http://www.generalaviationappg.uk/new-drones-law-punishes-british-model-flying-community/ (http://www.generalaviationappg.uk/new-drones-law-punishes-british-model-flying-community/)
I have contacted both the BMFA and All-Party Group on General Aviation (APPG-GA) to ask for their definitions, in light of their statement "the groups highlighted that model flying is a fundamentally different activity from drone flying".
I recall only too well the plight of a former member of this forum who found himself in court facing charges which were dubious at best. Lacking a clear or even basic understanding of what the simpler regulations at that time stated, the court found him guilty.
Once again BMFA effectively grouping al multi rotors in with DJI 'drones'.
Quote:
"The APPG-GA and the BMFA have published a joint letter to the Aviation Minister, Baroness Sugg, to highlight the concerns of the model flying community.
In the letter, the groups highlighted that model flying is a fundamentally different activity from drone flying. The aerodynamics of the model aircraft require a greater level of pilot skill to operate and model flyers must therefore be trained to a higher standard than most hobbyist drone operators. This also limits the performance of model aircraft to well within visual line of sight- a restriction which does not necessarily apply to many types of commercially available drone.
"
So they are assuming drone flying is all in stabilised gps mode. Which is interesting as BMFA competency tests for drones exclude gps and stabilisation!!!! Do they really think the majority of 'drone pilots' use dji products?
I know drones are a very small part of BMFA membership and they have probably realised that they are not going to win any 'drone' arguments with official channels but to be putting down the skills of most hobby drone operators is not really fair.
If you look on youtube you will find many many fixed wing flights flying way way beyond los and many drone flight breaking rules as well.
I do feel very sorry for those clubs that are close to airports.
I never fail to be dismayed when the terminology used is not defined and there is no general consensus on what the terms used actually mean. This is vitally important when trying to understand regulation which is in fact law. Those of you who know me either on this Forum or elsewhere will know that I have been "droning" on about the lack of basic definitions for years. I recently started a thread on the BMFA page in Facebook highlighting this.
DEFINITION OF A DRONE
This is actually a serious question because the word means different things to different people, both within and outwith the modelling community, the aviation industry and the general public. The CAA does not define what constitutes a drone, but categorises it as an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)) and applies the same regulation to a variety of types. To quote the CAA :
"Unmanned aircraft come in a variety of shapes and sizes, ranging from small handheld types up to large aircraft, potentially a similar size to airliners and, just like manned aircraft, they may be of a fixed wing design, rotary winged, or a combination of both.
Unmanned Aircraft may also be referred to as:
Drones
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
Model Aircraft
Radio Controlled Aircraft
Regardless of the name used, they all share the common characteristic that the person responsible for piloting the aircraft is not onboard it. Just like any other aircraft however, an unmanned aircraft must always be flown in a safe manner, both with respect to other aircraft in the air and also to people and properties on the ground."
With the continued bad and sometimes misleading press about "drones" it would be good to have a definition for the purposes of clarity and removal of ambiguity, especially when faced with officialdom seeking to curtail activities which responsible fliers can conduct safely and within regulation.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/20194392275/permalink/10157141519097276/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/20194392275/permalink/10157141519097276/)
It was no surprise in the responses that people's personal definitions were just that. Amongst all the various definitions the one which stood out for me was from Andy Symons of the BMFA.
"You can define a drone any way you like, essentially it doesn't matter, the legislation doesn't refer to "drones" it refers to Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) and Small Unmanned Surveilance Aircraft (SUSA)."
It is impossible to agree with this in light of the joint letter from the BMFA & APPG-GA to the Aviation Minister, Baroness Sugg with which I kicked off this thread on FPV HUB. You simply cannot claim it doesn't matter then proceed to differentiate between model flying and drone flying especially if you are trying to make the case that New UK Drones Law punishes British Model Flying Community.
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 12:06:27 PM
So they are assuming drone flying is all in stabilised gps mode. Which is interesting as BMFA competency tests for drones exclude gps and stabilisation!!!! Do they really think the majority of 'drone pilots' use dji products?
I know drones are a very small part of BMFA membership and they have probably realised that they are not going to win any 'drone' arguments with official channels but to be putting down the skills of most hobby drone operators is not really fair.
If you look on youtube you will find many many fixed wing flights flying way way beyond los and many drone flight breaking rules as well.
My first camera model was a Twinstar, with no stabilsation, GPS or VTX. Was this a drone?
My first FPV model was a Twinstar with no stabilisation or GPS. Was this a drone?
My first two quadcopters had stabilisation but no GPS or camera. Were they drones?
My first DJI Phantom had GPS & stabilisation but no camera or telemetry. Was this a drone?
My current DJI Phantom has GPS, stabilisation, a camera, telemetry & autonomous flight but I can switch these all off for a scary ride, a lot scarier than an unstabilised Twinstar. Is it only sometimes a drone?
OK chaps, what is a drone?
A Small Unmanned Aircraft, i.e. all of the above.
(by the sounds of it).
:(
Very speedy response from James Shipp, Head of Secretariat, All Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation.
Firstly my enquiry
Sir
In your recent joint letter (with the BMFA) to Aviation Minister, Baroness Sugg, to highlight the concerns of the model flying community about the disproportionately negative effect on the model flying community of the new regulations, you highlight "that model flying is a fundamentally different activity from drone flying". Can you please define model flying and drone flying?
I feel that this is important because you have differentiated the two. However there is no clear definition in the regulation to establish what they actually are. Granted they are all types of Unmanned Aerial Systems or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, but these terms cover a number of different aircraft types. To further cloud the issue the DfT, CAA and AAIB, all of whom I have contacted, cannot provide this definition despite widely using the words model aircraft and drones. To further complicate matters EASA equates the terms "The proposal also provides special alleviations for people flying model aircraft (also considered to be drones) to recognise the good safety records in aero modelling" https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/civil-drones-rpas/drones-regulatory-framework-background?fbclid=IwAR3k7Nd8b-oYG0-sf63SwcSFON-UGp9Hnaz5xNygb7zixN0sZK4k5doPW3k (https://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/civil-drones-rpas/drones-regulatory-framework-background?fbclid=IwAR3k7Nd8b-oYG0-sf63SwcSFON-UGp9Hnaz5xNygb7zixN0sZK4k5doPW3k)
None of this is made any better by the media which, at times, seems to categorise anything without a person onboard, as a drone, be it a bird, a balloon, a multicopter or a fly-away supermarket bag.
A clear definition has become even more important with the introduction of the new regulation and the upcoming further regulation. I can foresee a time when it may be left up to a court the define what constitutes a model aircraft and what constitutes a drone should some poor unfortunate find himself being accused of an activity using equipment for which there is no proper definition.
My personal interest is as someone who has flown Unmanned Aerial Systems of various types for many years and as an administrator for legalities on a UK First Person View forum.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And his reply
Thanks for getting in touch, very interesting thoughts.
I agree entirely with you in the need for a clear definition of what the government is trying to regulate. As you rightly point out, now all forms of unmanned flight are caught up in new rules.
At the moment, the difference is immaterial as everyone who operates an unmanned aircraft is being lumped into the same boat. However, there are clear differences in the types of aircraft flown and their capabilities- a nuance the legislation has failed to appreciate. This is despite the Government making their own distinction between model flying and drone operations in their drones consultation response- published in January: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771673/future-of-drones-in-uk-consultation-response-web.pdf (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771673/future-of-drones-in-uk-consultation-response-web.pdf)
The legislation is aimed at limiting the use of powerful, 'off the shelf' drones which anyone can pick up and operate. This is clearly a different machine to a replica Spitfire which needs training and skill to pilot.
The difficulty in defining these activities is in getting something that is sufficiently wide to ensure effective regulation and yet sufficiently specific to ensure the large and law abiding model flying community isn't disaffected. Through our letter, we hoped to highlight the issue to the Minister and hopefully open a dialogue with government on the issue. We're hoping to work together to create something that will be workable for model flyers.
Best wishes,
James
James Shipp
Head of Secretariat
All Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation
E.
[email protected]T.0207 219 1758
Quote from: electrotor on March 12, 2019, 12:38:16 PM
I never fail to be dismayed when the terminology used is not defined and there is no general consensus on what the terms used actually mean. This is vitally important when trying to understand regulation which is in fact law. Those of you who know me either on this Forum or elsewhere will know that I have been "droning" on about the lack of basic definitions for years. I recently started a thread on the BMFA page in Facebook highlighting this.
DEFINITION OF A DRONE
This is actually a serious question because the word means different things to different people, both within and outwith the modelling community, the aviation industry and the general public. The CAA does not define what constitutes a drone, but categorises it as an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)) and applies the same regulation to a variety of types. To quote the CAA :
"Unmanned aircraft come in a variety of shapes and sizes, ranging from small handheld types up to large aircraft, potentially a similar size to airliners and, just like manned aircraft, they may be of a fixed wing design, rotary winged, or a combination of both.
