UK Drone laws

[Tankertel]

That will be interesting to see once all the major countries putting these new requirements in place have completed implementation.
It could be some sort of recipricol arrangement could be made, or more likely one just learns the rules, does the simple test, pays a nominal fee, and obtains a permit for their visit.

I guess most drone flyers that have some basic knowledge of drone rules being in place in most countries, and would just google the country they intend visiting along with drone rules.
The ones that don't have an once of knowledge about drone rules will just go places wherever they visit and fly without concern, as they do at home.

Can I suggest that they take a look at the BMFA website, you will find all sorts of useful stuff on there.
British Model Flying Association

https://bmfa.org

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Can I suggest that they take a look at the BMFA website, you will find all sorts of useful stuff on there.
British Model Flying Association
https://bmfa.org

Why, does it say what CAA is doing regarding such matters ?
I would think if CAA hasn't advised about visitor procedures to fly a drone that BMFA wouldn't have a clue as yet.

I looked at their site, and it's very 'all over the place', if you know of such an article, a link would be good.

We have a similar model organisation here MAAA
They are also mainly a winged model type association, but have drones under their wing in a small way.

One thing many drone flyers don't realise, is that CASA (and possibly other country authorities like CAA / FAA) are dragging fixed wing models into this new system too, requiring the hobbyist to take the test and pay the fees for registration.

 

[The Editor]

I been reading up and there is s risk of being confronted by the police I suppose and if they ask you for your Reg. Number and you are not then a £100.00 on the spot fine

What Police?
We don't have any.

It must be about two weeks since I last saw squad car, and they would only be interested if you were doing 31mph in a 30 limit.

The truth is, unless an individual is flying dangerously and hovering at the end of an airport runway, the police are never going to be able to get to a 'UAV sighting' by the time whoever is flying it has used his/her few batteries, packed up and gone home.

Hell, if your house is violently entered and a burglary takes place they either don't attend or take three days (literally) to get there.

And before you ask, this comes from someone who flies commercially, always within the law and has held PfCO (PFAW previously) for over five years. I'm also a realist and know that with our pathetically under manned police force, UAV complaints will be way down the list of priorities of attendance.

 

[dannybgoode]

What Police?
We don't have any.

It must be about two weeks since I last saw squad car, and they would only be interested if you were doing 31mph in a 30 limit.

The truth is, unless an individual is flying dangerously and hovering at the end of an airport runway, the police are never going to be able to get to a 'UAV sighting' by the time whoever is flying it has used his/her few batteries, packed up and gone home.

Hell, if your house is violently entered and a burglary takes place they either don't attend or take three days (literally) to get there.

And before you ask, this comes from someone who flies commercially, always within the law and has held PfCO (PFAW previously) for over five years. I'm also a realist and know that with our pathetically under manned police force, UAV complaints will be way down the list of priorities of attendance.

I know a cooper who is also a drone flyer (in fact I repaired his Mavic Air).

As you quite rightly say as far as he’s concerned unless you’re doing something really stupid like flying over a football ground on match day or repeatedly hovering over someone’s garden and causing a persistent nuisance they would barely bother logging the call.

I guess like someone doing 31 in a 30 zone if they were driving past and you were flying in a city centre day and bang to rights they might nick you just for the numbers but so long as you’re being moderately sensible they have far better things to do.

 

[Tankertel]

Why, does it say what CAA is doing regarding such matters ?
I would think if CAA hasn't advised about visitor procedures to fly a drone that BMFA wouldn't have a clue as yet.

I looked at their site, and it's very 'all over the place', if you know of such an article, a link would be good.

We have a similar model organisation here MAAA
They are also mainly a winged model type association, but have drones under their wing in a small way.

One thing many drone flyers don't realise, is that CASA (and possibly other country authorities like CAA / FAA) are dragging fixed wing models into this new system too, requiring the hobbyist to take the test and pay the fees for registration.

