France to implement onerous new drone laws

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

What a stunning endorsement for the unification of aviation regulation throughout the EU - aren't the French aware of the work being done by EASA? Weren't we being told that whether or not Brexit ever goes ahead, we are bound to respect any EASA legislation?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I alerted to this very issue in my article in the Nov issue of the magazine when I wrote a review of the EASA proposals. I suggested then that the slope soaring community and lone independent flyers were the groups at risk They need to start taking action to organise themselves - or put simply they will cease to exist if they are not careful. I believe their future can be protected - but only if they get organised and some of them stop the silly definant posturing, which isn't adult or helpful - and will ultimately only fuel their demise.

The CAA are not stupid - they will seek to find a way of implementing the new EASA regs without causing undue harm - but we have to co-operate and meet them along the path.

When BREXIT happens, no we are not legally obliged to follow any new EASA regs - but we are probably compelled to do so simply for practical reasons. As a major aviation country we cannot, in practise, have radically different rules and procedures from our nearest neighbours. But that doesn't mean to say that all the details of implementation will have to be the same. The EASA framework legislation will allow individual countries considerable freedom as to how they do what is needed. Which is why I find the French action both silly and over-hasty - they should wait to see what the European Parliament puts in place. They will have to follow it - if what they enact now is at odds with it - then they will have to change those enactments - again! Stupid.

This is what I suspect will happen in the UK:

1. Reluctantly BMFA will become the competent body for the registration of model flying sites in the UK. I say reluctantly because they do not see themselves as regulators - but I suspect they may have little choice in the circumstances.

2. They will draw up a register and issue licences to all existing clubs with a "track record of safe operation"

3. Flying at these clubs will proceed much as it does now - club members will probably not see any major change.

4. Flying outside registered sites will be illegal - unless you have commercial operating licence and specific notification. This will effect any who fly informally - they need to effectively get into the club camp ASAP. This needs to happen soon because they need to establish an historical safe operational record. It is likely that only sites with a past history will be admitted. Not certain, but likely.

5. There is no need to panic now about registration or location of already existing clubs - they will be invited by the competent body to formally register their location in due course - it is likely the they will have a 3 year "transition period" to do this once the legislation is in place - which is unlikely to be before 2018 - so registration is still likely to be going on 2021.

For the reasons I have given in 3 & 5 above I am not nearly so negative as Ken about club flyers - I honestly do not think that the vast majority of club based flyers will even notice this - the registration paperwork being done by the club committee in due course with the national competent body - as I say probably BMFA (working under the watch of CAA). But I do fear for informal flyers and urge them to start getting organised ASAP!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 19/12/2016 23:31:34

[Dave Hopkin]

I can see a lot of sense and logic in what BEB says, certainly the perception is that the near misses etc are caused by lone flyers not people flying at clubs (doesn't actually matter if that's true or not its the perception that matters)

So restricting flying to "licenced" sites administered by accredited clubs would seem an easy way for the CAA to go

It also mirrors some of the restrictions that came in about rifle shooting years ago, if you are not accepted by a registered gun club you wont get a part 1 firearms licence

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

While dealing with "rogue flyers" might be a partial side aim here, I think the main objective is the clearing of the air sub-400ft to allow automonous waypoint operation beyond VLOS by commercial users. To make this possible safely they would have to know where we were - via aviation charts - so as to be able to avoid us! Compulsary registration of flying sites would facilitate this.

BEB

[Rich too]

Posted by MattyB on 19/12/2016 11:09:44:

Just heard from Pierre Rondel of Planet Soaring that the French are pushing ahead with onerous new drone laws that will seriously affect model flying. I've not been able to find anything on the topic posted really recently in the English language, (this is the most recent story I found from Sept, and here's another similar account), but Pierre gave the following summary on Facebook:

"To summarise 1/ pilot will now need a special pilot licence given by the government, 2/ he will need to register every model above 800g. With this 2 first points, aeromodelers can fly on every registered field (registered to the DGAC, the equivalent of the FAA).

To fly everywhere else, in addition to point 1 and 2, every model above 800g will need to be equiped with a transponder, light and sound devices!

