EASA NPA 2017-05

[GONZO]

BEB, they will have to clear the skies of paragliders/hang gliders/micro lights/low flying helicopters/low flying military aircraft and not forgetting large birds. The buzzards here in North Wales are as large as my Yorkies (body wise). Living 270ft up a hill and looking out over the North Wales coastal strip I can tell you there is plenty of low level 'traffic' as well as the birds. Although, I've yet to see a commercial drone but have seen the occasional illegally flown DJI.

Edited By GONZO on 09/05/2017 16:15:15

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 09/05/2017 16:10:23:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 09/05/2017 13:13:58:

EASA's plan to achieve this (whilst still allowing model flying) is to concentrate all model flying at a relatively small number of well documented sites.

Citation needed.

Steve

Having read the document most of the way through now I concede I can't honestly tell what their intention is.

Ostensibly safety is a priority, but being cynically minded I started from a position similar to BEB's that this is mostly about freeing up airspace below 500ft for commercial gain and increased tax revenues. If EASA were to do that in line with Amazon's vision I am quite sure we would be limited only to defined sites, which could effectively mean the end of legal slope soaring in locations where there is no resident club or "official" history of RC usage. Even so, I can see that (even if that is the intention) there is potential to escape some of the most onerous requirements depending on how the document is implemented within a member state.

As currently worded it all seems to hinge on who the competent authority is (i.e. the CAA or BMFA) and the exact nature of the powers they can delegate/operational authorisations they can grant to clubs or associations. For example:

• If the competent authority is the CAA, can they grant OAs to BMFA/LMA members as a group (club and country members), or only specific clubs in defined locations?
• What requirements can be negotiated out under and OA, and what can't? Registration - presumably not? Height limit - presumably yes, but under what conditions?

I guess we will find out over time, but it seems like this is very high level stuff and there is a long way to go before sufficient detail is added to enable us to understand the end state. It does look slightly better than draft 1, but my underlying concern remains that big players like Google and Amazon lobby hard to reduce or eliminate the powers of CAs to delegate authority and implement this differently across individual countries. If that occurs the very small number of modellers EU wide (from an electoral standpoint at least) stand little chance of coming out on the winning side against the big money.

Edited By MattyB on 09/05/2017 18:06:27

Edited By MattyB on 09/05/2017 18:10:13

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by GONZO on 09/05/2017 16:13:54:

BEB, they will have to clear the skies of paragliders/hang gliders/micro lights/low flying helicopters/low flying military aircraft

None of which should be at below 500 feet unless on approach or climb out from a documented flying site.

Birds are of course a different issue! But one aircraft face at any altitude upto several thousand feet. And again its quite possible to document specific areas of concentrated bird activity and avoid it.

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 09/05/2017 16:10:23:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 09/05/2017 13:13:58:

EASA's plan to achieve this (whilst still allowing model flying) is to concentrate all model flying at a relatively small number of well documented sites.

Citation needed.

Steve

"The Riga Declaration", 6th March 2015 - available on EU Website as a PDF, Google "Riga Declaration UAV" for example. The expression of the political strategic will and the "green light" to EASA.

BEB

[GONZO]

BEB, not quite correct. Any vehicle, vessel, person or structure has a 500ft bubble no go zone above and around them/it. Therefore as long as you do not infringe this zone you can go as low as you like. Back when I was still at work, back in the early 90's, I used to take co workers up for a spin in a Cessna 152 and give them a go on the controls. One of the events of the flight was a near full throttle run 10ft - 15ft above the water in the centre of the river Blackwater. Then as we approached Felixstowe a zoom up to over 1000ft. The river was wide and you could see if there was anything in/on the river, so all legal.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes Gonzo - I know. I assumed we were talking over land, where 99.9999999% plus of UAV flights would happen,.... not over water.

BEB

[GONZO]

The point is that there is no lower level that you cannot go below, you just must not infringe the no go zone bubbles. I was just using the river flight as an easily understood example. There are lots of areas over land where you can fly below 500ft without infringing the no go zones, you just have to pick your location and be observant. I used to fly a lot over East Anglia and it was never a problem to me. Wales is even less populated. In fact there are just over 3 million in the whole of Wales, sheep don't count, so even more opportunities for low flying. Just watch out for the hills and the jets!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 09/05/2017 18:41:27:

@MattyB Open class subcategory A3 means that you don't have to be a member of an association or club to fly models below 400ft. All that you have to do is register, do some online training, an online test and fly away from uninvolved third parties (UAS.OPEN.60).

Right, but how do I do that at 99% of slope sites? These locations are public access; they have to be for us to get there to use them. That means there is always a decent chance of the public turning up; indeed many of the best slope sites are well known viewing points, and therefore destinations for walkers and the general public.

