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

[GONZO]

Steve J well a quick scan of that document confirms, at least to me, that the majority of us are just required for now to help with the set up costs. In a few years most of us will be squeezed out, seen as an inconvenience, by increased regulation and cost unless some special provisions are made. I know my view does not find favour with most on here but then this has been my view from the start when everyone believed nothing was going to change. I hope time proves me wrong and others right.

[Chris Berry]

This information has been about for a while. As I see it there will be several options.

By far the best are exemptions for association members or specific affiliated sites.

Ground stations which are ok but subject to weather, vandalism and human error.

Retrofitted onboard units with separate power and switch systems. Switch on fly, switch off. (Lots of little dots darting about the sky for 10 minutes at a time). Cost and size will be an issue.

Modified or retrofitted radio systems or add-ons to them. Again, cost and size are an issue.

It's a long way off and nothing to worry about just yet.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Berry]

The other thing to remember is that this whole concept is intended to help with the control of unmanned aircraft and their integration with manned systems.

That concept assumes that in a few years there will be thousands of 'drones' flying around delivering parcels an doing SAR and surveying etc as well as hobby flyers. There are those in government who genuinely believe drones will become significant users of our airspace or they want to believe it, as they can make money from government now, even if it doesn't materialise.

 

As we all know, the reality is that mass market and widespread use of drones by the likes of deliveroo and Amazon is never going to happen and the concept will be significantly watered down from the bright ideas they have at present.

Were'nt we all supposed to by commuting by flying car, hoverboard and jetpack by now?

Edited By Chris Berry on 05/12/2019 09:22:45

[Chris Berry]

The other thing to remember is that UTM will only work if all flying machines have transponders. At the moment there is no requirement for micro lights, hot air balloons, paragliders or gliders to have transponders or iirc light GA aircraft. Therefore the system would not work.

Furthermore, UTM is aimed at BVLOS and not VLOS. Its aimed at those flying drones BVLOS or FPV or the autonomous systems they dream will happen like amazon.

For the majority of us, the whole point of the hobby is see the masterpiece we've created. We don't want to fly BVLOS and we don't fly BVLOS. We fly about 500m from ourselves VLOS and do so because that's the whole point of the hobby.

There was a consultation on UTM late last year/early this year iirc.

The other issue is how do we get notified of a possible conflict? Ok, we fly VLOS and we see and hear a full size approaching so we do as we do now, but how will the UTM/TCAS type system notify us of a conflict, as it must work both ways to be effective.

Much discussion will be had by the CAA and our associations in coming months and years, as theres a lot to iron out despite the waffle from the witch of Norbiton.

[Cuban8]

OK, we've all been good little boys and have done as we're told by registering, throwing £9 away etc etc ..... next thing is to get a groundswell of members to lobby the BMFA to devise and publish their plans to get us out of the flawed registration scheme. Not a good start by the BMFA saying a while ago that they're not opposed 'in principle' to registration. I think they'll find that the membership is very opposed to the imposition of registration and need to see action to get our case looked at properly and the manner in which we've been bounced into something that we had no reason to be included in from the start. Can any one put forward a valid reason for our inclusion, given that if we'd been a problem before, then all this would have been dealt with ages ago before hobby drones were invented?

How does one communicate one's view given the BMFA's antiquated organisational structure? Forget going to regional committee meetings before anyone brings those up. Perhaps next year's membership figures might wake someone up if they carry on in the same downward trend?

As for CAP 1868 it's very little other than pure fantasy, but a nice glossy document that should have a place reserved for it in the fiction section. Come on KC I dare you to put out an RCM&E editorial to set our position straight. Are we for registration or against it?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 10:19:34:

OK, we've all been good little boys and have done as we're told by registering, throwing £9 away etc etc ..... next thing is to get a groundswell of members to lobby the BMFA to devise and publish their plans to get us out of the flawed registration scheme. Not a good start by the BMFA saying a while ago that they're not opposed 'in principle' to registration. I think they'll find that the membership is very opposed to the imposition of registration and need to see action to get our case looked at properly and the manner in which we've been bounced into something that we had no reason to be included in from the start. Can any one put forward a valid reason for our inclusion, given that if we'd been a problem before, then all this would have been dealt with ages ago before hobby drones were invented?

