Proposed new drone legislation/registration

[Capt Kremen]

213 not surprising at all.

The average 'Joe Bloggs', whether a hobby flier or not, rarely wades through government documents.

What hope for CAA or BMFA documents, copius and detailed as they may be and assuming they are aware to visit those sites in the first place.

How many model (and drone), fliers know of the free NATS (National Air Traffic) app for mobile phones & tablets called 'Drone Assist'?

Have you tried it? You may find it quite informative and useful for conventional/non-drone fixed wing & heli flying too.

Also, disappointed that the BMFA website & Facebook opening home pages do not have 'Stop Press' up-to-date information on today's news announcements.

[Peter Christy]

I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with Brian's views on this (see previous page). We thought CB was a problem back in the late 70s / early 80s, but that was nothing compared to this.

What I cannot comprehend is the difficulty the powers that be seem to have distinguishing between a drone and a model aircraft (as we understand the terms).

Surely, all they need to do is specify that any UAS (unmanned aerial system) capable of operating out of sight of the pilot must be registered?

No need for any technical specifications, its simple. If it can be operated out of sight (doesn't matter if it is or not), it must be registered.

That leaves traditional models in the clear. Simples!

--

Pete

[David P Williams]

I have just read the Government document released today (yes I did comment on the proposals) and am disappointed that a) it uses the term 'drone' throughout and b) nowhere does it provide a precise definition of a 'drone'

[KELL]

Don't make the mistake thinking it's just rules for "drones" ...government officials are well known for cracking walnuts with sledgehammers. It's up to responsible model aircraft flyers to make it known that we are not part of this media over hyped problem

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Gordon Tarling]

Who were the other 212?

211 now - I responded. I have to admit that I'm quite disappointed to see that only 213 responded - perhaps head in the sand and think it won't apply to them? Wake up folks, this IS coming!

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by John Privett on 22/07/2017 10:52:17:

Posted by Steve J on 22/07/2017 09:10:05:

The government response has indeed appeared -

**LINK**

213 people who said that they flew model aircraft responded to the consultation.

Steve

Only 213? That is depressing. We have about 36,000 BMFA members and less than 0.6% of them responded to the consultation. Where was everybody else? I know the consultation was mentioned on here a few times (eg. here, here, and here.) Should we have made it more prominent? I hope I'm not the only person from here to have responded! Who were the other 212?

It goes beyond depressing, only you, Gordon, me and 210 others could be bothered to enter a response. I wonder how many bothered to petition their MP? Whatever happens, it's too late to start whinging now.

 

Edited By Bob Cotsford on 22/07/2017 12:48:15

[ChrisB]

Posted by Steve J on 22/07/2017 12:34:24:

Drone was defined in the original consultation document as -

1. A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.

But the DfT's use of the term is not consistent. Sometimes they follow this definition and sometimes they just seem to mean multirotor.

Steve

Yes, EASA use equally inconsistent terminology. I have raised several questions with them about this. The UK consultation has an equal number of inconsistencies.

[Cuban8]

I say again.............where are all these drones that are causing all the trouble? Just taken a look out of the window and........ no, not one in sight. Not seen one in the park, or the fields..........ok a bloke had one flying it illegally beyond LOS on the beach last year - never saw him again.

Idiots at airports and making a nuisance of themselves elsewhere are already covered in UK air law. I also sympathise with Brian Cooper, we've got mixed up in a manure storm of issues that TBH, we should have kept at arms length, others will disagree and that's fine.

My models are not drones or UAVs they are R/C model aircraft flown for recreation and I wish that we would fight tooth and nail to distinguish the difference. If it's always flown line of sight and requires constant direct visual pilot input via radio control to fly it or prevent it flying away or crashing, then I reckon it must be a model aeroplane/heli/toy quad/totally manual (dumb) MR. Fly your model FPV - great, just follow the existing regs.

If it can fly itself straight out of the box under it's own active control or GPS or whatever (or have that option) while its operator eats a sandwich, reads the paper or goes for a 'jimmy' it's a drone. Is it not that simple? What best describes what you fly and what would you call it?

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 22/07/2017 12:56:04

[Daithi O Buitigh]

One possible reason for a very poor response is that most of us simply didn't know about it until well after the consultation period ended, by which time it was too late to say or do anything

[Frank Skilbeck]

There was a guy commenting on the papers on this mornings BBC Breakfast (an external reviewer) when the BBC presenter asked him what he thought of the story, he was aghast that you could just go and buy and fly one of these things without any form of licensing, that is what we are up against.

If the registration is simple (and cheap) and keeps the authorities off out backs (as any new transgressions will obviously be unlicensed fliers ) then it hopefully will allow us to carry on.

