Open Skies Initiative

This might seem unrelated to drone flight, but bear with me. Despite at least 10 million flights per annum globally (figures from DJI via the AAIB), UAS pilots maintain an impeccable safety record. There have been no deaths or serious incidents that were provably caused by a drone in the 15-or-so year history of drone flight. Zero. Nada. Zip. And yet we have over-reaching and unreasonable regulation placed on us in the name of safety. Cyclists, on the other hand, kill on average three pedestrians a year in the UK alone (source: Office for National Statistics). Yet, cyclists are not regulated at all. The government has recognised the problem and is introducing legislation to make it a crime to injure or kill someone by dangerous cycling. Fair enough; that seems reasonable and proportionate. Note that they do not set up a regulatory body and impose unwanted and unworkable regulations for cyclists. They do not introduce registration requirements requiring an annual fee. They do not limit where you can ride bicycles based on the weight of the device. So given the much better track record of UAS pilots, why do we then have to put up with this over-regulation? Why can't we just rely on the law, the Air Navigation Order 2016, which states (paraphrasing) it is illegal to wrecklessly endager people or property? That would seem fair and proportionate. Why, when the risk of a drone incident is provably less than one in 10 million (and probably much smaller) do done pilots, and not cyclists, have to suffer the over-regulation of our safe passtime? Why do we need to regulate the "safest form of aviation that has ever existed" [DJI] at all?

So the FAA got audited. Not by a drone pilot, fortunately, but it's hilarious.

Informed Cops STAND UP To Corrupt Federal Guards! Second Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClTjur-9cx8Bb4MW8r0K6xwSpotify: https://spoti.fi/439TpHTPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/audittheauditTwitte...

We. Won't. Stop.

FPV is not a crime Just a Short little video this time. There is often talks of the legality of FPV, more so drones specifically.Gear Frame : TBS source one V3FC ...

"The only thing that limits the power of our government is the limit of our obedience".

The Limit of our Obedience - Good People Break Bad Laws #01 There's only one power in history that has limited the size of government.All other methods have failed... sooner or later. And as government's today grow to...

Thank you Bruce, that sums it up nicely. Now replace the F with a C... what picture do we get?

As an FPV pilot, am I supposed to make a report to the CAA every time I fly? It would appear so according to this rule from FPVUK. I wear video goggle to fly, so I can't see the drone from before takeoff to after landing. This is why I think the BVLOS/VLOS rules are stupid

We have opened a legal fund to help us tackle legal issues related to hobbyist recreational radio-controlled flight.

Click here to Give now to UK Open Skies Initiative Legal Fund by Timothy Long We need to be able to pay for lega...

Yet another "ultra vires" offender - the New Forest National Park. Their FAQ states:

"You need a formal permission to fly a drone over the New Forest. This is the case for both hobbyists and commercial operators. Around 90% of the New Forest is Crown Land and to fly over it you will need to get permission from Forestry England : [email protected]. If you wish to fly a drone on land owned by the National Trust, you will need to obtain permission from them. If you wish to fly on private land within the forest, you can do so with the landowner’s permission if you adhere to the Civil Aviation Authority’s drone code."

Close, but no banana. No permission is needed to overfly any land at a "reasonable height". This is codified in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which states "No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable". Therefore, all else being equal, if you have permission to take off and land, there can be no restriction on overflight unless there is some other legislation in effect. The NFNP does not cite any legislation; it merely asserts that permission is required, which effectively means that they think they have rule-making power over the airspace above the park. We have submitted a message via their Contact Us page asking for the false information to be removed.

According to Network Rail: "Flying drones on or around our infrastructure and people is a specialist and potentially high-risk activity. It is illegal to fly a drone on or near the railway. So we have a framework of approved suppliers and specially trained in-house pilots, who are the only people authorised to fly drones for Network Rail. All our authorised pilots and suppliers have gone through a robust safety and compliance process. They are the only certified drone operators permitted to provide services from or within 50m of our infrastructure."

Really Network Rail? How are your "authorised people" able to fly over the railway if it is illegal to do so? Is it possible that you believe "trespass upon the railway" extends into the national airspace? Do you not understand that “no action shall lie in nuisance or trespass by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which is reasonable” [Civil Aviation Act 1982]? Which piece of legislation do you believe makes it illegal to fly "on or near the railway"? I await your response with anticipation.

