New UK Drones Law punishes British Model Flying Community

[big a]

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

[big a]

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

[FPVSteve]

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.

[big a]

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

[electrotor]

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?

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?

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.

[big a]

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.

[FPVSteve]

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.

[big a]

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.

[Dillwhacker]

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.

[ched]

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!!!!

[Dillwhacker]

If only "common sense" were.... well... more common.
And more to the point, an acceptable argument in law.

[electrotor]

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.

[electrotor]

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.

[big a]

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

[big a]

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