back to article 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 …

  1. Pen-y-gors

    Here be snowflakes...

    "Britain shouldn't turn its back on EU drone regs..."

    Britain shouldn't turn its back on EU drone regs

    FTFY

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Here be snowflakes...

      @ 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).

      1. hammarbtyp

        Re: Here be snowflakes...

        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...

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Here be snowflakes...

          @ 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.

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Here be snowflakes...

            "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.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Here be snowflakes...

              @ 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?

              1. hammarbtyp

                Re: Here be snowflakes...

                @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.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Here be snowflakes...

                  @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?

                  1. Phil Lord

                    Re: Here be snowflakes...

                    "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.

                    1. Aqua Marina

                      Re: Here be snowflakes...

                      "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.

                      1. H in The Hague

                        Re: Here be snowflakes...

                        "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.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: Here be snowflakes...

                          @ 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.

                    2. bazza Silver badge

                      Re: Here be snowflakes...

                      @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.

                    3. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: Here be snowflakes...

                      @ 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?

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Here be snowflakes...

                        There was no "banana law", just the product of the dire state of British newspapers

                        http://www.europarl.europa.eu/london/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

                        https://www.contactlaw.co.uk/debunking-eu-law-myths.html

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: Here be snowflakes...

                          @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.

                          1. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: Here be snowflakes...

                            @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.

                            1. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: Here be snowflakes...

                              @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.

                      2. Phil Lord

                        Re: Here be snowflakes...

                        "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.

                        1. codejunky Silver badge

                          Re: Here be snowflakes...

                          @ 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.

                          1. Phil Lord

                            Re: Here be snowflakes...

                            "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.

                            1. codejunky Silver badge

                              Re: Here be snowflakes...

                              @ 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?

                    4. christooo

                      Re: Here be snowflakes...

                      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).

                  2. gnasher729 Silver badge

                    Re: Here be snowflakes...

                    "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?

                    1. codejunky Silver badge

                      Re: Here be snowflakes...

                      @ 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.

                2. SkippyBing

                  Re: Here be snowflakes...

                  '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.

                3. Andy 73 Silver badge

                  Re: Here be snowflakes...

                  @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?

                  1. streaky

                    Re: Here be snowflakes...

                    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.

                4. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Deluding to punch above our weight on the world stage

                  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.

                5. christooo

                  Re: Here be snowflakes...

                  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.

              2. gnasher729 Silver badge

                Re: Here be snowflakes...

                "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.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Here be snowflakes...

                  @ 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.

            2. veti Silver badge

              Re: Here be snowflakes...

              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.

              1. bep

                Re: Here be snowflakes...

                "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?

                1. gnasher729 Silver badge

                  Re: Here be snowflakes...

                  "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.

  2. Baldrickk

    If you are flying a drone with a headset (to fly via onboard camera feed,) does it count as in line of sight? because you can't actually see it...

    1. Martin Gregorie

      No. You need an observer who is watching it with unaided eyesight standing with you. This has a lot to do with the very restricted field of view of most/all First Person View camera systems.

  3. Andy 73 Silver badge

    Confused....

    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.

    1. James 51

      Re: Confused....

      Why not call for some sensible investment in the CAA post-Brexit

      Ha ha ha ha ha, wait you're serious? The Tories won't pay a living wage to the people who will save their lives when they need help the most and you think they'll splash out on that?

      1. Andy 73 Silver badge

        Re: Confused....

        @James51

        Of 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.

        1. James 51
          Flame

          Re: Confused....

          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)?

          1. Andy 73 Silver badge

            Re: Confused....

            @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.

            1. James 51

              Re: Confused....

              @James51

              Of 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).

              1. SkippyBing

                Re: Confused....

                ' 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!!

                1. James 51

                  Re: Confused....

                  I just have a hard time believing that the industry will bear the full weight of the costs. They'll find some way to weasel out of it.

                  1. SkippyBing

                    Re: Confused....

                    'I just have a hard time believing that the industry will bear the full weight of the costs. They'll find some way to weasel out of it.'

                    Go to your local flying school, ask about the cost of regulation, and stand back!

      2. SkippyBing

        Re: Confused....

        'The Tories won't pay a living wage to the people who will save their lives when they need help the most and you think they'll splash out on that?'

        The CAA is self funded through charges on the regulated community, so that argument is invalid.

        1. James 51

          Re: Confused....

          @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?

          1. SkippyBing

            Re: Confused....

            '@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.