Unmanned Aircraft may also be referred to as:
Drones
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
Model Aircraft
Radio Controlled Aircraft
Regardless of the name used, they all share the common characteristic that the person responsible for piloting the aircraft is not onboard it. Just like any other aircraft however, an unmanned aircraft must always be flown in a safe manner, both with respect to other aircraft in the air and also to people and properties on the ground."
With the continued bad and sometimes misleading press about "drones" it would be good to have a definition for the purposes of clarity and removal of ambiguity, especially when faced with officialdom seeking to curtail activities which responsible fliers can conduct safely and within regulation.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/20194392275/permalink/10157141519097276/ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/20194392275/permalink/10157141519097276/)
It was no surprise in the responses that people's personal definitions were just that. Amongst all the various definitions the one which stood out for me was from Andy Symons of the BMFA.
"You can define a drone any way you like, essentially it doesn't matter, the legislation doesn't refer to "drones" it refers to Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) and Small Unmanned Surveilance Aircraft (SUSA)."
It is impossible to agree with this in light of the joint letter from the BMFA & APPG-GA to the Aviation Minister, Baroness Sugg with which I kicked off this thread on FPV HUB. You simply cannot claim it doesn't matter then proceed to differentiate between model flying and drone flying especially if you are trying to make the case that New UK Drones Law punishes British Model Flying Community.
I get your point now. You are quite right BMFA etc can't argue both that they are all UAV then claim fixed wings are different.
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 02:10:48 PM
I get your point now. You are quite right BMFA etc can't argue both that they are all UAV then claim fixed wings are different.
Regulation wise they are all UAV/UAS/SUA. Of that there is no dispute. However the CAA recognises that within the broad classification of UAV/UAS/SUA there are distinct types. To quote the CAA
"Unmanned aircraft come in a variety of shapes and sizes, ranging from small handheld types up to large aircraft, potentially a similar size to airliners and, just like manned aircraft, they may be of a fixed wing design, rotary winged, or a combination of both.
Unmanned Aircraft may also be referred to as:
Drones
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
Model Aircraft
Radio Controlled Aircraft"
What the BMFA & APPG-GA are pushing for is recognition that it is not appropriate to apply the same regulation to all types. They argue that this would be to the detriment of model aircraft. I agree fully with this but it requires that all types are properly and unambiguously defined and therein lies a problem as there is not legal definition and no general agreement.
i suspect that Andy Symons was making a personal observation when stating "You can define a drone any way you like, essentially it doesn't matter..." This certainly does not accord with the thrust of the BMFA & APPG-GA joint letter.
BTW the BMFA are not stating that fixed wings are different. They are stating that model flying and drone flying are different. There is no mention within that of aircraft configuration. As we all know, cameras, stabilisation, GPS, VTX, autonomous flight, etc. can be utilised within fixed wing, rotary wing and multicopter.
Quote from: electrotor on March 12, 2019, 04:01:31 PM
BTW the BMFA are not stating that fixed wings are different. They are stating that model flying and drone flying are different. There is no mention within that of aircraft configuration. As we all know, cameras, stabilisation, GPS, VTX, autonomous flight, etc. can be utilised within fixed wing, rotary wing and multicopter.
They sort of are saying that 'model aircraft' are different. Quote 'The aerodynamics of the model aircraft require a greater level of pilot skill to operate and model flyers must therefore be trained to a higher standard than most hobbyist drone operators' .
I believe the angle they are attacking this is to effectively say that anything that is a model/replica of a aircraft should be considered differently to an non replica/model of an aircraft. So multirotors wouldn't come under their 'model' category!!!
As to them saying that 'This also limits the performance of model aircraft to well within visual line of sight' what a load of garbage. Stick FPV on a model plane and I have seen people fly literally miles away from take off point and fly well beyond any line of sight. Dare I say that model planes are capable of flying further than most multi-rotors.
They even say 'Model aircraft are unable to operate beyond visual range of the pilot'!!!!! absolute garbage. They are lying here...
Plus 'The aerodynamics of the model aircraft require a greater level of pilot skill to operate and model flyers must therefore be trained to a higher standard than most hobbyist drone operators'
Have they ever tried to fly a multirotor in rate/acro mode? I would say stabilised multirotors (dji etc) are easiest to fly, followed by model planes can be, then non stabilised multi rotors with model helicopters the most difficult to fly. These are generalisations as are the statements in the letter!!!
To me they are trying to group all multirotors in the bad pilots group hoping to save their senior members model aircrafts. Sorry but the letter you linked to IMHO presents a very biased view of drone pilots. Whether it is due to their misunderstanding of multi rotors or purely a strategy to protect the majority of members I don't know.
Sorry if this sounds like I am having a go, it's just my dealings with local BMFA clubs have not been multi rotor friendly at all!!! That said I did go and see a fpv multi rotor national competition staged on a BMFA club site (not that they allow multi rotors to be flown at that club by their members!!!). I happen to sit next to some of the club members and they all said they had never flown a multi rotor let alone know how they worked!!!! They knew nothing of flight controllers, the flight modes. I offered them to watch via my goggles and the opinion was WOW but that's not the sort of thing we would do....
Anyway my personal opinion is that the new regs should apply to all uav. It isn't safer for 1 type of uav to be flown in certain areas or at certain heights than others so why differentiate?
As for the clubs within the controlled zones they need to make good cases to the controlling authority but it should be a all or non uav policy.
Thinking about this I may just send my own letter to clarify a few of the points in the letter..
Quotei suspect that Andy Symons was making a personal observation when stating "You can define a drone any way you like, essentially it doesn't matter..." This certainly does not accord with the thrust of the BMFA & APPG-GA joint letter.
It is a personal observation, however with all the current regulations it is very difficult to argue against the observation. You cannot be prosecuted for flying a "drone", nowhere in any of the regulations are "drones" referred to there are Small unmanned aircraft and small unmanned surveillance aircraft. So my point stands, I often see posts on facebook and various forums and I have had people tell me in person that the changes coming in tomorrow do not apply to them because "they do not fly drones". They are clearly defining a drone as something other than what they are flying, great no problem at all with that as far as I am concerned, but it still doesn't matter because the regulations do not refer to drones, it refers to SUA and SUSA and I haven't had anyone tell me they aren't flying a SUA or SUSA.
I don't think any of that goes against the thrust of the APPG statement/letter, which is highlighting the effects on a specific part of the model flying community. As an example the BMFA are currently assisting a number of clubs directly affected by the changes coming in tomorrow, one in particular has been operating without any issues whatsoever on their particular site for over 50 years, all of a sudden and with very little notice their flying site as it risk. The club flies fixed wing, multi-rotors helicopters and control line, all of which are affected.
The statement and letter does not refer to type of aircraft at all.
I have some sympathy with the desire to have a clear definition of a drone/drone flying and if at some point the regulation starts referring to drones then we undoubtedly need a clear definition. That's when things are going to get really complicated though because the type of aircraft isn't the whole picture, the context in which it is operated, where and how.
Defining drone flying is far from a simple thing.
As I've said previously, we shouldn't need to define the aircraft types - we should give CLEAR and CONCISE directives as to where anything that is a SUA can be operated legally.
Two sentences will cover everything.
All manned aircraft, except when landing or taking off, will fly a minimum of 500ft above ground level.
All unmanned aircraft, except within 5 miles of a runway threshold, and 2.5 miles to the side of a runway which is classified as a prohibited area, shall fly at a height not exceeding 400ft above ground level.
What is difficult? The first covers everything, including helicopters as they need to land away from aerodromes. The second ensures that drone pilots / modellers etc do not fly into manned airspace.
Seriously, what's the problem?
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 12, 2019, 05:07:38 PM
As I've said previously, we shouldn't need to define the aircraft types - we should give CLEAR and CONCISE directives as to where anything that is a SUA can be operated legally.
Two sentences will cover everything.
All manned aircraft, except when landing or taking off, will fly a minimum of 500ft above ground level.
All unmanned aircraft, except within 5 miles of a runway threshold, and 2.5 miles to the side of a runway which is classified as a prohibited area, shall fly at a height not exceeding 400ft above ground level.
What is difficult? The first covers everything, including helicopters as they need to land away from aerodromes. The second ensures that drone pilots / modellers etc do not fly into manned airspace.
Seriously, what's the problem?
The problem is its extremely draconian and effectively criminalises large sections of model aircraft flying that have taken place for almost 100 years without issue.
None of this would be needed if individuals operated within current regulations and those regulations were fully enforced.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
They sort of are saying that 'model aircraft' are different.
