Proposed new drone legislation/registration

[MattyB]

Test post (for some reason this thread is not currently appearing in the Latest Posts view...

[Pete B]

Same thing happened to BEB yesterday evening, Matt - he couldn't find the thread in the Latest Posts page either but after he'd made a test post it reappeared..... no, we haven't a clue why it happened!

I've been able to view the thread all the time. Has it reappeared again for you after posting this morning?

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

It's happen to me again today, after I thought I'd sorted it. Very strange, not seen this before.
Just for now while we investigate, I can still find the thread through the forum "topics" board, presumably so can others?
BEB

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Threads put you both on ignore.

Working for me.

[MattyB]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 13/02/2018 11:28:38:

Same thing happened to BEB yesterday evening, Matt - he couldn't find the thread in the Latest Posts page either but after he'd made a test post it reappeared..... no, we haven't a clue why it happened!

I've been able to view the thread all the time. Has it reappeared again for you after posting this morning?

Yes it did, but then I came back mid morning and it had gone again from the Latest Posts view. It's there currently though. Very strange!

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/02/2018 12:24:16:
It's happen to me again today, after I thought I'd sorted it. Very strange, not seen this before.
Just for now while we investigate, I can still find the thread through the forum "topics" board, presumably so can others?

Yes I can, though when I was looking for it this morning I realised I had no idea what subforum it was actually posted in so that didn't help much!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

OK, we are making some progress. All Steve's posts dissapeared for short while, but I think we have sorted that. Let me know if we are wrong!

We are still looking intio why this thread isn't always visible in Latest Posts. Back soon - I hope!

BEB

[MattyB]

A quick update... Had a very good email back from Dave Phipps from the BMFA earlier this week. I will not reproduce all of it, but in summary:

• EASA now seems to accept that not all model flying takes place at organised sites and that there is no evidence to suggest that this gives rise to any problems.
• The tweak to UAS.SPEC.055 reflects this and is helpful in that it means members of an association holding Competent Authority status (such as the BMFA, LMA, FPVUK etc) should be able to continue to operate from public access sites where there is no tenant club.
• As a result the BMFA do not think there is currently a need to establish an overarching national club to "own" such sites.
• The CAA remain supportive of maintaining the status quo. The BMFA are also engaging with the DfT who are looking to bring forward changes to the ANO for unmanned aircraft in the near future as has been mentioned earlier in this thread.
• Even though the outlook does look better there are still likely be other battles ahead even after the EASA regulations are finalised (such as looking after the interests of model flyers during the implementation of U-space).

So all in all I am a little more optimistic now. Nothing is done and dusted yet and it may still not be our ideal outcome, but the likelihood of an acceptable outcome emerging does seem much better than it did a year or so ago. Thanks to Dave and the BMFA team for the work they have done (and continue to do) on our behalf.

Edited By MattyB on 14/02/2018 15:03:05

[Sam Longley]

Posted by MattyB on 14/02/2018 14:59:01:

A quick update... Had a very good email back from Dave Phipps from the BMFA earlier this week. I will not reproduce all of it, but in summary:

• EASA now seems to accept that not all model flying takes place at organised sites and that there is no evidence to suggest that this gives rise to any problems.

Well I would contradict that statement. Surely one might suggest that virtually all ALLEGED drone/projectile problems have come from sites or launch areas that are NOT organised sites. If not can one tell us where drone incursions have come from organised sites. That would indicate the opposite of what is being suggested above

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I suggest that you read the statement more carefully Sam. It is specifically referring to model flying and saying that EASA recognise that model flying from non-organised sites is not a problem. Which is what we want them to say - for the benefit of our slope-soaring friends for example!
BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 14/02/2018 20:57:51

[Sam Longley]

Apologies. i have not been reading the full thread & I had not picked up the difference between a model & a flying RC controlled object such as a drone, helicopter or model plane being flown irresponsibly.

Perhaps i had a different view of "non- organised site" to others- ie

Street on an estate,children's playground, back garden, layby near an airfield, retail centre car park???

You can see all of them on You tube. Glad to hear that they do not cause any issues

[Gary Manuel]

If only there was a simple way of differentiating between good models and bad models.

I suspect we wouldn't need all this legislation if there was.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

It's been said many times, It's PILOTS that cause problems.

