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

New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

Read and weep for aeromodelling

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Ray Dunn08/06/2018 00:54:51
avatar
32 forum posts
25 photos
Posted by Steve J on 07/06/2018 20:39:50:

On the electronic identification front we currently have -

....

Thanks Steve,

From what I looked through, only FLARN aims to directly connect full size and other traffic, but for drones maybe all they do is issue a unique ID, which is not much help to us.

Others feel more like commercial drone space management linked to full sized only at airfields with receivers.

And everyone doing their own thing 😞

Rich too08/06/2018 06:48:30
avatar
2902 forum posts
1046 photos

edit - life's too short

 

Edited By Rich too on 08/06/2018 07:04:28

Steve J08/06/2018 07:47:20
avatar
1230 forum posts
40 photos
Posted by onetenor on 07/06/2018 23:11:29:

Seeing as how most models are actually or just about invisible at 400 ft why do we want to fly higher?

People fly different things. The majority if my flying is done below 400ft, but I would miss the other bits (thermal soaring, big aeros, flat spins from 1000ft, vertical climbs with overpowered models etc) if I was limited to 400ft.

Steve

Steve J08/06/2018 07:51:15
avatar
1230 forum posts
40 photos
Posted by Ray Dunn on 08/06/2018 00:54:51:

And everyone doing their own thing 😞

I would say that people are still working out what needs to be done and how to do it. Have a look at the FAA report, I would suggest starting with section 6.

Steve

Erfolg08/06/2018 10:21:18
avatar
11238 forum posts
1118 photos

I have now followed MattyB's advice and written a Email to my MP.

In the past I have spoken with Graham Brady, my then MP. He did at least listen. His opponent was not interested, beyond an interest in raising taxes of others.

Cuban808/06/2018 11:28:36
2572 forum posts
12 photos
Posted by Erfolg on 08/06/2018 10:21:18:

I have now followed MattyB's advice and written a Email to my MP.

In the past I have spoken with Graham Brady, my then MP. He did at least listen. His opponent was not interested, beyond an interest in raising taxes of others.

Have followed suit and written to my MP, Will Quince.

Megawatt08/06/2018 11:45:31
19 forum posts

I think I need to challenge the assumption that this legislation is to clear the airspace above 400' for commercial drone ops. Full size aircraft are subject to a 500' rule and it is quite legitimate for them to descend to that height for whatever reason and remain legal. IMO the 400' limit and 1KM from an airfield is to allow separation from full-size aircraft and ensure that any increase in commercial drone ops remains segregated from manned aircraft. We shall be sharing the 0-400' range with them.

Ian Jones08/06/2018 13:40:03
avatar
3218 forum posts
1397 photos
Posted by Megawatt on 08/06/2018 11:45:31:

I think I need to challenge the assumption that this legislation is to clear the airspace above 400' for commercial drone ops. Full size aircraft are subject to a 500' rule and it is quite legitimate for them to descend to that height for whatever reason and remain legal. IMO the 400' limit and 1KM from an airfield is to allow separation from full-size aircraft and ensure that any increase in commercial drone ops remains segregated from manned aircraft. We shall be sharing the 0-400' range with them.

Sounds right to me.

That said, 400' is painfully low. Fly at 200' and pull in a large loop or go up for a good old multi rotation spin (bearing in mind the need to pull out well before the crunch) and it's easy to get up there. As for thermal gliding, 400' is nothing. I've tested all this with GPS telemetry and found it to be so.

I beleive a lot of the fun we freely enjoy at the moment could be affected in such a way that it just won't be worth doing.

I don't suppose they'll be any compensation scheme for those forced to abandon £K's worth of models & equipement.

I hope BEB's optimism turns out to be correct.

Percy Verance08/06/2018 14:19:22
avatar
8109 forum posts
155 photos

Indeed Ian. I occasionally fly with a chap whom is a keen builder of really nice models, and has been for decades. He has stated that if the legislation gets too heavy, he'll just pack it all in.......

And I agree, 400 foot is nowhere near as high as many may think........

Martin Harris08/06/2018 14:45:14
avatar
8671 forum posts
214 photos

I'd support that last statement - I was a little surprised to see comments about it being generous. I have done quite a lot of testing with telemetry equipped models as we fly in controlled airspace with exemption to 400' for 7kg models. My 1/4 scale Cub and Mahers Pacer both need to be flown with care (I have alarms set as well as experimenting with throttle telemetry controls) as it would be very easy to transgress and "normal club sized" models can be fairly close to the limit at what many would judge as 3 mistakes high.

I would say that 400' gives a reasonable height for most normal power flying but little margin for error. I'd advocate telemetry wherever possible and we will need to develop good height judgement by means such as demonstration - and perhaps some Guess The Height of the Model comps? - for the benefit of those without the means to monitor their altitude.

Cuban808/06/2018 18:30:03
2572 forum posts
12 photos

london-eye-on-a-sunny-day-in-winter-england.jpgTo give you some idea of how we're being stuffed if a blanket 400' limit is imposed on us - the London Eye is 443' tall. With a decent aerobatic model or a good sized warbird, you'd easily get to the top of the wheel from time to time and think nothing of it - as for thermal soaring, the top of the wheel is where you'd want to be for starters.

Makes you think?

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 08/06/2018 18:42:17

Devcon108/06/2018 18:43:07
avatar
1358 forum posts
476 photos

Nice perspective C8, I rather doubt any of this hoo-ha will effect us much, maybe a little more admin. Unless of course we do something rather stupid which we tend not to.

