The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread

[Trevor Crook]

As (ironically) I got my operator number email on the same day as the revised exemption, I'll make up some labels and stick numbers inside battery bays anyway.

[Nigel Heather]

Be interesting to keep hearing who has received their operator IDs.

I was hoping (especially given how much they are paying for the purchase and running of the system) that it would be simply a case of

• Upload batch file provided by the BMFA
• Automatically create registration accounts with the data provided
• Automatically generate emails and send them

All done and dusted in a few hours.

But given the drip feed of emails I suspect it is more like this

• Print out the batch file provided by the BMFA
• Split the printout into small batches and hand out to data entry people
• The information is read from the print out and keyed into the CAA system manually
• eMails are created and sent out as each registration is completed

Will take weeks or more

Cheers,

Nigel

[Megawatt]

Might be worth mentioning that as the previous operator ID exemption has now been revoked we presumably need to print out the new one to put on the club wall / carry with us.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

It's rather depressing to see the BBC publishing footage like this without any apparent compliance with the legislation - I suppose it's just possible that the farmer had a CAA exemption to fly beyond line of sight but it seems to me that the message is only getting through to those of us that already operate safely and with direct visual contact.

My first thought was "does it really matter over his own fields" - but then I saw the proximity of what looked like a busy road to his flightpath...

[Peter Miller]

Have you ever noiced the drone shots on Salvage HUnters (Quest) Over flying roads, villages etc.

Ah well, it is for aTV program. Then you look at the drone accident reports .I read two of them. olice drones crashing on top of buildings when a motor or ESC fails.

[J D 8]

Do not see any problem with that video except perhaps the craft may have been out of sight behind a tree for a mo for any one following direct.

Flying at low level over his own land/lake not over or near the road no problem.

[Nigel Heather]

Not saying that they have done this, but there is nothing in the regs that precludes getting permission to fly anywhere.

So I would not be surprised to see drones flying like this on TV programmes.

As for the farmer, you can see a lot worse on YouTube posted after the introduction of the regs. And I think you will continue to see it. Plod are not going to be interested in what the farmer is doing. For the most part he is on his own land and within regs. I think the only time anyone with ever look into the regs is if someone is seen flying very recklessly. Doubt plod will even be interested by kids flying in the park if they are being sensible. They certainly not going to roll up to a desolate hill and arrest a drone flier using FPV without a spotter.

Cheers,

Nigel

[ken anderson.]

i reckon the drone shots we see on the tv progs will be governed by the the same if not stricter rules than we have to abide by......taken in to consideration they will be overflying private property and 3rd parties etc...we live in a country that is run by rules and regs…….

ken anderson...ne..1..rules and regs dept.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by J D 8 on 19/02/2020 13:53:41:

Do not see any problem with that video except perhaps the craft may have been out of sight behind a tree for a mo for any one following direct.

Flying at low level over his own land/lake not over or near the road no problem.

That's precisely the point - there were several hedges between the drone and the presumed operator's position. At 3 feet AGL I don't think anyone except Steve Austin with his bionic eye would have been able to monitor the flight sufficiently to avoid a collision with someone or something on the ground - what if the video feed had failed while the drone was flying towards the road - and ground conditions were certainly not favourable for GHz frequency performance.

[Nigel Heather]

Posted by Martin Harris on 19/02/2020 15:00:16:

Posted by J D 8 on 19/02/2020 13:53:41:

Do not see any problem with that video except perhaps the craft may have been out of sight behind a tree for a mo for any one following direct.

Flying at low level over his own land/lake not over or near the road no problem.

That's precisely the point - there were several hedges between the drone and the presumed operator's position. At 3 feet AGL I don't think anyone except Steve Austin with his bionic eye would have been able to monitor the flight sufficiently to avoid a collision with someone or something on the ground - what if the video feed had failed while the drone was flying towards the road - and ground conditions were certainly not favourable for GHz frequency performance.

He is most likely flying FPV. I know that the regs don't like FPV and seems to think that a spotter with line of sight is more effective but I'm not convinced. I don't fly FPV but I have watched guys at the club field flying fast small quads and I struggled to track them. But I have also worn a pair of slaved goggles while they are flying and it was totally different - I knew exactly where the quad was at all times - much more so than when I was trying to follow it line of sight.

