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  
i12fly24/07/2017 22:57:36
avatar
505 forum posts
21 photos

Good points CrisB but BMFA are keeping us updated well in my view. Remember that the meetings​ with EASA and government are spaced out by months, so there is nothing to report in between.

Unfortunately some of the posters need to read all the posts to understand what it's all about. It is going to happen and we need to support BMFA añd LMA to get the best outcome they can. Constructive criticism is fine. BMFA have saved model flying before and will do so again but things are going to change it is inevitable.

As I said before, BMFA àre up against some powerful stakeholders and they will only succeed by exploiting loopholes and forming alliances. It's the way Europe works.

Sorry abóut the accents, I'm 100% English but my tablet thinks otherwise

Erfolg24/07/2017 22:58:43
avatar
10929 forum posts
1042 photos

Chris

I am not sure that i see the issue in terms of being a fan or otherwise. You are certainly correct in believing that I want the BMFA to urgently  restructure many aspects of its operations. The intention to make the organisation relevant to its members.

This is not what we are discussing now.

Informing the membership of the issues that the UK Government were considering and organising a independent response of the membership to the invitation to respond via the consultation process, Not having Guided the members to a focussed understanding of the issues, is a opportunity missed.

Repeating my general thrust, not enough is said about the issues and proposed solutions by the EASA. BEB has written far more about interpreting the proposals of the EASA and the possible options of implementation, than the BMFA.

I have no doubt that both the BMFA representative and the European interest group are doing the best that they possibly can for all of the modellers. Yet the BMFA is telling us little, beyond the cut and paste repetition of the EASA press releases.

This broad issue is a real "Day Job" function for the BMFA if there ever was one. Rather than see this area as one just for the top table, local areas need to be encouraged to discuss what are the issues as seen by the representatives of the BMFA and others. The aim being to keep us all informed and engaged to respond constructively to any invitations to submit views to any consultation processes or any other opportunity.

A lot is going on, by both the UK Government and the EASA. I openly admit my understanding is limited, with respect to what the clauses, sub clauses might mean. Again BEB has attempted to provide his interpretation of how these could be implemented. I would like to see the BMFA do the same and more, openly to all.

This is what the BMFA is for, amongst other less important things..

 

Edited By Erfolg on 24/07/2017 23:00:32

ChrisB24/07/2017 23:24:14
1212 forum posts
34 photos

Erfolg, I think its one of those things where at the moment there isn't a great deal of detail and everything is up in the air..no pun intended. Legislation tends to be a long and drawn out affair with multiple options for this, that or the other.

From what iIve read the key elements are possible altitude and registration requirements.

Not a lot more to say for now.

KELL24/07/2017 23:29:39
avatar
20 forum posts

Well I for one put my hopes for the future of our great hobby in the hands of the BMFA. After all it's in their interest too that we can carry on. I'm sure there will be changes, but we've had them in the past. It's up to all flyers to keep up with the news and inform other club members at your own meetings. Now tomorrow evening is my own club flying evening so I hope there's no new rules on running a BBQ and cooking burgers. Happy landings everybody

ChrisB24/07/2017 23:39:08
1212 forum posts
34 photos

Did someone say BBQ?? Now that's what being in a club is all about!!!!..Never mind this flying lark. cake beer

Erfolg25/07/2017 12:54:41
avatar
10929 forum posts
1042 photos

I was considering the comments made by BEB, that leaving the EU will have no impact on the UK signing into EASA rules.

I am not sure that is true in a absolute sense. I accept that the UK is near to certain to maintain its membership of the organisation. Although it could withdraw, it is most unlikely to do so. That is as long as the EU does not intend to impose its legal jurisdiction via the EASA to non EU members.

Perhaps more significantly, it will provide the UK legislators and regulators with the option of implementing the clauses within the final document, where the detail is left to the national regulators, as they see to be appropriate to the UK. As with so many things, this does not necessarily mean that what is implemented is better for us, than a EU issued diktat, although I would be hopeful.

I sincerely hope that the view that little is really happening is true. Although i am saddened that the recent UK Government Consultation opportunity seems to have been missed by the BMFA. Foe me these are bread and butter issues. There is no point in planning for the future, if there is no today.