            1. James 51
              Joke

              Re: Confused....

              I can see Rynair handing over their new higher fees with nary a whimper.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Confused....

      "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."

      IFAICS what you're saying is that instead of having one set of regulations we could have two? That'll simplify things, take back control, cut red tape and [insert pro-Brexit slogan of your own choosing].

      1. mythicalduck

        @Doctor Syntax Re: Confused....

        "IFAICS what you're saying is that instead of having one set of regulations we could have two? That'll simplify things, take back control, cut red tape and [insert pro-Brexit slogan of your own choosing]."

        Yes and no... He's suggesting we have a UK reg, which applies to people flying drones in the UK, and if you want to take your drone abroad to the EU or the US, you then have to follow their regs, which may be different to our own. Sounds pretty sensible to me, just like driving a car abroad, you really need to learn the rules of the road in the country you're driving in, regardless of what you learned here in the UK

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    You know we have this thing...

    ...called a Kite Mark.

    Is like EU certification for grown ups.

    1. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: You know we have this thing...

      Quite aside from the amusing image of a kite mark being used to market drones, there's nt much else of amusement in that statement, just a load of facepalm fuel.

      A kitemark is only as good as the market that recognises it. I see no compelling commercial reasons why an organisation with 33 members that defines standards would want to waste time assessing the standards of a 34th nation just so that 34th nation can sell it's stuff into the other 33.

      Much more likely is the 34th nation will be told "Here's the regs that you need to comply with to sell to us. Let us know when you've done that."

      The EU won't give a flying fuck how loose or ineffective or just plain shit the regs we are happy to put up with for ourselves. But there isn't a snowballs hell in chance they would ever water down their own requirements just for "li'l old UK over there".

    2. Andy 73 Silver badge

      Re: You know we have this thing...

      You know we're talking about regulations for pilots, not drone manufacturers? Unless you can get a Kite Mark tatoo...

      Not that we have that many manufacturers outside of the usual military contractors.

      1. JamesPond

        Re: You know we have this thing...

        Andy73

        You might be talking about flying a dron in the EU, but the article is about.......

        "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, "

  5. James 51
    Coffee/keyboard

    It did have, 20 years ago, but we've sacked three quarters of the people. And the expertise... has gone to join EASA," he told The Register.

    I almost needed a new keyboard.

  6. pgrant2

    Opportunity?

    With an optimistic spin on this, it would be very interesting if the Brexit negotiations opened up membership of EU standards bodies to a much wider audience. Seems like it could be positive if Middle-East, India, Africa, etc... could join up where it's not politically sensitive, or the standards bodies even be separate from the political EU.

    1. David Lester

      Re: Opportunity?

      The issue with other nations joining EU regulatory bodies lies in the small print.

      In particular the use of the ECJ to adjudicate disagreements. That's why Switzerland and Norway have no trouble signing up, but why a post-Brexit UK cannot use any of these agencies. Well, if the PM sticks to her guns about not being subject to the ECJ, that is.

      In reality, there's been no activity by HMG to re-establish any of the regulatory agencies we'll need post-Brexit -- up to and including new IT systems for HM customs, expanded port and lorry park facilities at all of our ports, plus whatever they come up with to stop smuggling between Northern Ireland and the rest of the EU -- so forgive me if I remain skeptical about a full-on Brexit.

      ps Of much more interest to The Reg readership is what happens to CE registration of consumer electronics. Again, when push comes to shove CE resorts to ECJ judgement. I assume we'll be re-instituting the old BS standards, hopefully in pounds and inches, just to double our manufacturers' red-tape quotient.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Opportunity?

        I think the point is that after being frustrated by them when at the Home Office the PM is determined that the ECJ will have no say over the legality of future actions by her "cheap and nasty" government.

        Commercial agreements (e.g. international flight slots), not so bothered.

        { I may have inadvertently misspelled "strong and stable" }

        1. JimmyPage Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: ECJ/ECHR

          I fear, like a lot of the public (and possibly politicians), you are confusing the European Court of Justice, with the European Court of Human Rights.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: ECJ/ECHR

            Don't think so, although it is confusing because Mrs May has crossed swords with both and wants the UK out of both - however it is freedom from the ECJ that tends to get emphasised at the moment.

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: ECJ/ECHR

              "it is freedom from the ECJ that tends to get emphasised at the moment."

