New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Ray Dunn]

For us glider enthusiasts in particular, we seem to enter limboland in August unless the CAA give us something definite and their only commitment seems to be for late next year.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I am gonna assume you've all written your pearls of wisdom to the relevant bodies and changes to suit your points are being made at this very moment ?

BMFA ? Don't know how you see it, but, I reckon they're doing everything possible for our cause, stands to reason really, the health n wealth of the BMFA depends on us paying subs in, no greater incentive is there ? BMFA don't need to provide me daily updates, they need to do the best they can, and I'm confident that's happening.

[Martin McIntosh]

Certainly not read all of this lot but many F3A models seem to perform loops close to 400 feet in diameter these days, let alone turbines which would have difficulty doing them smaller. I thought that the new legislation was aimed specifically at the irresponsible flying of multicopters (drones if you must). Compare this to a typical patch of 100m (say 330 ft) in length and do a horizontal circle over it to see just how low this is.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Rather than just posting on here, why not follow MattyB's advice and start Emailing your MP.

This issue is important to a whole range of aeromodellers. In contrast the NFC benefits a few, all the resources directed at the Vanity Project at least in the short term need to be focussed on this issue. That is priority and support given to the team that represents us via the BMFA.

Can some one indicate the subsantive improvements that are apparent form the original EASA proposals, other than slight amendments? Even registering seems to be still their., in one form or another

[Bruce Miller 2]

Regulation reduces the likelihood of Abolition. The Major players in local freight delivery would jump at the chance to send their autonomous drones all about without you pesky aeromodellers getting in their way! It is also far easier for Authorities to BAN everything than to regulate sensibly. We need rules to educate/prosecute the 'few' before they ruin it for the 'majority'.

 

Your forum can get quite tied up in small details and definitions, some maybe even hysterical? We all just want to get more folks flying (anything) for fun - safely – there is no 'US and THEM'.

 

The Australian experience may clarify things a little for what to expect, as it sounds just like we have already what you're describing in these posts. I hope you find it interesting:

 

In Oz 'Standard Operating Conditions' apply for everybody without permission to do otherwise. Maximum 400ft AGL, unaided daylight line-of-sight only, 30 metres from people in all directions, not over crowds, not within 5.5km of Aerodromes etc – i.e. to “not create a hazard”. One can also undertake commercial work within these restrictions with aircraft under 2kg. Landowners have some exemptions for flying over their own land.

 

'Unmanned Aviation' Control Hierarchy:

1. Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA i.e. your CAA) are the top level aviation authority.

2. Licensed OPERATORS are the ones who hold operating certificates, obtain permissions (from CASA) to fly outside the 'Standard Operating Conditions' and produce 'operations manuals' to document procedures and practices to safely operate as they have been authorised.

3. Authorised PILOTS, who fly under a Licensed Operator in conditions as per 'Operations manual'.

 

In a commercial scenario – a Business would be a Licensed OPERATOR and seek permissions to fly higher, closer, or whatever. They would undertake extra commitments such as using aviation radio to talk with Towers or aircraft, check of NOTAMs, built-in equipment redundancies, have proven 'Return To Home', transponders to show on ATC radar, even seek issue of NOTAM. These would be part of the operator's risk analysis and all submitted to CASA in an Operations MANUAL when seeking approval for a mission, or a location – to obtain an Operating CERTIFICATE. Flights “for any form of economic gain” with aircraft over 2kg, or outside 'Standard Operating Conditions' must be performed by a CASA-Licensed PILOT (TYPE approved), flying for an Licensed OPERATOR. Individuals can apply to be Licensed OPERATORS if they do the paperwork and pay the money. A Licensed PILOT can fly under anybody's Operating CERTIFICATE (with their permission) so, for example, some training schools allow past students to fly under their O.C. on a casual basis and thus get paid for any commercial work. Note: Operator arranges own aircraft checks, overseen by operator's appointed mechanic.

 

In a recreational scenario – our MAAA (equivalent of your BMFA) has the status of a Licensed OPERATOR and maintains a detailed Operations MANUAL of standard procedures (e.g. line of sight, max 400ft AGL, 30 metre rule). Since not flying “for economic gain” our MAAA can authorise pilots through it's instruction programs, Solo and 'wings' assessments (equiv. BMFA 'certificates'. This is the level where aircraft DEFINITIONS become significant – NOT at a government (legislation) level. Any desired Height extensions (event or permanent) or near-Aerodrome flying is requested by pilots via their club through the MAAA and get approved by CASA. CASA may issue NOTAM and make additions to Aeronautical Charts as appropriate. Note: NO approval for flight beyond unaided line of sight (pilot OR spotter if FPV) as MAAA specifically exclude this. Heavy or Large models are scrutinised & certified (same as BMFA) by MAAA appointed inspectors.

