Legislation Proposal at last

[John Emms 1]

There has been suggestion that discussion here is not helpful, but submission to "the authorities" is. I feel that this discussion is actually long overdue. I also suspect that there are some on here involved in "official discussion", in which case it would be helpful if they identify themselves as such. In any case this, those who are involved in official discussions can be made aware of the thoughts here.

As I see the situation:

Someone in China developed a cheap helicopter type toy, and a huge number of these were sold worldwide. A very small number of this type of UAVs are, and will be used, for commercial applications. There was a real concern that some of the camera equipped UAVs will be used to invaded privacy, and some of these UAVs have been used near airports. A scheme is now in place for qualifying commercial operators of UAVs.

The EASA who were previously only concerned with full size aviation were tasked with looking at potential legislation to cover UAVs, included all UAVs in their "model legislation", and put a great emphasis on electronics in all UAVs, including those that use no electronics at the moment. I responded to the EASA consultation saying that it would be a huge burden to adapt and adjust all of my models to be a able to fly autonomously as required by the "model legislation", and not actually as safe as me maintaining full control of my model at all times, even if the equipment needed to do this was available. The French said that transponders would need to be no more than 9g and 9 Euro, which was taken forward.

We are now in the face of impending legislation concerning geofencing for model aeroplanes (where the model flys away autonomously, or perhaps the model is intended to "hold it's present position" ie crash), and transponders for models, where the transponders do not exist.

The label in all small UAVs would be a simple answer to identifying a user after an "incident", but I suspect we could end up with new quango that has a £300k plus CEO to register all small UAVs, or at least, their operators. I suspect that most won't bother, or feel that they cannot afford, to register.

The transponders will require research that universities will be very happy to do, and the Government will be very happy to fund, but only the end user can pay, so the fee for registration will need to reflect the very expensive development costs for the technology that the Government want to exist.

On the geofencing. I seriously do not have the will to programme each of the controls for each of my models, for the model to fly autonomously to given way points should it receive some signal to do so. Apart from this being an entirely different hobby, I was advising a Bristol University lecturer only 15 years ago, as to how he might go about achieving this.

And you thought the paper labels were a non starter...

[John Emms 1]

I did forget that the registration fee will also have to pay for the special "drone readers" that will need to be developed, and carried routinely by the Police (in addition to all the other kit that they have to carry).

I suspect that most Police officers would be able to read a paper label without the need for a special reader.

[MattyB]

Can I humbly suggest people read this update from the BMFA from back in May 2017 if you have not already? It gives a good descripton as to how we have arrived where we are today a manageable level of detail - this includes the multiple rounds of consultation where model flyers and national associations have fed back their dissatisfaction with the draft proposals, the steps the BMFA and Europe Air Sports (EAS) have taken to attempt to exempt traditional model flying from the most onerous controls initially proposed, and why our disciplines have not been granted a blanket exception. Based on this I find it hard to believe any further lobbying to exclude model flying from the regulations completely has any chance of success.

The start of the article is below for ease of reading, but do follow the link and read the whole thing as it is a very useful summary:

 

NPA 2017-05(A) Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) began the process to create a regulatory framework for the operation of drones in 2015, when in August they published the A-NPA 2015/10 – “Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones”. This document appeared to offer a number of concessions and safeguards to avoid a negative impact on the long established activity of model flying. Europe Air Sports (EAS) provided formal feedback to this publication and in all there were around 3,400 comments submitted.

EASA then published their Technical Opinion in December 2015, which again stated that “the intention is to develop rules which will not affect model flying”.

EASA do not at this stage have the authority/competence to regulate aircraft below 150Kg, and so their next publication in August 2016 was the “Prototype Regulation for Unmanned Aircraft Operations“. EASA stated that this document was intended to provoke discussion to help them formulate the actual NPA (notice of proposed amendment – which outlines the proposed rules). EASA certainly achieved the objective of provoking discussion and received over 1000 emails from model aircraft practitioners expressing their dissatisfaction with the requirements for model aircraft included in the “Prototype Regulation“.