 

And after all, real full-size planes are flown FPV without a line of sight spotter.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 19/02/2020 15:42:34

[Simon Chaddock]

But a good pilot of a full size light plane, particularly when close to the ground (2000'?), is taught to keep a constant look out (scan 180 degrees) not only to have spacial awareness of where he is but also to be aware of other planes around him. By the time you can see another plane that is ahead there is a good chance it is already too late.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Nigel Heather on 19/02/2020 15:40:57:

 

He is most likely flying FPV. I know that the regs don't like FPV and seems to think that a spotter with line of sight is more effective but I'm not convinced. I don't fly FPV but I have watched guys at the club field flying fast small quads and I struggled to track them. But I have also worn a pair of slaved goggles while they are flying and it was totally different - I knew exactly where the quad was at all times - much more so than when I was trying to follow it line of sight.

OK - looks like my post has backfired a little and we don't all have full understanding of the regulations - although as a non-FPV pilot, I'm sure Nigel's lack of knowledge of the FPV laws isn't indicative of any shortfall in his general understanding of normal model flying regulations.

Nigel, the law requires FPV pilots to have a competent observer monitoring the flight path visually at all times and to be in direct communication with the pilot. FPV models over 3.5 kg must be flown on a buddy lead with the competent observer able to take over if he feels that the model is becoming difficult to monitor safely.

Edited By Martin Harris on 19/02/2020 16:58:05

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 19/02/2020 16:23:21:

BMFA update

Full text...

"If you are one of the 18,500 members who registered with the CAA as an Operator via the BMFA prior to the 10th February, then you should be receiving your operator number by the end of this week. The automated email sent to the first 2000 BMFA members uploaded by the CAA earlier this week included reference to the requirement for a Flyer I.D. (which members are exempted from in accordance with CAA General Exemption E 4972). This has now been amended to reduce confusion.

The purpose of the original Exemption from Operator requirements (E 4973) was to make it possible for members to register with the CAA as Operators via their Association membership process up to a cut-off point (originally stated as 31st January, but in practice the 10th February) when we uploaded our data to the CAA.
The facility for members to register with the CAA as an Operator via the BMFA membership system remains available for all new/renewing members, as the CAA have now published a further exemption: (see **LINK**) to permit this.

It was always intended that a new Exemption would be issued to allow members to continue registering as Operators via their Association membership process ready for the next upload of data (which was proposed to have a cut-off date of 18th April, but is now 30th May) with the anticipation that there would be a further exemption to take us to the 1st July when the new EU regulations will be implemented. There will be no further exemptions from any DMARES requirements beyond that point.

However, in an effort to simplify the process, the CAA has decided to issue an exemption intended to cover members registering as Operators via their Association after the 1st February until the next scheduled upload (30th May) and beyond that to the point at which the new EU regulations become effective on the 1st July.
Given the way in which so many members have cooperated with the CAA’s DMARES, the CAA have decided that it would be pragmatic (and much simpler) to word the new exemption to apply to all Association members rather than have a complicated and confusing set of applicability criteria determined by membership joining and/or bulk upload dates.

The CAA advises anyone who has already registered as an operator to follow the intent of our original agreement and label their aircraft in accordance with the ANO once they have received their Operator ID (despite this not being reflected in the wording of the latest exemption!).

Once we receive the uploaded data back from the CAA, our plan is to update members records in GoMembership to include their CAA Operator number which will also be incorporated onto the electronic membership document.
We are now working with the CAA in anticipation of agreeing an Authorisation (in accordance with Article 16 of the EU regulations) which will incorporate the key points of our existing permissions/exemptions into a single document, to become effective from the 1st July. We will keep members updated on progress with this, but we are optimistic that very little will change."

Not sure I really believe the rationale given - if the CAA always intended to issue further exemptions to national association members, why push them to register so early at the tail end of 2019? It does rather feel like they were grasping for cash, though in government terms the numbers we are talking about (£166k from the national association members) are tiny.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel Heather]

Posted by Martin Harris on 19/02/2020 16:56:55:

Posted by Nigel Heather on 19/02/2020 15:40:57:

 

He is most likely flying FPV. I know that the regs don't like FPV and seems to think that a spotter with line of sight is more effective but I'm not convinced. I don't fly FPV but I have watched guys at the club field flying fast small quads and I struggled to track them. But I have also worn a pair of slaved goggles while they are flying and it was totally different - I knew exactly where the quad was at all times - much more so than when I was trying to follow it line of sight.