At the moment its a bit like BREXIT... Nobody has a clue whats going on! But what I can say is that if it had not been for all the BMFA members writing to the CAA and DFT, it would have gone live today! As it is now on hold untill at least the 14th all I can say is watch this space

 

[gnirtS]

What about the many, many thousands of visitors to the UK each year, who may have amongst them, some drone flyers? What are visitors supposed to do about this reg. and test thing? How are they supposed to know about it? Anyone know what the policy will be for those on holiday that are non UK residents who are flying or may want to fly their drones?

Before you go to any county you search for and familiarise yourself with the drone laws. It takes 5 seconds of searching to find the official dronesafe website. So that's how they're supposed to know about it - the same way they should know about the current laws.

I would guess (hope) that it'd be the same, register the drone pay the utterly extortionate fee and do the online test which will likely take 2 minutes. You can't have exceptions where visitors follow and have less laws applying to them.

 

[old man mavic]

to me the whole idea of the registration, and test, and i suspect when it is rolled out there could be some element of mandatory third party insurance requirement as well ,but that is just my take on it.

is so that if you have all that in place ,then if you are ever challenged you can demonstrate you are flying legally and are complying with the law ,and then it is up to who ever challenged you to prove your wrong doing.

as you know the penalty for none compliance a fine, for not complying ,why would you risk it, if it removes grey areas, and finally if it makes our skies safer for all of us then i am all for it

 

[zocalo]

The truth is, unless an individual is flying dangerously and hovering at the end of an airport runway, the police are never going to be able to get to a 'UAV sighting' by the time whoever is flying it has used his/her few batteries, packed up and gone home.

That was pretty much acknowleged during the recent House of Commons hearings. The view was that the Police will NOT be doing random checks on people flying drones unless they have good reason to believe they are/were breaking the law, and even then it's going to depend on whether the police in question has had the necessary training to *know* they can actually do the checks.

Since the CAA is an administrative body only and does not have the manpower to engage in this kind of thing as it's simply not within their remit it looks like this is yet another piece of mostly "tick the box" legislation that is probably only going to apply and be used against you if you do something really stupid like fly over an airport or prison *and* have the poor luck to actually get caught doing so. Whether there was a drone at Gatwick or not, the general impression from that farce was that the chances of getting caught are so near zero that in terms of risk/reward it's probably better to keep your £15 (or whatever), especially if you only fly legally - or mostly legally - in rural areas. Given the public awareness issues of letting people know they need to register, then unless there's a main stream media blitz (good luck with that when the government is more focussed on "Get ready for Brexit", which is currently due on the same deadline), I'm not exactly expecting a high percentage uptake here...

 

[Welsh pilot]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts
[emoji106]

 

[DarrylC]

As a newcomer to drones, I have been looking at the whole issue of registration / permission for commercial operations with interest.
I have no problem with the requirement to register a drone over a certain size; correct me if I am wrong but I do not see a requirement for mandatory third party insurance? I consider this to be very important.
The registration appears to me to be unenforceable unless it is made law to register and provide proof before purchase. The police in the UK will not be going around checking you for registration. The CAA do not have the capacity to do so. It will be very much "registration by consent" in that responsible pilots will register and numpties such as the one who buzzed Gatwick Airport most certainly will not.

 

[The Editor]

As a newcomer to drones, I have been looking at the whole issue of registration / permission for commercial operations with interest.
I have no problem with the requirement to register a drone over a certain size; correct me if I am wrong but I do not see a requirement for mandatory third party insurance? I consider this to be very important.
The registration appears to me to be unenforceable unless it is made law to register and provide proof before purchase. The police in the UK will not be going around checking you for registration. The CAA do not have the capacity to do so. It will be very much "registration by consent" in that responsible pilots will register and numpties such as the one who buzzed Gatwick Airport most certainly will not.

Two different things.
PfCO requires mandatory insurance, proof of which must be supplied to the CAA and a copy as an addendum to your operations manual.
Hobby flying does not.

 

[zocalo]

As a newcomer to drones, I have been looking at the whole issue of registration / permission for commercial operations with interest.
I have no problem with the requirement to register a drone over a certain size; correct me if I am wrong but I do not see a requirement for mandatory third party insurance? I consider this to be very important.
The registration appears to me to be unenforceable unless it is made law to register and provide proof before purchase. The police in the UK will not be going around checking you for registration. The CAA do not have the capacity to do so. It will be very much "registration by consent" in that responsible pilots will register and numpties such as the one who buzzed Gatwick Airport most certainly will not.