Based on the feedback received, EASA agreed to create an “Expert Group“ to help improve the quality of the draft regulation and develop additional options for model aircraft activities. The Expert Group comprised 26 members selected from relevant stakeholders. Model flyers were represented by Dave Phipps (Europe Air Sports) and Bruno Delor (FAI). In all, the Expert Group met for a total of nine days between November 2016 and March 2017 with an additional Webex meeting to discuss model flying.

The NPA (2017-05 A) was published on the 12^th May and is open for feedback until 15^th September. It can be viewed here: **LINK**

The position taken by Europe Air Sports (and FAI) on behalf of model Flyers throughout Europe was that model aircraft and model flying should not fall within EASA regulations at all. We lobbied through the European political system for model flying to be clearly derogated from “drone“ flying and proposed placing it within Annex 1 of the Basic Regulation (to leave it within national control). Unfortunately, there was insufficient political support to remove model flying from EASA regulation entirely, but a compromise was reached which compelled EASA to include “dedicated provisions for recreational flight activities conducted within the framework of model clubs and associations” within the regulations. As such, the NPA (whilst not what we would have chosen) does certainly improve the situation for model flyers in comparison to the rules outlined in the “Prototype Regulation".

Edited By MattyB on 30/11/2017 13:29:16

[Nigel R]

A herring gull weighs 2 or 3 lbs.Do they have transponders? No. I just can't help but feel the legislation is (a) a mess and (b) missing the point.

Is it not easily possible to separate things that need registration by the use of FPV? By which I mean, register the camera kit part of the drone, not the platform itself. Have the transponder (if you must) present in the camera electronics.

99.9% of "drone" users are interested in looking at stuff through a camera from 100ft up (or higher). Or whizzing it into an old building to do "urban exploration" without risking falling on something sharp and rusty. With FPV you can be safely away from all the potential problems you might cause at airfields or near other people.

Most "old school RCers" aren't. We like flying stuff around in front of ourselves. And that means close. Because line of sight.

It is 100% the uneducated users who want to do FPV around things they shouldn't that are the problem issue. Note uneducated, the professional users or hobbyist types are not a problem.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

It is apparent that there has been significant movement from May, the update although welcome is now history. Although it did indicate the points of principal as far as the regulators were concerned, and also their unwillingness to consider alternatives, that is there was and is no compromise in some areas.

Yet we are now also looking at the issue from the perspective that not withstanding the position of EASA, the UK Government is intending to implement regulations that will affect us as model flyers.

I would expect that our delegates to the various meeting and discussions with the various authorities will have generated minutes, more easily digestible will have been the "Briefing Notes" of the discussion for the internal BMFA records and officials.

It is an abridged version of these documents, and BMFA thoughts on direction and the implications that could be produced for the general membership.

For my part it is the actuality of what "registering" actually is as a process, and the implications. Although I suspect that all of us on this thread are BMFA members, not all fliers are, I am interested to understand the issues for myself, club and casual fliers.

Edited By Erfolg on 30/11/2017 14:43:10

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Steve

Your view sits nicely with the UK Government statements with respect to the potential commercial operation of UAS. It seems that the UK Government sees money to be made in many varied areas that could make use of the vehicles.

I guess that means that we are a nuisance.

I cannot but observe that the greatest risk is from bird strikes above 400 feet. As I see large numbers of Geese, Buzzards and Gulls in this general area. As commercial aircraft seldom seem to hit them, or apparently see them, +400 foot seems safe, from birds. Just need to get rid of those things flying at -400 foot. But I guess I am not being charitable, if safety really is the issue.

Not withstanding speculating about what really is driving the agenda, it seems some change is coming. The question is from a model fliers perspective, is, at what cost.

[cymaz]

Posted by Rich too on 30/11/2017 06:47:50:

Posted by cymaz on 29/11/2017 17:33:03:

Anyone else wishing to email Baroness Sugg? I have the email address.

