New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Nigel R]

"That's what the legislation should be about"

Feel free to lobby your local MP for some more and different legislation then.

This legislation, as in the one which is actually being implemented, is about making it illegal to be in the airspace which the government wants to use for commercial use.

Can you honestly not recognise a good thing when it is right there in front of your face!?

[kc]

Again Martin you have got it wrong! I want the same laws to apply to everyone not just BMFA/LMA/SAA members. What has made club flying safer is the ( mostly ) accepted rule that to fly solo you need a BMFA A cert ( or equivalent) or a supervising qualified model pilot. This is what has made club flying safer.

Clearly the lawmakers either wanted to make airliners safe from buzzing by drones or they wanted to clear the sky for commercial drones. But they pounced on the innocent club fliers and failed to deal with the actual troublemakers who are probably youths with drones and no knowledge or insurance.  

If the BMFA/LMA/SAA/FPV group had had persuaded the CAA that training to A cert level & insurance should be mandatory to fly solo then we could say that something has been achieved.  Instead months of negotions have just got us  back where we were  a year ago except that if you are caught flying over 400 ft under 7 kilo you get away with it if you are a BMFA etc member or can be prosecuted if you failed to join.   

Edited By kc on 25/07/2018 16:22:09

[Alan Gorham_]

Define "pounced on the innocent club fliers"? What has been done to them? Absolutely nothing at all isn't it?

[MattyB]

I have to admit I am utterly amazed (but very pleased) to see this exemption come into reality. Given Baroness Sugg's responses in recent weeks I had lost hope, but it seems the DfT and CAA must not have been singing from the same hymn sheet and the rabbit has well and truly been pulled out of the hat by the MFAs - well done to all concerned. The most surprising element though is the handling of multirotors. Despite the ANO not defining them or the term drone anywhere, this exemption effectively has, and it's kicked them to the curb hard. FPVUK members and those in the BMFA who fly multis exclusively must be none too pleased.

One caveat though... We all need to be cognisant of how fragile this is. The exemption could be withdrawn at any time, so any incident involving a member of an MFA and manned aircraft is likely to lead to a review. At some point the commercial operators will no doubt be lobbying for this to be revoked too, especially if section 336 were to go in the US. The battle has been won, but the war is not over.

[kc]

They pounced on the innocent club fliers who were going to be limited to 400 feet. But they should have pounced on the people who buzzed airliners and we are sure they are not club fliers.

[Alan Gorham_]

Pounced on them and immediately granted an exemption do you mean?

Plus it is not "club" flyers, it is any flyer who is a member of one of the UK recognised associations. IE those flyers who fly on slopes, lone flyers etc are still exempt from the new restrictions.

#you'vemissedthepoint

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[FilmBuff]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 25/07/2018 16:13:45:

Define "pounced on the innocent club fliers"? What has been done to them? Absolutely nothing at all isn't it?

KC - let it go, mate. This news is a positive outcome.

[Nigel R]

"Despite the ANO not defining them or the term drone anywhere, this exemption effectively has, and it's kicked them to the curb hard. "

Yes, that was an unexpected element to the exemption. Sets a precedent for other legislation / negotiation.

I think this small point may well have been the stickiest bit of the exemption.

[MattyB]

Posted by Nigel R on 25/07/2018 16:45:21:

"Despite the ANO not defining them or the term drone anywhere, this exemption effectively has, and it's kicked them to the curb hard. "

Yes, that was an unexpected element to the exemption. Sets a precedent for other legislation / negotiation.

I think this small point may well have been the stickiest bit of the exemption.

Indeed. Some interesting commentary from the BMFA themselves on FB when asked about this...

"The Government was concerned that those wishing to operate multi-rotor drones unlawfully would join the associations solely to benefit from our permission/exemption in order to evade the 400ft limit. There is a lot of data to support permissions for model flyers operating 'conventional' model aircraft (which is why we were able to negotiate the permission), but unfortunately there is also a lot of data showing significant numbers of unlawful multi-rotor drone flights, many of which are at much greater heights than 'conventional' model aircraft would operate (which is why the CAA would not include multi-rotors drones)."

