Proposed new drone legislation/registration

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

BMFA have provided updates on this on a regular basis, i've had emails from them everytime to keep members informed, posted them on here, as has Andy n others, things have been ongoing and the deadline got extended for more consultation, i'm not interested in where we are now, only the deal we end up with.

[Colin Leighfield]

I'm not getting depressed about this. There is a stated wish to enable existing model flying clubs to continue as before, within the 400ft. altitude rule . I expect that we will be ok and I continue to trust BMFA, although there is clearly a potential issue for non club independent flyers. If they are flying in some private secluded space, they will probably get away with it anyway if they are not close to something sensitive.

While I can certainly understand the interest in FPV, I don't see how we can avoid concerns about others having the ability to overfly your private space and view it or record on camera. Whether rotary or fixed wing, that is going to be regulated and it probably should be. If anyone starts hovering over my house I will be very cheesed off and don't blame anyone else who is either.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 24/07/2017 19:53:50:

As I see it there are two problems that could possibly arise:

1: With the rush to Brexit and the repealing of almost every EU legislation, the chances are that the EASA regulations will be swept aside and we will have a 'domestic' version in its place.

There is no chance of BREXIT leading to a move away from EASA's proposed legislation by the UK. We are a major aviation nation with the busiest airport in Europe. We can't be outside EASA - aviation by its nature is inetrnational. No we will remain as a non-voting member - implementing all the legislation but without and say or a vote. Great eh? We will not be able to cherry pick from a EASA menu!

As I say above the original story is really a non-story in my opinion because all its doing is giving notice of the Government's intention to impliment EASA's UAS proposals in the NPA in due course - we already knew that!

BEB

[ChrisB]

Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 24/07/2017 19:53:50:

As I see it there are two problems that could possibly arise:

1: With the rush to Brexit and the repealing of almost every EU legislation, the chances are that the EASA regulations will be swept aside and we will have a 'domestic' version in its place.

2: Registration, if it's implemented, will, almost certainly, become a money tree for the government with an annual fee.

One problem with registration though would be the ability to read a 'registration number' on a model in flight (whether it be a 'traditional' one or a multi-copter). I honestly can't see P.C. Plod chasing across several fields looking for the guy flying that noisy thing over his patch, which would be the only way to check on any registration.

EASA is not a matter for the EU and brexit will not result in us leaving the EASA partnership

[ChrisB]

Posted by Erfolg on 24/07/2017 19:55:29:

I am increasingly disillusioned, with respect to many aspects of this general topic.

I personally see the issues being discussed as potentially marking the end of model aircraft, as presently being built and operated. It has been suggested that the Lidl glider exceeds the maximum weight limit. Even flying toys are under threat.

Yet at this time, the BMFA would seem to be more interested in its NFC, by general coverage provided, and the detailed, current reports.I know the BMFA see it s a good news story.

We have been been provided with some general info, on a grouping, the internal structures and various relationships, with respect to the team engaged with the EASA. When pestering I receive generally positive feed back, that all is going well. Although there is no detail, even high level, broad brush information. Just the general. all looks like it will be OK.

In my opinion, it is the BMFA that should have made the membership aware of opportunity to make representations both to UK Government Consultation, and provided some guidance of an appropriate framework for the response.

If the lack of quality information is a consequence of not wanting to be seen as rocking the boat, and or not wishing to make public how far our representative bodies are prepared to accept restrictions, is conjecture, Or maybe they see discussions as best kept out of public forums. It is all conjecture as our body does not communicate with us, with the same passion or even frequency as shown for the NFC. These rules and regulations offer far more opportunity to engage significantly more frequently, in some depth, than it appears there is a desire.

There are approx. 30, 000 of us to be mobilised. The re are +30,000 of us to be kept informed and made aware of the issues.

Whilst on holiday in Austria I could not but observe that flying from a typical slope, that almost immediately after launch, that models would exceed a 200 ft limit, within a second. Flying away from the slope a 1,000m height above ground if measured vertically from the model, would occur for much of the flight.

I know your not a fan of the BMFA Erfolg, but they don't sit around in their ivory tower dreaming up the next scam to con the membership. A lot goes on behind the scene that you aren't aware of and to be honest you and I don't need to be aware of. Dave Phipps sits on the Europe Airsports panel which represents aviation sports. Rob Buckley, the secretary of the LMA regularly goes to various meetings across Europe, probably with Dave and others to represent modelling interests. Furthermore there is the domestic CAA liaison that is also on-going. Similarly, if you're in a club, I'd hope the club made representations or suggested individuals make representations on the clubs behalf.

If you've missed the consultation then that's unfortunate. There is the EASA consultation which closes on 15th September, so you have time to comment on that if you wish.

I agree that perhaps, at times, communication could be more frequent, but certainly with the DfT and EASA regs, nothing moves quickly, as with all regulations its a matter of years not even months and certainly not weeks.

