Latest on EASA Drone Regs

[graeme jones]

More indoor flying it is then. On the plus side the proposed National Flying Centre won't need so much land. One large hangar should be more than adequate.

Graeme

[cymaz]

I get it now. The NFC will be the only place in the UK you will be able to fly RC. You must be in the Bmfa for insurance, you must be in the bmfa to fly at the site and you must pay extra for the privilege. Or am I being too cynical?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Do you need to be a pessimist to be a model flyer? Yes, there's a serious threat on the horizon but as far as I can see, this is just a proposal and open to discussion and amendment. It appears that "our" representatives (assuming most of us are BMFA members - and of course, they work on everyone's behalf on issues like this, not just the ordinary members and the DJ wearing AGM diners) are fully aware of the impending legislation and already lobbying hard to reduce or nullify any impact on our hobby.

The CAA has been a pretty enlightened legislator over the years and the BMFA seems to have developed a good working relationship with them. I've had recent negotiations with NATS on local airspace requests and found them refreshingly pleasant and reasonable to work with.

Meanwhile, we can play our part by being seen to be responsible enthusiasts and sticking together to provide a united front. Maybe (and I'm far from totally convinced) the ongoing establishment of the NFC might just add an impression of a well structured and responsible organisation?

In summary, while concerned, I'm not unduly worried at this time.

[graeme jones]

I've just read quickly through the Explanatory Notes. It reminded me of reading the latest batch of Head Office Memos in my former life as a Civil Servant. In those memos it was usually clear that the writer had no experience of actually doing the job, at least not recently. In the same way it is obvious that the writer(s) of the Explanatory Notes is not a model pilot. There seem to be only 2 practical points that will affect most of us if this becomes legislation -

1. Every pilot to be registered. How this would affect a youngster flying a chuck-glider in his local park isn't at all clear. What sanction would be visited upon unregistered pilots?

2. All models would be limited to flying at a maximum of 150 metres a.g.l. How we would measure that isn't clear. What would happen if said chuck-glider caught a thermal and made it above the 150 metre ceiling isn't clear. Again, what sanction would befall anyone flying above the limit?

It's all a load of nonsense.

Graeme

[Don Fry]

But it raises passions on a hot afternoon, and mods be aware, the weather is breaking, so a bunch of grumpy old gits with nowt to do, have their only route to raised passions raised.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 12/09/2016 14:16:53:

Posted by Devcon1 on 12/09/2016 13:21:18:

unless I'm wrong it appears to proscribe a 50m height limit to all UAV's unless the UAV is fitted with the following at which the limit goes up to 150m

Forget the Open category. It appears to be for off the shelf items and and sub 250g toys. Under this regulation, most model flying as we know it will be in the specific category.

Steve

According to the EASA document, "Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft", the maximum take off mass (MTOM) for the Open category with limited legislation is proposed to be 25 kg which seems to more than cover existing model aircraft (as we all know, >20 kg up to 150 kg models are regarded as small aircraft and administration is currently devolved to the LMA). The greatest threat seems to be the 150m height limit - but this is higher than the majority of model flying operates at and would be mainly a matter of concern for <7 kg glider flyers - and I'm sure good cases against this will be put forward by Dave Phipps and the BMFA.

P.S. From the same document:

3.6.3. ‘Special provisions for operations such as model aircraft’ Today, there are many operations of vehicles below 150 kg that will be impacted by an extension of European regulation, e.g. the operation of model aircraft. These operations are rarely seen as aviation and have limited effect on traditional aviation and the safety record under the current regulatory regime seems to be acceptable. In case these operations are not covered within the ‘open’ category, [as far as I can see, they are!] it is intended to ‘grandfather’ the national or local arrangements; this can be done, for example, by issuing specific authorisations to model-flying associations based on the existing procedures. 

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/09/2016 18:12:01

[Devcon1]

At one level, no pun intended, I think nothing will change in terms of how breaking height limits are managed as most existing equipment is at the mercy of the operator. What the proposed new regs seems to imply is that it will be achieved by forcing manufacturers to build into the equipment all the limits and restrictions if the goods are to be legally sold in the EU. There are some proposed phase in dates that seem to look at 2020 as implementation.

