New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Ray Dunn]

Posted by Steve J on 07/06/2018 20:39:50:

On the electronic identification front we currently have -

....

Thanks Steve,

From what I looked through, only FLARN aims to directly connect full size and other traffic, but for drones maybe all they do is issue a unique ID, which is not much help to us.

Others feel more like commercial drone space management linked to full sized only at airfields with receivers.

And everyone doing their own thing 😞

[Rich too]

edit - life's too short

 

Edited By Rich too on 08/06/2018 07:04:28

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

I have now followed MattyB's advice and written a Email to my MP.

In the past I have spoken with Graham Brady, my then MP. He did at least listen. His opponent was not interested, beyond an interest in raising taxes of others.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Erfolg on 08/06/2018 10:21:18:

I have now followed MattyB's advice and written a Email to my MP.

In the past I have spoken with Graham Brady, my then MP. He did at least listen. His opponent was not interested, beyond an interest in raising taxes of others.

Have followed suit and written to my MP, Will Quince.

[Megawatt]

I think I need to challenge the assumption that this legislation is to clear the airspace above 400' for commercial drone ops. Full size aircraft are subject to a 500' rule and it is quite legitimate for them to descend to that height for whatever reason and remain legal. IMO the 400' limit and 1KM from an airfield is to allow separation from full-size aircraft and ensure that any increase in commercial drone ops remains segregated from manned aircraft. We shall be sharing the 0-400' range with them.

[Ian Jones]

Posted by Megawatt on 08/06/2018 11:45:31:

I think I need to challenge the assumption that this legislation is to clear the airspace above 400' for commercial drone ops. Full size aircraft are subject to a 500' rule and it is quite legitimate for them to descend to that height for whatever reason and remain legal. IMO the 400' limit and 1KM from an airfield is to allow separation from full-size aircraft and ensure that any increase in commercial drone ops remains segregated from manned aircraft. We shall be sharing the 0-400' range with them.

Sounds right to me.

That said, 400' is painfully low. Fly at 200' and pull in a large loop or go up for a good old multi rotation spin (bearing in mind the need to pull out well before the crunch) and it's easy to get up there. As for thermal gliding, 400' is nothing. I've tested all this with GPS telemetry and found it to be so.

I beleive a lot of the fun we freely enjoy at the moment could be affected in such a way that it just won't be worth doing.

I don't suppose they'll be any compensation scheme for those forced to abandon £K's worth of models & equipement.

I hope BEB's optimism turns out to be correct.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'd support that last statement - I was a little surprised to see comments about it being generous. I have done quite a lot of testing with telemetry equipped models as we fly in controlled airspace with exemption to 400' for 7kg models. My 1/4 scale Cub and Mahers Pacer both need to be flown with care (I have alarms set as well as experimenting with throttle telemetry controls) as it would be very easy to transgress and "normal club sized" models can be fairly close to the limit at what many would judge as 3 mistakes high.

I would say that 400' gives a reasonable height for most normal power flying but little margin for error. I'd advocate telemetry wherever possible and we will need to develop good height judgement by means such as demonstration - and perhaps some Guess The Height of the Model comps? - for the benefit of those without the means to monitor their altitude.

[Cuban8]

To give you some idea of how we're being stuffed if a blanket 400' limit is imposed on us - the London Eye is 443' tall. With a decent aerobatic model or a good sized warbird, you'd easily get to the top of the wheel from time to time and think nothing of it - as for thermal soaring, the top of the wheel is where you'd want to be for starters.

Makes you think?

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 08/06/2018 18:42:17

[Devcon1]

Nice perspective C8, I rather doubt any of this hoo-ha will effect us much, maybe a little more admin. Unless of course we do something rather stupid which we tend not to.

I remember the doomsday scenarios forecast for the Southwest of England for the long ago Eclipse and then aircraft falling out of the skies when we turned the corner into the year 2000. (maybe even add Brexit)

Hey Ho

[GONZO]

Electronic identification; I would expect this to report height, heading, track and identification number on a regular basis. Instead of relying on a dedicated nation wide receiver network I would expect that modellers will be required to install an app on their smart phone and the two would be linked(see mention of this in the document linked in OP). Thus, reporting of your aeronautic activities would be reported to a central/regional hub via the phone network. You would then be policing the system yourself and provide all information about any transgressions which could/would be used as evidence in any prosecution.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Ikura on 08/06/2018 20:30:36:

Posted by GONZO on 08/06/2018 20:11:11:

Electronic identification; I would expect this to report height, heading, track and identification number on a regular basis. Instead of relying on a dedicated nation wide receiver network I would expect that modellers will be required to install an app on their smart phone and the two would be linked(see mention of this in the document linked in OP). Thus, reporting of your aeronautic activities would be reported to a central/regional hub via the phone network. You would then be policing the system yourself and provide all information about any transgressions which could/would be used as evidence in any prosecution.

