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  
David Mellor11/02/2018 10:03:58
avatar
673 forum posts
230 photos

Steve, well I'm glad someone has commented on the AGL/slope problem. It sounds like you are on the case - well done.

I'm a bit shocked to learn that this process has taken 3 years with no response to comments.

Dave

Dave Bran11/02/2018 10:08:42
avatar
1886 forum posts
5 photos
Comparing Shadows
  1. Use this method if you only have a tape measure or ruler. ...
  2. Measure your height. ...
  3. Stand on sunny, flat ground near the tree. ...
  4. Measure the length of your shadow. ...
  5. Measure the length of the tree's shadow. ...
  6. Add 1/2 the tree's width to the length of the tree's shadow.
Dave Bran11/02/2018 10:11:20
avatar
1886 forum posts
5 photos

Comparing Trig distance with yourself

Find a stick the length of your arm. Hold your arm out straight with the stick pointing straight up (90-degree angle to your outstretched arm). Walk backwards until you see the tip of the stick line up with the top of the tree. Your feet are now at approximately the same distance from the tree as it is high (provided the tree is significantly taller than you are, and the ground is relatively level).

Steve J11/02/2018 10:18:22
avatar
647 forum posts
27 photos

David,

  • March 2015 - EU Riga Declaration
  • July 1015 - EASA A-NPA 2015-10
  • August 2016 - EASA prototype regulation
  • December 2016 - DfT consulation
  • May 2017 - EASA NPA 2017-10
  • July 2017 - DfT consultation response
  • November 2017 - EU Helsinki declaration
  • December 2017 - EU council/commission/parliament agreement
  • February 2018 - EASA Opinion 01-2018
  • "Spring 2018" - ANO changes and Drone Bill

Commons Briefing Paper CBP-7734 (August 2017) is a reasonable primer.

Steve

 

Edited By Steve J on 11/02/2018 10:45:34

David Mellor11/02/2018 10:31:28
avatar
673 forum posts
230 photos

Thanks Steve, I'll trawl through them.

I'm not opposed in principle to the legislation.

As a retired scientist it rather suddenly (and belatedly) dawned on me that there is a logical error in using an AGL-ceiling over steep ground if the locus of the measurement moves with the aircraft. It isn't rocket science, but it is definitely wrong and irrational if they proceed on that basis. Fortunately it would also be unenforceable too.

Dave

Martin Harris11/02/2018 10:31:58
avatar
7569 forum posts
188 photos
Posted by David Mellor on 11/02/2018 10:00:25:

cymaz - sheer guess and hope for the best is exactly what I do too. So do we all. I think thats the point.

That's not strictly true. I fly with telemetry and set warnings - and I've experimented with automatic throttle cuts - for the current 400 foot ceiling that we have at our site for 7kg models. While not everyone has this luxury, many radios are now capable and in a club environment, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone to demonstrate the appearance of some different sized models at 120m.

I would certainly like to think that the draft regulations will be implemented in the spirit intended and due regard given to retaining the existing method of measuring slope soaring height limits above point of launch - possibly involving a defined radius of operation?

Some years ago, I took a leaf out of the Dambusters book and made a simple height measuring device - a stick with an eye hole at one end and two adjustable points at the other which could be set for a range of wingspans. Some basic trigonometry provided a scale. The model simply needed to be flown over the observer with the device for the pilot to be informed when he was reaching the desired height. Cost for this was insignificant and any club or individual could knock one up in an hour or so if some means of measurement was insisted on.

A further thought is that the A test could include a height estimate section where a candidate would demonstrate flight at an estimated 100m - not necessarily measured but just to show that they were aware of an approximation of the height limit.

Edited By Martin Harris on 11/02/2018 10:49:08

David Mellor11/02/2018 11:10:57
avatar
673 forum posts
230 photos

I've had a (very) quick trawl through the documents in the list you kindly provided.

There is no recognition (that I could find) that steep terrain and AGL-altitude-ceilings are logically incompatible, even though they plainly are in the case of slope soaring.

So all is well and we needn't be concerned.

If the forthcoming legislation makes no mention of it then it simply isn't a problem for slope soaring. The authorities clearly have much bigger fish to fry.