So you can imagine that for a glider, it won't be easy..."

Some French slope pilots are now accumulating a list of active slope sites, presumably in the hope these can be registered as locations where the transponder/light/sound requirement will not be required. Not sure whether that is realistic though if the law has apparently already been passed.

I am beginning to think that the UK's soaring pilots may need to proactively band together to register all the key slope and flat field sites in use but not currently under club control under one single "UK RC Soaring" BMFA affiliated club. Probably one to suggest over on the BARCs forum.

Edited By MattyB on 19/12/2016 11:13:39

That's a joke, how do they expect to enforce that?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Post deleted for language
BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 20/12/2016 09:28:05

[Pete B]

Posted by Rich2 on 20/12/2016 08:55:00:

That's a joke, how do they expect to enforce that?

The likelihood of a modeller being tapped on the shoulder by a gendarme in the back of beyond is probably relatively low but they do have their off days, too - and no doubt, some ambitious types like to make a name for themselves.....

I think a fair number of people might well have their mind concentrated by the penalties established for breaching the laws. Here's a lazy Google translation on what MIGHT happen IF you get the shoulder tap:

A penalty of six months' imprisonment and a fine of € 15,000 is imposed on a pilot who is flying over an area of ​​French territory in an incompetent or negligent manner by an aircraft traveling without a person on board in violation of a prohibition pronounced in the conditions provided for in the first paragraph of Article L. 6211-4.

The penalty is one year's imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 € for a telepilot:

(1) to engage or maintain an aircraft traveling without a person on board over an area mentioned in the first paragraph of this article;

2 ° Failure to comply with the requirements of Article L. 6211-4.

The telepilot convicted of one of the offences provided for in this code also incurs the additional penalty of confiscation of the circulating aircraft without any person on board who was used to commit the offence.

More here.

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Getting angry with each other will get us nowhere, i've no answer for you Rich but you're a paid up member of BMFA, admittedly you're not affiliated unless there's 5 of you, but you pay your money, ask them questions ?

John

[ken anderson.]

thanks for the above Pete(merry Christmas to you)...I think if they implement the penalties in this country - they will have to build some new jail's first....

ken Anderson...... ne..1...Roy bean dept.

[Basa]

Who,s going to police it , in spite of increasing penalties for using phones whilst driving they do not appear to be able to stop that , is any body going to be able to enforce any bans or restrictions on the 1000s of ' drone ' users in the country ?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martyn K]

I still think there are two issues here that have got mixed up.

1. The EASA regs which will control (via national bodies) model aviation in the interests of Aviation Safety

2. National interests to restrict model aviation that could be used for terrorism or espionage purposes

 

I suspect that the French legislative response has nothing to do with Aviation Safety

Martyn

Edited By Martyn K on 20/12/2016 12:02:24

[Colin Leighfield]

With an 800 gms limit we might be going back to Wakefields and floaty gliders.

[Piers Bowlan]

Under the EASA regs. Colin it is 250g max outside of an approved club so Wakefields are out I'm afraid!.

Rereading the EASA prototype regulations and the explanatory notes, the regulations are all about the reduction of risk and promoting 'safety'. It is clear that they are aimed at commercial UAV operations whilst keeping model aircraft 'safely' restricted to approved sites. Article 15 in the notes tells us that after the three year transitional period all clubs and associations will have to apply for approval from a competent authority. It is quite an assumption BEB that this will be the BMFA, especially as they do not seem keen to do this. I hope you are right as it could get very expensive indeed if the CAA carry out this function. This approval is subject to a 'good safety record' but tell me, do any clubs in the UK suffer from a bad safety record? By the way, I am a lone flyer but have an exemplary safety record stretching back over a thirty year period! It is also subject to the club having 'good safety practises and culture' but how is that assessed objectively. More to the point how will any new club form as they would seem to be caught in a 'catch 22' situation:- No new club without a good safety record but how do you get a good safety record without being a club? What it also says is that this is all subject to and 'In accordance with national regulatory practises'. So if the French want to require licencing, registration of models, electronic identifiers (transponders), etc. they can. It does not need to be cancelled or reversed just because the EASA regs. come into effect in 2019.

