Britain shouldn't turn its back on EU drone regs, warns aerospace boffin The UK's ability to successfully export – and import – drone technology relies on our aviation safety regulators staying as closely aligned with the EU as possible, Royal Aeronautical Society UAV committee chairman Tony Henley told The Register. Reversing the UK's membership of the European Aerospace Safety Agency (EASA) would …
@ Pen-y-gors
And instead should adopt the regs of absolutely every country in the world even if they conflict because we are obviously too stupid as a country to make our own and we voted wrong in the referendum wa wa waaa (this is the cue to bring in the giant pacifier with EU approved stamped on it for those who need it to go suck on it).
and where do you propose to find the people to write the UK regs @codejunky and who is going to pay to employ them and regulate them? Maybe Nigel F can do it, since obviously he told us it will be easy and has lots of time on his hands
And while we are waiting for these new regs to be certified by Europe and US as compatible, what do you propose the people who rely on the certification do in the meantime?
Some of us unfortunately have to live in the real world and not pretend taht everything will be OK, because a few deluded politicians told us so...
@ hammarbtyp
"and where do you propose to find the people to write the UK regs"
I dont understand where the problem is. Before the EU we wrote our own regs. Our own regs are so good the EU adopted a number of them. How is this a legitimate problem? Or do you have some kind of xenophobic problem that people in the UK are too thick to function?
"And while we are waiting for these new regs to be certified by Europe and US as compatible, what do you propose the people who rely on the certification do in the meantime?"
Hang on. So to fly drones in the other countries the drones must follow their laws! Next you going to tell me that holiday makers must follow the laws of the countries they go to! And since the EU is within (a part of but not the whole of) Europe and Europe is only a part of the world how do you propose we cater to the other countries as well? Are you going to tell me that our exports will have to conform to their regulations too! Oh my oh my how I am keeping a straight face while I type this I dont know.
"Some of us unfortunately have to live in the real world"
And you are welcome to join us. It isnt as scary as you have been led to believe.
"I dont understand where the problem is. Before the EU we wrote our own regs. Our own regs are so good the EU adopted a number of them. How is this a legitimate problem? Or do you have some kind of xenophobic problem that people in the UK are too thick to function?"
From TFA: "The [UK's Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA] hasn't got the capacity or the expertise to provide an effective standalone aviation regulatory organisation. It did have, 20 years ago, but we've sacked three quarters of the people. And the expertise... has gone to join EASA,"
Of course we could try offering suitable salaries to tempt them back. Repeat that over and over for each situation where that happened and see how much change is left over from all that money we save by not paying into the EU budget.
@ Doctor Syntax
"From TFA: "The [UK's Civil Aviation Authority, the CAA] hasn't got the capacity or the expertise to provide an effective standalone aviation regulatory organisation"
You have just given the best argument I have ever heard for not training doctors and nurses here because we reduced the effort a while ago in favour of importing cheaper ones trained elsewhere. Is that what you are seriously arguing? Are you telling me there is a fixed number of people on this earth who can possibly do this and (keeping with the question to hammarbtyp) do you really consider all of the people in the UK to be too thick to function? Are people in the UK so thick in your view?
@codejunky
You might not of noticed that EASA covers a lot more than drones. It covers all Europe air regulations. So if we leave, it will affect more than just the ability to fly a drone ins Europe
and yes, we can write our own regulations, but at what cost? Writing and certifying a set of regulations for 500 million people is far more cost effective than maintaining your own separate standards.
And the Problem is with aircraft is that they habit of flying abroad, and the most likely destination for UK aircraft is Europe. So you can have one set for UK and one for the EU, but in the end you are just duplicating effort, cost and regulation, so why do it?
The stupidity comes from the belief that world revolves around us, where we are about to find out that our importance on the world stage has been severely over stated.
@hammarbtyp
"and yes, we can write our own regulations, but at what cost? Writing and certifying a set of regulations for 500 million people is far more cost effective than maintaining your own separate standards."
Your right. But instead of the EU rules why not use the US ones? Or anywhere else? We can use copy and paste without any effort or work. And instead of duplicating so much work why dont we do the same for all regulations and even laws? Which country should we copy? And since this is such a wonderful idea wont other countries be doing it too? No? Why not? Is it because we may have different ideas about how we may want to do things? Instead of being at the whim of someone else making the rules we could have some that make sense to us and work for us?
