I haven't yet had a chance to read these so cannot comment on how this may affect the recreational flyer.
BTW we seem at last to have a definition of a drone....
A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.
By this definition then free flight models are NOT drones but control liners are because they are remotely controlled. Remote does not mean only radio. That'll be interesting when it comes to separation distances.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/benefits-of-drones-to-the-uk-economy (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/benefits-of-drones-to-the-uk-economy)
So old man Grumpers who's been flying gassers down the local BMFA field for 30+ years, who's never hurt anyone, who's never been of any danger to full size aircraft, who's never broken the current CAA rules... is now lumped in with the cnuts who buy Phantoms and fly them over airports.
It's my personal opinion that the word drone is still used incorrectly, however if that's the definition they're going with I guess we'll have to lump it.
I have to say that I was reasonably impressed with how balanced these new documents are. However it is vitally important that we as leisure users make our thoughts and feeling know and don't just simply moan about it here, in the pub or to our flying buddies then bitch like crazy when any new rules are brought in which we don't like or agree with. Too late by that time.
A quick review of the documents indicates that the Government is considering registration of drones over 250g and some kind of competency test. The parts to focus on are :
Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy : Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK
Chapter 4
Proposal B Pilot competency, training and licensing
Chapter 5
Proposal D Improving drone user awareness of the law
Proposal E Improving deterrents
Proposal F No Drone Flying Zones and Enforcement
Chapter 6
Proposal G Registration
Each proposal has options and consultation questions.
Impact Assessment - Mandated guidance provision for drones
Impact assessment: registration requirements for drones
Quote from: BlueFlyer on December 21, 2016, 10:49:57 PM
So old man Grumpers who's been flying gassers down the local BMFA field for 30+ years, who's never hurt anyone, who's never been of any danger to full size aircraft, who's never broken the current CAA rules... is now lumped in with the cnuts who buy Phantoms and fly them over airports.
It's my personal opinion that the word drone is still used incorrectly, however if that's the definition they're going with I guess we'll have to lump it.
Sad fact of life BlueFlyer.
I too am not happy with the word drone, which the Airproxboard cannot, by their own admission, define. In addition the CAA have not responded to my request to offer a clear and unambiguous definition.
I note in the documents of the above link I posted, that whilst drone is defined, reference is also made to camera carrying drones and model aircraft. They also seem to think that most drones now carry cameras! Well having defined drones as "unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone" I would challenge their assertion that most drones now carry cameras. Most certainly do not and are widely and historically known as model aircraft. Already this is starting to come apart.
You're dead right.
For me, the requirement to say "unmanned" before the word "aircraft" says that you're talking about an aircraft that would normally be manned... but isn't. So the likes of the military drones such as the Reaper/Predator... they're effectively full sized planes but just don't have pilots on board.... That's an "unmanned" aircraft.
To call a DJI Phantom an "unmanned aircraft" is ridiculous... you wouldn't expect it to be manned lol
It's the naivety that shocks me.
QuoteWhile some misuse could be unintentional and may result from leisure
drone users being unfamiliar with the technology and law, other misuse is intentional
and both types can be extremely dangerous.
1. The guys who do it unintentionally probably don't even know they will have to register... therefore will not be on the "naughty list" when the times comes to search for a scape goat when there's a reported near miss, or god forbid an actual accident.
2. The guys who do it on purpose will definitely not register... therefore will not be on the "naughty list" either.
So the purpose of the registration has already defeated itself.
I have a phantom 4 Chris but I'm far from being a :censored: and the flights near airports are allegations not a single one confirmed.
I originally thought so too BlueFlyer but on reading this passage from 6.7 on page 40 of "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy : Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK" I had a bit of a rethink.
The Government is also interested in pairing such a registration scheme with a legal requirement to notify when you are flying a drone in a certain area via an app on your smart phone. This would allow identification of drone operators where necessary. Such a process could allow any member of the public seeing someone operate a drone, or a drone flying around without a visible operator, to log into the app and check if someone has notified that a drone flight or flights will be taking place. If the drone operator had done so, and was breaking regulations, they could then be identified to the Police, and if the drone operator had not identified themselves, this would be a good indicator to the authorities and security officials around sensitive sites that the drone might be being maliciously misused and require investigation.
