Petition EASA Regulations.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Here

[Phil Green]

Well intended John but how can a petition full of errors have any legal standing ?

 

 

Edited By Phil Green on 10/10/2016 09:50:56

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

It came up on our forum Phil so i posted it over here, choice to sign or not is voluntary n my Grandma was never wrong

John

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Phil Green]

Me neither. Its poor presentation, grammar and inaccuracy gives a very poor portrayal of its signatories. Better, I think, to wait for a properly formulated response from Aunty BMFA who works via actual connections rather than by hearsay 

 

Edited By Phil Green on 05/10/2016 17:28:19

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Sorry, but I won't sign this either. I agree with many of the points above: its factually incorrect and very poorly presented.

The fact is change is now inevitable. The smart money is on engaging with and influancing the change - not ignoring it , trying to hold back the tide or striking a "little Englander" posture of defiance. This sort of petition represemts an attitude that I believe is not only doomed to failure but is actually counterproductive and potentially makes the situation worse.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/10/2016 17:37:30

[Phil Green]

The DMFV's paper reads very well:

**LINK**

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes, I agree Phil the German response is very good. Its measured, reasonable and most importantly it's not just a great big "no"! Where they disagree they make positive counterproposals. This sort of sensible balanced approach is far more likely to positively influence EASA than a narrow nationalistic rant!
BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/10/2016 23:52:32

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep it reads o.k what is a legally defined flying site i wonder

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Maybe any site deemed suitable by a recognised club or association?

[Toni Reynaud]

I wrote to the EASA on this subject. The reply I got is below. I think that taken with a letter from Dave Phipps of the BMFA (see my next post) that the situation is well in hand and nowhere near as bad as we might have thought a few days ago.

Toni

**************************************************************************

Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.

We had and we are still having intensive discussions on the inclusion of model aircraft in our regulatory proposal, and how to differentiate between a model aircraft and a drone operator flying for leisure.

We are trying to give as much flexibility as we can.

With regard to your query, I would like to refer you for example to Article 15 of the UAS draft proposal (Prototype Rule, for your convenience I report it below). It gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model clubs identifying deviations from the European rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing the model clubs to operate as they do today giving maximum freedom. So if you fly within the remit of a club recognized by your national authority, you do not need to comply with the European rule since we know that a model club already imposes rules providing a sufficient level of safety. Therefore I expect that not much will change for people flying under model clubs rules and no modification could be required to their aircraft.

Still we need to regulate the flight of UAS outside of model clubs and in order to reduce the risk, we defined limitations in energy (weight and speed or level of injury).

 

Regarding model aircraft we are meeting with model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs and with their help we will improve the draft text further, if needed.

 

As you may know we keep aviation safety as high priority and we hope this draft regulation allows the UAS market to develop safely in Europe, without negatively impacting other categories such as the model hobbyist. The purpose of publishing the “prototype” version of the regulatory proposal, while we are still working on it, was exactly to receive comments from all interested stakeholders.

So thank you for sharing your thoughts and I hope my answer helped to show that we do not intend to impede on model or hobby flights.

 

 

Article 15

Transitional provisions

For recreational operations of UA, such as leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities, conducted in the frame of associations or clubs with proven satisfactory safety records and performed under national systems before this Regulation enters into force, the following transitional provisions shall apply:

1. By [3 years after entry into force of this Regulation — estimate 2020], the competent authority shall issue operational authorisations to associations or clubs for the operations which would otherwise require an authorisation according to Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.

2. An operational authorisation can be issued without the need to conduct the operational risk assessment referred to in UAS.SPEC.60.

3. Operational authorisations issued under this Article shall define the conditions, limitations and deviations from the requirements of Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.

 

Best regards,

 

Natale Di Rubbo

Regulation officer – Initial Airworthiness

European Aviation Safety Agency

Edited By Toni Reynaud on 06/10/2016 07:58:43

[Toni Reynaud]

From Dave Phipps........

Through Europe Air Sports, we have been working on this for the last year. In actual fact, for the last few months it has been the main focus of my work!

EASA’s intention was to implement rules which would have minimal impact on model flying and they believed that they had achieved this through the provisions in Article 15. However, I disagreed with them. The EASA rulemaking team were taken aback by my response and invited me (along with the FAI) to meet with them a little over a week ago. They acknowledge that they have ‘not got it right’ for model flyers and that there remains a lot of work to do. They have also invited us to work with them directly and suggest revisions which would make the proposals workable which I’m working on at present.

Feel free to respond directly to their comment email address, but they have had a much bigger response than they anticipated (particularly from the UK) and they’ve got the message. Comments to EASA are required by the 15th October.

