New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Guys, its only the 19th, there are 12 days to the end of the month, and keep in mind the end of the month wasn't a promise - CAA/DfT simply said they "saw no reason why" it shouldn't be in place by then. Maybe they see a reason now!

Yes, it is very likely that we have a slight impasse due to te fact that CAA will not grant all of what BMFA et al all of want. But also consider this: the CAA does have one or two other matters to deal with, while I'm sure they have good will and want to see this sorted as soon as it can be, its vary, very, unlikely to be their number one priority, or even particularly high on their list of priorities. So if you have visions of BMFA and CAA locked in smoke filled rooms for days (weeks!) on end I think you need to think again. Its perfectly possible BMFA haven't even managed to get a face-to-face maeeting with CAA and DfT yet! From the point of view of the latter this should be able to be dealt with in a 1 hour meeting following some initial exchanges of correspondance to set the scene. Afterall "This is what we are perpared to agree to" does not take long to say!

So, what's the message? Its the same as it was yesterday and the day before; we can only be patient and wait.

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I always thought there was a presumption of innocence in English law and guilt had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence presented by the prosecution. Any departure from this practice would surely be seized on by enterprising lawyers to launch an appeal against an unsafe conviction.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Steve J on 19/07/2018 12:18:22:

Posted by Gordon Whitehead 1 on 18/07/2018 21:12:26:

Has anyone else out there got similar experience?

Altitude telemetry from my 30cc MX2. Mostly below 400ft, but it looks like I'm going to have to give up my flat spins and be careful with the stall turns .

Steve

A flight picked at random with a "typical club model" (Extreme Flight 58" Extra) flown through (I have little doubt - I picked totally at random so have no particular recollection) a range of appropriate manoeuvres - a few others checked since are broadly similar. I don't think the average club flyer should have too many worries if they aren't silly but I would recommend getting suitably equipped clubmates to demonstrate what different models look like at heights approaching the limits should no resolution be in place at the end of the month.

Edited By Martin Harris on 19/07/2018 12:55:22

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 19/07/2018 12:19:29:

Guys, its only the 19th, there are 12 days to the end of the month, and keep in mind the end of the month wasn't a promise - CAA/DfT simply said they "saw no reason why" it shouldn't be in place by then. Maybe they see a reason now!

That is exactly the concern. If they are at an impasse and the end of the month passes then flying above 400ft will be illegal even for members of the MFAs. Organisers of slope and thermal comps and potentially power fly-ins etc may have to cancel events at that point because they will not be able to guarantee they can be conducted lawfully.

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 19/07/2018 12:19:29:

...Yes, it is very likely that we have a slight impasse due to te fact that CAA will not grant all of what BMFA et al all of want. But also consider this: the CAA does have one or two other matters to deal with, while I'm sure they have good will and want to see this sorted as soon as it can be, its vary, very, unlikely to be their number one priority, or even particularly high on their list of priorities. So if you have visions of BMFA and CAA locked in smoke filled rooms for days (weeks!) on end I think you need to think again. Its perfectly possible BMFA haven't even managed to get a face-to-face meeting with CAA and DfT yet! From the point of view of the latter this should be able to be dealt with in a 1 hour meeting following some initial exchanges of correspondance to set the scene. After all "This is what we are prepared to agree to" does not take long to say!

From page 27 of this thread on 10th July (last week), as posted by the BMFA on Facebook...

"Hi Matt thanks for your comment. The BMFA's CEO has spent 3 days negotiating with authorities this week, so the BMFA is continuing to press the matter as promised. As soon as we have a confirmed update we will post accordingly."

Edited By MattyB on 19/07/2018 15:46:40

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by MattyB on 19/07/2018 15:39:47:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 19/07/2018 12:19:29:

Guys, its only the 19th, there are 12 days to the end of the month, and keep in mind the end of the month wasn't a promise - CAA/DfT simply said they "saw no reason why" it shouldn't be in place by then. Maybe they see a reason now!

That is exactly the concern. If they are at an impasse and the end of the month passes then flying above 400ft will be illegal even for members of the MFAs. Organisers of slope and thermal comps and potentially power fly-ins etc may have to cancel events at that point because they will not be able to guarantee they can be conducted lawfully.

Good excuse to get yourselves off to Don Valley on 28th / 29th July.

