Proposed new drone legislation/registration

[ChrisB]

Posted by gangster on 22/07/2017 16:59:34:

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?

Yes, I think there is. MR can fly from any location the size of a man hole cover, don't need runways and therefore can fly from urban areas. They can be flown via FPV with the pilot sat in an arm chair and they can fly in pretty much all weathers and they need little skill to operate.

Whereas model aircraft need a runway and therefore large open spaces, are limited by weather, pilot skill and would be very difficult to fly solely FPV.

[iqon]

really ?

[gangster]

From time to time we hear complaints about the BMFA and people looking to get their insurance elsewhere. Well this certainly reminds me how important they are to us and how much we do indeed need them as an informed and respected governing body

[Frank Skilbeck]

Whereas model aircraft need a runway and therefore large open spaces, are limited by weather, pilot skill and would be very difficult to fly solely FPV.

I can easily hand launch my Easy Star or flying wing with a FPV camera on it, if I didn't have a spotter with me, it would be easy to accidentally fly it out of LOS too. Or what about the E Flite X-Vert

And some radio manufactures are now offering long range radio systems with over 10km range.

[gangster]

Chris B. Sorry but I cannot see why model aircraft NEED any of those things you suggest. The legislation will need to cover all sorts of irresponsible use. It will also need to cover future technologies as well which may well do away with constraints of pilot skill and weather. I am sure a quick trawl of the web will identify dozens of models that will fly from a hand launch off of a manhole cover. Unfortunately we are rapidly getting away from the old days when a certain amount of skill was needed to pilot a fixed wing or a helecopter. Whether we like it or not a toy aeroplane is a toy aeroplane and technology will fly it for us

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Bisset]

I tend to agree with Cuban8 that this something we need(ed) to push back on. Since Ikura is also right that most folk are aware that responses to Government proposals are largely pointless, the small sample size is not surprising. The standard Civil Service response to comment seems to be that any criticisms are irrelevant because the proposals 'have moved on'.

Note that neither our lot nor EASA have managed to define 'drone' flying worth a darn - and they know it. Their definitions catch us too.

This, now, is the time to ramp up response by sending messages to your MP etc., because now they have firmer proposals which can be critiqued.

 

Our main area of attack should be, as Cuban8 said, to emphasise the 'Line of Sight' difference between a model aircraft and a drone (as I think most of us would view it.) We should emphasise that LoS means it is fairly straightforward to identify the pilot. That matters because both authorities and many of the MPs etc understand that law which you can't enforce is a waste of time and resource. The mobiles-while-driving law seems, regrettably, to be an example.

The situation is not dis-similar to the CB radio fiasco of the Seventies; there have been so many drones sold already with no traceability that leagl catch up will be real challenge.

In fact if we LoS fliers are included, the enforcement exercise becomes much larger, and probably effectively unwieldy. (That, along with the untraceable drone numbers, will get some folk suggesting they simply shut us all down, though that should be defeated readily.)

 

The big snag is that drone usage is seen as having a major commercial potential, so government sees a revenue stream, though I doubt it will be as large as some think. We, of course, are not a revenue stream so our voice matters less.

I think it likely that we will eventually all be required to have some sort of licence eventually, to allow authority to trace us, and of course to act as a revenue stream, something government loves. This is going to be a real pest, unless we can get the CAA to approve BMFA as the relevant authority. That might work, because the CAA is very short of staff. Then we need to persuade BMFA to set up rules to cascade this down to club level as far as is practicable. That will still make life difficult for the lone flier and slope soarer, though not impossible, with careful thought. Sigh.

(As a pilot of fullsize as well as models - something I bet many of us here are - I hope all they'd want is an additional rating added, no doubt at a cost. I am already worried about drones, because some dreamers want clearance for drones to operate routinely below 500ft for all sorts of purposes. They forget that we need to take-off and land, and not all airfields are licenced and marked with control zones.)

 

 

 

 

Edited By John Bisset on 22/07/2017 18:42:38

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ChrisB]

The chap on the news from BALPA differentiated between model aircraft and drones...but didn't say how they are different other than model aircraft clubs and flyers are established and we recognise their safety and what they do. The images on the news and in the consultation documents weren't junior 60s or wot4s or ugly sticks they were Multi rota aircraft and the dedicated FPV delta things.

