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  
John Lee01/06/2018 10:30:58
658 forum posts
48 photos
Posted by Percy Verance on 31/05/2018 16:15:21:

I'm wondering how on earth it will be policed. Just how will the powers that be know you flew at 425 feet?

Drone detection & tracking systems are starting to emerge & were in use at the Royal Wedding

Cuban801/06/2018 10:38:57
2758 forum posts
13 photos
Posted by Brian Cooper on 01/06/2018 09:50:13:

I always said, and I quote, "Drones represent the largest threat to the continued existence of our hobby".

Naturally, I got loads of flak -- mainly from drone operators (let's not call them pilots, eh..).

Drones are not model aircraft but, sadly, common sense is not that common so the legislators will have difficulty recognising the difference, and model aircraft might be affected by drone legislation. . . sigh.

B.C.

Like you , Brian, I always thought that the BMFA should have distanced itself from drones, concentrated on the interests of model flying and allowed another specialist body to act solely for the drone lobby. To quote FPVUK on their website "FPV UK is the national governing body for radio control FPV and drone flying in the UK. Not a mention of BMFA anywhere and most importantly, not a picture or mention of a model aeroplane, glider, heli anywhere. FPVUK appear to know what a drone is, so why the confusion in other quarters?

He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.

Steve J01/06/2018 11:15:10
avatar
1566 forum posts
47 photos
Posted by James Green2 on 01/06/2018 08:48:56:

The language is interesting. I for one have never flown a drone, only model aircraft.

Not this nonsense again. The ANO doesn't use 'drone' or 'model aircraft', it uses 'small unmanned aircraft'. Hopefully knowing this will be part of the CAA competency test.

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 01/06/2018 11:17:53

Ron Gray01/06/2018 11:15:22
1480 forum posts
363 photos

Not quite true Cuban8, on their homepage you will see this:

FPV UK is an association of hobbyist radio control drone (or unmanned/ model aircraft) pilots.

First Person View (FPV) flying is flying a model aircraft (or “drone&rdquo using a small video camera mounted on the aircraft and video goggles to see the view from

Steve J01/06/2018 11:17:18
avatar
1566 forum posts
47 photos
Posted by David Mellor on 31/05/2018 17:06:00:

So it isn't "all" SUAs but "some" SUAs to which either registration or acknowledgement of competence is required.

Indeed. It is only SUA over 250g that require the pilot to be registered etc.

Steve

Ron Gray01/06/2018 11:17:47
1480 forum posts
363 photos

The problem is the government, the CAA quite clearly know the difference and refer to them separately, the government bundle them both together under SUA.

PatMc01/06/2018 12:28:24
avatar
4221 forum posts
521 photos
Posted by Cuban8 on 01/06/2018 10:38:57:
Posted by Brian Cooper on 01/06/2018 09:50:13:

I always said, and I quote, "Drones represent the largest threat to the continued existence of our hobby".

Naturally, I got loads of flak -- mainly from drone operators (let's not call them pilots, eh..).

Drones are not model aircraft but, sadly, common sense is not that common so the legislators will have difficulty recognising the difference, and model aircraft might be affected by drone legislation. . . sigh.

B.C.

Like you , Brian, I always thought that the BMFA should have distanced itself from drones, concentrated on the interests of model flying and allowed another specialist body to act solely for the drone lobby. To quote FPVUK on their website "FPV UK is the national governing body for radio control FPV and drone flying in the UK. Not a mention of BMFA anywhere and most importantly, not a picture or mention of a model aeroplane, glider, heli anywhere. FPVUK appear to know what a drone is, so why the confusion in other quarters?

He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon.

Of course there's also another, probably more pragmatic, maxim - "It's better they're inside the tent urinating out, than outside the tent urinating in"

PatMc01/06/2018 12:31:13
avatar
4221 forum posts
521 photos
Posted by Ron Gray on 01/06/2018 11:17:47:

The problem is the government, the CAA quite clearly know the difference and refer to them separately, the government bundle them both together under SUA.

No, the problem is that the government need to use a precise legal definition that's not ambiguous. As yet no one has come up with one that distingushes the difference between what's commonly refered to as a "drone" and other types of model aircraft.
Perhaps legislation should be considered based on the activity rather than the hardware.

 

Edited By PatMc on 01/06/2018 12:38:51

James Green201/06/2018 12:48:50
50 forum posts
15 photos

Thank you for the clarification David.

