£16.50 for licence to own a drone in the UK

[Porky]

You're more likely to get pulled if one or more of your drone lights is out, Plod loves nothing more than chasing up faulty tail-lights.

You started my day off with a nice smile/laugh, your comment, brilliant ??

 

[AVInteractive]

Initial application & issue for a shotgun is £79.50 for FIVE years - then renewal is £49.00 for FIVE years = That's £15.90 p.a. for the first 5 years, then £9.80 per year to keep your license. My statement came from the p.a. cost difference between registering a drone and a shotgun ... (Figures come from the Essex Police website). It will be more expensive to register a drone than a shotgun is a fact!

You're quite right I forgot it was a 5 year license

 

[FoxhallGH]

As a paid-up member of the BMFA, I just received an interesting e-mail [to all members] from the BMFA CEO - David Phipps. This was a report after a meeting between the BMFA and the CAA on the 29th May 2019. An interesting opening paragraph as follows;

"The CAA were only able to discuss potential options within the restrictive policy framework dictated by the DfT. One such option is the possibility of the Associations registering as Operators, which would save members paying the £16.50 registration fee, but all members flying any model over 250g would still be required to take a free CAA theory test every 3 years. There is however further exploratory work to do on this option before it could be confirmed as a viable way forward and it would still be far from satisfactory."

IF the CAA are going to entertain that option, then there are some big implications regarding the cost of the service! The £16.50 was based on individual memberships ... Current membership of the BMFA is estimated to be around 36,000 ... So if the CAA is only going to get £16.50 from those 36,000 fliers, where is it going to get the rest it believes it needs to run the scheme! While this sounds great for BMFA members, it does mean that somebody not affiliated with the BMFA or similar, could end up paying hundreds of pounds for a drone registration!

The BMFA is actively lobbying the CAA, and believes that 6,000 of its members responded to the recent CAA consultation document.

 

[old man mavic]

As a paid-up member of the BMFA, I just received an interesting e-mail [to all members] from the BMFA CEO - David Phipps. This was a report after a meeting between the BMFA and the CAA on the 29th May 2019. An interesting opening paragraph as follows;

"The CAA were only able to discuss potential options within the restrictive policy framework dictated by the DfT. One such option is the possibility of the Associations registering as Operators, which would save members paying the £16.50 registration fee, but all members flying any model over 250g would still be required to take a free CAA theory test every 3 years. There is however further exploratory work to do on this option before it could be confirmed as a viable way forward and it would still be far from satisfactory."

IF the CAA are going to entertain that option, then there are some big implications regarding the cost of the service! The £16.50 was based on individual memberships ... Current membership of the BMFA is estimated to be around 36,000 ... So if the CAA is only going to get £16.50 from those 36,000 fliers, where is it going to get the rest it believes it needs to run the scheme! While this sounds great for BMFA members, it does mean that somebody not affiliated with the BMFA or similar, could end up paying hundreds of pounds for a drone registration!

The BMFA is actively lobbying the CAA, and believes that 6,000 of its members responded to the recent CAA consultation document.

yes i got the same e mail could be good news for members

 

[FoxhallGH]

yes i got the same e mail could be good news for members

Well yes and no ... If the CAA don't get the sign-up they have forecasted, then the registration fee will need to go up! If -for example, and to take it to extremes - there was just one 'Association' that acted as the 'Operator' for all drone owners, then the CAA would not be charging that entity £16.50 p.a. - they would be charging that Association £1 Million p.a. Remember that the consultation doc' was suggesting that the level of fee was set by the annual costs divided by the anticipated take-up in registration.

 

[old man mavic]

Well yes and no ... If the CAA don't get the sign-up they have forecasted, then the registration fee will need to go up! If -for example, and to take it to extremes - there was just one 'Association' that acted as the 'Operator' for all drone owners, then the CAA would not be charging that entity £16.50 p.a. - they would be charging that Association £1 Million p.a. Remember that the consultation doc' was suggesting that the level of fee was set by the annual costs divided by the anticipated take-up in registration.

i see your point at the end of the day it is going to cost everyone X amount at some point irrespective of what that amount will end up being

 

[zocalo]

Well yes and no ... If the CAA don't get the sign-up they have forecasted, then the registration fee will need to go up! If -for example, and to take it to extremes - there was just one 'Association' that acted as the 'Operator' for all drone owners, then the CAA would not be charging that entity £16.50 p.a. - they would be charging that Association £1 Million p.a. Remember that the consultation doc' was suggesting that the level of fee was set by the annual costs divided by the anticipated take-up in registration.