Everyone clearly recognises there is a difference between model aeroplanes that have been around for years without much incident and the new phenomenon or plug and play and fly anywhere multirota camera drones. The issue is how to define them. I think LOS is probably the least worst way of doing it.

[Martin McIntosh]

On a `lighter` note, my Lidl XL glider is 263gm without a battery. I wonder if I shall need to undergo a safety awareness course before I fly it again? Designed for 3 + year olds.

[Martin Whybrow]

One thing that is mentioned repeatedly in the documents is how to reduce the risk from drones, yet I haven't seen any evidence of a risk assessment; anyone who's involved in engineering, construction, H&S, etc. knows that the first thing you do when looking at risks is to carry out a hazard analysis follwed by a risk assessment, and only then start to create a risk mitigation plan

[John Bisset]

Tom Sharp2 has raised a darn good point. LoS could be a variable feast. Personally, since I am no spring chicken , I'd be happy to define it within my effective vision limits, which would be closer than the runway's length at one field I fly from!

Technically, LoS could be a very long way at the top of a hill slope, a lot less on a typical flying field. At my home model field, LoS in one direction is about 150 metres or less, because of trees.

I suspect whatever the authorities come up with will be unworkable since too many small drones have been sold uncontrolled already.

[i12fly]

Despite trying to keep abreast of the 'drone' draft proposals I seem to have missed something here, the government have been operating under my radar. I saw this situation as being controlled by EASA and therefore have until 15 September to make comments. Now the government have jumped the gun and are introducing legislation of its own -which could well be different to that which the EASA will subsequently bring in as a European Regulation which -we will adopt with or without brexit. So we'll have to abide by 2 sets of laws which will probably conflict in some areas. Or have I missed something.

I do not believe for a moment that drone and model aircraft cannot be individually defined. It may take a year for a highly paid team producing a 100+ page report but everything can be defined by a team of lawyers and politicians -even if they get it wrong.

As EASA are working on it why is our government interfering, haven't they got more important things to do? It smells of commercial lobbying. I suppose that as UK airspace is said to be saturated at times, there is only one way to grab more of it in control and it isn't upwards so it has to be downwards, down to 400ft or below.

[John Bisset]

i12fly - I think you are right, it is a mixture of commercial lobbying and political 'grandstanding'. Of course EASA has the dreaded Europe word in it so possibly this is intended to allow a certain portion of the population to do their knee jerk bit...

I see they are talking of mandatory geo-fencing. That will be interesting if they include us radio model types. Do we all need to get GPS fitted to allow this?!

[ChrisB]

I agree the publication of this response by DFT has been done to satisfy BALPA, the media and the anti brexit brigade.

Interestingly the EASA draft regs give implementation timeframes, exclude model aeroplanes from geofencing and if in a club, and with the agreement of the national aviation body, variable height restrictions, possibly higher than 400ft. The DFT regs don't, they say they will continue to work on the detail. They also say that geofencing will be considered in due course, following further work.

I don't see any reason why there would be two sets of regs. I suspect the DFT will sit on the proposals until EASA have formalised theirs. Then one set will be adopted.

Brexit will not affect EASA, so this is a way of the government heading off the brexit issue from a political perspective.

[Dane Crosby]

Hi all, I am one who has not contacted my MP. He would not have any understanding of my hobby that I have been involved in since 1961.

I was hoping that the BMFA, of which I am a member would be very actively involved at the very top to explain our operation and explain the difference between a completely autonomous machine and one hands on, LOS. The promotion of, and protection of my hobby by the BMFA is my prime reason for being a member. If I am being naive then explain the reason to me and I'll try to find another organisation who will be proactive.

Until we and the BMFA can come up with a cast iron distinction between the types then we cannot expect the ill-educated politicians and their advisers to separate the various types we operate.

I am a retired, fast jet, slow jet, multi turboprop and helicopter pilot having instructed on jets and helicopters.

I was amused by the BBC quote saying that helicopters were worried about "drones" breaking the windscreen. I would have been much more worried about a chunky drone clouting my main, or worse, tail rotor !

Now I will se what I can do to educate my MP but don't hold your collective breath.

