Registration of ALL unmanned aircraft

[Peter Miller]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 20/10/2015 08:24:44:

Nothing to say though that if the current regulations prove insufficient then that will change in the future, but it does seem strange in the US where firearm's are very lightly regulated that drones seem fair target for stringent regulation.

Yes, but the gun lobby or NRA can shut a president up, Modellers don't have the same clout. Maybe.....? No, I won't say it.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by ChrisB on 20/10/2015 08:05:11:

Further to my earlier post, I'd welcome registration and of course education but not sure it will solve the issue of unlawful 'drone' use. I'd be interested to know what is meant by 'Drone' as it seems very widely used. I wouldn't class a wot4 as a drone but I may consider a quadcopter as a drone. I think the authorities need to clearly establish this meaning and perhaps begin using the term multi-rota or model aircraft, as they are different things and can be used in a different way.

Sadly the term drone has been hijacked by the media and now appears to mean anything from the smallest multirotor upto RAF Predators!, thankfully the CAA dont use the term in the ANO - they use Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and Unmanned Surveillance Vehicle - So your WOT4 and all RC models are UAV except when fitted with cameras specifically for taking photos/video not associated with the act of flying itself then they are USV

[Andy Meade]

I don't think there is a "right to keep and bear drones" written into the constitution though - that's what makes potential regulation so hard for the liberals now.

[adrian lawrence 1]

I'm not too sure that 99% of aero modellers operate lawfully. Although many multi rotor flyers may be in clubs, many (although not all) operate fpv transmitters that are illegal both in power output and frequency and do not fly line of sight. I enjoy flying multi rotors myself and do not have an issue with them, however it's quite obvious that a lot are being flown in contravention af the ANO.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Let's hope that it's obvious enough for some high profile prosecutions then.

I'm not so sure that 99% of aero modellers don't abide by the law though - the problem is the non-modellers who see drones as simple toys and don't care about the consequences of their actions.

[ChrisB]

Most aeromodellers fly in established club's at established sites free from structures etc and abide by the relevant laws..don't they? Or is it just my club of 80?

Edited By ChrisB on 20/10/2015 12:11:57

[Dave Hopkin]

The issue isnt with people flying in club environments its those who fly outside of organised clubs who flout the law in 99% of the cases

[Essjay]

Dave, I haven't belonged to a club for a couple of years now since my old club lost it's flying site. I'm afraid I take umbrage at your sweeping statement that 99% of all non club members are flouting the law.
I'm sure there are many non-club members such as myself who fly perfectly responsibly in local parks/open spaces. I am a BMFA member and am insured, and only fly small electric models, including quads.
Yes, I'm sure there are a few who may be flying irresponsibly, but I fear your estimate of 99% is grossly over exaggerated.

Steve

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

99.9% of statistics are incorrect.

...and I've been told a million times not to exaggerate.

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/10/2015 14:38:37

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Essjay on 20/10/2015 13:08:26:

Dave, I haven't belonged to a club for a couple of years now since my old club lost it's flying site. I'm afraid I take umbrage at your sweeping statement that 99% of all non club members are flouting the law.
I'm sure there are many non-club members such as myself who fly perfectly responsibly in local parks/open spaces. I am a BMFA member and am insured, and only fly small electric models, including quads.
Yes, I'm sure there are a few who may be flying irresponsibly, but I fear your estimate of 99% is grossly over exaggerated.

Steve

Steve please re-read my post..... 99% of illegal flying is carried out by non club members, that isnt the same as "99% of non club flyers fly illegally"

[Essjay]

Dave, apologies for misconstruing your post.I must learn to slow down and not speed read posts.

Having re-read your post I can see how I should have read it in the first place.

Steve

[Erfolg]

Having watched and listened to the video link, it is not clear to me who will be effected.

In one part of a statement there appeared to be a set of parameters that once exceeded required registration.

Yet, the majority of the statements seemed to point at a requirement for all users to register.

It could be that at present the scope and details are very much in the mix.

At times I thought that this will affect drones/quads only, then other statements did point to a catch all position.

Personally I feel there has to be a room for toys, which do not require registration or other burdensome regulations, so that children can fly toy/small uncontrolled or even simple controlled air vehicles. If this were not to be the position, children will be denied many hours of healthy fun. We modellers could be denied much of the feed stock into this hobby.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Essjay on 20/10/2015 15:53:46:

Dave, apologies for misconstruing your post.I must learn to slow down and not speed read posts.

