New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Martin Harris on 07/06/2018 11:50:37:

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.

Exactly.

If my understanding is correct, it's perfectly legal to drive a pre-1937 classic car on the public roads in the UK without a speedometer fitted. However, it's still illegal to exceed the speed limit. How you estimate speed is up to you. As a classic car enthusiast, you are in a minority on the road, and it is not reasonable to expect road traffic acts to be built around your requirements.

If caught speeding, you will be fined like everyone else.

If you kill someone, you will likely face prison like everyone else.

You can rant on and on as long as you like about how your classic car was around long before modern vehicles, and that it should not be put in the same category, but I'm afraid no-one is going to listen to you.

The current situation with aeromodelling might be different in scale and point-in-time, but the principle is exactly the same.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 07/06/2018 12:10:18

[Cuban8]

Posted by The Wright Stuff on 07/06/2018 12:09:21:

You can rant on and on as long as you like about how your classic car was around long before modern vehicles, and that it should not be put in the same category, but I'm afraid no-one is going to listen to you.

The current situation with aeromodelling might be different in scale and point-in-time, but the principle is exactly the same.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 07/06/2018 12:10:18

The classic car analogy is an interesting one, but I don't quite see it as quite the same principle as our problem, but agree that the law should be obeyed, until it can be changed.

For instance..........how would the classic car world react if an edict was announced that all classic cars should comply with modern emissions standards, or be fitted with disc brakes? We're all concerned about air quality, so 'goodness knows how many are being poisoned by noxious fumes from veteran cars'? How much are the public at risk of being mown down by classic cars with inefficient brakes - don't know, but we'll have them all upgrade to discs. Perfectly understandable on the face of it, but an insane overreaction in truth.

[The Wright Stuff]

Incidentally, here is a specific example of my analogy, above.

In court, ignorance was not an excuse, nor was his belief that the car was not capable of speeds above 30 mph.

No analogy is perfect, of course, but the more I look at this, the more parallels I see.

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 07/06/2018 12:54:09

[Simon Chaddock]

I am old enough to remember when the "end of speed limit' road sign meant just that! You could legally go as fast as your vehicle would go but you were of course still subject to other parts of the Road Traffic Acts .

Model plane flyer have been subject to limits of the ANOs for many years.

Is not this 400' limit similar to when the 'blanket' 70 mph speed limit was introduced?

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

You just have to live with it.

[Rich too]

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

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

Drones can be gliders, multi rotor, or whatever. I agree with that. However, drones can easily be distinguished and there is a definition of a drone - and I certainly do not fly one.

It is a shame that the powers that be are choosing to throw a blanket over every type of model. It will be interesting to see how the regs will be enforced.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 07/06/2018 12:06:53:

Posted by Cuban8 on 07/06/2018 11:43:09:

where's the battle field?

The battle is in making the government live up this statement in the DfT press release -

"For model aircraft flying associations who have a long-standing safety culture, work is underway with the CAA to make sure drone regulations do not impact their activity."

I have already written to my MP on this subject, have you?

Steve

Completely agree. It is clear from many of the posts here and on other forums that the vast majority of modellers have read only error strewn news articles from journalists and perhaps the odd BMFA communication on the topic; they have not read the key documents coming out of the EU, EASA or DfT, and only a tiny number of us fed back to the consultation. Action from model flyers as an aggregate group has been minimal after the first flurry of emails sent to EASA in 2015.

Perhaps this would not have made any difference, but collectively we have not made our voices heard loudly enough. Ranting here about the definitions of "drone" at this stage are completely pointless - that horse has long since bolted. The BMFA fought that alongside the other EU modelling orgs for a lengthy period and failed to get model flying exempted from the regs primarly because a definition could not be agreed on, so we are not going to come up with something on this forum that the authorities magically accept! At this point I am surprised the BMFA themselves are not calling on us to write to our MPs given the short timescales before regulations on the height limit are introduced. I have written to my MP, but sadly I think anything we do now is too late - we are going to get what we get (or more specifically whatever the CAA are prepared to give us that makes their life easy whislt still complying with the new obligations placed on them by parliament).

