Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

Percy, you could always try your hand at one of these Sub 250 speed machine

I know there are sub 250 FPV multi rotors and sub 250 FPV planes. I suspect a lot of development will take place in this area in the coming months.

[GONZO]

'User pays' Percy, we are using the 'governments airspace. This is only the forerunner of other exciting licencing/payment/taxation plans they have waiting for us. Like the licence to breath in the air and use the governments oxygen. Quickly followed by the breathing out tax to pay for the recycling of our expelled CO2 being recycled by the governments/country's plants.

Many a true word spoken in jest!

Edited By GONZO on 29/05/2019 12:54:41

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Stuphedd]

The "less than " 250 grms is the way I shall initially go as I have over 10 already and most will fly in any conditions .

The E Flite UMX range fits the bill as well as the bigger Edge 540 which comes in at exactly 249 !

The little Great Lakes is well within !

They dont tend to be relaxing but if its fun you are after without paying for it , the choice is yours

cheers

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

Percy, the delta I built * a while back weighs around 250g without lipo, thus qualifies (probably), and is definitely not grounded by 25mph gusts, as top forward speed is easily double that. It may very well not be to your taste - but it is an example of small stuff that can handle some wind.

* the word "built" is stretching it, but it did have 3 whole parts (ok, 4 if you count the firewall) which needed sticking together.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

Steve J, I've seen this in the past. Wasn't it about half the kinetic energy that was transferred. An interesting concept fraught with practical problems; Assuming the human is not moving - what is the speed(ground speed/terminal velocity/notional propeller pitch speed/etc)? Who's to say what speed an own design plane can achieve.

[GONZO]

A quick, rough calculation gives a speed of approx. 118mph for a 250gm plane transferring 50% of its kinetic energy.

Edited By GONZO on 29/05/2019 16:19:39

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

Hmm, that's a bind. Ah well.

[GONZO]

All, I made a drop off in the calc ;118mph for 50% transfer. Or have I done it again??

80j but if 50% transfer, 160j

Mass in Kg, 0.250

Speed in mtr/sec then convert to mph.

Edited By GONZO on 29/05/2019 16:33:50

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Simon Chaddock]

Is the 80 Joule limit included in the proposed in the UK November 2019 legislation?

If I have the Joule definition correct and if all the energy of a 250 g UAV is considered transferred to the human then its speed is limited to 8 m/s (26.25 ft/s)or just under 18 mph.

Edited By Simon Chaddock on 29/05/2019 17:00:29

[GONZO]

I'll concur with that(hit an extra key whilst typing, doh). That's plenty fast enough to fly in almost all conditions, if you can keep sight of it. Did you check out my link on the previous page? I have visions of Mr Plod turning up with digital scales/radar speed gun and calculator in hand ready to nick us dangerous criminals

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by conrad taggart on 28/05/2019 15:22:42:

Just had this sent to me today from the "Drones team" within the Department for Transport. Still sounds if they believe their hair brain scheme is efficient and enforceable, and they appear to rule out any mass enrollment / exemptions for members of the various flying associations ...

"Thank you for your email of 9 May 2019 about the proposed registration scheme for drone users. I am responding to you as a member of the Drones Team at the Department for Transport. I appreciate your concerns. I would like to reassure you that I do support your hobby and recognise the strong safety culture fostered by the majority of model aircraft flyers and clubs.

The drone registration scheme is a top priority for the Government. It is just one measure in a package to address the safety and security challenges unmanned aircraft pose and will help enforcement agencies to tackle the misuse of such aircraft, alongside further Police powers to be introduced in the forthcoming Drones Bill.

 

Registration and testing are also European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requirements as part of the forthcoming regulation on the operation of unmanned aircrafts (UAs) in the EU. The new Minister for Aviation is keen to ensure that all our key partners in the aviation industry that may be impacted by new policy or regulations are consulted. As well as the consultation my Department carried out in 2018 on a range of measures including registration, the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) consultation on its charging regime for the drone registration scheme is important in shaping the development of the registration system charging structure.

 

Notwithstanding that, the principle that the Government set out in our January consultation response still stands. Any alternative approach for model flyers must be achieved without imposing undue burden on the state and the taxpayer, whilst also being efficient and enforceable, without compromising the integrity of the policy. A blanket exemption from registration and competency tests or having the associations register their members into the registration system, as suggested in many of the consultation responses submitted by model fliers, will not meet these criteria.

 

I understand that, prior to its charging consultation, the CAA has engaged with a broad range of users, including a significant number of model flyers (both at association level and individuals) during the user requirement phase and that model flyers will be involved in subsequent phases of development. The Minister has recently written to Dave Phipps, Chief Executive of the BMFA, to address some of your concerns and to suggest that he meets with the CAA for a demonstration of the system, which is in its development phase. She has also offered to meet him to discuss the BMFA’s concerns and how they can work together to make sure we retain and strengthen the UK’s strong aviation safety record.