Having re-read your post I can see how I should have read it in the first place.

Steve

No problem, been there, done that, got the T Shirt.......

[Dave Bran]

Posted by Essjay on 20/10/2015 13:08:26:

I'm sure there are many non-club members such as myself who fly perfectly responsibly in local parks/open spaces.

However, flying responsibly does not automatically equal flying legally. Do your local park bylaws allow the operation of model aircraft? Under what restrictions? My local ones (with the exception of one not only do not permit model flight period, they also ban hitting/driving a golf ball and cycling! Stupid, yes, but it IS the law.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Formal registration of UAS for commercial use in the UK may not be obvious - but in pratcice it already exists! When applying for a Permit you are required to supply photographs of the UASs covered and some from of identification, e.g. a serial number or registration number. All of our commercial systems already have allocated identification numbers which are displayed on the aircraft. So, as far as the commercial world is concerned in the UK, "nothing new here".

The issue is of course the potential extension to hobby flying.

Some have suggested its not practical - I would disagree - its eminantly achievable, as I say its already being done here in the UK. The problem is it costs money to achieve - and where is that going to come from? The obvious place would be a "registration fee". Mmmmm? Just to put that in perspective; currently the charge we pay for a commercial Permit application is £224 for the 7-20Kg class and annual renewal is an further £112. I can't see charges like that being sustainable in the hobby world - but presummably that's what a robust registration system costs to run in practice as that's what CAA charge.

BEB

[ChrisB]

Posted by Erfolg on 20/10/2015 18:25:53:

Having watched and listened to the video link, it is not clear to me who will be effected.

In one part of a statement there appeared to be a set of parameters that once exceeded required registration.

Yet, the majority of the statements seemed to point at a requirement for all users to register.

It could be that at present the scope and details are very much in the mix.

At times I thought that this will affect drones/quads only, then other statements did point to a catch all position.

Personally I feel there has to be a room for toys, which do not require registration or other burdensome regulations, so that children can fly toy/small uncontrolled or even simple controlled air vehicles. If this were not to be the position, children will be denied many hours of healthy fun. We modellers could be denied much of the feed stock into this hobby.

I don't necessarily think it would put people off the hobby, although I think it would be a waste of time due to enforcement etc. If i were setting up a scheme i'd have an online portal to which you register and then put details of each aircraft on the form, propulsion, colour, type, span etc. It obvious has lots of pitfalls and opportunity for problems, but i'm not sure its overly burdensome.

Having watched the video twice I get the feeling they don't really know what they want and i too, can't decide what type of aircraft its aimed at, clear as mud

CB

Edited By ChrisB on 20/10/2015 19:00:47

[Ben Kenobi]

The hassles already is putting people off, not a bad thing in some cases. I have quit flying any of my multirotors and have them up for sale - some hope.

Flying them is no longer viable in my opinion, too much hassle, the whole purpose of my multirotors was to explore another hobby - photography - not much point if you can only fly in select predefined places. Technically I can't even fly on my own property due to the proximity of other buildings / public footpath etc etc.

I've no issue towing the line, obeying a few rules and applying a bit of common sense but I'm finding that the restrictions on where and when you can fly just don't work for me, so I'm not sure I'll even keep flying, I'll see how the next 12 months go.

Will people be put off the hobby - yes - I have been.

[Dave Hopkin]

Is managing a database of every model a practical economic solution? Given that there are 35,000 odd in the BMFA and virtually everyone has multiple models (lets be conservative and say 4 each) thats 140,000 database entries plus 35.000 parent entities to manage and keep accurate. Then there are unknown numbers of flyers not in the BMFA - almost impossible to estimate how many there are....

Then you have a virtually impossible task of getting flyers to register, the CAA have enough difficulties educating the public about the rules, is it realistic to expect any meaningful take up of registration?

How would you police it? I would guess those that fly responsibly would probably register, those that dont probably wont, so what have you achieved, not a lot really.......

They may bring it in simply to show they are doing something but really dont have a clue how to manage the situation they find themselves in, both the FAA and CAA are caught on the coat tails of technology which is evolving far faster than they can manage it

[Erfolg]

The issue of laws and regulations can be a mine field in the real world.