I may have missed it but is there an email update service provided by the BMFA and has the BMFA thought of doing a weekly/monthly blog type thing that people can subscribe to? However, is enough going on to warrant the time and effort to do it and would it detract from the magazine?

[Colin Leighfield]

I receive news emails from BMFA with the appropriate attachments, the latest being the update on the drone regulatory situation. I feel well-informed enough and so far haven't seen anything that worries me particularly.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

True - but he's still right that Brexit won't result in EASA going away for us!

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Whybrow]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 24/07/2017 20:02:21:

I strongly disagree that the guy was a reckless idiot, he was merely flying down the channel. OK, he should not have been so close to the bridge but I doubt if any nuclear secrets could have been revealed by his action.

Fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make!

[i12fly]

Good points CrisB but BMFA are keeping us updated well in my view. Remember that the meetings​ with EASA and government are spaced out by months, so there is nothing to report in between.

Unfortunately some of the posters need to read all the posts to understand what it's all about. It is going to happen and we need to support BMFA añd LMA to get the best outcome they can. Constructive criticism is fine. BMFA have saved model flying before and will do so again but things are going to change it is inevitable.

As I said before, BMFA àre up against some powerful stakeholders and they will only succeed by exploiting loopholes and forming alliances. It's the way Europe works.

Sorry abóut the accents, I'm 100% English but my tablet thinks otherwise

[Erfolg]

Chris

I am not sure that i see the issue in terms of being a fan or otherwise. You are certainly correct in believing that I want the BMFA to urgently  restructure many aspects of its operations. The intention to make the organisation relevant to its members.

This is not what we are discussing now.

Informing the membership of the issues that the UK Government were considering and organising a independent response of the membership to the invitation to respond via the consultation process, Not having Guided the members to a focussed understanding of the issues, is a opportunity missed.

Repeating my general thrust, not enough is said about the issues and proposed solutions by the EASA. BEB has written far more about interpreting the proposals of the EASA and the possible options of implementation, than the BMFA.

I have no doubt that both the BMFA representative and the European interest group are doing the best that they possibly can for all of the modellers. Yet the BMFA is telling us little, beyond the cut and paste repetition of the EASA press releases.

This broad issue is a real "Day Job" function for the BMFA if there ever was one. Rather than see this area as one just for the top table, local areas need to be encouraged to discuss what are the issues as seen by the representatives of the BMFA and others. The aim being to keep us all informed and engaged to respond constructively to any invitations to submit views to any consultation processes or any other opportunity.

A lot is going on, by both the UK Government and the EASA. I openly admit my understanding is limited, with respect to what the clauses, sub clauses might mean. Again BEB has attempted to provide his interpretation of how these could be implemented. I would like to see the BMFA do the same and more, openly to all.

This is what the BMFA is for, amongst other less important things..

 

Edited By Erfolg on 24/07/2017 23:00:32

[ChrisB]

Erfolg, I think its one of those things where at the moment there isn't a great deal of detail and everything is up in the air..no pun intended. Legislation tends to be a long and drawn out affair with multiple options for this, that or the other.

From what iIve read the key elements are possible altitude and registration requirements.

Not a lot more to say for now.

[KELL]

Well I for one put my hopes for the future of our great hobby in the hands of the BMFA. After all it's in their interest too that we can carry on. I'm sure there will be changes, but we've had them in the past. It's up to all flyers to keep up with the news and inform other club members at your own meetings. Now tomorrow evening is my own club flying evening so I hope there's no new rules on running a BBQ and cooking burgers. Happy landings everybody

[ChrisB]

Did someone say BBQ?? Now that's what being in a club is all about!!!!..Never mind this flying lark.

[Erfolg]

I was considering the comments made by BEB, that leaving the EU will have no impact on the UK signing into EASA rules.

I am not sure that is true in a absolute sense. I accept that the UK is near to certain to maintain its membership of the organisation. Although it could withdraw, it is most unlikely to do so. That is as long as the EU does not intend to impose its legal jurisdiction via the EASA to non EU members.

Perhaps more significantly, it will provide the UK legislators and regulators with the option of implementing the clauses within the final document, where the detail is left to the national regulators, as they see to be appropriate to the UK. As with so many things, this does not necessarily mean that what is implemented is better for us, than a EU issued diktat, although I would be hopeful.

I sincerely hope that the view that little is really happening is true. Although i am saddened that the recent UK Government Consultation opportunity seems to have been missed by the BMFA. Foe me these are bread and butter issues. There is no point in planning for the future, if there is no today.

These days I do some things for the BMFA, I am pleased to do so. I am far more interested in services and support to the ordinary membership, that fly for the simple pleasure of seeing their model flying. I have no time for the view, that only certain committees can address certain issues and so on, theses views and processes of the past I want to see changed, so that ordinary members do see past insurance with respect to the BMFA.

[MattyB]

Latest announcement from the BMFA...

I think this does look a little better than before. As noted registration of individual models is gone, and it looks like Country members of the BMFA and other associations that are not members of a club will come out better as the wording has changed to:

"...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities."

