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

[guest325]

I';ve just seen a reply to a communication with EASA that looks more encouraging:
"The current text of the UAS prototype rule only allow flights under a model club since we know that these associations have a very good rules. In the 3 years period each member state needs to give the authorisation to the clubs. This is mostly for the countries where no rule are in place for models (it does not apply to UK that already has). Such authorisation will define max height, place to fly etc... for UK I expect that this will be just the current rules under which model are flying, therefore no change.

So with our regulation we will just require Member States that do not have yet a national regulation for models to define one, so the model flyers of that nation will be exempted by the "drone" rule.

We will discuss also if and how we can allow model to fly outside of club."
Looks like the standard reply has been revised; it';s almost like they didn';t have a clue how to write the regulations so they wrote them so as to stir up the hornets nest to see if us the model flyers would enlighten them 
They got that one right 
However the disturbing phrase is "The Drone rule", so it seems that there is likely to be revised legislation there as well 

[Reman]

And to think, to stay legal I replaced all my 2, 4 and 600mw VTX';s with puny little 25mw ones once I found out the higher milliwatt ones weren';t strictly allowed for the UK..... If this crock of s*** come in then they';re all going back on and I';ll assume a "No f**ks given" attitude to any future ill-conceived legislation brought out and use my own real life common sense instead (A commodity sadly lacking from the Daily Mail reading f**ks who are trying to push this through).

I may have just got out of the wrong side of the bed today, but I';ve decided that no pen pushing bureaucratic tits (Who aren';t even connected to the hobby) are going to tell me when and where I can fly when I believe I have enough common sense to decide if any particular location and time is safe by myself.

[hoverfly]

"Drone rule" has a drone been  accurately  defined yet in the context of  model flying, as purpose built craft are not scale models as such.    There has been so much waffle and brollicks i';m getting confused, more than normal..

P.S. to the above  The Daily Mail  crap has very little to do with "drones"  it';s mainly generated by mob hysteria excrement stirring  inpotent nobodys trying to assert themselves  as they have f/a better to do. Essentialy frustrated people haters.

P.P.S. And another thing ,notice how the "people are using drones to look through bedroom windows bit has gone quiet"  Why, because the people who thought of it have bought cheap rtf drones , tried it and found that it is almost impossible , and have gone back to their flasher mac and binoculars.

[Area21]

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

If the EASA ruling is going to exempt pilots who fly with the BMFA. Subs are £33 per year. This gives you £25 million cover. And you can be a country member and not in any club.  Or as said create your own club. 

[Reman]

I thought we weren';t meant to be using the d word anymore? A word drone give the public mental images of the American military doing "surgical air strikes" against school buses full of Afghani children by accident.
I was under the impression we should be referring to our aircraft multirotors, quad, hex or octicopters....... in fact, pretty much anything other than drone?

[Two-Six]

It looks like they are winding their necks in faster than a tortoise on speed that';s being messed with by a feisty terrier 

The fromage munching, cookoo-clock polishing, leather-shorts wearing, bottom-slappers, what a crock of sour kraut!

So after reading the rules  what is the thing that decides which category your "UAV" falls into, is it JUST the battery voltage?

[kilby]

Most of us do, but to say it';s a lost battle is an understatement.

Though you must remember that this basically says fixed wing, helis ey al are all Drones (I know I have upset lots of fixed wing people by calling their kit drones too)

I wonder if the term drone applies to watercraft and cars too, tee hee

[Cheredanine]

I was gonna buy myself one of these for xmas, now I am not so sure:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper#/media/File%3AMQ-9_Afghanistan_takeoff_1_Oct_07.JPG

[kilby]

I was gonna buy myself one of these for xmas, now I am not so sure:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper#/media/File%3AMQ-9_Afghanistan_takeoff_1_Oct_07.JPG

Funny enough the mention of General Atomics reminds me that I want a craft made by General Products all I have to do is wait for Larry Nivens universe to become a reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Products

[Hawkeye]

I';ve just seen a reply to a communication with EASA that looks more encouraging:
"The current text of the UAS prototype rule only allow flights under a model club since we know that these associations have a very good rules. In the 3 years period each member state needs to give the authorisation to the clubs. This is mostly for the countries where no rule are in place for models (it does not apply to UK that already has). Such authorisation will define max height, place to fly etc... for UK I expect that this will be just the current rules under which model are flying, therefore no change.

So with our regulation we will just require Member States that do not have yet a national regulation for models to define one, so the model flyers of that nation will be exempted by the "drone" rule.