[kc]

BEB said " Throwing some of our number to the wolves is not a solution! " But surely it is the solution -it's the drone flyers and particularly the FPV drone flyers that are the perceived problem? If it wasn't for them we would not be having this discussion. All this has arisen because the rich and powerful don't want to be spied upon and they don't want to be targetted by terrorists. If the BMFA said that their ( our) insurance doesn't cover FPV flyers they would not be insured. The BMFA would be able to say to the various governments "ban uninsured flying and ban camera carrying aircraft"" then the problem would go away.

It seems it was difficult enough to get insurance for simple RC flying so probably getting a separate insurance for drones would be near impossible for individuals. So they would not be able to get insurance so just banning uninsured flying would solve the problem. As it is the drone flyers are able to latch on to the existing BMFA insurance and eventually they will wreck our hobby.

If we make an absolute distinction between normal RC flying without cameras and flying a camera carrying drone then we can say it's not us it's the drones. The BMFA should only represent the interests of normal RC flyers plus control line and free flight. Leave the drone flyers to arrange their own organisation and insurance and let them negotiate with government for their interests.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

FPVUK provide insurance (cheaper than BMFA insurance) for FPV flying and LOS.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

KC, like too many others in model flying you subscribe to the

"how can we exclude anyone who is isn't just like me"

philosophy. Well let me initiate you into two simple truths:

1. The more we fragment the weaker we get. Remember Paster Martin Niemoller?

2. As a recent thread on here graphically demostrated "traditional model flyers", (the guys you'd class as like you) are perfectly capable of acting completely irresponsibly, breaching the ANO and videoing themselves doing it! No one has a monopoly on acting like a prat!

So maybe a little more thought about this might help eh?

BEB

PS I think the post by Martin Harris above is the most sensible assessment I've seen on here so far - a lot of common sense in there - I agree with your assessment - though I have a slightly lower level of confidence in the BMFA's effectiveness!

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 12/09/2016 22:42:23

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Thanks BEB - it is easy for someone uninterested in multi rotors to fall into the "it's all their fault - ban 'em and all our troubles will go away" camp. I know - I've felt that way myself...

However, there are too many cross-overs of the technology and the layman's perception of the hobbies (I do class them as separate interests in the same way that I have only a passing interest (now) in free-flight, control line etc.) to try to distance ourselves from MRs as operated by the great unwashed. I welcome the induction of FPV racing to the BMFA which shows the responsible and sporting sides of their operation. Hopefully there will be a greater proportion of videos uploaded to Youtube showing FPV operation conforming to the law as a result!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[gliggsy]

Heard s​one strange points of view here, some folk think that banning something makes the problem go away, a bit like heroin, drink driving, speeding and anything else that's been banned...the problem just vanished

[ChrisB]

Quite simple. Place a weight limit say 5kg on maximum height in defined/undefined airspace as is the case now.

Define Drones and model aircraft.

Something along the lines of

Drone: A non-fixed wing aircraft powered by more than 2 rotors and/or an aircraft equipped with FPV, GPS or RTH.

Model Aircraft: A fixed wing aircraft with no method of self propulsion, or fitted/powered with 1 or more propellers or a single or twin rotor aircraft (helicopter). Not fitted with FPV, GPS or RTH.

Drones can't fly with less than 3 rotors possibly a minimum of 4 and heli's generally have 1 rotor, or 2 contra-rotating in the case of a tailless or Chinook. Most model aircraft are fixed wing, ether PSS or single or multi's with no automation.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

But the word "drone" deos not equal "multi-rotor"!!!

At least 30-50% of all the professional missions we fly are fixed wing! So under your definition Chris they are all "model aircraft"! Martin H is right - we are imitimately bound together, you cannot separate this on technological grounds. We sink or swim together. Hence why "throwing them to the wolves" isn't a good idea.

Also Chris, part of your definition (relating to FPV etc) already exists ie "a SUSA" - A small unmanned surveilance aircraft" as defined in the ANO. Check it out.

Has anyone also considered that given the Riga Protocol signed last year by the leaders of the EU and the official commitment of the EU through EASA to expand UAV use and see Europe as a "world leader in this technology and use", we might even be able to gain more rights through the process in return for accepting some extra regulation? But hey, that would require being able to see beyond the "the big bad EU and nasty foriegner" stereotype and possibly even perceiving that the glass just might be half full - not half empty; and we couldn't have that could we?

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Actually here is another, and in my view more powerful, reason for not throwing them to the wolves,...

It is them (ie the professional UAV operators) that EASA wants - not us!

We might need them, so we can sit on their coat tails to illegitimise what we are doing. Now that's going to be a bit tricky with all thise "clear blue water" you want to put between us isn't it?