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

The problem with some legislation is that the consequences are not always as intended.

The 70 mph speed limit is one, in that for many years the autobahns have fewer deaths and accidents per mile traveled and a few other issues, than the restricted UK motorways. Yet today in the vicinity of many German population centres today there are speed limits on the autobahns.

It appears that the introduction in the UK of 20 mph speed limits has resulted in increased deaths and accidents.

Mini roundabouts result in more accidents, than the previous arrangements.

In most if not all cases, there is no reconsideration of the concepts. In some cases such as mini roundabouts, the concept is justified that the number of deaths is lower than would have been anticipated, although increased accident rates is acknowledged. In some cases the Government has told researches to go away until the correct answer is reached. In one case, journalists were told, you have seen an unathorised draft copy, wait until the document has been approved.

It will be the same with us, that is why the battles need to be fought now.

The problem with some regulations on the face of it, they are often totally logical, to the supporters, and even the broader community. If the evidence casts doubt on the thinking, it is and will be ignored, until it is accepted that is just how the world operates.

How our interests can be best protected. is by lobbying, presenting a positive public profile and making our position and record known to politicians, regulators. Often this needs to be done with those who we may think influence. Not very glamorous, yet business knows that it works.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Erfolg on 07/06/2018 14:04:06:

It appears that the introduction in the UK of 20 mph speed limits has resulted in increased deaths and accidents.

Do you have a source for this? I'd assumed that the news articles reporting such phenomena were largely local rags reporting isolated effects of small-number statistics. Put enough 20 mph zones in, and there are bound to be some boroughs which, by chance, happen to see an increase that year...

[Don Fry]

Erf, the speed limits on the German autobahn are because the death rates are judged too high. They run, in the region of, three times the death rate per citizen per year, compared with the UK rate.

Source, 

1st European Road Infrastructure Congress | 18-20 October 2016 | Leeds, United Kingdom

Comparative analysis of road accidents in the European motorways 

 

Edited By Don Fry on 07/06/2018 15:07:30

[MattyB]

For those of you who wish to register your complaints you can find out your MPs email address here. Remember to include your name and address as apparently parliamentary rules only allow them to respond to their own constituents.

Steve J kindly shared his email with me which I customised a bit - here is what I sent in case it is of use to any of you:

"Dear Mr Afolami,

As one of your constituents I am emailing to express my dissatisfaction with Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2018, which was published last week. I have significant concerns that this will negatively impact the sport of model flying in the UK. Model flying has an excellent and long standing record of safety, and has helped to generate a flow of aeronautical engineers and scientists who have propelled the UK to a world leading position for many decades. I therefore ask that you communicate the following concerns to the DfT:

1. The EU, EASA and the DfT keep saying that they recognise the safety record of the various aeromodelling associations and that they should be allowed to continue to operate as the do today. Unfortunately, I have yet to see sign of any actions to back up these words. As a start, I suggest that the CAA grant established model flying sites in uncontrolled airspace exemptions to allow them to operate up to 1000ft AGL and start listing such sites in section ENR 5.5 of the Aeronautical Information Publication.
2. AN(A)O 2018 means that model fliers are to be expected to pay the CAA for an inferior deal than we currently receive for free. As enabling commercial unmanned aircraft operation (registration is a U-Space foundation service) is the primary driver behind the registration and competency sections of AN(A)O 2018, I will be disappointed if recreational flyers are changed anything other than nominal fees (the registration system in the US is $5 for three years).

Best regards,

etc. etc. [include your name, address and contact information]"

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Rich too on 07/06/2018 13:28:08:

Drones can be gliders, multi rotor, or whatever. I agree with that. However, drones can easily be distinguished and there is a definition of a drone - and I certainly do not fly one.

Well, I'd love to hear this definition of a drone that excludes ALL model aircraft. Because not only can little ol' me not think of one, the BMFA, the CAA, the FAA and numerous other august bodies have not managed to come up with one either. That is because, considered purely as a machine, there is no real difference.

