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

Petition EASA Regulations.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
john stones 105/10/2016 14:11:23
avatar
11595 forum posts
1517 photos

Here

Phil Green05/10/2016 14:24:37
avatar
1615 forum posts
343 photos

Well intended John but how can a petition full of errors have any legal standing ?

 

 

Edited By Phil Green on 10/10/2016 09:50:56

john stones 105/10/2016 14:29:20
avatar
11595 forum posts
1517 photos

It came up on our forum Phil so i posted it over here, choice to sign or not is voluntary n my Grandma was never wrong wink

John

Steve J05/10/2016 15:13:37
avatar
1979 forum posts
54 photos

I won't be signing it. IMHO every one of the bullet points is wrong.

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 05/10/2016 15:15:57

Phil Green05/10/2016 17:17:55
avatar
1615 forum posts
343 photos

Me neither. Its poor presentation, grammar and inaccuracy gives a very poor portrayal of its signatories. Better, I think, to wait for a properly formulated response from Aunty BMFA who works via actual connections rather than by hearsay wink


 

Edited By Phil Green on 05/10/2016 17:28:19

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator05/10/2016 17:36:46
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos

Sorry, but I won't sign this either. I agree with many of the points above: its factually incorrect and very poorly presented.

The fact is change is now inevitable. The smart money is on engaging with and influancing the change - not ignoring it , trying to hold back the tide or striking a "little Englander" posture of defiance. This sort of petition represemts an attitude that I believe is not only doomed to failure but is actually counterproductive and potentially makes the situation worse.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/10/2016 17:37:30

Phil Green05/10/2016 23:41:44
avatar
1615 forum posts
343 photos

The DMFV's paper reads very well:

**LINK**

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator05/10/2016 23:51:33
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos
Yes, I agree Phil the German response is very good. Its measured, reasonable and most importantly it's not just a great big "no"! Where they disagree they make positive counterproposals. This sort of sensible balanced approach is far more likely to positively influence EASA than a narrow nationalistic rant!
BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/10/2016 23:52:32

john stones 106/10/2016 00:03:02
avatar
11595 forum posts
1517 photos

Yep it reads o.k what is a legally defined flying site i wonder question

Martin Harris06/10/2016 00:41:58
avatar
9409 forum posts
255 photos

Maybe any site deemed suitable by a recognised club or association?

Toni Reynaud06/10/2016 07:55:56
avatar
424 forum posts
58 photos

I wrote to the EASA on this subject. The reply I got is below. I think that taken with a letter from Dave Phipps of the BMFA (see my next post) that the situation is well in hand and nowhere near as bad as we might have thought a few days ago.

Toni

**************************************************************************

Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.

We had and we are still having intensive discussions on the inclusion of model aircraft in our regulatory proposal, and how to differentiate between a model aircraft and a drone operator flying for leisure.

We are trying to give as much flexibility as we can.

With regard to your query, I would like to refer you for example to Article 15 of the UAS draft proposal (Prototype Rule, for your convenience I report it below). It gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model clubs identifying deviations from the European rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing the model clubs to operate as they do today giving maximum freedom. So if you fly within the remit of a club recognized by your national authority, you do not need to comply with the European rule since we know that a model club already imposes rules providing a sufficient level of safety. Therefore I expect that not much will change for people flying under model clubs rules and no modification could be required to their aircraft.

Still we need to regulate the flight of UAS outside of model clubs and in order to reduce the risk, we defined limitations in energy (weight and speed or level of injury).

 

Regarding model aircraft we are meeting with model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs and with their help we will improve the draft text further, if needed.

 

As you may know we keep aviation safety as high priority and we hope this draft regulation allows the UAS market to develop safely in Europe, without negatively impacting other categories such as the model hobbyist. The purpose of publishing the “prototype” version of the regulatory proposal, while we are still working on it, was exactly to receive comments from all interested stakeholders.

So thank you for sharing your thoughts and I hope my answer helped to show that we do not intend to impede on model or hobby flights.