Edited By cymaz on 29/11/2017 17:33:49

go on then, ping over the details please - thanks

[email protected]

[email protected]

[ChrisB]

Re. the CAA. They are fully aware of what a model aircraft is and what a new fangled drone/MR is. They visit several model airshows every year to ensure the law is complied with and they are the people whom the show organisers contact for exemptions to the display ceiling for models over 7.5kg. They are also the body who formally issue airworthiness certificates to for models over 20kg via the LMA.

Take it from me, as someone who writes policies for a living, the issue is not the CAA. It's members of the civil service, both here and abroad who are tasked with preparing legislation that appeases the political aspirations of their masters. They, the civil servants, are told to jump and they have to jump, its as simple as that. The one man and a dog at the CAA, can only do so much both in terms of persuading the civil servants and their masters and inputting to the policies.

[cymaz]

Posted by Steve J on 30/11/2017 13:42:10:

Posted by MattyB on 30/11/2017 13:22:52:

Can I humbly suggest people read this update from the BMFA from back in May 2017 if you have not already?

I would suggest that people also read the Riga Declaration from March '15 which is one of the first milestones on the path to where we are now.

**LINK**

Steve

How I read it Steve, is that it assumes a drone is only a quadcopter..just look at item one. Model aircraft have been around for 100 years ! Quadcopters are a new type of UAV.

Edited By cymaz on 30/11/2017 17:39:38

Edited By cymaz on 30/11/2017 17:40:12

[ChrisB]

Personally I would wait until the draft legislation is published, alongside the consultation before passing comment. If people are to make comment, it goes without saying construct a sound and logical argument with evidence, rather than a rant or anecdotal chatter.

[Erfolg]

I was just dwelling on what i will do if the hobby is no longer available to the likes of me.

I then thought, that back in the day of the GPO, when we all needed a licence, it was affordable. I then thought perhaps such a system could be affordable.

I then came to with a start, realising that in the era of compliance and bureaucracy founded in the politics of the 70s, which has continued to date, registration today could well be very different kettle of fish.

[Kelly]

Just fly and enjoy .

BMFA handbook, insurance ANO and for some forced to take the A cert ,more law is needed???

I would swear if allowed.

[Erfolg]

Kelly

I have always thought that as far as I was concerned that the "A" Achievement Scheme was at a personal level totally irrelevant. I did not seek self congratulation of a certificate, I was and still am not bothrered what others think about my lack of skill, in their opinion.

I took the "A" cert, as I wanted to fly at Greenacres, then I found it was necessary to fly unsupervised at the club I am now a member. Although it seemed that to get membership it was advantageous having one. I was quite happy having someone at my side in the club where I gained the cert. Just advising if anything unusual was occurring.

However it could well be that the current scheme, will become or morph into something that has meaning. If the legislation does require a test on matters such as:

• Legal Responsibilities,
• Regulations respect to flying a model
• Safe operation of a model
• Demonstration of the minimum level of skill to maintain safety.

Then my opinion will have gone full circle. Such a certificate and test being useful to everyone.

If this does come to pass in some form, my main concern would be a proliferation of different tests for all manner of sub divisions. I guess though the test regime would no longer be owned and operated only by the BMFA?

In such circumstances the BMFA would not just be a insurance broker to modellers, but would also be the host of accredited examiners where our membership fee would be supporting.

[John Emms 1]

Clearly we don't have to wait to see what is proposed, because what is proposed right now is right here **LINK**

Seeing Erfolg's thoughts, and thinking about this further: I have passed 3 tests with two different bodies that are recognised by the CAA, and I have two different registration numbers. I see little to be gained by having further tests and further registration numbers. I think that as the BMFA already has both schemes and registration in place, we should be looking at using that, and if necessary, build on that.

Club officials currently have to check current BMFA membership of members in different clubs, and check insurance details for clubs that are not affiliated, and I do agree that a "compliance officer" will be required in each club, if additional testing and registration is legally required.

On the weight limit, I would like to see this be higher than 250g. At 500g it would remove many smaller and simple models, along with many "park flyers", and at 750g all the park flyers would be removed. I am considering that the market leading drone, DJI Phantom has a mass of greater than 1,3kg.