 

The positive of this is you CAN fly anywhere CASA allows you to – they control the sky & ONLY CASA can restrict airspace (e.g. over royal weddings). Landowners & councils cannot stop you overflying property – they can only legally stop takeoffs and landings on their ground. Caution if you have a camera on board that you will have PRIVACY laws to consider.

 

So it's not the end of our hobby, but BMFA do need to jump in and establish their position. Support them.

Good Luck!

Edited By Bruce Miller 2 on 10/06/2018 09:08:21

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I have said from the beginning that while I am indeed optimistic that for power flyers in a club environment this is unlikely to present many significant problems, for glider pilots, espacially outside of a club (which most are) this is a potentially major issue.

I have said this not only on here but also in two feature articles in the magazine. In both those cases I urged glider pilots to look at how they might present a more "governace orientated" front, perhaps via formation of clubs based on sites or the old BARCS type structure.

What has the glider community done? Well as far as I can see - nothing. Now they are panicing, 8 weeks before the legislation becomes active. Even now the panic seems to mainly consist of pointing out over and over again on here that 400ft is too low for them. But what's the point of telling us that? We already know it. If the glider flyers amongst us want to survive this they need to get organised - it may already be too late, it should have been done when the potential issue was first raised 18 months ago. But some effort now might still save the day.

Re comms on progress from the BMFA. I think we just have to trust that things are motion, they do understand all the issues and are activily engaged with CAA. But we have to be realistic and mature, in potentially delicate negoiations like this you don't go round blurting out what everyone has said behind closed doors. Let them get on with the job descretly, which is what is required. As one person at least has already pointed out, it's not in their intersts for this to fail, they are in this up to their neck, just as we are.

So, my view? Sit tight, 8 weeks to go. Wait while BMFA do their best for us with a basically well disposed CAA. We can support them by writting to MPs etc. Finally, it is imperative that the glider guys start organising themselves pretty damn quick so that they at least appear to have a governance structure through which proper safety recording, monitoring and training standards can be monitored in order to comply with what is likely to be required and also so that BMFA can speak with some authority for them as a group.

Until then,..enjoy the sunshine and go flying!

BEB

[cymaz]

Had a quadcopter fly along are housing estate road last night......new drone laws are working well then!

[Cuban8]

I'm certain that our BMFA representatives in talks with CAA, are very well aware of the effects of a height limit on thermal soaring and will try, as best they can, to come up with a solution acceptable to all. I too, find it odd that the glider guys have seemed to be very quiet on the subject, but to be fair, they're not ignoring it - from BARCS forum **LINK**

No, I don't expect BMFA to 'spoon feed' the membership with info every step of the way during the negotiations, but just maybe, the opinions expressed on this very forum will help 'those at the table' to gauge the views of the wider BMFA membership, albeit from a small representative section of us here. This could veer off into the contentious (for some) issue of BMFA and member communications, but I think we've enough on our plate at this time.

Going flying now

[Gordon Tarling]

BEB - surely members of BARCS are well aware of this. What they're doing about it is another question.

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 10/06/2018 09:36:52:

I have said from the beginning that while I am indeed optimistic that for power flyers in a club environment this is unlikely to present many significant problems, for glider pilots, espacially outside of a club (which most are) this is a potentially major issue.

I have said this not only on here but also in two feature articles in the magazine. In both those cases I urged glider pilots to look at how they might present a more "governace orientated" front, perhaps via formation of clubs based on sites or the old BARCS type structure.

What has the glider community done? Well as far as I can see - nothing. Now they are panicing, 8 weeks before the legislation becomes active. Even now the panic seems to mainly consist of pointing out over and over again on here that 400ft is too low for them. But what's the point of telling us that? We already know it. If the glider flyers amongst us want to survive this they need to get organised - it may already be too late, it should have been done when the potential issue was first raised 18 months ago. But some effort now might still save the day.

That’s not really fair BEB. Back in 2016 I floated the idea of a national BMFA affiliated model gliding club to act as a “tenant” for slope and thermal sites that do not have a club presence. I posted about it on BARCS and I think on this site too (sorry, the search on this site is not good enough to find it whilst using my phone). I also asked the BMFA for their opinion which they gave in Jan 2017. Cut and paste below...