Absolute nonsense and more unfounded speculation. To fly a model aeroplane you must have a smart phone? Good luck with that one. Where do you get all this stuff from?

To get a handle on Gonzo's position, read the thread title. Apparently the 30th May was the end of world for aeromodelling - only it wasn't, and my view it won't be.

BEB

[GONZO]

Ad hominem attacks are not helpful.
New laws being introduced today (30 May 2018) will restrict all drones from flying above 400 feet and within 1 kilometre of airport boundaries.

I read this as the start of the new height limits being the 30/5/2018. Enforcement of this has been speculated on in this thread.

The document mentions the requirement for phones and apps and I projected this information to meet the identification requirements. It could go this way, as well as any other, as a simplified way of contacting the phone network. From the attitude of officialdom in this debacle it would not surprise me that they would expect everyone to have a smartphone regardless. Mine was just a small speculation based on the contents of the document, certainly no wilder than those made by others. I find it amusing when a small speculation is condemned by someone with another speculation stated as a fact. Way back at the start of all this, years ago, I speculated that this would have significant effects on aeromodelling and was roundly condemned by all with a deafening chorus of naïve optimism stating ' it will not have any real effect, we'll carry on much as before'. It would, at this moment in time, appear from comments in this thread that I was at least in part correct when it comes to thermal/slope soaring and aerobatic and larger planes with reported comments that people will just give up the hobby. Of course a sudden outbreak of charitable good will towards aero modellers my break out in 'officialdom' and grant us no end of concessions. I gave you the link to the document with a few comments and everyone can make of it what they will. My speculations are as valid as others, only time will tell who's right. But, regrettably, it seems to be going this old cynical sceptics way at the moment.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

We'll see Gonzo, we'll see. The "fat lady" has not sung yet.

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

So, boiling all this down to a brown mess in the bottom of the pan...........are the powers that be, concerned that our lawful activities as we have carried them out up to now, and if allowed to continue as such, risk coming into close conflict or collision with unmanned commercial vehicles and will therefore pose a danger to property, life and limb?

If the answer is in the affirmative, then exactly which of those commercial operations are potentially at risk from us? A blanket answer of 'all commercial operations' no matter what, seems wrong, because as has been pointed out, some commercial operations are carried out in a localised environment and within their operator's LOS (surveying, agricultural work, photography as a few examples among many others). How will a model aeroplane be a risk to such operations, when it's abiding by the rules that have existed up to now? I'd be very happy to be informed.

That leaves us with the commercial, fully autonomous (drone) machines that are predicted to be so ubiquitous by appearing overhead (presumably) at a frequency similar to vans on our roads today, that some conventional logistics will be seriously diminished to the point of being uneconomic.

Is the current fear that model aeroplanes will be entering an environment so dominated by machines from Amazon, Google and others, that collisions will be inevitable without the new restrictions on us? Has there been any real investigation and challenges to the validity of the huge drone business expansion claims by the companies? What then, if the predictions actually turn out to be as good as 'electricity to cheap to meter', humans on Mars by 2000, supersonic transport for the masses etc? What good will come of implimenting the rules now on aeromodelling?

 

 

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 09/06/2018 10:35:11

[ken anderson.]

you'll be amazed when you see a normal model at 400 ft.one of my friends who has his model equipped with telemetry put his craft at 400 ft and surprise it was really low in comparison to what I thought it would be like. The glider lads are going to be done for...if you are up on a slope that already is a few 100ft above sea level...and you have to adhere to 400ft above ground level!...…. how its going to be policed is any bodies guess...the wasters will still do what they want and it'll reflect upon us no doubt....we had an ex policeman going by our site with his DJI backpack,when it was mentioned to him about the ins and outs-he replied that nobody would tell him where he could and couldn't fly!

ken anderson...ne...1.....400ft dept.

