New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[David Elam]

Note this as it is VERY important. "From 30th July there is a legal maximum distance restriction of 400 feet from the surface for the flight of any small unmanned vehicle." - It does not refer to 'height just distance. Think about the implications of launching from a very steep slope or cliff edge.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

That is extensively discussed earlier in this thread David

BEB

[David Elam]

I'm not sure it was as we believed the relevant distance was always going to be vertically "above" the land surface and NOT effectively at a perpendicular distance from it as is now stated.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 17/07/2018 11:11:07:

Posted by Martyn K on 17/07/2018 11:01:11:

Posted by Steve J on 11/07/2018 11:14:42:

I suspect that the DfT/CAA realised that giving a blanket exemption to 35,000+ people would make the 400ft limit completely pointless.

I don't think the plan was to grant an exemption to 35,000 people. My understanding was the location would get the exemption..

The BMFA have been saying "business as usual for members"...

I suggested putting established sites in the AIP with a 1000ft AGL altitude limit in a letter that I sent to my MP at the beginning of June. The reply that I got from Baroness Sugg (Minister for Aviation) dismissed this idea.

Steve

Here is the excerpt from Steve's letter that he posted on the BARCS forum. It appears to be pretty much the polar opposite of the message we have been given by the BMFA and other MFAs...

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

That's the standard "party line". I think we can be confident that the exemption will grant more than that. The questions we have to wait and see the answers too are: how much more, and exactly to whom in what context?

And to know the answer to those we just have to wait for the wording of the exemption. Which, by the way, could well be a CAA masterpiece of ambiguity!

BEB

[ken anderson.]

I(me)thinks that that is going to be our lot(400ft)…..exceptions will be the bona fide commercial drone operators who earn a crust and in turn probably pay for the fact they do so....hobbyist like ourselves who fly for recreation our "toy's".... be they expensive and very sophisticated will(I think)have to go with the flow(the law's) as they are going to be introduced and implemented......yes a lot of people will be up in arms, but they'll have to abide etc....my view/the way I see things going....hope I'm not 100% correct....

ken anderson... ne....1......100% dept.

[Nigel R]

My money is still on BMFA* club sites getting exemptions, plus some form of internet tickbox exercise for the test.

Can't see lone flyers getting blanket exemption, even if BMFA members.

* or other association.

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

It would make sense for BMFA club sites to receive exemptions. Every organised event, from the Nats downwards will have to be entitled to claim an exemption otherwise a large section of competitive model flying sport will die and I can't see any government wanting to kill off bona fide sporting activities. Non-competitive fly-ins would die without exemptions, and as they're organised, should qualify to be granted exemptions. Although effectively at the bottom of the heap, a club field is an organised entity, so should also be eligible for an exemption.

Well we can hope.

[Denis Watkins]

Over the past years, when the establishment attacked our club activities

I mentioned truthfully, the old folk who see no one else but club members at the patch, otherwise alone at home

The handicapped who partake in our sport at our field, sporting themselves heart surgery and my mate with one lung

And the camaraderie of all ages in the club, good for the soul and the spirit

The complaints went away rapidly

We must play this other truthful card for our sport

[PatMc]

Models over 7Kg must are already limited to 400ft AGL unless ATC permission is granted to exceed this altitude. This has never been regarded as a problem. I see no reason that it should be an issue for similar types of models that are under 7Kg, which probably accounts for the majority of everyday club flying activities.

AFAICS only certain competition class aerobatic models, turbine powered models, all thermal gliders including motor gliders & some but possibly not the majority of slope soaring type models are affected by a 400ft altitude limit.

IMO the most difficult models to fit into an exemption category would be the slope soarers.if such exeptions were to be granted based on location of organised club sites.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Maybe I misunderstand, so apologies if I ruffle feathers, effectively at the bottom of the heap is a club field, is it ?

Disagree, without these numbers you fellas at the top of the heap?? haven't the means the indulge yourselves.

Non competitive fly ins will manage just fine whatever the outcome, may be different, may be restrictions added, we'll manage thanks.

[PatMc]

I don't see a 400ft limit as any problem for most non competitive club fly ins.

