Petition EASA Regulations.

[Piers Bowlan]

Who said any of us is going to break the law BEB? What I am saying is that this heap of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake will not be enforced, there is simply not the resources to periodically monitor/periodically check 60,000 model plane fliers (or whatever the number is) in the UK and I can't see that situation being any different in the other EASA signatory countries. If I can go back to my analogy with the Hunting ban. The police have publicly stated that they do not have the resources to monitor or enforce that law. Model plane fliers will be too low on their priorities too - and rightly so. But an unenforceable law is a bad law in my book. Even worse when it is not fit for purpose.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Doug Campbell on 06/10/2016 17:49:47:
Wouldn't it be so much nicer if we could sit in a pub discussing this over a few drinks. Forums help us keep in touch but not too good for debates.

Edited By Doug Campbell on 06/10/2016 17:50:15

Now, there we would agree.

Piers - I was being "tongue in cheek" hence the smilie!

And to be equally clear - I am not advocating these ideas beacause I beieve they will work. Nor because I think they are good ideas in themselves. I'm advocating them because firstly I want us to protect as many of our fellow modellers as we can and secondly because I have a lot experience in dealing with CAA, also with the EU and even some experince in dealing with EASA. I believe these are the pragmatic paths that will get us the best result in terms of the maximum amount of a hobby still functioning. And n that I'm not alone - the Germnan governing body for one is also advocating pilot registration.

I'm not defeatist, but I am realistric and I know these people. If we adopt a non-co-operative, resistance based, attitude we will loose. They have all the power in this relationship. They don't want to be nasty, they want a quiet peaceful life - so we give them a solution that ticks their boxes and leaves us with as much scope as possible. Remember - politics is the art of the possible.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/10/2016 18:56:25

[Ian Jones]

Posted by Doug Campbell on 06/10/2016 17:18:13:

We really need to challenge the registration of flying sites.

If I was one of these untrustworthy types they are trying to restrict it would have absolutely no effect on me at all. I could park up anywhere, goggles on and away in less than 30 seconds, and the drone would be soon far enough away that it would be impossible for anybody to associate it with me. I have seen it happen frequently. My mate who is over a mile away sends his quad to the field to see if I'm there. Who is going to catch it and track it's source.

As for taking my chances and break the law why not? Do you think the local plod will know if its control line, freeflight or radio dt? Will they carry scales.

I dont know who you are BEB but you appear to havethrown in the towel when there is still a lot to fight for.

Yep, lot's of "plods" are model flyers! There's no need to be insulting.

What we need is the best and fairest deal all around. At the moment I would agree that the planned legislation is too heavy for law abiding citizens and pointless against the lawless. I would very much like an explanation as how the legislation would genuinely be of any benefit.

[Erfolg]

For once i have to accept that BEB is probably correct.

Our first problem is our lack of power.

The second is that we also have no influence, due to to this lack of power, be it derived from financial muscle, media presence or having a political clout via votes etc.

Thirdly we have a media issue, we seeks to present quads in particularly in a negative light. This is also heightened by the civil pilots, who report everything they see in the sky as a drone, be it a duck or paper bag. Yet in the long run, commercial UAVs will increase dramatically, whatever their (pilots) motives.

The forth and potentially greatest threat are the commercial drone operators, who may see us as a nuisance to their activities, be surveillance of infrastructure, all the way to delivering products, who could well lobby for payments (to fund licencing etc)to banning us as we know it.

Unfortunately I do suspect that what we do as a hobby will have diminishing numbers as the years roll by.

I suspect that BEBS approach of putting forward the measures we cn live with, is the one that the authorities in general will accept.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

It never been anything other than getting out with a little damage as possible

[Ian Jones]

Ah! yes John, I think that's BEB's point. Whilst I see that I think we should do more bartering for a good deal first.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yes Ian that's why i agreed with him about 2 years ago.

John

Edited By john stones 1 on 06/10/2016 22:08:46

[Ian Jones]

Posted by john stones 1 on 06/10/2016 22:07:42:

Yes Ian that's why i agreed with him about 2 years ago.

John

Edited By john stones 1 on 06/10/2016 22:08:46

Point taken John.

I think many of us feel threatened and saddened by they way our pastime has had to face so much adversity in recent times that the barriers go up a bit. All we want to do is enjoy flying our models without being encumbered by undue restrictions.

Here's hoping for a good outcome for us all.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep Ian, i'm in a long established club, outcome for us all is the biggie though.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

All this talk of operating outside the law because it's unlikely to be enforced...you do realise that operating in contravention of the law invalidates your insurance?