It also sounds like those operating at shared public access locations (such as the vast majority slope and thermal sites) should be able to continue to do so providing they utilise a smartphone app to notify the authorities they are doing so. The 120m limit is going to be a killer for thermal soaring though.

Ultimately it seems it will all come down to the relationship between the BMFA, LMA etc and the CAA. Even if we get a good deal initially there will always remain the risk that incidents could cause a rethink/reinterpretation at the CAA, especially if they are put under political pressure. The BMFA and others will have to remain constantly vigilant from now on to protect our right to fly in the long term.

[Erfolg]

Matty, as is indicated in the text, a lot more water has to flow under the bridge before there is any clarity. As indicated how the UK is managed is both down to the fine print and how the text is interpreted.

Perhaps what I see as better news is that the BMFA is informing the members about the state of the game of play. No real new news is better than being in the dark. It also helps to manage our expectations to realistic levels.

I had thought for some time that thermal gliding was destined to experience issues. That any exemptions to the 400 foot issue would be few, and probably limited to specific situations, requiring a dispensation.

The best news is that it is the flyer that will be registered rather than the models. I am hoping that the cost can be contained within the BMFA membership fee, with little extra cost. The fly in the ointment could be for entrants into the hobby, how and when do they gain registration, particularly if the process generates a barrier, particularly if it is overly restrictive.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Steve, it all depends what you consider to be an end game.

So far very little in concept has apparently changed from the initial positions. IMO it is the detail and interpretation of that detail matters.

For me that is not the end game, the endgame is the implementation of agreed rules, relationships, all embodied in UK laws and regulations.

In essence it does not matter what I or you think, the story continues. I am just pleased that the BMFA is providing updates.

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by MattyB on 08/02/2018 17:09:50:

"...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities."

What slightly irritates me is the 'so far' bit. Either model flying has a good safety record or it hasn't, the 'so far' is superfluous. Model flying has been going for over a hundred years, the so far bit sounds like they are saying it has only just become popular. Why should model flying suddenly not continue to have a good safety record, with or without the proposed legislation?

Am I being oversensitive? (probably!)

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Posted by MattyB on 08/02/2018 17:09:50:

<snip>The 120m limit is going to be a killer for thermal soaring though.<snip>

120m will be a severe restriction on any model flyer, electric, fuel or glider, who indulges in reasonably complex aerobatics.

I regularly flew under a height limit of 300ft at one venue shared with an RAF Air Training Corps glider sqn and it was a pain. I invested in height telemetry so that my little Wren 44-powered Nano Boomerang jet would let me know when I was approaching and risking exceeding that height. 300ft, ie 100 yds, is nothing to a model that will reach a telemetry-recorded 120 mph straight and level and will reach that height in seconds even in a shallow climb. And 120mph max is a slow jet.

The 400ft height limit I have to employ when I fly my over-7kg but much slower Bucker Jungmeister (it weighs 8kg) at my current club field which is located within the Manchester airport ATC zone is just as much of an annoyance. The Jungie has height telemetry too.

If the 400ft limit mentioned by Matty is to be a universal restriction, it seems to me that rtf models won't be properly rtf unless they have some form of height telemetry feedback ready-fitted.

Gordon

[Erfolg]

Gordon, it is this type of issue that still concerns me. At first sight 400 foot appears to be workable, if a little restrictive. The devil that could be in the detail, is if we are all required to have some form of warning, and or cut off, maybe a dethermaliser for FF and so on.

As one who also flew for years in the Manchester ATC area, with thermal gliders, I and we would often be a dot in the sky. Never once causing any danger to full size aircraft. Now that apps are available on Android phones that provide the height etc of commercial aircraft overflying the patch, they all seem to be at + a couple of thousand feet although just having left Ringway which is probably 7 or so miles away as the crow flies.

Yet I do not think we will get the height limit increased, however hard we push, as it appears to be universal throughout Europe as a value.

[MattyB]

Posted by MattyB on 08/02/2018 17:09:50:

"...The delegated and implementing acts adopted under this on the basis of Regulation and concerning unmanned aircraft should take into account that such model aircraft have so far had a good safety record, especially those operated by members of model aircraft associations or clubs which developed specific codes of conduct for such activities."

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 09/02/2018 10:13:17:

What slightly irritates me is the 'so far' bit. Either model flying has a good safety record or it hasn't, the 'so far' is superfluous. Model flying has been going for over a hundred years, the so far bit sounds like they are saying it has only just become popular. Why should model flying suddenly not continue to have a good safety record, with or without the proposed legislation?

Am I being oversensitive? (probably!)

Good spot. Goes back to my final point in the original post - even if we get a good deal from the CAA that agreement will remain at risk from legislative creep in the long term. The 120m limit is another example - initially it may be approved with no mandatory telemetry system required, but all it needs is one incident/near miss and the law could be changed mandating that kit be carried.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I feel this constitutes generally good news, in the context of the situation. For those who fly within a club at least. this is much better than it might have been. I could broadly live with this as an outcome.

BEB