If they permit this, I'll predict right now it's going to be a crapshoot. The CAA is assuming £16.50 based on a simple "expected costs/guess as to pilot numbers" formula because they have almost no clue how many pilots there really are. If they don't know that, they'll have even less idea of how many might be covered by existing membership of a body like BMFA (or would join one if the combined membership perks and no need to pay the CAA made it worthwhile). Without knowing that, how are they going to know what they need to set the "organizational rate" at, or how do they determine a suitable fee for smaller clubs that are autonomous of the BMFA?

Also, let's say the do permit this. It seems likely BFMA membership would mean a lower annual tithe to the CAA for an individual member (an extra £10 on the existing BFMA fees, say). That leaves a shortfall that will need to be made up by those outside a club, meaning the individual fee will need to go up, which in turn makes it more likely that a greater number of casual pilots will "opt out" and take their chances. And that's before you consider they've still got to publicise all this and let people know they need to register in the first place.

Frankly, funding this scheme is looking more and more like a can of worms, both for the CAA and us pilots. I have almost zero confidence that the £16.50 figure is in the ballpark, and fully expect it to climb significantly once any umbrella organizations and opt-outs are taken into account and they come up short. I suggested in my feedback they should be getting at least some funding from the airport operators and likes of BALPA that have been pushing for this in the first place. It's starting to look like it would be simpler for everyone if that were closer to 100% of the necessary funding, with some minor "handling fee" for initial operator registration and any subsequent changes instead.

 

[FoxhallGH]

If they permit this, I'll predict right now it's going to be a crapshoot. The CAA is assuming £16.50 based on a simple "expected costs/guess as to pilot numbers" formula because they have almost no clue how many pilots there really are. If they don't know that, they'll have even less idea of how many might be covered by existing membership of a body like BMFA (or would join one if the combined membership perks and no need to pay the CAA made it worthwhile). Without knowing that, how are they going to know what they need to set the "organizational rate" at, or how do they determine a suitable fee for smaller clubs that are autonomous of the BMFA?

Also, let's say the do permit this. It seems likely BFMA membership would mean a lower annual tithe to the CAA for an individual member (an extra £10 on the existing BFMA fees, say). That leaves a shortfall that will need to be made up by those outside a club, meaning the individual fee will need to go up, which in turn makes it more likely that a greater number of casual pilots will "opt out" and take their chances. And that's before you consider they've still got to publicise all this and let people know they need to register in the first place.

Frankly, funding this scheme is looking more and more like a can of worms, both for the CAA and us pilots. I have almost zero confidence that the £16.50 figure is in the ballpark, and fully expect it to climb significantly once any umbrella organizations and opt-outs are taken into account and they come up short. I suggested in my feedback they should be getting at least some funding from the airport operators and likes of BALPA that have been pushing for this in the first place. It's starting to look like it would be simpler for everyone if that were closer to 100% of the necessary funding, with some minor "handling fee" for initial operator registration and any subsequent changes instead.

'Crapshoot' would be a mild term for it! - I'd go with the military 'FUBAR' term on this one [F***ed Up Beyond All Recognition] ...
I totally agree with you - the CAA would be better off with the FAA approach (something like £5 for 2 or 3 years) with no opt-outs or Association memberships. Make it cheap and simple, and there would be no objections ... (I still can't figure out how their on-line service is going to cost £1 Mill' p.a. to run though!!!).

 

[kyle mavic]

'Crapshoot' would be a mild term for it! - I'd go with the military 'FUBAR' term on this one [F***ed Up Beyond All Recognition] ...
I totally agree with you - the CAA would be better off with the FAA approach (something like £5 for 2 or 3 years) with no opt-outs or Association memberships. Make it cheap and simple, and there would be no objections ... (I still can't figure out how their on-line service is going to cost £1 Mill' p.a. to run though!!!).

This "service" registration Database,could be run on a midrange laptop from someones house, so where this £ 1 million plus figure to run the database comes from ,is anyones guess,
someones wants to make cash,its a total ripoff,all carrot and no stick,the FAA @ $5.00 for 3 years is far more realistic .CRAPSHOOT is an understatement,more like shooting fish in a barrel.........??