[Piers Bowlan]

Yes, yes I know you were being tongue in cheek BEB, no offence taken.

I too have had a lifetime of dealing with the CAA. They have their procedures and rules obviously but I have always found them to be reasonable and fair. Also, there is nothing in the ANO regarding model flying that is unreasonable as far as I am concerned. From what I am led to believe the CAA seem happy with the self regulating nature of model flying as it is in the UK at the moment. EASA's lawyers seem unable to differentiate between a model aeroplane and a DGI drone for some reason (something to do with an overlap of technology apparently). I am confident that a judge in a UK court would be able to make a judgement on this if the need arose. Sadly, we will all be lumbered with the same EASA legislation as a consequence.

I have no problem with registering with EASA/UKCAA/BMFA/LMFC if that is the law, even if I am at a loss to understand how you or I being on a database will make our skies safer. I think there will be many who don't bother to register which will make a nonsense of the rules, making them even more pointless. So why take out insurance for as Ritch says, it won't be valid if you fly from a non registered site and not much point registering if you are not a member of an approved club. It seems that EASA believe that model flying will be safer if we all fly from approved sites but what evidence is there for that? Am I really more dangerous flying my slope soarer from a deserted hilltop than an active club with 10 powered models in the circuit?

I am not advocating burying our head in the sand and hoping it will work out OK. I think we should all be active in giving EASA our feedback to their 'prototype legislation' so that they can address some of the issues with their muddled thinking.

 

 

 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 07/10/2016 08:17:00

[Fatscoleymo]

I seem to recall that a little while ago new rules in the USA required model aircraft to be registered...the forums over there were full of similar discussions to this one... Has anybody an insight into how that has been implemented / taken up?

Fats

[MattyB]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 07/10/2016 08:12:01:

...I have no problem with registering with EASA/UKCAA/BMFA/LMFC if that is the law, even if I am at a loss to understand how you or I being on a database will make our skies safer. I think there will be many who don't bother to register which will make a nonsense of the rules, making them even more pointless. So why take out insurance for as Ritch says, it won't be valid if you fly from a non registered site and not much point registering if you are not a member of an approved club. It seems that EASA believe that model flying will be safer if we all fly from approved sites but what evidence is there for that? Am I really more dangerous flying my slope soarer from a deserted hilltop than an active club with 10 powered models in the circuit?

Exactly - the chances of an accident injuring others when lone sloping is pretty miniscule; most (though not all) slope sites are very sparsely populated compared to a power club, even if that club has it's own private land to operate from. The fact that you would be operating outside the law and uninsured (if the proposal in it's current state goes through) definitely makes it dangerous for the pilot though; how many will decide to operate in this way?

[MattyB]

Posted by Fatscoleymo on 07/10/2016 08:42:03:

I seem to recall that a little while ago new rules in the USA required model aircraft to be registered...the forums over there were full of similar discussions to this one... Has anybody an insight into how that has been implemented / taken up?

Fats

Registration was pushed through in the US very quickly and controversially just prior to Christmas last year, but is now under legal challenge - in the view of those challenging them the FAA have overstretched their remit somewhat...

[GONZO]

Piers,

It's not about making it safer if we all fly at club sites. Its about knowing where these sites are, putting them on aeronautical navigation charts and giving them a mini ATZ. Thus, all the autonomous 'drones' that they believe will fill our skies can be pre programmed to avoid these areas. This will significantly reduce the risk of any collision between 'drones' and a lone model, or two, being flown from random sites.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I think we could agree on all of that Piers. I too have generally found both CAA and EASA to be reasonable organisations just doing a job.

I also think Gonzo is correct - this is one of the driving forces behind registered sites - as the low altitude airspace gets busier then confining models to a small number of well defined sites becomes very important. An interesting thought here is that, once the initial transitional period is over (during which I envisage that the registering of existing clubs and their sites will be pretty much a "rubber stamping" exercise), I can see it becoming very much more difficult to add more sites. There would be a lot of resistance to that as it would mean updating maps and routes etc.

So that means that when the transitional period comes we would be well advised to notify the use of every site we might possibly want - not just those we actually use.