We will discuss also if and how we can allow model to fly outside of club."
Looks like the standard reply has been revised; it';s almost like they didn';t have a clue how to write the regulations so they wrote them so as to stir up the hornets nest to see if us the model flyers would enlighten them 
They got that one right 
However the disturbing phrase is "The Drone rule", so it seems that there is likely to be revised legislation there as well 

Still doesn';t offer me much comfort. Looks fine for people that build model tiger moths and fly them around a field. Good for them. Now what about the rest of us.

If they';re saying model flyers are exempted by the "drone" rule then they';re still planning on screwing those of us with "drones" like the phantom and home built multi rotors.

[jarnbu]

What I want to know if compensation will be offered to those who will be grounded if this goes through!

[hoverfly]

Funny enough the mention of General Atomics reminds me that I want a craft made by General Products all I have to do is wait for Larry Nivens universe to become a reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Products

Bit off subject I know but The Ringworld series kept my little brain amused for ages,lent then out and the usual never got them back.

[westy666]

What I want to know if compensation will be offered to those who will be grounded if this goes through!

I think we all know the answer to that one 

[DarkButterfly]

Still doesn';t offer me much comfort. Looks fine for people that build model tiger moths and fly them around a field. Good for them. Now what about the rest of us.

If they';re saying model flyers are exempted by the "drone" rule then they';re still planning on screwing those of us with "drones" like the phantom and home built multi rotors.

I';ll just say mine is a model flying platform, or a scale model of a space elevator ::)

[Powernumpty]

"It is important that you all appear on a database. Initially the BMFA will work just fine, obviously we will need to move that data to more official line once the fees are at a suitable level, somewhere around the TV license would make sense."

Mark my words, everyone on a database, then yearly tax demands for "licensing and safety infrastructure", obviously you';ll still have to buy your own insurance.

The whole quad race thing is a perfect example of how to get kids engaged in an engineering and science pursuit, it';s even outdoors (mostly) so they can benefit from the VitD. but no we must all be dumbed down to "buy off the shelf" fools, PID tuning will probably come under unofficial modification and void your insurance.
We in the UK could have been well placed to do the development work but we are groomed to be service suppliers only and the government has already made back room deals with the likes of Amazon
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/26/amazon-to-step-up-uk-tests-of-delivery-drones/
I shouldn';t think many of us will be ordering much via drone for a while (maybe famous last words) as the cost and max 5lb limit will probably mean we';ll be the quiet surfs watching the goodies delivered to our landed gentry neighbours.
Get out of my air!

I wonder if a discoball in the back garden will mess with the sense and avoid, obviously I';d only install one if I was going to have a disco once a year, leaving it on the rest of the year would be purely accidental.

[Reman]

I actually like the idea of Amazon delivering stuff by multi rotor.
My first order would be for a large badminton net, then if I ever needed props, motors or LiPo';s again I just need to order something really cheap from them and wait in the garden for my replacement quad parts to hover nearby. :)

[Powernumpty]

Meanwhile back in the real world -

http://nats.aero/blog/2016/10/education-key-to-drone-safety/

There seems to be a lot of hysteria about this on various forums. Calm down. Send constructive emails to EASA if you want, but make sure that you read and understand the prototype and the associated note first.

Steve

By volume going from 121.9m altitude and 500m distance to 50m/100m is 96% reduction in space for flying, that is a ban if they had the balls to say it. Any transitory exceptions are just that.

Believe the world is all white and wonderful and this is for our own best interest but don';t expect the rest of us to fall for it so easily.
The tolerated, if not organised, media hysteria has been used as a justification for draconian rules, our response is measured.

Who';s payroll are you on?

[H_Simpson]

Meanwhile back in the real world -
There seems to be a lot of hysteria about this on various forums. Calm down. Send constructive emails to EASA if you want, but make sure that you read and understand the prototype and the associated note first.

Steve

Call it hysteria if you like.  Are you a club flyer sir?  If not, then you may be developing ostrich syndrome.  Joking apart, are you certain that folk are being hysterical as you put it?

I have personally sent constructive mails to both EASA and my local MP/euro MP's.  In my life, I've only been moved to contact my MP once before.

May I also ask why you perceive this draft to be a constructive and beneficial document/proposal?  Do you believe our own CAA to be ineffective and misguided in their own regulations?  Perhaps you would welcome tougher restrictions on model flying?

respectfully, H. 

[H_Simpson]

If the EASA ruling is going to exempt pilots who fly with the BMFA. Subs are £33 per year. This gives you £25 million cover. And you can be a country member and not in any club.  Or as said create your own club. 

I assume you're being flip here?  If not, Why should folk be forced to join the BMFA?  I used to be such a country member, I wonder how that would make me less of a risk than not being in the BMFA, as I wasn't a member of a club by choice.  I take my insurance with FPVUK.org, thank you, I think the 'subs' are c. £15 per year.