[Sam Longley]

The way to do it over a long period of time is for transmitters to have the same requirement as EU VHF sets. When ,say, a Dutch( Or french, Belgian etc) user transmits on his/her VHF it emits a short "hiss" as the transmit button is released. This identifies the radio & user. The UK does not comply with this but  it is called ATIS ( Automatic transmission Identification System) & is part of the Rainwat agreement

So if the govt insisted that all transmitters had to issue a code every so many seconds that identified the user or its position & all transmitters were sold under license then we could fly to out hearts content without any worries. Anyone operating in a banned area or operating in an illegal manner could be traced regardless of what we were flying

It is not beyond the capability of manufacturers to add this to their sets if they wanted to or were forced to before they could sell them in a certain country ( Inc those sold via internet) It would also help if the USA insisted on it as well

The big problem would be how to get rid of all the existing transmitters in current circulation. But that is the same as getting all the existing drones in existence recorded as well

Edited By Sam Longley on 22/07/2017 21:33:46

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

In CAP722 CAA effectively suggest that LOS is upto 500m - but that is a guideline and needs local circumstances to be taken into account and interpretation

BEB

[PatMc]

It's only FPV flying that needs to have a distance specified to define LOS.

[Peter Christy]

The problem with which the authorities seem to have some difficulty (as well as many modellers) is defining the difference between a "drone" and a "model aircraft" (as we understand the terms).

The difference is quite simple. If it can ONLY be flown successfully when the pilot can see it (LOS), then it is a model aircraft. If it CAN be flown whilst out of sight of the pilot, be that autonomously or FPV, then it is a "drone".

Note I say say "CAN" be flown - that means that even if it is being flown within LOS, it still qualifies as a "drone" if it is capable of being flown whilst out of sight.

Once you have that definition, the rest becomes simple to legislate. Actually enforcing any regulations is another matter entirely, and on the evidence so far, pretty much impossible!

As so often, the law abiding will face restrictions that will be ignored by the "villains".

I was brought up to believe that a law that was unenforceable was a bad law, as it brought good law into disrepute. The proposals that I have read strike me as being completely unenforceable, and hence bad law.

--

Pete

[Cuban8]

And as far as those of us flying radio controlled model aircraft for fun, totally unnecessary.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by PatMc on 22/07/2017 22:17:42:

It's only FPV flying that needs to have a distance specified to define LOS.

I suspect the most eagle eyed of us would have difficulty flying a 251g drone at 500m! If this were applied it would be another example of "one size fits all" legislation that is badly thought out. Happily (and hopefully) the CAA have a good record of drafting and applying the ANO sensibly and reasonably so I'm fairly confident that they will work to produce a decent compromise.

I do like Pete's definition - seems clear and workable to me...

[i12fly]

Well Pete there are many bad laws as you describe that come from Europe. I work in an industry that encompasses gas and wood burning, many of the facets involved are unenforceable -until something goes wrong and then they go to town on you. The difference with us brits is that if there is a rule or law then we take it seriously -we have to, its the law. Our brethren in Europe in my experience over the last 30+ years working with Standards Regulations and Directives is that when something new comes out to use it as a guide and don't implement things they don't like. That's my experience of working closely with German, Dutch, French and Italian companies. We cannot ignore the law with flying -if we had an accident -low risk but they happen, then we would not be covered by our insurance. We're covered for negligence but only for lawful activity, so the men in curly wigs could/would strip us of everything we own.

At the moment our insurance covers us for negligence, pilot error, inadequate pre-flight checks etc but doesn't cover us for things outside our control (act of God?) -because we have no responsibility for that and no case to answer. My impression of the government proposal is that we as pilots will be responsible for everything. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it will surely bump up the premium.

It will be interesting to know how BMFA David Phipps sees this, I'm certain he's doing his best but is only one voice in a large group of powerful stakeholders with other agendas.

[i12fly]

Forget re-defining a model aircraft from a drone, EASA and our government have decided they are the same, the best we can hope for with fixed wing is relaxation of geofencing for fixed wing as it cannot work.

Or can it?

Similarly another future proposal to be investigated -electronically identifying a flying model? a transponder? what sort of weight would that be?