New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Dave Rose]

Posted by PatMc on 05/06/2018 23:48:54:

Posted by Dave Rose on 05/06/2018 23:20:24:

Gliders an d other model planes are caught up in the ANO definition. It is not practical to have each thermal glider meeting or individual practice flight having to have an application sought from and granted by the CAA.

What the BMFA must do is negotiate an exemption of the ANO applying to "gliders" These to be defined as SUAs designed and constructed as gliders and capable of gaining height in the air without the use of power.

Seems simple. What drone can rise without power?

Come on BMFA- tell us that is what you are going to go for.

Edited By Dave on 05/06/2018 23:21:23

"That doesn't help electric self-launched gliders - probably the most common type of flat field "glider" now."

Yes it does. Even with an electric motor, it is still a glider as in the suggested definition. I.e it can still rise in air without power.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Dave Rose on 06/06/2018 10:37:07:

Yes it does. Even with an electric motor, it is still a glider as in the suggested definition. I.e it can still rise in air without power.

Technically, no it can't. It doesn't rise through the air, the air rises, carrying the glider with it.

For a sufficiently lightweight drone, it would do the same with power off. Such drones might not be available now, but I imagine they would want to future-proof the regulation.

I just don't see this distinction as being any more 'clear-cut' than any of the other hundreds of suggestions littering this site...

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 06/06/2018 10:45:43

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

No, this won't work. Because again its based on the premise "drone=multi-rotor" not true!

Many of the "drones" we used commercially where powered gliders. We needed endurance for some missions, 30min plus "on station". The obvious way to do that is to take a powered glider, fit an Eagle Vector system and camera etc. and of you go. Drone or model glider? You tell me!

The fact is that you can't write a legal, watertight, definition that distinguishes between what we fly and a commercial drone. Just accept that really quite clever peoplee have tried, and failed. Not because they are trying to be awkward, or because they are lazy and don't care. I think everyone would happy is this problem could be solved so simply. But it can't.

However, it can, and it will, be solved by the methods I and others have stated many, amny times now and won't bore you with again here. You just need a little patience.

BEB

[PatMc]

Posted by Dave Rose on 06/06/2018 10:37:07:

Posted by PatMc on 05/06/2018 23:48:54:

Posted by Dave Rose on 05/06/2018 23:20:24:

Gliders an d other model planes are caught up in the ANO definition. It is not practical to have each thermal glider meeting or individual practice flight having to have an application sought from and granted by the CAA.

What the BMFA must do is negotiate an exemption of the ANO applying to "gliders" These to be defined as SUAs designed and constructed as gliders and capable of gaining height in the air without the use of power.

Seems simple. What drone can rise without power?

Come on BMFA- tell us that is what you are going to go for.

Edited By Dave on 05/06/2018 23:21:23

"That doesn't help electric self-launched gliders - probably the most common type of flat field "glider" now."

Yes it does. Even with an electric motor, it is still a glider as in the suggested definition. I.e it can still rise in air without power.

The power would have to be cut at 400ft, which isn't high enough for satisfactory thermal hunting.

IMO the problem might best be tackled through the purpose of the SUA. Perhaps limit the altitude based on image recording &/or transmitting. Would anyone want to fly an MR above 400ft if they couldn't capture images ?

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/06/2018 11:01:29:

Just accept that really quite clever people have tried, and failed. Not because they are trying to be awkward, or because they are lazy and don't care. I think everyone would happy is this problem could be solved so simply. But it can't.

Wise words, and applicable to virtually every news story in politics, business and economics, too...

[Geoff S]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 06/06/2018 11:32:29:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 06/06/2018 11:01:29:

Just accept that really quite clever people have tried, and failed. Not because they are trying to be awkward, or because they are lazy and don't care. I think everyone would happy is this problem could be solved so simply. But it can't.

Wise words, and applicable to virtually every news story in politics, business and economics, too...

In fact just about everything can justify the response "I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."

Geoff

[Erfolg]

I have just returned from a short break in Spain, where I thought there are significant restrictions on model flying. However I apparently witnessed what appeared to be a drone/quad operating at very low level, apparently spraying crops. At the distance i was at I can only estimate the tank size, which could have been at least 5 liters or maybe 10. Where the operator was, was not obvious as we passed.

