Read and weep for aeromodelling
|ken anderson.||09/06/2018 10:40:16|
8415 forum posts
you'll be amazed when you see a normal model at 400 ft.one of my friends who has his model equipped with telemetry put his craft at 400 ft and surprise it was really low in comparison to what I thought it would be like. The glider lads are going to be done for...if you are up on a slope that already is a few 100ft above sea level...and you have to adhere to 400ft above ground level!...…. how its going to be policed is any bodies guess...the wasters will still do what they want and it'll reflect upon us no doubt....we had an ex policeman going by our site with his DJI backpack,when it was mentioned to him about the ins and outs-he replied that nobody would tell him where he could and couldn't fly!
ken anderson...ne...1.....400ft dept.
|Ray Dunn||09/06/2018 10:46:12|
32 forum posts
Here is the current prohibitively expensive, already approved, answer to my aircraft transponder question, to make aircraft aware of my presence. (Courtesy of the BARCS thread.) So it does already exist:
£1150, 20gm, 500ma
Might also need the plug compatable high resolution altimeter 😞
Light aircraft I can hear coming for miles and they often pootle around at relatively low altitude, viewing the local villages. You can judge how close and low from their tone and I have landed before they arrive on several occasions. The Red Arrows in relatively quiet jets flying low level are a completely different matter...
If push came to shove, then negotiating a bulk purchase might be the way forward. Hopefully cheaper units are in the pipeline.
|Martin Harris||09/06/2018 11:27:04|
8671 forum posts
The height limit is supposed to be above the launch height so if you're standing atop an 800' hill, you have the freedom to fly to 1200' above sea level in the vicinity of the hill (these rules already exist for >7kg gliders and other larger models without specific exemptions).
I suspect policing will be mostly by punitive action in the event of an accident (or as the result of complaints raised). Any defence of being reasonably sure that the flight could have been completed safely will be nullified if you are above the height limit.
An interesting (if probably irrelevant) point is that full sized gliders are exempt from the normal 500' distance requirements from persons, vehicles, vessels and structures while hill soaring. It does illustrate that air law has historically been sympathetic to differing requirements in specific cases.
Edited By Martin Harris on 09/06/2018 11:28:32
|Steve J||09/06/2018 13:58:11|
1230 forum posts
One of these topics would not be complete without somebody posting that link to the uAvionics Ping...
|Dave Rose||09/06/2018 16:50:50|
|64 forum posts||
Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:51:50
Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:53:56
|Ray Dunn||09/06/2018 17:42:56|
32 forum posts
For us glider enthusiasts in particular, we seem to enter limboland in August unless the CAA give us something definite and their only commitment seems to be for late next year.
|john stones 1||09/06/2018 18:40:34|
10426 forum posts
I am gonna assume you've all written your pearls of wisdom to the relevant bodies and changes to suit your points are being made at this very moment ?
BMFA ? Don't know how you see it, but, I reckon they're doing everything possible for our cause, stands to reason really, the health n wealth of the BMFA depends on us paying subs in, no greater incentive is there ? BMFA don't need to provide me daily updates, they need to do the best they can, and I'm confident that's happening.
|Martin McIntosh||09/06/2018 19:20:07|
2874 forum posts
Certainly not read all of this lot but many F3A models seem to perform loops close to 400 feet in diameter these days, let alone turbines which would have difficulty doing them smaller. I thought that the new legislation was aimed specifically at the irresponsible flying of multicopters (drones if you must). Compare this to a typical patch of 100m (say 330 ft) in length and do a horizontal circle over it to see just how low this is.
|Steve J||09/06/2018 19:41:41|
1230 forum posts
I don't expect daily updates, but I do expect to be able to find reports on the 2016 and 2017 annual meetings with the CAA on the BMFA website (cue somebody providing a link) and I do expect to be advised when they have meetings with the DfT/CAA even if it is only a picture of a building on their Instagram feed with the caption "Good meeting with the CAA today".
11238 forum posts
Rather than just posting on here, why not follow MattyB's advice and start Emailing your MP.
This issue is important to a whole range of aeromodellers. In contrast the NFC benefits a few, all the resources directed at the Vanity Project at least in the short term need to be focussed on this issue. That is priority and support given to the team that represents us via the BMFA.
