EASA NPA 2017-05

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by MattyB on 24/05/2017 16:31:55:

I cannot see us getting that clarity for 1-2 years...

Even when this is implemented in a couple of years time I have little doubt that there will be multiple and on going amendments, if EASA's track record with full size aviation is to go by. I won't hold my breath regarding clarity in the 'final ratified document' but I suspect the CAA will be sticking to the EASA framework of rules pretty closely as that is what they do with full sized aviation.

It would now seem that flying a model glider off a remote slope site under A3 is possible but a small rule update emailed to us (once we are all registered) redefining that category could change that. Of course, there will be no 'consultation' with these amendments. You wouldn't think that they would bother but EASA like rule changes as it keeps them in a job! My apologies if I sound cynical, it's just that I've been there before.

[Erfolg]

Piers, is is not at all cynical, not under estimating self interest.

[Keith Lomax]

The CAA will take the route that requires the least on-going workload to administer.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ChrisB]

It'll be interesting to know how the CAA and modelling organisations will react to the EASA regulations and if the CAA will 'see sense' and allow model flyers to carry on as we are, as its not us who cause the problems.

[Erfolg]

I would like to say I found the proposal interesting, I can say i found the text impenetrable in what it is saying.

I am guessing that the wording means all things to all people. More important is how it would be implemented, in plain English.

An example i am left with the impression, that all will be practically required to be a member of a club, flying at that or other club locations? Can we fly our own home built models, or even repair models and so on. That we will all be required to hold a certificate of competence. That we will all be required to be registered, as will each model, with whom?

Can some one convert the text into simple to understand document?

[cymaz]

The summery by Dave Phipps is useful. As I read it, basically, carry on as we are. However, I couldn't get my head around model registration. Does the BFMA do this? CAA? Or club?

I'm sure that anyone who gets a multi rotor for Christmas from eBay,Halfords etc...etc... is not going to read the article.

Edited By cymaz on 01/06/2017 06:19:29

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Erfolg on 31/05/2017 22:36:03:

Can some one convert the text into simple to understand document?

Ha! Ha! Ha!

ROFL!

--

Pete

[Rich too]

Age 16 and over for open category - how to alienate newcomers. How old were you when you started out? Did you start off at a club? I started age around 11/12, me and a mate flying in the school field (we had permission).

I wonder what the number are of current fliers outside clubs? Quite high I imagine.

 

 

Edited By Rich2 on 01/06/2017 08:12:13

[David Elam]

• Aircraft are flown in an area where it is reasonably expected that no uninvolved person will be present and that a safe distance is maintained from the boundaries of congested areas of cities, towns, settlements or aerodromes.
• Maximum height of operation is less than 120 m (or up to 50 m above a higher obstacle at the request of the owner of the obstacle!).

Both these will surely affect slope soaring and the altitude restriction will cripple thermal soaring. Surprised no one has commented on this unless I've got it totally wrong and as others have said it is a rather confusing article to get your head round.

[Andy48]

Posted by Rich2 on 01/06/2017 08:10:39:

Age 16 and over for open category - how to alienate newcomers. How old were you when you started out? Did you start off at a club? I started age around 11/12, me and a mate flying in the school field (we had permission).

I wonder what the number are of current fliers outside clubs? Quite high I imagine.

Edited By Rich2 on 01/06/2017 08:12:13

The evidence from our large club is that the vast majority now take up model flying at an age of over 50. Indeed we have less than 2% junior members.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by cymaz on 01/06/2017 06:13:34:

The summery by Dave Phipps is useful. As I read it, basically, carry on as we are. However, I couldn't get my head around model registration. Does the BFMA do this? CAA? Or club?

No one knows yet Cymaz - it isn't decided! And for me that is a big part of the problem here.

Erf, quite sensibly and reasonably, asks for a simple "plain English" version of the proposals. But no one can provide that, not because they don't understand, but because there isn't a single plain set of proposals to summarise really - well at least where club flyers are concerned.

There are a load of proposals - many of which don't look good from our perspective (registration, qualification, geo-fencing, height limiters, model RF ID systems, no over flying etc etc.). But, and this is the key point, we are told under Article 14 that that the competant body (probably CAA) can effectively grant clubs an exemption from any of these provisions - but we don't know which proposals they might grant exemption from and which they might not!

So, in short, we are being asked to comment on a set of proposals that we don't know which, if any, would apply to us!! Brilliant isn't it?

The only thing I can see that we can do is assume all provisons apply to us and then present a case as to why some (all?) should not in the hope that that will get them onto any provisional exemption list CAA draw up. My fear though is that CAA's starting position for approving a set of exemptions will be Category A3 which would make sense from their point of view. In which case my club - and many others who fly in a public space - are potentially in big, big, trouble!

BEB

[MattyB]

Posted by David Elam on 01/06/2017 09:11:41:

• Aircraft are flown in an area where it is reasonably expected that no uninvolved person will be present and that a safe distance is maintained from the boundaries of congested areas of cities, towns, settlements or aerodromes.
• Maximum height of operation is less than 120 m (or up to 50 m above a higher obstacle at the request of the owner of the obstacle!).

Both these will surely affect slope soaring and the altitude restriction will cripple thermal soaring. Surprised no one has commented on this unless I've got it totally wrong and as others have said it is a rather confusing article to get your head round.

There has been previous conversation in this thread on pages 2,4 and 5 on this specific topic, and yes it could have huge impact on those operating from public sites without a tenant club such as slope soarers. Much would seem to hinge on the legal definitions of words such as "reasonably expected".