There's no UK requirement for liability insurance in the standard registration process - loss insurance isn't their problem, so not surprising that's not in there. Note that the reently passed EU law (that the UK *will* be implementing, regardless of Brexit) removes the commercial aspect - there's just "drone pilots" with no distinction as to the purpose of operation, which probably has a bearing on that - a random member of the public will probably decide not to register if that means they have to pay out for liability insurance for what they probably see more as a toy than a tool. This appears to mean that the PfCO will be going away, but the longer term plan seems to be to have additional qualification tiers - presumably for things like BVLOS, proximity to buildings/people, night-time operation, and so on - for which having liability cover might be a pre-requisite - e.g. a "PfCO v2.0". No details on that yet though.

As for pre-registration prior to purchase, as an operator that seems like it might be possible as it looks like you would be able to complete that part of the registration process first, then add any drones you purchase to your operator ID which could be requested by retailers prior to making a sale. That assumes the scheme requires a specific serial per drone in their DB though, which isn't currently very clear as they're talking each operator having a single "G" number to put on all their drones - you might not need to specifically register each drone, just have your operator ID displayed on it. That's all well and good for pilots buying drones, but wouldn't really be practical for someone looking to buy a drone for someone as a gift with no intention of being an operator or pilot, so I suspect what they'll be looking/hoping for is have drone vendors include some kind of "Enter registration number" dialog in their apps before you can fly.

 

[Julmo01]

As far as I can read in the Civil aviation authorities, this training will not be compulsory for non-commercial drone users (may I understand Leisure usage?)...
Plenty of informations here, inthis website devolpped by NATS : Training - Dronesafe
And also here for the commercial users: Home | NATS Drone Portal ... where you must sign in...

As a foreigner, I flew my drone in UK this last week, and met some guys from NATS in Prestwick where I did get these informations from...

 

[Lastrexking]

I’m Civil Servant, so I’ll share a little bit of insider knowledge on this.

Grant Shapps (minister for transport) isn’t happy with the proposed scheme. Firstly the cost of the database, and more pertinent to us as owners - the cost to register (he thinks it should be below £10).

Add brexit uncertainty to that (nothing is getting done in Government - we literally have no budgets), and I don’t think this will happen this year, if at all.

 

[ajkm]

Master List of Drone Laws (Organized by State / Country) l UAV Coach

Looking for drone laws by U.S. state or by country? On this page, we’ve done our best to lay out drone law links to help you better navigate the UAV industry in your respective U.S. state or country.

uavcoach.com

 

[zocalo]

I’m Civil Servant, so I’ll share a little bit of insider knowledge on this.

Grant Shapps (minister for transport) isn’t happy with the proposed scheme. Firstly the cost of the database, and more pertinent to us as owners - the cost to register (he thinks it should be below £10).

Add brexit uncertainty to that (nothing is getting done in Government - we literally have no budgets), and I don’t think this will happen this year, if at all.

FYI, the Commons Committe published its report recently and is now awaiting a response from Government. It's a PDF (71 pages, and only 1MB despite the download link saying it's 156MB), but there's a summary in it that includes the following conclusions/recommendations (e.g. none of this is currently official policy) - anything in brackets is my thoughts:

