the remaining 12,000 over the weekend!?.
"We also reported that the wording of the CAA's email had been updated after the first 2000 ID's had been emailed out. Unfortunately, the next 2000 records were then sent out with the original email (which we are assured has now been corrected)." This is farcical. Again, the CAA is responsible for our safety and yet cannot amend a simple email...
"The erroneous email stated that a Flyer I.D. was also required which is incorrect." ...or know its own rules!
19 February 2020: BMFA responds to its own response
In the last 24 hours, there have been frantic discussions between the BMFA and the CAA regarding the General Exemption issued on the 17th February 2020.
As promised, the BMFA have issued another Statement trying to explain the situation.
The latest BMFA statement opens by announcing that the 2,000 Operator IDs (out of 18,500 that the BMFA bulk uploaded), have been processed this week and that the remainder should expect to receive theirs by 23rd February 2020. Given that this is effectively 21st February 2020 (as the CAA does not operate at the weekend), this means that the remaining 16,500 BMFA applications will be processed and emailed out in just two days. This does not include those bulk applications made by LMA, FPV and SMA.
It continues by stating that the latest Exemption was issued because the Operator IDs issued to BMFA members FAILED to note that BMFA members with a valid Certificate of Achievement were exempt from requiring a Flyer ID. It seems that even the CAA is not aware of its own rules and regulations.
The BMFA categorically confirms that the reason behind the extended Exemption date, was to extend the deadline for NEW members to apply for their Operator IDs via the BMFA. This is confusing and unnecessary. Firstly, the Exemption does not state this and ultimately includes existing BMFA members and secondly, there should be no problem with new members continuing to apply for IDs as and when they join. A simple "Exemption" that anyone, by applying for an ID through a bulk uploader, should be temporarily covered would suffice.
This website waits to see if the CAA is capable of issuing over 18,500 Op IDs by the 23rd Feb. Given that the stated purpose of model flyers paying the £9 fee was to pay for IT firmware to enable the CAA to accept, process and store information, this seems rather inept.
The BMFA also urges members who have already received their Op IDs to put their registration numbers on their planes - although this is not a requirement as stated in the Exemption. Any BMFA member flying without a marked plane should refer the authorities to the CAA Exemption.
UPDATE: During social-media discussions, the BMFA has stated that the Operator ID number, which "is to be used to clearly identify all flown aircraft", is likely to change after the first year. This has been known since before the scheme started. The CAA even pointed out that this could change EVERY YEAR! It now seems likely that changes made to adopt the European standard will mean a single "reusable" Operator registration number.
18 February 2020: BMFA responds to the CAA Exemption Notice
In response to the unilateral Exemption Notice issued by the CAA yesterday (See "17th Feb" below), the British Model Flying Association has posted a Statement on its website.
The Statement, which was so rushed that it contains typos and double-entered words, attempts to stem a flood of enquiries from anxious BMFA members asking where are their IDs.
The BMFA website copied the Statement onto their homepage as text, but felt the need to insert the words "As always" when referring to how their President was kept in the loop with the CAA.
"The BMFA's CEO has been in communication with the CAA over the matter" This sounds like the BMFA was unprepared and had not been informed about the impending update from the CAA. How can this be? Surely, the CAA would consult an organisation whose members would be affected by this?
Note: There is a notable difference between the Statement given at the BMFA website and on their Facebook page. See HERE. In a vain attempt to make it seem as if the BMFA "are always engaged", someone has added the words "As always" when referring to how often the BMFA CEO is in contact with the CAA. However, in the context of seeking clarification over the CAA Exemption, this addendum makes no sense!
"can we ask that our members please sit tight for 24 hours whilst the CEO works hard for a clearer resolution" We're right! They don't have a clue.
17 February 2020: CAA - System crashes or unplanned landings?
In line with existing legislation, on or after 1st February 2020, the BMFA sent the details of over 19,000 of its members, presumably along with a cheque for over £170,000 to the CAA.
By return, the BMFA should have received 19,000 unique Operator ID numbers for its members to stick onto their planes.
In response to numerous frantic enquiries from its members asking where there Operator IDs were and would they now be liable to a £1,000 fine, the BMFA issued a consoling Statement saying that the CAA would issue the Op_ID's before the 23rd February and anyone not receiving their ID by then should contact the BMFA office.
However, the CAA has today issued a General Exemption stating that existing BMFA members are exempt from requiring an Op-ID until the end of June 2020.
Without knowing the reason behind the exemption, cynics would suggest that the CAA is admitting that it is unable to produce 19,000 Op-IDs before the Feb 23rd deadline.