[MattyB]

“OK, a few weeks ago I did receive a response from Dave Phipps of the BMFA - this was very positive, and indicates that a new UK soaring association is not required at this stage. We may want to revisit the idea though when the next iteration of EASA proposals emerge in May 2017.

Here's a brief summary (extracts from my original email in italics, Dave's responses in normal type)...

Based on the proposed EASA regulations there appears to be a possibility (though by no means certain) that model flying may only be possible from registered sites tenanted by a club under the wing of a competent authority (such as the BMFA, LMA etc).

This is not the current line of thinking. The hope is that you would need to belong to a recognised organisation and would fly under a blanket authorisation issued to them by the National CAA. At the present time there is no formal plan to restrict flying only to registered sites (the UK CAA does not want to become involved in any more admin than it is at present!).

If that were to occur slope and thermal soarers who fly from publically accessible sites not tenanted by a club would be breaking the law and would not be insured.

EASA also recognises that they have to find a way to accommodate this type of activity, so our hope is that the situation will not arise.

I therefore suggested a new BMFA affiliated club might be formed to register and “own” all the currently used public access slope and thermal sites that do not have a tenant club at present... Obviously the requirement to create such an organisation is based mostly on supposition and guesswork at this point; no-one outside the BMFA team really knows how the negotiations are going or whether this is likely to be required... My question is (based on your insight as to how the negotiations with EASA are proceeding) should the soaring community setup such an organisation at this time, and if so would the BMFA want to get involved?

At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that the above course of action would be required. The next draft of the EASA rules will probably be launched for consultation towards the end of May, but at the present time they still don’t have the formal competence to produce any actual rules. It seems that the earliest that any rules would be rolled out will be 2018 and then they will take three years to implement taking us to 2021. On this basis, there is no need for urgent action.”

Edited By MattyB on 10/06/2018 18:42:38

[MattyB]

At the end of the day the BMFA told me and anyone who read the thread (including the BARCS leadership) that no additional governance or precautions were likely to be needed to protect soaring at non-affiliated sites in the immediate future. They have never released any further statements or guidance to my knowledge on this topic. As a result no-one in BARCS or elsewhere has taken any further action.

I was doubtful at the time that this was the correct path, but did not have the time or energy to build the support within BARCS and elsewhere to get the idea off the ground. However, if their original viewpoint proves to have been incorrect I am sure something similar to this will reappear under a BARCS or BMFA banner. That’s fine with me, but it would have been an awful lot easier to do it 18 months ago without the pressure of imminent legislation bearing down.

Edited By MattyB on 10/06/2018 18:48:40

[Colin Leighfield]

I have been in London this weekend and walking past the CAA Offices on the way back from Covent Garden this afternoon saw that one window was completely filled with a poster saying to “keep your drones below 400ft” and the headline “dronesafeuk”. They are certainly taking it seriously.

[MattyB]

More historic posts regarding the BMFAs responses to slope and thermal soarers is here...

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes Matty, I see lots of talk and people suggesting that oher people should do things. But, forgive me, but my point is I don't see any resultant action. I could be wrong, but my perception is that gliding/soaring is in much the same position now as it was in 2016?

Now you might say "well why don't you do something then?" But the reality is I'm 99% a power flyer, I have one glider and not a very special one at that (a Pheonix 2m). It goes out to play maybe 2-3 times a year! Gliding/Soaring doesn't float my boat, I know enough to appreciate your problem, but not enough to help you solve it! But I can, and have, flagged it up. And as I say, in real practical terms of presenting a face to the world of a higher and more robust form of governance, what positive concrete development do we have to point too? I can't see any sadly.

BEB

[cymaz]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 10/06/2018 19:08:37:

I have been in London this weekend and walking past the CAA Offices on the way back from Covent Garden this afternoon saw that one window was completely filled with a poster saying to “keep your drones below 400ft” and the headline “dronesafeuk”. They are certainly taking it seriously.

Yes,excellent, though in a major conurbation not the best place to advertise the fact of the 400’ regulation!

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 10/06/2018 21:14:00:

Yes Matty, I see lots of talk and people suggesting that other people should do things. But, forgive me, but my point is I don't see any resultant action. I could be wrong, but my perception is that gliding/soaring is in much

... And as I say, in real practical terms of presenting a face to the world of a higher and more robust form of governance, what positive concrete development do we have to point too? I can't see any sadly.

