Altitude limit is back to 400ft

[elmattbo]

Yup, it's a good thing but I think working out whose rules to benchmark was a struggle! Some of its good, some of its bad, some of its a bit irritating (gliding in the UK used to be self-regulated by the BGA, now  all pilots will have to get an EASA type licence).
I also have a foot in both camps and I'm glad to see that sensible regulation is coming for model a/c and fpv but it does need to be promulgated well for it to work. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[simondale]

The title of this thread is a little misleading.  There is no 400ft rule for flying an aircraft under 7kg. 

So flying a 1.5kg aircraft LOS = no altitude limit
Flying a 1.5kg aircraft under the FPV exemption = 1000ft limit

People often seem to think that the exemption allows them to fly higher...it doesn't.  It gives a lower limit that LoS!  In no situation would the exemption allow someone to fly higher than the ANO/ LoS allows - because the exemption is limited to aircraft under 3.5kg.

These height limits are a little irrelevant though - you, or your Competent Observer, must have Direct Unaided contact with the aircraft at all times.  So unless you have amazing eyesight (or your competent observer does), and you have a massive orange aircraft (but still under the weight limit), and fantastic visibility, you won't be able to see it at 400ft.

Electrotor: he's referring to the incident at Mill Hill.  All I know is a model collided with a full size at 1000ft.

CAA have notified me of 4 airprox reports that have been made in the last week involving "drones".  And I'm not certain that includes Mill Hill (I was told all of them were above 1500ft - one of them 4000ft! - so that doesn't seem to include Mill Hill at 1000ft). 

CAA can't give me too much information until the airprox board release the information publicly but suffice to say that the guys we deal with at the CAA are under major pressure to "Do something!!" from their superiors.  And that will only increase when the media gets hold of these 4 or 5 Airprox reports in a month or two and its all over the papers.  Not good.

What can we do to prevent people flying so high and interfering with full size aviation? 

We're putting these leaflets in every box we sell (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf), and we've got DJI doing the same on every product that has a specific UK version.  We've got Maplin doing the same.

We produced this animation and gifted it to the CAA: https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16842 

We've worked with DJI on getting their Geofencing right so that it actually covers the important parts of a major airport. 

We've got DJI to put a 400ft default limit in their firmware. 

We're doing events (such as our International Drone Day event in March, our event last Saturday and our DJI New Pilot training event on Friday) which promote the safe enjoyment of UAS). 

Any other suggestions are welcome!

It seems like perhaps I should do another animation explaining the FPV exemption.  It seems like many people think its a licence to fly above the (non-existent) 400ft rule - and is nothing more than that?

All the best

Simon

[electrotor]

Thanks Simon, your input is always well considered and welcome.

I posted recently that I had been experimenting with visibility limits using my Phantom 2 and OSD. At 400 ft directly above something as small as a Phantom is still quite visible. In fact it was still visible at 600ft although if you looked away and back it was difficult to re-acquire. The same was not true at 400 ft out due to the smaller side profile and inability to see the lights. High powered side facing lights or strobes would go part the way to improving this. For comparison I have flown my Twinstar at about 500ft altitude. It has only high vis orange wingtips and tail tips and is easily visible at this height and about 100-200 ft out. Larger models with high vis markings would comfortably be visible at greater altitudes.
The reason I was experimenting at 400-600 ft is in part because we sometimes have North Sea helicopters go overhead our field at about 500ft. It can be a bit disconcerting not being sure if these guys are actually noticing us. Having flown over in a fixed wing I know the field with its cut grass cross runways is easily visible at several thousand feet. Indeed some smaller helicopters and microlights buzz around as if considering a landing. Perhaps we should introduce landing fees with complimentary burgers if the BBQ is fired up.

[skyscraper]

One simple answer on the road to limiting how far you can fly is enforcing the OFCOM Vtx output power rules. How can that be done?

For example..

I would suggest that any multi-copter EDIT:or any other FPV: racing  event that wants to be taken seriously should specify that the Vtxs will be checked for legality. however in all cases I have seen so far this is left to the pilot..

Naturally video quality is better with an illegal Vtx so unless its actually enforced at these events.. everyone that is competitive WILL be using an illegal Vtx..

ven If Vtxes were  checked You could cheat of course and camouflage your Vtx I guess... which is really  Cool... if your Heroes are the likes of Lance Armstrong, Ben Jonson etc )

regards
Andy

[iwan_canobi]

Limiting the VTx power would just increase the amount of models lost and people getting into difficulty needlessly, and effectively make racing anywhere but a completely open space (i.e no trees or obstacles) impossible.

I know that you have had a lot of success using legal VTx's, but for most people the effort required to do so far outweighs any benefit of being 'legal' in the eyes of Ofcom.

Its a tough issue to address, as like anything the more rules and regs you apply just hamper the people who do this hobby completely safely, where the idiots will continue to ignore any/all rules and do what they want anyway.

