By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

Proposed new drone legislation/registration

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
ChrisB24/07/2017 14:45:35
1179 forum posts
34 photos
The NPA, DfT and UKAPB all distiguish between model aircraft and drones/UAV/S. It's correct to say that they don't offer a definition...a question I have asked them, but they do separate model aircraft and UAS. If they thought all was the same then why discuss them separately?
Everyone knows what is what but legal speak won't allow for it because of potential loopholes...thats the basics of it.
KELL24/07/2017 15:21:08
avatar
20 forum posts

A drone should be any flying object being controlled irresponsibly by an idiot without an ounce of common sense. Only these are the ones responsible for this debate in the first place.

Bryan Anderson 124/07/2017 15:29:13
29 forum posts

Bail out when the answer is no:

  1. Does it fly?
  2. Is it unmanned?
  3. Could it cause damage or injury at a distance?
  4. Could it deliver a payload to a distant recipient?

Still there?

Some of the respondents are ignoring some of the issues. What is new is the ease with which bad things can be done.

Never mind the interpretations of what is a drone. UAVs are already delivering drugs and weapons into prisons, and the police and the military have realised the capabilities and cost effectiveness of UAVs. Technology now allows anyone at modest cost to purchase or build a UAV with the potential to be used illegally and effectively. The potential ranges are tens of miles, flight durations can be measured in hours and GPS navigation is easy. More regulation is inevitable.

The real problem is that the criminals and irresponsibles ignore regulations. I foresee a future in which model flying is confined to regulated and designated sites where some degree of oversight or supervision occurs. Hopefully, our model flying clubs fit that description. It will not be too long before club officials are asked to report suspicious behaviour to the police. Maybe they already have.

Should not more attention be paid to the person rather than solely the craft which seems to be the current focus. After all, a gun licence is issued to a person and not the gun. My drivers licence does not permit me to drive HGVs so our flying licences may confine us to certain categories of craft.

The Wright Stuff24/07/2017 15:42:35
avatar
1133 forum posts
225 photos
Posted by Bryan Anderson 1 on 24/07/2017 15:29:13:

Bail out when the answer is no:

  1. Does it fly?
  2. Is it unmanned?
  3. Could it cause damage or injury at a distance?
  4. Could it deliver a payload to a distant recipient?

Still there?

Again, if you define "distant" to mean "out of visible range" then this is entirely consistent with Pete's definition, previously!

KELL24/07/2017 15:47:04
avatar
20 forum posts

99% of aero modellers follow the rules and guidelines that are already in place. Criminals, terrorists and idiots will not. Nor will they apply for a licence, register a drone/airplane or make themselves none. They won't in person buy such objects legitimately from shops or vendors where they can be traced. In fact all this hype is a near jerk reaction to an over excited media. Shame it's got out of control. Maybe we should of had this topic a while ago.

The Wright Stuff24/07/2017 15:52:35
avatar
1133 forum posts
225 photos
Posted by KELL on 24/07/2017 15:47:04:

99% of aero modellers follow the rules and guidelines that are already in place. Criminals, terrorists and idiots will not. Nor will they apply for a licence, register a drone/airplane or make themselves none. They won't in person buy such objects legitimately from shops or vendors where they can be traced. I

All true. In which case, having a registration eliminates you from suspicion.

Martin Harris24/07/2017 16:03:48
avatar
7489 forum posts
187 photos
Posted by KELL on 24/07/2017 15:47:04:

99% of aero modellers follow the rules and guidelines that are already in place. Criminals, terrorists and idiots will not. Nor will they apply for a licence, register a drone/airplane or make themselves none. They won't in person buy such objects legitimately from shops or vendors where they can be traced. In fact all this hype is a near jerk reaction to an over excited media. Shame it's got out of control. Maybe we should of had this topic a while ago.

We did!