"And the Problem is with aircraft is that they habit of flying abroad, and the most likely destination for UK aircraft is Europe. So you can have one set for UK and one for the EU, but in the end you are just duplicating effort, cost and regulation, so why do it?"
You may need to ask the rest of the world why they do it. The huge sphere which has a portion we call Europe which has a portion we call the EU. Why are we not all the same with the same rules and regulations provided by a single political entity? And how will you convince the rest of the world to your master plan?
"The stupidity comes from the belief that world revolves around us, where we are about to find out that our importance on the world stage has been severely over stated."
Hang on we were talking about regulations and my concern that you seem to think the UK is too thick to make its own regulations. How did that suddenly become the world revolving around us? Do you level that accusation at all countries who do not bow down to the EU regulations?
"But instead of the EU rules why not use the US ones? Or anywhere else? We can use copy and paste without any effort or work. "
Because the rules do not tell you what you can do -- that would be too complicated and every time the world changed you would have to update the laws. Rather they define a regulatory process which includes a validation process. "You do, you do that, and then you ask someone to come and check it for you". Unfortunately the "someone" is a regulatory body that has a remit for EU countries. If a country leaves the EU, then it's now out of jurisdiction. So, you have to create that body. That takes time, money and expertise.
Think of it like the driving licence. We could cut-and-paste the laws that say you have to have one from the US, as you suggest, but it's going to be harder to get US driving test examiners to come to Watford when you need one.
Still, on a positive side, it's not just aviation where we have this problem. Also, medicines and medical practice, clinical trials, chemicals, engineering, education, telecoms. Even weights and measures, although that may not be a problem, as I hear that we are going to use our new found freedom from the jack boot of the EU to go imperial again.
Don't worry about it, going into a complex situation based on bold worlds, wishful thinking and no planning normally works out okay. Look at Iraq.
"Because the rules do not tell you what you can do..."
I was under the impression that this is how exactly those EU countries still following Napoleonic law work.
European Napoleonic law = everything is forbidden apart from that enshrined in law.
British law = everything is legal, apart from that which is forbidden by law.
"European Napoleonic law = everything is forbidden apart from that enshrined in law."
Could you please provide a source for that? I'm not a lawyer but for work I've read a fair amount of legal books, about the traditions on both sides of the Channel. I've never come across this concept, other than in rants by UKIPers. As far as I'm aware in the Roman criminal law tradition, just as in the Common law tradition, everything is permitted, unless prohibited.
@ H in The Hague
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2004/05/carrots_are_fru.html
Particularly- "Europe turns its attentions to what is and is not a permitted ingredient of jam, jellies, marmalades and sweet chestnut puree"
A fun example that is probably relevant.
@Phil Lord
Still, on a positive side, it's not just aviation where we have this problem. Also, medicines and medical practice, clinical trials, chemicals, engineering, education, telecoms.
Indeed, and it's exactly this kind of mess that was inevitable as soon as the EEC went from being a largely technical standards / trade organisation to one that tied them in with politics and money (immigration, human rights, Euro, etc) too and got renamed as the EU. Big mistake. Can you imagine the mess if ISO membership suddenly required going along with all American laws and politics?
As it happens there's plenty of other European countries talking about a "withdrawal from within", which basically seems to mean ditching the political and maybe financial aspects of the EU without actually formally saying that's what they've done. Even Macron has said that perhaps the whole EU thing needs to be reconsidered. So there a good chance that things will get sorted out.
@ Phil Lord
"Because the rules do not tell you what you can do -- that would be too complicated and every time the world changed you would have to update the laws"
That is an exceedingly good point which proved an indefensible problem with the EU. This is where the very important points of the leave argument concerning the banana law and marmalade/jam laws where the EU dictate what is acceptable and would be so slow moving that the problem you state is bound to be an issue. And if the EU is stupid enough to do that for bananas and jam you seriously have to worry about their approach to regulation.
However before all that the world ticked along fine with the banana standard for example existing naturally due to self regulation which is more flexible and adaptable to change than the EU gov or even a national gov could ever be.
"Think of it like the driving licence. We could cut-and-paste the laws that say you have to have one from the US, as you suggest, but it's going to be harder to get US driving test examiners to come to Watford when you need one."
