Caa Consultation | Removing Sub 250g Drone Exemption | Banning Drone Auditor Videos | Remote ID

Here are as many answers as my description will allow:

The CAA Email is: [email protected]

Question 1: Do you agree with the challenges with operational requirements identified by stakeholders, and why?

I believe it can be complex for drone users to work out the correct places to fly and requirements for their UAS, this should be say to understand for all drone users as well as members of the public who are often feed out of date information

I do not believe this really causes any safety or privacy concerns beyond legislation that already exists. No evidence for this is shown

Question 2: Should CAA adopt the following policy objectives for operational requirements and why? Mitigate safety and security risks; User-centric; Enforceable; Growth enabling; Scalable. Please describe any other objectives we should consider.


The use of UAS has had a very good safety record in the past and with the lighter and smarter uas coming to the market this is only set to improve. I don’t believe this is a problem at all and I don’t see any evidence for tighter restrictions / regulations

Rules should always be say to understand.

We already have enforceable rues

Question 3: Do you value international alignment in operational requirements, and why?


Yes, we should be using C class uas like in the eurozone, with no barrier to manufacturers having to build UK specific uas. This with the same or better permissions as those we would enjoy in the EU. I would also like to see my qualifications being valid in the eu as well as eu qualifications being valid here. The whole C class debacle is a political owe goal

Question 4: Should CAA re-name operational categories and sub-categories (Opportunity 1) and why?


It would be great to have a simple naming structure ie: over people, near people, or far from people naming that made things so much simpler to understand.


Question 5: Should CAA simplify how operational requirements are categorised (Opportunity 2) and why?


Why combine the A1, and A3 subcategory’s? I see. No logic in having much larger drones fly closer to people, but drones of say less than 1kg could be flown closer to people (C1 class) the only logic I see in this question is you’re looking to abolish the A1 subcategory and remove those permissions which I would very strongly disagree with.

Question 6: Should CAA update how model aircraft operations are regulated (Opportunity 3) and why?

I don’t know much about model aircraft, but from what I do know they fly from club locations so its easier to mitigate the risks to other air users through geofencing, so maybe they should be treated more favourably

Question 7: Should CAA simplify exclusions from operational requirements (Opportunity 4) and why? Please describe any alternative exclusions that should be considered.


No simplification needed. It’s quite obvious which sub 250g drones are toys and which are not. I feel they don not offer any sort of security risk / personal data risk, other than a tiny minority who like to uses drones to antagonise people for video views. This should be dealt with under current legislation eg. GDPR, ANO, Geofence sensitive areas

What is an issue is lack of geofencing on sub 250g drones or inaccurate geofences as well as no basic requirement to have any sort of training to fly these drones (no flyer ID)

This could be dealt with by having better and more accurate geofencing as well as a requirement to know how to check airspace through a official CAA airspace app


Question 8: Should CAA change transitional arrangements for users of UAS without class marks (Opportunity 5) and why?

We should accept C class markings on those drones produced with them and not wait until 2026 for another different class making scheme, which wouldn’t be very unlikely to produce any meaningful drones UNLESS they are very close to those approved (or the same) as those produced in the EU

Authorisation and Risk Assessments.

Having had OA in the past I can say its a very complex process do standardising things for the majority of users would benefit everyone. I do feel for some where their OSC is very specific will still need a way of submitting this that’s more complex.

Giving obtained my GVC I don’t see any relevance to having more different qualifications, unless there was a massive benefit to those doing theses (BVLOS?)

Question 9: Do you agree with the challenges identified by stakeholders relating to product requirements, and why?


Not at all. I don’t see any presented evidence for this. C class markings were a brilliant idea and not complex at all. Most would be flying a C0 or C1 marked drone that were intended to come with information about where you can fly. Why did we drop this idea? It’s not a barrier for manufacturers as they’re already in production. What would be a barrier to manufacturers and make things more complex for users is having UK specific markings.