They are saying "model flying" and "drone flying" are different.
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
I believe the angle they are attacking this is to effectively say that anything that is a model/replica of a aircraft should be considered differently to an non replica/model of an aircraft. So multirotors wouldn't come under their 'model' category!!!
If by "model/replica" you mean a miniature version of a full size aircraft, i think that is not what they are saying. What you seem to be describing are scale models. Looking to the future, there is every chance that scale models of multirotors will emerge.
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
As to them saying that 'This also limits the performance of model aircraft to well within visual line of sight' what a load of garbage. Stick FPV on a model plane and I have seen people fly literally miles away from take off point and fly well beyond any line of sight. Dare I say that model planes are capable of flying further than most multi-rotors.
I have to agree, One of the most sophisticated models/drones I have seen was based on a widely available fixed wing foamy - Twinstar I think. In its bought form it was a common sight at club fields but with the addition of the bells and whistles (GPS, telemetry, pitot, camera, etc.) could indeed fly miles away to a pre-programmed route then return and settle in a holding pattern until control was taken back by the remote pilot.
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
Have they ever tried to fly a multirotor in rate/acro mode? I would say stabilised multirotors (dji etc) are easiest to fly, followed by model planes can be, then non stabilised multi rotors with model helicopters the most difficult to fly. These are generalisations as are the statements in the letter!!!
Rate/acro is scary indeed.
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
Sorry if this sounds like I am having a go, it's just my dealings with local BMFA clubs have not been multi rotor friendly at all!!! That said I did go and see a fpv multi rotor national competition staged on a BMFA club site (not that they allow multi rotors to be flown at that club by their members!!!). I happen to sit next to some of the club members and they all said they had never flown a multi rotor let alone know how they worked!!!! They knew nothing of flight controllers, the flight modes. I offered them to watch via my goggles and the opinion was WOW but that's not the sort of thing we would do....
I think it is wrong to equate the BMFA with BMFA affiliated clubs. All clubs are autonomous so can restrict flying to whatever type they wish.
Quote from: ched on March 12, 2019, 04:47:36 PM
Thinking about this I may just send my own letter to clarify a few of the points in the letter..
A good idea.
It isn't draconian though, Big A. It's sensible. And times change unfortunately, so we need to cater for everything both now and in the future - not necessarily based on what has been said or done previously whether it's for 100 years or not.
The thing is though that those two states would be the default - and VERY clear.
However, there could be provision given for exemptions from the rules for certain clubs or organisations which would allow for continued operations at sites throughout the country.
The benefits here are:
Default regulations are unaffected, ensuring safety.
People can continue at model clubs doing what they've done forever once an exemption is in place. Until then, well - stay below 400ft please.
In my opinion these changes are needed because now there IS the requirement for low-level airspace allocation. Technology has changed. The low level needs to be allocated to smaller unmanned aircraft, with a ceiling - a ceiling which is the floor of manned ops.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. That is of course, if the real agenda is safety...
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 04:56:58 PM
It is a personal observation, however with all the current regulations it is very difficult to argue against the observation. You cannot be prosecuted for flying a "drone", nowhere in any of the regulations are "drones" referred to there are Small unmanned aircraft and small unmanned surveillance aircraft. So my point stands, I often see posts on facebook and various forums and I have had people tell me in person that the changes coming in tomorrow do not apply to them because "they do not fly drones". They are clearly defining a drone as something other than what they are flying, great no problem at all with that as far as I am concerned, but it still doesn't matter because the regulations do not refer to drones, it refers to SUA and SUSA and I haven't had anyone tell me they aren't flying a SUA or SUSA.
It may not seem like it but I largely agree. However despite there being no mention of drones in the regulations the CAA itself refers to drones. Just read their website. And in addition they point people to Dronesafe "Your official source of drone safety information in the UK, managed by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and NATS, the UK's main Air Traffic Control provider." On top of that the BMFA are now seeking to differentiate model flying from drone flying. In order for a sensible dialogue the parties must agree of the terms used, ie definitions.
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 04:56:58 PM
The statement and letter does not refer to type of aircraft at all.
Agreed, but it does refer to model flying and drone flying as different.
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 04:56:58 PM
I have some sympathy with the desire to have a clear definition of a drone/drone flying and if at some point the regulation starts referring to drones then we undoubtedly need a clear definition. That's when things are going to get really complicated though because the type of aircraft isn't the whole picture, the context in which it is operated, where and how.
Defining drone flying is far from a simple thing.
Totally agree, but I cannot see any progress being possible until the terms are defined.
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 12, 2019, 05:46:48 PM
It isn't draconian though, Big A. It's sensible. And times change unfortunately, so we need to cater for everything both now and in the future - not necessarily based on what has been said or done previously whether it's for 100 years or not.
The thing is though that those two states would be the default - and VERY clear.
However, there could be provision given for exemptions from the rules for certain clubs or organisations which would allow for continued operations at sites throughout the country.
The benefits here are:
Default regulations are unaffected, ensuring safety.
People can continue at model clubs doing what they've done forever once an exemption is in place. Until then, well - stay below 400ft please.
In my opinion these changes are needed because now there IS the requirement for low-level airspace allocation. Technology has changed. The low level needs to be allocated to smaller unmanned aircraft, with a ceiling - a ceiling which is the floor of manned ops.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. That is of course, if the real agenda is safety...
We will probably have to agree to disagree, making a lawful activity with a very long track record of safe operation unlawful does nothing to increase safety.
The current legislation, with the current exemptions, including the changes coming in tomorrow are all that is required, with the addition of everyone abiding by the regulation and proper enforcement if not.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: electrotor on March 12, 2019, 05:55:49 PM
It may not seem like it but I largely agree. However despite there being no mention of drones in the regulations the CAA itself refers to drones. Just read their website. And in addition they point people to Dronesafe "Your official source of drone safety information in the UK, managed by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and NATS, the UK's main Air Traffic Control provider." On top of that the BMFA are now seeking to differentiate model flying from drone flying. In order for a sensible dialogue the parties must agree of the terms used, ie definitions.
Agreed, but it does refer to model flying and drone flying as different.
Totally agree, but I cannot see any progress being possible until the terms are defined.
If you ask average joe in the street what a drone is we all have a good idea to what he is most likely going to describe and, in general but not entirely, it is the operation of that type of susa that has created problems, so it is a pragmatic approach by the CAA to use the term drone as it highlights the point better to those less in the know and more in need of educating.
Im not sure clearly defining a drone will ever solve anything and will always create confusion. Personally I think a clear definition of model aircraft flying activity would be mostvuseful.
My personal definition would be along the lines of "The flying of sua/susa for the purposes of sport and recreation, within line of sight of the operator (or competent observer stood adjacent to the operator if FPV is used) without endangering aircraft, persons or property"
In all of this the CAA are generally quite pragmatic and aware of what activity is causing problems which is why they are generally happy to issue sensible exemptions. EASA have also, in general come round to a fairly sensible approach, the DfThowever much less so and have the typical politician kneejerk tendencies.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Not necessarily Big A because one thing you seem to be missing is that there is a huge number of people now not flying at designated club fields. Therefore it makes sense to have a ceiling for them and a floor for manned traffic to ensure separation - regardless of whether someone is flying at a club.
I would guess that most Phantom operators, for instance, are probably not members of the BMFA or any associated club.
At the moment someone can be flying (legally) at 400ft in the middle of nowhere then all of a sudden a manned aircraft flying VFR can come out of nowhere and cause a conflict - if they had to be above 500ft then this is a non-issue because you'd have a minimum of 100ft of separation. Not a lot, granted, but enough.
This way you have the ability to ensure separation by default, and are able to exempt club members to allow traditional operations.
I believe that this is where the priorities should lie - you seem to be of the opinion that historical operations should be preserved at any cost.
Im of the opinion that historic operations with a long record of safe operation should remain yes. Preventing it doesnt improve safety.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 06:59:39 PM
If you ask average joe in the street what a drone is we all have a good idea to what he is most likely going to describe and, in general but not entirely, it is the operation of that type of susa that has created problems, so it is a pragmatic approach by the CAA to use the term drone as it highlights the point better to those less in the know and more in need of educating.
Dronesafe, which the CAA supports has photos and simple graphics showing only various multicopters. It would be reasonable to assume that average joe and even average model flyer, when presented with this, would assume that this is what the CAA means by drone and that all other types of SUA and SUSA are not therefore drones. Is this what you mean?
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 06:59:39 PM
Im not sure clearly defining a drone will ever solve anything and will always create confusion. Personally I think a clear definition of model aircraft flying activity would be mostvuseful.
A clear definition would create confusion?