It might be you last chance to legally fly high!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Be glad when it's August, do you never stop ?

[Erfolg]

I do believe that the principal that every one is innocent to proven guilty is an accept concept. I personally see things a little differently, in that you are innocent until found guilty. Being found guilty or innocent is IMO not just dependent on being innocent or guilty. Reading the newspapers it appears that the guilty sometimes are found to be innocent. Recent cases have shown that the innocent have been found guilty. Yet there is no single clear cut reason why. In some cases it has been the police with holding evidence that does not support their case, other times just the mood of society and the jury. Even the ability to have the resources to fight your corner. In the contra cases, the arguments as to why can be disturbingly similar. Even the sentence for being found guilty is often questionable, ranging from making an example, through to a reformining liberal agenda.

From our perspective, getting into a discussion on the issue is just a waste of time.

What matters to most clubs is have the happy days ended. Are we going to be constrained to such an extent, that the hobby looses may of the present practitioners, will there be new blood attracted to the hobby in the future.

[i12fly]

Well Erfolg, I sort of agree, nowadays it seems truth is not important, what matters is who can win their argument -whether guilty or innocent is unimportant to the players, its just a job after all. I just hope that 400 ft and other restrictions coming our way can be softened. We have to trust BMFA, it is their interest too to fight our corner, D Phipps isn't treating it as a jolly time. The art of negotiation is keep your powder dry, play your cards close to your chest, never give anything for free hoping to receive something back, form alliances. He appears to be doing the right thing. Hope so. I think he could teach Parliament a few things. However we're all anxious for news as it means so much to us. We need to remain patient.

[Rich too]

Posted by Erfolg on 19/07/2018 23:12:43:

I do believe that the principal that every one is innocent to proven guilty is an accept concept. I personally see things a little differently, in that you are innocent until found guilty. Being found guilty or innocent is IMO not just dependent on being innocent or guilty. Reading the newspapers it appears that the guilty sometimes are found to be innocent. Recent cases have shown that the innocent have been found guilty. Yet there is no single clear cut reason why. In some cases it has been the police with holding evidence that does not support their case, other times just the mood of society and the jury. Even the ability to have the resources to fight your corner. In the contra cases, the arguments as to why can be disturbingly similar. Even the sentence for being found guilty is often questionable, ranging from making an example, through to a reformining liberal agenda.

From our perspective, getting into a discussion on the issue is just a waste of time.

What matters to most clubs is have the happy days ended. Are we going to be constrained to such an extent, that the hobby looses may of the present practitioners, will there be new blood attracted to the hobby in the future.

What????

[stu knowles]

The organsations that represent our interests, BMFA, LMA, FPVUK have been told that there will be an exemption for all their members from any imposed height limit beyond what exists under current law.

How is that not clear? Some of the contributions to this thread are absolute drivel.

[Alan Gorham_]

Stu - I think the main issue for many is that the statement released expected the exemption to be in place by the end of this month, but there's been no visible progress on this.

Even if the progress was: "not going to be in place by end of July, but will be in place by end of August".

It seems that some are worried that the outcome may end up being: "sorry, we've looked at a blanket exemption and you're not getting one".

[ChrisB]

You can’t issue an amendment to a statue that itself hasn’t been invoked. So wait until the 30th

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

The worry is what form any exemption is going to take and how universally it will be available. The press release simply stated that the CAA didn't see any reason why "an exemption" couldn't be issued but we are awaiting any news of what such an exemption will permit - and where.

My own club operates at the edge of the CTR of a major airport 3 miles from the extended centre line of the runway but in an area rarely overflown. We have an exemption, renewed annually, to allow 7 - 20kg models (and FPV) to operate to 400' AGL within a defined boundary - which we have been permitted to extend to 1000' on a couple of occasions. By my interpretation of existing legislation (and confirmed in a letter from the airport in 1982 when the club acquired its field) there is no legal control (other than that pertaining to endangerment and the requirement to maintain visual contact) to model flying at any height in controlled airspace.

While the 400' limit is sufficient for normal club flying, I doubt, for example, that we will be given an exemption for any models to operate above 400' which means the end for any meaningful thermal gliding at the site.

While I am obviously very interested in the outcome of negotiations, the fact that the BMFA haven't been able to issue an update is more likely to be that they see no point in speculating until there is an agreed outcome and I see nothing sinister in the lack of information. There will surely be a statement by the end of the month, even if no agreement has been reached and I am happy to await that.