However my rethink also made me consider the slightly Big Brother nature of what might happen. I am of course referring to George Orwell's scenario and not Channel 4's awful rubbish.
And also "Mr Misery" at Number 47 who thinks all uses of drones are "misuse" simply because his newspaper told him he should be worried.
Quote from: mark1975 on December 21, 2016, 11:59:05 PM
I have a phantom 4 Chris but I'm far from being a :censored: and the flights near airports are allegations not a single one confirmed.
It was an over-exaggerated statement to get my point across. Please don't take it personally.
If I could afford a Phantom 4 I would also be an owner. Its not phantoms, it's not phantom owners, it's phantom owners that fly them irresponsibly that are the problem.
If you're not one of those, then my statement wasn't aimed at you and we can both enjoy the rest of our night.
Quote from: electrotor on December 22, 2016, 12:00:31 AM
I originally thought so too BlueFlyer but on reading this passage from 6.7 on page 40 of "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy : Consultation on the Safe Use of drones in the UK" I had a bit of a rethink.
The Government is also interested in pairing such a registration scheme with a legal requirement to notify when you are flying a drone in a certain area via an app on your smart phone. This would allow identification of drone operators where necessary. Such a process could allow any member of the public seeing someone operate a drone, or a drone flying around without a visible operator, to log into the app and check if someone has notified that a drone flight or flights will be taking place. If the drone operator had done so, and was breaking regulations, they could then be identified to the Police, and if the drone operator had not identified themselves, this would be a good indicator to the authorities and security officials around sensitive sites that the drone might be being maliciously misused and require investigation.
However my rethink also made me consider the slightly Big Brother nature of what might happen. I am of course referring to George Orwell's scenario and not Channel 4's awful rubbish.
Bloody hell, so not only do they want me to be on a watch list (that's effectively what it is) but they also want me to log into a smart phone app when I'm flying, so they DEFINITELY know where I am? Might as well smack ankle trackers on us FFS
I'm not even sure they treat paedophiles like this.
Well I've sent a polite email to them asking for a Word Document version of the consultation questions so I can give them my answers. I urge everyone else who's the remotest bit concerned to do the same.
Smartphone app - what if you're not running iOS or Android .. or even have an old Nokia 3210 (and why not? :D )
This is all :censored: bollocks! Why are we even entertaining this instead of telling it how it is? This is a way to screw non-commercial pilots because of the value of the drone industry over the next few decades.
It's nothing at all to do with safety, it's nothing at all to do with Phantom pilots, it's everything to do with protecting commercial interests and I really hate that so many people are spending so much time trying to appease these draconian bureaucrats - we do not need any more rules, the CAA have already got a brilliant set which works FLAWLESSLY (no issues so far).
Why can't we use the pre-existing legislation. Why? The new rules add nothing over and above what we already have. They simply add more restrictions without due cause.
It's ridiculous.
Totally agree Steve. Some dickhead WILL at some point soon cause an incident with a UAV. The finger of blame will point to who?
Will the CAA take it on the chin or the awarding body that granted his 'drone qualification' assuming he had or needed one? The commercial sector will push for a ban on amateur use etc etc.
Need I go on
Quote from: BlueFlyer on December 22, 2016, 12:20:47 AM
Well I've sent a polite email to them asking for a Word Document version of the consultation questions so I can give them my answers. I urge everyone else who's the remotest bit concerned to do the same.
If you get one perhaps you could put it up here as a sticky?
With regard to the statement regarding a drone qualification, I suggest that this is another case of a deal being done before publication. The BMFA have already designed and implicated an FPV extension qualification for 2017. I would encourage all FPV fliers regardless of affiliation and feelings toward the BMFA to lobby the BMFA regarding the extension. The test and criterion can be seen at
http://achievements.bmfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FPV-Extension-MR-and-FW-2017.pdf (http://achievements.bmfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FPV-Extension-MR-and-FW-2017.pdf)
I have already fired off several e mails to the scheme controller
http://achievements.bmfa.org/contact-the-asrc/power-silent-flight-national-scheme-controller (http://achievements.bmfa.org/contact-the-asrc/power-silent-flight-national-scheme-controller)
Mainly the test is an extension to fixed wing and multicopter BPC , A, B, C Certs. In particular it is the requirement for the model to have no GPS installed, but self levelling is allowed, no autoland or launch and a compulsory FPV landing. It's just aimed at a bog standard club flier who throws a cheap camera and vtx on a powered glider or 250 quad. Not representative of the serious FPV set up.