To piick up Ian Jones's point about how does this help with rogue fliers or terrorists etc. Well in the case of terrorists I don't believe it does, However it is possible to argue that it does help with rogue fliers. Consider the current situation - a police officer sees someone flying a "drone" - is this person committing an offence? Its almost impossible for the policeman to know. Firstly, the nature of any offence is very technical, we might understand it but the general public (including policemen) wouldn't. And if the person is doing something wrong (and under the current rules that's by no means certain or even likely) what would you charge them under? The ANO is very specialist legislation - not the standard bedtime reading of the CPS! So the result is probably that said policeman continues on his way - its too complex and messy for what might very well not be an offence anyway, even if it is an offence its unlikely to be prosecuted, and even if it was prosecuted the result would probably be a fine a couple of hundred quid - tops. Not worth the effort.

But now think on three years. As an example look around where I live - on the Wirral. Here we have two RC flying clubs; one in the north of the peninsular and one in the south. Both would now be home to a registered club under the new rules so their flying sites are effectively registered. Easy to know them then, well documented and only two of them. Now, any UAV (model, drone, whatever you want to call it) seen in the air on the Wirral outside of the area of those two sites is almost certainly breaking the law. Simple. Its possible that it it is a professional/commercial flight and they have a permit - but if so they can show it, and if not an offence is being committed and you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a nice simple law to prosecute said miscreant under.

Now the whole thing looks a much more attractive proposition for our policeman. Simple yes/no decision on "is there an offence being committed" and a straight forward law to prosecute under. This is why I believe, contrary to what some others have said, we will see prosecutions and a number of them if and when this comes to pass.

Now EASA will argue this will go some way to tackling rogue fliers that are a danger to themsleves and others. You may, or you may not, accept that. But it is an argument they will make.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 09:49:15

[Frank Skilbeck]

I e-mail Jacqueline Foster MEP who sits on the EU transportation committee, my concern that the Prototype regulations were extremely convoluted and overburdening, with the BMFA article attached, this the response I got from her office

"Mrs Foster has in fact raised these specific issues with both the European Commission and EASA; as you are aware the Parliament is currently in the process of the revision of the EASA regulation. She has emphasised that the many thousands of model aircraft users in the UK and across Europe are responsible and diligent. Most of them, as you know, are members of local clubs, and she does not foresee any additional costs or bureaucracy on model aircraft operators. Therefore, and as she is in fact the shadow Rapporteur on this dossier, she will continue to monitor closely its progress and she will be actively supporting some type of derogation."

Hopefully our message is getting through and any new UAV regulations will be aimed squarely at developing Europe wide regulations for the developing commercial sector and leave recreational fliers under the remit of the national organisations (CAA in our case)

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes, this is all good progress. We just need to continue the sensible rational pressure and avoid the "rant" and defiance agenda!
BEB

[Tom Satinet]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 09:45:25:

I think we could agree on all of that Piers. I too have generally found both CAA and EASA to be reasonable organisations just doing a job.

I also think Gonzo is correct - this is one of the driving forces behind registered sites - as the low altitude airspace gets busier then confining models to a small number of well defined sites becomes very important. An interesting thought here is that, once the initial transitional period is over (during which I envisage that the registering of existing clubs and their sites will be pretty much a "rubber stamping" exercise), I can see it becoming very much more difficult to add more sites. There would be a lot of resistance to that as it would mean updating maps and routes etc.

So that means that when the transitional period comes we would be well advised to notify the use of every site we might possibly want - not just those we actually use.

To piick up Ian Jones's point about how does this help with rogue fliers or terrorists etc. Well in the case of terrorists I don't believe it does, However it is possible to argue that it does help with rogue fliers. Consider the current situation - a police officer sees someone flying a "drone" - is this person committing an offence? Its almost impossible for the policeman to know. Firstly, the nature of any offence is very technical, we might understand it but the general public (including policemen) wouldn't. And if the person is doing something wrong (and under the current rules that's by no means certain or even likely) what would you charge them under? The ANO is very specialist legislation - not the standard bedtime reading of the CPS! So the result is probably that said policeman continues on his way - its too complex and messy for what might very well not be an offence anyway, even if it is an offence its unlikely to be prosecuted, and even if it was prosecuted the result would probably be a fine a couple of hundred quid - tops. Not worth the effort.

But now think on three years. As an example look around where I live - on the Wirral. Here we have two RC flying clubs; one in the north of the peninsular and one in the south. Both would now be home to a registered club under the new rules so their flying sites are effectively registered. Easy to know them then, well documented and only two of them. Now, any UAV (model, drone, whatever you want to call it) seen in the air on the Wirral outside of the area of those two sites is almost certainly breaking the law. Simple. Its possible that it it is a professional/commercial flight and they have a permit - but if so they can show it, and if not an offence is being committed and you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a nice simple law to prosecute said miscreant under.

