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  
Cuban814/06/2018 12:47:02
2358 forum posts
8 photos
Posted by Mark Woodroffe on 14/06/2018 12:25:35:
Will registration require you to tell what make and model? Or will just be the pilot registering.

I think we've just got to wait and see what they cook up and hope that for us, simply being a BMFA member or similar will be sufficient if registration is required. How they'll capture the lone flyers that operate independently outside of a club or national body is anyone's guess.

Steve J14/06/2018 12:53:00
avatar
920 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Mark Woodroffe on 14/06/2018 12:25:35:
Or will just be the pilot registering.

EASA Opinion 2018-01 says just the pilot unless the UAV requires a certificate of airworthiness (over 25kg?).

Incidentally, earlier this week, the EU parliament finally got around to rubber stamping the agreement made between itself, the commission and the council at the end of last year, so EU regulations are a bit closer.

Steve

Steve J14/06/2018 12:56:24
avatar
920 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Cuban8 on 14/06/2018 11:23:46:

I received a letter from my MP, Will Quince this morning

I got a similar letter from my MP last week on that nice paper the HoC uses. I will doubtless get a nice letter from the DfT (probably Baroness Sugg) via my MP next week or the week after.

Steve

MattyB14/06/2018 13:33:54
avatar
1876 forum posts
28 photos

Yep, our political system is absolutely excellent at delivering nice, polite letters on lovely headed paper/emails. Listening to the people an acting when you have big business whispering about theoretical cash and jobs though.... not so good.

Cuban814/06/2018 15:16:05
2358 forum posts
8 photos

At least it's worth making your voice heard and for only a very few minutes it takes to fire off an Email to your MP. Providing communications are polite and constructive, then the more of our MPs that are made aware of the situation must only be a good thing - perhaps might even strengthen the hand of those who are dealing directly with the authorities for us.

MattyB14/06/2018 15:40:14
avatar
1876 forum posts
28 photos

Agreed - I wrote to my MP about a week ago, but unfortunately I think it is probably far, far too late in the day to make any difference.

Devcon114/06/2018 17:12:02
avatar
1345 forum posts
475 photos

Maybe not truly representative but a flavour of other peoples view of our airspace/privacy.

You can see what will happen at Stonehenge..

Lima Hotel Foxtrot14/06/2018 20:53:34
avatar
308 forum posts
Posted by Colin Leighfield on 13/06/2018 15:19:47:

What is needed here is strict regulation and control of FPV, with compulsory licensing. It gives a level of power and choice to its users that has enormous ability to intrude on and interfere with other people’s lives and activities without any consent or control on their part. That cannot be acceptable. Also with the looming and massive increase in use of low level air space for commercial purposes, including autonomous multi rotor passenger vehicles, the accident risks are obvious, apart from considerations of terrorism.

Line of sight flying naturally limits us to a defined area of operation. There is little need to regulate this beyond the operating height consideration, clearly separating line of sight and FPV in both operational terms and legal interpretation must be the best way to protect our traditional interests

The government can't stop people using a phone while driving, they're going to be completely incapable of doing this!

It seems to me that the clubs will be ok because they are self regulating (for the most part) with regard to how members fly, so I suggest to you all to stop panicking over drones/quads/UAS/FPV etc and the new rules and concentrate on getting new blood into the hobby and educate them about responsible model flying. In other words... Engage with the kids and recreational drone fliers and point them in the right direction.

Colin Leighfield14/06/2018 21:37:13
avatar
5715 forum posts
2359 photos

I agree with your last paragraph LHF, absolute common sense. However the potential for serious harm apart from nuisance that is created by uncontrolled use of FPV is of a new dimension. Just because so many people flout the law with the use of mobile phones while driving doesn’t mean the law should be withdrawn. The level of penalty needs to be progressively increased until it does bite. People are being prosecuted for it and I am sure that will increase. We are already seeing stupidity in the way that these things are being flown by idiots out of our sight, it isn’t going to get any better.

