New UK Drones Law punishes British Model Flying Community

[electrotor]

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.

[FPVSteve]

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.

[big a]

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

[electrotor]

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?

[FPVSteve]

"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".

[Lola]

"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.  :(

[big a]

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

[big a]

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.

[electrotor]

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"

[urbanfpv]

Just to clear up any confusion...

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

[electrotor]

Just to clear up any confusion...

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.

[FPVSteve]

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.

[urbanfpv]

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.

[electrotor]

: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.

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.

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.

[Lola]

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