In parallel (again through Europe Air Sport) I have written some proposed amendments to EASA’s Basic Regulation which have been tabled by a German MEP. The proposals would introduce definitions for model flying and effectively place us in the same Annex as amateur built aircraft (and therefore under national control and free from EASA regulation). The amendments were due to be heard on the 10/11 October but have now been deferred until 9/10 November. Europe Air Sports has a professional lobbyist in the European Parliament who is very active on our behalf directly lobbying the relevant MEP’s. I am also working in collaboration with colleagues from other Associations throughout Europe to ensure that they lobby their own MEP’s directly too. The relevant UK MEP’s appear to support the amendments and one of them (Jacqueline Foster) is a long term supporter whom I’ve worked with previously.

In terms of writing to MP’s & MEP’s as Simon Dale was suggesting, this would be largely wasted endeavour at this stage as the majority of them are not involved. Writing to the specific MEP’s on the European Parliament Transport & Tourism Committee (TRAN) to seek their support for the proposed amendments may be more useful, but we already have a good level of support and there is some concern that if they get a large amount of correspondence then it may be ultimately be counterproductive and cloud the issue at a time when we need to present a very clear message.

EASA are sending out a standard response to comments submitted:

Subject: RE: Flying of Model Aircraft
Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.
We had and are having a big debate on model inclusion in this regulation and how to differentiate between a model and a normal drone operator flying for leisure.
We are trying to give as much flexibility as we can and art 15 of the Prototype Rule gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model associations identifying deviations from the rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing model clubs to operate as they do today and in reality nothing will change for you and no modification will be required to your aircraft.
We are having discussions with Model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs. With their help we will improve the text further if needed.

I attended the same meeting with the CAA and DfT last week which Simon Dale refers to in his video and I was asked to brief the meeting on my direct negotiations with EASA. His comment on the ‘Dear faceless bureaucrat’ email sent to EASA was something I related to the meeting (it was actually ‘Dear faceless civil servant) and was not intended for wider broadcast. We are working closely with the DfT and CAA who are supportive (the CAA provided some input into the presentation I gave to EASA).

Ultimately, the Prototype Rules are just that. There are a number of stages which they would have to pass through to come into force and dependent upon how negotiations progress, then we may seek to mobilise all model flyers throughout Europe to make a mass response. However, this is something I would like to keep the ‘powder dry on’ at this stage.

As you can see from the above, we are not only active on this front but we are leading it (through Europe Air Sports) on behalf of model flyers throughout Europe. There is a lot more going on at present in addition to that outlined above, some of which is quite sensitive and as such I cannot report on just yet.

I hope this helps and gives you some reassurance?

Regards

Dave

Dave Phipps
Chief Executive
(and Technical Officer to Europe Air Sports)

Tel: 0116 2440028
Fax: 0116 2440645
email: [email protected]

The Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers Limited
T/A The British Model Flying Association
A company limited by guarantee. Registered in England Number 457067
Registered office Chacksfield House, 31 St Andrew's Road, Leicester, LE2 8RE

[perttime]

"a legally defined flying site" is probably defined by the "competent authority", whoever that might end up being. I wouldn't bet on every suitable location qualifying.

[John Lee]

Many thanks Toni

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by perttime on 06/10/2016 08:00:15:

"a legally defined flying site" is probably defined by the "competent authority", whoever that might end up being. I wouldn't bet on every suitable location qualifying.

Yep not that worried for my own part, if there's a few tweaks i'll keep calm n carry on not liking how it may effect those outside club though, but fingers crossed n wait n see.

John

[Mannyroad]

What worries me a little about all this is that for a number of years I was a member of a flying club near where I used to live and they have been flying at their site for many many years. So long that they are not required to seek planning permission. The problem they are going to face is that they are not affiliated to the BMFA or any other 'competent authority' and never have been. All members are still required to prove they are members of the BMFA or carry alternative equivalent insurance, must demonstrate flying competence before being allowed to fly solo and must comply with the club's safety rules for flying. However, despite this I am asuming that they will ultimately fall foul of the new regulations that will come into force because they are not affiliated/associated with a 'competent authority'. I fully understand the need for some form of regulation for the scourge of the inexperienced and irresponsible drone flyers but it seems that clubs like the one I used to fly with will now be forced to affiliate with the BMFA, whatever that involves, or suffer. I think it's a shame to force regulation, Association affiliation or licencing on people who already fly responsibly. But there we are.

Edited By Mannyroad on 06/10/2016 10:21:02

[Martyn K]

I think in the context:

Competent Authority = CAA

Club = BMFA

Martyn

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes John, I think clubs have relatively little to worry about. Yes there will be a flying site approval process, and there will be one or two additional restrictions - but nothing that matches the "Threat to model flying" banner headlines that some parties have been promoting.