[MattyB]

Posted by Sam Longley on 14/02/2018 21:20:30:

Apologies. i have not been reading the full thread & I had not picked up the difference between a model & a flying RC controlled object such as a drone, helicopter or model plane being flown irresponsibly.

Perhaps i had a different view of "non- organised site" to others- ie

Street on an estate,children's playground, back garden, layby near an airfield, retail centre car park???

You can see all of them on You tube. Glad to hear that they do not cause any issues

Nobody is disputing those examples exist, but what EASA are acknowledging is that members of organisations such as the BMFA, LMA and FPVUK that actively promote safe operation of UAS are not the problem. Collectively these organisations and their members have an excellent safety record whether operating at a private club field or public access site. As a result the new regs offer less restrictions to those operating within such organisations compared to those that choose to operate alone.

[Jez Saunders]

I have come into this debate very late but have read a lot of the reply's. It's very complex and very unfair !. Aeroplane model building and flying has been a very creative, satisfying and absorbing hobby for a great many people for well over a hundred years, probably before but certainly when man first took to the air successfully and aircraft were seen by young men wanting to be part of this avation magic. Skills were learnt while spending hours building and then maybe a successful flight or not ?

Then to put it simply drones/multicopters what ever come along with all the associated gps hd cameras self stabilisation gyros which any Tom dick or Harry can get hold of , not have to aquire any skill (instant gratification!) through right of passage and have the potential to pry into others privacy or potentially bring down an aircraft, certainly cause panic to the general population beleiving that this maybe the case.

Surely it be easier to restrict this certain type of machine for the greater good, certain types of firearm are banned/restricted in the UK for example. If someone really needs this type of machine, TV filming, security ,rescue servises, surveying and even the serious enthusiast they could apply for a permit and probably have to pass a proficiency test.

I am sounding like a kill joy I know, new technology is a fantastic thing, I would love a dji Drone but I love my fixed wing rc models more and I want to enjoy them as a lone flyer and not bother anyone as I do now. The end !

[ChrisB]

Jez, its a very complex situation and has been discussed at length on many threads over the last 3 or 4 years. Several of us proposed definitions to EASA and quite reasonably they came back with a counter argument. That is why the end result...well nearly....is not based purely on the flying machine, but also the pilot and their membership of a national body.

There is no easy definition re. multirota/fixed wing GPS, FPV, RTH etc etc and I won't go into that as it won't add anything to the discussion.

Ultimately, it seems that the CAA and EASA together with the national associations are reaching a preferred option which will work for the majority of aeromodellers, it may not be perfect but it won't be anywhere as bad as it looked this time 3 years ago.

Edited By ChrisB on 15/02/2018 19:27:26

[Jez Saunders]

Chris, I do realise it is very complex situation and I put it in a very simple argument but at the end of the day just how many incidents are caused by model flyers or for that matter drone pilots in a day week or month or year compared with say car drivers in a single day ? Things are getting blown out proportion I feel. Just getting things off my chest, all part of the therapy 😂

[ChrisB]

I completely agree! The number of incidents won't change because of regulation but its more about the powers that be being seen to to doing something.

Anyhow, all appears to be settling down now.

Cheers

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Steve's question goes to the heart of the current situation. As I have already stated I think this is the best result we could possibly have hoped for. The truth is, basically, we have won! We should be celebrating. Thanks to the efforts of the National Orginisations and those individuals who contirbuted EASA have pulled back on just about every point we contested.

OK, "many a slip" and all that and there are i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed. Most importantly, the politicians still have to get hold of this Technical Opinion and turn it into law and the capacity exists for them to foul up doing that TBH. But hopefully, they won't and we will have what it very much looks like we will have - ie being allowed to more or less do what we were doing before, but with a little more admin and and few extra regs to respect. It could have been much, much, worse; why not try to take some pleasure in that thought?