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 06:59:39 PM
My personal definition would be along the lines of "The flying of sua/susa for the purposes of sport and recreation, within line of sight of the operator (or competent observer stood adjacent to the operator if FPV is used) without endangering aircraft, persons or property"
This definition of model aircraft flying perfectly describes how I fly my DJI Phantom. But according to Dronesafe, it is a drone.
Quote from: electrotor on March 12, 2019, 08:16:16 PM
This definition of model aircraft flying perfectly describes how I fly my DJI Phantom. But according to Dronesafe, it is a drone.
Hence why clearly defining a "drone" could create confusion. I don't think its too much of a stretch for anyone to consider a DJI Phantom as a drone, however it should be considered as a model aircraft if flown as a model aircraft.
And this is why I say defining models is futile. Who's to say what sort of models will appear in 20-30 years time?
You need to define the airspace properly now that there are much more SUA in the hands of the public. In doing so, you cover every eventuality into the future and you also have a very clear definition of what is and is not allowed, what is expected of operators and what is expected of manned aviation.
With that comes safety.
When the regulations are convoluted and based on exceptions for certain aircraft types it all ends up in a big muddle which is difficult even for seasoned modellers to understand, let alone the general public who aren't well-versed on things like this. With that comes accidents - because people just start ignoring the rules because they're too difficult to understand.
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 12, 2019, 08:43:03 PM
And this is why I say defining models is futile. Who's to say what sort of models will appear in 20-30 years time?
You need to define the airspace properly now that there are much more SUA in the hands of the public. In doing so, you cover every eventuality into the future and you also have a very clear definition of what is and is not allowed, what is expected of operators and what is expected of manned aviation.
With that comes safety.
When the regulations are convoluted and based on exceptions for certain aircraft types it all ends up in a big muddle which is difficult even for seasoned modellers to understand, let alone the general public who aren't well-versed on things like this. With that comes accidents - because people just start ignoring the rules because they're too difficult to understand.
In the ideal world I think I would broadly agree with you, however we aren't living in an ideal world and it simply isn't that straight forward and there are clear differences in how various types of aircraft operate so there will always be a requirement for exemptions for certain aircraft types/types of operation. For example the CAA have issued an exemption for control line flying in Flight Restriction Zones today, an entirely sensible development.
What happened to discussions re. an exemption for craft weighing less than 250 grams, and 'shielded operation' behind tall trees?
At the moment, most of the population of Cambridge and Duxford can't fly a mini-whoop in the garden or local park (surrounded by 100 foot trees) because they are with 2.5 nm of lightly used airfields.
Quote from: Dillwhacker on March 12, 2019, 10:12:15 PM
What happened to discussions re. an exemption for craft weighing less than 250 grams, and 'shielded operation' behind tall trees?
At the moment, most of the population of Cambridge and Duxford can't fly a mini-whoop in the garden or local park (surrounded by 100 foot trees) because they are with 2.5 nm of lightly used airfields.
Can they legally fly in their gardens at the moment, surely you are within 50m of property or people not under your control!!!!
I'm not saying I agree with the rules but I would dare say most people flying in their gardens is currently not allowed!
This is part of the problem. Laws that are confusing or deemed to be stupid will not be followed.
The other thing that isn't being talked about is 'commercial' 'drone' operations of the future!!!! If we are all not careful the airspace that we enjoy will be eroded to a few 'club fields' where limited flying is allowed as the rest of the air space will be sold off to the likes of Amazon!!!!
If only "common sense" were.... well... more common.
And more to the point, an acceptable argument in law.
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 08:35:13 PM
Hence why clearly defining a "drone" could create confusion. I don't think its too much of a stretch for anyone to consider a DJI Phantom as a drone, however it should be considered as a model aircraft if flown as a model aircraft.
I really struggle with how a clear definition could create confusion when it's purpose is to remove confusion.
Correct me if I am wrong but what you appear to be saying is that it is not the SUA type but the way in which it is flown which determines model or drone. Therefore my Phantom, if flown in accordance with the current regulations (for the purposes of sport and recreation, within line of sight of the operator or competent observer stood adjacent to the operator if FPV is used and without endangering aircraft, persons or property) should be considered a model aircraft. Meanwhile my Twinstar, if flown outwith the current regulations (not for the purposes of sport of recreation, outwith line of sight of the operator or competent observer and endangering aircraft, persons or property) should be considered as a drone. Surely this is simply addressed by the fact that the Twinstar in my example is being flown illegally whilst the Phantom is being flown legally.
Quote from: big a on March 12, 2019, 09:22:12 PM
In the ideal world I think I would broadly agree with you, however we aren't living in an ideal world and it simply isn't that straight forward and there are clear differences in how various types of aircraft operate so there will always be a requirement for exemptions for certain aircraft types/types of operation. For example the CAA have issued an exemption for control line flying in Flight Restriction Zones today, an entirely sensible development.
I saw that although strangely it was not flagged up through the normal channels which notify such things.
I note with interest
"This exemption only applies to Control Line model aeroplanes that are flown for the purposes of sport or recreation. It does not apply to 'tethered' flights of small unmanned aircraft that are capable of vertical take-off/landing or hovering, such as helicopters or multicopters."
I suspect they are unaware of the fixed wing control liners, albeit few in number, which are capable of VTOL and hovering.
Quote from: electrotor on March 13, 2019, 12:20:26 AM
I really struggle with how a clear definition could create confusion when it's purpose is to remove confusion.
Correct me if I am wrong but what you appear to be saying is that it is not the SUA type but the way in which it is flown which determines model or drone. Therefore my Phantom, if flown in accordance with the current regulations (for the purposes of sport and recreation, within line of sight of the operator or competent observer stood adjacent to the operator if FPV is used and without endangering aircraft, persons or property) should be considered a model aircraft. Meanwhile my Twinstar, if flown outwith the current regulations (not for the purposes of sport of recreation, outwith line of sight of the operator or competent observer and endangering aircraft, persons or property) should be considered as a drone. Surely this is simply addressed by the fact that the Twinstar in my example is being flown illegally whilst the Phantom is being flown legally.
Trying to define what a drone is or a model aircraft for that matter is just not that straight forward, im not even sure you could clearly define either in a manner that wouldn't leave so many grey areas to prevent confusion.
My personal feeling is you can define reasonably clearly what model flying is with the minimum of grey areas, the aircraft type is irrelevent.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: electrotor on March 13, 2019, 12:20:26 AM
Surely this is simply addressed by the fact that the Twinstar in my example is being flown illegally whilst the Phantom is being flown legally.
That would indeed be the simplest and preferred solution. The SUA/SUSA is flown lawfully or it isnt.
However there seems to be a desire to put the drone label on types of aircraft.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: big a on March 13, 2019, 12:55:44 AM
However there seems to be a desire to put the drone label on types of aircraft.
Indeed, and the fact that the BMFA and CAA use this label requires clarification, be it model type or operation type.
So given that you guys, the CAA and god-knows whoever else cannot agree on what a drone is or isn't - surely a better course of action is to then define the airspace limits for a broad range of aircraft.. i.e.
[Manned]
--------------------------- 500ft AGL -----------------------------------
[Unmanned]
You say it can't be done and "it isn't that simple"... it seems to me that it's a better foundation than any other proposal I've heard and would cover most of the edge-cases that we seem to be obsessed with getting hung up on.
Having such a foundation allows you to build in the edge-cases as and when they arrive without compromising the core aim of the regulations - to ensure safety via separation.
Why does anyone need to define what a drone is though? Define whats lawful and what isnt (Which is where we have been for a long time) then properly enforce the regulations. Adding further restrictions does nothing to improve safety.
Line of sight has been suitable for ensuring separation for the best part of 100 years What has changed?
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: big a on March 13, 2019, 09:04:11 AM
Why does anyone need to define what a drone is though? Define whats lawful and what isnt (Which is where we have been for a long time) then properly enforce the regulations. Adding further restrictions does nothing to improve safety.
Line of sight has been suitable for ensuring separation for the best part of 100 years What has changed?
What is lawful and what isn't is already clear. However two of the principal interested parties acknowledge that not all SUA are the same.
The CAA uses the word and lists it as a type of SUA but does not offer a definition.
The BMFA uses the word and differentiates it from model aircraft but does not offer a definition.
How can there be a meaningful dialogue when the terminology is not defined and agreed?
We wish to discuss the sea going "enord".
My idea of a "enord" might be a sea going surface vehicle whilst your idea of an "enord" might be sea going underwater vessel. How can we have a meaningful dialogue if we are talking about different things, both of which are sea going but operate differently?
"Adding further restrictions does nothing to improve safety."
So why are you continually mentioning defining what a drone is or isn't and what the regulations should apply to and in which way?
You're basically trying to fit a square peg into a round hole while ignoring the fact that if you just stepped back a bit and added some very basic separation laws you'd cover every single definition of aircraft and then be able to pick + choose what gets special license to maintain historical operations (i.e. club flying).
