Threat to Model Flying from European Regulation - EASA Prototype Rules for Unman

[DarkButterfly]

The question is, if you are flying a drone and no one is around to see it, did the flight happen?

[guest325]

The question is, if you are flying a drone and no one is around to see it, did the flight happen?

But of course it didn';t happen; that';s quite obvious!!!

[mph999]

The weight rule is utterly ridicules, non-factory built aircraft are almost without exception built by enthusiasts, who are fully aware of the current rules and regulations.  The bigger danger, if there is any, is the factory built models that can exceed the proposed 250g limit, can be bought by anyone,  flown without instruction from the local park, with a high likely hood that the operator is oblivious to the CAA rules.

Martin

[rasor]

Please all sign the petition on change.org - appreciate an admin making a "sticky" as this effects us all.

https://www.change.org/p/https-www-easa-europa-eu-improve-europe-s-uas-prototype-rule

[westy666]

Wow, do they actually consult anyone who has any real knowledge of the implications of these rules before they publish something like this.

I';ve only been involved in this hobby for a few months and I can see the pitfalls.

It looks like what they are trying to achieve is if someone does do something dodgy, prison drops, terrorist acts, flying over something they shouldn';t then they can tie the drone to the pilot and then prosecute.

Which means basically you';d need a DVLA type of system linking the drone to a registered pilot\owner. Which means to buy a drone you';d need to provide a registration\licence type of thing to the seller. What about second hand drones ?

Which kind of explains some of the parallels they are drawing to the car industry. Driver registration, safety standards, transmit ID and location (i.e. a licence plate)

Anyone know the timelines on this ? When it could come into force ?

[Cheredanine]

What is really insane is what they are trying to stop (people crashing into airplanes or smuggling drugs/phones/weapons into prisons, are breaking the existing regulation, why would new regulation help? What they need is a better method of enforcement

[JeremyE]

I could bang on about how insane the laws are, but I can see that these muppets have a greater sneaky goal. The EU see';s something popular and will want a way to capitalise and monetise it with little to no work on their behalf. That means they could eventually charge for registration. This would also easily allow the to police and fine those that aren';t registered or flying a craft outside of the registered regulations.

[PropsToYou]

Well I just sent the following to my MP and all my MEPs, plus a similar letter to EASA themselves:

You may have heard recently that EASA (The European Aviation Safety Agency) are planning on imposing severe restrictions to the flight of unmanned aircraft in EU airspace.
Unmanned aircraft includes the use of multi-rotors (popularly referred to as ';drones', as well as fixed wings (plane style aircraft either remote controlled or fully autonomous) and remote controlled helicopters.

The proposition is to make the following alterations to what the UK currently has instated:

- Maximum altitude will be reduced to 50m (from 120m)
- Maximum distance flown from pilot reduced to 100m (from 500m)
- Maximum speed limited of 33mph
- Non-Factory built aircraft would be limited to 250g

I am hugely worried about the impact these regulations would have on a number of areas if they were to come into place. These restrictions will destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people living in the UK, affect productivity in hundreds of other industries, kill a fast growing and popular sport dead in it';s tracks, put an end to hundreds of thousands of hobbyists lifelong passions which they have been practising safely and quietly for decades, and also have a massive negative impact on the British education system.

As a commercial UAS operator based in the UK, I find the proposed new regulations to be highly worrying on a personal level.
Not only because it poses a threat to mine and thousands of others careers (not to mention life long passions of countless more), it also demonstrates how a large legal body can be easily coerced into changing European regulations to the point of strangling an entire industry, entirely based on propaganda fuelled scare mongering and unsubstantiated claims.

A large part of what has brought these proposed regulatory changes on is the reports coming out in the news about near misses with "drones" to commercial airlines, and general misuse of drones.
The fact is that the vast majority of the claims are completely unsubstantiated and often result in very minor press releases hidden in the smallprint of papers explaining what really happened. A very good example of this was a recent case where an aircraft landing at Heathrow airport reported a drone flying into and bouncing off the pilots window as they were approaching the runway. This hit the media hard and generated a lot of bad press. However, a week later, the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) released a statement explaining that in fact, it was not a ';drone'; but a plastic bag. Not a single person I have spoken to was aware of this latter release and this example is a drop in an ocean of propaganda.