Predictably there are some very angry multirotor flying members of the BMFA posting abut how unfair this is. I can see their point tbh, but suspect the MFAs were given a stark "take it or leave it" choice - either exclude multirotors or everyone has to abide by the 400ft limit. In that situation they chose the least worst option.

Edited By MattyB on 25/07/2018 16:53:16

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by MattyB on 25/07/2018 16:22:42:

Despite the ANO not defining them or the term drone anywhere, this exemption effectively has, and it's kicked them to the curb hard. FPVUK members and those in the BMFA who fly multis exclusively must be none too pleased.

Why they can still fly to 400ft, The FPV MR fliers I know (and we have one club member who flies this way exclusively) never goes above 100ft, I suspect that is true of most FPVUK fliers.

[MattyB]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 25/07/2018 16:54:00:

Posted by MattyB on 25/07/2018 16:22:42:

Despite the ANO not defining them or the term drone anywhere, this exemption effectively has, and it's kicked them to the curb hard. FPVUK members and those in the BMFA who fly multis exclusively must be none too pleased.

Why they can still fly to 400ft, The FPV MR fliers I know (and we have one club member who flies this way exclusively) never goes above 100ft, I suspect that is true of most FPVUK fliers.

Don't shoot the messenger - follow the link I just posted above, you will see some of their arguments they are posting there. Basically they feel they have been sold down the river by the MFAs in order to get the exemption. To an extent I agree, but I also believe the MFAs had to concede something or all their members would be in a very different situation. The issue is that this may actually lead to multirotor pilots leaving the MFAs (and therefore flying uninsured) as they are disenchanted with the outcome here.

Edited By MattyB on 25/07/2018 17:01:37

[Devcon1]

Very good news indeed, I see no negatives and the recognition of multi rotors as the primary cause of concern has been very intelligently managed.

You can't legislate to prevent somebody carrying out an unlawful act but you can have the law in the toolbox to aid prosecution.

Thanks to all those involved in fighting our case, I'm sure it hasn't happened without a huge effort.

[MattyB]

Confirmation from the BMFA that the MFAs were offered no alternative to multirotors being excluded from the exemption; it was that or accept 400ft for all ...

"Darren Lines Good news, but a bittersweet result.

I feel that segregating multi rotors is a bit lame, when the whole hobby is supposed to be represented. I find the argument that those wanting to take part in illegal activities would join an organisation to do so completely absurd (they will just do what they want regardless of laws and rules). It’s just unnecessarily sacrificing one new area of the hobby that a lot of stick-in-the-muds don’t like for the rest of it. We should all be in this together.

Dave Phipps The whole hobby is represented. The reality is however that the only option available for sticking together was for us all to stick together below 400ft!"

Edited By MattyB on 25/07/2018 17:33:40

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why multi-rotors would need to fly at anywhere near 400' - do their pilots all have bionic eyesight?

Are multi-rotor members of the 4 qualifying organisations actually disadvantaged in any meaningful way?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 25/07/2018 13:05:33:

Posted by kc on 25/07/2018 12:53:13:

If the exemption applies only to members of the 4 associations then it means we are forced to stay members of BMFA or LMA etc! It gives them a monopoly.......

But where do the non BMFA/LMA etc members stand? What laws apply to them from now on?

Not forced at all. Either don't fly above 400ft or apply for your own personal exemption, you will need to submit an operational safety case and pay the fee which is about £1800.00 + VAT

Love it.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Not gonna read all the posts, my glasses half full, much better outcome than I expected, really pleased you glider flyers can continue to go about your hobby, and also the non club flyers.

Well done again to all involved, including the CAA et al. just need weather to keep nice now.

[Craig Carr]

All I wish to say is many many thanks to all those involved within the BMFA; LMA et all for all their hard work on behalf of us all.

A fantastic agreement/achievement 👍

[ChrisB]

Why the big debate now? The time for debate has gone!!