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/07/2018 12:45:34

[MattyB]

Posted by stu knowles on 20/07/2018 09:05:34:

The organsations that represent our interests, BMFA, LMA, FPVUK have been told that there will be an exemption for all their members from any imposed height limit beyond what exists under current law.

How is that not clear? Some of the contributions to this thread are absolute drivel.

I would love to believe that, but when the Baroness Sugg (the Minister for Aviation from the DfT) is stating explicitly that an exception of the type the BMFA have promised is undesirable then it is not unreasonable to express doubts:

I sincerely hope to be proved wrong, but I just cannot see MFA members being granted a blanket exemption to 1k feet at this point. 

Edited By MattyB on 20/07/2018 15:57:06

[Gary Manuel]

Hi Matty.

Are you sure that you've attached the correct letter extract?

Nowhere in that letter does it say that an exemption would be undesirable.

In fact it says that an exemption could be granted by the CAA, which is exactly what the BMFA etc are pursuing on our behalf.

I would suggest being patient and wait to see what happens.

[Erfolg]

Gary

A response from Baroness Sugg has previously been pasted within a posting on this thread, which did state that an exemption would be undesirable.

Even if a rabbit is pulled out of the hat at the 12 hour, there are enough changes as to how we operate, specified in concept, to suggest that the BMFA needs to get out a definitive explanation of how we will need to operate and organise ourselves in the future, with respect to such changes as an online test etc. Not some time latter, or as piece meal information circular, that will leave some unaware of some aspect of how we will be required to operate.

All of this is a big set of jobs, that goes a long way beyond just negotiating.

[Gary Manuel]

OK but I would still suggest being patient and wait to see what happens

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Erfolg on 20/07/2018 19:48:17:

Gary

A response from Baroness Sugg has previously been pasted within a posting on this thread, which did state that an exemption would be undesirable.

I must have missed this. What page is it on?

[Mike Blandford]

For interest I put a vario in my aerobatic model (the one in my avatar, 52 inch span) and flew it today while logging the telemetry data. The model is quite light (3.5 pounds I think) and has around 700W available!

For much of the flight I was comfortably below 400 feet, but I did fly in level at around 100 feet then pull up into a vertical roll (single roll) and then do a stall turn. The height peaked at 500 feet, and took only 5 seconds to go from 100 to 500 feet.. Later in the flight I pulled a nice large loop and that peaked at 401 feet, again taking only 5 seconds to go from 70 feet to 401 feet..

Mike

[Rich too]

I’m not surprised, 400 is not a lot.

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Thanks for your figures Steve, Martin and Mike. I don't have automatic data logging so had to look at the Tx display when doing my height checks, then I forgot to post the figures. The Katana weighs about 6.6lb with 800W. The totem pole went up to about 600ft, the rolling loop about 530, and the figure M which is one of my favourite figures went to about 500ft. My Boomerang Nano which does all the figures with more gusto would have topped at 800ft easily.

The Nano has both airspeed and height telemetry. On the level its max speed is a not too impressive 125mph. The top speed I've seen, however, is just on 150mph. To get this speed requires a climb to 1500ft (announced by the altimeter's beeper), followed by a vertical dive almost to ground level, with the 150mph announced by the telemetry ASI beeper.

If we don't get an exemption there's going to be a lot less flying fun to be had for many of us. In fact a lot less reason to go R/C flying at all.

(Off topic, the real reason for the airspeed telemetry on the Nano is to let me know when the landing approach speed has fallen to below 38mph, which means the model is then slow enough to land comfortably within the confines of our 65m strip.)

Gordon

[Erfolg]

Gordon

Your third paragraph identifies my fear for our hobby. How many people loosing interest in continuing with the hobby, not entering the hobby, for the BMFA in addition to many of the present clubs to cease, as we now know them?

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Hi Erf

On and off for the past year or so I've been designing a Jet Provost to replace my 9 year old Nano. The full size JP was an elegant airshow aerobat in its day despite its relatively low power, and nobody else is going to design one for a Wren 44.

However, a permanent 400ft height limit will so restrict my model's ability to display that I might well decide that it'll be a waste of time proceeding with the design and build.

Gordon