The other issue here is that EASA claim they are bringing in these further restrictions to prevent these situations from occurring. What they fail to realise is that of the few cases where incidents have occurred, the people who are piloting the aircraft aren';t following the regulations already in place and new and tighter rules will not change that. The new restrictions will only impact on those who are already flying within the law. On the contrary, I think it will put such tight reigns on people that it will actually cause more people to break the rules in place.

So, onto how these regulations will impact our city and our country.

For my career, I am based at an award winning documentary production company in Bristol, and I film stunning aerials for all kinds of TV programmes. Granted, a lot of this is done outside of the EU and is following other nations airspace regulations. However, a great deal of it is done here and not only does the reduction in altitude drastically reduce the impact of a shot (therefore massively swaying the decision of a production company as to whether it';s worth their cost to hire me or another UAS operator), the 100m distance limit makes it incredibly difficult to get a great many shots I';d normally get as it limits how I can position the aircraft in accordance to myself to not get in shot. In short, it would make my job extremely difficult and drastically reduce the number of jobs I (along with others in the industry) would get offered in the first place.

But filming isn';t the only thing drones are used for in the UK. They are commonly used for surveying and provide a cheap and fast way of ensuring buildings, structures and large natural objects are safe, offering an alternative for solutions which can take weeks to arrange (rather than a day), cost considerably more and often be dangerous for those taking part. This will be completely out of the question with these new regulations. There are also massive agricultural applications which they are being used for which is allowing farmers to directly target certain areas of their crops which are infected and not have to destroy an entire field just for one spoilt area. It is increasing productivity for farmers, reducing the amount of pesticides being used, reducing the amount of petrol being used, and generally better for the environment. Again, this is impossible with the proposed regulations.

Moving away from the commercial side of things, I myself along with tens of thousands of others, just here in the UK, let alone the rest of Europe, enjoy the increasingly popular sport of "drone racing". Drone racing often uses small drones around 25cm across around tracks in controlled environments. The bodies which organise these races follow the strictest of rules to ensure that every participant is compliant with the UK aviation laws. The 250g weight limit and 33mph speed limit kills this sport dead in it';s tracks and this would be a real travesty for this is no small industry. Just last year the first ever world prix drone racing championship was held, with a British boy winning a quarter of a million in prize money. Not to mention the amount of money being spent on components people use to build their drones which is funding dozens if not hundreds of shops and companies around the UK.

There are massive drives at the moment in education to encourage children and young adults into learning about electronics, programming and robotics and I';ve yet to see anything that has had such a significant impact on so many people as this has. Over 99% of racing quadcopters out there are home made and that is a skill these people have learned and will keep for the rest of their lives.

EASA worry about people building their own and making them unsafe but I can guarantee you that almost every time there has been a reported incident that actually is based on truth, the pilot was flying an off the shelf multirotor they bought without reading up or regarding any regulation that was in place. When someone decides to build one themselves, they do so because they want to do it right. They read up on every aspect of it, and they test every element they can before flight as, unlike those who just throw money at it and hope for the best, these people actually care about their aircraft and don';t want to see it just fall out of the sky.

All this to say, if EASA really feel we need to make further restrictions, don';t bring in rules that will only affect those who are already obeying them, bring in regulations that prevent poorly made factory-builds with faulty parts being imported and/or sold in our shops. It';s the Christmas present £30 quadcopter from China that';s going do be a fly-away or used by a 14 year old kid with no knowledge or supervision that will cause an issue.

You have a choice at this point. Embrace an industry which will flourish, generate a huge amount of revenue, encourage education and research in electronics, aviation, engineering and programming, or snuff it out before it can really begin, taking with it those who have been safely and quietly flying fixed wings and RC helecopters for decades.

I urge you to speak up about this issue and fight to keep countless industries, hobbies and a flourishing sport alive!