              That's the easier one for her to deal with. ECHR raises issues with the Good Friday Agreement. But with the two sectarian parties supposedly sharing government in N Ireland falling out and all sorts of questions over the border she might be able to weasel out of that one as well.

      2. keitai
        Mushroom

        Re: Opportunity?

        Of course, for any kind of deal, some kind of arbitration panel is needed. If Theresa is hellbent on getting out of ECJ, A creative solution is just to rename it. Europe and Britain Court of Justice. Add a couple of token changes to to EBCJ rules and Theresa can claim how her strong and stable leadership made a big difference while still remaining part of EASA - and all the other similar EU organizations that turn out to be "essential"

        Now of course there is a slight problem. Any Brexit deal needs unanimous support from all 28 member countries. What are the chances that none of EU countries will elect a obstructionist nutbag during next two years?

  7. Haku
    Unhappy

    Bend over, model aircraft fliers, you're about to get screwed through no fault of your own.

    2.3.1.5 Model Aircraft

    "Model aircraft are within the scope of this NPA since, pursuant to the definition of a UA in the new Basic Regulation, a model aircraft is a UA. A definition that could distinguish model aircraft from UAS is not easy to be developed. Some model aircraft pilots argue that they would be reluctant to use certain UAS technology supposed to assist them in conducting the flight (e.g. a flight control system with higher automation than a typical radio control) since this would reduce their pleasure. Said technology instead is widely used in UAS since in this case, a remote pilot could focus more on the payload (e.g. filming with a camera) than in flying the UAS. Therefore, a definition of model aircraft could be based on the absence of a flight control system that potentially allows a UAS to fly within the BVLOS range. In reality, certain model aircraft are indeed equipped with some form of assisted flight control system. This approach was therefore rejected. On the other hand, it is recognised that model aircraft activities have good safety records. This is not due to the type of aircraft used but rather to the code of conduct developed by the model club and associations. In most cases, they have related procedures, they build awareness, and in some cases, they also provide training to their members, thus creating a safety framework."

  8. Haku

    New rules won't stop idiots being idiots, or criminals being criminals.

    It'll just class a bunch of idiots and ignorants as criminals, as well as classing a whole bunch of existing fliers who are not breaking any current rules, as criminals.

    It also won't stop China from selling the parts for, or whole drones/planes/helicopters that have no such geofencing restrictions, allowing said idiots, ignorants & 'criminals' to ship them from there in untracked and practically unmarked packages ('toy' on the customs declaration form is meaningless), then going out and flying them at distances not allowed and in places not allowed.

    So basically all us RC airborne craft fliers are going to get screwed over because of a few morons & criminals, like those ones trying to drop stuff into prisons, and the perceived danger of them near airports - someone should tell the law proposal makers you can't regulate stupidity, it doesn't bloody work!

    The police force is already streched so I don't know how they'll cope when suddenly a bunch more people are classed as criminals because of a law change - and it's not like every police officer knows every law in detail, especially new ones that come into play - just look at the problems photographers have had in public places over the recent years. Not to mention some of the general public whose only knowlege of drones is spoon fed to them by sensational headlines in tabloid papers, who then think people who fly drones are only doing to to spy on people etc. and the police should be called...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      EASAy people no gonna fly?

      What's that, you're saying the supreme EASA with all it's band of paid experts with whom the world must comply are about to pass poorly-considered legislation into EU law? Surely not!

      Well at least if the legislation is passed we can write to our MEPs to ask them to propose the legislation be repealed. What's that? They don't have the authority, so once an unpopular law is passed we're stuck with it? So the only recourse we have is... to leave the EU?

  9. wolfetone Silver badge

    Jesus, when you think about it, they're going to have a lot of things to negotiate in 2 years aren't they?

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      @ wolfetone

      "Jesus, when you think about it, they're going to have a lot of things to negotiate in 2 years aren't they?"

      Gonna be less time than that if the EU keep messing about and demanding obscene payoffs before they will 'negotiate' (they have already said they wont, its their way or nothing). For a political body promoting itself as a trade block they dont seem very good when it comes to negotiating.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        Re: @ wolfetone

        "Gonna be less time than that if the EU keep messing about and demanding obscene payoffs before they will 'negotiate' (they have already said they wont, its their way or nothing). For a political body promoting itself as a trade block they dont seem very good when it comes to negotiating."

        Fuck off with that bullshit.

        The UK can't cherry pick what it wants and not pay the bill. Get over it.

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @ wolfetone

          @ wolfetone

          "The UK can't cherry pick what it wants and not pay the bill. Get over it."