Sam Longley24/07/2017 16:24:37
44 forum posts

So if a young lad of 12 years registers his small drone & flies it near Heathrow & it gets sucked into the intake of a jet causing a major disaster & comes out as tiny burnt chips. How do they actually trace the youngster after he hops on his bike & goes home & what was the point of registration

Edited By Sam Longley on 24/07/2017 16:25:27

The Wright Stuff24/07/2017 16:29:48
avatar
1133 forum posts
225 photos

Prevention is better than cure. The drone could be identified in many cases before the incident happened, and then traced back to the owner. This possibility should act as a deterrent against flying there in the first place.

You could apply the argument equally in all sorts of scenarios. Why do we bother registering our cars with the DVLA when ram-raiders can just steal one?

John Bisset24/07/2017 16:41:33
79 forum posts

Posted by Steve J on 24/07/2017 11:50:41:

Posted by john stones 1 on 24/07/2017 11:39:35:

Put the case for fair treatment based on our long and good record, anything else is pointless.

Correct. We need to make sure that the government give the BMFA, LMA & SAA a decent operational authorisation under article 14 of the draft regulation.

Steve

I agree. Snag is. like many, I recall what happened when CB usage arrived in UK, illegally on 27 MHz. Did we, who had paid for our radio licences, get any consideration? Nope - the authorities changed the rules, we had to move our frequencies. Cost & inconvenience ? Nobody cared.

What makes you think the current crew of incompetents, aka government, will care. Given their behaviours so far, why would they care about a few modellers?

Peter Christy24/07/2017 18:15:21
923 forum posts

I don't think they would care about us. Fortunately, a lot of the detail will be handed over to experts - presumably the CAA. Now the BMFA have a good relationship with the CAA, so hopefully the worst excesses of officialdom can be avoided. Also, the European airsports people seem to be being taken seriously by EASA, whose rules would almost certainly over-ride ours anyway.

The problem is that so far, no-one has come up with a suitable definition of what comprises a drone - as distinct from a model aircraft. If we can put forward such a definition, a lot of the problems will disappear. Hence my suggestion.....

--

Pete

Andy Symons - BMFA24/07/2017 18:20:09
343 forum posts
1 photos

**LINK**

Piers Bowlan24/07/2017 18:27:59
avatar
1226 forum posts
36 photos
Posted by ChrisB on 24/07/2017 14:36:33:
Mark a, there has been discussion of a registration per person rather than per aircraft, or a fee lasting for 3 or 5 years rather that annual. There has also been suggestion of using club data for registration rather than a second set of registration data..possibly free. It's all a bit unknown at present. Nonetheless, if its a charge per aircraft then it could prove costly...30aircraft and counting.

This to me seems the biggest problem with the proposed registration proposals. They bring out consultation documents but without saying exactly how it will work. Pointless, as the devil is in the detail. devil

Easa have already decided that Model Aircraft are drones because they are UAVs, so I guess that goes for the D of T and CAA. In which case does it really matter what we think the drone definition should be and should we be calling each other names like Luddite? (although I suspect I might be one!) My view is that the problem is the UAV's camera but that is irrelevant as EASA's big agenda is U-space and all UAVs being integrated into it. That includes us. Lets hope that the BMFA and Europe Air Sports continue their good works so that we continue to have fun with the minimum of regulatory interference in the future.

 

 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 24/07/2017 18:30:12

Martin Harris24/07/2017 18:36:41
avatar
7489 forum posts
187 photos

bmfa.org Government-Publishes-Consultation-on-the-Safe-Use-of-Drones-in-the-UK

Essjay24/07/2017 18:48:18
avatar
578 forum posts
1 photos

Quote from the BMFA document linked above by Andy basically says, if you're a Country Member of the BMFA then you're going to be lumped with the rest of the country's uneducated. Thanks BMFA!

The Government will work with model aircraft flying clubs to examine ways in which it may be possible to exempt members of model aircraft flying clubs with adequate safety cultures and practices from certain elements of registration and other educational requirements, or where their club will be permitted to undertake regulatory requirements on their behalf. Flyers of model aircraft who are not members of a club, or are members of a club not deemed to have adequate standards will, however, not be excluded from registration or other requirements.”