My home slope at Ivinghoe is a good example - it will undoubtedly need an OA as there are hundreds of walkers a day in good weather. That should not be an issue for us given we have a longstanding club with a good safety record, but many other well loved slope sites do not have a club overseeing them. What of them? Are we back at the idea I floated a few months ago of a UK wide soaring association to document and oversee these sites (link)?

Edited By MattyB on 09/05/2017 19:38:30

[ChrisB]

The consultation is now live and runs until 12th August. The key themes I'll be commenting on are:

• Registration
• Heights
• Geo-fencing
• CE Markings

The key message I get from the document is that member states competent authority (CAA) can use their discretion on all elements of the regulations.

**LINK**

[Rich too]

How old were you when you started in the hobby? I am guessing mostly under the age of 16. Here we are moaning about all the youngsters on their Xboxes and the dwindling numbers in our hobby, and we make it pretty much impossible for them to go out buy and plane and have some good old fashioned fun in a local park/slope...

Edited By Rich2 on 15/05/2017 08:03:25

Edited By Rich2 on 15/05/2017 08:03:43

[Peter Christy]

Rich2: A very good point! We've already pretty much killed the home electronics side of the hobby!

I got into RC when I was 14 or 15, and much of my early equipment had to be home made - couldn't afford the commercial stuff! Magazines were full of circuits for receivers and even transmitters. I learned how to make printed circuit boards, solder and fault find at an early age. These were abilities that stood me in good stead later in life, and I've enjoyed a good career in electronics largely from building on those early skills.

"Regulations" now mean that it is almost impossible for anyone to provide kitted RC gear, or publish circuits for youngsters to experiment on. I can see the same thing happening with the model building side of the hobby due to excessive regulation.

Yet another self-education door slowly being closed by ignorant authorities and vested interests......

--

Pete

[Devcon1]

I'll be studying our political hopefuls Manifestos shortly to see what they all have to say about the proposals in order to gain my vote...

[ChrisB]

Posted by Rich2 on 15/05/2017 08:02:55:

How old were you when you started in the hobby? I am guessing mostly under the age of 16. Here we are moaning about all the youngsters on their Xboxes and the dwindling numbers in our hobby, and we make it pretty much impossible for them to go out buy and plane and have some good old fashioned fun in a local park/slope...

Edited By Rich2 on 15/05/2017 08:03:25

Edited By Rich2 on 15/05/2017 08:03:43

We aren't doing it Rich, its EASA who are proposing changes that the CAA will then implement as they see fit..

Cheers

CB

[will -0]

Posted by Peter Christy on 15/05/2017 09:03:05:

"Regulations" now mean that it is almost impossible for anyone to provide kitted RC gear, or publish circuits for youngsters to experiment on. I can see the same thing happening with the model building side of the hobby due to excessive regulation.

Pete

"regulations" also mean that you don't get shot down by your clubmate's home brew transmitter bleeding RF all over the spectrum.

There are plenty of opportunities for home electronics with the advent of arduino based projects and the like

[Peter Christy]

will-0: The only transmitter that gave me any problems back in the day was a prototype from a British manufacturer! Every time it got between me and my model, mine went into fail-safe! That never happened with any of the kitted or home-brew ones back then......

And if it wasn't for the home-brew ones, we wouldn't have the systems we now enjoy!

--

Pete

[Denis Watkins]

Guernsey Prison has installed an invisible drone proof fence

Now that make sense; surely airports can well afford this.

[Peter Christy]

"Invisible drone-proof fence"?!?!?

Good Grief! What have they done? Nicked Captain Kirk's force field?

--

Pete

[Devcon1]

It was part of a 1.2 million pound security project. It's called Skyfence and I imagine ther company has a bright future.

[Tim Cheal]

Great idea, but presumably they own the land they want to protect. I dont think it is the same for airports where the aircraft on short finals are probably over land not owned by the airport.

Tim

[will -0]

Land ownership confers no rights over the airspace above it.

More relevant is the airspace restrictions in place.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Denis Watkins]

Posted by Steve J on 17/05/2017 13:00:45:

Posted by Denis Watkins on 17/05/2017 09:49:47:

Guernsey Prison has installed an invisible drone proof fence

Now that make sense; surely airports can well afford this.

It's snakeoil. It is a detection and jamming system. From the sounds of it, it could be defeated by flying waypoints. A detect, track and respond system would be better.

And do you really want relatively high power radio signals near landing aircraft?

Anyway, it has nothing to do with EASA's NPA.

Steve

The point being that clever use of this technology will negate the use of regulations as the no fly zones will be impregnable

Edited By Denis Watkins on 17/05/2017 14:35:13

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

I would think that for a prison, then jamming the pretty weak GPS signals might prevent waypoint flying. But jamming GPS near an airport might not be a good idea.