• Applications to fly in NFZs are very inconsistently handled re. approvals/denials and this needs to be consistent
• It's appropriate there be a test, and this should be reviewed after a year (presumably to ensure it's effective and fit for purpose)
• The proposed £16.50pa registration fee is too high and government needs to publish its rationale and/or make it a three year renewal
• Organized clubs should be able to register all members as a single entity, for a single fee
• Government to acknowledge the the registration scheme will do little to mitigate risks from malicious users
• No independant UK Government assessment of benefits/opportunities of drone industry appears to have been done
• Operators assisting emergency services operators (e.g. SAR operations) should be able to apply for certain ANO exemptions (note that last word!)
• A formal study of the risks/likely severity of damage from a drone collision with a commercial aircraft to be undertaken and published before the end of 2020
• Weaponisation of drones to be a specific criminal offence with stringent penalties (presumably this would include LGW/LHR style attacks)
• Government to address some of the distrust of drones by the public fostered by the media, including information on the realities of the risks posed - this is in order to realise the commercial benefits of drones
• Safety features - e.g. geofencing & electronic conspicuity - to be required as standard, and it should be a criminal offence to disable such features.
• Government should ensure all drones - including existing - are & electronically conspicuous within two years (emphasis mine as this something they had seemingly acknowledged might be impractical)
• Government to produce a White Paper (a formal policy document since it's capitalised) by summer 2020 outlining its vision for drones in the UK

No big surpises in there and, generally speaking, seems quite positive - although some of the timescales seem highly optimistic given how fixated government is on Brexit and potential general elections at present. All assuming that the Government (current or otherwise) actually takes it all on board *and* finds the time to implement it all with everything else going on, of course.

 

[Hiwayman]

FYI, the Commons Committe published its report recently and is now awaiting a response from Government. It's a PDF (71 pages, and only 1MB despite the download link saying it's 156MB), but there's a summary in it that includes the following conclusions/recommendations (e.g. none of this is currently official policy) - anything in brackets is my thoughts:

• Applications to fly in NFZs are very inconsistently handled re. approvals/denials and this needs to be consistent
• It's appropriate there be a test, and this should be reviewed after a year (presumably to ensure it's effective and fit for purpose)
• The proposed £16.50pa registration fee is too high and government needs to publish its rationale and/or make it a three year renewal
• Organized clubs should be able to register all members as a single entity, for a single fee
• Government to acknowledge the the registration scheme will do little to mitigate risks from malicious users
• No independant UK Government assessment of benefits/opportunities of drone industry appears to have been done
• Operators assisting emergency services operators (e.g. SAR operations) should be able to apply for certain ANO exemptions (note that last word!)
• A formal study of the risks/likely severity of damage from a drone collision with a commercial aircraft to be undertaken and published before the end of 2020
• Weaponisation of drones to be a specific criminal offence with stringent penalties (presumably this would include LGW/LHR style attacks)
• Government to address some of the distrust of drones by the public fostered by the media, including information on the realities of the risks posed - this is in order to realise the commercial benefits of drones
• Safety features - e.g. geofencing & electronic conspicuity - to be required as standard, and it should be a criminal offence to disable such features.
• Government should ensure all drones - including existing - are & electronically conspicuous within two years (emphasis mine as this something they had seemingly acknowledged might be impractical)
• Government to produce a White Paper (a formal policy document since it's capitalised) by summer 2020 outlining its vision for drones in the UK

No big surpises in there and, generally speaking, seems quite positive - although some of the timescales seem highly optimistic given how fixated government is on Brexit and potential general elections at present. All assuming that the Government (current or otherwise) actually takes it all on board *and* finds the time to implement it all with everything else going on, of course.

More info now on CAA website..see thread on this forum for link

 

[zocalo]

More info now on CAA website..see thread on this forum for link

Indeed there is! Looks like registration will start on November 5th (how apropos if their registration website crashes and burns under the initial load ) and the fee has been revised to £9/yr.

 

[Osprey120]

UK is now going live on 30 November, registration from 5 November - see Drone and model aircraft registration | UK Civil Aviation Authority

 

[pross]

Another update from the BMFA

Further to the announcement earlier this week, we will be working with the CAA to clarify the detail of how we can best assist our members to comply with the Registration and Competency requirements which were introduced in the 2018 changes to the Air Navigation Order and become law on the 30th November 2019 for those operating unmanned aircraft.

The changes to the law are in part to address established issues arising from unlawful operation, but also to help facilitate the wider integration of unmanned aircraft into the airspace in the future. The Queen’s Speech of 14th October announced the ‘Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill’ which introduces mechanisms for modernising airspace and Air Traffic Services and provides the Police with new powers to deal with the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft.