[MattyB]

Posted by ChrisB on 31/05/2017 22:24:14:

It'll be interesting to know how the CAA and modelling organisations will react to the EASA regulations and if the CAA will 'see sense' and allow model flyers to carry on as we are, as its not us who cause the problems.

This is nothing to do with safety - the "drone menace" is a smokescreen with no hard data to support that a real problem exists. No, this is all about getting access to allow the commercial exploitation of the airspace below 400ft; see Dave Phipp's comment around U-space in the BMFA article...

"Appendix 7 outlines the differences between the U-space blueprint (to facilitate the integration of unmanned aircraft into the airspace) and the NPA. There is a specific comment relating to model aircraft (see page 128):

Model aircraft

By nature, model aircraft do not have geofencing, electronic identification and tracking functions. The NPA covers also model aircraft operation, allowing some distinction of operations under certain conditions/option. U-space seems to potentially include all UAS categories, without any distinction for model aircraft.

We need to remain vigilant on the U-Space development. We must ensure that the interests of model flyers are represented and that the proposed ‘U-space’ does not have a negative impact on our activities."

One more key point... Do not take the statements that the CAA will be able to grant exemptions as a get out of jail free card. All the big companies who want to exploit commercial drones below 400ft are going to be lobbying hard for consistent regulations across member states with the minimum of regional variations - they won't want different height limits or operating parameters for model aircraft in different countries whether they are operating within a club environment under a national association or not. Put simply don't assume because this iteration of the proposal got better (if only a little) for model fliers then the next cannot get worse again.

Edited By MattyB on 01/06/2017 11:33:16

[Erfolg]

All the points raised have articulated my own concerns, I suspect that there are many more issues which I have missed.

I am left with an impression that not a lot has really changed, in that the proposals, leave all the possible negative impacts from a aeromodellers perspective, still on the table, not directly spelled out, just there, lurking in the back ground.

I guess the real question, what can we do about the situation. Sitting on our hands will result in all probability in our worst fears coming to pass.

I do have concerns with respect to the age limit aspects. It does not matter to me when people start aeromodelling in a club environment, it does that children could be prevented from all the activities I and others enjoyed in our youths.

[Martyn K]

Posted by Rich2 on 01/06/2017 08:10:39:

Age 16 and over for open category - how to alienate newcomers. How old were you when you started out? Did you start off at a club? I started age around 11/12, me and a mate flying in the school field (we had permission).

I wonder what the number are of current fliers outside clubs? Quite high I imagine.

Edited By Rich2 on 01/06/2017 08:12:13

I wonder if that is the death of 'Country Member' status in the SMAE BMFA

Martyn

[John Bisset]

Posted by Keith Lomax on 25/05/2017 15:26:05:

“The CAA will take the route that requires the least on-going workload to administer.”

True – they are very short staffed now, and have fewer folk interested or knowledgeable about aviation. Ability to write unreadable documents and create ever harder to fathom websites – sadly in that they appear to have more expertise than ever !

Unfortunately that can mean that when useful changes are made it can be hard to find out the detail about them – if some recent examples from full size light aviation are typical. They mean well, but…

Like several here, I am very concerned about the age limits. My son learned at around 10 years old, after building his own model with minor help from me. (Getting the wings true) I saw no problem and there were several others at our club of similar age. In full size gliding 14 years old is the minimum solo age now, so no good reason for 16 in this hobby.

The probable restriction on offsite flying is another major worry.

The comments made about the 'U space'. This is a major worry to us in full size aviation too. Commercial drone usage below 400ft may sound safe but given how much trouble we have ensuring existing legitimate airspace users area aware of light aircraft and gliding sites and their circuit patterns/traffic zones, trying to ensure safety in the circuit with drones roaming at will could prove very challenging

John

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ChrisB]

There is no age limit. Anyone can fly at any age but if under 16 they have to be supervised...that doesn't mean they can't fly it means someone has to keep an eye on them to make sure they are safe, which is often the case with older flyers, never mind younger ones.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Rich too]

Posted by Steve J on 01/06/2017 15:59:24:

Posted by Martyn K on 01/06/2017 15:26:05:

I wonder if that is the death of 'Country Member' status in the BMFA

I suspect the opposite may be the case and a lot of people will join the BMFA as country members so that they can fly under the CAA/BMFA agreement rather than be restricted to the open class.

Steve

Is that correct? I just left the BMFA for the LMA!!

[Erfolg]

We are constantly reassured that the BMFA will not be the only body acknowledged as representing aeromodellers. I personally feel very strongly that to keep people honest (used in a loose sense) there must be two or better still three independent bodies that represent us aeromodellers.

So far nothing that has been written reassures me that our hobby is other than under threat, both immediately and in the longer term. I guess that many hobbies have been down the same path of falling from public view, such as archery, or domestic sing songs around the family piano, horse riding, they become irrelevant, to the majority. I do not desire this for our hobby. particularly if the driver is commercial drones etc.

I am interested on what the minimum position of the BMFA is, and how they are pursuing our interests. Not generalised platitudes, that Fred is liasing with Fritz in a foreign country to establish a common front. That is all smoke, and a few mirrors.

[MattyB]

Posted by Rich2 on 01/06/2017 18:13:53:

Posted by Steve J on 01/06/2017 15:59:24:

Posted by Martyn K on 01/06/2017 15:26:05:

I wonder if that is the death of 'Country Member' status in the BMFA

I suspect the opposite may be the case and a lot of people will join the BMFA as country members so that they can fly under the CAA/BMFA agreement rather than be restricted to the open class.

Steve

Is that correct? I just left the BMFA for the LMA!!

Nobody knows, we are all just guessing about how this could play out. The LMA may well have an agreement with the CAA on the same terms as the BMFA.