These days I do some things for the BMFA, I am pleased to do so. I am far more interested in services and support to the ordinary membership, that fly for the simple pleasure of seeing their model flying. I have no time for the view, that only certain committees can address certain issues and so on, theses views and processes of the past I want to see changed, so that ordinary members do see past insurance with respect to the BMFA.

MattyB08/02/2018 17:09:50
avatar
1806 forum posts
27 photos

Latest announcement from the BMFA...

I think this does look a little better than before. As noted registration of individual models is gone, and it looks like Country members of the BMFA and other associations that are not members of a club will come out better as the wording has changed to:

"...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities."

It also sounds like those operating at shared public access locations (such as the vast majority slope and thermal sites) should be able to continue to do so providing they utilise a smartphone app to notify the authorities they are doing so. The 120m limit is going to be a killer for thermal soaring though.

Ultimately it seems it will all come down to the relationship between the BMFA, LMA etc and the CAA. Even if we get a good deal initially there will always remain the risk that incidents could cause a rethink/reinterpretation at the CAA, especially if they are put under political pressure. The BMFA and others will have to remain constantly vigilant from now on to protect our right to fly in the long term.

Erfolg08/02/2018 19:28:08
avatar
10929 forum posts
1042 photos

Matty, as is indicated in the text, a lot more water has to flow under the bridge before there is any clarity. As indicated how the UK is managed is both down to the fine print and how the text is interpreted.

Perhaps what I see as better news is that the BMFA is informing the members about the state of the game of play. No real new news is better than being in the dark. It also helps to manage our expectations to realistic levels.

I had thought for some time that thermal gliding was destined to experience issues. That any exemptions to the 400 foot issue would be few, and probably limited to specific situations, requiring a dispensation.

The best news is that it is the flyer that will be registered rather than the models. I am hoping that the cost can be contained within the BMFA membership fee, with little extra cost. The fly in the ointment could be for entrants into the hobby, how and when do they gain registration, particularly if the process generates a barrier, particularly if it is overly restrictive.

Steve J09/02/2018 09:07:02
avatar
691 forum posts
29 photos
Posted by Erfolg on 08/02/2018 19:28:08:

a lot more water has to flow under the bridge before there is any clarity.

I disagree. IMHO, the publication of Opinion 01-2018 marks the start of the endgame.

Steve

Erfolg09/02/2018 10:03:38
avatar
10929 forum posts
1042 photos

Steve, it all depends what you consider to be an end game.

So far very little in concept has apparently changed from the initial positions. IMO it is the detail and interpretation of that detail matters.

For me that is not the end game, the endgame is the implementation of agreed rules, relationships, all embodied in UK laws and regulations.

In essence it does not matter what I or you think, the story continues. I am just pleased that the BMFA is providing updates.

Piers Bowlan09/02/2018 10:13:17
avatar
1310 forum posts
36 photos
Posted by MattyB on 08/02/2018 17:09:50:

"...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities."

What slightly irritates me is the 'so far' bit. Either model flying has a good safety record or it hasn't, the 'so far' is superfluous. Model flying has been going for over a hundred years, the so far bit sounds like they are saying it has only just become popular. Why should model flying suddenly not continue to have a good safety record, with or without the proposed legislation?

Am I being oversensitive? (probably!)

Gordon Whitehead 109/02/2018 10:20:03
avatar
238 forum posts
120 photos
Posted by MattyB on 08/02/2018 17:09:50:

<snip>The 120m limit is going to be a killer for thermal soaring though.<snip>

120m will be a severe restriction on any model flyer, electric, fuel or glider, who indulges in reasonably complex aerobatics.

I regularly flew under a height limit of 300ft at one venue shared with an RAF Air Training Corps glider sqn and it was a pain. I invested in height telemetry so that my little Wren 44-powered Nano Boomerang jet would let me know when I was approaching and risking exceeding that height. 300ft, ie 100 yds, is nothing to a model that will reach a telemetry-recorded 120 mph straight and level and will reach that height in seconds even in a shallow climb. And 120mph max is a slow jet.

The 400ft height limit I have to employ when I fly my over-7kg but much slower Bucker Jungmeister (it weighs 8kg) at my current club field which is located within the Manchester airport ATC zone is just as much of an annoyance. The Jungie has height telemetry too.

