UK government consultation on commercial use of drones.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/12/2016 00:01:41:

I sympathise Devcon - it isn't fun us being dragged into this and like you and many others I very much wish it hadn't happened,....

But, it has. And frankly "being dragged in" will, in the end I believe, prove much better than if we were simply ignored and left out of the equation.

Being part of the solution may give us challenges, but not being part of that picture would be much worse I fear!

BEB

Many of us are unconvinced that associating ourselves so closely with drones/MRs and all of the issues that have surfaced with them, has actually been of benefit to us.

I don't think the case has been clearly made, that Aeromodelling's 'raison d'etre' is far more diverse than what I believe can be argued for in the case of a drone/MR operations. The notion of operating a model aeroplane/heli/glider outside of one's line of site is anathemer to the model flyer (for obvious reasons), and this holds true whether one is flying R/C with a cheap foamy, an expensive scale model, competing in aerobatics or flying a glider at a club or elsewhere.

I suppose that it's equally useless, if your free flight models disappear into the blue on every flight as well!

The hobby that I and many thousands of others enjoy is about controlling a model remotely from the ground (or trimming correctly for FF) always within sight and (in terms of horizontal distance) within a couple of hundred metres at most - and at an altitude that is rarely likely to be a hazard to full size aviation. There are issues that fall outside this on occasion e.g thermal and sloping, but these are well understood, and to the best of my knowledge, have been mostly dealt with under existing regs to the satisfaction of all parties.

The drone/MR revolution has brought with it its own set of problems unique to the technology, and as such, requires regulation that will be effective in connection to that technology. Simply having us all rubber-stamped with a 'one size fits all' label may well be convenient for the legislators, but is unfair to aeromodellers and should be resisted as much as possible, but in a positive light that corrects the iniquity of what is being proposed for us.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 22/12/2016 11:25:51:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/12/2016 10:53:36:

Thread title changed to more accurately reflect the nature of the consultation.

The consultation is not only on the commercial use of drones.

Did we say it was? No.

It is on the potential impact of drones on the UK economy. Yes that does impact on us, and we do need need to make our voices heard on the aspects of it that will effect us. But it is not primarily about us - it involves and affects us, that's all.

The previous title of this thread stated that the consultations was about "new strict drone safety rules" (an impression doubtless goven by journalists as that is the story they would like to have) That was completely inaccurate. Within the scope of a half a dozen words or so the new title now fairly reflects the primary focus of the consultation.

BEB

[Romeo Whisky]

As a BMFA Country member living in Scotland and a member of a Scottish (SAA) Club, I wonder how that will be covered. I'd prefer to stay as a BMFA member because the BMFA Magazine is well worth the extra £4 annual fee, and the SAA seems to tell its members nothing about what's going on.

However, maybe I'm an old cynic, but I smell money £££ and big business behind all this. The safety incidents have been so few and inconsequential (thankfully) so far and no amount of legislation can ever stop the ignorants, the idiots and the evil-intended. However I noted that the news articles all quoted the "drone business" in terms of £££multi-millions, and that certainly is far more than us aeromodellers can account for. We all know about Amazon's plans and desires in this context, and large commercial enterprises and government agencies are also waking up to the lucrative potential of aerial surveying/surveillance and drones. Can't help thinking that they don't want hobbyists in their way and want the lower airspace for themselves. Otherwise the ridiculously low model weight and height limits don't make much sense.

My other take on this relates to the colossal difference between England/Wales and Scotland regarding their "Right to Roam" laws. In England/ Wales the right to roam is restricted to designated places, whereas the right to roam laws in Scotland define where you CAN'T roam. It's a far more sensible approach, and incidentally far easier to map, manage and police. (How will they cope with clubs needing to relocate as their sites become housing estates?)

If this approach were to be applied to UAV flying, the country members and slope flyers and waterplane flyers could breathe a huge sigh of relief.

[GONZO]

Piers, in your list of essentials for the flying field you forgot to mention your smart phone with the CAA Drone app. This is so you can announce your location to the world and other flyers and the powers that be will then know whose door to knock on if necessary. Oh, your supposed to use it to see if there are any restricted flying areas as well. So, as well as voluntarily putting yourself on a 'watch list'(registration) your also going to allow yourself to be tracked via this smart phone app(just like ankle trackers used on criminals). Might just as well be a serious criminal or a known terrorist. Sorry, I don't think even they have to go through this, least ways not voluntarily. Oh, and along with all your safety checks and making sure the Rx and Tx are turned on don't forget to turn on your models electronic identifier so that your flight can be monitored and checked at all times for compliance to the regulations. Are we the law breakers or the law abiding? George Orwell must be spinning in his grave!

[GONZO]

As I mentioned the 'electronic identifier' in my previous post I thought I would post part of my post in another thread on here. The total weight will come to over 100gm when you add in the cabling, antenna and necessary sensors. Cost will go up as well. Does this look like a cost effective and practical option for your typical club sports model????