But before we go to far in our indignation of joe public, bear in mind I've seen calls on modelling forums for cyclists to licensed, it's a human trait that if we perceive something as a problem we will want that the authorities to do something about it.

Edited By Frank Skilbeck on 22/07/2017 13:14:30

[John Emms 1]

Thanks, and I appreciate that.

I did scan the thread created before the press release of this morning. The thread includes much conjecture, including the idea that only drones over 2kg, and radio over 4 channels would be affected. I think that, in Government eyes, all remotely controlled (or not controlled) flying artefacts over 250g will be considered "drones" even if we collectedly see the real distinction.

I put specific questions forward that directly relate to the press release of this morning, and if there is no interest, that is fine.

Regards,

John

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 22/07/2017 13:37:51

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Cuban8 on 22/07/2017 12:48:48:

I say again.............where are all these drones that are causing all the trouble? Just taken a look out of the window and........ no, not one in sight. Not seen one in the park, or the fields..........ok a bloke had one flying it illegally beyond LOS on the beach last year - never saw him again.

Well, I had one hovering so low over my house about a week ago that I heard it indoors, over the TV! And my hearing is nowhere near as good as it used to be! He then flew it up - over several other people's houses - and followed a steam train along the nearby viaduct!

I *think* I know where it is coming from, and if I catch it again, I shall have words! I think it is the same idiot that delights in sending spectacular videos to the local paper, over-flying a pier full of holidaymakers, as well as nearby beaches and coastal haunts.

I'm getting black looks from my neighbours, because they think its *me*! (They are aware of my hobby)

I fully accept that a lot of the reports of drones following airliners on their approach are nonsense, as are those reporting them at over 10,000 feet. But the ones that annoy Joe Public the most are the ones overflying their property in quiet residential areas. And it annoys *me* because I'm suspected of being the pilot!

Grrrr!

--

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[J D 8]

The aircraft shown being launched on the breakfast show was a flying wing which may have been a normal RC job or it may have had out of line of sight automated "drone" capability. Who knows?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 22/07/2017 13:50:38:

Posted by Cuban8 on 22/07/2017 12:48:48:

where are all these drones that are causing all the trouble?

This is not been driven by "drones causing trouble". It is being driven by a desire to safely integrate commercial UAS activity (both VLOS and BVLOS) into European airspace. Registration is seen as a building block for the coming unmanned traffic management system (aka U-Space).

See the Riga Declaration, the Warsaw Declaration and EASA NPA 2017-05.

Steve

I agree completely.

I actually think this is non-story - all it really says is that at some unspecified date in the future the proposals laid out in NPA 2017-05 are likely to become part of UK law. I can't see there is anything in this that wasn't in the earlier EASA proposal.

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[gangster]

So what is a drone? Official definition? Fixed wing / helecopter modeller who wants to distinguish multi copters from their models definition. Surely the term has been used for military / professional unmanned flying machines for years.   So what the hell is a drone?

Edited By gangster on 22/07/2017 16:13:43

[John Privett]

Official definition, gangster? Good question...

"Drone" can really mean whatever you want it to mean, but usually it's an un-manned aerial vehicle - which includes conventional models. A comment from the people putting together the proposed European legislation was that they had tried, but found it very difficult to find a definition of a "traditional model aircraft" that could be used to distinguish what most of us fly from the multi-rotors that people tend to think of when "drone" is mentioned.

One of the points reported in this consultation outcome is "Again, as in other parts of the consultation responses, a clear definition of a 'drone' was called for."

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Solly]

Posted by Steve J on 22/07/2017 16:03:57:

Posted by J D 8 on 22/07/2017 15:04:24:

a flying wing which may have been a normal RC job or it may have had out of line of sight automated "drone" capability.

All "normal RC jobs" are drones. You chaps that think that when the government says drones they mean multicopters or perhaps unmanned aircraft with flight controllers are in for a bit of a surprise.

Steve

We all know the true meaning of drones. Try typing "Model Drones" into your search engine and see what comes up.

[gangster]

Thanks Steve. That is what I thought. Many modellers seem to differentiate between traditional models and multi rotor things. In reality from a safety to aviation point of view is there any difference?

[ChrisB]

EASA don't know what the definition is, as they use several in the NPA, including toys but do talk about traditional model aircraft in a completely different context to drones.

Following the initial consultation I contacted EASA and asked if they could differentiate model aircraft from drones, because they are not the same. They said they agree that drones are not model aircraft and they are completely different in use, design and operator/environment. BUT they couldn't find a suitable definition so they had to include everything. I suspect the DFT were in the same quandary.

I just hope the CAA can enable Aeromodellers to continue pretty much as is, particularly glider flyers.