[Erfolg]

The whole of the issues being discussed is of more than just passing interest to Aeromodellers. The general issues reoccur in chats down at all, or most club flying fields, on a regular basis. It is an important issue across the UK. Unlike some things that are repeatably reported, of interest to a much smaller group.

It is the general failure to keep the membership informed , with respect the achievements, the issues that remain to be determined and what they could mean in the various scenarios of how models are flown, that I regret.

No one would expect a blow by blow account. Even so a lot can be shared, without compromising confidentiality, or jeopardizing relationships.

It may be dramatic to pull a rabbit out of a hat, saying have we no done well. It may minimise the feelings of failure or embarrassment if the outcomes are not favorable to the majority, not to have revealed that major stumbling blocks potentially were blocking the way, and now are a barrier.

More and better communication would quell speculation, often anticipating the very worst, whilst others are equally wild optimist.

[Phil 9]

the irony is that clubs will adhere to the new rules but I suspect a large proportion of drone flyers will not

[JOHN MOSLEY 2]

We all hope that the BMFA is successful in obtaining some form of exemption to the new 400ft rule. But if they don't then its just like all other laws , Seat belt,speeding, mobile phone while driving etc. Ignoring the law is fine until something happens, then the full weight of the law falls onto the offender. Using the term some clubs does not matter it is the pilot in charge who will be prosecuted. The BMFA insurance only covers you providing you are flying legally, so in this case if you are above 400ft with respect to the terrain shape the example drawing shows,then you are in court. Having seen the, I believe revised drawing slope flyers have a real problem. I fly slope on the modelling holidays and for sure once you launch from a cliff top then you are clearly above 400ft relative to the terrain. The sketch in fact shows blue at the right hand side which I believe is water.

Edited By JOHN MOSLEY 2 on 18/07/2018 07:03:45

[Howard Winwood]

how do you tell if you are flying above 400ft?, how do the authorities tell?

who is going to police it?

police do not have resources to tackle phone theft, burglaries or a lot of other crimes, policing drones (model aircraft) is not going to be a priority.

remember, the authorities have to PROVE you were flying above 400ft.

for most club flyers i doubt it will be a problem anyway.

[MattyB]

Posted by PatMc on 17/07/2018 20:44:01:

Models over 7Kg must are already limited to 400ft AGL unless ATC permission is granted to exceed this altitude. This has never been regarded as a problem. I see no reason that it should be an issue for similar types of models that are under 7Kg, which probably accounts for the majority of everyday club flying activities.

AFAICS only certain competition class aerobatic models, turbine powered models, all thermal gliders including motor gliders & some but possibly not the majority of slope soaring type models are affected by a 400ft altitude limit.

IMO the most difficult models to fit into an exemption category would be the slope soarers if such exemptions were to be granted based on location of organised club sites.

Posted by PatMc on 17/07/2018 21:21:16:

I don't see a 400ft limit as any problem for most non competitive club fly ins.

We put up my Dad's Mpx Heron at our club field the other day with a telemetry vario on board. I was amazed how quickly we hit the 400ft mark. Based on this I would estimate that 75% of LOS flights at our club field are above 400ft, and 90%+ of my thermal soaring flights are. If exemptions are only based on club flying sites then this could be the end of legal thermal and slope soaring in this country, that is no exaggeration.

PS - Do not forget around a 1/3 (~12k) of the BMFA's members are not affiliated to a club. They are going to be the people most severely affected by this if they operate from locations that will never get an exemption. Those people are going to be very angry if their current rights are not protected given the BMFA's announcement in June saying all members would receive a blanket exemption.

Edited By MattyB on 18/07/2018 09:21:19

[Paul C.]

Good point Howard , I have trouble deciding which side of a tree my model is flying when landing so have absolutely no idea of how high I am flying with no obvious reference points. After all its not as if you can dangle a tape measure from a cloud .

Paul.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Howard Winwood on 18/07/2018 08:59:14:

how do you tell if you are flying above 400ft?, how do the authorities tell?

who is going to police it?

police do not have resources to tackle phone theft, burglaries or a lot of other crimes, policing drones (model aircraft) is not going to be a priority.

remember, the authorities have to PROVE you were flying above 400ft.

for most club flyers i doubt it will be a problem anyway.