PingNav @ £749.99 **LINK**

Ping1090 ADS-B Transceiver​ @ £1,144

To this you have to add the weight and cost of wiring and antenna etc. Perhaps we could have an identifier 'light' version cost engineered for our needs. But I doubt it would get anywhere near the 10€ figure, or even 100€!

The 10gm and 10€ figures for this item IMO was just plucked out of thin air because it sounded good!

[Pete B]

Posted by Cuban8 on 22/12/2016 12:42:25:

Many of us are unconvinced that associating ourselves so closely with drones/MRs and all of the issues that have surfaced with them, has actually been of benefit to us.......

.........Simply having us all rubber-stamped with a 'one size fits all' label may well be convenient for the legislators, but is unfair to aeromodellers and should be resisted as much as possible, but in a positive light that corrects the iniquity of what is being proposed for us.

One of the best posts I've seen on the subject, C8 - I think it probably summaries very nicely what most of us feel

I think you're right too, Gonzo. The €10/10g module seems, as far as I can make out, came up during the discussions between the FFAM and the French Govt a couple of months ago. I can picture it now - " To fly your Mini-Tyro or Junior 60 in future, it will need to be fitted with an electronic transponder, anti-collision beacon and sound module to warn people on the ground that it is out of control". "In that case", replied the FFAM rep with a Gallic throw of the shoulders and wave of arms, "It will need to weigh less than 10 grams and cost us less than €10. Zut alors!"

I understand the Govt may have agreed to drop the sound module proposal, which is a start.....

Pete

[Peter Android]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Cuban8 on 22/12/2016 12:42:25:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/12/2016 00:01:41:

I sympathise Devcon - it isn't fun us being dragged into this and like you and many others I very much wish it hadn't happened,....

But, it has. And frankly "being dragged in" will, in the end I believe, prove much better than if we were simply ignored and left out of the equation.

Being part of the solution may give us challenges, but not being part of that picture would be much worse I fear!

BEB

Many of us are unconvinced that associating ourselves so closely with drones/MRs and all of the issues that have surfaced with them, has actually been of benefit to us.

I don't think the case has been clearly made, that Aeromodelling's 'raison d'etre' is far more diverse than what I believe can be argued for in the case of a drone/MR operations. The notion of operating a model aeroplane/heli/glider outside of one's line of site is anathemer to the model flyer (for obvious reasons), and this holds true whether one is flying R/C with a cheap foamy, an expensive scale model, competing in aerobatics or flying a glider at a club or elsewhere.

I suppose that it's equally useless, if your free flight models disappear into the blue on every flight as well!

The hobby that I and many thousands of others enjoy is about controlling a model remotely from the ground (or trimming correctly for FF) always within sight and (in terms of horizontal distance) within a couple of hundred metres at most - and at an altitude that is rarely likely to be a hazard to full size aviation. There are issues that fall outside this on occasion e.g thermal and sloping, but these are well understood, and to the best of my knowledge, have been mostly dealt with under existing regs to the satisfaction of all parties.

The drone/MR revolution has brought with it its own set of problems unique to the technology, and as such, requires regulation that will be effective in connection to that technology. Simply having us all rubber-stamped with a 'one size fits all' label may well be convenient for the legislators, but is unfair to aeromodellers and should be resisted as much as possible, but in a positive light that corrects the iniquity of what is being proposed for us.

I too would agree with much of what you say Cuban - but as a response to my post I fear it shows you may have missunderstood my main point - which is probably my fault for not making it clearer!

I was not saying we need closer identification with MRs - or any other group for that mater. What I was saying is that while we may find whatever attention we get out of this uncomfortable (we would rather it simply was not happening) the truth is that if we are "left alone" or choose to "be alone" then laws will be passed that will be very much to our disadvantage - ie if we are not "at the table" and fully engaged things will happen without us! I'm not suggesting aeromodellers have the same interests as commerciual MR operators - they don't - but I am saying we must not let the commercial MR operators dominate the conversation to to point of our exclusion! That is what I meant by "Being part of the solution may give us challenges, but not being part of that picture would be much worse I fear!"

BEB

[Cuban8]

BEB, I agree with your comments. All of us are concerned about how we might fare under the regulations being explored and naturally, we need to have the ear of those who are currently devising how low level airspace is to work in the coming years. Hopefully, those tasked with stating our case will get a fair hearing, and much of what seems to be a somewhat hasty and 'over the top' approach e,g compulsory registration of conventional R/C models is scrubbed.

 

 

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 22/12/2016 17:08:33

[Piers Bowlan]

I don't think that any of us are pretending it is not happening BEB (to paraphrase) and sticking out head in the sand. I have already personally emailed 12 Euro MPs and got not a single reply! This was despite making a considerable effort to (stay calm!) and present a reasoned and rational argument for why model aircraft should be excluded from EASA's legislation, despite them being UAVs.