 

[zocalo]

Further to the BFMA's reaction to this, the BBC has an update on how they (or at least those that they interviewed) feel, but the lack of any contrary views (from within the BFMA or from drone pilots) does make the overall tone seem rather one-sided. Not much in there other that they got over 6,000 responses to their consultation from BFMA members alone; mostly it comes across that they're upset that the CAA doesn't appear to be giving them preferrential treatment anymore, which isn't exactly going to get them much sympathy from the drone community, and to some extent gives the impression of spoilt children upset because they've been told playtime is over.

Frankly, I'm not seeing much practical difference between a responsible model aircraft pilot and a responsible drone pilot, and the "barrier for entry argument" is ridiculous and doesn't do them any favours IMHO; that doesn't apply to people wanting to get drones as well? If anything, the price of entry to each hobby is currently about the same, but from discussions with people who build and fly model aircraft the cost of those can go *way* above what drones cost; over £10k for some of the larger/more complex models is not uncommon. There's also absolutely *nothing* stopping someone using RC aircraft to stage a Gatwick-style attack, or worse.

More seriously, if this is the typical view, then the BFMA needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and realise the world has changed. It's not "RC aircraft" anymore to the CAA; it's a collective "SUAV" that includes both model aircraft and drones, and once commercial drone use starts to ramp up there are going to be a *lot* more drone operators in the UK that model aircraft pilots. They can either accept that and start speaking with a unified voice with us drone pilots and try to get some safeguards for both our hobbies in place, or they can get steamrollered once the likes of Amazon start making their case for commercial drone operations.

 

[4wd]

Something like this looks far more like you should have a licence than a drone which has precise positioning and is primarily use for video and photography at close range and low altitude.
If he wasn't so fat he could practically get in it

 

[old man mavic]

Further to the BFMA's reaction to this, the BBC has an update on how they (or at least those that they interviewed) feel, but the lack of any contrary views (from within the BFMA or from drone pilots) does make the overall tone seem rather one-sided. Not much in there other that they got over 6,000 responses to their consultation from BFMA members alone; mostly it comes across that they're upset that the CAA doesn't appear to be giving them preferrential treatment anymore, which isn't exactly going to get them much sympathy from the drone community, and to some extent gives the impression of spoilt children upset because they've been told playtime is over.

Frankly, I'm not seeing much practical difference between a responsible model aircraft pilot and a responsible drone pilot, and the "barrier for entry argument" is ridiculous and doesn't do them any favours IMHO; that doesn't apply to people wanting to get drones as well? If anything, the price of entry to each hobby is currently about the same, but from discussions with people who build and fly model aircraft the cost of those can go *way* above what drones cost; over £10k for some of the larger/more complex models is not uncommon. There's also absolutely *nothing* stopping someone using RC aircraft to stage a Gatwick-style attack, or worse.

More seriously, if this is the typical view, then the BFMA needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and realise the world has changed. It's not "RC aircraft" anymore to the CAA; it's a collective "SUAV" that includes both model aircraft and drones, and once commercial drone use starts to ramp up there are going to be a *lot* more drone operators in the UK that model aircraft pilots. They can either accept that and start speaking with a unified voice with us drone pilots and try to get some safeguards for both our hobbies in place, or they can get steamrollered once the likes of Amazon start making their case for commercial drone operations.

i am a member of the BMFA and joined because of the third party insurance that came with membership,you are right to some extent,that the BMFA are not that interested in drones and probably wish they had not included drone flyers to join their organisation

 

[zocalo]

i am a member of the BMFA and joined because of the third party insurance that came with membership,you are right to some extent,that the BMFA are not that interested in drones and probably wish they had not included drone flyers to join their organisation

Yeah, I know there are several other BMFA members here; probably quite a few more I'm not aware of as well. There's clearly already quite an overlap between our groups, something that the CAA seems to have realised, even if some (many?) members of the BMFA have not, and I expect there will be a lot more of an overlap if membership of the BMFA becomes an easier/better value for money method of dealing with whatever registration scheme the CAA eventually decides to implement. From a practical point of view, there's not much difference in terms of how we use the airspace other than drone pilots are more likely to fly across a larger area of the countryside in search of images/video vs. operating as a group from a single airfield/display area.

