Sick to the back teeth of “A lookback at…” review articles?
My hope and desire is that by leaving this one for a couple of weeks into 2025, you’ll have generated some sort of immunity to review pieces by now.
As a small drone operator, working in the Specific Category in particular, it can often feel that we are being “done to” by the economy, weather and the regulator more than actually getting out and “doing”. Given that the weather and economy are largely out of our control, those reliant on flying drones daily, must despair of the regulatory hoop-jumping they have to get involved in. It’s just another thing we can’t do anything about, right?
With rumours abounding about forthcoming changes to the PDRA01 authorisation, training requirements and the introduction of SORA, what use is a lone voice against what is effectively a monopolistic supplier with our b***s in a vice?
It turns out the answer is “quite a lot”.
By just pushing back each time we spot errors, inconsistencies or even what appears to be gaslighting, Eyeup, together with the Geeksvana YouTube channel has recorded some notable successes in 2024.
February – Scheme of Charges
Eyeup highlighted an issue with the 2024/25 Scheme of Charges. The CAA issued a Scheme for RPAS that did not match their earlier consultation documents. Eyeup responded with this blog, posted to the community (including the regulator) on LinkedIn. The CAA wanted operators to pay £314 for a PDRA01 Operational Authorisation, a hike of 45%.
March – U turn complete
By March, the regulator had back-pedalled and the fee was set at a much more reasonable £234. With approximately 2900 Operational Authorisations applied for during the year, each saving £80, that’s a massive saving of £232,000 to the industry! You can read about the turnaround here.
April – Updated CAP 722H and release of CAP 2606
The CAA issued an update to CAP 722H on April 9th. This was the third attempt at getting the document right, and presumably in line with the new DSCO system that was launched simultaneously. Unfortunately inconsistencies in 722H remain, as do repetitions and some bizarre requirements around drugs policies.
The regulator, whilst remaining wedded to the concept of CAP 722H, doesn’t seem to think it is worthwhile correcting minor errors. The document only sees updates when there is a major change elsewhere in the system. I think I speak for many PDRA01 OA-holders when I say we are really concerned about what may appear in the SORA 2.5-based version 4, due to drop in 2025. Here is Eyeup’s blog on version 3 of the document, which is the foundation of our PDRA01 authorisations.
April also saw the “soft” launch of the CAA’s very own Operations Manual template for PDRA01 operations. At 113+ pages for the manual itself I’m afraid I don’t see it as a huge leap towards safer operations. Operators and Remote Pilots need a document that they can use on a day-to-day basis, one they can use to quickly find information and clarify queries. 113 pages, written in semi-legalese, doesn’t allow for this.
Oh, and there was another problem. As I started to work my way through the template, I was struck by a large number of errors. Rather than just write a blog about them, I thought I’d give the regulator a chance to do the right thing. And you know, they actually made a decent effort of it. I sent individual error reports on about a dozen items. Each one was sent to the UAVEnquiries email address and Callum Holland – Applications Czar at the CAA was copied in. A post was produced on LinkedIn to let the community know what was afoot, particularly around one potential attempt to sneak in 50m horizontal clearance!
By the middle of the next working week, the CAA had arranged a meeting based on the error emails and within a week of the initial 3rd April issue, version 1.1 had been released. Now that I was very happy to blog about!
May – Surely time to catch my breath and some Spring sunshine?
Unfortunately not. You see, CAP 2606 still contains some misleading information around what insurance MUST be in place for ALL flights under a PDRA01 Operational Authorisation. This hasn’t been changed so anybody using the CAA template should understand that if using day insurance, it must be in place for all flights, even those you class as being for sport or recreation. I do have emails from the CAA stating clearly that sport and recreation flight can take place under an OA, but the CAA’s template still insists on insurance that should be optional for such flights. Sadly, the OA wording, also requires 785/2004 insurance to be in place. Make of this confused and contradictory situation what you will.
July – Incorrect CAA advice to operators
An operator wanting to fly a sub 250g drone near Clifton Suspension Bridge was provided with some misleading advice by CAA call handlers, which, had it been repeated to an authority such as an inexperienced police officer, could end up with any of us in hot water…at least temporarily.