David Mellor11/02/2018 12:09:27
avatar
673 forum posts
230 photos

 

Quote: "That's not strictly true. I fly with telemetry and set warnings - and I've experimented with automatic throttle cuts - for the current 400 foot ceiling that we have at our site for 7kg models. While not everyone has this luxury, many radios are now capable and in a club environment, it shouldn't be too hard to find someone to demonstrate the appearance of some different sized models at 120m."

 

Martin....what is your altitude telemetry actually measuring? I would think it may be measuring barometric pressure and subsequently calculating an equivalent height above datum. That method works reasonably well over flat ground. But doesn't work well over very steep ground.

 

So whilst you will get a meaningful read-out of altitude flying over a flat field site, the read-out of altitude whilst slope soaring over very steep ground will be largely meaningless. Real-time estimates of altitude based on GPS signal will also be largely meaningless over very steep ground.

 

To be blunt about it, there isn't a practical way to measure the vertical distance between a model plane and very steep ground in real time. Therefore legislation which proscribes a vertical distance greater than 120meters between an aircraft and the ground would be technically impossible to comply with for slope soaring (at least on big slopes).

 

Fortunately I think the answer is simple. The "drone law" isn't actually concerned with this (slope-soaring AGL-altitude) issue at all. So slope-soarers need not worry about it.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By David Mellor on 11/02/2018 12:11:51

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator11/02/2018 13:30:14
avatar
Moderator
15231 forum posts
1407 photos

Just in the interests of accuracy, I didn't say that I thought no one had considered this issues I said that, in my opinion, it had never occured to EASA. No citicism intended but I just wanted the record to be accurate.

To add some information, my club responded to the NPA, the response was largely written by myself with input and comments from a small working group. Being principally a powered flight FW orientated club I'm afriad we did not consider the soaring issues much, although we did make a plea for a "liberal and broad" definition of what constitutes a " flying ste" eligible for registration - that was added specifically to help the case of slope soarers. Our main concerns were about compulsary model registration, Cat A3 overflying (we fly in a public park), banning under 16's etc. I'm relived to see that on just about every issue we raised EASA have moderated their proposals to a position I think we could live with - I'm not claiming that is entirely due to our response! But hopefully we played our small part in swaying EASA along with others.

Altough this was a club response it was entered under my name IIRC. So presumably was one of the 30 cited by SteveJ above. Was that right across all Europe - just 30 individual responses? That's pretty poor for an issue as important as this. Of course the national bodies across Europe will have responded as well, and while that is vital they can't cover every issue (even they don't know every local issue!) and their contribution is added more weight to when we back it up with individual cases. It really is a bit dissapointing that so few bothered. Several of us on here (Steve, ChrisB and myself) all encouraged people to respond and provided the link to follow on numerous occassions whilst the consultation period was open - and indeed, to be fair to EASA, they even extended the deadline for contirbutions. I don't intend to be critical of any individuals here but frankly, as a group, we could and should have done better in my view. Thankfully it looks like we "got away with it" by and large - next time we might not be so lucky.

BEB

David Mellor11/02/2018 13:51:55
avatar
673 forum posts
230 photos

Well done BEB, and thank you for your efforts.

Steve J11/02/2018 13:58:36
avatar
647 forum posts
27 photos
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2018 13:30:14:

So presumably was one of the 30 cited by SteveJ above. Was that right across all Europe - just 30 individual responses?

Page 3 of the Opinion, 215 stakeholders responded, 6% were model associations and 13% individual model aircraft pilots. I assume that the 15% described as UAS operators were commercial entities.

Steve

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator11/02/2018 15:19:24
avatar
Moderator
15231 forum posts
1407 photos

Thanks Steve, I had read that but I'd missed the implications of it, thanks for highlighting it.

BEB

ChrisB11/02/2018 16:33:46
1192 forum posts
34 photos

I think the slope issue is likely to be easily resolved. The height could very easily be based on the point of launch.

In terms of EASA considering all elements of our hobby. They didn't.