From my perspective, it makes a lot of sense for model aircraft and drones to be treated similarly in terms of regulations/legislation, and even more so when I look at it from the perspective of the CAA. At this point it seems that trying to have an "us and them" discussion between the BMFA and drone pilots is just a waste of time and views like those in the BBC article are unhelpful at best, and could easily turn out to be harmful. We need to be presenting a common view to the CAA to try ensure we have as much latitude to fly our RC aircraft (regardless of type) as possible, not giving them an opportunity to divide and conquer and leave all of us worse off.

 

[globetrotterdrone]

I know, that may sound odd, but I wished, that registration of a drone would be that cheap in Austria.
First registration costs about EUR 330, which must be renewed yearly for about EUR 310. Fun fact, this fee also includes VAT with 20 %.

Besides that, you are obliged to have a liability insurance (which in fact I support for the peace of mind), for about EUR 60 a year for a drone like the Mavic 2 Pro.
Fines for illegal flying with no registration are exceedingly high, ranking up to EUR 22,000.

Nonetheless, strict rules are something that is required, however it's not clear, why they charge that much on an annual base.
Registration process is fairly simple but sometimes takes a long time with certified mail with delivery confirmation etc.

Living in/near the capital of Vienna, flying is nearly restricted in a 110 km long corridor. That makes flying from time to time quite a hassle considering the fees and the feeling to have no real place.

 

[old man mavic]

I know, that may sound odd, but I wished, that registration of a drone would be that cheap in Austria.
First registrations costs about EUR 330, which must be renewed yearly for about EUR 310. Fun fact, this fee is also taxed with 20 % additionally.

Besides that, you are obliged to have a liability insurance (which in fact I support for the peace of mind), for about EUR 60 a year for a drone like the Mavic 2 Pro.
Fines for illegal flying with no registration are exceedingly high, ranking up to EUR 22,000.

Nonetheless, strict rules are something that is required, however it's not clear, why they charge that much on an annual base.
Registration process is fairly simple but sometimes takes a long time with certified mail with delivery confirmation etc.

Living in/near the capital of Vienna, flying is nearly restricted in a 110 km long corridor. That makes flying from time to time quite a hassle considering the fees and the feeling to have no real place.

View attachment 74752

that does seem excessive clearly they are trying to restict drone use in your part of the world

 

[globetrotterdrone]

that does seem excessive clearly they are trying to restict drone use in your part of the world

Indeed, that's the only reason that can be derived from.
The result however is, that most of the birds are flown without permission with people not following the most basic rules.

I am in the lucky position that I can afford the money (or let's put it so, it's my hobby so I will pay) but also the restriction on air space is excessive for some parts.

 

[FoxhallGH]

i am a member of the BMFA and joined because of the third party insurance that came with membership,you are right to some extent,that the BMFA are not that interested in drones and probably wish they had not included drone flyers to join their organisation

I'm also a member of the BMFA - and like OMM - joined to get the 3rd Party insurance cover. I must say though, at no point was I asked what type of 'model' I had, and there was nothing that I recall seeing that indicated that I'd be treated any different to any other member because I flew a Drone. I carry a 'Country Membership' - which means that I'm not affiliated with any R/C club ... It's my guess (and this is a GUESS!), that if there were to be any objections to me being a Drone operator, it would come from an R/C Club, rather than the BMFA ...

 

[old man mavic]

I'm also a member of the BMFA - and like OMM - joined to get the 3rd Party insurance cover. I must say though, at no point was I asked what type of 'model' I had, and there was nothing that I recall seeing that indicated that I'd be treated any different to any other member because I flew a Drone. I carry a 'Country Membership' - which means that I'm not affiliated with any R/C club ... It's my guess (and this is a GUESS!), that if there were to be any objections to me being a Drone operator, it would come from an R/C Club, rather than the BMFA ...

my post was based on the BMFA stand i visited at the show in December last year where i renewed my membership,there were no drone activities on show to talk about and the content of the BMFA NEWS magazine that we receive is more about model aircraft i do not think that the BMFA are anti drone but are not happy with the up coming rule changes that will impact on all members just my interpretation.

 

[The Editor]

I think everyone has forgotten that being a government entity, the CAA won’t actually administer this license fiasco themselves but no doubt will outsource it to a third party cowboy outfit like Capita who will charge exorbitantly disproportionate fees and some pillock who works for them will probably leave the entire membership database on a laptop on a train somewhere!

 

[zocalo]

FYI, a whole bunch of witten responses to the consultation (NOT the online survey) have now been published on the Parliament website. I expect the evidence from the hearing held today will be posted in a few days time.