But the same unfortunately cannot be siad for those flying outside of the embrace of a club. Slope soarers, parkfliers and those who just fly at a local flield they have access to will all have issues with this. Let's hope that some compromise can be worked out to allow those activities to continue. But we have to recognise that "compromise" is a two-way street - we will have to be prepared to accept changes in how those sort of activities are run in order to have any hope of continuing them. If we adopt a "die hard" attitude then that is exactly what we'll do - die-hard!

BEB

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep fingers crossed BEB, lots of good law abiding modelflyers that don't belong to a club, might increase club numbers but

John

[Doug Campbell]

I am a country member that has legal access to fly on some meadowland. It looks likely that I will have to break the law to continue flying. What a rediculous state of affairs. Fortunately there won't be the resources to police this.

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Mannyroad on 06/10/2016 10:19:57:

will now be forced to affiliate with the BMFA, whatever that involves, or suffer.

Edited By Mannyroad on 06/10/2016 10:21:02

It involves all club members being BMFA members, that's it, so if it's a club requirement that you are a BMFA member then you are already affiliated. Crazy not to be as the BMFA then covers the club officers against claims against the club, unless that is that it isn't a club but just a bunch of mates who fly together.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Doug Campbell on 06/10/2016 10:59:02:
I am a country member that has legal access to fly on some meadowland. It looks likely that I will have to break the law to continue flying. What a rediculous state of affairs. Fortunately there won't be the resources to police this.

As a BMFA member, flying legally, hopefully there won't be any problem registering or otherwise using your flying site.

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 06/10/2016 11:14:01:

Posted by Mannyroad on 06/10/2016 10:19:57:

will now be forced to affiliate with the BMFA, whatever that involves, or suffer.

Edited By Mannyroad on 06/10/2016 10:21:02

It involves all club members being BMFA members, that's it, so if it's a club requirement that you are a BMFA member then you are already affiliated. Crazy not to be as the BMFA then covers the club officers against claims against the club, unless that is that it isn't a club but just a bunch of mates who fly together.

In addition to the valuable financial back up for officials, member clubs are the "actual" BMFA voting entities - along with Fellows and officers - so why not become a BMFA club and get your views and votes represented?

[Erfolg]

The issues that Doug raises puts into context the impact of the "Legally Defined Site".

One of the clubs that I am a member of uses farmland, where the club flying is rotated about a number of fields as determined by the farmers operations. The club has operated in this manner for some +50 years. There has not been a planning permission issue, or permission sought.

Until recently I would in winter fly from a municipal 9 hole course (which closed for winter, due to water logging and demand), on particularly calm winter days, when the course was closed for golf. The models indoor electrics.

I have also flown from deserted beaches in Cumbria.

On occasion i have flown of North West Water Board located in moorland. I have flown from Sale Fell (nr St Margaret Church), which is the small sale Fell. In this case slope soaring.

In the past i have organised competitions as one offs, again in farmers fields.

All of these activities i would suspect will have issues.

Being selfish, i can see that now, these proposed measures will have little impact on my current flying. Although i will not be able to try slope soaring of the near by sand dunes that i had planned on trying, during the winter. Although i do suspect that in the longer term the club requirement will reduce future interest in RC aeromodelling, where our numbers will reduce to a lot less than the circa 30,000 BMFA members today.

I personally do not like the proposals, although it does seem inevitable that in some form they will be implemented.

The good news is that childrens sized flying devices fall outside these restrictions.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Who's to say that the regulations won't allow suitably qualified or experienced BMFA members to operate from any site they have assessed as safe - maybe the achievement scheme could accommodate site assessment more formally?

[Tom Satinet]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/10/2016 10:26:51:

Yes John, I think clubs have relatively little to worry about. Yes there will be a flying site approval process, and there will be one or two additional restrictions - but nothing that matches the "Threat to model flying" banner headlines that some parties have been promoting.

But the same unfortunately cannot be siad for those flying outside of the embrace of a club. Slope soarers, parkfliers and those who just fly at a local flield they have access to will all have issues with this. Let's hope that some compromise can be worked out to allow those activities to continue. But we have to recognise that "compromise" is a two-way street - we will have to be prepared to accept changes in how those sort of activities are run in order to have any hope of continuing them. If we adopt a "die hard" attitude then that is exactly what we'll do - die-hard!

BEB

A compromise works if one side is actually being reasonable. If I decided to come and build a house in your garden I doubt you would want to compromise by sharing the land.

The whole thing is based on the supposition that there is a big danger to police when in reality there isn't. Well in fact that is the reason given, but the reality is the powers that be have seen an opportunity to tax and control something, which is all they ever do. By that I mean license air space for commercial use of a drones. Safety is just the "think of the children excuse" at a daily mail readership level.

The EASA lacks understanding of model flying, or deliberately pretends not to understand, that a lot of model flying takes place outside of "clubs". It's ambiguous whether they mean the bmfa is a club or a club is a club.