BEB

[Peter Jenkins]

Jez

I think you are looking at the situation from the wrong angle. Drones, or UAVs as they were once called, have been gaining increasing use in the military for the past 15 years. They range from something like the Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk, Boeing Scan Eagle, QinetiQ/Airbus Zephyr to the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk. None of these is allowed to fly in Civilian Airspace unless the airspace is closed to all manned traffic first. The Desert Hawk and Scan Eagle could easily be described as model aircraft. The Scan Eagle (10 ft wingspan and 10 cc petrol engine) has a duration of 24 hours and is/has been used extensively by the US in military operations for reconnaissance. Then you come to the killer drones such as the General Atomics Predator/Reaper. The Global Hawk stays out of the way of commercial traffic by flying at 50,000 ft plus - but it needs to have the airspace cleared to allow it to get to and return from this height to its operating airfield. Zephyr flys at 70,000 + ft but also needs to get there and back.

In aviation today, the barrier to entry to manned aircraft production is so high that it is high risk high cost activity. Conversely, getting into the Drone area is relatively low risk/cost and many nations as well as companies new to aviation are jumping in because of the commercial opportunities presented. These cover a huge range of possibilities from agriculture, environmental monitoring, security, surveillance (Coast Guard, Fisheries Protection) down to Estate Agents wanting to take photos of their clients' houses and so on.

The problem is how to integrate these unmanned assets into the existing airspace. This can be done either by segregating the airspace used by these vehicles or else by fitting them with sense and avoid technology (yet to be produced at affordable cost) to allow them to mix it with manned flight and other airspace users such as us. What we are seeing is EASA going down the segregated airspace route.

The EU has decided that there is a significant amount of business to be gained by embracing this new technology and EASA was given the job of making this happen. As BEB says, by dint of excellent lobbying by the model aircraft world, we appear to have got pretty much what we were aiming for which is, as near as damnit, what we have now.

Having a go at the admittedly careless use of small commercially available drones, is merely a tiny part of the whole issue with which the EU and its organs is dealing. That was reflected in the way they approached the problem originally - that is, they were totally ignorant of what we in the model aircraft world do and how we operate.

I hope that makes you feel better. It is not an issue of being a kill joy more one of not seeing that this is part of a very much bigger picture. Getting rid of model aircraft sized drones will not make the bigger problem go away. That requires constant vigilance to make sure we are not stopped from operating by officials who have no knowledge of our sport.

Edited By Peter Jenkins on 15/02/2018 23:34:53

[i12fly]

We seem to be forgetting that the key driver for all this is not so much rogue flyers but the use of U-space, commercial operators and others want to use lower level airspace for deliveries etc etc. As the NPA doc says, there is much money to be made.

Something that concerns me is that this seems to be far from a done deal, the EASA doc is an 'opinion'. I'm concerned that the commercial operators have enough resource to ignore 'opinion' and persuade the EC to reject reason. I want to be wrong!

[ChrisB]

I spoke to a filming company a few months ago and the lady said that they only get around 60 days a year in the UK when they can fly in weather suitable for filming. So, even if you double that for the likes of deliveries, when you then add all the other complexities of the urban environment, I still remain of the view that the realistic prospect of widespread mass market postal deliveries being done by UAV is never going to happen.

Clearly there are currently uses that are feasible and are being used, but not the Amazon, UPS, FEDEX type, mass market postal deliveries and there never will be, there are just too many variables to make it a long term solution.

[Colin Leighfield]

I’ve followed this with great interest because it is so important, although I feel unable to add much that is useful to this high quality debate. I personally have no interest in multi-rotor drones except for their use as tools. I am interested in aeroplanes, always have been. These machines are electro-mechanical devices. I thought that ChrisB’s opinion on the practicality of some of the suggested uses such as delivery was thought provoking. I can understand why film makers say that there aren’t many days in the year that they can work, because they want perfect visibility. When I was flying full-size Group “A” I quickly found out how frequently the number of days when weather looked good on the ground proved to be unsuitable for VFR because the visibility was actually lousy, due to haze etc. However the proposed use for delivery purposes, whether on pre-determined routes or to bespoke addresses, will use electronic navigation and won’t be affected by visibility issues. Very strong winds can be an issue, but that will be the exception rather than the rule. In the full-sized category the rapid development of multi-rotor autonomous taxis is going to lead to acceptance and widening adoption in the coming years. What we are moving towards must be a re-definition of the rules for the low-level use of air space, which is going to become more intense in populated areas. The effects in remote and countryside areas, such as those where we tend to fly, should be much less, so I tend to share BEB’s view that our position will be acceptably manageable.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]