Please remember that the BMFA are most likely to be the agency that ends up being responsible for implementing the government schemes.
Good luck finding a drone pilot who's flying multiple kilometres from the launch point across open fields.
All these regulations are going to do is drive people under the radar which, funnily enough, puts them in the same league as those who would commit nefarious acts in the first place.
Oh well, bang goes another hobby. It was cool.
The worst of it is I think it's all for nothing. I think the entire notion that the commercial drone sector will soon be worth however many billions they projected is utter, utter hogwash. No doubt some dweeb has charted the recent growth, extrapolated out and seen flashing pound signs. And there will be a growing industry but all I can really see are fairly niche applications. This idea that the sky will be filled with delivery drones is idiotic. Their capacity compared to a van is truly pathetic and before very long at all we'll see fleets of electric powered driverless delivery vehicles that will make the whole idea all but redundant excpet for those few cases where someone really needs a very small item very quickly and they live or work somewhere that a drone could feasibly land. Just not seeing it at all.
QuoteTheir capacity compared to a van is truly pathetic an
There's already the concept of putting rotors onto Isocontainers that can way point themselves out to deliver in remote areas etc Miltary applications are booming also in other areas hence the big money.
Does anyone else not see the silliness of this though?
We're not allowed to fly Phantoms over people because it's dangerous (although we have full control)
BUT
It's fine for Amazon to send large, fully-autonomous craft not only through the air, but LANDING in peoples' gardens completely unsupervised where there may be a) animals, b) children, c) unseen hazards ... and not only that, take off - again completely unsupervised - with the possibility of some excited kids around it because "hey!!! DRONE!!!"
It's bullshit!
Anyone who is using the safety argument for these drone regulations has to have an agenda.
Quote from: BigT on December 22, 2016, 10:12:32 AM
Please remember that the BMFA are most likely to be the agency that ends up being responsible for implementing the government schemes.
I cannot see this happening for several reasons :
1. The BMFA has no legal powers and is not a government agency
2. The BMFA would have to change completely and utterly in its purpose, structure and responsibilities in order for this to happen
3. The BMFA is only one of several associations representing model flying in the UK
4. The BMFA can only properly represent its members - the A stands for Association not All
5. The BMFA is funded by its members and not the government
Seems to me the BMFA is at as much risk as anyone else in this fiasco.
The problem and as I see it the crux of the matter is the inability or unwillingness to differentiate between recreational unmanned and commercial unmanned. Until very recently this was never a problem and it needn't necessarily be a problem in future if we can just have an informed evolution of perfectly sound existing regulation. There is nothing wrong with CAP 658. Its biggest amendment in recent years was to add a section on FPV, written by our very own Simon Dale (thank you again Simon) and I can see no reason for radical changes to address the perception of a problem which, in the grand scale of things, barely exists.
Quote from: Gundummy on December 22, 2016, 01:04:41 PM
There's already the concept of putting rotors onto Isocontainers that can way point themselves out to deliver in remote areas etc Miltary applications are booming also in other areas hence the big money.
But that's not really relevant when we're discussing regulation of civilian drones here in the UK and I just don't really see this supposed vast potential. Moving things around on wheels is almost always going to be more cost effective and there are comparatively few things that need to get anywhere so fast that this method of delivery is going to be so important. There are applications like Police surveillance but again that will be quite a small industry. Added to which the potential is further limited by the fact that people simply wouldn't want to see the sky filled with commercial drones.
Loop dreams..you brought up the discussion about delivery capability and financial viability.... I was highlighting the fact that I do indeed see the market being worth a fortune and that delivery potentially is increasing. Especially in the military industry.
The civilian drone industry covers a lot !! Not just hobby enthusiasts
I think the main problem is that companies like amazon want to be able to control the first layer of airspace, 0-400feet AGL. they have already "offered" to manage this airspace on behalf of the CAA who promptly told them where to poke it, but for the delivery model to work they need a corridor available to them for delivery. if they are going to land it stands to reason that this must extend from ground level.
this is all well and good, but they have realised there are users of this airspace. Us lowly modellers. we don't pay for this nor do we have such high tech available to us for cheap enough prices to make it viable (ADS-b etc...) so the easiest thing to do is make it so hard for the modellers to fly legally that they either give up or go underground at the risk of an annual example being made of someone in the media.
until sense and avoid tech comes a long way further than it is today this will be the recurring problem. there is no way with the current tech that drones can integrate into the NAS so they will have to go for the softer target.
