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

[Martin_K]

Posted by leccyflyer on 13/02/2020 21:12:20:

Well Frsky or someone else had better come up with a tiny, inexpensive add on that you just plug into a spare port, Y lead or on a separate 1S battery. If it;s to be a requirement in the USA they might have got it sorted by the time it's implemented here.

As of now the Americans are not going to save us. Their proposed Remote ID solutions are required to be tamper proof and integrated with the aircraft/radio. This is one of the reasons it is not clear how US home builders assembling models from components can be Remote ID compliant at all, limiting them to flying only at recognised sites, none of which have yet been approved. The proposed FAA rules are out for comment at the moment so could change.

Things look relatively rosy here in the UK. (Assuming manufacturers still see a market worth supplying).

[Don Fry]

Posted by Steve J on 13/02/2020 21:54:32:

Posted by Don Fry on 13/02/2020 20:32:42:

Promised a low weight, low cost solution..

<10g, <10€ ? I have my doubts about the latter .

Have you seen this article on finesse plus?

I had read it. I had not read the comments. Not happy bunnies. Best find some fluorescent yellow paint, so I've got a correctly coloured aircraft when my squadron goes into action up the Champs Élysées.

[GONZO]

So, lets try and get a practical handle on the equipment weights for this RID requirement.

For my sub 250g planes I've purchased ZOHD KOPILOTLITE stabiliser and flight programmer with GPS HERE

The GPS unit is 8gm and can be purchased separately HERE for £8.65

So, we have a rough idea that the GPS unit could be about 8gm which would need to be associated with a Tx unit incorporating a store for the operator details. If additional information/accuracy is required a magnetic compass unit to give heading and a barometer for more accurate height may be required. IMO it would not be unreasonable to suppose that an integrated unit with aerial/s would weigh about what the total KOPILOTLITE weighs, 20gm (less magnetic compass unit and barometer). This is obviously dependant on frequency of operation. But, its the power supply question, dedicated or from plane. Of course this does not answer the question of what does one do for FF models, glider and power, and rubber powered FF. Then there is the question of who enters the details, operator or third party? Third party involvement is where the costs may escalate due to security checking of applicant for the device etc. Just some of my thoughts on the physical and operational issues surrounding this. I also think that this requirement will tend to push up the base level for model size/cost due to added weight and proportion of total cost.

[Martin Dilly 1]

Transmitter? What transmitter?? Receiver? What receiver?? Not everybody likely to be affected by the Baroness's ramblings flies radio. Let's remember that a lot of free-flight aircraft weigh over 250 grams, two of the World Championship classes for a start, and adding even a couple of ounces to some of them would mean a big drop in performance. Don't forget that our sport consists of a lot more than just radio-control.

Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 14/02/2020 15:41:57

[GONZO]

Additional thoughts. Use of RC Rx telemetry would require ALL RC manufacturers to make their protocol public, I think this is unlikely. Also, one presumes that the GUID of each individual RC combo would prevent this. RID would need to be 'spread spectrum' on whatever frequency band was used as 'spot' frequencies would soon be full. At a club environment you can easily have 6 planes in the air with others on the ground switched on. How do you tell which plane is transmitting what information?

Edited By GONZO on 14/02/2020 11:17:19

[Erfolg]

 

I cannot but remember, that at the start of this process, that we received assurances that little, if anything, would change for us.How optimistic that now seems.

I do agree that the cost of these units does appear to be potentially affordable. I also fear that it is the administration costs that could be a major issue.

What disturbs me most, is that the requirements will be obstacles which will deter those who at present consider having a go at aeromodeling. I did anticipate that the initial response would be an increase in BMFA membership, for a variety of reasons. My longer term fear has been a reduction not only in BMFA membership, but modelers in general. If this were to occur, the retail trade in model ling trade would change substantially, to boats, cars and trains, many of our present distributors would also have to change or disappear. For me it is the potential loss of airomodeling that saddens me.

I urge the BMFA to engage in fighting for a reasonable outcome, that satisfies the authorities (although probably not the Baroness) whilst not imposing barriers to those who presently fly and in the future those who come to think, I would like to have a go at that.

Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 14/02/2020 15:41:26

[David Ashby - Moderator]

A little pruning necessary folks. Let's avoid insults when referring to govt officials, ministers etc. It helps nobody, model flyers especially.

Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 14/02/2020 15:43:32

[Tony Richardson]

I know this discussion relates to the UK and I live in Canada but there is something going on south of our border with the USA The FAA is lobbying Washington DC with a proposal that could affect both our countries if adopted, some of you may have read the proposal, I have not waded through all of it but basically it is a bill to require every RC model to have a designated registration number and transponder for each individual model that flys, - pretty much like a fullsize aircraft, this is flawed legislation as hang gliders and powered hang gliders weigh more than the 250 grams they are proposing as being exempt. This law will not apply to them, I don;t know if this will pass but knowing the reach of homeland security if it does the UK government and our own Canadian government will certainly be pressured to follow suit, comments gentlemen..

Tony......

[leccyflyer]

That's what the discussion has been about for the past few pages of this thread - the next stage.

[Martin_K]

Posted by Tony Richardson on 15/02/2020 02:48:32:

I know this discussion relates to the UK and I live in Canada but ..... comments gentlemen..

Tony, The FAA's NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) on Remote ID is such a long and multi-faceted document that US aeromodellers wanting to comment have a difficult task writing a coherent and succinct response. We, outside the US, can only spectate, in the knowledge that changes to the hugely valuable US hobby market will have a knock on effect in regions that operate under different legal systems.

[Erfolg]

I can read that some believe that discussion within the thread is about the next phase of the legislation. I find myself taking a similar view of others, in that the discussion has principally dealt with the practicalities of how such a requirement could look and feel.

What has not been discussed is the response of the representatives of the aeromodeling communities. Principally in the UK, although the rest of the European modeling representatives. as non EU countries seem to have signed of with EASA policy in this area, could be relevant.

The position in Canada, does not bode well either, as at first sight does not appear to be a coherent policy, with respect who has and does not need a transponder.

Many of us are interested in the response of our representatives.

Personally I do find the the approach by the Baroness, difficult to understand. From my perspective it appears she does hold strong, unreasonable believes, which are not supported by fact, or any other lucid argument.

I would like a better understanding on what is really is the driving force, what and why the concept of transponders is being pursued.

I cannot but return to every time we are told, every thing will be alright, a new requirement pops up, after we are told "this is it boys and girls", then something else which in some cases has been dismissed as some posters being alarmist, and often ill-informed. Is there the potential for other requirements to pop out of the concepts of the legislation, As far as I can see these new requirements are potentially very significant and possibly very costly.

Edited By Erfolg on 15/02/2020 13:00:28

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Steve

Who mentioned Ms Veres?

The Baroness however is frequently referenced, I had thought she had departed the scene. Reading some of the posts, apparently not, a different less public facing role?

Perhaps another aspect that would enlighten many of us, who are the current players at Westminster, what is their apparent positions.

[Nigel Heather]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 12/02/2020 14:05:20:

Op Ids will be sent out directly from the CAA at some point before 23rd. They have the data, batch upload was done on 3rd Feb they ran their verification process, we had about 250 that failed that, mostly only had an initialninstead of a full first name. Thise 250 were all sorted and the file uploaded again on Monday so now in the hands of the CAAs process. We have a meeting with the CAA this week so will gee them up.

I’ve just come on here to find out the status. Good to hear that the BMFA have been efficient (unlike for the membership scheme and cards ) but not sure I have much faith that government department (CAA or whoever is responsible) will process the data in a timely manner. So much experience where their like are very good at shouting out demands but are not very good when it comes to them doing something. We shall see but I’m not holding my breath.

Cheers,

Nigel

[cymaz]

Got to give Andy a lot of credit for all the effort put in for this. The man pops up on this forum and sorts my event issues out at almost any time, day or night.....does he sleep?

[Nigel Heather]

Think the CAA should concentrate on airport IT systems rather than fictitious drones.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51526173

Pretty sure that this is the third time since the introduction of the drone law that IT system failure has disrupted UK airport operations.

In terms of ‘denial of service’, flakey IT systems are currently the clear leader.

Cheers,

Nigel

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Robinson 9]

I wonder if the CAA are having issues with the migration of BMFA FPV etc names to there new super computer system and also does it mean that our £9 starts in june instead of Jan, just a thought.