I remember the doomsday scenarios forecast for the Southwest of England for the long ago Eclipse and then aircraft falling out of the skies when we turned the corner into the year 2000. (maybe even add Brexit)

Hey Ho

GONZO08/06/2018 20:11:11
avatar
1218 forum posts
13 photos

Electronic identification; I would expect this to report height, heading, track and identification number on a regular basis. Instead of relying on a dedicated nation wide receiver network I would expect that modellers will be required to install an app on their smart phone and the two would be linked(see mention of this in the document linked in OP). Thus, reporting of your aeronautic activities would be reported to a central/regional hub via the phone network. You would then be policing the system yourself and provide all information about any transgressions which could/would be used as evidence in any prosecution.

Former Member08/06/2018 20:30:36

[This posting has been removed]

Steve J08/06/2018 20:45:35
avatar
1230 forum posts
40 photos
Posted by Ikura on 08/06/2018 20:30:36:

Absolute nonsense and more unfounded speculation. To fly a model aeroplane you must have a smart phone?

Correct. Why complicate things with a smart phone when you can simply have the ID in the model speak directly to the cell phone network? I posted links to a couple of such systems on the previous page.

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 08/06/2018 20:47:02

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator08/06/2018 20:59:04
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos
Posted by Ikura on 08/06/2018 20:30:36:
Posted by GONZO on 08/06/2018 20:11:11:

Electronic identification; I would expect this to report height, heading, track and identification number on a regular basis. Instead of relying on a dedicated nation wide receiver network I would expect that modellers will be required to install an app on their smart phone and the two would be linked(see mention of this in the document linked in OP). Thus, reporting of your aeronautic activities would be reported to a central/regional hub via the phone network. You would then be policing the system yourself and provide all information about any transgressions which could/would be used as evidence in any prosecution.

Absolute nonsense and more unfounded speculation. To fly a model aeroplane you must have a smart phone? Good luck with that one. Where do you get all this stuff from?

To get a handle on Gonzo's position, read the thread title. Apparently the 30th May was the end of world for aeromodelling - only it wasn't, and my view it won't be.

BEB

GONZO08/06/2018 22:06:45
avatar
1218 forum posts
13 photos

Ad hominem attacks are not helpful.
New laws being introduced today (30 May 2018) will restrict all drones from flying above 400 feet and within 1 kilometre of airport boundaries.

I read this as the start of the new height limits being the 30/5/2018. Enforcement of this has been speculated on in this thread.

The document mentions the requirement for phones and apps and I projected this information to meet the identification requirements. It could go this way, as well as any other, as a simplified way of contacting the phone network. From the attitude of officialdom in this debacle it would not surprise me that they would expect everyone to have a smartphone regardless. Mine was just a small speculation based on the contents of the document, certainly no wilder than those made by others. I find it amusing when a small speculation is condemned by someone with another speculation stated as a fact. Way back at the start of all this, years ago, I speculated that this would have significant effects on aeromodelling and was roundly condemned by all with a deafening chorus of naïve optimism stating ' it will not have any real effect, we'll carry on much as before'. It would, at this moment in time, appear from comments in this thread that I was at least in part correct when it comes to thermal/slope soaring and aerobatic and larger planes with reported comments that people will just give up the hobby. Of course a sudden outbreak of charitable good will towards aero modellers my break out in 'officialdom' and grant us no end of concessions. I gave you the link to the document with a few comments and everyone can make of it what they will. My speculations are as valid as others, only time will tell who's right. But, regrettably, it seems to be going this old cynical sceptics way at the moment.

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator08/06/2018 23:21:03
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos

We'll see Gonzo, we'll see. The "fat lady" has not sung yet.

BEB

Steve J09/06/2018 07:23:33
avatar
1230 forum posts
40 photos
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/06/2018 23:21:03:

The "fat lady" has not sung yet.

She may not have started singing, but she is about to walk onto stage with the song sheet that the DfT published last July.

Steve

Cuban809/06/2018 10:30:24
2572 forum posts
12 photos

So, boiling all this down to a brown mess in the bottom of the pan...........are the powers that be, concerned that our lawful activities as we have carried them out up to now, and if allowed to continue as such, risk coming into close conflict or collision with unmanned commercial vehicles and will therefore pose a danger to property, life and limb?

If the answer is in the affirmative, then exactly which of those commercial operations are potentially at risk from us? A blanket answer of 'all commercial operations' no matter what, seems wrong, because as has been pointed out, some commercial operations are carried out in a localised environment and within their operator's LOS (surveying, agricultural work, photography as a few examples among many others). How will a model aeroplane be a risk to such operations, when it's abiding by the rules that have existed up to now? I'd be very happy to be informed.

That leaves us with the commercial, fully autonomous (drone) machines that are predicted to be so ubiquitous by appearing overhead (presumably) at a frequency similar to vans on our roads today, that some conventional logistics will be seriously diminished to the point of being uneconomic.

Is the current fear that model aeroplanes will be entering an environment so dominated by machines from Amazon, Google and others, that collisions will be inevitable without the new restrictions on us? Has there been any real investigation and challenges to the validity of the huge drone business expansion claims by the companies? What then, if the predictions actually turn out to be as good as 'electricity to cheap to meter', humans on Mars by 2000, supersonic transport for the masses etc? What good will come of implimenting the rules now on aeromodelling?

 

 

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 09/06/2018 10:35:11

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
Cambridge Gliding Club
Wings & Wheels 2019
Gliders Distribution
Addlestone Models
CML
Pepe Aircraft
Slec
electricwingman 2017
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Does your club have a safety officer?
Q: Does your club have a safety officer, or is the emphasis on individual members to each be their own safety officer?

 Yes we have a SO
 No, it's down to everyone

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us