[atomiclama]

Seen this petition doing the rounds

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168112

[Powernumpty]

Have signed that but would have been happier if the wording had a bit more content, it';s a shame I don';t touch facebook or I';d post on there.

One overwhelming thing that occurs to me, they want to sell off the airspace the same way they sell off radio frequencies.
You don';t have to be David Ike to see the way the scaremongering has been driven to get people believing an aircraft will be taken down by a quadcopter any day now they want an event, or believable near event, so they can change the law and the bulk of the public will be behind it from what they read in the Daily Mail or facebook.
If they do force us to only use built items they won';t be built in Europe, they will be from China so take an educational hobby that gives real world transferable skills and turn it into dumbed down users consuming white box imports.
Maybe they are worried they are missing taxes on low value parts and can cane built quads.
To me the whole thing stinks.

[Two-Six]

Great letter props, now I have a better idea of how to frame my MP appeal.  It was probably his idea in the first place  ....
although I am not sure if I can give him credit for having an idea.

I have signed both petitions and their links will be forwarded to my model club members to accompany a previous appeal  for action from me and a request they watch the video.

Yes powernumpty, the whole thing really does smell of protectionism and profiteering as well as monetising and controlling ALL airspace, just like the radio spectrum.

In fact this legislation is very like the new pan-European tobacco rules which also govern vaping.  Essentially what they are introducing will make it very difficult for independent producers to make their own e-liquid blends as the registration and testing of every single mix or brand name of e-liquid, will be too expensive for small independent producers.   

Watch big tobacco step into the breech to supply eliquid and stamp out any competition in short order.

It will also heavily favor factory-produced disposable cartridges for vaping, due to a requirement to make it impossible to come into contact with e-liquid when filling your vape machine.  This will have the effect of centralising production of these cartridges into the hands of a few large (tobacco) companies that can tool up for mass production.

Vaping has had a massive impact on the rates of people giving up tobacco yet the state wants to quash growth and  DIY/small scale research and innovation in this market that has transformed vaping into the massively popular thing it is now and make it difficult, expensive, boring, less attractive, and highly regulated. 

It has very little to do with the safety of vapers and vaping as it is now, which is very very safe, just like these EASA rules have very little to do with the safety in real terms of RC flying, which is very safe.

[Fletch]

Brilliant PTY

[Samslimer]

Response from EASA.

Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.

We had and we are still having intensive discussions on the inclusion of model aircraft in our regulatory proposal, and how to differentiate between a model aircraft and a drone operator flying for leisure.

We are trying to give as much flexibility as we can.

With regard to your query, I would like to refer you for example to Article 15 of the UAS draft proposal (Prototype Rule, for your convenience I report it below). It gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model clubs identifying deviations from the European rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing the model clubs to operate as they do today giving maximum freedom. So if you fly within the remit of a club recognized by your national authority, you do not need to comply with the European rule since we know that a model club already imposes rules providing a sufficient level of safety.  Therefore I expect that not much will change for people flying under model clubs rules and no modification could be required to their aircraft.

Still we need to regulate the flight of UAS outside of model clubs and in order to reduce the risk, we defined limitations in energy (weight and speed or level of injury).

Regarding model aircraft we are meeting with model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs and with their help we will improve the draft text further, if needed.

As you may know we keep aviation safety as high priority and we hope this draft regulation allows the UAS market to develop safely in Europe, without negatively impacting other categories such as the model hobbyist. The purpose of publishing the "prototype" version of the regulatory proposal, while we are still working on it, was exactly to receive comments from all interested stakeholders.

So thank you for sharing your thoughts and I hope my answer helped to show that we do not intend to impede on model or hobby flights.

Article 15

Transitional provisions

For recreational operations of UA, such as leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities, conducted in the frame of associations or clubs with proven satisfactory safety records and performed under national systems before this Regulation enters into force, the following transitional provisions shall apply:

1. By [3 years after entry into force of this Regulation — estimate 2020], the competent authority shall issue operational authorisations to associations or clubs for the operations which would otherwise require an authorisation according to Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.