We're in a new world - we need to use our heads not our hearts. Gut reactions to break up and fragment involving cutting people out are highly counter productive. Heavens even the BMFA understand that! They have this initiative to bring a Pan European alliance into play - strength in numbers as I say. Yes "Europeans" wow! If they have any sense they'll ensure that body has good and cooperative links with the Professional UAV bodies in Europe as well - as we might need them!

BEB

[Piers Bowlan]

BEB, your views on this subject are well known but sadly I must disagree! Firstly and controversially, I think that aerial photography should be left to the licenced professionals like yourself. Why, I hear you ask? The problem is not RPAS per se but cameras on RPASs. EASA say that they can't differentiate between a 'drone' (either MR or fixed wing) and a model aircraft so therefore their unworkable proposed legislation will apply to all. As Martin points out there is cross over of technology (Stabilisation/GPS/ telemetry etc.) so one can understand that point of view to some extent. However some 'prats', as BEB so eloquently puts it, fly irresponsibly because they can capture some 'awesome footage' and post it on uTube and social media for their own egocentric gratification. That is not to say that these people will continue to fly irresponsibly even without a camera recording their foolishness and they will still be in breach of the ANO. There will always be 'prats' and the proposed legislation won't change that.

So what if you want to take pictures/video from your model or take part in quad racing? Then (in my world) as you have a camera fitted to your aircraft you will be subject to the new EASA regulations and all that that involves.

To clarify, I suggest that if you fit your scale Tiger Moth, for instance, with a camera you are flying a 'drone' and subject to EASA's new regulations. Conversely if you fly your MR without a camera you are flying a model aircraft and simply subject to the restrictions of the ANO that currently apply. This may seem counter intuitive perhaps but ask yourself the question, would any of these high profile 'incidents' occur were it not for cameras? As far as drones being a potential threat by terrorists, well, criminals aren't going to register their semtex carrying drones with EASA now are they? This legislation won't improve security. So BEB, I am not anti-MR or anti-cameras, lets be clear on that.

I have little doubt that this prototype legislation will become law and will affect us all in the fullness of time unless we are able to put some clear blue water between 'drones' and model aircraft. The clear blue water is the carnage of cameras in my view (DVR, Stills, or FPV).

So, yes BEB, I have applied a little more thought to this!

[Shaunie]

Bit short of time but briefly, what if we classified not by aircraft type but by the purpose of the flight.

1. Where the purpose of the flight is primarily for the pleasure and skill of flying the craft itself.

2. Where the purpose of the flight is primarily to capture imagery i.e. placing the camera at a height above the ground.

The Genie is out of the box as far as multirotors are concerned, it cannot be put back, ignored or thrown to the dragons.

Unfortunately legislation like this is often created by someone who has little knowledge (apart from some brief research) about the practice they wish to regulate. They listen sagely to all the representations from the interested parties, say "thank you for that" and then go and do something completely inappropriate in an attempt to "improve" on what they have been told.

Commercial aircraft operators are running scared and want to nip drone flying in the bud as hard as they can. They also have a lot of clout and can keep banging the safety drum with many people hearing it. The fact that in many cases so called drone events are being wildly overemphasized does not help. The legislation we have is already fit for purpose in my eyes, it just needs enforcing effectively, regardless of aircraft type, dangerous flying is dangerous flying. It's just that at the moment it's more likely to be a drone flown in an inappropriate place.

Another problem is the massive infrastructure that is the lawmakers who need to justify their own existence, they are a law factory if you like. They would not be doing themselves any favours if they were to say "we have all the laws we need" would they?

Shaunie.

Edited By Shaunie on 13/09/2016 11:19:15

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

There is a lot in what you say Piers I can fully agree with. Indeed your suggestion that any UAV (let's avoid the word "drone" carrying a camera (or any other surviellance device not intended to aid to aid flight - so a GPS wouldn't count for example) should be subject to stricter restrictions was exactly the sort of thing I had in mind in my previous post when I raised this exact possibility.

But,...this would require us (the modelling fraterity) to accept additional restrictions, and bear in mind, in a recent poll on here, the tthe majority firmly set their faces against any further restrictions, regulations or licencing. So, while we may see this as a workable compromise that protects model flying, we appear to be in a minority at the moment! Although that may change as reality dawns!

BEB

[Jack Banner]

I do wish people would listen to BEB a little more carefully, he speaks a lot of sense.