The CAA was aware that a very large number of applications would be made on 1st February. The BMFA has 36,000 members. Despite this, it seems that the resources and know-how of the CAA have once again fallen short of any competent organisation.
26 December 2019: Who is responsible?
1. This is Richard Moriarty. As Chief Executive Officer of the CAA since may 2018, Mr Moriarty has previously held the role of Group Director of Consumers and Markets. He also has experience of administrating aviation licences and regulating the legal profession. Ultimately, he is responsible for overseeing legislation which has forced every drone operator in the UK to register their details to be able to fly - even on private land within clubs and with insurance.
The CAA cites safety as the reason, whilst those not wishing to register are free to do as they wish, since there is only a million-to-one chance of being caught and fined.
However, Richard is also in favour of allowing companies such as Amazon, to fly drones outside of "line-of-sight" for the purposes of delivering packages. Safety appears no longer to be a concern, as commercial income from licences will generate significant income for the CAA and HM Government.
13 November 2019: BLOG: CAP 1804 - Consultation Response Document
The CAA released CAP1804 "without fanfare or notification via the usual channels" on 11th November, just a week after the DMARES went live.
13 pages of lame excuses, the report goes on to suggest that the cost of the scheme would cover:
- "A Registration Service for Drone Users". But if there was no registration (since it won't stop crime) then there wouldn't be the need to charge at all!
- "A knowledge base of content". Numerous existing websites already carry this information and it doesn't cost "millions" to update.
- "An online Flyer ID test". Again, a one-off set of questions that may need updating once and a while.
- "A service that allows Operators to fly multiple drones". Doesn't that already happen?
The consultation was led by the CAA Board keeping the Secretary of State for Transport informed of their actions. Therefore, any complaints should be made to the CAA
The CAA has reduced the Operator ID registration tax from £16.50/year to £9/year to maximise the number of registrations, in the style of a "99p shop". They have also lowered the expected number of registrations to 130,000 (from 170,000) by March 2021 following howls of criticism as to the extent of members of the public flying drones.
A large factor in the price reduction was the fawning by the BMFA and others to freely hand over large quantities of registration data, eg names, addresses, emails etc. of its members. The CAA document "invites" other bulk providers to apply for the same privilege, but unfortunately, the application window was only open from 28th October and closed on the 3rd November - 8 days before publication of this document!
58% of the 11,000 respondents to the CAA consultation were by Model Aircraft enthusiasts.
The CAP names the CAA's "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Unit" as the future regulator. However, since the term UAS has now fallen out of favour, this has been dumbed down to "Drone Unit".
The estimated cost of the scheme over the first 18 months will be £725,000 (why c £724k?) and around £1,000,000 a year thereafter (again, why £1,011k?). The main costs being IT hosting, IT security (so no excuses for cyber-hacking), call centre support (although it doesn't say in which country the £90,000 will be spent) and "future" service improvements (£375k).
Other concerns from existing model aircraft users were largely ignored.
- "Already being a BMFA member should be rewarded". The CAA feels that they can feel "inclusive" by paying their organisation direct rather than to the CAA.
- "Registration should be more than 12 months". Despite the precise estimates (to the nearest £1,000), the CAA does not know how many drone users there are, how many will register and what the law will be in 6 months time.
- "Holders of Achievements should not have to take the online test". Here, I disagree with the BMFA members. How can someone who took an A Certificate 20 years ago possibly know about the latest rules and regulations (400ft above surface, 500m from pilot, 150m away from crowds, take-off clearances etc)? This is a concession aimed at satisfying the masses very cheaply.
- "PfCO holders should be exempt". Commercial Operators already pay significant fees EVERY year as part of their permissions, are exempt from the online test and already have their details logged for all to see. The CAA is charging twice for the same information.
Not one mention of the fact that BMFA members already pay insurance, fly predominantly at registered safe sites and that no aircraft has ever been endangered by a BMFA member.
09 November 2019: BLOG: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
OK. The Drone Legislation has been enacted, people are realising that this is not going away and there are lots of people p****d off with the whole thing.
So. who is responsible for this fiasco?
The Government? There has been a Conservative Government since 2010. At that time, commercial drone operations were classed as air users under the CAA Air Navigation Order (2009) and more specifically the Civil Aviation Publication CAP722 (2008). Since 2010, the Secretaries of State for Transport have been: Phillip Hammond (2010-2011), Justine Greening (-2012), Patrick McLoughlin (-2016), Chris Grayling (-July 2019) and Grant Shapps.
Hardly an auspicious line-up.