Take making a journey by car, there are very few if ever a journey does not involve some contravention of laws and regulations. From reversing out of a drive, without a 100% clear view of all traffic and pedestrians. That split second of driving at 31 mph in a limit of 30 mph. Not being 100% aware of all around, as you, select another radio station, look momentarily at your passenger, shout at and perhaps look at what the kids are doing in the rear of the car. All trivial in themselves, yet if it suits the police, something to use in a prosecution.

I think probably the most frequently broken regulation by modellers is flying within 50m of a building or a car (not owned by yourselves) or a member of the public etc. However transitory this may occur.

If the regulation were to be applied to children and their toys, i do not think it will be a case of being put of. It is an issue of not having the opportunity to play with flying vehicles, as their parents will not necessarily be prepared to go through any hassle. If the public will not go through the hassle, then shops will not stock these flying toys and children will not have the opportunity of playing with a toy.

As for us, it all depends on what would be required from us.

I fully expect that the BMFA will be monitoring the general drift of the USA official discussions and formulating our own position.

[Paul Marsh]

I did suggest that registration should be done in a thread a while ago. Makes sense. Sensible people will operate their equipment within their constraints and discourage stupid behaviour from some, such as flying over stadiums and encroaching Airfields and restricted airspace.

[andyh]

written summary here if you don't want to sit through the video:

**LINK**

I don't see that they're suggesting anything other than re-inforcing the ANO/airspace rules & maybe making registration a requirement for commercial operations

[Ben Kenobi]

Registration or some controls I think are inevitable. There is no reason why the birds we fly couldn't be fitted with some kind of transponder that gave out an ID when requested (not all the time) - flying with no ID multiplies the consequences ten fold - they have tools that can knock devices down so they must have tools that can send an ID request.

It's the policing of it that's the problem - and a law with no policing isn't a law. One of the recent prosecutions was against a guy who had a genuine flyaway - something that DJI phantoms are known to do - but he still got hammered.

It's a tough problem and they have no choice but to include ANYTHING that can fly / carry a camera (and lets face it with today's technology that's almost everything), or it becomes unfair, where would they divide. There is no way that they will get everything / everyone, I think the first policy has to be education, I'd like to bet that quite a few fly without even realising that rules even exist - since YouTube is hardly presenting a good example.

As I've said before the rules already exist both for flying and privacy, we don't need more, clubs and most BMFA members obey the rules - but that's a tiny tiny minority I think - media attention will give the politicians no choice.

The video I think is about answering the 'how' - that is the brief of the workgroup that they've set up.

 

Edited By Ben Kenobi on 20/10/2015 19:56:44

[Erfolg]

Yes, the statement is far more explicit, stating that at least toys are to be exempt.

I guess the next question what is the definition of a toy. Although I am sure that we all know what one is, erm, that is until the definition is written down.

At least the statement is encouraging.

[Erfolg]

I expect that the point has been made with the respect to a database is correct.

Particularly if every single model aircraft and quad were to be registered. There would have to be some controls on the removal of devices no longer in existence or operation. The management suggests that there would be some charge, both to register and to remain on the register. It would certainly generate some overheads for those managing such a system.

Being the UK, non compliance would probably result in a penalty/fine of some thousands of pounds.

In my opinion, I would want the BMFA to fight ant suggestion that our under 10kg models (for example) should be included. Rather than us gaining any benefit, as in the days of the GPO and RC licence, it would be just an expense with not a single benefit to us as when the CBs were all the rage.

[PatMc]

There's no suggestion that this US scheme will in anyway affect us in the UK.
Despite what's been previously posted to the contrary the US have different legislation to the UK, they also have completely different procedures in law enforcement & prosecuting alleged offenders.

IMO, as much as anything this proposed registration scheme is a political action to pre-empt any criticism resulting from bad press if there are any high profile incidents involving drones between now & the 2016 US Presidential election.
Anthony Foxx, Transport Secretary & the Michael Huerta, FAA Administrator are both Democratic appointees.
In the event of a Democrat presidential victory the Foxx will be hoping to obtain a post in the new administration & might even have aspirations of becoming president himself in the future.
Huerta will have been embarrassed over the CAA losing the "Trappy" case & will be determined not to appear powerless in any future legal actions involving UAVs.