[Ray Dunn]

Here is the current prohibitively expensive, already approved, answer to my aircraft transponder question, to make aircraft aware of my presence. (Courtesy of the BARCS thread.) So it does already exist:

https://www.unmannedtechshop.co.uk/ping1090-ads-b-transceiver/

£1150, 20gm, 500ma

Might also need the plug compatable high resolution altimeter 😞

Light aircraft I can hear coming for miles and they often pootle around at relatively low altitude, viewing the local villages. You can judge how close and low from their tone and I have landed before they arrive on several occasions. The Red Arrows in relatively quiet jets flying low level are a completely different matter...

If push came to shove, then negotiating a bulk purchase might be the way forward. Hopefully cheaper units are in the pipeline.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by ken anderson. on 09/06/2018 10:40:16:

you'll be amazed when you see a normal model at 400 ft.one of my friends who has his model equipped with telemetry put his craft at 400 ft and surprise it was really low in comparison to what I thought it would be like. The glider lads are going to be done for...if you are up on a slope that already is a few 100ft above sea level...and you have to adhere to 400ft above ground level!...…. how its going to be policed is any bodies guess...the wasters will still do what they want and it'll reflect upon us no doubt....we had an ex policeman going by our site with his DJI backpack,when it was mentioned to him about the ins and outs-he replied that nobody would tell him where he could and couldn't fly!

 

ken anderson...ne...1.....400ft dept

The height limit is supposed to be above the launch height so if you're standing atop an 800' hill, you have the freedom to fly to 1200' above sea level in the vicinity of the hill (these rules already exist for >7kg gliders and other larger models without specific exemptions).

I suspect policing will be mostly by punitive action in the event of an accident (or as the result of complaints raised). Any defence of being reasonably sure that the flight could have been completed safely will be nullified if you are above the height limit.

An interesting (if probably irrelevant) point is that full sized gliders are exempt from the normal 500' distance requirements from persons, vehicles, vessels and structures while hill soaring. It does illustrate that air law has historically been sympathetic to differing requirements in specific cases.

Edited By Martin Harris on 09/06/2018 11:28:32

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Dave Rose]

 

 

 

 

Posted by Cuban8 on 09/06/2018 10:30:24:

So, boiling all this down to a brown mess in the bottom of the pan...........are the powers that be, concerned that our lawful activities as we have carried them out up to now, and if allowed to continue as such, risk coming into close conflict or collision with unmanned commercial vehicles and will therefore pose a danger to property, life and limb?

answer is in the affirmative, then exactly which of those commercial operations are potentially at risk from us? A blanket answer of 'all commercial operations' no matter what, seems wrong, because as has been pointed out, some commercial operations are carried out in a localised environment and within their operator's LOS (surveying, agricultural work, photography as a few examples among many others). How will a model aeroplane be a risk to such operations, when it's abiding by the rules that have existed up to

That leaves us with the commercial, fully autonomous (drone) machines that are predicted to be so ubiquitous by appearing overhead (presumably) at a frequency similar to vans on our roads today, that some conventional logistics will be seriously diminished to the point of being uneconomic.

Is the current fear that model aeroplanes will be entering an environment so dominated by machines from Amazon, Google and others, that collisions will be inevitable without the new restrictions on us? Has there been any real investigation and challenges to the validity of the huge drone business expansion claims by the companies? What then, if the predictions actually turn out to be as good as 'electricity to cheap to meter', humans on Mars by 2000, supersonic transport for the masses etc? What good will come of implimenting the rules now on aeromodelling?""

 

I haven't for a moment thought it wa s about us modellers getting out of the way of commercial drones from Amazon and the like.

This legislation has come about to stop the unauthorised drone activity where commercial aircraft have had near misses with thes e idiots who send up drones all over the place. The pilots have pressed for this and who can blame them?.

What is wrong is that we modellers, power fliers, thermal fliers et al have been drawn into inclusion of this legislation by the definition of SUA. That definition meant to capture all possible variants of what we commonly know as drones ( and it has ) , but it has captured us as well.

Hence the worry that soon we cannot fly above 400ft. Just to clarify, if not already done. Gonzo said the date was 31 May that we can no longer fly over 400 ft. He is wrong. The date is after 31 July 2018. The legislation may have come in during May, but the date for illegal flying over 400 ft is July.

I hope Beb's optimism is well founded, but the silence from BMFA is worrying. Least they could do is tell us what they will be expecting to gain. We know that thermal gliding,and occasionally flying power planes a little higher than 400 ft ,will pose no bigger problem after 31 July than it has done in all the years beforehand, and they should be demanding the the powers that be should acknowledge that and let it continue.etc etc.

Whereas are we expecting them to be going to the meeting with a bowl with which to catch crumbs?

 

 

Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:51:50

Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:53:56