 

I hope that this goes some way to addressing your concerns.

 

Yours sincerely

 

The Drones Team Department for Transport"

So in other words "Thanks for responding but we're only having this consultation so we can say we've had it; the solution already proposed will be delivered as planned, and you'll be paying for it even though there is no value proposition to you". Sound about right?

 

Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:37:54

[GONZO]

Simon, IIRC it was about 50% transfer, 46% rings a bell. Ke = mass in Kg divide by 2 then multiplied by velocity in meters per second squared. 80j = 0.125 x (V x V). The square root of 80/0.125 = V in meters per second. 25.3mtr/s = 56.6mph.

But if transfer rate is 50% then Ke of plane can equal 160j. Thus the square root of 160/0.125 = V in mtr/s. 35.78mtr/s = 80mph

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jason-I]

Just had the following reply from the CAA. It did not answer a single one of my 15 questions. I have written back asking them to read and answer the questions.

Thank you for your correspondence on the UK’s drone registration and education system (DRES).

The CAA understands that this is an important issue for the drone and model flying community.

CAA consultation on DRES charge

The current CAA consultation specifically covers the proposed charge for the operator registration scheme. If you wish your views on this aspect to be taken into account in the final decision on the level of the charge, then please complete the short consultation at **LINK**.

Government policy for drone registration and education

Plans for a UK drone registration and education scheme stem from the UK Government’s consultation in 2018 on the future UK policy framework for drones. In its 7^th January 2019 response to this consultation, the Government made clear that the UK mandated drone registration and education scheme requirements would be implemented by the end of November 2019.

In its response, it also said that model aircraft would fall within the scope of DRES and that there would be no blanket exemptions, adding that any specific requirements for model aircraft could not be funded by taxpayers or other drone operators. The Government then amended the law, the Air Navigation Order (ANO), to bring the scheme into effect at the end of November 2019. The EASA regulation on drones, which contains some specific provisions for model aircraft associations, is expected to be published in final form shortly and will start to come into force sometime during 2020. Once that regulation is in force in the UK we would then expect to review and, where necessary, align the UK approach with that EASA regulation. At present, however, we are working towards a DRES system that aligns with UK law and policy.

If you wish to contact the Government (Department for Transport (DfT)) around the wider aspects of the scheme (beyond the charge) and what it encompasses you can do this at **LINK**.

CAA’s implementation of the UK drone registration and education scheme

Within the UK legal and policy framework, the Government has tasked the CAA with successfully implementing the new drone registration and education service by October 2019.

There are a few key points that have been made in the correspondence sent to us that we would like to clarify:

• Age limits: The Government’s current policy is that drone and model aircraft operators will have to be at least 18 years of age, but there is currently no age prohibition for remote pilots, providing they meet the required level of competence and operate under the responsibility of an operator;
• Model aircraft associations or clubs as operators: model aircraft associations or clubs would have the option of registering as the operator with their members acting as remote pilots. In this scenario, the association or club would need to meet any legal requirements and take accountability and responsibility for the actions of their members, and members would need to abide by the remote pilot requirements.

As part of the development process for DRES and the individual user-level research required by the Government Digital Service framework, we have been engaging over the last four months during the discovery and prototyping stages of the project with a range of users, including the model flyer community. Around 25% of our audience has been individual model flyers, recognising that the view of this community is of importance to us for ensuring continued safe model flying under an increasingly complex airspace landscape.

We will continue to engage with model aircraft and drone representative groups going forwards as we finalise the DRES system and aim to keep all those affected up-to-date on progress and the requirements of the new scheme.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 29/05/2019 17:17:25:

Posted by MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:10:21:

Sound about right?

I had another look at the consultation response that the DfT published in January. There are a couple of pages in it in which they say all sorts of nice things about the modelling associations, but when it comes down to it, the only sentence in that section that seems to matter is "However, this must be achieved without imposing undue burden on the state and the taxpayer, whilst also being efficient and enforceable, without compromising the integrity of the policy.".

Steve

Indeed; it really is looking pretty gloomy at this point. The biggest problem is that (IMO) we are pretty much powerless to take action that will have a meaningful effect. Unfortunately there aren't enough of us to be an electoral concern to the authorities. Even boycotting is not that effective; sure they would "lose" the ~£2.8m if the 170k people (where did that number come from?) refuse to pay, what would it actually do? That kind of money gets lost through government inefficiency and failed initiatives on a daily basis anyway, and in the act of boycotting we'd have reduced recreational usage which I've long suspected is a goal they are trying to achieve.

In recent years I have found my involvement in cycling increasing significantly and my RC flying dropping off year by year. It looks that is only going to continue in future. I didn't choose well though; cycling seems to be significantly more expensive than RC!

Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:42:25