Can some one indicate the subsantive improvements that are apparent form the original EASA proposals, other than slight amendments? Even registering seems to be still their., in one form or another
|Bruce Miller 2||10/06/2018 09:03:47|
|18 forum posts|
Regulation reduces the likelihood of Abolition. The Major players in local freight delivery would jump at the chance to send their autonomous drones all about without you pesky aeromodellers getting in their way! It is also far easier for Authorities to BAN everything than to regulate sensibly. We need rules to educate/prosecute the 'few' before they ruin it for the 'majority'.
Your forum can get quite tied up in small details and definitions, some maybe even hysterical? We all just want to get more folks flying (anything) for fun - safely – there is no 'US and THEM'.
The Australian experience may clarify things a little for what to expect, as it sounds just like we have already what you're describing in these posts. I hope you find it interesting:
In Oz 'Standard Operating Conditions' apply for everybody without permission to do otherwise. Maximum 400ft AGL, unaided daylight line-of-sight only, 30 metres from people in all directions, not over crowds, not within 5.5km of Aerodromes etc – i.e. to “not create a hazard”. One can also undertake commercial work within these restrictions with aircraft under 2kg. Landowners have some exemptions for flying over their own land.
'Unmanned Aviation' Control Hierarchy:
1. Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA i.e. your CAA) are the top level aviation authority.
2. Licensed OPERATORS are the ones who hold operating certificates, obtain permissions (from CASA) to fly outside the 'Standard Operating Conditions' and produce 'operations manuals' to document procedures and practices to safely operate as they have been authorised.
3. Authorised PILOTS, who fly under a Licensed Operator in conditions as per 'Operations manual'.
In a commercial scenario – a Business would be a Licensed OPERATOR and seek permissions to fly higher, closer, or whatever. They would undertake extra commitments such as using aviation radio to talk with Towers or aircraft, check of NOTAMs, built-in equipment redundancies, have proven 'Return To Home', transponders to show on ATC radar, even seek issue of NOTAM. These would be part of the operator's risk analysis and all submitted to CASA in an Operations MANUAL when seeking approval for a mission, or a location – to obtain an Operating CERTIFICATE. Flights “for any form of economic gain” with aircraft over 2kg, or outside 'Standard Operating Conditions' must be performed by a CASA-Licensed PILOT (TYPE approved), flying for an Licensed OPERATOR. Individuals can apply to be Licensed OPERATORS if they do the paperwork and pay the money. A Licensed PILOT can fly under anybody's Operating CERTIFICATE (with their permission) so, for example, some training schools allow past students to fly under their O.C. on a casual basis and thus get paid for any commercial work. Note: Operator arranges own aircraft checks, overseen by operator's appointed mechanic.
In a recreational scenario – our MAAA (equivalent of your BMFA) has the status of a Licensed OPERATOR and maintains a detailed Operations MANUAL of standard procedures (e.g. line of sight, max 400ft AGL, 30 metre rule). Since not flying “for economic gain” our MAAA can authorise pilots through it's instruction programs, Solo and 'wings' assessments (equiv. BMFA 'certificates'. This is the level where aircraft DEFINITIONS become significant – NOT at a government (legislation) level. Any desired Height extensions (event or permanent) or near-Aerodrome flying is requested by pilots via their club through the MAAA and get approved by CASA. CASA may issue NOTAM and make additions to Aeronautical Charts as appropriate. Note: NO approval for flight beyond unaided line of sight (pilot OR spotter if FPV) as MAAA specifically exclude this. Heavy or Large models are scrutinised & certified (same as BMFA) by MAAA appointed inspectors.
The positive of this is you CAN fly anywhere CASA allows you to – they control the sky & ONLY CASA can restrict airspace (e.g. over royal weddings). Landowners & councils cannot stop you overflying property – they can only legally stop takeoffs and landings on their ground. Caution if you have a camera on board that you will have PRIVACY laws to consider.
So it's not the end of our hobby, but BMFA do need to jump in and establish their position. Support them.