Now there's a clue. We can't distinguish on the basis of the aircraft, but we could distinguish on the basis of use. We fly purely for pleasure, there is no gain in cash or in kind, involved. A commercial drone flies for money, pure and simple. The money may be a direct payment or may be indirect benefit in kind, or delayed benefit. But somewhere, as consequence of the flight, someone is better off. Now that is a real distinction between us.

And of course it is the distinction the CAA used to use in the past - before all this nonsense. If the the flight was for benefit you needed a "Permit for Aerial Work" or you were breaking the law. And there were loads of regulations, documentation and tests associated with getting one. But, if the flight was purely for your pleasure then, regardless of the aircraft, its equipment and facilities, it was "a model aircraft" and none of that applied. Easy.

But of course this has two major problems: firstly it doesn't regulate the rogue hobby flyer who flys too close to residential ares etc. But then the powers in the ANO can deal with that - if applied. The real problem is it doesn't fit at all with whole basis of EASA's thoughts - ie EASA approached the problem from day one as a classification of aircraft problem and not as a "intended use" problem. CAA could have told them that approach was doomed to failure - and fail it has!

So, they're left with us modellers "inside the tent" and having to find some set of exclusions which allows us to carry on - which I believe they will do but its very untidy. But it might have been a lot easy for them if they had looked at what other people (like CAA) had already done and approached the whole problem from a different angle. But, it's too late to cry about that now - it is what it is - we have to make that work, somehow!

BEB

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 07/06/2018 15:19:15:

Posted by Rich too on 07/06/2018 13:28:08:

Drones can be gliders, multi rotor, or whatever. I agree with that. However, drones can easily be distinguished and there is a definition of a drone - and I certainly do not fly one.

Well, I'd love to hear this definition of a drone that excludes ALL model aircraft. Because not only can little ol' me not think of one, the BMFA, the CAA, the FAA and numerous other august bodies have not managed to come up with one either. That is because, considered purely as a machine, there is no real difference.

Now there's a clue. We can't distinguish on the basis of the aircraft, but we could distinguish on the basis of use. We fly purely for pleasure, there is no gain in cash or in kind, involved. A commercial drone flies for money, pure and simple. The money may be a direct payment or may be indirect benefit in kind, or delayed benefit. But somewhere, as consequence of the flight, someone is better off. Now that is a real distinction between us.

And of course it is the distinction the CAA used to use in the past - before all this nonsense. If the the flight was for benefit you needed a "Permit for Aerial Work" or you were breaking the law. And there were loads of regulations, documentation and tests associated with getting one. But, if the flight was purely for your pleasure then, regardless of the aircraft, its equipment and facilities, it was "a model aircraft" and none of that applied. Easy.

But of course this has two major problems: firstly it doesn't regulate the rogue hobby flyer who flys too close to residential ares etc. But then the powers in the ANO can deal with that - if applied. The real problem is it doesn't fit at all with whole basis of EASA's thoughts - ie EASA approached the problem from day one as a classification of aircraft problem and not as a "intended use" problem. CAA could have told them that approach was doomed to failure - and fail it has!

I personally think you are being a bit generous to EASA (and their political paymasters) there. I would (perhaps cynically ) suggest they approached this primarily from a "how do we clear the airspace between 400 and 1000ft for commercial use" perspective. Whatever the intended usage of what flies in that 600ft IMO they want the same regs to apply so that access is made harder for recreational use and enforcement of the rogue element is easy. When they inevitably require electronic conspicuity in a few years time to implement USpace they will have successfully achieved their aim...

<Steps down from soapbox of extreme grumpiness>

Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2018 17:24:10

[Erfolg]

The Wright Stuff, the source was the BBC that quoted the only two studies and papers that considered the issue.

Don, the road deaths was certainly true in the 80s, as was then often quoted as perverse outcomes from logical predictions.