This again returns to the stupidity argument. For you to claim we would need them (US, EU whoever) is to claim we are not capable ourselves. So the argument boils down to thinking the UK population is too thick and incompetent to be able to do what is achieved worldwide.
"as I hear that we are going to use our new found freedom from the jack boot of the EU to go imperial again."
I hear that too. I have yet to hear anyone from the leave side say it but the remainers keep stating this as some sort of fact. I assume we will use what suits us on the ground instead of dictated to us from on high (probably still the metric system).
"Don't worry about it, going into a complex situation based on bold worlds, wishful thinking and no planning normally works out okay. Look at Iraq."
Or even the EU! To save a currency they sacrificed countries with still no clue on how to deal with the problem. And the Brexit vote seemed to demonstrate their lack of plan since neither them nor Cameron would entertain such a possibility. I do wonder if you think we need to be in the EU or will turn into Iraq (without the hot weather)? Since Iraq is a war zone are you suggesting the EU will go to war with us (maybe Spain for Gibraltar)? Or are you trying to claim again that the UK population isnt competent nor capable of coping in that big bad scary world you fear?
@AC
"There was no "banana law", just the product of the dire state of British newspapers"
Nooooooooooooooo. Not denial. I do not understand where you crazy people come from. Even the links you provide state that there is a banana law and yet you claim it is a product of the newspapers. Read your own freaking sources and be glad you posted this as an AC so your stupid comment will not be directly attributable to whoever you are.
@Codejunky
It's a regulation setting out banana quality standards not a prohibition on their sale. And it wouldn't stop anyone buying bendy bananas IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED.
Example (for the sake of argument)
Grade 1 - straight as a die
Grade 2 - bit a bend to the side (as defined as up to x mm from centreline)
Grade 3 - corkscrewed (more than x mm from centreline)
Before regs - supermarket orders tonne of "straight" bananas, gets a mixture including some screwy ones. No-one buys the bent ones and they get binned.
After regs - supermarket orders tonne of Grade 1 bananas, sends back all the grade 2 and 3 for refund.
It's a tool for trade and contract law. You're just a tool.
@AC
"It's a regulation setting out banana quality standards"
Thank you. So your comment that there is no banana law is wrong (assuming your the same AC). A standard that worked fine in its natural existence became a law with punishment of fines and possible jail time due to the EU.
"Banana laws"
The world did not tick along fine before without banana laws. Hard though it may be to believe, the EU countries had multiple different banana laws. And, yes, we did spend a lot of money thinking about jam, but then the question of whether a jaffa cake is a biscuit was entirely an issue for UK law.
"This again returns to the stupidity argument. For you to claim we would need them (US, EU whoever) is to claim we are not capable ourselves. "
No it is to claim that we do not have the organisations to do this. And, in many cases, we do not have the people because they work for the EU currently. So, it's not about stupidity, but cost. These bodies will have to be replicated, de novo.
"To save a currency they sacrificed countries"
Yes, this is largely true.
"the Brexit vote seemed to demonstrate their lack of plan"
Well, the EU has much less need of a plan to cope with Brexit than the UK does since, while it will have consequences for them, they will be less than for the UK.
"are you suggesting the EU will go to war with us"
An ex-tory party leader has already suggested that we will go to war with Spain. It's easy to be glib about war, and laugh it off, but it happens, and has happened recently in Europe. Do I think leaving the EU will result in war? No. More possible, though, yes.
"Or are you trying to claim again that the UK population isnt competent nor capable of coping in that big bad scary world you fear?"
No, I am saying that international cooperation is not option but a necessity. Withdrawing from an organisation that enables that cooperation is going to cause enormous disruption, and when we are finished we will have to replace it without something like we have now, except that we will the minor partner. So, it's going to be expensive, disruptive and leave us in a politically weaker position.
Will we survive. Yes.
@ Phil Lord
"The world did not tick along fine before without banana laws."
It very well seemed to. And while the EU may impose their banana's law the rest of the world carries on and yet we are adding cost for no benefit. All these regulations have their costs and yet where is the benefit from this or the jam law? It is to make the EU feel important and useful while the project falls around them.
"No it is to claim that we do not have the organisations to do this"
I am fairly certain nobody has these organisations until they are put together. And we managed to do so before.