Much of the recent legislation was overseen by "Failing" Grayling, who also had to apologise for B&B Gay comments, unlawfully banning books being sent to prisoners, unlawfully changing legal aid regulations, knocking down a cyclist, causing a melt-down of the rail system by introducing unrealistic timetables and that's without mentioning his Ferry Fiasco.
The Science and Technology Committee? The Committees brief was biased from the start. Its Scope of Inquiry listed legitimate drone activities such as surveying, photography and crop spraying, without any mention of model aircraft flying and then cited "suspected" drone incidents, "dozens" of near misses between drones and aircrafts [sic] and the unsubstantiated "chaos" at Gatwick and Heathrow as reasons to bring forward registration legislation.
Whilst the committee heard evidence from a range of sources (see below), it did not visit any BMFA flying sites to see the safe and organised manner in which they fly, speak to any drone insurer to gain first hand knowledge of the type and frequency of any actual incidents or look at or inspect a drone or model plane at first hand.
The Civil Aviation Authority? The CAA is a not-for-profit Government organisation affiliated to the Department of Transport. Run by civil servants, its aim is to create bureaucracy. The CAA recently stopped asking Commercial Drone applicants from submitting evidence of their Drone Insurance with their application, as NOT checking the documentation saved the CAA 100 days in man-hours. Imagine how much time could be saved by not checking the applications at all.
Their recent Annual Report lists actual aircraft incidents at Shoreham. Leicester City and Norway, the grounding of Boeing 737 Max aircraft, disruptive airline passengers, but curiously no collisions between model aircraft and full sized aircraft.
The National Air Traffic Service? NATS management has a history of friction with unmanned aircraft flyers. In June 2019, its "Head of Unmanned Traffic" no-less, let slip his attitude towards drone users by referring to them as "clueless, careless and criminal". See 28th June 2019
The British Airline Pilots Association? Dr Rob Hunter of BALPA welcomed the new Drone Registration service by suggesting "that drones should be registered in the same way as other vehicles". [But not cyclists(?), where 102 deaths occurred in 2016]. He also "hoped" that the legislation would help to improve airspace safety. "Hope" doesn't butter the parsnips Dr Hunter. A potential additional cost of £4m to law-abiding model aircraft users and BALPA has its fingers crossed!
The Airline Pilots Association is ultimately responsible for whipping up the storm against drone users. Near miss sightings of drones at 30,000ft whilst travelling at 400mph and drones that on reflection "may have been a plastic bag", planted the seed of doom in the publics mind and set the Governments of the World on a collision course with drone users.
The British Model Aircraft Association? In short, the BMFA has let its members down. It has accepted its fate and agreed to handover BMFA members details directly to the CAA, in return for the reduction of the cost of registration from £16.50 to £9. The Science and Technology Committee had already recommended that the cost should not be such that it would put-off potential users from registering.
The BMFA has stated that it does not expect the cost to rise over time. (Without the advantage of time travel, this is an unsubstantiated claim). Strangely, it has "won" the concession that any holders of its A Certificate Achievement Scheme does not have to sit an online test. Good then, that those who passed their model aircraft flying test perhaps 20 years ago are regarded as being up-to-speed with the latest drone regulations!
05 November 2019: model aircraft registration scheme becomes law
It's the 5th of November and the CAA drone registration page has become active. The CAA has finally realised that not everything in the air is a drone by using the heading "Drones and Model Aircraft".
The Drone Code header page fails to mention that sub-250g drones are not subject to registration and menacingly threatens ANYONE flying a drone without permission to a £1,000 fine.
The Flyer ID Test is very basic and tests the candidate using scenarios. Although some knowledge of clearance distances are required, the questions can be answered with a small degree of common sense. The registration process replicates ticking an "I accept the Terms & Conditions" tick box so that the Courts can show any offender knew the rules.
31 October 2019: The Drone You Don't Have To Register...
Several aviation authorities around the world have decided that any flying object weighing less than 250 grams is not subject to regulation and therefore can be flown without registering. Drone manufacturer DJI have produced an extremely lightweight UAV. The "DJI Mavic Mini" weighs just 249g and can be flown without regulation.
Other drone users have also managed to configure the older DJI Spark to become air legal.
Watch this review of the DJI Mavic Mini from Youtuber "Toms Tech Time"
28 October 2019: BMFA response to D(MA)RES legislation
The British Model Flying Association (BMFA) has responded to the CAA's Drone and Model Aircraft Registration and Education Service (DRES), by removing the letters for Model Aircraft from the acronym "DMARES". Perhaps it should now be called the British Drone Association?