In many cases, the sponsoring agency will often suggest careful reconsideration, when unpredicted results are presented in draft. Surprisingly a redraft of a study will arrive at an set of results that do reflect the clients anticipated results. Those involved come to recognise that repeat work, that careers can be compromised if careful re-analysis of the original draft documents is not undertaken and erroneous or perhaps inappropriate values removed. No body goes to a loose cannon, when commissioning.

My main point is that the fight is now, as data will be produced that shows that either the current regulations are appropriate or that further constraints are required.

Given that we are supposed to undertake a test as drone operators, is that now, tomorrow, with whom etc.

Edited By Erfolg on 07/06/2018 17:35:05

[Dave Rose]

oh yea

Posted by Ikura on 07/06/2018 14:02:55:

Posted by Rich too on 07/06/2018 13:28:08:

It is a shame that the powers that be are choosing to throw a blanket over every type of model. It will be interesting to see how the regs will be enforced.

 

The laws/regulations can not be enforced in general but the laws will be there so if they wish to prosecute following an accident/incident it is not possible to dodge it.

It's a bit like driving while using a hand held phone. A lot of people do it but never get prosecuted because there are not the resources to stop it.

To a greater degree the law depends on the decency and honesty of people to obey, and it is there to enforce it if not.

No one is going to chase a slope soarer or thermal glider pilot for flying above 400ft but if we do there is the possibility that we will get charged if something should go wrong.

That's how I see it but others may feel differently.

Edited By Ikura on 07/06/2018 14:04:59

------------------------------////////-------------------------2

Perfectly correct. As I said earlier, it isn't so much a case of whether  Police will be enforcing the Order, but where participants stand when an accident occurs , as in , say, a thermal glider competition. Insurance will not cover it ( an apparent illegal act ) , so solicitors look to fliers, organisers etc via civil actions.

What organiser or competitor wants to risk litigation for thermal soaring.

Easy enough to prove as illegal when height limiters are presently set at 150 and 200 metres and the whole stated aim of the event is to soar high.

Ok - some clever chaps might say " we launch to 300ft before motor cut, then soar below 400ft.at all times in our competitions"

Oh yea! Get some insurance company or civil court to swallow that.

 

As things stand at present, thermal soaring in U K should be worried.

 

Edited By Dave Rose on 07/06/2018 18:06:51

[Pete B]

Posted by MattyB on 07/06/2018 17:21:22:

I would (perhaps cynically ) suggest they approached this primarily from a "how do we clear the airspace between 400 and 1000ft for commercial use" perspective. Whatever the intended usage of what flies in that 600ft IMO they want the same regs to apply so that access is made harder for recreational use and enforcement of the rogue element is easy. When they inevitably require electronic conspicuity in a few years time to implement USpace they will have successfully achieved their aim...

I totally agree with MattyB. Commerce wants exclusive access to the formerly valueless airspace below 1000ft and we are simply an irritation......

Pete

[Howard Winwood]

Posted by Rich too on 07/06/2018 13:28:08:

Drones can be gliders, multi rotor, or whatever. I agree with that. However, drones can easily be distinguished and there is a definition of a drone - and I certainly do not fly one.

Sorry! but if you fly anything, then you are flying a drone. The definition of a drone is somewhat academic as the term is now SUA (small unmanned aircraft) aircraft - an aeroplane, helicopter, or other machine capable of flight.

Which is why we find ourselves in this position. The powers that be have gone down a path that is not to your (our) liking because to define the term drone is impossible to do and still not exclude any current model flying style.

They have chosen to go down the route of least resistance, and who can blame them (apart from us of course )

weather you think a drone is a quadcopter, which is what most people think of as a drone, then what about tricopters, hexacopters octocopters, bicopters (helicopters)?

So! lets try using the number of propellors, a Drone (quadcopter) has four props, what about a scale model of a four engined bomber?

To exclude ANY of the current model types is an impossible task, which is why it is an all inclusive description, it has to be, there is no alternative.

What needs to be done is that our national bodies weather it is BMFA, LMA or whoever else need to try and mitigate as much as possible the effect on the day to day model flyer.

But lets not kid ourselves, the proposed legislation WILL have some negative impact on this hobby.

