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  
ken anderson.09/06/2018 10:40:16
avatar
8352 forum posts
768 photos

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 Dunn09/06/2018 10:46:12
avatar
29 forum posts
25 photos

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:

https://www.unmannedtechshop.co.uk/ping1090-ads-b-transceiver/

Attempt at link

£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 Harris09/06/2018 11:27:04
avatar
8319 forum posts
211 photos
Posted by ken anderson. on 09/06/2018 10:40:16:

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

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 J09/06/2018 13:58:11
avatar
921 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Ray Dunn on 09/06/2018 10:46:12:

https://www.unmannedtechshop.co.uk/ping1090-ads-b-transceiver/

One of these topics would not be complete without somebody posting that link to the uAvionics Ping...

Steve

Dave Rose09/06/2018 16:50:50
64 forum posts

 

 

 

 

Posted by Cuban8 on 09/06/2018 10:30:24:

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?

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

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?""

 

I haven't for a moment thought it wa s about us modellers getting out of the way of commercial drones from Amazon and the like.

This legislation has come about to stop the unauthorised drone activity where commercial aircraft have had near misses with thes e idiots who send up drones all over the place. The pilots have pressed for this and who can blame them?.

What is wrong is that we modellers, power fliers, thermal fliers et al have been drawn into inclusion of this legislation by the definition of SUA. That definition meant to capture all possible variants of what we commonly know as drones ( and it has ) , but it has captured us as well.

Hence the worry that soon we cannot fly above 400ft. Just to clarify, if not already done. Gonzo said the date was 31 May that we can no longer fly over 400 ft. He is wrong. The date is after 31 July 2018. The legislation may have come in during May, but the date for illegal flying over 400 ft is July.

I hope Beb's optimism is well founded, but the silence from BMFA is worrying. Least they could do is tell us what they will be expecting to gain. We know that thermal gliding,and occasionally flying power planes a little higher than 400 ft ,will pose no bigger problem after 31 July than it has done in all the years beforehand, and they should be demanding the the powers that be should acknowledge that and let it continue.etc etc.

Whereas are we expecting them to be going to the meeting with a bowl with which to catch crumbs?

 

 

Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:51:50

Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:53:56

Ray Dunn09/06/2018 17:42:56
avatar
29 forum posts
25 photos

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 109/06/2018 18:40:34
avatar
10189 forum posts
1475 photos

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 McIntosh09/06/2018 19:20:07
avatar
2742 forum posts
1034 photos

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 J09/06/2018 19:41:41
avatar
921 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by john stones 1 on 09/06/2018 18:40:34:

BMFA don't need to provide me daily updates, they need to do the best they can, and I'm confident that's happening.

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".

Steve

Erfolg09/06/2018 21:39:59
avatar
11211 forum posts
1106 photos

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 210/06/2018 09:03:47
17 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.

Good Luck!

Edited By Bruce Miller 2 on 10/06/2018 09:08:21

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator10/06/2018 09:36:52
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos

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!

BEB

cymaz10/06/2018 09:36:54
avatar
8311 forum posts
1148 photos

Had a quadcopter fly along are housing estate road last night......new drone laws are working well then!

Cuban810/06/2018 10:21:43
2359 forum posts
8 photos

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 timewink.

Going flying now yes

Gordon Tarling10/06/2018 12:37:21
225 forum posts
4 photos

BEB - surely members of BARCS are well aware of this. What they're doing about it is another question.

MattyB10/06/2018 18:39:07
avatar
1876 forum posts
28 photos

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 10/06/2018 09:36:52:

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.

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...

MattyB10/06/2018 18:41:27
avatar
1876 forum posts
28 photos

“OK, a few weeks ago I did receive a response from Dave Phipps of the BMFA - this was very positive, and indicates that a new UK soaring association is not required at this stage. We may want to revisit the idea though when the next iteration of EASA proposals emerge in May 2017.

Here's a brief summary (extracts from my original email in italics, Dave's responses in normal type)...

Based on the proposed EASA regulations there appears to be a possibility (though by no means certain) that model flying may only be possible from registered sites tenanted by a club under the wing of a competent authority (such as the BMFA, LMA etc).

This is not the current line of thinking. The hope is that you would need to belong to a recognised organisation and would fly under a blanket authorisation issued to them by the National CAA. At the present time there is no formal plan to restrict flying only to registered sites (the UK CAA does not want to become involved in any more admin than it is at present!).

If that were to occur slope and thermal soarers who fly from publically accessible sites not tenanted by a club would be breaking the law and would not be insured.

EASA also recognises that they have to find a way to accommodate this type of activity, so our hope is that the situation will not arise.

I therefore suggested a new BMFA affiliated club might be formed to register and “own” all the currently used public access slope and thermal sites that do not have a tenant club at present... Obviously the requirement to create such an organisation is based mostly on supposition and guesswork at this point; no-one outside the BMFA team really knows how the negotiations are going or whether this is likely to be required... My question is (based on your insight as to how the negotiations with EASA are proceeding) should the soaring community setup such an organisation at this time, and if so would the BMFA want to get involved?

At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that the above course of action would be required. The next draft of the EASA rules will probably be launched for consultation towards the end of May, but at the present time they still don’t have the formal competence to produce any actual rules. It seems that the earliest that any rules would be rolled out will be 2018 and then they will take three years to implement taking us to 2021. On this basis, there is no need for urgent action.”

Edited By MattyB on 10/06/2018 18:42:38

MattyB10/06/2018 18:43:44
avatar
1876 forum posts
28 photos

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 Leighfield10/06/2018 19:08:37
avatar
5715 forum posts
2359 photos

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.

MattyB10/06/2018 20:00:58
avatar
1876 forum posts
28 photos

More historic posts regarding the BMFAs responses to slope and thermal soarers is here...

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! 

Support Our Partners
Pepe Aircraft
Revoc
Wings & Wheels 2018
Gliders Distribution
Motion RC
CML
Slec
electricwingman 2017
Sarik
Advertise With Us
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