Cuban801/06/2018 13:05:11
2758 forum posts
13 photos
Posted by Ron Gray on 01/06/2018 11:15:22:

Not quite true Cuban8, on their homepage you will see this:

FPV UK is an association of hobbyist radio control drone (or unmanned/ model aircraft) pilots.

First Person View (FPV) flying is flying a model aircraft (or “drone&rdquo using a small video camera mounted on the aircraft and video goggles to see the view from

We can kick this around until the cows come home, but the fact is that model flying as far as the majority of us are concerned is not about drones/ multi rotor FPV or fixed wing FPV or whatever else you can come up with and the reaction that I detect when discussing this with friends and club members over the preceding years is that we're being stuffed (lone flyers or those that choose to fly outside of an official club environment even more so) - and for no good reason.

Technology has had a tremendous impact on model flying making it cheaper, easier and safer than ever before. Large IC engines, turbines, and large and very large models have  all found their mark in the hobby and have been embraced by us with hardly any negative impact and a common sense approach to regulation given our exemplary safety record.

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 01/06/2018 13:16:12

Ron Gray01/06/2018 13:20:03
1480 forum posts
363 photos

@Cuban8 - if I fly my Hurricane everyone classifies it as a model aircraft, if I fly my Hurricane with a camera in the cockpit what is it now? Most of us would still say that it is a model aircraft. If I then fly the Hurricane and put on my FPV goggles (taking the correct precautions of having a buddy lead and a spotter in place) what is it now? As PatMc says, it is the use that determines what it is.

Now if I fly my DJI Mavic, no matter if I fly FPV or line of sight, most of us would classify it as a drone!

Edited By Ron Gray on 01/06/2018 13:21:56

Martyn K01/06/2018 13:45:34
avatar
4978 forum posts
3624 photos

I think we are losing sight of the reasons for the new legislation.

EASA regulations are Europe wide and are designed primarily to protect aircraft.

The revised ANO by HMG is an extension of existing but primarily designed to clear airspace for commercial operations. This will be from 400ft to (I am guessing) about 1000ft. Whether we can differentiate what a 'drone' is or not is irrelevant, this will affect all SUAs

For the majority of sports fliers, once the competency and bureaucracy requirements are implemented and absorbed it will have minimal impact. We will still be able to fly albeit limited to 400ft or thereabouts. I look at this as a speed limit. We ALL speed to a greater or lesser extent, you run the risk of getting caught. A greater risk the more you abuse the limit.

What bothers me is whether we will be obliged to implement any tracking sensors or not and how that will be enforced. Unlike the EASA regulations, I am not sure whether Model registration is still a requirement as well as Pilot registration. It does not appear to be stated but if so, how will that work and what impact will it have?

But my biggest concern is the impact it will have on competitive aeromodelling - especially thermal glider flying and F3A. It's all very well saying that NOTAMs will be issued for competitive events, however, this will prevent trimming and practicing - both essential for a serious competitive aeromodeller.

There does appear to be a loophole in the new regs though. It refers to models controlled by Radio (actually remote) Control. It does not mention Free Flight which I assume will be exempt from the new regs..

Happy to be flamed on all that

Martyn

Former Member01/06/2018 13:47:35
1322 forum posts

[This posting has been removed]

Andy Meade01/06/2018 14:12:29
avatar
2643 forum posts
679 photos

As you'd expect, BALPA don't think it's enough.

I can't really argue with that though - 1km is still quite close to aerodromes.

The Wright Stuff01/06/2018 14:41:54
avatar
1381 forum posts
226 photos
Posted by Andy Meade on 01/06/2018 14:12:29:

I can't really argue with that though - 1km is still quite close to aerodromes.

Absolutely. If I've got my maths right, 400 feet subtends an angle of about 7 degrees over 1 km horizontally (you've got to love the mixed units).

As I understand it, most airliners descend at about 3 degrees, meaning that over 2 km of distance is ideally needed.

Mike T01/06/2018 16:08:53
420 forum posts
28 photos
That's a bit extravagant. If they're any kind of pilot, they need to learn to land an airliner like this:
 

 

Edited By Mike T on 01/06/2018 16:13:31

john stones 101/06/2018 17:45:08
avatar
10701 forum posts
1480 photos

I think they called em "Drones" so we could drone on about it for years, on what planet do you think the BMFA distancing itself from reality would have helped matters ? it's not fair I'm telling me man, only works when you're a toddler.

Percy Verance01/06/2018 20:49:03
avatar
8108 forum posts
155 photos

Just out of idle interest - I have absolutely no intention of acquiring one - I looked on Amazon to see if there might be any reference to the new drone regs, and I was pleasantly surprised to see there was.....right next to a drone being offered for sale.