[Erfolg]

Well, I have read it, I now need someone to tell me (and maybe others) what it means in everyday terms. Also how will effect us in flying models.

I take it that this is good news.

Again hopefully the BMFA will get subject into the mag.

Given that the BMFA has updated its IT, this is something that could be circulated to all members that have provided a Email address.

Personally I have found the BMFA web site, not as attractive/friendly as I would like. Perhaps what I am looking for is things like this to leap out at me, tell me the story. To some my wishes will appear to be anti BMFA. It is not my intention.

IMO the two threats to our part of modeling, is the retention of aeromodelers, and anything that could put of potential future aeromodelers. Being rather old, you may think it does not matter to me, yet it does, I want our hobby to have a future. I want the children, both boys and girls to have the option to fly model aeroplanes, inspite of their X boxes(I am now of to play on my own)..

[Dickw]

I think it is just a new exemption for those who join / rejoin the BMFA (etc.) after 1st Feb and therefore missed the bulk data transfer. I think there will be another bulk data transfer before June.

Dick

Edited By Dickw on 17/02/2020 14:36:32

[GONZO]

Having read the document I think I'm entitled to a wry smile(or maybe not) over all those who rushed to sign up and pay their £9 well in advance of the stated date and then boast about it. So, I stand to be corrected, as I understand this as it relates to my own circumstances; I'm a member of the BMFA and therefore according to this document I do not need to register as an operator and pay my £9 until 30th June 2020 or until this order is rescinded, additionally as I have a BMFA 'A' cert I do not need to take the CAA test or the BMFA test.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 17/02/2020 13:36:39:

The CAA have issue a new exemption.

ORS4 1345

A well known expression involving breweries and people consuming alcohol springs to mind.

Indeed, it seems like their upload may not have gone very smoothly... I am in the group still waiting to receive my number. At least now this new exemption aligns with the next set of changes due in June, though I am extremely sceptical that the national associations will get everything needed to allow flying at public access sites to remain unchanged.

Posted by Erfolg on 17/02/2020 14:16:14:

Well, I have read it, I now need someone to tell me (and maybe others) what it means in everyday terms. Also how will effect us in flying models.

I take it that this is good news.

It means UK members of the National Associations can continue to operate without fulfilling all the obligations associated with article 94D (registration as an SUA operator) of the ANO. This article offers a good summary...

"There have also been additional changes with the addition of Article 94C which gives legal instruction to create a scheme for the registration of SUA Operators by 1 October 2019 and goes hand in hand with Article 94D.
94D does not come into force until 30 November 2019 and sets out the requirements to be in place for registration:

• The registration requirements only apply to SUA operators
• SUA operators are only required to be registered if they are operating small unmanned aircraft that have a mass of 250 grams or more
• An SUA operator must have a valid registration when his/her small unmanned aircraft is flown and the registration number must be displayed on the aircraft
• A remote pilot must not fly a small unmanned aircraft unless he/she is happy that the SUA operator has a valid registration and the registration number is displayed on the aircraft"

Edited By MattyB on 17/02/2020 14:48:37

[Simon Chaddock]

This new exemption can be considered good or bad.

Either it gives a bit more credence to the situation that an approved organisation membership can have a special status.

Or the CAA gets **** off with the administration of dealing with these 'en bloc' registrations and reverts to treating everybody as an individual registration which is how the system is set up.

[MattyB]

Posted by GONZO on 17/02/2020 14:42:02:

Having read the document I think I'm entitled to a wry smile(or maybe not) over all those who rushed to sign up and pay their £9 well in advance of the stated date and then boast about it. So, I stand to be corrected, as I understand this as it relates to my own circumstances; I'm a member of the BMFA and therefore according to this document I do not need to register as an operator and pay my £9 until 30th June 2020 or until this order is rescinded, additionally as I have a BMFA 'A' cert I do not need to take the CAA test or the BMFA test.

Correct, as long as you carry copies of the exemptions with you in some form.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Dickw on 17/02/2020 14:34:38:

I think it is just a new exemption for those who join / rejoin the BMFA (etc.) after 1st Feb and therefore missed the bulk data transfer. I think there will be another bulk data transfer before June.

Dick

Edited By Dickw on 17/02/2020 14:36:32

Next one is likely to be in April.