What has changed? There are MANY more people flying outside of a club environment - the goal here is safety. There are no safety officers outside of a club, so you need a set of easy to follow regulations that aren't based on whether a camera is onboard, or how many propellers a plane has. That's irrelevant.
There are only two definitions here - manned, and unmanned. So separate them both and then do the nitpicking as to who can go out of the "safety box".
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 13, 2019, 10:19:41 AM
"Adding further restrictions does nothing to improve safety."
So why are you continually mentioning defining what a drone is or isn't and what the regulations should apply to and in which way?
You're basically trying to fit a square peg into a round hole while ignoring the fact that if you just stepped back a bit and added some very basic separation laws you'd cover every single definition of aircraft and then be able to pick + choose what gets special license to maintain historical operations (i.e. club flying).
What has changed? There are MANY more people flying outside of a club environment - the goal here is safety. There are no safety officers outside of a club, so you need a set of easy to follow regulations that aren't based on whether a camera is onboard, or how many propellers a plane has. That's irrelevant.
There are only two definitions here - manned, and unmanned. So separate them both and then do the nitpicking as to who can go out of the "safety box".
I agree with what you are saying Steve, there is only one small problem. it´s called politics. :(
Quote from: electrotor on March 13, 2019, 10:18:41 AM
What is lawful and what isn't is already clear.
Agreed its very clear, so why muddy the waters by defining what a drone is? If there needs to be a definition ir shiuld be activity based not sua/susa based.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 13, 2019, 10:19:41 AM
So why are you continually mentioning defining what a drone is or isn't and what the regulations should apply to and in which way?
I'm not, i'm suggesting we don't need to define what a drone is or isn't because it doesn't add any clarity because it is the activity that the sua is used for that is the important bit.
Quote from: big a on March 13, 2019, 11:21:30 AM
I'm not, i'm suggesting we don't need to define what a drone is or isn't because it doesn't add any clarity because it is the activity that the sua is used for that is the important bit.
Which neatly takes us right back to my opener for this thread.
"I have contacted both the BMFA and All-Party Group on General Aviation (APPG-GA) to ask for their definitions, in light of their statement "the groups highlighted that model flying is a fundamentally different activity from drone flying"
Just to clear up any confusion...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/drone (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/drone)
DRONE
noun
the male of the honeybee and other bees, stingless and making no honey.
an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.
(loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.
a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.
a drudge.
EVERYTHING we fly remotely is a drone. Period. To think otherwise is dilusional.
I've reworded the BMFA statement in consideration of above:
the groups highlighted that "drone" flying is a fundamentally different activity from "drone" flying
Quote from: urbanfpv on March 13, 2019, 05:49:34 PM
Just to clear up any confusion...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/drone (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/drone)
DRONE
an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight: the GPS of a U.S. spy drone.
(loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely: a radio-controlled drone.
EVERYTHING we fly remotely is a drone. Period. To think otherwise is dilusional.
I've reworded the BMFA statement in consideration of above:
the groups highlighted that "drone" flying is a fundamentally different activity from "drone" flying
And the CAA :
"Unmanned aircraft come in a variety of shapes and sizes, ranging from small handheld types up to large aircraft, potentially a similar size to airliners and, just like manned aircraft, they may be of a fixed wing design, rotary winged, or a combination of both.
Unmanned Aircraft may also be referred to as:
Drones
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
Model Aircraft
Radio Controlled Aircraft"
Whilst drones, model aircraft, etc, are all types of unmanned aircraft that does not mean that they are the same as each other. They are all types of aircraft which come under the heading of unmanned aircraft. To claim " EVERYTHING we fly remotely is a drone" is exactly the same as saying that all birds are the same whether they are eagles, sparrows, swans, ducks, etc. They obviously share characteristics (feathers, wings, beaks, etc) but a sparrow in unlikely to catch fish and an eagle is unlikely to nest in the eaves of your house.
But those characteristics aren't important in defining what they are - they're still a hazard if they're 1000ft in the air, so should all be banded together under the term "SUA" and a ceiling enforced.
Quote from: electrotor on March 14, 2019, 12:40:18 AM
Whilst drones, model aircraft, etc, are all types of unmanned aircraft that does not mean that they are the same as each other. They are all types of aircraft which come under the heading of unmanned aircraft. To claim " EVERYTHING we fly remotely is a drone" is exactly the same as saying that all birds are the same whether they are eagles, sparrows, swans, ducks, etc. They obviously share characteristics (feathers, wings, beaks, etc) but a sparrow in unlikely to catch fish and an eagle is unlikely to nest in the eaves of your house.
:wallbash: What? No it isn't. The definition contains no detail about characteristics, your argument is bogus.
What amazes me is why people (mostly BMFA members) are still obsessed with defining what a drone is so they can distance themselves from it and pretend that the rules don't apply to them because they are some kind of superior pilot in an elitist community and that their "activity" is somehow different to that of flying an off the shelf multi-rotor. (Because lets fact it, that's what we're talking about really). It isn't different. If you're flying fixed wing aircraft remotely or you're flying a multi-rotor remotely, it's the same activity.
Quote from: urbanfpv on March 14, 2019, 09:38:31 AM
:wallbash: What? No it isn't. The definition contains no detail about characteristics, your argument is bogus.
To pick where this thread started - differentiation between model flying and drone flying as referred to by the BMFA and All-Party Group on General Aviation (APPG-GA)- there is no current definition, that is the whole point.
There is no disputing that they are both SUA, but as the CAA states, there are different type of SUA, and by way of evidence of their acknowledgement of this the CAA have already issued exemptions to the ANO for certain types of model or activity. Control line and FPV exemptions are examples of this.
With this in mind the argument is quite valid.
Quote from: urbanfpv on March 14, 2019, 09:38:31 AM
What amazes me is why people (mostly BMFA members) are still obsessed with defining what a drone is so they can distance themselves from it and pretend that the rules don't apply to them because they are some kind of superior pilot in an elitist community and that their "activity" is somehow different to that of flying an off the shelf multi-rotor. (Because lets fact it, that's what we're talking about really). It isn't different. If you're flying fixed wing aircraft remotely or you're flying a multi-rotor remotely, it's the same activity.
I think you are being very disingenuous to BMFA members by suggesting that mostly BMFA members are "some kind of superior pilot in an elitist community". Perhaps you have had a bad experience but you should not let that cloud your view. It is little different from saying that most Scottish bus drivers are bad because you had an accident with a bus whilst in Scotland. Personally I have not had a bad experience of the BMFA or BMFA affiliated clubs. The BMFA affiliated club which I fly at has NO issues with whatever type of SUA aircraft a member wishes to fly. All they ask is that flying takes place within the framework of the regulations. Those regulations are the ANO and exemptions relating to certain types of SUA or SUA activity. What the BMFA and APPG-GA are trying to do is safeguard model flying, in whatever form it takes, on the basis of many years of safe and responsible activity. In so doing that refer to model flying and drone flying, both of which the CAA acknowledge, but which are not defined.
Quote from: urbanfpv on March 14, 2019, 09:38:31 AM
What amazes me is why people (mostly BMFA members) are still obsessed with defining what a drone is so they can distance themselves from it and pretend that the rules don't apply to them because they are some kind of superior pilot in an elitist community and that their "activity" is somehow different to that of flying an off the shelf multi-rotor. (Because lets fact it, that's what we're talking about really). It isn't different. If you're flying fixed wing aircraft remotely or you're flying a multi-rotor remotely, it's the same activity.
My club has a commercial pilot (full size manned aircraft) in its membership. Recently I asked him what the cockpit view was of FPV. He, and colleagues had no issues with the type of model but had very serious issues with the type of flying, in particular out of sight, whether that be long range or above the clouds. Most of the videos I have seen of this type of flying have been filmed from fixed wing and NOT multicopter. So no, multicopter is not what we are talking about actually.
Please excuse me for not caring about this thread, I am here to enjoy what we have left of our hobby and to share cool stuff with everybody, not go on about something we have no power to change.
Just to add a spanner in the works before I go:
I grew up flying radio controlled model aircraft and I still fly radio controlled model aircraft to this day.
Call them what you like....I´m staying Old Skool :P
Cheers All
Quote from: Lola on March 14, 2019, 11:30:50 AM
Please excuse me for not caring about this thread, I am here to enjoy what we have left of our hobby and to share cool stuff with everybody, not go on about something we have no power to change.
Just to add a spanner in the works before I go:
I grew up flying radio controlled model aircraft and I still fly radio controlled model aircraft to this day.
