Legislation Proposal at last

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[cymaz]

Posted by Ron Gray on 10/12/2017 13:30:34:

, it’s the powers that be who have screwed it up!

As they generally do

[cymaz]

Posted by Steve J on 10/12/2017 13:48:46:

Is this a drone?

Incidentally, a club mate of mine has a beautiful model of this aircraft.

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 10/12/2017 13:50:58

Full size Tiggy?.....no

[Mike Blandford]

A model aircraft is capable of flying (gliding) under full control even when not powered?

Mike.

[cymaz]

Posted by Mike Blandford on 10/12/2017 14:23:53:

A model aircraft is capable of flying (gliding) under full control even when not powered?

Mike.

Yes,but that would exclude a decent scale helicopter

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Mike Blandford]

Posted by cymaz on 10/12/2017 14:28:49:

Posted by Mike Blandford on 10/12/2017 14:23:53:

A model aircraft is capable of flying (gliding) under full control even when not powered?

Mike.

Yes,but that would exclude a decent scale helicopter

If the helicopter can do a negative collective, it should be able to autorotate under control to a landing.

Mike.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 10/12/2017 12:23:08:

Posted by cymaz on 10/12/2017 11:57:46:

What do you class them as

As far as I am concerned they are all simply unmanned aircraft.

People stating that "model aircraft are not drones" need to produce workable definitions of both model aircraft and drones as distinct subsets of unmanned aircraft and I don't think that it is possible to do so.

Steve

Agreed. There seem to be many on this forum and others who are unhappy with model flying being grouped with multirotors, but none of those people can come up with a definition that is easy to understand and exempts model fliers from the onerous parts of this legislation without introducing loopholes or grey areas.

That is clearly the problem the BMFA and EMFU have had in negotiations with EASA over many months. According to the updates they spent a lot of time discussing, but could never agree a definition to exempt model flying that worked for both parties. Combined with the fact models are already legislated together with multirotors under the existing regulations means even an infinite number of postcards, emails or pigeons(!) are not going to turn this around at such a late stage - we will all be legislated together with multirotors, like it or lump it. The key questions now are the format of the registration scheme(s), the nature of the exemptions that will be given for affiliated clubs and their members and the effect the regs will have on flying at public sites not controlled by a club.

Edited By MattyB on 11/12/2017 13:11:08

[The Wright Stuff]

Agreed. There seem to be many on this forum and others who are unhappy with model flying being grouped with multirotors, but none of those people can come up with a definition that is easy to understand and exempts model fliers from the onerous parts of this legislation without introducing loopholes or grey areas.

Exactly. Even if a workable distinction could be found, it wouldn't be universal enough to write legislation around. There would always be loop holes and edge cases: for example, what if someone built a scale model of a future full size delivery drone?

I suspect the only way to decisively divide into model flying and non-model-flying would not lie in hardware, but in 'the purpose of the flight'. But how on earth do you run a registration scheme based on that?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

You think if someone could pluck this "definition" from the air it would alter the why n where this is going ? Meaningless for me,we have some cards to play, this ain't one of them.

[The Wright Stuff]

It was a rhetorical question, John. I agree with you!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 11/12/2017 14:02:29:

It was a rhetorical question, John. I agree with you!

Not aimed at you TWS, a comment about the discussion on it we keep having.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

My own views are similar to Matty.

I am far more concerned as to what the scope of the regulations that are to be implemented, with respect to fixed wing models. Also the timescales, as to when they will be enforced, with emphasis on will it be possible to keep flying, or will the issues force a halt, until it becomes possible to be compliant.

From what has been said and written, the effects of the EASA proposals should be clear in what could be required in the extreme and the most minimal. It seems from both the Media and Dave Phipps (BMFA E-Mail) indicates the the legislation to be implemented by the Dft that this legislation is consistent with the EASA proposals. I am finding it hard not to understand why so much is supposition, spread by word of mouth, rather thant the written word, as how and what the BMFA expect the legislation to impact on everyone, and how all sections of the modelling communities will be effected.

We are definitely moving towards the time frame, when regulations will be a reality in how we continue or not with our hobby.

It seems that the BMFA prefers  a low key approach to dealing with the issues, avoiding raising the profile of the modelling community by way of Petitions etc. Or more public lobbying.

Edited By Erfolg on 11/12/2017 14:57:54

[Cuban8]

Okay, let's start from .......'if it's a multi rotor, then it's a drone'.
More to it than that I'll grant you, but it's a start. None of my fixed wing or helis would ever be called drones by any reasonable person, so how is it that all of a sudden we're all flying drones?

[Peter Christy]

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

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Keith Lomax]

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?

[cymaz]

See what you make of this....

[Don Fry]

So, if I were a non club flier, I would ask, where is my future, with legality.

[Erfolg]

Cymaz

It is not clear to me that the letter is meant to inform, it seems stronger on the reassurance front.

It does seem that some officials can see ways of defining what a fixed wing model is. It is perhaps more that there are others who chose to see the matter differently.

It also seems to confirm the suspicions of many that much of the legislation that is to be implemented is about furthering and regulating the commercial possibilities of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. I had thought it strange that so much money, resources and time was being expended in dealing with the real or perceived issue of Quads. We are potentially unintended victims, of much bigger goals. Although I can see the logic of restricting us to a small number of locations and possibly by registering, have a handle on how many of us there are at any point on the time line.

[cymaz]

I think your are correct about trying to reassure, Erfolg.. being in a club means your are going to have insurance, the state knows when and where you fly and you will have some sort of training and flying assessment/ proficiency. Far easier to police than a lone pilot with a QUADCOPTER for Christmas near a live airfield.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

It may appear that I am anti BMFA, that is not my intention, my intention is to try and get the BMFA into the 21st century.

This particular issue seems typical, there is no sharing with us what is known from the various discussions with those who are shaping the forthcoming regulations. Non of what is said by the officials will be sensitive, unless expressly stated as such.

There are obvious questions where the broad intention will now be known.

• Who is maintaining any of the registers?
• What is being registered, models or people
• Will flying be restricted to club sites?
• What are the tests referred to, that is what is the scope and will they be compulsory?
• Will models need or be required a means of restricting their operating envelopes (typically a club site and height restriction) or a DT for FF etc.
• etc.

So much will be known in broad brush terms, from discussions with the various bodies. I have the impression that "stake holder management" is being achieved via the media, which is forming much of the impression of what is intended, rather than the BMFA expressing their view to us. It is probably all a done deal, and there is nothing we the membership or the BMFA can do, yet it would be nice to be informed of where we are heading, rather than be surprised when we arrive in the future (being optimistic here).