It does seem that the uses for commercial uses is ever expanding, as others suggest, the commercial pressure groups and even at governmental level there is more positive interest in making space and legislation helpful to these interests than us.

I have thought for some time that some have taken their eye of the ball, more interested in vanity projects, of little use to the majority of the BMFA ordinary members. That is other than as a nice to have, if self sustaining and at no additional cost to membership or redirection of BMFA funds.

The issues of gliders was recognized by myself and others very early on. Re assuring noises were then made, that all was well, and as a general movement we will carry on as before with little or no changes or restrictions.

There does seem to be some wins, in that individual model recognition seems to have gone away.

The downside does seem to be the possibilities of a online test? That free flight models, could have some problems with the 400 foot issue. For myself, are childrens flying toys at risk, if other than the flimsiest of things.

This issue needs the total focus and resources, beyond a few delegates of the BMFA.

[Nigel R]

The issue needs resources we don't have, spending money we haven't given them, to sort out problems legally too complex for us to even decide on what we might want done about it should we reach understanding of the problem in the first place. And, the legislation is already moving through, which means we probably need it sorted last year.

Does that cover it?

[MattyB]

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/06/2018 18:36:55:

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 05/06/2018 16:02:34:

Practical, pragmatic interpretation, Martin. Thank you.

I assume enforcement is not going to be possible or effective or even desirable except for for blatant, regular, significant or dangerous breaches of the height limit. Armed police are not going to be racing up the strip the moment you go above 401 feet - I assume there will be some 'grace'...

I'm not suggesting deliberately flouting the rule, just that foot to foot precision is not required, and if pilots can be 'trained' what 'more-or-less 400 feet' looks like for their models, then a club logger for familiarisation purposes sounds like an excellent idea...

With the exception of models that already have a mandatory 400' height limit and have abided by that rule for many years, what is to be gained by limiting thermal soarers to that altitude, when for half a century R/C gliders have been thermalled to significant altitudes and to my knowledge, without a problem. People are sensible in these circumstances and such flights would not be made if local knowledge revealed that light aircraft or microlights were regularly using the airspace.

It's all getting back to the commercial drones that will be 'blackening our skies' at any moment now - I don't believe it, certainly not for very many years, if at all - despite what European think-tanks tell us.

Whether you believe wide scale commercial use is realistic or imminent is irrelevant. Big corporations and EU governments do believe it's a possibility, so whether it happens quickly or takes decades they want the skies to be available and legal frameworks ready for them to reap the economic, taxation and employment benefits that commercial drones could bring. That is why this is happening now; the (theoretical) safety benefits for manned aviation are a secondary factor at this point.

Ultimately aeromodelling is a minority interest with tiny numbers of people participating who have next to no electoral power. As a result any negative impact to us (despite the words from the authorities) is simply seen as acceptable collateral damage for the greater good. I don't like it etiher, but if you read the details of the EASA documentation and other docs from the DfT that I, Steve J and others have posted many times in this and other threads it is very clear that is the real driving force here.

[Dave Rose]

 

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 06/06/2018 10:44:10:

Posted by Dave Rose on 06/06/2018 10:37:

"Technically, no it can't. It doesn't rise through the air, the air rises, carrying the glider with it."

No, not technically, more like pathetically semantically!

""For a sufficiently lightweight drone, it would do the same with power off. Such drones might not be available now, but I imagine they would want to future-proof the regulation.""

My definition was an example, obviously to be refined by those who write such in laws. There are hundreds of definitions within laws, e g. A road is defined in the Road Traffic Act. Many people here have their idea what a road is, but that does not matter. As far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned, it is what THEY say it is.

So it would be under the ANO. What they define as a glider would override yours or anyone else's idea of a glider, even the ultra lightweight gravity defying multicopter drone you have yet to invent.

And is a very important word in law. So if a glider is defined as , say, 'a sua designed and constructed and intended to be flown as a glider, and to be capable of gaining height when flying without using power', then I doubt if a drone could be so construed. As well as somehow miraculously having to be shown as capable of gaining height without power, it must also have to be shown as having been designed and constructed and intended to be used as a glider. 

