Legislation Proposal at last

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ChrisB]

I can see the advantage of this newly proposed amendment re Joules vs weight, which on the face of it will exempt the majority of conventional sports club flyers BUT will also exempt the majority of multi-rota aircraft.

The day to day reality of the average modeller working out the possible speed of a model vs the weight and resulting energy and therefore whether or not their model needs to be registered (according to EASA legislation) is not going to happen. Its not practical, or reasonable.

How fast does a model fly? A glider, foamie, jet or warbird, biplane or acrowot.

As for those with larger and faster models, by what means will they register and how will they work out the speed of a model? Hopefully, being in one of the national associations will suffice!

[Erfolg]

John

The company I worked for had in excess of 40, 000 people, it encouraged its employees, via the PR department etc to individually lobby the Government on issues that potentially had an adverse effect on the company and hence its employees.

In some cases proformas were made available, other times it would be an on-line petition.

Did it work, I suspect it had some impact.

It is easy to sit back and do nothing. When dealing with many agencies etc, it is very useful for the individual or team negotiators, to be able to remind the other side of the table, that there are 30,000 others behind them.

What ever the outcome of the legislation imposed, it affects all modellers in the UK from Lands End to John O'Groats and all in-between. This is a far bigger issue than a NFC of interest and use to a few thousand.

[ChrisB]

Mavic Pro quadcopter, 40mph, 1kg in weight...13 joules, so wouldn't need registering.

All this has come about by the issue of quadcopters but the new legislation of joules would exclude them. Seems pointless.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

If you are referring to the use of energy as a criterion then not strictly true Chris. If you examine the technical appendices of the lastest version of the ANO for example you will see that the guidelines for the use of BRS on larger UAVs are all expressed into of KE. Its been "in the wind" for some time now and not just with EASA.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 03/12/2017 17:37:42

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

N.C is not preventing BMFA from putting our case forward, nor diverting resources (my opinion) 2 separate things.

My company had over 100,000 employees, we got chewed up n spat out. Best deal we can get has been my take on it for a long time.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Tim Kearsley]

Posted by ChrisB on 03/12/2017 17:19:05:

Mavic Pro quadcopter, 40mph, 1kg in weight...13 joules, so wouldn't need registering.

All this has come about by the issue of quadcopters but the new legislation of joules would exclude them. Seems pointless.

How do you arrive at 13 Joules Chris? I thought kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity squared? So in MKS units, 40 mph is approx 18 metres/sec and kinetic energy = 0.5 * 18 * 18 which is 162 Joules.

Our am I missing something?

Tim.

[ChrisB]

Posted by Steve J on 03/12/2017 17:32:35:

Posted by ChrisB on 03/12/2017 17:19:05:

Mavic Pro quadcopter, 40mph, 1kg in weight...13 joules, so wouldn't need registering.

You need to check your maths.

The pilot would need to register in any case as it is over 250g.

All this has come about by the issue of quadcopters

No it hasn't.

Incidentally, FFAM made a similar point when the recent French law drew a line at 800g.

Steve

Well, there you are, as easy as pie to work out for the common man. I think its about 275j. 1.5k @ 45mph

Conventional, normal, old fashioned model aeroplanes, built from balsa wood and covered in tissue and dope have been flying for decades across the world with limited legislation, in the UK in the form of CAP 658.

What has prompted the recent legislation that has been introduced/proposed in USA, Ireland etc etc Whats changed? As I see it there is only one thing Drones/quadcopter/multirotas.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I've heard of Joules Verne...he's a poet.

Also heard of Joules Rimmet, he invented Rugby in 1966.

[ChrisB]

Posted by Steve J on 03/12/2017 18:22:39:

Posted by ChrisB on 03/12/2017 18:08:36:

Whats changed?

Technology has advanced to the point where is it possible to do commercially valuable things with small unmanned aircraft.

Steve

PS It's rotor not rota.

Or is it the risk of accident/incident from the Christmas toy brigade?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[cymaz]

ARGHHH...even he legislators, politicians , MEP's, bureaucrats, MP'S, Peers, Police, newspapers, get it wrong

A drone is a UAV. A quadcopter is.........oh, I give up

[John Emms 1]

This is all starting to look quite red, and smelling of fish. Now we have the EASA firing real heads at solid plates, and then saying that a 1,3kg quadcopter would bounce off any way. Pretty much all of the cases of UAV use quoted by the EASA are for commercial purposes which I thought was already covered, and the only way quadcopters are going to be winging their way around the country making deliveries on a commercial basis is if they have supercapacitors for rapid charging, and superconductor motors so that small motors do not burn out from constant use at high currents, and even then, Amazon would have to pay for additional capacity while they wait for the weather to be suitable for deliveries. Yes, I do get the point that we can have superconductor motors if the delivery drones carry round a bottle on liquid nitrogen! BTW, not a rant, just my version of reality lol.

Anecdotal evidence is that quadcopter sales are falling, not least because "they are bringing in legislation to make it not worthwhile". I have spent close to £2000 on model goods over the last 4 months, including a 1/4 scale ARTF, and an engine that is made in UK only 2 days before this latest press release, but the Jeti DS16 will not be under the Christmas tree. So that is money not spent entirely in the EU, and close to £300 not going straight into the UK Treasury as VAT. Oh, and a complete ban on model spending until this is sorted out. The legislation IS having a commercial effect - before it even exists!

Taking Erfolg's point, it would be good to know the arguments being made by the BMFA (and others), but in any case, I will be buying post cards and stamps this week, and start writing. I agree, we need a campaign to get everyone writing, e-mail or otherwise.

[cymaz]

We have to make the effort to be a pain in the neck to the law makers. We exist, we like flying, we want to keep flying.

