New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Ikura on 11/06/2018 16:14:17:

If the BMFA are taking subscriptions from individuals within, and outside, the club structure then the BMFA should represent all subscribers equally.

Absolutely, who says they are not representing all our interests ? club structure makes it easier to argue our case/position though, which is what BEB said ish.

[Erfolg]

It has been suggested that the lack of information from the BMFA is the need to play their cards close to their chest. I personally do not buy the argument.

Much of the posting is driven via press releases first appearing in the Press and the television News channels.

The response in general from the BMFA has generally to distribute the same press release without comment. No hint of the official BMFA view, etc.

The topic of these regulations has been common comment at many club fields, generally with the rider that the BMFA said there was nothing to worry about, life would go on as before, then the accusation, so why has the 400 foot limit come about, as it affects us big model, or Jet Models or Glider flyers.

Where is the management of our expectations and information as to why this and perhaps other big issues cannot be avoided. As I restate, for many modelers +150 miles from the NFC, this is something that matters to us all. Just like many shareholders I could not careless if the head office is rather nice, and I could visit it, I only worry about the dividend and the long term viability of the business. In this case it is club flying and specifically my club.

There has been suggested that glider flyers do not have glider clubs, I know two without any research, BATS and Timperley, I am sure there are many more, then there are the FF Clubs, all threatened by the 400 foot limit.

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/06/2018 15:10:32:

...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 see 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 organised and 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.

What you are suggesting sounds ok in theory, but even if we had started 18 months ago it would have been untenable. I have no idea how many public sites are regularly flown by soarers, but it is certainly many hundreds, possibly >1000. At the sites with no current club the local users would have to self organise themselves, form a club and find the 5 members minimum in order to affiliate with the BMFA.

If you fly multiple sites (as most soarers do) you can still only use your membership once to create an affiliated club. Assuming 500 new clubs were needed, that means 2500 new BMFA members / BMFA country members are required to register all the sites with a club presence. All the clubs then need a governance structure (committee, constitution etc) plus all the admin bits (subs, bank accounts etc). At present all this would need to be done by word of mouth (online and in person) with no direction from the BMFA, BARCS or anyone else. Any volunteers?!!

Clearly the above is impossible, hence why I suggested a single national soaring club affiliated to the BMFA that would act as a "tenant" at sites that don't currently have one. The BMFA stated that this was not necessary in 2016 as they are going for an endgame where all their members (country and club affiliated) enjoy an exemption in all these locations. If they can achieve that then great, but my concern is that if they are unsuccessful the compromise we are offered may be a big one. At this point we can only cross our fingers and hope for the best.

PS - There is another problem with clubs and soaring too; many soarers (particularly slope pilots) enjoy the discipline in part because they don't have to be in a club! Many don't want the politics and paper pushing that often goes on in clubs, so choose to engage in slope and thermal soaring where you can opt out of that. A percentage of these individuals would probably not join a local club because they would see it as an unnecessary infringement on their right of access to a public site to participate in an activity they have done safely for many years.

Edited By MattyB on 11/06/2018 17:56:24

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Erfolg on 11/06/2018 17:39:53:

It has been suggested that the lack of information from the BMFA is the need to play their cards close to their chest. I personally do not buy the argument.

Much of the posting is driven via press releases first appearing in the Press and the television News channels.

The response in general from the BMFA has generally to distribute the same press release without comment. No hint of the official BMFA view, etc.

The topic of these regulations has been common comment at many club fields, generally with the rider that the BMFA said there was nothing to worry about, life would go on as before, then the accusation, so why has the 400 foot limit come about, as it affects us big model, or Jet Models or Glider flyers.

Where is the management of our expectations and information as to why this and perhaps other big issues cannot be avoided? As I restate, for many modelers +150 miles from the NFC, this is something that matters to us all. Just like many shareholders I could not careless if the head office is rather nice, and I could visit it, I only worry about the dividend and the long term viability of the business. In this case it is club flying and specifically my club.

Presumably they have played it very quietly because they do not want to antagonise the likes of EASA and the DfT. Whether that strategy was correct will only be evaluated once the final outcome is known, but I tend to agree that more should have been shared and members mobilised to help fight the changes more actively.

Posted by Erfolg on 11/06/2018 17:39:53:

There has been suggested that glider flyers do not have glider clubs, I know two without any research, BATS and Timperley, I am sure there are many more, then there are the FF Clubs, all threatened by the 400 foot limit.

Of course there are soaring clubs out there (I am a member of two, Coombe Hill and Ivinghoe). They are pretty rare though - most slope sites do not have a club, and even for those that do you do not necessarily need to be a member to fly as it's public access. Such sites may be used infrequently, but they are used and if access is restricted by onerous new regulations that would be extremely disappointing.