Call them what you like....I´m staying Old Skool :P
Cheers All
Might I suggest a hint of cynicism? Fair enough, but if it wasn't for the efforts of the BMFA and other model flying organisations within Europe we would have a really draconian set of regulations, courtesy of EASA, which do not take into account the long history of safe model flying and, more importantly you and all the rest of us would not be able to enjoy our hobby. If you don't care about this thread, don't bother posting in it.
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 12, 2019, 07:09:58 PM
Not necessarily Big A because one thing you seem to be missing is that there is a huge number of people now not flying at designated club fields. Therefore it makes sense to have a ceiling for them and a floor for manned traffic to ensure separation - regardless of whether someone is flying at a club.
I would guess that most Phantom operators, for instance, are probably not members of the BMFA or any associated club.
At the moment someone can be flying (legally) at 400ft in the middle of nowhere then all of a sudden a manned aircraft flying VFR can come out of nowhere and cause a conflict - if they had to be above 500ft then this is a non-issue because you'd have a minimum of 100ft of separation. Not a lot, granted, but enough.
This way you have the ability to ensure separation by default, and are able to exempt club members to allow traditional operations.
I believe that this is where the priorities should lie - you seem to be of the opinion that historical operations should be preserved at any cost.
There is such a rule. Manned aviation is required to stay 500ft from people in the UK. (SERA (Standard European Rules of the Air) requires that manned aviation stays above 500ft, the UK has an exemption which changes that to 500ft from people (vertically, or horizontally)). Of course HEMS/ Police and military are not captured by this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JtrCq2k9/Sky-Way-Code.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/JtrCq2k9)
From: http://www.caa.co.uk/CAP1535P (http://www.caa.co.uk/CAP1535P)
Note: 1
The standard rule under the European Rules of the Air for a VFR flight is to not to fly below 500 ft above ground level, unless taking off or landing. The UK has used the permitted national discretion, in order to provide a more flexible rule for aircraft flying in the UK. When flying in other European states the standard SERA rule may apply
Here is the aforementioned exemption which allows UK aircraft to fly below 500ft (but they must still be 500ft away from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1174.pdf (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1174.pdf)
Police exemption: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6550 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6550)
HEMS exemption: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6549 (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6549)
SAR exemption: http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1081.pdf (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4No1081.pdf)
Looks like, given the lack of accidents, that the existing regulations work quite well then. And it's nice to see that common sense does actually exist.
So my question now then is who is the new regulation for? Why is it necessary when history proves that what we already have works?
There has to be some commercial undertone to this.
Quote from: electrotor on March 14, 2019, 02:54:58 PM
Might I suggest a hint of cynicism? Fair enough, but if it wasn't for the efforts of the BMFA and other model flying organisations within Europe we would have a really draconian set of regulations, courtesy of EASA, which do not take into account the long history of safe model flying and, more importantly you and all the rest of us would not be able to enjoy our hobby. If you don't care about this thread, don't bother posting in it.
I am well aware of the efforts people put into the hobby and I am also well aware of what the EASA do, or better said don't do. It's just that every time something gets mentioned on here it creates unnecessary arguments and that is not what I am here for.
Thank you for respecting my opinions.
Sent from my phone, 2 u 4 free
Essentially the regulations work well, but like so many other things, they should evolve to take into account changes which occur. The rules of the air are essentially the same in nature to the rules of the road, setting out the dos and don'ts. The Air Navigation Order regulates navigable airspace within the UK and consists of a series of articles. These articles are expanded on in a series of CAPs which give more detail and are really the guidance material and acceptable means of compliance for the articles in the ANO. The principle, but not only one for model flying is CAP 658 which was first issued in 1995. Like many people I was totally unaware of any regulation when I first started flying (long before 1995) and it horrifies me now to think of some of the unsafe practices which we used to engage in. Just look at the old videos on YouTube. To a large extent we have been left to get on with our model flying for many years and through the work of various organisations and a generally increased awareness of safety there have been very few incidents.
I would suggest that if it was not for developments in model flying we might still be flying rubber powered free flighters. However I would like to make it clear that for shear fun and enjoyment, the free flight evenings at the British Nationals are for many the best parts of the weekend. If you ever attend you will never see so many happy faces both young and old.
A relatively recent new development in model flying is FPV. Whilst the ANO does not specifically address this, CAP 658 now does, the relevant section being written by Simon Dale and adopted by the CAA in a revision to the document in 2013. In addition the work of Simon and others has resulted in exemptions which we can all enjoy. BTW the current CAP 658 is due to be revised as the article references in it are out of date and other new developments need to be included.
It is unclear when the term "drones" first appeared in model flying circles, but like it or not, it is here to stay as evidenced by the widespread use officially and unofficially. Drones get both a good press, eg search & rescue, surveying, etc. and a bad press, eg endangerment of aircraft, intrusion of privacy, etc. You will note however that it is always the word drone which is used so there seems to be a perception that drones and drone flying are somehow different to models and model flying. When models and drones are all tarred with the same regulatory brush under the heading of Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA), those who consider themselves to be safe, competent and responsible model flyers are understandably annoyed at the increased regulation of an activity which has an excellent safety record.
Focusing for a moment on the bad press associated with drones, haters will always hate and politicians will always feel the need to be seen to be doing something. Add to this the lucrative perceived market in drone deliveries combined with typical media scaremongering and misreporting and you have the situation we now find ourselves in. Given that we are stuck with drones, whatever they may be, it is reasonable to try and preserve the long enjoyed activity of model flying and try to differentiate it from other forms of SUA and in particular drones. That is what the BMFA are trying to do.
This is a forum, on which lively debate of things which affect us or interest us should be encouraged as it allows us to see things as others see them. Argument in the proper sense of the word means presentation of often opposing points of view in a respectful and constructive manner. It does not mean that there should be any falling out; that is another thing and is called a row. Some threads on this forum may be of no interest to others, eg the latest video camera or bells and whistles charger. However regulation, whilst very often dull, boring and not likely to inspire like the next best thing, does and will affect all of us.
Urinating into the wind unfortunately - we spend so much time going back and forth on here but it has zero purpose and just breeds frustration.
More urinating in the wind I suppose. Well at least it didn't all blow back.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Eric
Many thanks for your note.
Differentiation of drone flying and model flying is an ongoing challenge, because the aircraft used share a single legal definition – small unmanned aircraft.
What we achieved with EASA was recognition that model flying within the framework of Associations/Clubs is a different activity to an individual operating their drone (or model aircraft for that matter) outside of an organisation. However, the situation is clouded because certain types of drone operation would also be considered as model flying when conducted within the framework of Associations/Clubs (such as FPV Drone Racing).
What the EASA regulations actually state is:
Since model aircraft are considered as UAS and given the good safety level demonstrated by model aircraft operations in clubs and associations, there should be a seamless transition from the different national systems to the new Union regulatory framework, so that model aircraft clubs and associations can continue to operate as they do today, as well as taking into account existing best practices in the Member States.
EASA/DfT/CAA would probably just refer to it all as operation of small unmanned aircraft (or UAS), with those operations conducted within the framework of Associations being regarded as model flying. EASA were reluctant to create a specific definition for model aircraft due to fears that it would potentially be abused by those seeking to operate a drone with the benefit of fewer restrictions.
This is reflected in the EASA regulations which were voted through a couple of weeks ago. If you operate any unmanned aircraft on your own, then you will be captured by the EASA regulations. If you operate it within the framework of a Model Association/Club, then you will be subject to national regulations based on existing practices whether it is a conventional model aircraft or 'drone'.
There is no realistic prospect of introducing a specific definition for a model aircraft at this stage I'm afraid as the EU regulations have been voted through. We fought for this at the outset of the regulatory path (back in 2015), but could not gain any traction or political support.
Regards
Dave
Dave Phipps
BMFA Chief Executive
Quote
If you operate any unmanned aircraft on your own, then you will be captured by the EASA regulations. If you operate it within the framework of a Model Association/Club, then you will be subject to national regulations based on existing practices whether it is a conventional model aircraft or 'drone'.
So my question to that is, what if you're operating it on your own - as an FPVUK or BMFA Country member, i.e. not at a club field but as an association member?
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 16, 2019, 08:17:25 PM
So my question to that is, what if you're operating it on your own - as an FPVUK or BMFA Country member, i.e. not at a club field but as an association member?
I was thinking the same.
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 16, 2019, 08:17:25 PM
So my question to that is, what if you're operating it on your own - as an FPVUK or BMFA Country member, i.e. not at a club field but as an association member?
Then you are operating within the framework of a national association.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: big a on March 16, 2019, 10:21:18 PM
Then you are operating within the framework of a national association.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Does that mean that if an organisation wants to change their framework it must be legally approved? Is there currently a mechanism for this? Only reason I ask is that if the only legal framework is the BMFA's one then surely that is creating a monopoly?