"Well, the EU has much less need of a plan to cope with Brexit than the UK does since, while it will have consequences for them, they will be less than for the UK."
That is a wonderful propaganda message from the EU but has been torn apart quickly. This seems to be a huge problem for them. And as they keep trying to inflict damage on the UK as punishment they then realise they are the ones who suffer. That is largely due to having no deal being better for the UK than our current position.
"An ex-tory party leader has already suggested that we will go to war with Spain"
That was funny to watch the bluster of Spain turn into their wet pants. They pressed their luck and backed off when they realised we were wouldnt roll over. The EU has caused war. It has also increased tensions between countries in Europe and it has brought about protests where the German leader was depicted as Hitler in the open streets. Sounds peaceful.
"I am saying that international cooperation is not option but a necessity. Withdrawing from an organisation that enables that cooperation is going to cause enormous disruption"
That is an oxymoron. The EU is a cartel which is detrimental to world trade. The EU has caused war and is attempting to create an EU army yet the members work independently causing massive friction. Their currency is a huge failure which as we agree requires the sacrifice of member countries. As an organisation it has proven to be untrustworthy to its members and even abusive. And yet in world negotiations (Canada, Brexit) it has shown itself not only incompetent but arrogant without merit. It refuses reform and yet openly accepts it cannot survive as it is. To be weaker outside that would take a lot of effort and hard work.
"EU may impose their banana's law the rest of the world carries on"
The rest of the world have their own laws on bananas. A very large amount of EU regulation just covers areas where there were laws. What is the benefit of having laws on Jam? Well, the benefit of this kind of law is, generally, that when you buy jam you know that it is safe to eat. Many parts of the rest of the world have jam laws. Leaving the EU will cause, I think, a significant increase in the regulation and bureaucracy.
"I am fairly certain nobody has these organisations until they are put together. "
As I said, of course it's possible. But, it is, and will be, expensive.
"That is largely due to having no deal being better for the UK than our current position."
Of course, during the referendum, no one on the leave side said this.
"The EU has caused war."
Well, a vaguely interesting conversation, but you're getting a bit silly, so I'll stop here.
@ Phil Lord
"What is the benefit of having laws on Jam? Well, the benefit of this kind of law is, generally, that when you buy jam you know that it is safe to eat"
I think your misunderstanding which jam laws I am on about. The ones that dictate the fruits that can be called jam. Any other fruit is banned from being called jam and is illegal to do so. Please read that again and ask if that is even remotely related to safety. You can make other fruits into jams but you cannot call them jam, you have to name it something else because the EU dictates such a stupid rule.
"Leaving the EU will cause, I think, a significant increase in the regulation and bureaucracy"
It could do but it doesnt need to. Just think of ditching stupid laws as above and reduce the interference where there doesnt need to be any (include the banana law) and the bureaucracy reduces.
"Of course, during the referendum, no one on the leave side said this."
Really? Are you saying you sat through that entire referendum and missed the message? Are you trying to claim the leave argument was to make us worse off? Granted the official leave campaign was so devoid of reality it resembled the remain campaign but the failing of the EU has been pointed out plenty. Even before the recession the EU was pointed out not to be sustainable in its current form and the recession exposed a lot of holes.
"Well, a vaguely interesting conversation, but you're getting a bit silly, so I'll stop here."
That is your response to the EU causing wars? Do you not believe the EU expanding toward Russia by influencing Ukraine to throw out its ruler caused war? One which has the whole world on edge. If that is silly then when does it get serious?
Your knowledge of Air Legislation is to say the least very basic. It was never designed to tell you what to do so.It tells you what you cant do. That way they are free of all blame in a disastrous event. Think how many the FAA wriggled free from over the last 50 years.
Airlines will have more rapport with the manufacturer and spares than with their regulatory body as their knowledge of aircraft will be slim, their only concern is that the paperwork is complied with! Very easy but boring job.
That the CAA cant reboot to former glory is beyond belief especially now when BA is letting go the type of stafff they need.People with experience of aircraft operation would fill them with dread I suppose., so cant be done.!
Maybe tying in with the FAA is not a bad idea as most of the British and Irish (based in UK) fleet is Boeing and therefore can be at the whim and fancy of the EU. ( Aer LIngus got 30 million euro from EU to build a hanger but didnt read the small print. They had over a few years to rid themselves of Boeing aircraft and buy Airbus).
