Legislation Proposal at last

[Dickw]

Posted by Ron Gray on 26/11/2017 22:36:46:

................. All I would like to see is the BMFA take a closer look at the way that the proficiency certs are carried (notice that I did not say test) and recognise that they have to move with technology. In my opinion it is no good them saying 'you can't switch that to atti mode, therefore you can't do the cert until you turn up with one that can', as that too will alienate quite a few prospects who will probably end up flying in the local park without any instruction or insurance.............

You can do the Basic Proficency Certificate (BPC) with self levelling activated, in both Multi Rotor and Fixed Wing, so the BMFA is trying to move with technology. The BPC is basically the relevant A cert but with self levelling allowed.

Dick

[Ron Gray]

@ Dickw - you cannot take it with a machine that you cannot put into atti mode, that is the crux of the matter.

[Dickw]

I understand that, but as long as the Achievement Scheme involves 'flying' as part of the examination process there must be a limit to how much autonomy can be allowed.

What would you suggest? What would you like to see?

Dick

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 27/11/2017 09:53:47:

The risk of an incident with a manned aircraft has been a useful lever for the legislators to push this through. It's clear to me, with all the proposals for 'What drones can do for us' in the articles, is that the main intention has always been to secure the previously unused free airspace between ground level and 500ft for commercial purposes.

Apart from conceding a few clearly defined areas such as club sites, the authorities have effectively given model flying the 'heave-ho'....

Pete

Pretty much agree, we've wasted a lot of time arguing among ourselves who's to blame and how to define us.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 27/11/2017 09:53:47:

The risk of an incident with a manned aircraft has been a useful lever for the legislators to push this through. It's clear to me, with all the proposals for 'What drones can do for us' in the articles, is that the main intention has always been to secure the previously unused free airspace between ground level and 500ft for commercial purposes.

Apart from conceding a few clearly defined areas such as club sites, the authorities have effectively given model flying the 'heave-ho'....

Pete

I'm aware that we risk going over old ground on this, and you've been very informative regarding the potential of new technology and it's use in sub 500' airspace.

As for the 'what can drones do for us?' line of thought, I notice that those who were selling us the line that the skies will be black with drones delivering Amazon stuff to our gardens, have got bored with that, and have gone on to the driverless van as the new way forward. So what does that leave and to what scale will it be eating into 'our' 500'airspace? Surveillance, search and rescue, traffic control, emergency medical supplies, powerline surveys, just these few come to mind at the moment.

Compared to the thousands (guessing) of R/C model flights that are made each week either from club sites or elsewhere, and cause no bother at all, the commercial users that the legislators are so fond of will surely be in a tiny minority. Why then, as you say, are we as customers of a UK multi million pound industry, to say nothing of the sporting aspects, and many other good community works, should be at risk of getting the 'heave ho'?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Dickw on 27/11/2017 11:23:33:

I understand that, but as long as the Achievement Scheme involves 'flying' as part of the examination process there must be a limit to how much autonomy can be allowed.

What would you suggest? What would you like to see?

Dick

I wouldn't know what to suggest myself, things move that quick now you're always chasing things, will the new drone deliveries be flown in atti mode or by use of the gizmos and will it be safe and considered flying.

[MattyB]

Posted by Cuban8 on 27/11/2017 11:27:19:

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 27/11/2017 09:53:47:

The risk of an incident with a manned aircraft has been a useful lever for the legislators to push this through. It's clear to me, with all the proposals for 'What drones can do for us' in the articles, is that the main intention has always been to secure the previously unused free airspace between ground level and 500ft for commercial purposes.

Apart from conceding a few clearly defined areas such as club sites, the authorities have effectively given model flying the 'heave-ho'....

Pete

I'm aware that we risk going over old ground on this, and you've been very informative regarding the potential of new technology and it's use in sub 500' airspace.

As for the 'what can drones do for us?' line of thought, I notice that those who were selling us the line that the skies will be black with drones delivering Amazon stuff to our gardens, have got bored with that, and have gone on to the driverless van as the new way forward. So what does that leave and to what scale will it be eating into 'our' 500'airspace? Surveillance, search and rescue, traffic control, emergency medical supplies, powerline surveys, just these few come to mind at the moment.