How much, we will have to wait and see.

[Ray Dunn]

So it seems that I am not the only one not currently in a BMFA affiliated club, if there are about 12,000 other BMFA Country Members! I was in the local club for about 20 years, until the early 1990s. I drifted into glider flying, which then being bungee based, did not fit in well with the powered flying majority. Needless to say, I don't have an A certificate either, only an early possibly club version.

 

So I have ended up thermaling powered gliders and now DLG, from a somewhat challenging own field and, when the wind is the West, heading to the local slope (a 45 minute drive).

 

If the worst comes the worst, It would appear that I could fly DLG, by selecting a light one just below the 250gm limit. I might also improve my future chances by joining a specialist glider flying club. There is one an hour drive away.

 

Trying to be constructive.. regarding the 400’ limit, I would expect all the main radio control companies to be heading in the same direction as Frsky, who currently (thanks to OpenTx contributors!) provide the built in option of timestamped telemetry logging to the SD card and have just brought out a range of lightweight receivers with built in altimeter. (GPS next maybe?). From a exactness point of view, altimeter drift is however not good. On long thermal flights this could mount up.

 

Whilst I can’t see this happening in the short time available, I wonder if it is possible to obtain permission to fly above 400’ based on having a compact transponder/beacon fitted. I have only seen one word references to this sort of requirement earlier in the thread. I can't see the full sized strobe approach being practical. You would quickly lose orientation visibility. Earlier in this thread, there is a link to a 1.5gm(!) air traffic receiver(£150!). Which no doubt also needs something like an Arduino added, to process and identify the transmissions for approaching planes. I'm not sure this really helps much anyway. (Auto full flap down to maybe 100 feet? Activate a strobe?) Electronic visibility to full sized traffic and “commercial drones" has to be the way to go ultimately.

Edited By Ray Dunn on 07/06/2018 20:09:35n

Edited By Ray Dunn on 07/06/2018 20:10:12

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Before going on my holiday I had a brief conservation with an ex EU official who is now going to work in, I think, the department of farming and fisheries, The interesting aspect of what was said, that there is a view within the EU bureaucracy, that nothing is permitted, unless approved by the EU. Which I thought at the time contrasts with the USA in particular, that anything is permissible unless prohibited by Legislation or Regulation.

Which all brings me back to the position, that we will be heavily constrained by the Easa diktats, unless we fight for what we have. The idea that we can have transponders, that seeking permission to fly above 400 feet and so on, will be either bureaucratic or require a deliberately expensive electronic device.

The whole attitude is oppressive, with sever penalties for transgression, almost certainly with the dice loaded against the individual who might have transgressed, however trivially.

Again it all seems set against a atmosphere, that some think that there are more important things to do than fix our attention strongly on the EASA regs. Yet there is no long term future for much of aeromodeling if entering our hobby is beset with regulations, tests and possibly some form of license in the future. This really is fight that required all of our attention and probably what resources we have, Certainly not the platitudes all is in hand, and the need to know view of the world.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

[onetenor]

Can I ask a daft question? Seeing as how most models are actually or just about invisible at 400 ft why do we want to fly higher? I don't.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by onetenor on 07/06/2018 23:11:29:

Can I ask a daft question? Seeing as how most models are actually or just about invisible at 400 ft why do we want to fly higher? I don't.

400ft is only 121 metres - about a football pitch.

If a football is visible at that distance, most models should be.

[MattyB]

Posted by onetenor on 07/06/2018 23:11:29:

Can I ask a daft question? Seeing as how most models are actually or just about invisible at 400 ft why do we want to fly higher? I don't.

Because not everyone flies small powered sport models!

400ft is really not very high - I have thermalled a ~3m glider up at over 900ft a couple of times, and ~10 years ago I witnessed a 60” DLG go all the way up to ~1200ft (telemetry tracked) in a boomer. He literally couldn’t stop it climbing, but he was very experienced pilot and simply lay down, kept his eye on the model and flew out sideways for a good distance until it finally started to descend.

Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2018 23:54:52