Simon Chaddock Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 I suspect it was necessary to define the conditions and rules for model aircraft so they then could be specifically excluded from any commercial regulation. When viewed this way this it is perhaps just as well they did otherwise the likely charges involved would have killed the hobby almost instantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 27/12/2019 18:33:05: Posted by Martin_K on 26/12/2019 22:24:39: The FAA have released their anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Remote Identification. This is in America and not the final document. That is nasty. Worse than I was expecting. I wish the modellers in the US the best of luck fighting it. Wow..page 11 , section c makes for grim reading regarding model pilots over there. Makes our rules at the moment look very reasonable....as long as we police it properly Edited By cymaz on 27/12/2019 18:47:22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 But this is what it says on Page 16 sub para c. Looks like they have a way out if they register where they fly with the FAA. Not brilliant but better than the stuff earlier in the document perhaps? c. UAS without Remote Identification Equipment Under the proposed rule, the vast majority of UAS would be required to have remote identification capability, however as discussed in section X. A. 3, a limited number of UAS would continue to not have remote identification. The FAA envisions that upon full implementation of this rule, no unmanned aircraft weighing more than 0.55 pounds will be commercially available that is not either a standard remote identification UAS or a limited remote identification UAS. However, there will be certain UAS including amateur built aircraft and previously manufactured UAS that might not have remote identification capability. A person operating a UAS without remote identification equipment would always be required to operate within visual line of sight6 and within an FAA-recognized identification area. Under the proposed rule, an FAA-recognized identification area is a defined geographic area where UAS without remote identification can operate. An area would be eligible for establishment as an FAA-recognized identification area if it is a flying site that has been established within the programming of a community based organization recognized by the Administrator. The FAA would maintain a list of FAA-recognized identification areas at https://www.faa.gov. FAArecognized identification areas are discussed further in section XV of this preamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 I see no reason for optimism when it comes to the way we'll be treated in the UK, in fact quit the opposite. Amongst many other incidents that displays the attitude towards modellers take the registration(tax) situation. USA $5(less than £4) for 3 years; UK was to be £16.50(just under $21.50) dropped to £9(just under $12) but for only 1 year. Even with the reduced fee(tax) it still means we pay 7X the USA rate. IMO the attitude will continue with remote identification for UK models. Edited By GONZO on 28/12/2019 08:54:16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 28/12/2019 09:18:03: Posted by GONZO on 28/12/2019 08:43:49: USA $5(less than £4) for 3 years; UK was to be £16.50(just under $21.50) dropped to £9(just under $12) but for only 1 year. The current US system is $5 per person. The system being proposed by the FAA is $5/UAS. The US Remote ID proposal is significantly worse than what is in the EU regulations. Steve J, are you that optimistic that you believe, given the past history of DfT/CAA, that comes 'remote identification' here it will not be at least as bad. I regretfully do not share that optimism if that is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 $5 per UAS - how are they going to work that? I mean you can only fly one 'UAS' at a time (as an aeromodeller anyway) so will they have to provide photographs or something to register each and every model? Will it be a crime to own an unregistered model even if it's not in the air? Doesn't bear thinking about really! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guvnor Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 "CAA announce New drone trials !" Except it isn't new... This has been planned for years. BVLOS trials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 28/12/2019 11:34:19: Posted by Wingman on 28/12/2019 11:28:37: $5 per UAS - how are they going to work that? The French (and the Irish?) already have individual model registration. So does it work on an "honesty" system or what? I mean what's to stop them registering one model and transferring that registration to the model they are actually flying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Might be a work around if you have several of the same model. Otherwise I would hope at least wingspan, weight and colour to be recorded on any workable system that was capable of recording anything other than "out of the box" models. There again, the track record of the legislators thinking outside the "drone" box isn't too impressive... Edited By Martin Harris on 28/12/2019 12:46:19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 28/12/2019 11:32:34: Posted by GONZO on 28/12/2019 11:08:34: Posted by Steve J on 28/12/2019 09:18:03: The US Remote ID proposal is significantly worse than what is in the EU regulations. Steve J, are you that optimistic that you believe, given the past history of DfT/CAA, that comes 'remote identification' here it will not be at least as bad. Yes. Mainly because, based on a quick scan though the document, I don't think that the FAA proposal is viable. But your next post would seem to indicate that it has been made workable in two countries(France and Ireland) and therefore could be made workable in the USA and also here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Bruce Simpsons rant on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Oh God, have we been reduced to listening to Bruce ranting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Nothing useful to say, best say nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Steve J, you'll probably be the best person, although others may know, to answer this question. I know our and Europe's regulations have been generated by EASA and this came from a declaration(Riga?). But, as there is a world wide similar/coordinated drive to regulate and control 'drones' did this movement start from some international body possibly linked to the UN by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Gorham_ Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Rob Buckley the LMA secretary has been working for a few years on a portable device that give a model flying site conspicuity. Is this not a solution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 Should such a device be necessary at a fixed model flying site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Gorham_ Posted December 28, 2019 Share Posted December 28, 2019 I think he looked into it before things became clearer this year to avoid all models having to carry conspicuity devices. Still might be viable in certain circumstances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_K Posted December 29, 2019 Share Posted December 29, 2019 Alan, Re. work on a portable device. We don't yet know what hardware and software is going to be required for UAS identification and location so designing something now is speculative at best. The recent FAA Remote ID NPRM envisages the possibility of every UAV having an individual serial number and flight data (location, altitude, etc.) being uploaded to data storage servers. Policing then becomes an automated process, fly outside your designated boundaries, expect a fixed penalty notice. The amount of network infrastructure required to do that is so large I cannot envisage it being the norm. The fact that some authorities think like this is worrying however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.