The changes that are being forced upon us are the inevitable results of a minority activity being dragged into the limelight as it becomes more mainstream through both commercial exploitation and a raised media focus. UAV's are now dominating the military and will be doing the same in civilian life very shortly.

I think it is critical that all radio control aircraft enthusiasts and professional operators come together to agree workable legislation before an unworkable solution is thrust upon us. Should a major accident or terrorist act involving an UAV happen before the legislation is finalised then the resulting clamp down will be even more severe. And it will affect everyone, not just the people who like the particular flavour of UAV that was involved.

Scale, sport, 3D, Heli's, multi-rotors, Auto-Gyro's, Jets, gliders, FPV racers: We are all in it together.

[John F]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 13/09/2016 10:30:13:

To clarify, I suggest that if you fit your scale Tiger Moth, for instance, with a camera you are flying a 'drone' and subject to EASA's new regulations. Conversely if you fly your MR without a camera you are flying a model aircraft and simply subject to the restrictions of the ANO that currently apply.

There is already a belief that having a camera is the issue whereby non camera fitted aircraft are OK. Sadly this is making light of, and not understanding, the issue and trying to categorise due to myth becoming rumour then fact.

All model aircraft, multi rotor, fixed wing and rotary can all be used with just GPS as well as vehicle mounted IR sensors which are not classified as cameras but can be used for nefarious purposes, if required, but that isn't the issue.

The issue is general security and privacy which is secondary very much to safety, which takes precedent. To think otherwise is just believing the hype and rumour as all the aircraft that we fly, be it a multi rotor machine, rotary, fixed wing, model hang gliders or a foamie all pose exactly the same risks in terms of safety, security, privacy etc, etc.

It doesn't matter what we fly, what matters is how we fly.

[ChrisB]

 

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/09/2016 10:02:11:

But the word "drone" deos not equal "multi-rotor"!!!

At least 30-50% of all the professional missions we fly are fixed wing! So under your definition Chris they are all "model aircraft"! Martin H is right - we are imitimately bound together, you cannot separate this on technological grounds. We sink or swim together. Hence why "throwing them to the wolves" isn't a good idea.

Also Chris, part of your definition (relating to FPV etc) already exists ie "a SUSA" - A small unmanned surveilance aircraft" as defined in the ANO. Check it out.

Has anyone also considered that given the Riga Protocol signed last year by the leaders of the EU and the official commitment of the EU through EASA to expand UAV use and see Europe as a "world leader in this technology and use", we might even be able to gain more rights through the process in return for accepting some extra regulation? But hey, that would require being able to see beyond the "the big bad EU and nasty foriegner" stereotype and possibly even perceiving that the glass just might be half full - not half empty; and we couldn't have that could we?

BEB

These are new regulations. Therefore new definitions can be created.

I suspect a set of regs will be published and monitored for 3 years, during which time the scene will be monitored to see if the rules are affected and annexes and amendments will be made or detailed guidance will be published to accompany the regulations.

My feeling is they are yet to fully understand aero modelling and until that happens we will remain as is.

I remain of my view that drones are different to model aircraft. They are used for different purposes. Building and flying a tiger moth ..the full size in miniature is completely different to flying a multi rota with a camera fitted. One has been built and is flown to replicate the world In miniature and is flown by hand with no automated flight yes they can be fitted, but most people want to fly by hand maybe with a gyro but not autopilot type flying and one is assembled and flown with some automation and predominately used for filming.

The intentions and aims are very different.

Edited By ChrisB on 13/09/2016 18:02:19

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Might be some more news after 10/11 October if/when they vote on the amendments, can't come soon enough for me, by the time some of you've done defining model flyers there'll very few left.

[Erfolg]

Having read the various links, I am left with the impression that the humble paper dart, in addition to the toy chuck glider, will not be able to be flown in the park.

I am also guessing that kites will also fall foul of the proposed regulations?

If models have to be flown within the club environment, i can only see a short at worst or a long lingering death for aeromodelling. It seems that new clubs can never be formed, or with great difficulty, as there is no track record.

I accept that England at least will leave the EU, although I cannot but notice that many EU regulations are interpreted and implemented in wildly differing requirements. Taking the domestic electricity, Scotland requiring a competent person as the installer, England requiring a licenced person and a barrage of documents. It is similar in other areas across the EU. On that basis a lot depends on the government and regulator. I am certain that once a payment is required, more than likely the cost will continue to escalate.