David Mellor24/07/2017 18:54:48
avatar
640 forum posts
230 photos

I have a thought about how to define a drone, rather than simply jumping straight to a definition.

All RC UAVs can be fitted into a broad spectrum. It turns out (I think) that drones are at one end of that spectrum. So they don't really need to be defined as much as seen in a far broader context of all UAVs, including the ones we fly for pleasure.

Simplifying it to baby steps:

The non-problematic end of the spectrum is RC gliders which have no IC or electric motors.

The next group would include single motor (IC or electric) craft.

The next group would include twin motor (IC or electric) craft.

The next group would include all craft with more than 2 (IC or electric) motors.

Drones fit solely in the last group. They can't exist in any of the other categories. It is simple enough that even bureaucrats might grasp it. It would free up maybe 95% of models from regulation. It would, however, catch some.

Martin Harris24/07/2017 18:56:51
avatar
7489 forum posts
187 photos

There might be scope to include A certificate (or maybe BPC) holders as qualified members of an organisation? Tests are free and any BMFA member can take one at a local club (most are pretty friendly) or at an increasing number of events.

Steve J24/07/2017 18:58:50
avatar
558 forum posts
27 photos
Posted by Essjay on 24/07/2017 18:48:18:

Quote from the BMFA document linked above by Andy...

That is actually a quote from the DfT document. It did surprise me, I would have expected such a statement to say flying associations (e.g. BMFA, LMA & SAA) rather than clubs.

Steve

David Mellor24/07/2017 19:00:12
avatar
640 forum posts
230 photos
Posted by Essjay on 24/07/2017 18:48:18:

Quote from the BMFA document linked above by Andy basically says, if you're a Country Member of the BMFA then you're going to be lumped with the rest of the country's uneducated. Thanks BMFA!

No, that isn't entirely correct. I am a Country Member of BMFA. I also belong to a model aircraft flying club. I also belong to a model aircraft flying association.

I know of others in the same position - it is historical in my case, I joined the BMFA years before joining a club. I know of others in the same situation.

But I imagine there are some people who are only country members and who don't belong to a club. Perhaps the answer is to join one or form one?

Andy Symons - BMFA24/07/2017 19:02:19
343 forum posts
1 photos
Posted by Essjay on 24/07/2017 18:48:18:

Quote from the BMFA document linked above by Andy basically says, if you're a Country Member of the BMFA then you're going to be lumped with the rest of the country's uneducated. Thanks BMFA!

The Government will work with model aircraft flying clubs to examine ways in which it may be possible to exempt members of model aircraft flying clubs with adequate safety cultures and practices from certain elements of registration and other educational requirements, or where their club will be permitted to undertake regulatory requirements on their behalf. Flyers of model aircraft who are not members of a club, or are members of a club not deemed to have adequate standards will, however, not be excluded from registration or other requirements.”

 

You missed this bit

"The DfT proposals generally align with those developed by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The general principle is that (for those operating outside the framework of an established model flying association) the regulations for unmanned aircraft will be more restrictive than those currently in place with additional requirements for training, registration and a 400ft/120m height limit. This is comparable with the ‘Open Category’ requirements proposed by EASA."

and this bit

"Negotiations are continuing with the DfT/CAA on a positive basis, to try and ensure that we are allowed to operate largely as we do today and keep the impact of regulations written principally to deal with the ‘drone issue’ to a minimum for UK model flyers. "

Operate largely as we do today, includes country (non-club) members and not having to operate from designated club sites.

Edited By Andy Symons - BMFA on 24/07/2017 19:02:38

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Email News - Join our newsletter

Love Model Aircraft? Sign up to our emails for the latest news and special offers!

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
electricwingman 2017
Airtek Hobbies
Overlander
Expo Tools 14 July
CML
Slec
Wings & Wheels 2018
Gliders Distribution
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
What is the main brand of transmitter you use? (2018)
Q: What is the main brand of transmitter you use?

 FrSky
 Futaba
 Graupner
 HiTec
 Jeti
 JR
 Multiplex
 Spektrum
 Other

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us