Peter Christy Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Posted by Keith Lomax on 11/12/2017 19:13:45: Posted by Peter Christy on 11/12/2017 15:40:50: I thought we'd settled the definition ages ago! "If it is capable of controlled flight while out of LOS of the pilot, then it is a drone. If it is NOT capable of controlled flight out of LOS of the pilot, it is NOT a drone." -- Pete What about a fixed wing model with FPV? A multi rotor without FPV? If it has FPV, then it is capable of being controlled while out of LOS of the pilot, therefore it is a drone. If it is a multi-rotor without FPV - and no autonomous piloting abilities - then it is not a drone. Perhaps I should have said "human pilot" in the definition, to distinguish from an auto-pilot of any kind. Note that it is not whether it IS being operated out of LOS, but whether it is *capable* of being controlled - by whatever means - whilst out of LOS. -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Posted by Peter Christy on 12/12/2017 08:30:39: Posted by Keith Lomax on 11/12/2017 19:13:45: Posted by Peter Christy on 11/12/2017 15:40:50: I thought we'd settled the definition ages ago! "If it is capable of controlled flight while out of LOS of the pilot, then it is a drone. If it is NOT capable of controlled flight out of LOS of the pilot, it is NOT a drone." -- Pete What about a fixed wing model with FPV? A multi rotor without FPV? If it has FPV, then it is capable of being controlled while out of LOS of the pilot, therefore it is a drone. If it is a multi-rotor without FPV - and no autonomous piloting abilities - then it is not a drone. Perhaps I should have said "human pilot" in the definition, to distinguish from an auto-pilot of any kind. Note that it is not whether it IS being operated out of LOS, but whether it is *capable* of being controlled - by whatever means - whilst out of LOS. -- Pete Direct LOS operation is the key. Still seems to me to be inviting trouble though, by using 'drone' to describe our F/W models and helis. OK, technically speaking, a F/W or heli that is suitably equipped, could operate in a manner that emulates what a M/R drone could do, but I really believe that we need to keep the term 'drone' as it is now and understood by many people, as a shorthand for multirotor machines. Are we forgetting that all this bother has been caused by off-the-shelf multi-rotor machines that have been operated irresponsibly and illegally, in the most part by non-modellers? Our safety record, going back decades, apart from a few unfortunate exceptions involving people on the ground, is excellent and is already covered by the ANO. Edited By Cuban8 on 12/12/2017 10:33:56 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Cuban, I suspect that the off the shelf quads etc, are either the excuse, or maybe the catalyst for the Easa proposal, which probably is driven by the regulation of the development of commercial unmanned aerial vehicles. The quads and us fixed wing types are just nuisances as far as many are concerned. Our activities being seen as needing to be restricted or prevented, if it means compromising the commercial aspects. The commercial drones, be it filming, emergency services, surveying and so on already are undertaking tasks that either were not financially, or even technically possible using manned devices. Although many of us were sceptical with respect to both Amazon and Googles proposed uses, now I am no longer as certain, partly because my vision of use, probably is different to their vision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 I think you're probably right, Erflog. However, I fail to see where we pose any sort of real threat to filming, emergency services, surveying etc that warrants changing our historic MO, except in very unusual or specific circumstances. As for our friends and their 'delivery drones'...........it'll never happen to anywhere near a level of service that is anymore than a gimmick and a very limited one at that. So, how are weto be a threat to a dream? Illegal use of off-the-shelf drones can be dealt with without dragging us into the mire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 I am not even sure that of the shelf toy drones are really the target. They are a convenient target to enable some actions to control and regulate airspace that at present appears to be pretty empty. I have had suspicions that many of the report near misses are publicised as a means of providing the camouflage to pass regulations. Why do we never get the reports of birds occupying the airspace that is now being discussed. After all I see more in the +400 foot area than i can count on the same basis. At this time I have just seen two drones in the same period. One at our field, low down, undertaking a search. Another commercial taking pictures for an estate agent. As to those that reach circa 3,000 feet, I would be surprised if the toys I see can ever achieve such heights, never mind being seen from the ground, or even an aircraft. I think there are much bigger fish being fried than us or the quads, we are the convenient bogey men and possibly women. Never the less, what ever the truth, we will have to live with the regulations Which brings us back to, with respect to us, what is generally known now about the regulations, beyond "there is nothing to worry about for club flyers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lima Hotel Foxtrot Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Posted by Cuban8 on 12/12/2017 11:37:30: Illegal use of off-the-shelf drones can be dealt with without dragging us into the mire. