Being a law abiding type of person I took the test and registered myself with the CAA. The question I have is...what is the point and what if any benefits do we get? Or is this just a money generation exercise?
WHAT DOES THE CAA USE OUR REGISTRATION FEE FOR?
- Thread starter Andy Mac 230
- Start date
jonatious
Well-Known Member
1. You mean the FAA right?
2. Each drone needs to have a registration number on it, so the owner can be identified in case you fly/crash somewhere illegal.
3. $5 should just be in place to not let anyone register a drone without one
2. Each drone needs to have a registration number on it, so the owner can be identified in case you fly/crash somewhere illegal.
3. $5 should just be in place to not let anyone register a drone without one
No I’m UK based so here it’s the CAA..but I assume that you guys Stateside are similarity governed and have to pay for the service the FAA impose?
jonatious
Well-Known Member
Ah, no idea about UK side regulations then ?
Should probably be similar I guess?
Normally CAA and FAA are closely aligned.. It was just a thought as to what both use our hard earned cash is used for? Especially income generated from non commercial drone fliers.
Given the ridiculous prices they were coming out with initially - £17.50, IIRC - I'm guessing that since the CAA doesn't have the necessary resources to develop the online system on-staff they went to a typical government contractor and were charged accordingly (AKA "extortionately"). I think they were claiming a few million pounds for dev. & hosting costs at one point, and were estimating that in excess of 100,000 UK pilots would need to register, and even at £17.50 that was still a deficit.
I'd love to be corrected on this, but my guess is they are using 100% of the £9 fees to pay off the site's development costs and on-going hosting fees, and there's no investment back into the community from the fees raised what-so-ever. Not sure how accurate it is, but I saw a figure indicating only a few ten-thousand registrations, so they're probably well short of what they spent on this. The lack of any real marketing, or even issuing some kind of official plastic ID card (these cost pence in volume, BTW), is also pretty telling as to how poorly funded this venture is - but maybe that was where the extra £8.50/operator was supposed to go?
I'd love to be corrected on this, but my guess is they are using 100% of the £9 fees to pay off the site's development costs and on-going hosting fees, and there's no investment back into the community from the fees raised what-so-ever. Not sure how accurate it is, but I saw a figure indicating only a few ten-thousand registrations, so they're probably well short of what they spent on this. The lack of any real marketing, or even issuing some kind of official plastic ID card (these cost pence in volume, BTW), is also pretty telling as to how poorly funded this venture is - but maybe that was where the extra £8.50/operator was supposed to go?
Rockycat
Well-Known Member
Lastrexking
Well-Known Member
To pay for the database and software to store all of our info, and to pay staff to maintain it and ignore any emails, phone calls etc. It’s ridiculous.
You’d think at the very least they’d use the info they collected to keep people up to date with the regulations. The number of people I’ve spoken to that have no ideas the laws are changing is shocking.
You’d think at the very least they’d use the info they collected to keep people up to date with the regulations. The number of people I’ve spoken to that have no ideas the laws are changing is shocking.
Lastrexking
Well-Known Member
This is an international forum. You need to get used to the idea that you’ll be speaking to people from all over the planet. It’s a good idea to check the location in the posters profile (most people have it showing).
They do indeed have a near 100% accurate and recent email and postal mailing list of everyone who registered - it's for official use so they have no obligation to discard it under the GDPR. The general marketing to the public of this has been bad enough, but that they can't even manage to notify people who registered contact details with them know things like delays and changes to the regulations is rather pathetic, to say the least.
FWIW, the first I heard about the revised November date was the forum post here a few days after the fact. Not currrently flying due to the lockdown aside, if I'd missed that point it would possibly have resulted in me breaking the law (flying commercially without a PfCO) on multiple occassions between July and November, and I suspect others are going to fall into the same trap. To be fair, some of this is on the UK government as well as the CAA, but between them they have completely failed on both the implementation and execution of this scheme, IMHO.
Quite frankly, that people are going to be breaking the law as a result, and especially that this will include those of us who are trying to comply with it, is nothing short of inexcusable.
Dillon
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2019
- Messages
- 27
- Reactions
- 15
The money goes into the CPF..... Christmas Part Fund.
I think just another chance to increase cash flow there is nothing in return for the registration fee !!
I think just another chance to increase cash flow there is nothing in return for the registration fee !!
Wow, looks like others with common sense noticed the arbitrary taxes also.
Government's idea of doing good is tracking who owes them money.
Its nasty as the FAA and other country's equivalent only care about safe flying, as they themselves fly or are involved so don't want to over-regulate themselves. But then you have the drone suckers. Nothing real to enforce, as you won't stop criminals purposefully flying into controlled airspace. So let's just tax them, to remind them who was there first (in the US).
Here is the test - if you cannot talk to real pilots in the air, and they cannot access info relating to drones nearby, its all fake.
Government's idea of doing good is tracking who owes them money.
Its nasty as the FAA and other country's equivalent only care about safe flying, as they themselves fly or are involved so don't want to over-regulate themselves. But then you have the drone suckers. Nothing real to enforce, as you won't stop criminals purposefully flying into controlled airspace. So let's just tax them, to remind them who was there first (in the US).
Here is the test - if you cannot talk to real pilots in the air, and they cannot access info relating to drones nearby, its all fake.
As a "Real Pilot" who is already in Task Saturation (information overload) I don't want to talk to or hear from every UAS in the area. We already have more than enough on our plate and don't need the radio cluttered with, "Uh this is Johnny BR549, uh flying my DJI Mavic Air 2 call sign Johnny Bravo... Uh over here at the industrial building flying 100'AGL around the perimeter just taking photos for a realtor and then uh I'm going to go up to 200' and get some pics for my uh Facebook page then I may go fly to the other side of the uh building to get more shots. After 15 minutes I'll be landing NorthWest of my car."
@BigAl07
Precisely. There is and likely should be no manned pilot/drone interaction, which leaves the FAA powerless to do anything real.
You are lucky if you don't hit us when flying low, and us you. This is all in class G airspace, by the rules, no mistakes. Neither of us has time to react much should we cross paths. Its kind of scary, but only for manned pilots flying low along the coast or in valleys.
When the FAA can do something real for drone safety, then my money is well spent.
Precisely. There is and likely should be no manned pilot/drone interaction, which leaves the FAA powerless to do anything real.
You are lucky if you don't hit us when flying low, and us you. This is all in class G airspace, by the rules, no mistakes. Neither of us has time to react much should we cross paths. Its kind of scary, but only for manned pilots flying low along the coast or in valleys.
When the FAA can do something real for drone safety, then my money is well spent.
Mmmh I’m a bit confused..low flying in an aircraft is sub 500 feet...max altitude of a drone is 400 feet AGL so if everybody sticks to their limits no problem
in general, yes. But ocean and tourist areas see a lot of space overlap when landing and taking off.
The fact is there are just not that many drones out there currently.
Keep in mind there are many airports in class G. Its only the bigger/busier ones that get controlled airspace.
The fact is there are just not that many drones out there currently.
Keep in mind there are many airports in class G. Its only the bigger/busier ones that get controlled airspace.
Similar threads