/Steve
Quote from: stevec on December 23, 2016, 09:31:40 AM
I think the main problem is that companies like amazon want to be able to control the first layer of airspace, 0-400feet AGL. they have already "offered" to manage this airspace on behalf of the CAA who promptly told them where to poke it, but for the delivery model to work they need a corridor available to them for delivery. if they are going to land it stands to reason that this must extend from ground level.
this is all well and good, but they have realised there are users of this airspace. Us lowly modellers. we don't pay for this nor do we have such high tech available to us for cheap enough prices to make it viable (ADS-b etc...) so the easiest thing to do is make it so hard for the modellers to fly legally that they either give up or go underground at the risk of an annual example being made of someone in the media.
until sense and avoid tech comes a long way further than it is today this will be the recurring problem. there is no way with the current tech that drones can integrate into the NAS so they will have to go for the softer target.
/Steve
All a fair point.
But let's be honest... They could fly into a bird?
A cricket ball?
Plenty of things in that airspace.
I would hope that the likes of the caa will work towards a suitable resolution.
Time will tell!
In the mean time... My sub 250g quads are an absolute blast!
Am I the only hobbyist who, while loving drones / aircraft etc, doesn't fancy the air being full of Amazon delivery bots?
And can you imagine the Yodel ones? lol
Quote from: Steve W on December 23, 2016, 10:36:16 AM
Am I the only hobbyist who, while loving drones / aircraft etc, doesn't fancy the air being full of Amazon delivery bots?
And can you imagine the Yodel ones? lol
I don't fancy the idea either. As far as I can see, it's just a gimmick right now. There will be a big list of eligibility criteria a customer has to meet in order to qualify for "drone delivery" and I certainly can't see them offering it for free.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on December 23, 2016, 12:12:15 PM
I don't fancy the idea either. As far as I can see, it's just a gimmick right now. There will be a big list of eligibility criteria a customer has to meet in order to qualify for "drone delivery" and I certainly can't see them offering it for free.
I think we have to be careful here not to fixate on Amazon Prime Air just as we should not fixate on DJI Phantom users for bringing about scare stories of downing airliners. Whilst it may be convenient to have immediate delivery of a pair of trainers (see Jeremy Clarkson's tongue in cheek video) it is NOT an emergency, NOT life threatening, NOT economical, NOT possible everywhere, NOT the best use of resources, NOT environmentally friendly, etc. etc. I do however see a value in using more UAVs for survey work (agricultural/commercial/industrial). emergency services, disaster relief and situation monitoring. However these uses would be more controlled and less likely to fill the lower airspace levels for simple convenience.
I hate all this hassle, just typical that a hobby I'm passionate about has so many potential restrictions associated with it.
I also hate some of the commercial model pilots going on shows slagging of recreational pilots saying we are giving model flying a bad name, I have been designing and flying copters from the early day's, but because I don't need to make money from my hobby, I'm a pest to the public.
As many of you guy's have stated in the past, the nutters flying irresponsible will always do it and the chances are thay won't be in a club or even know anyone else that fly's.
I could go and get a licence, but it doesn't necessarily mean it will improve my flying or make me more responsible or give me the right to think I'm safer than the next person.
As far as sky's full of drones.
I can't see the air being full of delivery copters until battery technology moves on a cupola of decades, I can see them being used for search and rescue or crowed control servalants. I think micro drones will be more likely clusters of sensors swarming buildings after earthquakes or servalants at big events like the Olympics, one's that will automatically dock and charge throughout the day.
I can see them being used for search but the "and rescue" bit would still need the grown ups to help with their helicopters or boats or whatever. And all these uses are so niche as to make regulation of recreational users a total irrelevance. When it all shakes down the authorities will recognise that actually just wanting a flying camera to dick around with will be about the most numerous and profitable use case for this "game changing" technology.
I received a reply, saying they don't have the Word Doc version of the survey.
But they gave me a link instead:
http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/BJVII/ (http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/BJVII/)