Sorry Cuban8, but we have been here before and that ship has well and truly sailed. Like it or not governments across the world are implementing registration as a key component in the overall system to manage UAS alongside other airspace users, whether they be commercial or recreational. They want this primarily because of the tax £££s that theoretically come with increased commercial UAS usage, and also to placate Daily Fail readers who want something done about the (mostly fictional) "drone menace".

Whether we agree that widespread commercial use is likely or possible is completely irrelevant - we are a tiny minority group with little or no popular support from the wider population for our activity set against the government who hold all the cards. Remember, the BMFA and other National and European model flying associations lobbied unsuccessfully to be excluded from registration for >2 years, primarily because no definition of model aircraft could be agreed with the authorities that sufficiently (and legally) differentiated it from multirotor drones/UAS. If it were unsuccessful then, what makes you think it will be successful now?

No, the only way registration will be rolled back now is if it is seen to be ineffective and/or the much vaunted commercial use by the likes of Amazon is found to be technically impossible, or the wider public push back against it. The latter two I think are pretty likely even in the relatively long term, but they are not within our control - unfortunately we as a community are always going to have minimal influence in these matters vs. the government and commercial operators.

[Cuban8]

Amsterdam Drone Week? Quite a nice jolly by the look of it. I understand that the Flat Earth Society and Alien Abduction people can also drum up a few deluded folks as well.

Matty, your final paragraph sums it up in a nutshell except that I'd replace your first "if" with a "when". That said I fully accept that we are where we are. However, to remain quiet about what's happened to our hobby and not keep questioning our inclusion and generally holding the legislators' feet to the fire while we wait for the whole rotten registration system to collapse through ineffectiveness (in the UK at least) will be a serious mistake. If nothing else we'll be able to say "we told you so". Our silence would be tantamount to acquiescence.

No more going round in circles, but I wait with interest what the official position will be in the next BMFA Mag.

Edited By Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 12:01:45

[MattyB]

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 11:59:56:

...Matty, your final paragraph sums it up in a nutshell except that I'd replace your first "if" with a "when". That said I fully accept that we are where we are. However, to remain quiet about what's happened to our hobby and not keep questioning our inclusion and generally holding the legislators' feet to the fire while we wait for the whole rotten registration system to collapse through ineffectiveness (in the UK at least) will be a serious mistake. If nothing else we'll be able to say "we told you so". Our silence would be tantamount to acquiescence.

"Hold the legislators' feet to the fire"? We tried that already - a few 10s of thousands of letters were written by members of the national associations which had been batted back dismissively with little or not effect. Only a lucky change in the Sec of State for Transport brought some (mild) concessions at the last moment, but even those concessions weren't in line with EASAs recommendations for a registration programme or those of the Government's Science and Technology Committee (on pg 17 they clearly state the registration should be every 3 years rather than annually).

In short our tiny numbers and lack of a mainstream profile mean a better analogy might be trying to light a damp match in a thunderstorm 30m from the legislators feet...

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 11:59:56:

...No more going round in circles, but I wait with interest what the official position will be in the next BMFA Mag.

The official position will I'm sure be exactly what they have stated already - register as a Remote Pilot and Operator (the later via the BMFA or other National Association) by the deadlines, read BMFA updates as they continue negotiations with the CAA/DfT and support them if they ask for it (letter writing etc). I would be amazed if the national associations start a campaign against registration at this point - if they do they are almost certain to be unceremoniously ejected from negotiations (as they effectively were early this year when the CAA went completely silent over registration).

By all means start your own campaign against registration so you can personally say "I told you so" if you want, but don't hold your breath waiting for the BMFA, LMA etc to join you.

Edited By MattyB on 05/12/2019 13:05:14

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Why don't yous form an association, and get in there and fight it, as you see it ? You could start by building this groundswell.