I wrote to my MP to complain about 'over-regulation' of hobbyist model aircraft. My MP wrote to the Minister for Aviation and the Minister responded, here is the response in full with personal details redacted. Unfortunately, it is really a non-response that ignores most of the points raised. She has latched onto my comments about the registration fee and ignored all of my points about how the over-regulation is unnecessary, confusing, over-reaching, harming the hobby and in many ways harms safety instead of improving it. I wrote back to say that "more positive engagement is necessary if we, the people, are to take our elected representatives seriously". Still, how many letters to you think the Minister for Aviation has had from hobbyists? I bet you can count them on one finger. I encourage everyone to make your voice heard. Write to your MP and ask them to contact the Minister for Aviation. Perhaps a few dozen letters will have the Minister taking notice.

The push-back has begun in earnest against the FAA's introduction of the "Broadcast Remote ID" requirement for drones in America. We all know this is on the cards for the UK too, and we are not going to take it lying down. Just search your YouTube feed for "Remote ID" and bask in the wave of resentment and unrest. This one video I've linked hits all the nails on the head and calls out what many people consider to be the real agenda. CAA and DfT you are on notice: do not make this mistake. Meanwhile, share one of the videos you found, amplify the wave. Put the pressure on and don't let up.

Remote ID "Message To The Warden" This is my sword at the round table concerning remote ID. Enjoy

At last, pennies are dropping and people are starting to get angry. Botgrinder is in the USA where I fear the government has already "gotten away with it". It may not be too late for us in the UK. Write to your MP. Ask them to write to the Department for Transport. Tell them why the rules stink and are worse than useless especially for FPV drones. Take action. Do something. Do it now.
[Warning: video contains "angry language"]

You can say no to remote I.D. I'm not sure what we can do to get through to the knuckleheads at the faa that dont understand what a racing drone is, but im thinking we just ignore them un...

National Highways kept this one quiet! We think that airspace regulation is the sole responsibility of the CAA, so we are curious why National Highways thinks it has any business managing air traffic. What enabling power gives them the right? Until we are shown otherwise, we assume there is none and this is outside their bailiwick. What are they up to? https://nationalhighways.co.uk/article/national-highways-reaches-for-the-skies-with-new-flight-management-system-2/?fbclid=IwAR2fgpkpYGK6sdKB6g1oc6N85y_0tCbxhzVPeuABOEKN3RuyJzn8Jxe21ns

National Highways reaches for the skies with new flight management system - National Highways National Highways has launched a new flight management system which will speed up processes for drone operators looking to fly near motorways or major A roads and improve safety through better co-ordination and visibility of flights.

Do councils have the power to regulate overflight of council land by the use of byelaws? The information contained in Model Byelaws Set 2 (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pleasure-grounds-public-walks-and-open-spaces-model-byelaw-2) suggests otherwise. The model bylaws all refer to permission to "take off" or "control" an RPAS on the land but never to "overflight". Further, the guidance notes explicitly call out the Air Navigation Order 2016 and the CAA drone code, implicitly delegating regulation of overflight to the CAA. The Civil Aviation Act 1982, Ch. 16 Part III para. 76 states: "No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight, so long as the provisions of any Air Navigation Order [...] have been duly complied with". This pretty much eliminates any possibility of trespass, so long as the flight is at a height which is "reasonable" in the circumstances. This must by definition allow flight below 120 m AGL since that is the height limit for drones. My own personal interpretation of "reasonable" is "above the rooftops or local tree line" and where the flight is over open land without local vegetation, for example a beach or open fields, that is effectively down to ground level in my personal opinion.

Pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces: model byelaw set 2 Model byelaw set for local authorities to regulate public walks, pleasure grounds, open spaces and disused burial grounds.

Welcome to the UK Open Skies Initiative. UKOSI was created to challenge the presumption that hobbyist drones and light model aircraft need to be regulated, and to push back against the arbitrary and capricious regulations put in place by the Civil Aviation Authority. Our immediate aims are, for hobbyist aircraft under 1 Kg:

- Elimination of the need to register with the CAA and pay a fee
- Drastic simplification of the drone regulations and code to one simple rule reflecting the Air Navigation Order 2016 article 241: "A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property."
- Acknowledgement by the authorities that "Beyond Visual Line Of Sight" operation is the norm for modern hobbyist aircraft, and that it is no more dangerous (and in many cases safer) than line-of-sight flying

These aims may evolve over time. We are new at this, but we will get better.