Edited By MattyB on 11/06/2018 18:04:25

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I am sure, as I said, the BMFA will be doing their best represent every section of the hobby. But what I'm saying is its a lot easier to make and fire the bullets when you have some sort of co-herent group behind you rather than 2,500 individuals.

Matty, I completely accept your general point - its damn hard to heard cats! But where we differ is I don't believe it's impossible to at least make some sort of impact. Some structure, some Governance, even if incomplate and patchy, is better than none which is what we seem to have now, at least that's what I think. Remember, I don't fly gliders, I have nothing to lose here, but I'm not happy with the idea of any sector of our hobby lossing out on this, even ones I don't use!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/06/2018 18:13:11

[Rich too]

Posted by Erfolg on 11/06/2018 17:39:53:

It has been suggested that the lack of information from the BMFA is the need to play their cards close to their chest. I personally do not buy the argument.

Much of the posting is driven via press releases first appearing in the Press and the television News channels.

The response in general from the BMFA has generally to distribute the same press release without comment. No hint of the official BMFA view, etc.

The topic of these regulations has been common comment at many club fields, generally with the rider that the BMFA said there was nothing to worry about, life would go on as before, then the accusation, so why has the 400 foot limit come about, as it affects us big model, or Jet Models or Glider flyers.

Where is the management of our expectations and information as to why this and perhaps other big issues cannot be avoided. As I restate, for many modelers +150 miles from the NFC, this is something that matters to us all. Just like many shareholders I could not careless if the head office is rather nice, and I could visit it, I only worry about the dividend and the long term viability of the business. In this case it is club flying and specifically my club.

There has been suggested that glider flyers do not have glider clubs, I know two without any research, BATS and Timperley, I am sure there are many more, then there are the FF Clubs, all threatened by the 400 foot limit.

Unless I’m mistaken, the 400ft limit has applied to models over 7kg for some time now anyway? Before the drone laws...

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 11/06/2018 18:01:09:

Posted by MattyB on 11/06/2018 17:43:36:

Clearly the above is impossible, hence why I suggested a single national soaring club affiliated to the BMFA that would act as a "tenant" at sites that don't currently have one.

I never understood this. How can this national soaring club be the tenant at a site where it has no relationship with the landowner and no control over who flies there? Essentially what you are saying is that the BMFA should maintain a list of slope sites. Interestingly enough, this seems to be similar to what is happening in France although I don't know what the procedure in France is to get a site listed in section 5.5 of their AIP.

I never said it was perfect, just better than the current state! Rationale:

1. It seems unlikely that permanent exemptions to things like the 400ft rule could be negotiated with the CAA without the location being formally recognised in some way as a model flying site. If this were not the case the whole country could end up with a 1000ft exemption for BMFA members and the legislators would not have gained anything (not saying I support them, just being pragmatic!). This is a way of doing that.
2. There is nothing to stop the BMFA themselves having a direct relationship with the landowner under this model. Yes it would require significantly more horsepower in their club relations department, but it could be done.
3. Those clubs that operate on public sites where you have to be a member to fly do not police that rule themselves; that remains the landowners job. Yes we tend to keep an eye out and talk to visitors about their conduct and the rules, but I am not aware of any club that takes legal responsibility for ensuring only their members fly a public access site. The clubs only take responsibility for the conduct of their members.
4. As you say, this model has been proposed and is being implemented in other EU countries. It may therefore be more acceptable to the CAA and DfT than a solution unique to the UK.

You probably think this is inefficient and overly elaborate compared to individual pilot registration via the BMFA and registering awareness of activity in real time via an app like Drone Aware. I tend to agree, but it does remain an option, and at this point I suggest we need as many of those as possible.

Edited By MattyB on 11/06/2018 18:34:59

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/06/2018 18:12:31:

I am sure, as I said, the BMFA will be doing their best represent every section of the hobby. But what I'm saying is its a lot easier to make and fire the bullets when you have some sort of co-herent group behind you rather than 2,500 individuals.

Matty, I completely accept your general point - its damn hard to heard cats! But where we differ is I don't believe it's impossible to at least make some sort of impact. Some structure, some Governance, even if incomplete and patchy, is better than none which is what we seem to have now, at least that's what I think.