On the 400ft height limit, I paced this out yesterday, and I could clearly see the white rim on a no entry sign, and clearly see "give way" on another road sign. I see that argument that flyer of large models would be experienced, and capable of flying safely within a 400ft limit, but I would want to do handling checks on a new model above this height, and I would want to start flight training with a new model pilot above this height, to be "three mistakes high". The 400ft limit is, of course, below the 150m length of an F5J towline, and that is not high. Talking to a colleague with PPL, he would be flying in circuit around 800ft, and as we do not fly near airfields, I would have thought that a limit of 500 or 600ft would be more realistic, if there has to be a limit at all.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Would rather sit quiet n see what we have to deal with, when it comes, compliance officer, thought we already had those...pilots, committees etc. How long's a piece of string ? 400ft apparently ....who fancies going fishing ?

[cymaz]

I emailed the Lords as I want to make them aware of what my feelings are about the proposals. If the people who have any influence don’t know what the ordinary flyers opinions are, then the law making bodies will listen to the some loud anti flying bigot. That leaves us in the lurch with no arguing against it.

I trust the BMFA to do some lobbying  as well.

Edited By cymaz on 02/12/2017 16:49:45

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

More possible bad news as reported by Reuters and picked up on the XJet channel... It appears the proposal for models below 250g to be very lightly legislated and exempted from registration has changed; it's now a "below 80J of KE" limit. Err, what? How the hell could that ever be enforced? Bonkers.

Edited By MattyB on 02/12/2017 17:20:18

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Emms 1]

I will be sure to familiarize myself with my up to 900g models

I responded to two consultations, and received an e-mail from EASA answering specific points of mine, but this thread is showing me that there is a mass of published documents and data that I was not aware of. I am thinking that a thread that only contains links to the relevant on-line documents would be really useful.

Having read more of the documents that call for specific electronic means of height limiting, geofencing, etc, I feel that there is a very strong case for grandfathers rights over historic model aircraft, and that could be existing models, existing designs, or simply "existing equipment". There are a huge number of cases where grandfather rights exist in the area of transport - including historic vehicles no longer requiring an annual roadworthiness test.

I was told that CAA officials had been really pushed by the Lords for action to restrict Drones, and the great thing about having a Baroness as the minister responsible for this is that the same person is also the expert on this topic in the Lords - who's sole reason for being is scrutinising potential legislation that is passed to them from Government!

I see this as hugely sensitive, and whilst there is clearly benefit in bombarding ministers and the Lords with concerns, I would not want to do so without knowing the line that the BMFA is taking. There are a mass of issues, and I would like the messages to have some degree of commonality.

I would not want to discourage e-mailing, but a friend who does a lot of lobbying considers e-mail to be as tangible as Bitcoin, and uses postcards for her lobbying. The point, of course, being that the message on the postcard will be read by everyone in the department who handles it.

BTW, conversation of last night:

Sandra: What are you thinking about?

Me: New legislation about UAVs from the Government.

Sandra: Lol, government always over-reacts about everything! But that doesn't affect you, you have no interest in quadcopters.

Me: The definition of a UAV is....

Sandra: Don't even THINK of buying any more until this is sorted out.

[Erfolg]

I know that at least on this issue I am seen as a nuisance by the BMFA, yet for me part of the problem is that the BMFA have taken their eye of the ball. There seems to be more interest and effort put into the NFC, than this issue. Yet for me this issue is fundamental to the continued existence of this hobby.

The BMFA really needs to adopt a position that is known to its members. There is a need to mobiles the membership to help the CAA to help us, by influencing parliament and impending legislation.

Also it is apparent that there needs to be a stop to the stock sentence, "everything is in hand, no need to worry, all will continue as it has".

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Disagree Erf.

BMFA LMA etc are in there doing all they can i believe, mobilising 40,000 members ? did we ever have much say or has it always been, get best deal we can ? BMFA etc and Clubs/established sites ? looks to be only cards we have to play. King Canute comes to mind.