          Exactly. But is that the 60 billion euro bill or the 100 euro when they realised than in a negotiation you are supposed to start high and compromise? And you are right the EU have dictated that they will not discuss anything until we agree to pay a bill which was discredited so fast they had to come up with a new one (even their own negotiators know we dont have to pay it). So if the EU is that badly inflexible and unwilling to negotiate when that is their purpose to exist then we are better off out.

          And I dont need to get over anything, I find their stupidity amusing, it seems to be you becoming infuriated by it.

          1. wolfetone Silver badge

            Re: @ wolfetone

            @codejunky

            You again.

            I'm not getting in to it with you. You've your head too far up either Frau May's or Andy Nutjob's arse you can't see the colon from the intestine.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: @ wolfetone

              @ wolfetone

              "You again."

              Yup. I still exist. I am still reading the comments you post blaming the UK. I am correcting them. Your welcome. And I dont support May or whoever Andy is.

        2. gnasher729 Silver badge

          Re: @ wolfetone

          "The UK can't cherry pick what it wants and not pay the bill. Get over it."

          As Mrs. May said, Brexit is Brexit. So pay your bill and get over it.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: @ wolfetone

            @ gnasher729

            "As Mrs. May said, Brexit is Brexit. So pay your bill and get over it."

            Actually the only reason to pay the bill is so the EU 'may' negotiate which they have already refused to negotiate anyway. So there is no valid reason to pay their bill. We should stand by the commitment promises we have made but for the rest of their wishlist they can dig into their own pockets. Especially if they are not willing to negotiate.

    2. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Headmaster

      2 years ?????

      Er, 22 months and counting down.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 2 years ?????

        Also deduct time for the 27(?) countries to each ratify the terms of the deal with their own parliament / whatever - I think the estimate for that was 3 to 4 months.

        As the colonials have been excluded from the negotiations I think we can expect to see a repeat of previous deals such as fishing rights in the seas off Scotland as part of a package to gain improved access for the City. I'm still wondering what they'll do about the Irish land border - maybe they'll settle for spot checks of commercial vehicles and impose immigration checks on travel between NI and the rest of the UK.

  10. cymro

    "Gonna be less time than that if the EU keep messing about and demanding obscene payoffs before they will 'negotiate' (they have already said they wont, its their way or nothing)."

    Gonna be much less than that when we have a weak and incompetent prime minister calling a GE at the exact time we should be doing the negotiating. May as well put Mr Blobby in there for the effectiveness of this lot.

  11. oxfordmale78

    This is what is going to happen

    The UK will copy and past the EASA regulations and do a find-replace of "EU" with "Great-Britain". A few junior lawyers will be tasked to correct the most obvious mistakes and then it will be proof-read by a few senior lawyers. This process will be repeated, but limited in scope, every time the EASA changes their regulations. At some point, 5 to 10 years from now, a lazy minister, or a minister pressurised by budget cuts, will find this all rather cumbersome and decides that re-joining the EASA is much easier. By then the voters will have moved on from their Brexs*it concerns and this news will be buried on page 10.

    I expect this process to be repeated for other useful EU organisations. Of course this won't happen under emperor May, but it will almost certainly be done under her successor, whoever he/she maybe.

    1. codejunky Silver badge

      @ oxfordmale78

      "I expect this process to be repeated for other useful EU organisations."

      I dont see how that could be a problem. It sounds a very good way of doing it since there is no reason to remake the wheel unless they made it square. And that comes to the primary qualifier to your comment I have quoted above where only the useful EU organisations will matter. I expect this will go beyond the EU too where we can look to the best solutions in the world instead of just the smaller area of the world called 'EU'. Sounds a good idea to copy regs that suit but ditch what doesnt.

  12. Dave Bell

    Everything the EU did had to be made into British law by our politicians, and much the same for this, through the CAA. And issues like this should have been argued about before Mrs May even sent the "I quit" letter. Some of the problems are in the EU stage, others on the people, politicians and civil servants, in this country, but it's so convenient to blame the EU when you get something wrong.

    I've seen it happen.

    And people such as Boris Johnson lied to get the result they wanted, and the new PM rewarded them by giving them high office.

    Labour are not that much better

    They're all blaming the EU for the problems, and expect us to let them run the country. The EU doesn't have to be all that clever to look better than the British Parliament..

    If you want to re-elect the party of lies, go ahead.

    Don't expect me to be polite.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like