We all hope the CAA continue to have a light regulatory touch regarding the continued flying of model aircraft post EASA's regs. Don't hold your breath however as what has already transpired in Ireland, Spain and now France is not a good sign of things to come.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I agree Piers - it is quite an assumption. But we do have to hope it is the case. For all their faults BMFA do at least understand what we do - they also already have a lot of the data and procedures in place to do this - and CAA know that!

The CAA will be the primary body responsible, but I suspect they will be very keen to off-load this! BMFA may well come to the conclusion that although they really don't want to do it, it is in fact in the best interests of the their members that they do. Let's hope so anyway - because as you suggest the alternatives are likely to be less appropriate, more onerous and far more expensive.

BEB

[Piers Bowlan]

Taking your second point Martyn and to state the obvious (to us at least), a terrorist will,

1) not be licensed

2) not register his UAV

3) his UAV will not carry an electronic identifier device

4) not fly from an authorised site.

So HOW is this legislation going to reduce the risk of a terrorist drone attack or indeed stop some fool from trying to get some close up footage of an aircraft inflight?

[Pete B]

It won't make one iota of difference, Piers, as we and no doubt the politicians know very well but they have to be seen to have done something in the eyes of their voters, knowing that the majority of the law-abiding will meekly comply, not wishing to risk the penalties they attach to the offence.

The practical issues of how to enforce the legislation are just as immaterial too, for the same reason.

As ever it was....

Pete

[Colin Leighfield]

We're between a rock and a hard place, aren't we? The gun laws don't prevent the committing of violent crimes mostly carried out with illegal fire-arms. However they're considered to be essential and it's probably true that we'd be worse off if guns weren't regulated. Quadcopter drones can be a far greater threat than a gun in their ability to accurately target the objective of the aggressor while carrying a lethal load of explosive and you can buy them all over the place, particularly on the internet. Most model planes with FPV could be used for the same purpose, but they need somewhere to take off, whereas the quadcopter can fly from any street or the boot of a car.

Some process of registration and site restriction seems to be inevitable.

[Ernie]

Hi all,

the french love making brave new laws, they love the idiotic beaurocracy, the rubber stamps, But also, they love to completely, totally, and utterly ignore them.

Our local police are so low profile, that every single day I see ados on motor bikes without helmets and silencers, cars parked all over the pavements, and about a million other silly infringements, while monsieur plod has his obligatory two hour lunch.

I once got shot down by a patrol car on a totally illegal frequency

But, but, but, what about my UK insurance?

ernie

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I totally agree Steve - as I have said above this is not primarily about tackling terrorist threat - that is a red herring frankly. Its about enabling commercial BVLOS waypoint flying at sub400ft. If there is any benefit to the terrorist situation - well that's just a bonus, its not why they want to do this!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 20/12/2016 16:30:40

[kc]

Surely it's obvious that delivering goods by drones is possible but hopelessly impractical. Goods will be stolen, goods will be limited in size and weight, people wont sign for them, risk of injury to persons or cats or dogs when landing, postmen will object, people will object that the drones are spying on their property. If all those items were not enough to make it a non starter then the thought that a terrorist could deliver a package disguised as a delivery but actually some noxious stuff or an explosive device will surely mean we will never see this done commercially.

No, this legislation is not being proposed for delivery drones - it's to prevent spying on the rich and famous. It might just help prevent terrorists too by making drones a rare sight.

[Pete B]

...and how refreshing it would be if the authorities had the courage to just say so publicly - but that would mean Joe Public will get a heads-up as to what will be flying over his or her house in the not-too-distant future.

Easier for the authorities to get the legislation in place and then say "Suck it up, mate..."

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

So, a couple of practicalities;

Transponders, at such low altitudes how much RF power will be required at what frequency so that ATC can positively identify ALL RC aircraft and commercial drones. Commercial drones may well have the power and lift overhead to support such a device, doubtful in a model.

Without an integrated air traffic control and routing system how will commercial drones avoid other commercial drones?