Edited By Bruce Miller 2 on 10/06/2018 09:08:21
|Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator||10/06/2018 09:36:52|
15748 forum posts
I have said from the beginning that while I am indeed optimistic that for power flyers in a club environment this is unlikely to present many significant problems, for glider pilots, espacially outside of a club (which most are) this is a potentially major issue.
I have said this not only on here but also in two feature articles in the magazine. In both those cases I urged glider pilots to look at how they might present a more "governace orientated" front, perhaps via formation of clubs based on sites or the old BARCS type structure.
What has the glider community done? Well as far as I can see - nothing. Now they are panicing, 8 weeks before the legislation becomes active. Even now the panic seems to mainly consist of pointing out over and over again on here that 400ft is too low for them. But what's the point of telling us that? We already know it. If the glider flyers amongst us want to survive this they need to get organised - it may already be too late, it should have been done when the potential issue was first raised 18 months ago. But some effort now might still save the day.
Re comms on progress from the BMFA. I think we just have to trust that things are motion, they do understand all the issues and are activily engaged with CAA. But we have to be realistic and mature, in potentially delicate negoiations like this you don't go round blurting out what everyone has said behind closed doors. Let them get on with the job descretly, which is what is required. As one person at least has already pointed out, it's not in their intersts for this to fail, they are in this up to their neck, just as we are.
So, my view? Sit tight, 8 weeks to go. Wait while BMFA do their best for us with a basically well disposed CAA. We can support them by writting to MPs etc. Finally, it is imperative that the glider guys start organising themselves pretty damn quick so that they at least appear to have a governance structure through which proper safety recording, monitoring and training standards can be monitored in order to comply with what is likely to be required and also so that BMFA can speak with some authority for them as a group.
Until then,..enjoy the sunshine and go flying!
8530 forum posts
Had a quadcopter fly along are housing estate road last night......new drone laws are working well then!
|2573 forum posts|
I'm certain that our BMFA representatives in talks with CAA, are very well aware of the effects of a height limit on thermal soaring and will try, as best they can, to come up with a solution acceptable to all. I too, find it odd that the glider guys have seemed to be very quiet on the subject, but to be fair, they're not ignoring it - from BARCS forum **LINK**
No, I don't expect BMFA to 'spoon feed' the membership with info every step of the way during the negotiations, but just maybe, the opinions expressed on this very forum will help 'those at the table' to gauge the views of the wider BMFA membership, albeit from a small representative section of us here. This could veer off into the contentious (for some) issue of BMFA and member communications, but I think we've enough on our plate at this time.
Going flying now
|Gordon Tarling||10/06/2018 12:37:21|
|231 forum posts|
BEB - surely members of BARCS are well aware of this. What they're doing about it is another question.
1918 forum posts
That’s not really fair BEB. Back in 2016 I floated the idea of a national BMFA affiliated model gliding club to act as a “tenant” for slope and thermal sites that do not have a club presence. I posted about it on BARCS and I think on this site too (sorry, the search on this site is not good enough to find it whilst using my phone). I also asked the BMFA for their opinion which they gave in Jan 2017. Cut and paste below...
1918 forum posts
Edited By MattyB on 10/06/2018 18:42:38
1918 forum posts
At the end of the day the BMFA told me and anyone who read the thread (including the BARCS leadership) that no additional governance or precautions were likely to be needed to protect soaring at non-affiliated sites in the immediate future. They have never released any further statements or guidance to my knowledge on this topic. As a result no-one in BARCS or elsewhere has taken any further action.
I was doubtful at the time that this was the correct path, but did not have the time or energy to build the support within BARCS and elsewhere to get the idea off the ground. However, if their original viewpoint proves to have been incorrect I am sure something similar to this will reappear under a BARCS or BMFA banner. That’s fine with me, but it would have been an awful lot easier to do it 18 months ago without the pressure of imminent legislation bearing down.
Edited By MattyB on 10/06/2018 18:48:40
|Colin Leighfield||10/06/2018 19:08:37|
5889 forum posts
I have been in London this weekend and walking past the CAA Offices on the way back from Covent Garden this afternoon saw that one window was completely filled with a poster saying to “keep your drones below 400ft” and the headline “dronesafeuk”. They are certainly taking it seriously.
1918 forum posts
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!