There was a link to the CAA plus a further link to download some info for prospective drone pilots. I didn't look to see what this actually was, but I'll assume it was the drone code......

Well done Amazon. Of course we have no way of knowing how many views it'll get......

Edited By Percy Verance on 01/06/2018 20:50:40

Andy Fox01/06/2018 23:57:56
avatar
59 forum posts
16 photos

Our club has a flying site from which we operate SUA. I use that abbreviation intentionally as that is how they are regarded by our local ATC. Our flying site is within Class D airspace and as such flying is allowed in accordance with local ATC regulations, our local ANO and BMFA guidelines upon which our club rules are based.

All of the above may cause many of you to throw your hands up in horror and cry out "Too much regulation - all I want to do is enjoy my hobby!"

Well, the regulation actually works rather well for us, chiefly because everyone operating within the controlled airspace knows what the other guys are doing - which is what the EASA regs are seeking to achieve.

400' height limit? Yes thats what we normally adhere to, but we have applied to ATC in the past for an increase to 1000' which has been granted, because there are mechanisms in place to inform other air users.

As far as drones are concerned, they are not allowed to fly within the ATZ - without permission from ATC ... and again this isnt usually a problem.

As far as registration is concerned, we already register models over 7kg and have an agreement in place with ATC, that the club maintains this register.

None of the above is a problem for us - in fact in my view it would be more of a problem if we weren't operating within controlled airspace.

The moral of my story? Dont be afraid of regulation .... embrace it, as it might actually be working towards your advantage!

 

 

 

Edited By Andy Fox on 01/06/2018 23:59:27

MattyB02/06/2018 02:17:02
avatar
1957 forum posts
30 photos
Posted by Martyn K on 01/06/2018 13:45:34:

I think we are losing sight of the reasons for the new legislation.

EASA regulations are Europe wide and are designed primarily to protect aircraft.

The revised ANO by HMG is an extension of existing but primarily designed to clear airspace for commercial operations. This will be from 400ft to (I am guessing) about 1000ft. Whether we can differentiate what a 'drone' is or not is irrelevant, this will affect all SUAs

For the majority of sports fliers, once the competency and bureaucracy requirements are implemented and absorbed it will have minimal impact. We will still be able to fly albeit limited to 400ft or thereabouts. I look at this as a speed limit. We ALL speed to a greater or lesser extent, you run the risk of getting caught. A greater risk the more you abuse the limit.

What bothers me is whether we will be obliged to implement any tracking sensors or not and how that will be enforced. Unlike the EASA regulations, I am not sure whether Model registration is still a requirement as well as Pilot registration. It does not appear to be stated but if so, how will that work and what impact will it have?

But my biggest concern is the impact it will have on competitive aeromodelling - especially thermal glider flying and F3A. It's all very well saying that NOTAMs will be issued for competitive events, however, this will prevent trimming and practicing - both essential for a serious competitive aeromodeller.

There does appear to be a loophole in the new regs though. It refers to models controlled by Radio (actually remote) Control. It does not mention Free Flight which I assume will be exempt from the new regs..

Happy to be flamed on all that

Martyn

Good post, but a few areas I have to disagree with...

  1. I don't agree EASAs primary goal is safety. You don't have to read in between the lines to realise it is really all about integrating commercial drone operations into the airspace below 1k feet. Governments are eager for the tax £££s and jobs they believe will come with that, so curtailing the existing rights of a tiny number of modellers who have near zero electoral power is perfectly acceptable collateral damage in their eyes.
  2. The amendment clearly states pilot/operator registration is required, not model registration, at least for now. Electronic conspicuous is also not required yet, but that is clearly the direction of travel in the long term - EASAs Uspace concept essentially demands it for any operation outside of known permanent model flying sites. They will probably wait for an prominent incident or near miss between a SUA and full size though before pushing for this; HMG will want Daily Mail readers to be baying for additional regs first...
  3. I agree it's a little unclear due to lazy wordings, but I do not believe there is a loophole for free flighters in the amendment. They may not have a remote link to the aircraft but they are surely the "SUA Operator" who "...has the management of the aircraft". If not them, then who does?

Edited By MattyB on 02/06/2018 02:23:30

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
Wings & Wheels 2019
Slec
electricwingman 2017
Gliders Distribution
CML
Cambridge Gliding Club
Pepe Aircraft
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Do you use a throttle kill switch?
Q: This refers to electric-powered models but do you use a throttle kill switch?

 Yes
 No
 Sometimes
 Rarely

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us