2. An operational authorisation can be issued without the need to conduct the operational risk assessment referred to in UAS.SPEC.60.

3. Operational authorisations issued under this Article shall define the conditions, limitations and deviations from the requirements of Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.

[PropsToYou]

Response from EASA.

What was the delay between your initial email and their reply?

[Samslimer]

4 days

[hoverfly]

So flying within model clubs will be ok . Apart from  racing  the prospect of hovering around a club field leaves a lot to be desired.
This really knocks the photographic  use. It would be interesting to see what their definition of a club is,does it have to have a fixed  site?

[H_Simpson]

Interesting reply from EASA, it would appear they want to discriminate between club flyers and ';country members'; as the BMFA refer to unafiliated individuals.  I would see this as an opening for an appeal on the very grounds of discrimination itself.

[hoverfly]

I can see this ending with something like you can fly with bmfa insurance anywhere, providing  you submit a flight plan one month in advance with the required fee. When flying  there must be someone on the ground directly under the a/c with a 20 ft pole with a red strobe on it, this person to be a bmfa accredited examiner with  haemoroids.

[guest325]

Response from EASA.

That';s exactly the same word for word as the guys on the Fixed wing forum are getting - looks like they have concocted a standard reply!!!

[apollo7]

I know what i will be doing and it involves a certain "2 finger salute"

[Bad Raven]

It would be interesting to see what their definition of a club is,does it have to have a fixed  site?

Moving away from Multicopters for a minute, there';s a parallel question here, what happens about Slope Soaring?  For example, the BMFA has a national agreement with the National Trust that allows unpowered flight on NT land.

Then there are quite a few more "local" slope sites, one owned by Sussex Rural District Council, another by Maidstone and District Council. as examples.  Another on Goodwood Estate land.

Getting closer to this sites prime purpose, Bromley Council allows flying (electric power allowed inc multi';s) in one park in the borough, written permission in the bylaws.

If you are a BMFA member, does that give permission or not, there are SO many loose ends here.

[hoverfly]

Very good point !,there are quite a few council parks /public spaces that have an area for model flying .
http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/info/20245/parks/228/model_aircraft_flying
An example above. There is an area on Cleve common but I think its slopesoarers only. Most places require bmfa  insurance.

[Bad Raven]

There is a public flying site at the old Croydon Airport location on council land, its where one of my clubs started in the 70';s, its still in bylaws with permissions to fly (inc engine power with some time and day restrictions) so still active AND still the club';s name, however, few now fly there, as we have a paid for private site on farm land.

Would this result in the scenario that you could fly there as a CAMFC (and therefore BMFA) member, but not as a "country" member of BMFA?  Apart from the people also possibly declaring UDI, this is heading towards a major administrational nightmare!

[Bad Raven]

Oh, and to really screw things up, I';m a member of CAMFC, but joined BMFA before joining CAMFC so have continued to be a Country Member though in a Club (well, several!!)   

[Area21]

Eloquently put, will be very interesting to see any reply.

This was the reply I received yesterday 5th Oct.
From: DI RUBBO Natale [mailto:Natale.DIRUBBO@easa.europa.eu]
Sent: 05 October 2016 16:18
To: Appleyard, Adrian <A.Appleyard@leedsbeckett.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: UAS Prototype Rules.

Dear Mr Appleyard
Thank you for expressing interest in the UAS Prototype Rule.
We received your email and we will carefully evaluate it.
As it was specified in our web page, due to the amount of emails we are receiving, we cannot provide an individual answer. We are anyway developing this rule in collaboration with industry, European aviation authorities and association (remote pilots, operators, model etc) in order to find the right balance.