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator14/06/2018 21:54:06
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos
Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 14/06/2018 20:53:34:

It seems to me that the clubs will be ok because they are self regulating (for the most part) with regard to how members fly, so I suggest to you all to stop panicking over drones/quads/UAS/FPV etc and the new rules and concentrate on getting new blood into the hobby and educate them about responsible model flying. In other words... Engage with the kids and recreational drone fliers and point them in the right direction.

+1 thumbs up

BEB

Steve J14/06/2018 22:07:51
avatar
920 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Colin Leighfield on 13/06/2018 15:19:47:

clearly separating line of sight and FPV in both operational terms and legal interpretation must be the best way to protect our traditional interests.

The CAA haven't revoked OSR4 1226. Which means that from the 30th July you will be able to fly a 3.5kg SUA up to 1000ft FPV, but only up to 400ft LOS.

Steve

john stones 114/06/2018 22:12:33
avatar
10189 forum posts
1475 photos
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 14/06/2018 21:54:06:
Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 14/06/2018 20:53:34:

It seems to me that the clubs will be ok because they are self regulating (for the most part) with regard to how members fly, so I suggest to you all to stop panicking over drones/quads/UAS/FPV etc and the new rules and concentrate on getting new blood into the hobby and educate them about responsible model flying. In other words... Engage with the kids and recreational drone fliers and point them in the right direction.

+1 thumbs up

BEB

+2 wink

Colin Leighfield15/06/2018 06:30:11
avatar
5715 forum posts
2359 photos

Thanks Steve J for pointing that out. That is a clear legal definition. Beyond that at some point there will need to be some control on the sale of “drones” that have controllable range beyond that limit. I know that the technically minded will find out how to get around that, but I don’t think that most of the twerps causing the problem are that smart. Those are the ones who won’t be influenced by our responsible approach to education and guidance because we have no contact with them and they wouldn’t be interested anyway. I can assure you that I’m not panicking about it, I don’t feel particularly threatened at all. However I think that an increasing legally defined control element is inevitable as low altitude commercial flight operation grows exponentially, which it will.

Robert Cracknell15/06/2018 11:10:44
126 forum posts
3 photos

Maybe I have missed the boat, the point or both but why do drones have to be included in all the other categories of small scale aviation..?

As an example we all use the road under a basic set of rules in order to give a level of safety but within the categories of vehicle using the road there are major differences and specific regulations to control each category. For example HGV's have weight, size and differing speed limits as well as restriction on the roads as to where they can go. Cars and motorcycles have differing rules and additional rules when they are towing.

Why can we not define drones as

'..aerial vehicles over 250g all up weight and having 3 or more lifting devices or rotors'

and write legislation around that definition. In this way we should be able to leave alone the (successful) regulations covering the existing range of models that we fly and let the authorities safely control the drones. Considering that probably over 90% of drone fliers are in no way modellers it seems sensible to prevent potential draconian regulation on us aimed at a group of users that do not connect to our hobby.

As an additional thought, when the sky is full of drones being operated by non modelling organisations i.e. Amazon, DHL, surveying companies etc., and one of them goes rogue and crashes into a bus for example we may find ourselves being grounded en masse because of an issue in no way connected to modelling...!

Edited By Robert Cracknell on 15/06/2018 11:19:26

Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator15/06/2018 11:43:40
avatar
Moderator
15748 forum posts
1460 photos

Sorry Robert but read the thread - this same point has been raised many, many times and is extensively answered and dealt with. The point is not all "drones" (which is not even a term used in the legislation) are multi-rotors. The simplistic view:

Drone=Multirotor

is just plain wrong!

Many commercial "drone" flights, which MUST come under these regulations, are done with fixed wing aircraft. I'd almost say that most are carried out with fixed wing aircraft.

To spell it out - from an aviation regulation point of view, what is the difference between these two scenarios:

1. me on a Monday afternoon flying a fixed wing aircraft with a carbon dioxide sensor attached to monitor emissions over a fen as part of a commercial project, and

2. me on a Saturday morning flying a fixed wing "model aircraft" with, say, a variometer attached and sending back telemetry data?

