Operators of small unmanned aircraft (drones) using 'first person view' (FPV) equipment should note that the General Exemption which permits this activity has been amended in order to accommodate the changes to the Air Navigation Order 2016 (see CAP 1763 ) which come into force on Wednesday 13 March 2019. Details of the new General Exemption, which also takes effect on the same day, can be found at
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1294.pdf (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1294.pdf)
400ft is a pain. In the right conditions I have flown a DJI Phantom to 1000ft during daylight hours and 1200ft at night maintaining direct unaided line of sight.
Note that the exemption is for all SUA. Some people and, dare I say it media types will only see the word "drone" and fit this to their definition of what a drone is.
I have never understood why we can't have up to 400ft + BVLOS, and restrict manned air traffic to a minimum of 500ft AGL. It would work perfectly with the new "not within 5 miles of an airport" shenanigans, and would also allow legal + completely safe operation of ALL aircraft if all parties adhered to the rules.
Apparently it's better to over complicate things to the point that noone will even pay any attention.
Thanks Eric, and yeah I know exactly what you mean Steve, so unnecessary.
The 1000ft fpv exemption for fixed wing up to 3.5 kg is still in place though, for BMFA anyway.
Quote from: BigT on March 08, 2019, 10:12:48 AM
The 1000ft fpv exemption for fixed wing up to 3.5 kg is still in place though, for BMFA anyway.
The exemption also applies to certain types of rotorcraft :
4.e. the small unmanned aircraft shall not be a rotorcraft with more than one lift generating rotor or propeller.https://bmfa.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=2644&language=en-GB&PortalId=0&TabId=1506
Chinooks, coaxial and multirotor are therefore not exempted.
However I think that convertiplanes would be exempted during wingborne flight but not during hover.
Quote from: BigT on March 08, 2019, 10:12:48 AM
The 1000ft fpv exemption for fixed wing up to 3.5 kg is still in place though, for BMFA anyway.
It is being tweaked slightly and will be reissued before too long.
Quote
However I think that convertiplanes would be exempted during wingborne flight but not during hover.
it's this kind of "detail" that causes things to get bogged down.
It makes zero sense to me that you could be flying a "convertiplane" in "wing" mode at 1000ft perfectly legally and safely, but flick a switch to hover and now it's somehow more dangerous to any passing aircraft. :laugh: Not buying it!
It seems to me that the authorities have fallen into a trap of restricting different types of aircraft and ignoring the whole point of the exercise: ensuring aircraft separation. It's idiocy and it's going to cause problems because if the rules aren't clear enough, we all know what happens - they get ignored.
Or indeed the phase of flight in which 50% of the lift is wing generated and the other 50% rotor generated. 700ft?
Thinking back only a few years we were left largely alone to get on with our hobby. There were very few actual incidents and almost no bad publicity. Today there are still very few actual incidents but an unfortunate media downer on our hobby. It still amazes me how the Gatwick non-incident is still being portrayed as being caused by drones despite a complete lack of credible evidence. What next? Drones cause cancer and birth defects?
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 08, 2019, 04:23:53 PM
it's this kind of "detail" that causes things to get bogged down.
It makes zero sense to me that you could be flying a "convertiplane" in "wing" mode at 1000ft perfectly legally and safely, but flick a switch to hover and now it's somehow more dangerous to any passing aircraft. :laugh: Not buying it!
It seems to me that the authorities have fallen into a trap of restricting different types of aircraft and ignoring the whole point of the exercise: ensuring aircraft separation. It's idiocy and it's going to cause problems because if the rules aren't clear enough, we all know what happens - they get ignored.
I have wondered that as well. My theory is that certain organisations tried to maintain the best legal flying for their members and threw multirotor pilots under the bus. I can't really blame them as they are just trying to protect the most members they can. The problem for me is that they have closed off a section of potential new members from joining, so it's a short term fix that will reduce new young members joining.
Must say I have seen so many non multirotor flights on youtube with people flying way way past line of sight, even including gps osd showing how many miles they are away and how high they are........
As you say why is flying anything but a multirotor safe at upto 1000ft with within real air traffic space yet only safe upto 400ft if it's a multirotor?
Quote from: ched on March 08, 2019, 06:30:14 PM
I have wondered that as well. My theory is that certain organisations tried to maintain the best legal flying for their members and threw multirotor pilots under the bus. I can't really blame them as they are just trying to protect the most members they can. The problem for me is that they have closed off a section of potential new members from joining, so it's a short term fix that will reduce new young members joining.
Must say I have seen so many non multirotor flights on youtube with people flying way way past line of sight, even including gps osd showing how many miles they are away and how high they are........
As you say why is flying anything but a multirotor safe at upto 1000ft with within real air traffic space yet only safe upto 400ft if it's a multirotor?
This has been explained already by one of the BMFA guys who was party to the discussions with the CAA and it certainly wasn't a case of throwing multirotor pilots under the bus. The CAA would not budge on this issue. My understanding is because of the irresponsible flying being carried out by people ignorant of the regulations or simply ignoring them. Of course no matter how hard you try you cannot legislate against ignorance and there are always those who think that regulations do not apply to them. Bottom line is that the responsible ones suffer. I rather think also that the CAA had to be seen to be doing something.
Its more the DfT that have to be seen doing something. The CAA are generally fairly sensible and aware what affect the regulations will have on those ignorant of them or who simply wont follow them.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: electrotor on March 08, 2019, 10:27:29 PM
This has been explained already by one of the BMFA guys who was party to the discussions with the CAA and it certainly wasn't a case of throwing multirotor pilots under the bus. The CAA would not budge on this issue. My understanding is because of the irresponsible flying being carried out by people ignorant of the regulations or simply ignoring them. Of course no matter how hard you try you cannot legislate against ignorance and there are always those who think that regulations do not apply to them. Bottom line is that the responsible ones suffer. I rather think also that the CAA had to be seen to be doing something.
Cheers for the clarification.
Don't get me wrong, any club should look after the most members they can.
Quote from: big a on March 08, 2019, 10:35:32 PM
The CAA are generally fairly sensible and aware what affect the regulations will have on those ignorant of them or who simply wont follow them.
Very true, there will always be people that won't follow laws. Unfortunately legislation won't stop them.
Legislation never does - education might though.