With regard to your query on model, we are trying to give as much flexibility as we can.
I would like to refer you for example to Article 15 of the UAS draft proposal (Prototype Rule, for your convenience I report it below). It gives the possibility to the national competent authority to issue an authorisation to model clubs identifying deviations from the European rule, no further risk assessment is required. In this way we are allowing the model clubs to operate as they do today giving maximum freedom. So if you fly within the remit of a club recognized by your national authority, you do not need to comply with the European rule since we know that a model club already imposes rules providing a sufficient level of safety.  Therefore I expect that not much will change for people flying under model clubs rules and no modification could be required to their aircraft.
Still we need to regulate the flight of UAS outside of model clubs and in order to reduce the risk, we defined limitations in energy (weight and speed or level of injury).

Regarding model aircraft we are meeting with model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs and with their help we will improve the draft text further, if needed.

As you may know we keep aviation safety as high priority and we hope this draft regulation allows the UAS market to develop safely in Europe, without negatively impacting other categories such as the model hobbyist. The purpose of publishing the "prototype" version of the regulatory proposal, while we are still working on it, was exactly to receive comments from all interested stakeholders.
So thank you for sharing your thoughts and I hope my answer helped to show that we do not intend to impede on model flights.

Article 15
Transitional provisions
For recreational operations of UA, such as leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities, conducted in the frame of associations or clubs with proven satisfactory safety records and performed under national systems before this Regulation enters into force, the following transitional provisions shall apply:
1. By [3 years after entry into force of this Regulation — estimate 2020], the competent authority shall issue operational authorisations to associations or clubs for the operations which would otherwise require an authorisation according to Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.
2. An operational authorisation can be issued without the need to conduct the operational risk assessment referred to in UAS.SPEC.60.
3. Operational authorisations issued under this Article shall define the conditions, limitations and deviations from the requirements of Subpart B of Annex I to this Regulation.

Best regards,

Natale Di Rubbo
Regulation officer – Initial Airworthiness
European Aviation Safety Agency

Tel.: +49 221 89990-4213
Postal: Postfach 10 12 53, 50452 Cologne, Germany
An agency of the European Union 

[hoverfly]

Very interesting , a lot of verbage but low on substance.
A suggestion all members of  Multi Rotor UK , form a "club" cough up sufficient membership fee to cover admin , get  B.M.F.A.  recognition. Then tell the sausage eating bureaucrat  to sit on it.
Phew, so grumpy this morning

[Area21]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168112

Can you please use the link above and vote to block or change the EASA Commission Regulation on Unmanned Aircraft Operations

Adrian.

[H_Simpson]

A suggestion all members of  Multi Rotor UK , form a "club" cough up sufficient membership fee to cover admin , get  B.M.F.A.  recognition.

Yeah, count me in on that do you take euro's?

[Hawkeye]

Well this is plain terrible.

I don';t want to join a club, or an association, and fly round a football pitch in a circle, I want to fly my drone in nice scenery and take nice pictures.

"Regarding model aircraft we are meeting with model associations, including BMFA, FAI and other national clubs and with their help we will improve the draft text further, if needed."

I don';t particularly want them consulted either. They';re not going to be any help to drone flyers. I';ve already seen on another forums that some of these people from clubs and such like are happy about this, support it. They';re all cosy in their little clubs and won';t be touched so they don';t have a problem with it. They';ll just be all "yeaaaah you do what you want, go punish the drone flyers they';ve just made us look bad anyway".

Still we need to regulate the flight of UAS outside of model clubs and in order to reduce the risk, we defined limitations in energy (weight and speed or level of injury).

No, you don';t "need" to, at all. You need to stop interfering with the hobbies of law abiding citizens, and go after people after they have actually committed an offence.

I had planned on buying a DJI Mavic. Considering cancelling my order now because of this nonsense. I wouldn';t trust DJI not to implement the electronic restrictions via their geofencing if this came to force and I end up with a £1,250 paperweight.

I thought the USAs approach of registration was too far, these proposals are just madness.

I';ve written to my MP, and the 6 Scottish MEPs about this.

[DarkButterfly]

I had planned on buying a DJI Mavic. Considering cancelling my order now because of this nonsense. I wouldn';t trust DJI not to implement the electronic restrictions via their geofencing if this came to force and I end up with a £1,250 paperweight.

Precisely the reason I won';t let the DJI GO app on my iPad mini connect to the internet.