We have "incomplete and patchy" already - a smallish subset of soaring sites have active clubs and the rest have nothing. Adding a handful of additional clubs (the best possible outcome in the time available) won't really make much difference to our negotiating position of the future of the sport; we'd need to get hundreds of sites registered to do that. Without central coordination and horsepower from the BMFA and BARCS that could be a decade of voluntary work.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Rich too]

Thanks for  that Steve, reading that just wound me up! The whole situation and threat against our hobby is ludicrous.

Edited By Rich too on 12/06/2018 05:28:43

[Devcon1]

Curious to look on the FlySafe app to see if our own database of club flying sites are represented but you need to have a Coverdrone insurance policy to access it.

Does anybody here use the FlySafe app out of interest ?

[Andy Meade]

If there a specific area you want me to check? I have FlySafe and hold a Coverdone policy currently.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 11/06/2018 21:03:39:

Have you read Altitude Angle's "Vision for U-Space"?

**LINK**

Altitude Angel being NATS' UTM partner.

Interesting stuff, particularly the recreational VLOS example towards the end. It also shows that whatever the BMFA manage to negotiate with the CAA this time around this is far from an endgame - they have years of work in front of them defending model flying.

PS - Those of you who believe the driver of the new legislation is safety for manned aircraft need to read the doc linked above. It shows clearly that the primary aim is integrating large scale commercial drone usage into our airspace, with additional significant additional requirements placed on recreational users beyond the 400ft limit and pilot registration. Here is the example they give for a recreational VLOS flight:

RECREATIONAL VISUAL LINE-OF-SIGHT (VLOS)

It will be very useful for the UTM system to know about the location of VLoS drone operations, but it will be a political decision as to whether it becomes mandatory to declare where you are flying (which will also be based upon a function of how simple and accessible the tools are in order to file such a declaration).

There are also commercial drivers affecting whether VLoS flights are captured and the insurance market is key in defining a lot of these requirements, too. For instance, while it may not be the law to declare your VLoS flight, it might be written into an insurance policy from an insurer that you do so.

In the future, VLoS drones may well connect to U-Space and send a telemetry stream, but this will not be the case for a pre-U-Space VLoS drone.

For people flying recreationally, the following is an example of the pilot’s view of their interactions with U-Space:

1. The pilot, having previously registered themselves and their drone, uses their registry logon details to identify themselves to their U-Space service provider’s app on their phone. This is the app or service of their choosing.
2. They use the app to check whether they can fly at their current location; at this location they are seeing no restrictions, so they tell the app that they want to fly now.
3. Their U-Space service provider submits a request to the Orchestrator, containing the location and details of the pilot and drone from the registration system.
4. The Orchestrator checks a number of factors including airspace restrictions, the pilot’s qualifications and whether any manual input from an external stakeholder is required to grant the permission, and upon finding no restrictions or conflicting flights; grants the operator permission to fly.
5. The app displays to the pilot their permission to fly and securely stores and logs it.
6. During the flight if there is any conflicting traffic or airspace changes, the app notifies the pilot.
7. At the end of the flight, the pilot lets the app know that the drone has landed, and in turn, the Orchestrator is notified that the flight is complete.

[Cuban8]

Posted by MattyB on 12/06/2018 09:41:49:

Posted by Steve J on 11/06/2018 21:03:39:

Have you read Altitude Angle's "Vision for U-Space"?

**LINK**

Altitude Angel being NATS' UTM partner.

Those of you who believe the driver of the new legislation is safety for manned aircraft need to read the doc linked above. It shows clearly that the primary aim is integrating large scale commercial drone usage into our airspace, with additional significant additional requirements placed on recreational users beyond the 400ft limit and pilot registration.

Agree..........the manned aircraft safety issue has historically, always been a vital part of our operations via the ANO and with very few incidents involving aeromodellers over past decades, demonstrates how safe we are and could continue to be so. Any fine tuning of our activities have easily been carried out where necessary, and as far as I'm aware, have only very rarely ended up with a requirement to totally stop flying from a particular site or have such restrictions imposed to make flying impractical.

As for the large scale use of autonomous drones that they love dreaming about...........I'm reminded of Captain Mainwaring chiding Corporal Jones with "I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy". Trouble is, their fantasy could cost us all dearly, if good sense doesn't prevail.

Edited By Cuban8 on 12/06/2018 10:41:55

[Devcon1]

Hi Andy,

Thanks for that, rather than my own site I guess a good one to check out of curiosity would be Buckminster or NG33 5RW.

Re Altitude Angel, they have recently been given a $4,500,000 grant to further develop their "Unmanned Aircraft Traffic Management system" so huge momentum being gained in seeking to control the airspace we operate in.

I wonder how many people currently adhere to use of the FlySafe app.

[Erfolg]

I do not think it is the realms of fantasy, that Matty has brought to our attention, not from the perspective of commercial operators.