There isn't one right? From an aviation operational point of view, they are exactly the same, an unmanned aeroplane equiped wit a sensor. So no distinction. And we have to accept and live with that.

Don't you think that if it was simple to distintinguish someone might not have done it?

BEB

Rich too15/06/2018 11:50:50
avatar
2876 forum posts
1046 photos
Posted by Robert Cracknell on 15/06/2018 11:10:44:

Maybe I have missed the boat, the point or both but why do drones have to be included in all the other categories of small scale aviation..?

As an example we all use the road under a basic set of rules in order to give a level of safety but within the categories of vehicle using the road there are major differences and specific regulations to control each category. For example HGV's have weight, size and differing speed limits as well as restriction on the roads as to where they can go. Cars and motorcycles have differing rules and additional rules when they are towing.

Why can we not define drones as

'..aerial vehicles over 250g all up weight and having 3 or more lifting devices or rotors'

and write legislation around that definition. In this way we should be able to leave alone the (successful) regulations covering the existing range of models that we fly and let the authorities safely control the drones. Considering that probably over 90% of drone fliers are in no way modellers it seems sensible to prevent potential draconian regulation on us aimed at a group of users that do not connect to our hobby.

As an additional thought, when the sky is full of drones being operated by non modelling organisations i.e. Amazon, DHL, surveying companies etc., and one of them goes rogue and crashes into a bus for example we may find ourselves being grounded en masse because of an issue in no way connected to modelling...!

Edited By Robert Cracknell on 15/06/2018 11:19:26

Because the objective is not to regulate drones, it is to clear airspace full stop. Which is still a joke...

Edited By Rich too on 15/06/2018 11:51:12

Robert Cracknell15/06/2018 11:54:04
126 forum posts
3 photos

BEB

I take your point and having read the forum extensively I do have to agree with you. The sad thing seems that right from the word go drones and models were going to be inexorably joined in legislation being formulated by people who are ill informed.

We, the willing, led by the unknowing.....etc.,

Taking my road example it is like trying to use the same regulation on HGV's as well as mopeds.

Colin Leighfield15/06/2018 13:31:42
avatar
5715 forum posts
2359 photos

It comes back to the point that it’s not about what a drone is, it is about the new risks and opportunities presented by FPV. It provides a considerable new opportunity to do harm and as such has got to be controlled. Codes of practice and gentle exhortation won’t influence those that deliberately act irresponsibly or possess anti-social or even phsycopathic tendencies, will they? Just get line of sight flying out of the equation.

Erfolg15/06/2018 15:52:58
avatar
11211 forum posts
1106 photos

IMO the discussion with respect to what is a drone or not, is a battle that is over, some time ago. It seems that the definition of what we fly has been agreed across all the EASA partners.

The most obvious issues now are probably

  • The requirements for registration
  • The 400 foot issue
  • and testing

It seems that these aspects have been left to national level to determine and implement. These aspects will determine how significantly we will be affected. There is still a lot that the Dave Phelps team can do. That is unless that this is another opportunity and struggle that has been and gone.

I remain convinced that for us modelers and the BMFA nothing else is more important. Loose all of these issues and IMO there will be no BMFA or modelers in any numbers faster than the complacent can comprehend.

MattyB15/06/2018 16:30:45
avatar
1876 forum posts
28 photos
Posted by Robert Cracknell on 15/06/2018 11:54:04:

I take your point and having read the forum extensively I do have to agree with you. The sad thing seems that right from the word go drones and models were going to be inexorably joined in legislation being formulated by people who are ill informed.

There has never been any legal definition of a drone or any differentiation from model aircraft in the past, there is none under current legislation and there will not be in the future. That horse bolted 18 months ago, and is over the horizon and probably in another country by now...

Edited By MattyB on 15/06/2018 16:37:54

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
Slec
Revoc
Gliders Distribution
Wings & Wheels 2018
Motion RC
CML
Pepe Aircraft
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