[skyscraper]

Limiting the VTx power would just increase the amount of models lost and people getting into difficulty needlessly, and effectively make racing anywhere but a completely open space (i.e no trees or obstacles) impossible.[...]  the more rules and regs you apply just hamper the people who do this hobby completely safely, [...]

Flying a quadcopter at high speed through woods is completely safe?   :o

regards
ndy

[stevec]

Things are going to get tighter in the future with the 5g proposed spectrums butting right up against ours.
If I remember correctly they are looking at 2.3 ghz and high 5GHz's for the new 5g licenses also the next one will be a lower frequency when the emergency services radio network gets shut down.

being legal and efficient will be more important than ever. I wonder how many people have tried being legal on a mini quad? I know I haven't... my reasoning was I need all the power I can to throw the signal around trees, but thinking about it LOS between the antenna and you is LOS and it doesn't matter how loud you are shouting if you cant see each other. a decent CP antenna is much more important than if you are running 600mw or 25mw, the range is not a problem over the short distances, and you simply cannot punch a 5.8ghz radio wave through anything with substance. Which means we need good multipath rejection.

IBcrazy has just added a couple of miniquad specific videos to his "how to be successful in FPV" series and the wattage of the vtx is one thing he talks about and makes a good case for using lower levels because if you are shouting it makes everyone elses Vrx's less sensitive to their own Vtx. he also suggests using alternate LHCP and RHCP to give a better rejection.

just my 0.2p

/Steve

[Loopdreams]

I noticed absolutely no difference going from 600mW to 200mW on my mini quad.  I'd certainly be interested to see what happens at 25mW.

[electrotor]

One simple answer on the road to limiting how far you can fly is enforcing the OFCOM Vtx output power rules. How can that be done?

Not really a workable solution. High gain steerable antennae give a much greater range with very low powers. In addition the aviation regulators and Ofcom do not work together on this. Whose responsibility would it be?

[stevec]

One simple answer on the road to limiting how far you can fly is enforcing the OFCOM Vtx output power rules. How can that be done?

Not really a workable solution. High gain steerable antennae give a much greater range with very low powers. In addition the aviation regulators and Ofcom do not work together on this. Whose responsibility would it be?

add to this the other users of the frequencies we use and you can then see it is almost impossible to police.
it is very difficult to ascertain if something it 10 miles away transmitting at 1 watt or is it a lot closer transmitting at a much lower wattage.
the only time Ofcom get involved is when there are complaints from the public or companies involved.

A common one we get is people buy a cheap DECT home phone system from china which happens to transmit on 900mhz, the system then knocks out the mobile phone cell and we get a lot of complaints from angry subscribers.
Finding the offender can sometimes take weeks, especially if they switch the unit off when they are not in the office or home.

[Brucey]

Are you an ofcom bod then? Like you say if your not bothering anyone then its 'ok'

[stevec]

No I work for Ericsson, and we maintain the mobile cellular networks for most of the phone operators.

All of the big ones..

we get a lot of inteference reports that we investigate and then turn over to Ofcom once we have identified the building that is generating the RF.

/Steve

[skyscraper]

One simple answer on the road to limiting how far you can fly is enforcing the OFCOM Vtx output power rules. How can that be done?

Not really a workable solution. High gain steerable antennae give a much greater range with very low powers. In addition the aviation regulators and Ofcom do not work together on this. Whose responsibility would it be?

1) Reducing Vtx power raises the bar to going far so (Hypothesis) reduces the number of Numpties who may also be the ones not likely to give a sh*t!

2) Legal RcTx power on legal frequencies is also limited. To use a high gain antenna on the RC Transmitter is illegal ( since it is the EIRP that is measured)  Until you get a directional RC receiving antenna on the aircraft (raising the bar again) there is an effective limit on range there.

As to the relevant authorities not working together..  What then is the point of these organisations? WTF do they do all day?

Its not difficult finding where a radio signal is coming from (Military do it in war and radio amateurs do it in peace). A bit of maths on the RSSI should also give a good indication of the transmitter power and therefore if its illegal or not. Once you have it start recording the video feed and eventually the aircraft will take you to the source.. F*ck you could automate the whole thing

But of course woe woe nothing can be done its all impossible etc.. My Ass !

regards
Andy

regards
Andy

[stevec]

the point is who is going to pay for it?
nothing is impossible but someone has to foot the bill.

My engineers use handheld directional antennas to work out where the signal is coming from and it takes time to do it especially in city centres because of the multipathing issues and signal reflections.

not to mention all the confused members of the public who come up to try and find out what the hell they are doing with the weird gun.

policing legal frequencies for excessive wattage is never going to happen, after all it is not like we aren't allowed to use the frequency so it isn't going to interfere with the big companies, spot testing transmitted power would require silly resources, so we end up back with the simple statement we need to do it ourselves.

/Steve

[Brucey]

No I work for Ericsson, and we maintain the mobile cellular networks for most of the phone operators.

All of the big ones..

we get a lot of inteference reports that we investigate and then turn over to Ofcom once we have identified the building that is generating the RF.

/Steve

Ah ok, interesting.