I appreciate that the intention is to clear airspace below 500ft to make way for commercial UAV traffic. I also appreciate that our activities are perceived as a conflict and potential cause of collisions. But even when commercial UAV operations become so common place that the air is filled with the ever present drone (pun intended!) of UAVs flitting hither and thither, the statistical probability of a collision occurring with a model aircraft is infinitesimally small. After over thirty years in professional aviation I assure you that there is no such thing as zero risk and with drones the potential for a commercial UAV to crash and do some serious damage to persons or property is vast, even without the additional hazard of a few model aircraft. I wonder how many US predator drones have been lost to technical failures- and they cost tens of millions of $. As greater range/endurance and payload is required, UAVs will grow in size and complexity. With that, greater redundancy and sophistication will add more weight, requiring more power, and make more noise. I don't think that they will be too popular, especially if one finds oneself living under a 'UAV airway' with a max operating height of 500ft AGL!

Brave New World indeed.

[ChrisB]

I had a look at the retailer questions and interestingly they ask about the sales forecasts and units sold. It is geared towards civilian and commercial operations but as we know, other than the odd SAR and some agricultural and surveying work, the reality of lots of little drones buzzing around the skies like bees is never going to happen.

In terms of toys for Christmas, I was in the Trafford Centre a few weeks ago and in Debenhams and John Lewis were no drones to be seen. I asked if they sold any and they said no, there were other, better selling items this year.

In Selfridges there were 2 for sale, one was a palm size infra-red and one was about 2ft diameter and cost £800. A couple were stood next to me and the woman asked the man if he wanted it for Christmas and he said that he'd heard about the issues they cause and it can lead to trouble so he'd rather not bother.

Doe's anyone know when sales figures are released. I'd be interested to know if the sales this year are higher or lower than the last few years.

Personally I think the tide will begin to turn and the trend or fad will see toy drone sales decline.

[Erfolg]

The requirements that initially are applicable to drones, will almost certainly come to be applied to all aspects of aeromodelling. From that aspect alone there is self interest in fighting many aspects of the proposal as being disproportionate and also impractical, without great expense to us the aeromodelllers.

As has been suggested modest charges to those with one model, become an issue to those with a few. Also again as indicated these charges will almost certainly escalate by a significant margin. Imagine 5 models at £10-20 each, perhaps with an initial certification charge of say £20,, then perhaps an annual verification inspection charge of an equal amount.

With all the bureaucracy, aeromodelling will be dead, the BMFA may find it has no role or membership a total irrelevance.

I am now convinced that the vast majority of drone incidents with aircraft, have more to do with birds than drones. It is convenient for many, the Government and the pilots organisations to blame models of some form,. Each group has its its own set of agendas.

The professional drone operators may be thinking, oh yes, this is good, it will allow us to get on with our thing. Yet I see that Amazon appear to be operating drones out of the line of sight. I have also been told that commercial drone operators can over fly properties without the agreement or permission of a property y owner. I now see that commerce is possibly one of our enemies. Amazon et all, may want strict controls on the commercial operators, which will cost money, who will pay, will they (existing drone businesses) still be commercially viable, if Amazon et all, have an agenda which doe not include them?Possibly commercial pilots are determined to keep all drones/models well below 400 feet and out of their flight path when landing.

This could all be a real fight for airspace, near the ground. Nor strictly about safety, but who can fly where.

[Peter Miller]

As I have said.

Great! all the responsible people will obey the rules.

Those who are not will simply ignore them.

What will be gained then? Nothing except a ot of cashbut absolutely no control.

[TigerOC]

To summarise we have big corporate global companies and other assorted parastatals demanding the right to control sub-500ft air space.

These are the same companies the MP's periodically jump up and down in Parliament about. You know the ones that have their HQ's in tax havens and pay no tax to the UK treasury. This whole thing is political. This is our country which most of us pay taxes to keep running. Time to take back ownership and like the rest of the subtle revolution occurring its time to make a stand with MP's.

Edited By TigerOC on 22/12/2016 22:39:56

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ChrisB]

The idea of commercial drones flying about willy nilly won't happen!!!

Look at the weather today, yesterday and for the next 3 or 4 days, nothing but road signs and trees will be flying!

I've spoken to a couple of professional filming companies and they both said that they get around 65 days a year of weather that allows them to fly...not necessarily film but just fly.

It'll never be commercially viable for companies to operate on a large scale. Most people live in towns and cities and masses of drones milling about line of sight or not will never be allowed...or capable.

As ever, they have no idea of what they want, need or are talking about. Like EASA, the government consultation has been prepared by office staff and civil servants who have a very limited knowledge of model aircraft, the BMFA or anything else related to our hobby. Hence the need to respond in a careful and considered manner to the consultation and try to include useful and informative information where possible. The responses will assist them in better understanding the complexity of our hobby and the current good safety record that we have.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]