My recent observation of a farming application, indicates that some one is thinking of spot or even greater application of chemicals, probably using by todays standards, very large machines with a real payload. That is without all of the applications from power, rail track line inspections and so on that we are all aware of. The skies low down could be pretty soon full up.

I believe we all recognise that those lobbying on behalf of the BMFA will be doing the best they can. Yet again Matty's post indicates the scale and probably the long term nature of the task. With respect to the NFC, there has been quite a lot of PR work, in the past, via Email and now a few pages in the RCM&E. The same PR work with the membership and legislators and the public is appropriate to this issue. We now have a full time experienced PR person I understand, perhaps he needs to be focussed on this issue.

If the impositions from Matty's post are implemented, it will certainly be the end of aeromodeling for much of the population. In some ways the requirements seem to prevent children with flying toys, FF models being legally flown.

I know it is boring, with no qudos for those involved, what ever they manage to protect, this really is a big issue for all of aeromodelling in the UK and probably all of Europe. The idea that the NFC matters in promoting the sport/hobby becomes irrelevant, if the most onerous aspects of the proposed legislation become a reality.

Edited By Erfolg on 12/06/2018 11:03:23

Edited By Erfolg on 12/06/2018 11:04:34

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Cuban8 on 12/06/2018 10:41:14:

As for the large scale use of autonomous drones that they love dreaming about...........I'm reminded of Captain Mainwaring chiding Corporal Jones with "I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy". Trouble is, their fantasy could cost us all dearly, if good sense doesn't prevail.

You can stick your head in the sand if you like, but we are far, far past the point where we could have pushed back on these proposals and our operations remain untouched. Whether widespread commercial drone use happens soon, far in the future or not at all can be debated ad infinitum, but it is clear that the authorities are unified in wanting the legal and legislative frameworks in place to ensure it can happen when and if the technology matures.

Personally I am a little conflicted on this. I don't want my existing rights to fly affected, but if model flying had never existed and was invented tomorrow I'm pragmatic enough to realise there is no way we would be allowed to operate in the way we do currently. Insurance and competency testing would be made mandatory and registration required. I have also seen lots of unsafe practices at public sites and clubs in the past, and that has increased in recent times as multirotors have become popular and the average age of aeromodelling participants continues to increase. Whilst aeromodelling does have an excellent safety record I believe that incidents are likely to increase if there are more commercial drones sharing our airspace and more recreational pilots with semi-autonomous models bought RTF. Time will tell, but to preserve some access at public sites I suspect we will have to make reasonably significant concessions now.

Edited By MattyB on 12/06/2018 11:39:49

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Devcon1]

My mistake Steve J, it should have read investment.

Just been browsing through this organisation which made the investment and very interesting reading it is too.

John

[Cuban8]

Posted by MattyB on 12/06/2018 11:36:20:

Posted by Cuban8 on 12/06/2018 10:41:14:

As for the large scale use of autonomous drones that they love dreaming about...........I'm reminded of Captain Mainwaring chiding Corporal Jones with "I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy". Trouble is, their fantasy could cost us all dearly, if good sense doesn't prevail.

Whether widespread commercial drone use happens soon, far in the future or not at all can be debated ad infinitum, but it is clear that the authorities are unified in wanting the legal and legislative frameworks in place to ensure it can happen when and if the technology matures.

Edited By MattyB on 12/06/2018 11:39:49

That's an extraordinary stance to be taken by 'the authorities'. No real guarantee that a very large scale commercial drone industry, the like of which is imagined, will ever appear in a realistic timescale, and a whole host of other technical details to either be put in place or perfected - and then presumably, an extended period of small scale testing in a 'guinea pig area' before extending further.

I don't feel that any of us have our 'heads in the sand' with our concerns, but just because some people have invested on some pretty thin evidence so far (their money, they can do as they please) doesn't mean that they'll be backing a winner. - perhaps just another 'bubble' like so many others?

[Andy Meade]

Hi Dev,

Here is the picture over Buckminster. By clicking on the top Air Navigation Warning, you are taken to another screen which identifies the NOTAM, and declares that large models are cleared to 2000ft here.

Posted by Devcon1 on 12/06/2018 10:59:10:

Hi Andy,

Thanks for that, rather than my own site I guess a good one to check out of curiosity would be Buckminster or NG33 5RW.

Re Altitude Angel, they have recently been given a $4,500,000 grant to further develop their "Unmanned Aircraft Traffic Management system" so huge momentum being gained in seeking to control the airspace we operate in.

I wonder how many people currently adhere to use of the FlySafe app.