Compared to the thousands (guessing) of R/C model flights that are made each week either from club sites or elsewhere, and cause no bother at all, the commercial users that the legislators are so fond of will surely be in a tiny minority. Why then, as you say, are we as customers of a UK multi million pound industry, to say nothing of the sporting aspects, and many other good community works, should be at risk of getting the 'heave ho'?

1. Because the tax revenue associated with model flying is but a drop in the ocean compared to what the legislators think they could get out of the logistics firms for access to the airspace below 500ft + the money from a home grown industry in commercial drone design/manufacture/servicing.
2. Because model flying is only undertaken by a tiny number of people across Europe, nowhere near enough to have any significant impact in an election (750k rings a bell, whilst there are ~740m in Europe overall).
3. Because the government believe (perhaps correctly) the majority of the public want the "drone menace" so beloved of the Daily Mail et al to be eradicated from the skies.

I am not saying I like or agree with the above points, but I do agree with BEB that in combination they are the true rationale behind the proposals from EASA and the recent announcements from the UK government. Just look at the tone - U-space and fostering the commercial opportunities that come with a home grown drone industry are all over the documents and statements.

PS - I have never believed there was any intent to differentiate between model aircraft and drones in these regs. After all, anything unmanned that flies is currently legislated for under the single umbrella of UAVs/RPASs. Why would they make their lives more difficult now when there is no previous precedent to differentiate? There is no value proposition in it for them - it makes the regs harder to enforce, will be unpopular with the big corporations they are eager to encourage and might be seen as "chickening out" by the public and industry. If model flying becomes collateral damage that is clearly a price they are more than happy to pay. The BMFA and other modelling associations across Europe know this, and as a result I believe they have been negotiating for the "least worst" outcome from day one.

PPS - Please don't shoot the messenger; I don't like the above any more than you do, but I do believe it is a reflection of the current situation.

[Ron Gray]

Posted by Dickw on 27/11/2017 11:23:33:

I understand that, but as long as the Achievement Scheme involves 'flying' as part of the examination process there must be a limit to how much autonomy can be allowed.

What would you suggest? What would you like to see?

Dick

Allow the BPC to be taken without the need to switch on atti mode, that would open it up and would not discourage people who would like to get the cert but haven’t got a ‘suitable’ machine. It also recognised that multirotors are getting more sophisticated and the manufacturers rely on more automation to make them easier (safer?) to operate. Indeed the whole aspect of GPS needs rethinking as, once again, manufacturers are relying on this feature not just for Flying A - B but also to provide safety features such as return to home, some would classify these as failsafes. Switching off GPS in order to get a BPC or A cert switches off the fail safe and as both of these certs are centred around safety it doesn’t seem right to me!

The problem that I had when I raised these arguments/ discussion points with the powers that be was their attitude which was not a let’s discuss this but a quite blunt, turn up with a drone that meets the cert criteria. On the other hand when I approached the CAA about it their attitude was that they recognise that technology has and is changing so they will (and have) changed their criteria. So how can they very quickly change things whereas the BMFA can’t?

[John Emms 1]

Was I the only one who saw the initial Amazon publicity over drone deliveries a red herring to encourage potential competitors to throw money down the drone route, or publicity for the quadcopter company that Amazon had just bought, or a means to raise interest in the quadcopters that they sell. The Amazon deliveries, except for a few, are clearly a non starter based on the capability of current and potential technology. I do see some potential in fast food deliveries, BUT that would be very much weather dependant. In (presumably) selling air space in the same way as broadcasting frequencies are sold, I see the Government chasing a red herring....

I do see some potential for limited commercial applications of other types of UAV, but that is another story entirely!

[Pete B]

Posted by Cuban8 on 27/11/2017 11:27:19:

Why then, as you say, are we as customers of a UK multi million pound industry, to say nothing of the sporting aspects, and many other good community works, should be at risk of getting the 'heave ho'?

MattyB has phrased a far more eloquent response than I could manage...

Model flying of all forms, from its earliest days back in the 1930's, has had a vanishingly-small impact on the environment and population outside of those engaged in pursuit of the hobby. Technological advances have meant that we are now in the way of state and commercial interests.