"But instead of the EU rules why not use the US ones? Or anywhere else? We can use copy and paste without any effort or work. "
So instead of European masters, led by Merkel who is more the motherly type, you want to switch to US masters, led by Trump who is more the orange, totally out of control, hating anything foreign type? Is Britain applying to become the 51st state?
@ gnasher729
"So instead of European masters, led by Merkel who is more the motherly type, you want to switch to US masters, led by Trump who is more the orange, totally out of control, hating anything foreign type? Is Britain applying to become the 51st state?"
This made me laugh on 2 points. First I was taking the piss. I was making the point that there are many different rules in the world and yet it keeps turning without any great difficulty. So why submit to the EU rule-maker or any one else in fact? Why not pick and choose our own way like the rest of the world.
The second point that cracked me up is your suggestion that being on your knees servicing the EU because it isnt on your knees servicing the US is a win to you. To me you are still on your knees and not in a dignified position. I dont understand the excitement of choosing a master unless you mean in terms of BDSM where I guess it might be exciting. But if you have a problem with a foreign countries leader what stops such a leader from getting into the EU? Remember Blair was aiming for EU president. And since Obama wanted us in the EU do you think you are not doing the US's bidding when being part of the EU?
Stand. Throw off your chains. You have no reason to call them master and dont fear freedom. I know you have been told of scary monsters under the bed and in the closet but if you would just brave up a little you will see they were lies to control you.
'and yes, we can write our own regulations, but at what cost? Writing and certifying a set of regulations for 500 million people is far more cost effective than maintaining your own separate standards.'
Yeah, you know the EASA rules and regs are pretty much a copy and paste of the ICAO ones. And currently the CAA has differences from the EASA rules (as is allowed by EASA), so I'm not sure I see the problem.
'And the Problem is with aircraft is that they habit of flying abroad, and the most likely destination for UK aircraft is Europe.'
Aircraft follow the regulations of the state of registration. Aircrew follow the rules of the airspace they're in.
@hammarbtyp
"And the Problem is with aircraft is that they habit of flying abroad, and the most likely destination for UK aircraft is Europe. So you can have one set for UK and one for the EU, but in the end you are just duplicating effort, cost and regulation, so why do it?"
I believe that international rules about aircraft are well established. This article however is about UAVs, for which rules and regulations are still in a prototypical state at best. The thing to note here is that in the main UAVs do not have a habit of flying abroad (except in the case where they have armaments on the tip).
A better comparison would be with the drivers license - most drivers drive locally, some need to go further afield, when you would hope their license is accepted. Should we get rid of the DVLA on the grounds that we might want to drive in Europe and those nice people in Brussels can probably do it better than us?
Most aviation regs are internationally agreed at UN level. What we're talking about, or rather what they're talking about is UK selling drones to the EU. This is a nonsense.
If the EU puts something in its regs that's bad for the UK (which happens with every single EU reg there is) - it might kill a fledgeling industry like say, I don't know, Amazon's drone delivery project which is happening in the UK right now. The EU's airspace-specific rules have no place covering this post-brexit. If people want to sell gear to the EU post-brexit sure they'll have to follow EU regs, like they have to follow EU regs to sell electrical equipment or follow US regs when sending cars to the US.
This is just the way the world works.
The UK should simply rule that anything legal to be sold in the EU is also legal in the UK
Who says EU regs will be superior on this? Faulty assumption. Look at the electrical regs for proof why this argument is invalid. Plus the EU still thinks they're smart, we might want the fight.. Or we might not.
The stupidity comes from the belief that world revolves around us, where we are about to find out that our importance on the world stage has been severely over stated.
As a pro-Brexit voter I must shamefully admit to my stupidity. A quick survey of fellow Brexiters reveals the same: we all thought the world revolved around us. We all thought that if an independent Britain passed it's own regulations, the EU and the ROW would just update their own to conform to our inherently superior ways - because that's what independence means to us. Now after this revelation we are humbly grateful to you for pointing out the error of our ways.