You should also be aware the Courts can and do "take judicial note " of everyday understanding of the description of things. E g if a Court is told about a cat, then it doesn't have to be proved to be a cat.- or a this or a that.Or a glider. And perhaps even they may understand what is meant by rising in the air.😀

 

 

 

Edited By Dave Rose on 07/06/2018 00:30:10

Edited By Dave Rose on 07/06/2018 00:31:20

[Tom Thomas]

O.k, I have my Radian ready to launch.... I'm in a farmers field..... I launch..... when do I stop climbing? Without telemetry I don't know just how high I am!

This whole mess is ridiculous, I can't nor will I bow to this utter nonsense.

[James Green2]

Posted by Tom Thomas on 07/06/2018 03:29:04:

O.k, I have my Radian ready to launch.... I'm in a farmers field..... I launch..... when do I stop climbing? Without telemetry I don't know just how high I am!

This whole mess is ridiculous, I can't nor will I bow to this utter nonsense.

+1

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Dave Rose on 07/06/2018 00:26:51:

So it would be under the ANO. What they define as a glider would override yours or anyone else's idea of a glider, even the ultra lightweight gravity defying multicopter drone you have yet to invent.

I used the word 'drone'. You used the word 'multicopter'. I hear what you are saying, but that's not the line they are taking. The next difficulty is defining what you mean by "intended to be flown as a glider", and "intended to be used as a glider". A model glider is a drone! That decision has already, it seems, been made.

[Cuban8]

Defining a drone? How about this?..............a powered model aeroplane, glider, model helicopter or multirotor is only defined as a 'drone' if it has the option of being controlled and navigated by a system other than by direct LOS operation, or in the case of FPV, maintained within LOS of a competent observer.

I have powered F/W models, gliders, helis and a small dumb MR. None of these SUVs are in my opinion, 'drones' as they are unable to to sustain themselves or maintain their position, or navigate without my LOS direct controlling input.

i.e set any of them to fly S&L, then put your tranny down and depending on what the model is, it'll.........(1) soon be in the deck or.............(2) fly off to beyond LOS.

AFAIA, a drone of any type will be perfectly able to sustain itself, maintain its position and navigate quite autonomously.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Sorry, I'm afraid not Cuban, I reckon the majority of commercial flights I did were LOS. In fact very, very few commercial flights are not LOS, as they require special permission.
Many missions were performed with drones that weren't even equipped for beyond LOS and/or autonomous operation.
BEB

[Cuban8]

BEB, if the other commercial flights that you did were with a vehicle that was perfectly able to operate autonomously (LOS or not) then it was a drone. If you were flying (for instance) a Zagi equipped with a camera for some commercial job, but controlled by you using a bog standard radio, then it'll be a model aircraft used for commercial work and come under existing rules.

I suppose the LOS issue is a bit of a 'red herring' given the law in the UK, but whether a vehicle is autonomous or not and to many of us should define the term drone, isn't.

[Peter Christy]

C8 / BEB - I did propose something very similar a while ago. To re-iterate:

"Any aircraft *capable* of sustained and controlled flight, whilst out of sight of a human pilot, is a drone".

The converse, of course, is that "Any aircraft that requires a human pilot to be in constant visual contact with it to maintain sustained, controlled flight, is NOT a drone".

Let's think about this for a minute. A conventional R/C model requires the constant, visual attention of its pilot to remain in control. Therefore it is not a drone! A free-flight model is not in "controlled flight" once it has left its launchers hands, hence it is not a drone! A control-line model is always in constant visual contact with its pilot, so it is not a drone.

Any aircraft that *can* operate out of sight of its pilot - either at long range, or hidden behind obstacles such as buildings or trees - IS a drone. That would apply whether it was following a pre-programmed flight-path, autonomously, or if it was flying FPV. It would also apply even if it was being flown in full view of the pilot, but was *capable* of operating out-of-sight.

No need for any weight limits, power limits or anything else. Its just down to the *capabilities* of the aircraft concerned.

I specified "human" pilot to avoid anyone building an "artificial intelligence" drone in a few years time!

The problem, I suspect, is that such definition is far too simple for the legal eagles, who will be keen to obfuscate the rules as much as possible in the hope of making money from the ensuing confusion!