The BMFA rightfully claims that its representatives campaigned vigorously with the Parliamentary Committee to "go easy" on its members, however, the report produced by the Science and Technology Committee barely mentions the model flying community, the fact that it has been flying model aircraft for many years without a serious incident or any suggestion that model fliers at registered flying clubs should be completely exempt.
The BMFA in its email to members, argues:
- "There was little we could do"
- "Drones = Small Unmanned Aircraft = Model Aircraft"
- "The BMFA helped to reduced the fee to £9"
- "The BMFA does not expect the fee to increase"
- "BMFA certificate holder will be exempt from taking the online test"
- "Other countries are in the same situation"
Their website response can be seen here:
23 October 2019: Don't hate on the BMFA
Following online comments after the CAA's announcement on the 21st October, "XJet" (Bruce Simpson) rallied behind the beleaguered BMFA, saying that they were "sidelined" by DfT, the CAA and the Government.
21 October 2019: Drone and Model Aircraft Registration and Education
The UK Civil Aviation Authority have spent the last 6 months listening to drone and model aircraft users, the British Model Flying Association and other member organisations, other Government departments, the British Airline Pilots Association, the recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee of MPs and produced its final publication on the second amendment of the 2018 Air Navigation Order... [Link]
It is essentially the same as the draft produced in April, but the registration fee is now £9 instead of £16.50.
The registration system fails to address the problem of rogue drone operators.
Making people register their kitchen utensils would not solve knife crime.
The online test - which users are reportedly able to complete by "repeatedly" answering multiple choice questions until the correct combination is achieved - can be sat by anyone (including family and friends) in the privacy of their own home.
Exemptions are vague and inconsistent. Some Commercial Operators with in-depth knowledge of the rules and regulations of the legal limits will be required to sit the test, whilst BMFA model aircraft fliers who passed their fixed wing "A Certificate" 20 years ago, prior to the introduction of multi-rotor technology, will not be required to do so.
Following the possibility of the BMFA of submitting itself as a Registered Drone Operator and all of its members as its Operators and paying only one fee of £16.50, the BMFA has conceded to handover the details of its 36,000 members in return for lowering the administrative cost of registration to £9.
Whilst the legislation states that the BMFA can only submit the details and fee with the members permission, BMFA members who do not allow the BMFA to do this will have to register directly with the CAA.
You can watch XJet Channels Bruce Simpsons take on the legislation here...
11 October 2019: Commercial and Recreational Drone Use in the UK
The aforementioned Science and Technology Committee has published its report of final recommendations to the Government regarding its legislation to criminalise the unregistered use of commercial and recreational model aircraft. [View/Download PDF]
Notably, the Committee (none of which have ever owned or flown a model aircraft or been a member of a flying club) gave the following recommendations:
"...the Civil Aviation Authority, should review the proposed online test one year after it has been in operation".
"...if the registration fee dissuades individuals from registering, then this defies the purpose of the system..."
"We recommend that the Government consider a system which allows organised clubs and societies to register as one entity, so as not to financially burden each member."
"...the Government should acknowledge that the scheme will do little to mitigate the risks from nefarious drone users..." No shit.
"The Government should provide an assessment of how the growing drone industry might contribute to the UK’s economy by the time of the 2020 Spring Statement."
"There is a notable distrust towards drones among the general public..." See fake Gatwick drone scare.
The document wasted the most paper on outlining the dangers of rogue drone users and the need to regulate airborne Amazon deliveries.
Within the 60 pages of the Peter and Jane pamphlet, there is very little discussion on the years of safe model aircraft flight, the effect on their hobby of restrictive legislation and/or the possible remedies to minimise the disruption to legitimate association members.
BMFA members pay annual Public Liability Insurance and fly at registered clubs - by definition, away from built up areas and airports.
Click the button to watch a YouTube response from the XJet channel...
28 June 2019: "Drone operators are clueless, careless and criminal"
The UK's National Air Traffic Service (NATS) was forced to give an apology today after its Head of Unmanned Traffic Management apparently referred to drone operators as "clueless, careless and criminal". Giving evidence to the UK Parliaments "Science and Technology Committee", Andrew Sage drew concern and anger from pilots and stakeholders for his clueless and careless remarks.
Footage of the faux pas can be seen here...
26 April 2019: Charge Proposal for the UK Drone Registration Scheme
The UK Government has followed up on its 2018 (Amendment) of the Air Navigation Order by publishing a consultation document on the proposed changes and charges for drone users in the UK.
CAP1775 states that the proposed registration fee will be £16.50 for ALL fliers of drones over 250g.
It's WAR People...!
-
Gallery
Commercial and Recreational Model Aircraft
-
Links
Website References