Gentlemen, start your emails

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Emms 1]

Posted by Steve J on 03/12/2017 20:30:39

How much of your flying could you do under Open Class subcategory A3?

Steve

I must say that I am absolutely shocked by the rapid developments in quadcopters, so, watch out for a hybrid drone coming near you soon...

You are an absolute star Steve, and I am interested to see what YOU, and others, think can be achieved under Open Class A3.

First on 3.1. This gives us a more than adequate height at 150m with what I see as a sensible limit of 500g for the type of model that I occasionally fly on the local common, and would be suitable for medium size to larger parks. I guess the idea of "designed to be operated by children less than 14 years" suggests simpler models like a typical "park flyer".

3.2 is far more interesting, as ALL of the criteria listed in 3.2 are, or could be considered to be, in place with the BMFA and LMA etc under the existing arrangements with the CAA.

I was concerned initially by the term "low energy aircraft" in 3.1, but in 3.3 there are references to UAVs of over 150kg, along with UAVs of Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 size.

The note at the bottom is extremely helpful as it say that help and advice could be sought from Model Flying Federations, clubs and associations throughout Europe. **LINK**

It strikes me that Open Category A3.1 and A3.2 could be designed for the DfT to have some common sense about long established model flying. It appears that each model flyer is typically spending two to three times the cost of a DJI Phantom every year, so in commercial consideration terms, we are punching well above our numbers compared to hobby quadcopter owners.

I phoned the BMFA this morning, but just missed speaking with "Linda" for more information about where the BMFA stand with this. I am teaching soon, but if someone else could make that call and feed back, that would be great.

Not buying the Jeti DS16 just yet, but funds are ringfenced

[John Emms 1]

Posted by cymaz on 03/12/2017 19:55:49:

We have to make the effort to be a pain in the neck to the law makers. We exist, we like flying, we want to keep flying.

Gentlemen, start your emails

I would like to see how relations are with the BMFA, LMA etc, so if relations are positive, and we can get provision under Open Class A3.1 and 3.2, that would make it pretty much business as usual, and people sending in e-mail in support of that would be hugely positive.

If things are strained, then I see that a legitimate and persistent e-mail campaign (telling of the positives of our hobby) aimed at Baroness Sugg's in box could have a dramatic effect.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Emms 1]

Please excuse me for being confused, there is a sea of documents out there, so this is what I had found **LINK** but I start to get the idea that ONLY NPA 2017-05 is what we should be looking at **LINK**

So, looking at NPA 2017-05 (A) **LINK**

If NPA 2017-05 (A) 2.3.1.5 (Model aircraft) is accepted, it is absolutely business as usual at club sites

For flying at other than club sites Category A1 sub category C1 up to 900g with a height limit of 120m (400ft in UK), and only registration for the operator (with on-line training and on-line test) is the perfect situation for myself, and allows flexibility for (almost) all smaller models that I would want to fly in the park and on the common. Under technical requirements (CE Marking) hobbyist activities may develop in Subcategory A1, as training requirements are maintained at a low level but compensated by the performance limitations of UAS Class C1

I also agree that we want Category A3 Privately built up to 25kg, with no need for additional electronics for flying larger models away from the club site in remote areas, and slope soaring is the classic example of this. The cost of A3 over A1 (with the provision for Privately built) is the requirement for both operator AND UAV registration

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ChrisB]

Apologies if i'm repeating others.

For those who weren't aware there are two sets of legislation knocking about at the moment.

EASA NPA and the DFT. Both have had consultations over the last 2 or 3 years, to which many (but not enough), mostly from the UK have responded, including myself and my club. The DFT document largely reflects EASA and suggests that it will let EASA take the lead and may well replicate the EASA regs.

Response by DFT:

**LINK**

The text below is from the NPA 2017-5(A)....NOTE the option for operational authorisation

"...it is recognised that model aircraft activities have good safety records. This is not due to the type of aircraft used but rather to the code of conduct developed by the model club and associations. In most cases, they have related procedures, they build awareness, and in some cases, they also provide training to their members, thus creating a safety framework.
For this reason, the NPA contains in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 201X/XXX dedicated requirements for recreational flight activities conducted in the framework of model clubs and associations, allowing competent authorities to issue an operational authorisation in which they may define deviations from the rules proposed in this NPA. This operational authorisation is issued based on the procedures, management system, etc. of the club or association, without further showing of compliance"

Some context from the LMA website for those who weren't aware of the various consultations and documents that have been published in recent months.

**LINK**

 

 

Edited By ChrisB on 04/12/2017 21:53:47

[Martin Dilly 1]

Before people start a postcard campaign could I appeal to you (well, I can dream&hellip NOT to refer to model flying as a hobby. It’s being a sport that got us the recognition of government and other national bodies, so for heaven’s sake don’t throw it all away by the thoughtless use of a word that doesn’t help us. Model flying is a SPORT; check out the Sport England list here: **LINK**. There we are, almost at the top of the list.

Just because you may not fly in competitions doesn’t mean you’re not taking part in a sport. Using the right words is pretty important, so let’s get it right. It’s model flying and it’s a sport, man and machine as well as man versus the elements. A few people spent a very long time working away in the 1960s and ‘70s to find what was holding us back and much of it was the image that a few words created in the official mind. ‘Aeromodelling’ and ‘hobby’ were a couple.

[MattyB]

Sadly I think you overestimate the knowledge of those legislating here, be they in EASA or the UK government. They only see the potential tax £s/Euros at stake; safety is a smoke screen and model flying in its current form a sacrifice that they believe is more than worth paying for a shot at establishing a commercial industry in the design/manufacture/maintenance of commercial drones.