BMFAs antiquated structures, Why write that ? They trekked through to Donny on a cold Winters night, without us having to ask, it was offered. Presented a where we are, and how we got here, stood and answered all questions, sat and took members through the online test (all passed) all at no cost to us on the night, then had to drive home late at night. Plus they're on here and elsewhere, answering the same questions over and over.

What is the point of these continuous cheap digs ?

[Cuban8]

Posted by john stones 1 on 05/12/2019 13:22:03:

Why don't yous form an association, and get in there and fight it, as you see it ? You could start by building this groundswell.

BMFAs antiquated structures, Why write that ? They trekked through to Donny on a cold Winters night, without us having to ask, it was offered. Presented a where we are, and how we got here, stood and answered all questions, sat and took members through the online test (all passed) all at no cost to us on the night, then had to drive home late at night. Plus they're on here and elsewhere, answering the same questions over and over.

What is the point of these continuous cheap digs ?

What cheap dig? I and virtually all the BMFA members are grateful for what's been done on our behalf to deflect the worst of what could have been an immediate sessation in our activities and make the administering of all the new regs as easy as possible - working on it now, actually.

BMFA's antiquated structures? By that I meant how little involvement an ordinary member is permitted given the power of clubs and the way their votes are weighed, and as a consequence, how us ordinary folk are effectively voiceless. We've been around this particular favourite a number of times, it's not going to change, so enough.

[Dickw]

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 14:06:37:.............

BMFA's antiquated structures? By that I meant how little involvement an ordinary member is permitted given the power of clubs and the way their votes are weighed, and as a consequence, how us ordinary folk are effectively voiceless. We've been around this particular favourite a number of times, it's not going to change, so enough.

Ordinary members get to vote on who runs the BMFA - what else do you want?

At our Area meeting this week there were 24 people representing 18 clubs - they all had a chance to say their piece.

Dick

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Enough indeed, so when are yous gonna form a "proper" association ? Numerous digs in there you side stepped.

What is your plan to build this Groundswell ? And what actions do you propose ?

Seen the critical posting plan numerous times, you got owt else ?

[Martin_K]

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 14:06:37:

.... I and virtually all the BMFA members are grateful for what's been done on our behalf to deflect the worst of what could have been an immediate sessation in our activities and make the administering of all the new regs as easy as possible ....

An immediate cessation in our activities?

The objective of the EASA proposals, as adopted by UK government, is to encourage 'drone' use. They reduce the restrictions on some operations, e.g. commercial use via the Open Category, low speed mode, C2 UAS.

I have been careful when voicing my concerns to reference privately built models, my own interest and a category which will be changed unless we get exemptions.

It will be interesting to see what the likes of Horizon Hobby, Multiplex, and HobbyKing do with regards to ARTF fixed wing models, once the FAA and EASA finalise their new rules.

[John Bisset]

I believe Chris Berry's recent posts have it fairly well right.

The aspiration of 'authority' to have on board identification and real time tracking of everything airborne is clear. It is not, however practical yet, not for some time to come. Theory is one thing, practice another.

I have two separate conspicuity/anti-collision systems in one aircraft of mine; it still frequently fails to be 'seen' in flight by remote stations even at medium altitudes. Earlier this week while flying I was struck by the number of calls for people to re-squawk because ATC was not picking up the transponders.

For close range collision avoidance the systems work well enough overall, as an addition to and back up for see-and-be-seen, which is what they are for. They are still expensive, power hungry and problematic at a distance except when flying high, say 10,000ft and above. At medium or low level, forget any distant monitoring except in very intensely monitored and geographically benign environments. This will change, but slowly. The degradation of signal at low altitude will continue to be an effective limiter.

Personally as a pilot routinely flying in and around the levels likely to be mostly used by drones, I'd be unhappy at the idea of everything transmitting its position, or trying to. That causes distraction, confusion and chaos, working against safety. For light aircraft operations, having radio control aircraft giving out position data will just confuse - we are not routinely flying below 500ft except around airfields or when on special tasks. We need the BMFA making this point clearly on our behalf - forget position info from R/C aircraft! Expensive, short range, useless and confusing for real world traffic.