Consequences to the model industry are immaterial to the authorities - there's just not enough money (or votes) in it for them to need to take any notice.

Aside from the 'drone' issue, EASA had the option of ignoring the presence of we traditional modellers, but that would have been untidy and not have left a clean, level playing field up to 500ft for commercial UAVs.

Their platitudes towards aeromodelling are meaningless and, by proposing a registration and testing process, it is clear that their underlying intent is to kill off or seriously reduce the numbers of aeromodellers by introducing hoops to climb through and hurdles to jump over. I suspect that, to more than a few, it will be seen to be just too much bother.

A harmless pursuit which has given enjoyment to tens of thousands over the years is being steamrollered by authority - I hope they're feeling very satisfied with themselves...

Pete

[ken anderson.]

risk of getting the heave-ho .........most of what I've read on the forum here is hypothetical,ok based on some facts but really we'll have to wait and see?Why anyone would want to give us(aero-modellers and the rest)the heave-ho is beyond me. drone flyers and the way some of the owners "fly" them is a different kettle of fish as we all know and so do the aurthorities,so in line with their responsibilities they must act(world wide/not just the UK)...but like most I've heard a multitude of supposed "whats going to happen" theories .... and that's what most are.....so i'll wait and see..with a more optimistic view than a lot of people.....of course I may be wrong.....and as always....these are my 6 penneth no more less......i'm not trying to start WW3 ...

ken Anderson...ne...1..... WW3 dept.

[Dickw]

Posted by Ron Gray on 27/11/2017 13:21:09:

Posted by Dickw on 27/11/2017 11:23:33:

.What would you suggest? What would you like to see?

Allow the BPC to be taken without the need to switch on atti mode, that would open it up and would not discourage people who would like to get the cert but haven’t got a ‘suitable’ machine......................... Switching off GPS in order to get a BPC or A cert switches off the fail safe and as both of these certs are centred around safety it doesn’t seem right to me!.

..............................................................On the other hand when I approached the CAA about it their attitude was that they recognise that technology has and is changing so they will (and have) changed their criteria. So how can they very quickly change things whereas the BMFA can’t?

The need to turn up with a machine capable of the test applies to all the Achievement Schemes and not just multi-rotors, and while safety is central to both the CAA and the BMFA certs their aims are slightly different. The CAA is all about safety, but surely the BMFA scheme is also there to encourage a degree of achievement in flying skill?

However, you do raise some interesting points for discussion: -

Just how far can you go with technology before the flying part becomes pointless?

Should flying be part of the BMFA Achievement Schemes or should there just be an exam on theoretical knowledge?

How far should the BMFA Schemes be affected by the commercial decisions of one company?

As it is all getting closer, perhaps we should wait until we know what the rules will be before expecting changes to the existing schemes – no harm in a discussion to clear our thoughts though.

Dick

Edited By Dickw on 27/11/2017 17:57:43

[Keith Lomax]

It is likely (it is in the current EASA proposal but not certain in the UK until the actual legislation is published) that membership of an association that is recognised by the CAA will constitute "registration". These include BMFA, LMA, SAA, BARCS - at least.

[cymaz]

Posted by Keith Lomax on 27/11/2017 19:16:09:

It is likely (it is in the current EASA proposal but not certain in the UK until the actual legislation is published) that membership of an association that is recognised by the CAA will constitute "registration". These include BMFA, LMA, SAA, BARCS - at least.

I agree, that’s how I see it panning out.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Ron Gray on 27/11/2017 13:21:09:

Posted by Dickw on 27/11/2017 11:23:33:

I understand that, but as long as the Achievement Scheme involves 'flying' as part of the examination process there must be a limit to how much autonomy can be allowed.

What would you suggest? What would you like to see?

Dick

Allow the BPC to be taken without the need to switch on atti mode, that would open it up and would not discourage people who would like to get the cert but haven’t got a ‘suitable’ machine. It also recognised that multirotors are getting more sophisticated and the manufacturers rely on more automation to make them easier (safer?) to operate.