Writing and certifying for 500million ?.....Not written for them ,only the airline industry and so everyone in the world benefits. Hence Faa ,Caa and Easa regulations are one and the same thing and are recognised so . EASA not recognising CAA and FAA regs. would be unthinkabe as these are not jingolistic nationalist rants but safety procedures for airlines , aircraft manufacturers and airports . Granted CAA are only one input but a large one at that as they do manufacture and build aircraft and engines of quality. EU will push you around IF you let them.
"Do you really consider all of the people in the UK to be too thick to function? Are people in the UK so thick in your view?"
Do you really want an honest answer? What do you think do I call people who believed the lies of mini-Trump Johnson and the lies of frog face Farage? I didn't use to call them "too thick to function", but it's a nice expression that I will remember.
In this case, there have been lots of people who were doing this job, and I have no reason to think they were not any good at it. Three quarters of these people have been fired. They have found jobs in different areas, or maybe they retired, or are now unemployed. What they are not is up-to-date with the relevant technology, and what they may not be is willing to return to a job that they were sacked from to save money, unless they get significantly better pay. So yes, right now there are nowhere near enough people competent in this particular job unless you want to go with the EU. And even if they are competent enough, if they create perfectly fine and competent regulations that are not the same as the EU ones, then nobody can sell British made stuff on the continent.
@ gnasher729
"I didn't use to call them "too thick to function", but it's a nice expression that I will remember."
At least your honest about it. The problem however is that assuming that those who dont agree with you are stupid is to dismiss discussion and in this case over half of the voting population in a rigged vote.
"So yes, right now there are nowhere near enough people competent in this particular job unless you want to go with the EU."
This does bring me back to the parallel problem of not enough doctors/nurses. Should we give up on training our own because we can import others or do we train our own to pick up the slack? There is at least 2 years before they are required to get up-to-date.
"if they create perfectly fine and competent regulations that are not the same as the EU ones, then nobody can sell British made stuff on the continent."
I did dismiss this argument previously with great sarcasm. You do realise there is a world out there. A whole world. Most of which is not in the EU. Can we not sell to them because we dont submit our country to their rules/regulations/laws? Of course we sell to them, but only those selling to them are restricted by their laws. If your assumption was true then countries would not export outside of their borders.
One of the benefits of being in the EU was precisely that these kinds of regulations were developed trans-nationally, i.e. there'd be one body of people doing it for 28 countries, rather than 28 bodies all doing it separately and then comparing notes.
Of course you can do it the latter way. But it's demonstrably at least a couple of orders of magnitude less efficient.
Even allowing for massive waste corruption at the EU level, even if 90% of all resources the UK contributes to EU standards making is squandered, it'd still be a bargain.
Parallel example: New Zealand maintains its own technical standards. But for nearly all purposes, it also accepts Australian standards as valid. Australia, for its part, generally (i.e. across most markets) accepts either US or EU certification as sufficient to allow a product to be sold.
The UK should simply rule that anything legal to be sold in the EU is also legal in the UK. The converse doesn't have to be true, though. If manufacturers decide they don't want to sell to the EU market, I don't see why they should be required to.
"Parallel example: New Zealand maintains its own technical standards. But for nearly all purposes, it also accepts Australian standards as valid. Australia, for its part, generally (i.e. across most markets) accepts either US or EU certification as sufficient to allow a product to be sold.
The UK should simply rule that anything legal to be sold in the EU is also legal in the UK. The converse doesn't have to be true, though. If manufacturers decide they don't want to sell to the EU market, I don't see why they should be required to."
This may be fine to begin with. But once you have the power to make your own, separate rules, the temptation to actually do that increases substantially. Add politicians and 'think of the children' and 'security' etc and you may find that the train wreck isn't going to happen instantly but be a slow-moving one. You may fondly hope that they will only replace dumb rules with better ones, but they may just go the other way - Ministry of Silly Walks anyone?
"Add politicians and 'think of the children' and 'security' etc and you may find that the train wreck isn't going to happen instantly but be a slow-moving one. "
Let's say "child safety". If you have regulations that are stricter than the ones in the EU then manufacturers have to waste money to follow stricter regulations. If they are less strict than then ones in the EU then manufacturers can't sell to the EU. If they are just different from EU regulations, then you managed to combine the worst of both worlds.