The advice appeared to limit the operator’s Open A1 clearance allowances as well as handing airspace management to bodies other than the CAA. Something we thought the regulator was constituted to manage and protect.
This was quite a complex case, handled across LinkedIn and the Geeksvana channel, so I’ll just leave links to the Linked in post and two shows here and here where the issue was aired. Then I’ll send you to the one where the CAA stated that it had changed its policy in response to a strong and immediate reaction from the community.
What appeared to be a small topic actually had potentially huge ramifications. After all, if operators and third parties can’t trust the airspace regulator for accurate advice on airspace use, what are we left with?
August – The sun’s out. Grab yourself an ice-cream!
September | CAP3035: Annual Safety Review 2023
This is the CAA’s statutory annual report to the UK Government and the people of the UK explaining how well they are managing safety in our airspace.
Strange then that they didn’t seem to know how many operators were flying against an Operational Authorisation. The claim in the official report (version 1 as published) was 706. The actual number, when queried and checked, was 2947. Those, ladies and gentlemen, are very different figures and highlighted the poor attention to detail that we assumed had been limited to guidance documentation.
Having been pushed to a correction of the report, there was still a fumbling over document control. Many issues like this could pass uncommented as they get lost by subsequent website amendments. Fortunately, the Geeksvana team were on hand to record every step for posterity here, here and here.
November | Gunpowder, treason and plot?
The CAA clearly enjoys fireworks season as evidenced by their New Year message.
This year, they lit an extra spark under the industry with the release of the annual Scheme of Charges consultation. The proposed cost increases for PDRA renewals, OSC/ORA-based OAs, RAE fees and training are eye-watering. Some of these new costs will undoubtedly damage a number of established operators. The increases are apparently to help pay for a “more efficient” digitised application system to allow SORA-based risk assessment. Freedom of information requests by various parties suggest that a significant number of drone operators have been talking to the CAA and begging for these new systems…because we all love to turn our businesses upside down to comply with a different set of red tape. We are not sure however, whether the regulator thought to mention to these unnamed organisations that in their world “more efficient” means “far more expensive”.
We are still trying to get to the bottom of who the CAA really got this input from…more in a future blog.
In the meantime, here’s what Sean Hickey and I managed to dig up. Once the CAA pointed us in the direction of pages 51-59 of their Annual Report and Accounts as partial justification for the increases it became clear that all was not as it seemed. Do you remember that 2947 figure from the revised Safety report in September? It represented the number of Operational Authorisation holders in the UK. Well. the annual report and accounts featured a figure similar to that, but some new numbers (7000 and a projected figure of 75,000) also arrived on the scene, apparently to help justify a “scalable” system. Again, when pushed, the CAA claimed that the figures they were actually working with, but which weren’t mentioned in their report to the Government was an increase from 2900 to 3500 authorisations by 2030/31. That doesn’t require a hugely scalable system now, does it?, Struggling? I’m not surprised… so were we.
This is a detailed subject and I’m afraid that the only way to get across it is to read this blog and probably click on the links within it to the Geeksvana shows. One prediction I can confidently give for 2025 is that you haven’t heard the last of this tale of woe.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the CAA has another statutory report to correct. I wonder if those in Government shake their heads in confusion as much as we do?
An interesting and fruitful year
So, there we go. This is far from all Eyeup gets up to with respect to the regulator. Sean at Geeksvana and I look at many stories, some of which float to the top and take an inordinate amount of time to bottom out. Some trail off as not being in the public interest to report on while others seem to leap out at us and need immediate attention. The Clifton Suspension Bridge story in July was one such. Others, like the latest Scheme of Charges consultation fiasco have some way to run, so keep an eye out on the channel.
If you’ve stuck it out to the end, thank you. Extra brownie points if you read every linked blog and watched every video…now go and sit down in a dark room or get tome therapy. You deserve it?
But what of 2025
The only thing we can reliably say about forecasts is the they will probably be wrong. However, I’m confident in saying that in some ways 2024 was a relatively calm year.
In 2025 please sit down… ensure your safety harness is correctly adjusted… and SCREAM IF YOU WANT TO GO FASTER!