This may not be a popular or "politically correct" attitude but in the main, I see little connection between "drone" operating and model flying. The only common ground (air?) is when they are being flown in manual or "stabilised response" modes - both of which come within the remit of the Achievement Scheme tests. Unless there's a reasonable requirement for piloting skill (such as drone racing) or design and trimming skills such as are common in free flight disciplines, they are either tools or toys (in the derogatory sense).

It seems that there is a fair possibility that possession of the BMFA "qualifications" may be taken as grandfathered rights to continue operating although until any legislation goes through, nothing is any more than a guess. The scheme has already been modified - assumedly to reinforce its validity in the eyes of the CAA, who you would think will be consulted regarding forthcoming legislation.

This raises the question of whether the scheme should simply move with the times to accommodate new technologies or to become a licencing agency on behalf of the CAA or government. Perhaps this could become a source of income for the BMFA or a lever to gain new members?

The aims of the BMFA are to "promote, protect, organise and encourage model flying within the UK" and it's a moot point as to whether someone operating a drone to take video footage is model flying or simply using drone technology to position their camera.

Let's not dilute the achievement aspect any further than the BPC unless or until the BMFA decide to accommodate legislative requirements and offer commercial testing facilities on behalf of the authorities!

[Ron Gray]

You still need to fly a drone if atti is on or off, it does not dilute the BMFA flying ‘test’. I do hesitate when looking at GPS but if it isn’t programmed to fly the drone for you, you still have to fly it, the main difference is that position hold can be controlled by GPS rather than by the pilot, is that really such s big deal?

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by Keith Lomax on 27/11/2017 19:16:09:

It is likely (it is in the current EASA proposal but not certain in the UK until the actual legislation is published) that membership of an association that is recognised by the CAA will constitute "registration". These include BMFA, LMA, SAA, BARCS - at least.

That is interesting Keith but I thought that each 'drone' needed to be registered and display a registration number? I spoke to one chap at a show who said that he had 500 models at home. We will still be restricted to approved sites to fly our models or has that changed too?

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 27/11/2017 20:38:38

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Ron Gray on 27/11/2017 20:35:33:

You still need to fly a drone if atti is on or off, it does not dilute the BMFA flying ‘test’. I do hesitate when looking at GPS but if it isn’t programmed to fly the drone for you, you still have to fly it, the main difference is that position hold can be controlled by GPS rather than by the pilot, is that really such s big deal?

I do know that at least one of the scheme administrators has bought a quadcopter in order to familiarise himself with the various modes and that the scheme requirements were discussed with experienced multirotor pilots in order to devise tests which reflect a reasonable skill level.

I'll readily admit that I'm not sure of the subtle differences in modes available on different makes and types of multicopter but a device which holds its altitude doesn't seem to require a great deal of skill in my perhaps uninformed opinion and seems to be in the tool category rather than being a model aircraft for its own sake. In my own limited involvement with helicopters and non-fully stabilised quads, height control has been one of the most critical and challenging parts of the inter-relating equation of control inputs involved in hovering and transitional flying.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

They where chasing the game to get new m/r tests up n running (my opinion) and there were a few delays if I recall, were it went back for amending, there's a forum on facebook now so you can raise points re tests.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

Maybe that was better than having no test at all.

"That is interesting Keith but I thought that each 'drone' needed to be registered and display a registration number?"

Piers I think the US may now have realised that kind of policy is unworkable on a per-model basis.

If registration is effected by joining e.g. BMFA, presumably sticking your BMFA number on would cover individual registration, and wouldn't be particularly onerous.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ken anderson.]

bearing in mind that the no tax disc was brought in to save ten million,and last year the Gov lost 170 million in road tax revenue,i think that the running and monitoring of any system to control the drone brigade will be another headache for whoever...how many do we all see using mob phones?

ken Anderson...ne....1 headache dept.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 27/11/2017 22:09:09:

Posted by john stones 1 on 27/11/2017 21:19:15:

They where chasing the game to get new m/r tests up n running (my opinion) and there were a few delays if I recall, were it went back for amending

Instead of developing a decent test, they took the helicopter A and did a search and replace.

Steve

A forum here for you to air your views.