Its all done now, get on with it and if you don't like it, then take up fishing or knitting!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

On a personal note:

I can't see the practical need to fly MR's over 400' - and I say that as a BMFA member who does occassionall still fly MR's. At more than 300' most MR's are getting difficult to see - cetainly from an orientation perspective. So I really don't feel there is an issue.

As an aside that might interest some, as many know I have flown MR's commercially, and some pretty big ones at that, I can only think of one practical instance when I wanted to fly at over 400' - it was when we asked to photograph some structural damage on a aerial mounted atop a very high building. I took off from, and was standing on the roof - approx 100' below te aerial, the drone was however over 400' agl. I could still do that today - I'd just need to apply for a special one-off permission from CAA. So no big issue there either.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 25/07/2018 20:38:54

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 25/07/2018 20:37:48:

On a personal note:

I can't see the practical need to fly MR's over 400' - and I say that as a BMFA member who does occassionall still fly MR's. At more than 300' most MR's are getting difficult to see - cetainly from an orientation perspective. So I really don't feel there is an issue.

Agreed! I don't personally fly drones, but a close friend does - in fact we've just done a video for the local golf club (he shot it, I edited it!) in return for the use of a piece of their land for model flying!

He currently flies flies a top of the range Mavic, which is "geo-fenced" and won't go above 400ft above the take-off point. When he was testing it, he took it up to the height limit. At that altitude, it was almost invisible. If you took your eyes off it to look elsewhere, it was very difficult to re-acquire it.

OK, the Mavic is small, but it has a gyro stabilised 4K camera that is more than adequate for professional broadcast work and beyond (and I speak as a retired broadcast TV video editor). When doing the golf club video, we were nowhere near the height limit, yet still managed to get fantastic panoramas of the course below.

So, professional use? Check! The majority of UK model pilots? Check! The only people who seem to have lost out are those who (for whatever reason) refuse to belong to any of the main modelling representative organisations. And if I was feeling harsh, I would say, why would they expect the support of such organisations, if they, in turn, refuse to support the organisations?

Well done the BMFA, et al. You have achieved more than we could have hoped for, and (it would appear!) more than the much better funded AMA have managed in the USA!

--

Pete

[Gary Manuel]

Hear Hear Pete!

Only thing I'd challenge is the bit about the AMA. I'm not sure whether they were invited to (or aware of) the video'd meeting I think you are referring to. Don't write the AMA off yet. We may actually be leading the world here.

[Geoff S]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 25/07/2018 20:37:48:

On a personal note:

I can't see the practical need to fly MR's over 400' - and I say that as a BMFA member who does occassionall still fly MR's. At more than 300' most MR's are getting difficult to see - cetainly from an orientation perspective. So I really don't feel there is an issue.

As an aside that might interest some, as many know I have flown MR's commercially, and some pretty big ones at that, I can only think of one practical instance when I wanted to fly at over 400' - it was when we asked to photograph some structural damage on a aerial mounted atop a very high building. I took off from, and was standing on the roof - approx 100' below te aerial, the drone was however over 400' agl. I could still do that today - I'd just need to apply for a special one-off permission from CAA. So no big issue there either.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 25/07/2018 20:38:54

Just out of interest, wouldn't the roof count as 'ground level' just as if you took off from the top of a hill and therefore the mast inspection would qualify as OK under the latest regulations?

Congratulations and thanks to the BMFA et al for actually getting the CAA to acknowledge that aeromodellers have a proven track record for responsible use of the airspace.

Geoff

[andyh]

Posted by Geoff Sleath on 26/07/2018 01:07:29:

Just out of interest, wouldn't the roof count as 'ground level' just as if you took off from the top of a hill and therefore the mast inspection would qualify as OK under the latest regulations?

how are other airspace users to know that someone is using a height above ground level as their personal ground level reference? hilltop level is fairly unambiguously "ground level" for all users.

[Gordon Whitehead 1]

Somewhere within these 38 pages Geoff is a reference in the official documents defining ground level as just that, ignoring buildings, trees etc. I read and noted it because we have tall trees bordering our flying field so our club has a vested interest in knowing the situation ref ground level. But I'm not wading back through this lot to find it!

Gordon