 

 

Article 15

Transitional provisions

For recreational operations of UA, such as leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities, conducted in the frame of associations or clubs with proven satisfactory safety records and performed under national systems before this Regulation enters into force, the following transitional provisions shall apply:

1. By [3 years after entry into force of this Regulation — estimate 2020], the competent authority shall issue operational authorisations to associations or clubs for the operations which would otherwise require an authorisation according to Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.

2. An operational authorisation can be issued without the need to conduct the operational risk assessment referred to in UAS.SPEC.60.

3. Operational authorisations issued under this Article shall define the conditions, limitations and deviations from the requirements of Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.

 

Best regards,

 

Natale Di Rubbo

Regulation officer – Initial Airworthiness

European Aviation Safety Agency

Edited By Toni Reynaud on 06/10/2016 07:58:43

Toni Reynaud06/10/2016 07:56:26
avatar
424 forum posts
58 photos

From Dave Phipps........

Through Europe Air Sports, we have been working on this for the last year. In actual fact, for the last few months it has been the main focus of my work!

EASA’s intention was to implement rules which would have minimal impact on model flying and they believed that they had achieved this through the provisions in Article 15. However, I disagreed with them. The EASA rulemaking team were taken aback by my response and invited me (along with the FAI) to meet with them a little over a week ago. They acknowledge that they have ‘not got it right’ for model flyers and that there remains a lot of work to do. They have also invited us to work with them directly and suggest revisions which would make the proposals workable which I’m working on at present.

Feel free to respond directly to their comment email address, but they have had a much bigger response than they anticipated (particularly from the UK) and they’ve got the message. Comments to EASA are required by the 15th October.

In parallel (again through Europe Air Sport) I have written some proposed amendments to EASA’s Basic Regulation which have been tabled by a German MEP. The proposals would introduce definitions for model flying and effectively place us in the same Annex as amateur built aircraft (and therefore under national control and free from EASA regulation). The amendments were due to be heard on the 10/11 October but have now been deferred until 9/10 November. Europe Air Sports has a professional lobbyist in the European Parliament who is very active on our behalf directly lobbying the relevant MEP’s. I am also working in collaboration with colleagues from other Associations throughout Europe to ensure that they lobby their own MEP’s directly too. The relevant UK MEP’s appear to support the amendments and one of them (Jacqueline Foster) is a long term supporter whom I’ve worked with previously.

In terms of writing to MP’s & MEP’s as Simon Dale was suggesting, this would be largely wasted endeavour at this stage as the majority of them are not involved. Writing to the specific MEP’s on the European Parliament Transport & Tourism Committee (TRAN) to seek their support for the proposed amendments may be more useful, but we already have a good level of support and there is some concern that if they get a large amount of correspondence then it may be ultimately be counterproductive and cloud the issue at a time when we need to present a very clear message.

EASA are sending out a standard response to comments submitted:

Subject: RE: Flying of Model Aircraft
Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.
We had and are having a big debate on model inclusion in this regulation and how to differentiate between a model and a normal drone operator flying for leisure.
We are trying to give as much flexibility as we can and art 15 of the Prototype Rule gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model associations identifying deviations from the rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing model clubs to operate as they do today and in reality nothing will change for you and no modification will be required to your aircraft.
We are having discussions with Model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs. With their help we will improve the text further if needed.

I attended the same meeting with the CAA and DfT last week which Simon Dale refers to in his video and I was asked to brief the meeting on my direct negotiations with EASA. His comment on the ‘Dear faceless bureaucrat’ email sent to EASA was something I related to the meeting (it was actually ‘Dear faceless civil servant) and was not intended for wider broadcast. We are working closely with the DfT and CAA who are supportive (the CAA provided some input into the presentation I gave to EASA).

Ultimately, the Prototype Rules are just that. There are a number of stages which they would have to pass through to come into force and dependent upon how negotiations progress, then we may seek to mobilise all model flyers throughout Europe to make a mass response. However, this is something I would like to keep the ‘powder dry on’ at this stage.