Must admit that the rules are getting very silly if there are so many complications and exceptions. How on earth will these rules and exceptions be disseminated to the general public? As we know ignorance is no defence in law so we will all need an official way to find out what we can and can't do come November.
Quote from: ched on March 16, 2019, 11:37:27 PM
Does that mean that if an organisation wants to change their framework it must be legally approved? Is there currently a mechanism for this? Only reason I ask is that if the only legal framework is the BMFA's one then surely that is creating a monopoly?
The CAA recognises various model aircraft associations, not just the BMFA.
The exemption for First Person View operations in excess of 400ft above the surface specifically lists the following :
BMFA
SAA
LMA
FPVUK
CAP 658 lists the following :
BARCS
BMFA
SAA
LMA
UKRA
I cannot answer the question about legally approving a change to their frameworks, but as you can see there is not a monopoly. There may be other model aircraft associations which the CAA recognises, eg GBRCAA & CLAPA but I can find no mention of these in CAA publications. And of course new associations may come into existence, be recognised by the CAA and thereby fall into the group of flyers "operating within a national association."
Quote from: ched on March 16, 2019, 11:37:27 PM
Must admit that the rules are getting very silly if there are so many complications and exceptions. How on earth will these rules and exceptions be disseminated to the general public? As we know ignorance is no defence in law so we will all need an official way to find out what we can and can't do come November.
The official way is via the CAA. Please refer to https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Model-aircraft/ (https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/Model-aircraft/)
This page appears to be slightly out of date and will obviously need updating by or before November, preferably long before.
You may be interested to know that a link on the above page attempts to differentiate between a drone and a model aircraft. https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/General-guidance/Information-for-the-public-about-drones/ (https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/General-guidance/Information-for-the-public-about-drones/)
Unfortunately it takes a very limited view ignoring for example scratch built multicopters or GPS/flight controller equipped fixed wing and implying that ready to fly multirotors are drones.
It would seem reasonable to expect the various national model associations to disseminate the information to members. As to the general public, I suspect the haters will continue to hate.
So basically if the pilot in command or operator of a SUA or SUSA is not a member of any of the listed organisations they are then governed by the EASA regulations and laws. Now, is that in addition to or instead of any other regulations in the country of operation?
So for example when I visit Germany and fly at a German club or public show I have to comply with the German registration and competency system as there is no agreement to accept my UK BMFA registration and qualifications by the FDR. I.E. go on line, complete the competency questionnaire, pay my reg fee, download my document, put my reg number on my model with a fire resistant label etc. It's actually very simple, easier to do than write out here.
My BMFA insurance does cover me but my understanding is that is only of I comply with the law in that country.
If I fly outside of a registered club site, off piste gliding for example, a whole different set of laws kick in regarding size weight height age of pilot etc etc.
So we are saying that in the UK SUA etc pilots and operators who do not belong to a recognised national body will be subject to EASA regs not UK regs?
Quote from: BigT on March 17, 2019, 10:42:06 AM
So basically if the pilot in command or operator of a SUA or SUSA is not a member of any of the listed organisations they are then governed by the EASA regulations and laws. Now, is that in addition to or instead of any other regulations in the country of operation?
My reading is that the national regulations (in our case the UK CAA) take precedence over the European regulations (EASA) if you operated within the framework of a national modelling association, ie you are a member of that association. You are either a member (CAA Regulations) OR not a member (EASA Regulations), but not both.
Quote from: BigT on March 17, 2019, 10:42:06 AM
So for example when I visit Germany and fly at a German club or public show I have to comply with the German registration and competency system as there is no agreement to accept my UK BMFA registration and qualifications by the FDR. I.E. go on line, complete the competency questionnaire, pay my reg fee, download my document, put my reg number on my model with a fire resistant label etc. It's actually very simple, easier to do than write out here.
Yes, unless or until there is a bilateral agreement, such as exists between EASA and the FAA for full size aviaition.
Quote from: BigT on March 17, 2019, 10:42:06 AM
If I fly outside of a registered club site, off piste gliding for example, a whole different set of laws kick in regarding size weight height age of pilot etc etc.
No. Operating within the framework of a national modelling association does not identify a specific site or sites. The only "registration" of club sites is a record which the modelling association may keep of club sites. Neither the CAA, modelling associations or insurance companies stipulate that you must operated at specific sites. They may give guidlines for the layout of a site but that is all. biga already addressed this below.
Quote from: BigT on March 17, 2019, 10:42:06 AM
So we are saying that in the UK SUA etc pilots and operators who do not belong to a recognised national body will be subject to EASA regs not UK regs?
Yes.
When I said this "if I fly outside of a registered club site, off piste gliding for example, a whole different set of laws kick in regarding size weight height age of pilot etc etc" I was specifically talking about what happens in the FDR not what might happen in the UK. In the FDR a registered club has a government registered site with a Staatlich Registrierter Fliegender Offizier who is responsible for enforcing the regulations at said site or at a public show etc. When flying at a non registered site, for example slope soaring in the mountains, there is a whole lot more restrictions on who, what and how can be flown. Far more restrictive.
Worth mentioning that the RC hobby and modellers in Germany carry far more respect with the general public than in the UK. Most towns have proper model sites with hard runways and club houses usually part funded by the local council.
Quote from: BigT on March 17, 2019, 10:42:06 AM
So we are saying that in the UK SUA etc pilots and operators who do not belong to a recognised national body will be subject to EASA regs not UK regs?
No not at all. The EASA regs are supposed to be Europe wide. However they have recognised the long safety record of those flying within the framework of a national association and givel the national regulatory bodies (CAA) the leeway to make exemptions for those flying within associations.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Quote from: BigT on March 17, 2019, 12:02:19 PM
When I said this "if I fly outside of a registered club site, off piste gliding for example, a whole different set of laws kick in regarding size weight height age of pilot etc etc" I was specifically talking about what happens in the FDR not what might happen in the UK. In the FDR a registered club has a government registered site with a Staatlich Registrierter Fliegender Offizier who is responsible for enforcing the regulations at said site or at a public show etc. When flying at a non registered site, for example slope soaring in the mountains, there is a whole lot more restrictions on who, what and how can be flown. Far more restrictive.
Worth mentioning that the RC hobby and modellers in Germany carry far more respect with the general public than in the UK. Most towns have proper model sites with hard runways and club houses usually part funded by the local council.
That's right, over here, I registered with the DMFV, yearly registration costing about 50 quid, which allows me to turn up at any flying club and I am allowed to fly. The conditions are set by the club itself, these are basically all models not heavier than 25Kgs, 10mw max on 433, 100 on 2.4, that's control, fpv is allowed at some clubs, with spotter, no bvlos and only 25mw power. No higher than 120 meters I think...
Quite simple really.
The 250 gram registration has also come in at the start of this year and if you get caught flying somewhere other than a flying club you can end up in a spot of bother... cooler, 3 weeks 😁
Sent from my phone, 2 u 4 free
Looool... 😂😂😂
Sent from my phone, 2 u 4 free
So they are planning to have another go at curtailing the recreational use of, wait for it, drones. This time it's a parliament led inquiry. https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2017/commercial-recreational-drone-use-launch-17-19/ (https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2017/commercial-recreational-drone-use-launch-17-19/)
To content with completely rogering BREXIT they now think they can regulate and comment on the use of toys. Bring on the clowns.
Quote from: BigT on March 18, 2019, 09:25:55 AM
So they are planning to have another go at curtailing the recreational use of, wait for it, drones. This time it's a parliament led inquiry. https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2017/commercial-recreational-drone-use-launch-17-19/ (https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news-parliament-2017/commercial-recreational-drone-use-launch-17-19/)
To content with completely rogering BREXIT they now think they can regulate and comment on the use of toys. Bring on the clowns.
For me, two things immediately leap out from that link :
Firstly
The Committee is seeking written submissions on:
The ethical implications of civilian drones on citizen privacy and safety in the UK;
The effectiveness of built-in drone safety features, such as tracking and monitoring capabilities, in mitigating the risks of civilian drones;
The effectiveness of anti-drone technology in mitigating the risks of civilian drones;
The economic opportunities arising from the growth of drone technology;
The success, or otherwise, of regulatory frameworks for civilian drones and what should be covered in the forthcoming 'Drones Bill'They MUST define what it is they are referring to as "drones". The accompanying picture shows a large professional octocopter and the text refers to "the growing use of civilian drones, of all sizes". So just multicopters?
Secondly
The ease with which alleged but unproven sightings turn into statements such as "Following two previous consultations on drone safety and security and
incursions at Gatwick and Heathrow airports the Government is planning to bring forward a 'Drones Bill' in 2019."
Considering the ease with which one-off incidents get recorded and posted on social media, I find it incredible that around 130 alleged drone sightings at Gatwick have gone unrecorded.