It is acknowledged that Operator Registration is unlikely to address unlawful operation and that those using an unmanned aircraft for malicious purposes are unlikely to register. However, it does provide the Police with a mechanism for enforcement if they challenge anyone they suspect of operating an unmanned aircraft illegally. If the operator is not registered or able to confirm competency, then the Police have an immediate and clear reason for issuing a fixed penalty notice or prosecution. Details of the punitive measures have yet to be published.

Similarly, it is acknowledged that Competency requirements will not address the issue of those using unmanned aircraft with malicious intent. However, there is a hope that it may help reduce the significant number of unlawful operations conducted unwittingly. The BMFA does not disagree that awareness of applicable regulations is an essential requirement for safe operation and during our campaign it has become evident to all parties (including the CAA) that there are, perhaps, a few too many model flyers who do not fully understand the existing regulations.

The measures announced earlier this week are interim ones to deal with the immediate issue of the changes to UK law which become applicable on the 30th November. We will be working with the CAA towards the implementation of the EU regulations in June 2020, so actively encouraging members to break the law by not complying (as some have suggested) would be counterproductive and detrimental to our ongoing negotiations.

What does this mean for BMFA members?

In simple terms, if you operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 250g outdoors after the 30th November then it will become a legal requirement to be registered as an Operator with the CAA and be able to provide evidence that you are competent (essentially to confirm that you are aware of the applicable laws). Those who only operate control line aircraft will be exempted from the requirements.

The CAA have agreed to recognise our members’ Achievements as an alternative to their online test and allow us to administer registration of Operators as part of our membership process. A few key points to note are that:

1. The fee for Operator registration will be £9/year. Where members choose to register through the BMFA, we will collect the fee and pass it on to the CAA. The BMFA does not profit from this in any way. The CAA has to make a charge to users in order to cover the cost of the scheme which is not subsidised by the Government (unlike in some other countries).
2. Members will be exempted from registering as Operators on the 30th November and can register instead as part of the BMFA’s membership renewal process (ideally by the end of January 2020).
3. Registering as an Operator through the BMFA will be a specific ‘opt-in’ for members and the CAA will only receive information for those members who have given consent by ‘opting in’ and paid the CAA fee.
4. The BMFA has never and will never share members’ data with any third parties without consent.
5. We are still clarifying arrangements for junior members in terms of Operator registration, but there are no age restrictions for ‘Remote Pilots’.
6. Members who ‘opt in’ will receive an email from the CAA with their ‘Flyer ID’ once their data is uploaded. (Should a member be asked to provide proof of registration before receiving their Flyer ID the BMFA office will provide evidence of compliance.)
7. There will be no requirement to place any registration numbers on the exterior of model aircraft, but they must be carried in an easily accessible location (within a battery hatch for example).
8. For members with an existing Achievement, all that they will need to do to remain lawful will be to simply ‘opt in’ when they renew their membership and pay the additional CAA fee.
9. We will shortly introduce a Member’s Competency Certificate (a simple knowledge test which will be available online/hardcopy and/or via our clubs and examiners) as an alternative to the CAA system for those without an existing Achievement. Members without an existing Achievement will either have to complete a Member’s Competency Certificate or the CAA’s own test before we can register them as an Operator.
10. Registration and/or evidence of competency will not be conditions of BMFA membership but failure to be able to produce evidence of both if challenged by the Police could result in a fixed penalty notice or prosecution.
11. Compliance with the Registration/Competency requirements is largely a matter for individual members and as such we would not expect Clubs to automatically assume responsibility for policing it, though of course some may choose to do so (perhaps to assist those members wishing to comply who do not have access to the internet or in order to comply with local operating requirements such as FRZ permissions for example).
12. We are still working with insurers to resolve any potential insurance implications and hope to be able to clarify the situation by the end of this week.
13. 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, operate control line aircraft within an FRZ and operate FPV aircraft with a competent observer).

We appreciate that there are still likely to be many questions arising from this, but there remains a lot of detail to resolve with the CAA (and our insurers) before we can issue definitive guidance. However, please be assured that we will provide further information and guidance as soon as it becomes available.

Kind Regards

David Phipps, CEO.