For drones I only want info from the higher flying ones. Even between 500 to 1000ft the range available will be low, so its really collision avoidance stuff, not real tracking. Once a good, say ADS-B equivalent, set up exists at low cost and with high reliability, maybe worthwhile anti-colision will become feasible. Meantime, we keep our eyes open - and incidentally only believe a small proportion of the airliner's drone airmiss 'reports'.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by John Bisset on 05/12/2019 16:15:39:

I believe Chris Berry's recent posts have it fairly well right.

The aspiration of 'authority' to have on board identification and real time tracking of everything airborne is clear. It is not, however practical yet, not for some time to come. Theory is one thing, practice another.

I have two separate conspicuity/anti-collision systems in one aircraft of mine; it still frequently fails to be 'seen' in flight by remote stations even at medium altitudes. Earlier this week while flying I was struck by the number of calls for people to re-squawk because ATC was not picking up the transponders.

For close range collision avoidance the systems work well enough overall, as an addition to and back up for see-and-be-seen, which is what they are for. They are still expensive, power hungry and problematic at a distance except when flying high, say 10,000ft and above. At medium or low level, forget any distant monitoring except in very intensely monitored and geographically benign environments. This will change, but slowly. The degradation of signal at low altitude will continue to be an effective limiter.

Personally as a pilot routinely flying in and around the levels likely to be mostly used by drones, I'd be unhappy at the idea of everything transmitting its position, or trying to. That causes distraction, confusion and chaos, working against safety. For light aircraft operations, having radio control aircraft giving out position data will just confuse - we are not routinely flying below 500ft except around airfields or when on special tasks. We need the BMFA making this point clearly on our behalf - forget position info from R/C aircraft! Expensive, short range, useless and confusing for real world traffic.

For drones I only want info from the higher flying ones. Even between 500 to 1000ft the range available will be low, so its really collision avoidance stuff, not real tracking. Once a good, say ADS-B equivalent, set up exists at low cost and with high reliability, maybe worthwhile anti-colision will become feasible. Meantime, we keep our eyes open - and incidentally only believe a small proportion of the airliner's drone airmiss 'reports'.

Great post. I completely agree, but my concern is that the National Associations might be given an equally unappealing option if offered an exemption to the conspicuity kit. I suspect operating at "known" model flying sites is what they will suggest, but if the cost/complexity of maintaining that status is significant it will cause issues, especially for the public sites used by slope and thermal soarers where there is often not a Club involved. Hopefully some solution can be found, but I suspect those of us operating in those locaton will hace to carry conspicuity equipment to stay legal.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

By a potential cessation of our activities, I think being limited to below 400' would pretty much have put an end to a large proportion of club flying - maybe not all, I accept that's too strong, but it'd kill thermal soaring and aerobatics and a lot of general flying for fun with higher performance models. Forget all those lovely big loops! 400' is not much - if you've stood by the London Eye which is just under 450' tall and imagine flying a 60" span sports aerobat below its height, you'd be surprised at how restrictive it would be. I thought just that when visiting London a little while back and was surprised how low 400' is when you have something to gauge the height by.

Not a problem thankfully, we have the exemption at least for the time being, but who knows what might transpire if we just keep quiet - I'm sure the BMFA understands this.

[Chris Berry]

Posted by MattyB on 05/12/2019 16:48:35:

Posted by John Bisset on 05/12/2019 16:15:39:

I believe Chris Berry's recent posts have it fairly well right.

The aspiration of 'authority' to have on board identification and real time tracking of everything airborne is clear. It is not, however practical yet, not for some time to come. Theory is one thing, practice another.

I have two separate conspicuity/anti-collision systems in one aircraft of mine; it still frequently fails to be 'seen' in flight by remote stations even at medium altitudes. Earlier this week while flying I was struck by the number of calls for people to re-squawk because ATC was not picking up the transponders.