Now the whole thing looks a much more attractive proposition for our policeman. Simple yes/no decision on "is there an offence being committed" and a straight forward law to prosecute under. This is why I believe, contrary to what some others have said, we will see prosecutions and a number of them if and when this comes to pass.

Now EASA will argue this will go some way to tackling rogue fliers that are a danger to themsleves and others. You may, or you may not, accept that. But it is an argument they will make.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 09:49:15

The EASA can say what it wants, it doesn't make it true. Everything the drone regulations are based on is supposition. EASA isn't backing up what they are doing with accident statistics or studies to show the dangers, because there aren't any.

What a Kafkaesque world we live in where I can get arrested for flying a DLG in my own field. Maybe we should have to wear some sort of yellow badge to identify us as model drone/ UAV/RPAS pilots operators so we can be nicked more easily. It's absolutely risible.

And the EASA is "reasonable". More than reasonably good at paying salaries and expenses to itself, no doubt. We're supposed to believe it's more dangerous to fly a model foamie than a foot launch micro light or paraglider. Pull the other one!

Safety is just a catch all "think of the children" excuse to bring in laws that restrict what we are doing, or more specifically extract more money from people to fund more government, more bureaucracy and more rules - so the circle goes on.

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/10/2016 10:33:05

[Erfolg]

I do wonder how far Europe spreads as defined by EASA. There are many parts of Europe with very low population densities. Looking further afield, thinking of harmonisation of regulations, some parts of the USA have even less. Does this imply that an individual in some areas could not fly a model legally, if their location was not a designated site?

The more i consider the impact of site registration, the greater the impact appears, to those German large model making businesses. Will the authorities ensure that many of the Alpine slope sites can be registered, without a club?

What is the position of our other good Doctor located on one of the remote Scottish islands, are his flying days over, if he wants to operate within the proposed regulations?

Those who say that ay and large all regulators are reasonable are correct. Above all they want a life that is not interesting. What should not be forgotten or needs to be recognised, that they are not free from political pressure, and do respond by interpretation etc. how they pursue their duties. At present they may be less inclined to be reasonable. Which does indicate that rolling over to have our tummies tickled is counter productive. It is still necessary to put up our best defence. The end result in general may be roughly the same, although the detail can be very different. The difference between chalk and cheese.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Tom, I have moderated your post above. You may hold strong views on this matter but there is no place on here for insults. Please refrain from adding them to your posts
BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Tom, read your PM's please

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Gonzo - read your PMs

BEB

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by GONZO on 07/10/2016 08:55:31:

Piers,

It's not about making it safer if we all fly at club sites. Its about knowing where these sites are, putting them on aeronautical navigation charts and giving them a mini ATZ. Thus, all the autonomous 'drones' that they believe will fill our skies can be pre programmed to avoid these areas. This will significantly reduce the risk of any collision between 'drones' and a lone model, or two, being flown from random sites.

Thank you Gonzo for that explanation. It seems that in the 'Brave New World' that EASA envisage, the sky will be full of UAVs flitting hither and thither with their little Amazon parcels slung beneath them or perhaps UAVs monitoring traffic, checking for crop disease or looking for lost children. As I understand it there are 1700 registered commercial operators in the UK at present. We all know that the numbers have increase rapidly and will continue to do so. Until there there is a breakthrough in power storage technology UAV endurance will continue to be limited to minutes, maybe an hour, -tops (prompt:- outrage from BEB!). Without a step change in endurance I cannot see low altitude airspace inhabited by UAVs en-mass happening in my lifetime. Also I cannot see the use of IC engine UAVs becoming common place either, due to their noise, weight and reliability issues. So EASA seem to have pre-empted an airspace environment that doesn't exist at present and won't for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we are lumbered with their regulations, - or soon will be.

Commercial UAVs will be able to avoid a 'model aircraft ATZ' but will they be able to avoid each other? I know that 'they' are working on see and avoid technology and also with a type of SSRT and TCAS fitted perhaps they could. They would all need to be fitted with equipment built to the same standard, reliable, certified and regularly tested. This is starting to get expensive, so will it still be viable?

All this is a long way from me lobbing my simple glider off the top of a hill in search of a bit of lift - and relaxation!

[Tom Satinet]

The EASA isn't a well loved organisation in the wider aviation community. amusing moaning thread on full sized aviation - worth a read:

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/514817-easa-kill-general-aviation.html

 

Quote made me laugh:

Europe continually tries to reinvent the wheel at vast cost, then finding that the traditional round one we have lived with for decaades actually works well!

Edited By Tom Satinet on 07/10/2016 11:52:09