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i12fly Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Hmm... How many of the posters have actually read NPA 2017-05? Not alot I suspect, if they had there would only be half the posts. It is a boring read 128 pages and half of it tiresome bovine derived fertilizer, the best cure for insomnia I've ever come across. It is a typical euro document, I have to work with similar on a daily basis. Anyway, commercial operations want to use our airspace -and they will. Europe including UK want to exploit the huge sums of money (690million USD prediction in Europe in 2020) and taxes that are predicted. Forget trying to define the difference between our F/W models and drones, EASA and some of the stakeholders have no intention of doing so, if the will was there I'm sure it could be done. I doubt commercial drone deliveries to bring goods to our door will ever happen with current technologies because of problems with theft, safety, vulnerability etc. But think of the golden opportunities for delivery from a depot to say the roof or dedicated landing site at you local supermarket for you to 'click & collect'. This is now widespread where currently expensive vans are having to use our crowded roads to deliver often small loads. The opportunities are immense for loads with gross weight up to 150kg. I hope this does not sound as if I support the idea -I don't, they are stealing our sport airspace and we can do little about it. We need to support Dave Phipps to tease out whatever concessions he can from the final draft. Now it seems to be cut and dried apart from the 'open category' -which is where most of us operate. Our fate rests in the hands of Mr Phipps and whatever alliances he has managed to build in the experts group. In the end the final word will be from faceless eurocrats and signed off by Mr Juncker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted December 12, 2017 Share Posted December 12, 2017 Posted by i12fly on 12/12/2017 23:10:15: Hmm... How many of the posters have actually read NPA 2017-05? Not alot I suspect, if they had there would only be half the posts. It is a boring read 128 pages and half of it tiresome bovine derived fertilizer, the best cure for insomnia I've ever come across. It is a typical euro document, I have to work with similar on a daily basis. Anyway, commercial operations want to use our airspace -and they will. Europe including UK want to exploit the huge sums of money (690million USD prediction in Europe in 2020) and taxes that are predicted. Forget trying to define the difference between our F/W models and drones, EASA and some of the stakeholders have no intention of doing so, if the will was there I'm sure it could be done. I doubt commercial drone deliveries to bring goods to our door will ever happen with current technologies because of problems with theft, safety, vulnerability etc. But think of the golden opportunities for delivery from a depot to say the roof or dedicated landing site at you local supermarket for you to 'click & collect'. This is now widespread where currently expensive vans are having to use our crowded roads to deliver often small loads. The opportunities are immense for loads with gross weight up to 150kg. I hope this does not sound as if I support the idea -I don't, they are stealing our sport airspace and we can do little about it. We need to support Dave Phipps to tease out whatever concessions he can from the final draft. Now it seems to be cut and dried apart from the 'open category' -which is where most of us operate. Our fate rests in the hands of Mr Phipps and whatever alliances he has managed to build in the experts group. In the end the final word will be from faceless eurocrats and signed off by Mr Juncker. Ah and i thought you where doing very well Then you spoiled it by blaming the Eurocrats...our own crats are as disinterested in us as any type of crat. and our own crats will be signing it off on our behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i12fly Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 I see your point John, yes our 'britocrats' are part of it, they are still Eurocrats to me, and yes our political parties (irrespective of party in control) want a slice of the money that can be gained. I don't want to start anything political, I do rather dislike quite a few powerful politicians and on reflection it would have been better not to let it show. If the mods would like to remove the last sentence from my post I'd be very happy for that to be done, otherwise it may reflect unfavourably on the rest of the post which I feel is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 The UK Government is open with respect to commercial developments. It sees significant opportunities financially. Although I do not think they have said so, that is the reason they are in a rush to pass legislation in 2018 with respect to unmanned aerial vehicles. The Amazons, Googles, BAE and less well known business will be employing lobbying/PR companies at Westminster and Whitehall all engaging in informing Government etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 12/12/2017 23:05:56: Posted by Cuban8 on 12/12/2017 11:37:30: Illegal use of off-the-shelf drones can be dealt with without dragging us into the mire. How? Apply existing laws and prosecute offenders. A few people have been dealt with already, so we know that we have the legislation - of course, applying that legislation i.e. the chance of being caught in the act by the authorities, as with many other offences, is very low. Not our problem. As for commercial drone use, just cast around the many business commentary websites (mostly US based, its true) and I find very little enthusiasm for the whole notion. One describes the issue as "a technological solution that's looking for a problem". Depends who you believe, the techies with their dreams or the money men? This drone site makes for interesting reading http://thedronegirl.com/2017/05/07/drone-delivery-economics-amazon-drones/ Edited By Cuban8 on 13/12/2017 08:04:03 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 Uh-oh! **LINK** -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.