New UK Drones Law punishes British Model Flying Community

[electrotor]

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.

[ched]

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.

[electrotor]

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/

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.

[electrotor]

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?

[FPVSteve]

A Small Unmanned Aircraft, i.e. all of the above.

(by the sounds of it).

:(

[electrotor]

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

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

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

[ched]

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/

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.

[electrotor]

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.

[ched]

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..

[big a]

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.

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.

[FPVSteve]

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?

[big a]

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

[electrotor]

They sort of are saying that 'model aircraft' are different.

They are saying "model flying" and "drone flying" are different.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thinking about this I may just send my own letter to clarify a few of the points in the letter..

A good idea.

[FPVSteve]

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...

[electrotor]

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.

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.

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.