The link encourages you to "Send in your views to the Science and Technology Committee inquiry on Commercial and recreational drone use in the UK." So if you consider this to be a case of urinating into the wind don't bother, but don't complain afterwords. However if you feel sufficiently concerned to voice an opinion and wish to influence the regulation which will affect you, please send in your views.
Cut and paste that into the BMFA thread please
When I said "urinating into the wind" I meant specifically the back and forth on this forum - it basically amounts to a ton of time and effort for no purpose (except for keeping us informed I guess). You'd be better off fighting the fight directly, by attending consultation meetings and such. Nothing that happens on here will make a blind bit of difference.
Quote from: BigT on March 18, 2019, 10:51:49 AM
Cut and paste that into the BMFA thread please
Done
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 18, 2019, 11:45:08 AM
When I said "urinating into the wind" I meant specifically the back and forth on this forum
That was not clear.
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 18, 2019, 11:45:08 AM
When I said "urinating into the wind" I meant specifically the back and forth on this forum - it basically amounts to a ton of time and effort for no purpose (except for keeping us informed I guess).
The purpose of a forum is inform, discuss and share opinions. FPVHUB, as you say, is a forum and has thus served this purpose.
Quote from: FPVSteve on March 18, 2019, 11:45:08 AM
You'd be better off fighting the fight directly, by attending consultation meetings and such. Nothing that happens on here will make a blind bit of difference.
Attending consultations is geographically and economically not possible for me due to the distances from these things. However direct contact has and is being made. If members of this forum are informed and thus motivated to respond or take other forms of constructive action then the forum has made a difference.
Why don't we start a thread on global warming or plastic waste, Brexit, the Trump wall or the conflict in the Ukraine? May as well because nobody seems to give a rats back passage about anything else apart from this crap.
Rant over.
Sent from my phone, 2 u 4 free
Quote from: Lola on March 19, 2019, 12:21:54 AM
Why don't we start a thread on global warming or plastic waste, Brexit, the Trump wall or the conflict in the Ukraine?
Simply because :
- this is an FPV forum
- none of them directly affects model/drone flying
Quote from: Lola on March 19, 2019, 12:21:54 AM
May as well because nobody seems to give a rats back passage about anything else apart from this crap.
Six other threads were posted in yesterday, perhaps you didn't notice. Not everyone is interested in those threads but they don't rant about it.
Besides you advised us that you didn't care about this thread, were dipping out and said thank you for respecting your opinions. Could you perhaps respect the opinions of others who are bothering to post constructively?
@ Electrotor, you are absolutly right mate, bang on. Sorry pal. I did get a bit sarcastic.
Cooler... 3 weeks.
Sent from my phone, 2 u 4 free
Cool
Cooler
Coolest
May you come back refreshed.
Quote from: electrotor on March 19, 2019, 01:16:59 PM
Cool
Cooler
Coolest
May you come back refreshed.
Cooler, 1 week. 😁
Sent from my phone, 2 u 4 free
Quote from: electrotor on March 18, 2019, 07:11:43 PM
That was not clear.
The purpose of a forum is inform, discuss and share opinions. FPVHUB, as you say, is a forum and has thus served this purpose.
Attending consultations is geographically and economically not possible for me due to the distances from these things. However direct contact has and is being made. If members of this forum are informed and thus motivated to respond or take other forms of constructive action then the forum has made a difference.
I was wondering if you have had any indication or replies to the inquiry of the format for the CAA compulsory registration and safety testing? I had heard that the system was to be up and running my the end of July to avoid a "log jam" in November. I do know that there has been a joint letter from the LMA, FPV UK, SMA, BMFA sent to Baroness Suggs regarding ANO amendment exemptions for fixed wing flown by members but no reply has been published yet. All we do know is that the registration becomes law in November and the tariffs for non compliance but nothing regarding how it will work and what form it will take.
As I've said before this is basically done and dusted already behind closed doors, this is just a charade IMO.
If they're really bringing in law + registration in November, any systems and software will have had to have been specced and signed off MONTHS ago for it to have any chance of being ready. It'll have been out to tender, narrowed down and then fully-drafted even before the initial build starts .. for that to happen you need a list of feature requirements. Which means it is already decided what is going to be needed.
With our combined experiences on just how these things work in reality, I totally agree that there is, in all probability, a program in use elsewhere that can be tweaked to fit the U.K. For example a registration system is in place in the FDR, RoI, Australia, New Zealand etc etc. with reg fees ranging fro £5 to £50 and renewals ranging from 12 months to 5 years. But why the secrecy in the UK?
If that's the case then the point still stands because the software specs would still need to match the requirements. They have to, otherwise they'd leave themselves wide open to legal loopholes.
Will this be the result in th UK? https://youtu.be/Cn6ddGdWSkQ (https://youtu.be/Cn6ddGdWSkQ)
I think he has that wrong, it's not per recreational SUA. But this is a clearer indication that the program is already available worldwide.
https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/news-article/drone-registration-and-accreditation-scheme-update (https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/news-article/drone-registration-and-accreditation-scheme-update)
Quote from: BigT on April 09, 2019, 10:20:51 AM
I was wondering if you have had any indication or replies to the inquiry of the format for the CAA compulsory registration and safety testing? I had heard that the system was to be up and running my the end of July to avoid a "log jam" in November. I do know that there has been a joint letter from the LMA, FPV UK, SMA, BMFA sent to Baroness Suggs regarding ANO amendment exemptions for fixed wing flown by members but no reply has been published yet. All we do know is that the registration becomes law in November and the tariffs for non compliance but nothing regarding how it will work and what form it will take.
I haven't received any indication of replies about the format for the CAA compulsory registration and safety testing.
From FPVUK website. You can also see the same on other model association websites.
Representatives from the UK Model Flying Associations met with the Aviation Minister, Baroness Vere of Norbiton at the Department for Transport yesterday (Tuesday 5th June 2019).
Whilst the meeting provided a good opportunity for both sides to clarify their position and understand each other's priorities, there is little in the way of good news to report to our members.
It was clear that the government sees the public order and security risk posed by unmanned aircraft as very serious, which is influencing their stance, especially on operator registration. We were informed that the details of how this approach will be applied by the police and the additional legal responsibilities placed on unmanned aircraft operators will be clarified in the Drones Bill which is expected to be published soon.
We were told that the government has the aim of introducing rules now that will enable all airspace users, manned and unmanned, to coexist in the future without having to rewrite the rules in the near future to account for new technology or the forecast increase in low altitude traffic. Model aircraft flyers will be users of this airspace, so the rules will apply to us.
As such, the Minister insists that all those operating unmanned aircraft (including model aircraft) will be treated in the same way and that a registration fee will be due from everyone along with the requirement to demonstrate competence. The Minister strongly believed that an 'insignificant' fee and mandatory test would not be barriers to participation.
Provisions within the EU regulations for model flying conducted within the framework of Associations (to apply targeted regulations which specifically allow model flying to continue as it does today) were robustly set aside as the Government is only concerned with UK law for now.
Similarly, previously published UK Government policy has also been set aside, in particular the 2017 Government Strategy (Unlocking The UK's Hi-Tech Economy) which stated that the Government would "...work with model aircraft flying clubs to examine ways in which it may be possible to exempt members of model aircraft flying clubs with adequate safety cultures and practices from certain elements of registration and other educational requirements....".
Whilst the Baroness was very clear that model flyers are not a special case, we were invited to submit our proposals for a pragmatic solution to the DfT for their consideration (albeit within some exceptionally inflexible constraints). Our proposals will be largely as communicated previously and we will submit them in due course.
We will continue to engage constructively with DfT and the CAA on this issue, as they have been clear they want to keep the channels of communication open.
I find it insulting, blinkered and quite pathetic that the Government is setting aside the safety record, safety achievement schemes and safety culture that model flying associations have worked so hard to implement and promote for something which will do little if anything to improve safety and will cost us money. It is like re-inventing the wheel but making it square and with no spokes.
Well said, my feelings exactly. In fact I think it will lead to a mass disobedience and therefore have the opposite effect.
Quote from: electrotor on June 06, 2019, 03:55:59 PM
It is like re-inventing the wheel but making it square and with no spokes.
easy!
LOL, the irony
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48948591 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48948591)
Precisely my thoughts as I read it...
Cheers
Quote from: FPVSteve on July 11, 2019, 05:04:54 PM
LOL, the irony
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48948591 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48948591)
The two faced gits....... :wtf:
I too was disgusted by the hypocrisy.
How much does he get paid to stand up and spout that whilst the Corporation he heads up broadcasts "a sea of disinformation and partisan reporting."
He probably believes what he's saying - which is pretty scary in itself.