They didn't because the regulations don't focus on model flying and its various disciplines, they focus purely on the use of UAS and the civil servants writing the regulations are more than likely not familiar with model aircraft and are just following the instructions of their masters, DFT will be the same.

Steve J11/02/2018 17:20:44
avatar
647 forum posts
27 photos
Posted by ChrisB on 11/02/2018 16:33:46:

the civil servants writing the regulations are more than likely not familiar with model aircraft and are just following the instructions of their masters

Which is why EASA had Dave Phipps and Bruno Delors on the RMT.230 expert group.

Does anybody know who, other than Dave Phipps, is involved in the discussions with the DfT?

Steve

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator11/02/2018 19:18:52
avatar
Moderator
15231 forum posts
1407 photos
Posted by ChrisB on 11/02/2018 16:33:46:

In terms of EASA considering all elements of our hobby. They didn't.

They didn't because the regulations don't focus on model flying and its various disciplines, they focus purely on the use of UAS and the civil servants writing the regulations are more than likely not familiar with model aircraft and are just following the instructions of their masters, DFT will be the same.

I agree entirely, which is exactly why I said it probably never entered their minds.

However I do think our own CAA are possibly very slightly better due to their longer term dialogue with the likes of BMFA - the roots of which very much pre-date this matter. I got the impression, on the occasions I have had to talk to them, that there was genuine concern to provide a good professional service and some interest They are not necessarily "just civil servants" - I believe that some at least work for CAA because they have an interest in aviation generally.

BEBt

cymaz11/02/2018 19:38:18
avatar
7598 forum posts
981 photos

However I do think our own CAA are possibly very slightly better due to their longer term dialogue with the likes of BMFA - the roots of which very much pre-date this matter. I got the impression, on the occasions I have had to talk to them, that there was genuine concern to provide a good professional service and some interest They are not necessarily "just civil servants" - I believe that some at least work for CAA because they have an interest in aviation generally.

BEBt

Thanks BEB , that’s good to know and reassurance.. Better than here in Cornwall, where the Country Councillor in charge of transport doesn’t even own a driving licence! surprise

ChrisB11/02/2018 19:40:03
1192 forum posts
34 photos
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2018 19:18:52:
Posted by ChrisB on 11/02/2018 16:33:46:

In terms of EASA considering all elements of our hobby. They didn't.

They didn't because the regulations don't focus on model flying and its various disciplines, they focus purely on the use of UAS and the civil servants writing the regulations are more than likely not familiar with model aircraft and are just following the instructions of their masters, DFT will be the same.

I agree entirely, which is exactly why I said it probably never entered their minds.

However I do think our own CAA are possibly very slightly better due to their longer term dialogue with the likes of BMFA - the roots of which very much pre-date this matter. I got the impression, on the occasions I have had to talk to them, that there was genuine concern to provide a good professional service and some interest They are not necessarily "just civil servants" - I believe that some at least work for CAA because they have an interest in aviation generally.

BEBt

Certainly those in the CAA are fully aware of the details of aeromodelling. The Civil Servants at the DFT in Whitehall and many at EASA in Germany may well have little or no knowledge. Which ever way they are doing as political masters demand.

Rob Buckley from the LMA has also been in discussion with the DFT.

i12fly11/02/2018 23:28:09
avatar
490 forum posts
21 photos

Ok, So who actually made comments on the NPA as an individual flyer? - Checking this and other Posts I can find:

BEB

Steve J

Dave Bran

me

A fellow club member I bullied (one definite but I think 2)

Mike Blanford

Chris B

Piers Bowlan

So who else commented? It wasn't easy to get to the right webpage -which is why I did a 'simple guide' as to how to get into the system way back in September.

Can we get up to 30? wink

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator11/02/2018 23:50:26
avatar
Moderator
15231 forum posts
1407 photos

Eight out of thirty is pretty impressive on its own.

BEB

cymaz12/02/2018 00:03:46
avatar
7598 forum posts
981 photos

Just registered....will comment later

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
Airtek Hobbies
Slec
electricwingman 2017
Wings & Wheels 2018
Overlander
Expo Tools 14 July
Gliders Distribution
CML
Sarik
Advertise With Us
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