As you can see from the above, we are not only active on this front but we are leading it (through Europe Air Sports) on behalf of model flyers throughout Europe. There is a lot more going on at present in addition to that outlined above, some of which is quite sensitive and as such I cannot report on just yet.

I hope this helps and gives you some reassurance?

Regards

Dave

Dave Phipps
Chief Executive
(and Technical Officer to Europe Air Sports)

Tel: 0116 2440028
Fax: 0116 2440645
email: admin@bmfa.org

The Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers Limited
T/A The British Model Flying Association
A company limited by guarantee. Registered in England Number 457067
Registered office Chacksfield House, 31 St Andrew's Road, Leicester, LE2 8RE

perttime06/10/2016 08:00:15
avatar
162 forum posts
11 photos

"a legally defined flying site" is probably defined by the "competent authority", whoever that might end up being. I wouldn't bet on every suitable location qualifying.

John Lee06/10/2016 09:12:37
764 forum posts
86 photos

Many thanks Toni

john stones 106/10/2016 10:15:22
avatar
11595 forum posts
1517 photos
Posted by perttime on 06/10/2016 08:00:15:

"a legally defined flying site" is probably defined by the "competent authority", whoever that might end up being. I wouldn't bet on every suitable location qualifying.

Yep not that worried for my own part, if there's a few tweaks i'll keep calm n carry on wink not liking how it may effect those outside club though, but fingers crossed n wait n see.

John

Mannyroad06/10/2016 10:19:57
avatar
185 forum posts
81 photos

What worries me a little about all this is that for a number of years I was a member of a flying club near where I used to live and they have been flying at their site for many many years. So long that they are not required to seek planning permission. The problem they are going to face is that they are not affiliated to the BMFA or any other 'competent authority' and never have been. All members are still required to prove they are members of the BMFA or carry alternative equivalent insurance, must demonstrate flying competence before being allowed to fly solo and must comply with the club's safety rules for flying. However, despite this I am asuming that they will ultimately fall foul of the new regulations that will come into force because they are not affiliated/associated with a 'competent authority'. I fully understand the need for some form of regulation for the scourge of the inexperienced and irresponsible drone flyers but it seems that clubs like the one I used to fly with will now be forced to affiliate with the BMFA, whatever that involves, or suffer. I think it's a shame to force regulation, Association affiliation or licencing on people who already fly responsibly. But there we are.

Edited By Mannyroad on 06/10/2016 10:21:02

Martyn K06/10/2016 10:22:35
avatar
5087 forum posts
3681 photos

I think in the context:

Competent Authority = CAA

Club = BMFA

Martyn

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator06/10/2016 10:26:51
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos

Yes John, I think clubs have relatively little to worry about. Yes there will be a flying site approval process, and there will be one or two additional restrictions - but nothing that matches the "Threat to model flying" banner headlines that some parties have been promoting.

But the same unfortunately cannot be siad for those flying outside of the embrace of a club. Slope soarers, parkfliers and those who just fly at a local flield they have access to will all have issues with this. Let's hope that some compromise can be worked out to allow those activities to continue. But we have to recognise that "compromise" is a two-way street - we will have to be prepared to accept changes in how those sort of activities are run in order to have any hope of continuing them. If we adopt a "die hard" attitude then that is exactly what we'll do - die-hard!

BEB

john stones 106/10/2016 10:34:32
avatar
11595 forum posts
1517 photos

Yep fingers crossed BEB, lots of good law abiding modelflyers that don't belong to a club, might increase club numbers but sad

John

Doug Campbell06/10/2016 10:59:02
106 forum posts
2 photos
I am a country member that has legal access to fly on some meadowland. It looks likely that I will have to break the law to continue flying. What a rediculous state of affairs. Fortunately there won't be the resources to police this.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Sussex Model Centre
CML
electricwingman 2017
Slec
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E!