If the 400ft limit mentioned by Matty is to be a universal restriction, it seems to me that rtf models won't be properly rtf unless they have some form of height telemetry feedback ready-fitted.

Gordon

Erfolg09/02/2018 11:46:28
avatar
10929 forum posts
1042 photos

Gordon, it is this type of issue that still concerns me. At first sight 400 foot appears to be workable, if a little restrictive. The devil that could be in the detail, is if we are all required to have some form of warning, and or cut off, maybe a dethermaliser for FF and so on.

As one who also flew for years in the Manchester ATC area, with thermal gliders, I and we would often be a dot in the sky. Never once causing any danger to full size aircraft. Now that apps are available on Android phones that provide the height etc of commercial aircraft overflying the patch, they all seem to be at + a couple of thousand feet although just having left Ringway which is probably 7 or so miles away as the crow flies.

Yet I do not think we will get the height limit increased, however hard we push, as it appears to be universal throughout Europe as a value.

MattyB09/02/2018 12:45:18
avatar
1806 forum posts
27 photos

Posted by MattyB on 08/02/2018 17:09:50:

"...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities."

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 09/02/2018 10:13:17:

What slightly irritates me is the 'so far' bit. Either model flying has a good safety record or it hasn't, the 'so far' is superfluous. Model flying has been going for over a hundred years, the so far bit sounds like they are saying it has only just become popular. Why should model flying suddenly not continue to have a good safety record, with or without the proposed legislation?

Am I being oversensitive? (probably!)

Good spot. Goes back to my final point in the original post - even if we get a good deal from the CAA that agreement will remain at risk from legislative creep in the long term. The 120m limit is another example - initially it may be approved with no mandatory telemetry system required, but all it needs is one incident/near miss and the law could be changed mandating that kit be carried.

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator09/02/2018 13:20:59
avatar
Moderator
15409 forum posts
1409 photos

I feel this constitutes generally good news, in the context of the situation. For those who fly within a club at least. this is much better than it might have been. I could broadly live with this as an outcome.

BEB

Cuban809/02/2018 13:37:15
2030 forum posts
3 photos

Have to disagree with the blanket 120M restriction. IMO, it's unnecessary and unenforceable.

ChrisB09/02/2018 14:01:02
1212 forum posts
34 photos
Posted by Cuban8 on 09/02/2018 13:37:15:

Have to disagree with the blanket 120M restriction. IMO, it's unnecessary and unenforceable.

It’s not ideal, but the CAA will be capable of delegating authority for an increase and I expect that will happen in the main.

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator09/02/2018 14:29:23
avatar
Moderator
15409 forum posts
1409 photos
Posted by ChrisB on 09/02/2018 14:01:02:
Posted by Cuban8 on 09/02/2018 13:37:15:

Have to disagree with the blanket 120M restriction. IMO, it's unnecessary and unenforceable.

It’s not ideal, but the CAA will be capable of delegating authority for an increase and I expect that will happen in the main.

I agree. If you are flying at a recognised club site and not in controlled airspace I think you would get permission for a local enhanced altitude.

BEB

Steve J09/02/2018 15:24:37
avatar
691 forum posts
29 photos
Posted by Cuban8 on 09/02/2018 13:37:15:

Have to disagree with the blanket 120M restriction.

"Model aircraft clubs and associations strongly requested the 120 m height limitation to be withdrawn and to leave the definition of the height limitation to the MSs, if such a limitation is necessary. EASA is not in favour of this proposal, since the limitation to 120 m is a key requirement to separate UAS from manned aircraft, and the deletion of this separation would be badly perceived by manned aviation. Article 6 on the establishment of special zones can be used to allow model aircraft flyers to fly their model aircraft higher than 120 m." (Opinion 01-2018)

Steve

Cuban809/02/2018 15:46:31
2030 forum posts
3 photos

So are we saying that UK clubs will be able to rely on 'grandfather rights' on the 120M figure, granted to them by our authorities?

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! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Motion RC
CML
Expo Tools 14 July
Wings & Wheels 2018
Slec
Airtek Hobbies
Gliders Distribution
electricwingman 2017
Overlander
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