OK - looks like my post has backfired a little and we don't all have full understanding of the regulations - although as a non-FPV pilot, I'm sure Nigel's lack of knowledge of the FPV laws isn't indicative of any shortfall in his general understanding of normal model flying regulations.

Nigel, the law requires FPV pilots to have a competent observer monitoring the flight path visually at all times and to be in direct communication with the pilot. FPV models over 3.5 kg must be flown on a buddy lead with the competent observer able to take over if he feels that the model is becoming difficult to monitor safely.

Edited By Martin Harris on 19/02/2020 16:58:05

Wow not only was that pretty snide but pretty wrong. I think if you have bothered to read my response properly it would have been clear that I am aware that a line of sight spotter is needed at all times.

What I was saying is if you have ever tried to follow a 250mm freestyle quad flying at 80mph, close to the ground and  turning very fast when there are two other freestyle quads in the air at the same time doing the same thing you will know how bloody difficult it is.  I’d go as far to say that in that situation, my effectiveness as a line of sight spotter at all time was pretty low.

 

And no way was I saying that he was flying legally, just that in the situation there was nothing particularly dangerous.

Just like I warrant that some people on this forum exceed the speed limit (which is illegal) but feel that they are doung it safely (and probably are).

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 19/02/2020 17:26:55

Edited By Nigel Heather on 19/02/2020 17:39:33

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

...which is why I stated " there were several hedges between the drone and the presumed operator's position".

While the scenario was probably reasonably safe - and I stated that this was my original impression, it seems to me to have been extremely likely to have been conducted in contravention of the new regulations and symptomatic of the ineffectiveness of the communication of them to the general public. I don't recall seeing any exemptions issued that allow operators to modify the rules as they see fit if they consider that their operation is safe!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Nigel Heather on 19/02/2020 17:22:01:

Wow not only was that pretty snide but pretty wrong. I think if you have bothered to read my response properly it would have been clear that I am aware that a line of sight spotter is needed at all times.

Nigel

Apologies that I misinterpreted your original post but I did try not to be too judgemental and certainly wasn't trying to be snide. Having re-read it I do now see that it doesn't state that you were unaware of the requirement.

[fly-navy]

Received my operator I D couple of days ago. Can anyone tell me please where I could get them printed on some vynal self adhesive sheet, please don't think I'm angling g for someone on here to offer, just need heads up best place to get them printed.

Cheers. John

[Tony Packe]

As the letters only have to be 3 mm high, get yourself a "P" Touch printer and then you can charge your club mates for making labels up for them.

[Peter Miller]

If you have an ink jet printer you can buy inkjet self adhesive vinyl on Enbay,

I bought mine a few weeks ago, Only about a fiver for enough to do hundreds of labels

You can get white of even clear so you don't mess your colour schem too much

Edited By Peter Miller on 19/02/2020 18:19:38

[john davidson 1]

regarding the comment on police interest, one of our members some time ago tried out a small quad in the park adjacent to Perth Prison. Police were on the scene in minutes complete with blues n twos.He was most indignant at being interrupted flying. Mind you a pair of neds were in court around the same time and were convicted of trying to fly drugs over the wall. They had unwittingly videoed themselves on the quad camera which was produced as evidence.You couldn't make it up!

[Trevor Crook]

Printed myself a load of Operator Number labels yesterday using my inkjet printer on self-adhesive paper label sheets. Used 5mm high Arial font, which is nice and clear. I gave the ink a couple of hours to dry then sprayed over a thin coat of Plastikote clear sealant. They are now cut out and applied inside the battery bays of all my models (I only fly EP). Job done!

[Martin_K]

For those of us waiting for ASTM F3411 (standards document for implementing remote ID and tracking) it has been published - price 85 dollars!

Hopefully a modelling organisation will buy one and tell us what it proposes.

[Cuban8]

Last sentence in section 1.1

Remote ID is an enabler of enhanced operations such as beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations as well as operations over people.

Excuse me, but what the devil has this got to do with recreational model aircraft flown at a club or other proper place, within line of sight and conforming to the current legal requirements that we have had in place for many years i.e. the ANO?

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 21/02/2020 11:06:00