--

Pete

[Bob Cotsford]

Part of the problem is that there are various levels of autopilot from basic self-leveling gyro systems fitted in many trainer systems through to full gyro/gps systems able to complete a mission and return without external input. Any of these systems can be fitted to any form of aircraft so how would you define, for example, your typical electric glider with a gyro, gps and altimeter with a return to home function that could be switched on and off? Is it a model aircraft with a device aimed at preventing fly-aways or is it a glider type drone that can be manually overridden? A clubmate has one of those wings that you switch on and throw into the air, it sorts itself out and orbits the lauch point until the 'pilot' takes control. Model aircraft or drone?

A year or two back I flew my Cularis with the altimeter set to give a verbal warning at 400'. Most of the club were surprised just how high this was, though we have a 400' limit and strict flying boundaries anyway because of our proximity to BHX. Needless to say we have few thermal soarers in the club!

Me? I trust that the BMFA are actually not a bunch of numskulls and that they will negotiate the best deal that they can for us. There are bound to be compromises somewhere along the line, that is inevitable in a world with a growing population and a technology explosion.

[John Lee]

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 07/06/2018 11:09:15:

Me? I trust that the BMFA are actually not a bunch of numskulls and that they will negotiate the best deal that they can for us.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by John Lee on 07/06/2018 11:15:51:

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 07/06/2018 11:09:15:

Me? I trust that the BMFA are actually not a bunch of numskulls and that they will negotiate the best deal that they can for us.

Yep me too, it's hardly in their interest to do anything other is it ?

[Cuban8]

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 07/06/2018 11:09:15:

 

Me? I trust that the BMFA are actually not a bunch of numskulls and that they will negotiate the best deal that they can for us. There are bound to be compromises somewhere along the line, that is inevitable in a world with a growing population and a technology explosion.

I agree, but without a clear definition of what a drone is (some will say that its already clear) the goal posts can (and will) be moved about too easily. Pete Christy's definition says it all, seems reasonable and sums up the activities of both types of vehicle - so why are we still mulling over all this? Something else at work here perhaps? Not good for the BMFA's talks, but they must have seen this all coming.

BTW, one of those small models that can be chucked into the air and will circle quite happily without operator input is not a drone, because as clever as it is, it can't navigate and follow a flight plan. A vehicle with switchable full autonomy, I suggest, should default to drone status and regs whether in or out or full autonomy.

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 07/06/2018 11:40:44

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Posted by Steve J on 07/06/2018 11:35:46:

Posted by Cuban8 on 07/06/2018 11:30:37:

but without an agreed definition of what a drone is

It doesn't matter what the definition of 'drone' is. Neither the ANO or the draft EU regulations use the term. You need to move on and pick battles where you stand a chance of achieving something.

Steve

So, where's the battlefield? As safe, historic users of the lower airspace for many decades, we've simply been netted in the SUV definition driven by IMHO, dubious claims of future major use of that very airspace by commercial operations. Let them have their new regulations, but keep us out if them until there is a glimmer of what's been predicted becoming true. I reckon in ten or perhaps twenty years time, you'll still be able to stand on your flying site, look up and not see anything other than what you might expect to see now...........and then enjoy your 400' limited flight whilst knowing that being registered to do so was such a great idea.

 

 

 

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 07/06/2018 12:02:32

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Tom Thomas on 07/06/2018 03:29:04:

O.k, I have my Radian ready to launch.... I'm in a farmers field..... I launch..... when do I stop climbing? Without telemetry I don't know just how high I am!

This whole mess is ridiculous, I can't nor will I bow to this utter nonsense.

It's simple Tom - you, as the pilot, are responsible for staying below any prescribed height. How you comply - and as things stand, comply you will have to - is up to you. If you deliberately flout air law, I'm afraid you will be as bad for the hobby as any irresponsible "drone" pilot.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 07/06/2018 11:35:46:

Posted by Cuban8 on 07/06/2018 11:30:37:

but without an agreed definition of what a drone is

It doesn't matter what the definition of 'drone' is. Neither the ANO or the draft EU regulations use the term. You need to move on and pick battles where you stand a chance of achieving something.

Steve