The law will not be concerned with how you tell how high you are flying - it will simply be an offence not to comply. Yes, routine monitoring is unlikely to happen but as others have pointed out, in the dreadful event that your model caused an accident with another aircraft, your insurance could be invalidated and you could be prosecuted for causing death or injury by gross negligence or some similar offence. This is all above and beyond the simple prosecution for breaking the terms of the ANO.

Breaking the height limit accidentally at the top of a loop on the odd occasion is unlikely to be detected but should a complaint be raised, I'm sure it isn't beyond the wit of the authorities to measure by triangulation and/or electronic means during any investigation.

It would be in every modeller's interest to make every effort to comply with the legislation and implying (intentionally or not) that pilots need not be too bothered about the consequences is, in my opinion, very bad advice to be stating in public.

[The Wright Stuff]

I imagine that there will be a degree of common sense involved. Much like speeding in a car. There are precision and accuracy limitations on any measurement technique. You are unlikely to be prosecuted for flying at 405'.

[JOHN MOSLEY 2]

Posted by Martin Harris on 18/07/2018 11:31:50:

Posted by Howard Winwood on 18/07/2018 08:59:14:

how do you tell if you are flying above 400ft?, how do the authorities tell?

who is going to police it?

police do not have resources to tackle phone theft, burglaries or a lot of other crimes, policing drones (model aircraft) is not going to be a priority.

remember, the authorities have to PROVE you were flying above 400ft.

for most club flyers i doubt it will be a problem anyway.

The law will not be concerned with how you tell how high you are flying - it will simply be an offence not to comply. Yes, routine monitoring is unlikely to happen but as others have pointed out, in the dreadful event that your model caused an accident with another aircraft, your insurance could be invalidated and you could be prosecuted for causing death or injury by gross negligence or some similar offence. This is all above and beyond the simple prosecution for breaking the terms of the ANO.

Breaking the height limit accidentally at the top of a loop on the odd occasion is unlikely to be detected but should a complaint be raised, I'm sure it isn't beyond the wit of the authorities to measure by triangulation and/or electronic means during any investigation.

It would be in every modeller's interest to make every effort to comply with the legislation and implying (intentionally or not) that pilots need not be too bothered about the consequences is, in my opinion, very bad advice to be stating in public.

I agree but what has brought these new regulations in force, the law breakers flying mainly unregulated drones, not model aircraft. Its not the police who will be prosecuting law breakers but the CAA. The fall out from the unregulated drones is going to affect everybody drone flyers or model aircraft alike. As I pointed out in my post, slope flyers could be badly affected, by these new regulations.

Edited By JOHN MOSLEY 2 on 18/07/2018 11:46:09

Edited By JOHN MOSLEY 2 on 18/07/2018 11:47:31

[The Wright Stuff]

Oh my god we are going around and around. A model aircraft is an unregulated drone, at present. Yes, we could be badly affected, but times change. The world evolves. We need to adapt and evolve too. It could be much much worse.

Think of this for a second. I could regard myself as an exceptional driver. Maybe I have 20/20 vision, lightning reflexes, superior intelligence and outstanding awareness. I am responsible and I have a genuine reason for my journey. But I am still subjected to the same 60 mph speed limit on an A road as everyone else.

How insulting to be treated the same as the drunk boy racers who are out joyriding!

[MattyB]

Posted by JOHN MOSLEY 2 on 18/07/2018 11:45:09:

...I agree but what has brought these new regulations in force, the law breakers flying mainly unregulated drones, not model aircraft. Its not the police who will be prosecuting law breakers but the CAA. The fall out from the unregulated drones is going to affect everybody drone flyers or model aircraft alike.

No, what brought this about primarily is not improving safety for manned flight; that is a smokescreen. Read the detail of the various DfT and EASA docs and it is clear the prime goal is enabling and supporting commercial drone operations in the airspace below 1000ft to deliver economic benefits for the country, whether you believe that is realistic or not.