I am struggling to reconcile the two viewpoints you share within the same post on the last page. On one hand you say that glider pilots should have got organised and taken action to register sites, form clubs etc. 18 months ago. In the next paragraph you suggest that model pilots in general should sit tight and wait for the BMFA to conclude their negotiations before acting.

The reality is that I have shared your concerns regarding model flying from shared public access sites with no affiliated club for a long term, and as a result asked the BMFA for their opinion on that idea back in 2016. The BMFA via Dave Phipps stated it did not need to be progressed, and no further guidance from them has been received in public. Whether they have been communicating with BARCS I do not know, but even if they have BARCS represents only a small subset of those involved in slope and glider flying in the UK - any comms need to come form the BMFA to hit the biggest number of pilots.

If the BMFA believed a 400ft limit was a potential outcome in 2016 or 2017 then in my view they should have been working with BARCS and BMFA affiliated soaring clubs to assess the risks to soarers (and free flighters who will have pretty much the same problems). At that point they could have built a couple of different mitigation plans that were ready to swing into action depending on how negotiations went with EASA, the DfT and the CAA. This is the way any commercial organisation would handle a risk to their ability to operate. I don't think it is fair to place blame at the door of glider pilots in general; the BMFA have needed to play their cards close to their chest so information on the negotiations and potential outcomes has been very scarce, but they did explicitly tell us that no-action was required until the picture became clearer.

PS - I will be writing to the BMFA today to see if their previous advice still holds, or whether they are planning to do something to safeguard soaring against the new regs.

Edited By MattyB on 11/06/2018 13:47:03

[Andy Meade]

As far as I'm aware BARCS just run the competition side of things, with a further achievement scheme, no? I don't know any other fellow gliderists that are a member of it, to be honest.

I did see on their forum that someone suggested the 400ft rule should apply to anything powered - I quite like that one, but I know not of what the BMFA's plans are for us.

 

Edited By Andy Meade on 11/06/2018 14:13:39

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Yes, BARCS has historically been more competition focussed, but they are still the only national RC soaring club to my knowledge. In the light of these regs I guess they may need to evolve into something that represents RC soarers more broadly.

Edited By MattyB on 11/06/2018 14:25:34

[Robert Cracknell]

I suppose I am opening yet another can of worms but do these regs apply to model rocketry...?

Some of the rockets with B & C sized motors typically work in the 750 - 1000 ft range.

[Nigel R]

Does a rocket fit the official description of 'drone'? If yes, then yes...

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Sorry Matty, my fault I'm not making myself very clear here!

The two views are not at all in my mind contradictory - just the opposite I feel, one without the other doesn't make sense! Let me try to be clearer,...

We are in the hands of BMFA now and their negoiations ultimately with DfT through the offices of CAA. My hopes are founded on the premise that BMFA are fully aware of the issues and have a good relationship with CAA, so hopefully agreement there shouldn't be too difficult. I then hope that DfT will have the sense to listen to the recommendations of their own experts - ie CAA - and do as they recommend.

But while I feel this model works OK for clubs flying from well defined sites - I can possible solutions there - it does not wok so well for glider pilots. Why? For two reasons I think:

1. They are difficult for BMFA to "speak for" because they have no club structure, they don't fit in BMFA's structure. They are individuals, not component clubs that BMFA can more effectively represent. I'm sure they will do their best - but its far from ideal.

2. They will make CAA nervous and make BMFA's task more difficult because they have at present no mechanism to jump through the Goverance hoops. We must be seen to be able to "run our own show responsibly". BMFA's argument is based on this. For example clubs will become responsible for maintaining flying standards on their patch and must show they have rules and mechanisms for dealing with any issues. How will glider groups address this - they have no club mechanism?

It is for these reasons that I say they need to get oganised an show they can fit within the model, that should have already been done - so BMFA have the bullets to fire on their account. Then, ie now, we have to leave it to BMFA to fire those bullets - so just first and second step really - both positions fit together.

BEB

[Tim Kearsley]

Posted by Andy Meade on 11/06/2018 14:12:07:

I did see on their forum that someone suggested the 400ft rule should apply to anything powered - I quite like that one, but I know not of what the BMFA's plans are for us.

I don't follow the logic of that point of view though. Presumably the issues of model aircraft flying at altitudes greater than 400 ft are concerned with safety and the possibility of collision with another airspace user? If so, then how does a 4m span glider pose any less threat than a 2m span powered model? Sounds like the glider fraternity wanting to be looked on as a special case!

Tim.