So... because we might want to fly in the EU, we should adopt their regulations? That makes no sense whatsoever. What rules we follow domestically does not dictate the rules we follow in other countries. If you wish to fly abroad (which for drone pilots is not a given), there are so many other rules that you need to be aware of (public/private spaces, privacy rules, insurance and identification) that adopting flight regulations is possibly the least of our worries.
This only makes sense if we intend the EU to manage pilot registration and certification on our behalf. Do we want to do that? I understand the CAA is over-worked and under-staffed, but if this is our approach, we might as well close them down completely.
Why not call for some sensible investment in the CAA post-Brexit, and a close working relationship not only with Europe, but also with Canada, America and Asia? Europe is a long way from being the biggest market for drones, America treats Europe as a 'second option' when it comes to delivering new technology and a huge proportion of global innovation and investment occurs in China.
Frankly, if this is the spokesman for drone development in the UK, it explains why we are lightyears behind the real innovators in this space.
I know enough about stats to see through the lies (in the I am going to deceive you sense rather than make a factual error) like the extra money for the NHS. If the head of the NHS says we need an extra thirty billion pounds just to stand still over the next X years and the Tories allocate eight or ten billion that is technically investing the most money ever but in reality the Tories are saying they are happy to see the service degrade to what ever level not having the twenty billion will force them down to. This is an open and deliberate policy of running down the NHS the same way my local council is running down our local library so it can close it. Given what the attacks on the poorest and most venerable members of society they have conduced (the bedroom tax and Atos conducted PIP assessments I am looking at you) evil is not too strong a term to describe them. BTW what the hell does that have to do with Brexit (other than the ECJ might protect people when their rights are violated)?
@James51
This appears to be a Brexit issue because post-Brexit the CAA have more latitude as to which regulations they adopt and whether they hand over some authority to an external agency. Prior to that, the EASA and CAA pretty much ran in agreement. As I understand it, the CAA have been quite proactive in this space and have driven a lot of the decisions later made by the EU. The subject of the article appears to believe that Europe have the authority that we lack. I guess we should hand over drivers licenses to them as well.
On the other hand YOU have made it a Tory issue because you hate the Tories. I have no idea whatsoever what the funding for the NHS has to do with the CAA.
@James51Of course, we can't propose anything because the 'Evil Tories' won't let us?.. and people wonder why the Brexit debate went the way it did.
I was pointing out the Tories attitude to funding for public bodies (and if the drone industry in the UK isn't profitable enough the CAA will have to have get some if not all of its funding from the goverment). You were the one who linked (and I still can't make the link myself) that to Brexit. BTW I don't hate the Tories, it the lies they are coming out with at the moment. The NHS is getting worse, what are you going to do? But we are giving it more money! and refusing to acknowledge that both things can be true. We're are friends of workers, just look at all these new rights! while ignoring all the other rights they've taken away (and assuming that they ever implement the new ones anyway). We meet the 2% Nato spending commitment (by counting lots of different types of spending that never counted as defense spending before). Labour caused the last fincial crisis, no that was the banks. Labour bankrupt the nation, bailing out the banks because the alternative would have hurt the country even more. I would repect May and her supporters a lot more if they just said they want out so the ECJ can't tell them they can't get away with it when they break the law (or they can change the law to something that most civilised societies would not accept).
' if the drone industry in the UK isn't profitable enough the CAA will have to have get some if not all of its funding from the goverment'
No they won't there just won't be a drone industry as they won't be able to afford the registration fees, which part of 'the CAA is funded by the regulated community' don't you understand? Look at the airshow industry, they've had massive hikes in their fees in the last year which has caused a number of smaller shows to cancel.
I also fail to see how the drone industry not being profitable could lead to the CAA needing to get all of its funding from the government, would the inability of the drone industry to fund its own regulation mean the CAA would stop charging silly money for a pilots' licence or an examination*?
*£85 for a computer marked multiple choice exam when I did my CPL in 2012, and there were 14 of the things!!
'@Skippy if the UK is going to start drafting its own drone rules and the UK drone industry isn't making enough money to foot the bill, where else in the money going to come from?'
By raising charges across the aviation industry. The CAA has to be self funded from the regulated community, i.e. UK civil aviation, it doesn't say the cost of regulating each specific part has to be 100% borne by that specific part. Although the amount they charge for the initial issue of a licence may make you feel you're personally liable for the whole shooting match.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
