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

Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Cliff Whittaker09/09/2019 18:40:42
10 forum posts

Okay - Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Leichtenstein are not Members of EASA as EU States are, which means they don't get a vote in the rulemaking committees. But they are bound by treaty to follow the rules and their aviation authorities issue certificates that have full validity in EU Member States, as those issued by the CAA do.

These four non-EU States are present at the the EU meetings where the wording of the rules is decided before being passed to the Parliament for adoption. They engage in the debates and give their view. Having no formal vote makes little difference as votes are rarely called in these committees. The EU Commissioners are skilled at getting consensus. I know this because used to attend some of these meetings as a CAA specialist supporting the UK DfT officials.

The point I tried to make in my post above is that we are almost guaranteed to be following EU rules for aviation by one of the following routes:

1. We will still be in the EU

2. We will join the Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Leichtenstein group

3. The UK government will pass UK national legislation that is copied from the EU rules.

Jeremy Wilkins09/09/2019 19:01:13
44 forum posts

Further written evidence submission to the Select Committee by the BMFA, SAA, LMA and FPVUK Link .

Cheers,

Jeremy Wilkins

Jason-I09/09/2019 20:22:30
183 forum posts
33 photos
Posted by Jeremy Wilkins on 09/09/2019 19:01:13:

Further written evidence submission to the Select Committee by the BMFA, SAA, LMA and FPVUK Link .

Cheers,

Jeremy Wilkins

Nicely worded document there from the associations. It's a shame the anti-aviation minister and all the DfT cronies will just ignore it......

A simplified version showing the implausibility of all the drone sighting should be sent to the press. (or perhaps the associations should take out an avert in the press to get the word out to the people - to try and negate all of the bad press the hobby gets).

Edited By Jason-I on 09/09/2019 20:27:09

Steve J09/09/2019 20:44:09
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos
Posted by Peter Christy on 08/09/2019 09:49:16:

If we left EASA, it would be the end of international flights to and from Europe - if not elsewhere - until alternative arrangements could be worked out.

Wrong.

Air services from the EU to the UK if there is a no-deal Brexit

Air Services Agreements

Steve J09/09/2019 21:09:15
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos
Posted by Jeremy Wilkins on 09/09/2019 19:01:13:

Further written evidence submission to the Select Committee by the BMFA, SAA, LMA and FPVUK.

That is poor. The BMFA's original submission (99572) is much better.

Steve

Cliff Whittaker21/09/2019 13:11:21
10 forum posts

Steve J - I hope you have misunderstood.

Both documents were produced by the same people. The first was the submission before the hearings. The second supplements the first and was added to comment on points and possible misunderstandings that emerged during the oral evidence discussions.

Steve J21/09/2019 13:24:58
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos
Posted by Cliff Whittaker on 21/09/2019 13:11:21:

Steve J - I hope you have misunderstood..

I haven't. I think that 104905 is poor.

Steve J21/09/2019 13:29:02
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos

The Defence Committee are running an inquiry on the "Domestic Threat of Drones" in parallel with the one being run by the Science and Technology Committee.

They recently published a transcript of the oral evidence session that they had on the 3rd September.

Steve

Martin_K21/09/2019 15:17:43
53 forum posts

The opinion from the Defence Committee witness Arthur Holland Michel that seemed relevant to our debate was;

"The discussion that you are seeing happen about larger drones is that if the industry can prove that large drones can be integrated into the airspace in a safe way, the airspace authorities will allow that to happen."

My interpretation of that statement, trade top priority, defence?

The other thing I took from the hearing; the 'expert witnesses' know no more than us about the effectiveness of counter drone technologies as nobody shares their results.

Steve J11/10/2019 06:58:35
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos

The committee has published their report.

Steve J11/10/2019 07:40:39
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos

**LINK**

In favour of registration, but think that it should be cheap.

In favour of electronic conspicuity.

Chris Berry11/10/2019 08:14:48
133 forum posts
1 photos

Conclusions and recommendations paras 4,5,6 and 7.

Only recommendations of course.

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/10/2019 08:18:30

GONZO11/10/2019 08:46:41
avatar
1266 forum posts
14 photos

24. The Government should also ensure that all existing drones are retrofitted with electronic conspicuity within the next two years. (Paragraph 132)

Interesting. AFAIK the required technology does not yet exist.

Steve J11/10/2019 08:56:13
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos
Posted by GONZO on 11/10/2019 08:46:41:

AFAIK the required technology does not yet exist.

To be pedantic, I would say that the technology exists, but the standards do not although one may be agreed in the next few weeks.

Steve

GONZO11/10/2019 09:15:51
avatar
1266 forum posts
14 photos

Such a provision is pointless in a model club environment where all the planes operate within a 1000ft or so of a geographical fixed point. Hopefully the results of the discussions between CAA, DfT and the national model flying bodies result in a more benign regulatory frame work with a few concessions, namely the height limit for thermal soarers( at club site).

Steve J11/10/2019 11:17:36
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos

BMFA article on the report.

Martin_K11/10/2019 12:25:32
53 forum posts

The BMFA News page also links to new documents from EASA.

The part that caught my eye is The Guidance Material (GM) to the Implementing Regulation pertaining to Article 16 UAS operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations.

See pages 125,126,127.

I am wondering if the 'lone flyer' has a future, as everything seems to be geared around clubs and associations.

Martin Harris11/10/2019 13:30:50
avatar
8795 forum posts
215 photos

Seems generally well balanced from a quick scan but the following raises some concerns to me:

24. The Government should also ensure that all existing drones are retrofitted with electronic conspicuity within the next two years. (Paragraph 132)

Old Geezer11/10/2019 15:09:59
611 forum posts

Which takes us back to: do the legislators define a Drone to be a multirotor (whether Programmed, flown by FPV or Line of Sight), or are they using this as a portmanteau term which would include our model aircraft flown exclusively for recreational purposes?

Steve J11/10/2019 15:30:37
avatar
1441 forum posts
44 photos
Posted by Old Geezer on 11/10/2019 15:09:59:

Which takes us back to ...

If you were to read the report, you would find a section titled 'What is a "drone"?' starting on page 12 in which it says "The term ‘drone’ is used as an alternative to ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicle’ (UAV) or ‘Unmanned Aircraft’ (UA)."

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
CML
electricwingman 2017
Gliders Distribution
Pepe Aircraft
Slec
Wings & Wheels 2019
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
New Poll - Sticky situations...
Q: How often - when using superglue - do you end up with it on your fingers?

 Every time
 Occasionally
 Sometimes
 Rarely
 Never
 Wear rubber gloves

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us