For close range collision avoidance the systems work well enough overall, as an addition to and back up for see-and-be-seen, which is what they are for. They are still expensive, power hungry and problematic at a distance except when flying high, say 10,000ft and above. At medium or low level, forget any distant monitoring except in very intensely monitored and geographically benign environments. This will change, but slowly. The degradation of signal at low altitude will continue to be an effective limiter.

Personally as a pilot routinely flying in and around the levels likely to be mostly used by drones, I'd be unhappy at the idea of everything transmitting its position, or trying to. That causes distraction, confusion and chaos, working against safety. For light aircraft operations, having radio control aircraft giving out position data will just confuse - we are not routinely flying below 500ft except around airfields or when on special tasks. We need the BMFA making this point clearly on our behalf - forget position info from R/C aircraft! Expensive, short range, useless and confusing for real world traffic.

For drones I only want info from the higher flying ones. Even between 500 to 1000ft the range available will be low, so its really collision avoidance stuff, not real tracking. Once a good, say ADS-B equivalent, set up exists at low cost and with high reliability, maybe worthwhile anti-colision will become feasible. Meantime, we keep our eyes open - and incidentally only believe a small proportion of the airliner's drone airmiss 'reports'.

Great post. I completely agree, but my concern is that the National Associations might be given an equally unappealing option if offered an exemption to the conspicuity kit. I suspect operating at "known" model flying sites is what they will suggest, but if the cost/complexity of maintaining that status is significant it will cause issues, especially for the public sites used by slope and thermal soarers where there is often not a Club involved. Hopefully some solution can be found, but I suspect those of us operating in those locaton will hace to carry conspicuity equipment to stay legal.

To form an club only takes 5 people. So any ad-hoc group if slope soarers could form a 'club' and that would be that.

[MattyB]

Posted by Chris Berry on 05/12/2019 17:47:38:

To form an club only takes 5 people. So any ad-hoc group if slope soarers could form a 'club' and that would be that.

Unfortunately that doesn't really solve the problem for slope and thermal pilots that fly at multiple different sites (at least not with the BMFA's current rules for affiliated clubs). You can only have a single primary club per BMFA member, so if I am one of the 5 members joining through a club to affiliate it, I can't create another affiliated club using my membership as one of the 5.

This is far from impossible to solve though; I'm sure the BMFA will tweak their rules if the regs do end up requiring lots of new clubs to take custodianship of public sites. There could even be a BMFA affiliated National Club that "owns" all public access sites where there is not a club today; that is an idea I and others have floated before, but it we are still a way off knowing if it will be needed.

Edited By MattyB on 06/12/2019 10:17:33

[MattyB]

Posted by Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 17:44:48:

...Not a problem thankfully, we have the exemption at least for the time being, but who knows what might transpire if we just keep quiet - I'm sure the BMFA understands this.

This is all getting a bit boring Cuban8...

The BMFA are not "keeping quiet"; they and the other National Associations are actively negotiating with the CAA on the next phase i.e. the changes that come in in June 2020 and beyond. I'm pretty confident they are aware of the importance of the 400ft height exemption for their members, after all they did negotiate it!

I have spoken to Dave Phipps who has confirmed preserving that and getting valid exemptions to the new distance regulations (CAP 1789, Annex C, Category A3 - No uninvolved people present within the area of flight and no flight within 150m horizontally of residential, commercial, industrial or recreational areas) are a major focus the next phase. Understandably though they are not going to conduct the negotiations in the public domain with updates to members every 5 mins; that would undermine trust between the parties.

I know you are not the biggest fan of the BMFA (and I agree it's governance needs to be revisited to make it fairer for different types of member), but you need to remember they have been negotiating with a wall for ~2 years, and there may be another 5 years ahead of them. The BMFA may not be perfect, but they and the other national associations are our best hope of defending our rights against increasing regulation - acting as individuals we have no chance. If you disagree that is fair enough, but you need to start acting on your alternative plan and/or trying to reform the BMFA from the inside, not sniping from the perimeter.

[Stands down from soapbox... ]

Edited By MattyB on 06/12/2019 10:47:18

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]