H.

P.S if this is EASA's trojan attempt to force club membership on folk who neither want it or need it, it's blatant bureaucratic sheep herding and revenue gathering Caesar style, nothing else, and has no bearing on safety.

[H_Simpson]

Where did I say that i perceived the prototype regulation to be "a constructive and beneficial document/proposal",
Steve

Forgive me for my assumptions, I was obviously under the mistaken belief that you found no issue with the document?

P.S I had a look at your link to 'NATS', and found this quote:

"Our concerns lie mainly with hobbyist drone users, who often have little training or understanding of the rules of the air and we want these people to be aware of the dangers. We have pressed for better education, which we are pleased the CAA are taking seriously. Their latest programme of activity, including an updated 'drone code' is aimed to be a guide for hobbyists. Our own Flight Safety Specialist, Steve Landells, also caught up with a drone operator last year to get advice on safe drone flying"

I think you'll find 'hobbyists' are very knowledgable about 'drones', many have been flying them for over 5 years, and have become experts in their own right.  I contest the assumption that a hobbyist (who may well design their own aircraft too) is any less qualified than somebody who wears a reflective coat and pays £1500 for a 4 hour course.

[kilby]

I sense this stands a chance of going downhill.

I had time to read around 70% of it and in addition to having read other people';s interpretations of it appears to.

1: attempt to force people to purchase RTF machines which are designed for drifting about taking photos while using GPS assistance.

2: Force people into registered clubs with rigidly defined boundaries

3: Limit self build to sub 250 gram sub 50km/h craft

4: It is also possible to read the proposed regulations as being almost entirely defined by battery voltage (whuch from memory is limited to a max of 48v)

Basically it';s a land grab with the intention earn additional income from the skies.

This may well be inflicted upon us, but ifbit is then i hope all "drones" are within the restrictions otherwise it';s simply a publicity stunt to appease the likes of the mail and express

I left the model flying club I was in partially because of restrictions on non fixed wing flyers, especially when the same fixed wing flyers would fly out of the club boundaries without any comment (apart from of bad luck) including crashing a B25 model into the middle of a village a mile from the site.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Cheredanine]

I';ll just say mine is a model flying platform, or a scale model of a space elevator ::)

Good point, all my racing quads are in fact very bad models of a spitfire

[flycatchers]

(1) up to a height of 50 m (150 ft) above ground level unless otherwise limited by the competent authority for the operation area; and
(2) within a range such that the remote pilot maintains VLOS; or
(3) in first-person-view mode or follow-me mode, only if the remote pilot maintains a safe separation of the UA from people, property, ground vehicles, public roads and from other airspace users;

I was reading the document and the 100 metre distant rule is only mentioned from what I can see with the less than 250 grams craft. The above rules seem to be a bit more open to interpretation. Particularly with FPV. If you are flying over open countryside with no buildings and avoid people would not that be ok?

[Two-Six]

Here is my email to EASA, I haven';t sent it yet.  Please let me know what you guys think of it and how I could change it to make it better.  Formal letter writing is not really my thing.

Its in the "prototype" stage.

*****************************************************
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to EASA to officially lodge my profound unhappiness concerning many areas of the agencies Prototype Commission Regulation on Unmanned Aircraft Operations.

I have been a "serious" model aircraft flyer since 2004.  As per the EASA regulations as they stand I will not be allowed to fly any of my models apart from possibly my micro helicopter and even that might well be too heavy!

The generalisation of defining many different aircraft types which all have vastly differing modes of operation as "Unmanned Aerial Systems" is just too broad a definition.  I fly planes, helicopters and a multi-rotor. 

The article 15 transitional provisions are just not good enough, I do not want to be bound by these regulations now or after 2020.

I do not want to be forced into joining any organisation in order to fly my RC aircraft.

I vehemently oppose compulsory registration on a central database.  I reject compulsory registration as a gross imposition and encroachment on my personal freedom and privacy and I reject the sanctions that will be needed to ensure compliance.

I am also against compulsory registration due to the costs I will have to meet.  IF EASA wants compulsory enrolment on a database, backed with policing and enforcement agents then EASA should pay for it.

Transmitting a registration number electronically and other flight data in the way that is intended is currently unworkable.

The limiting of operational  height and distance away from the pilot is currently generally unworkable with current technology.

Operating an RC aircraft is usually safer if it is being flown as far as possible away from the pilot, the ground and other obstacles.

Altitude is any aviators best friend.  Most flights of any RC aircraft take place higher than 50 meters AGL and farther away than 50 from the pilot.  Even the maximum allowable operational altitude of 150 meters distances allowed in the highest category of "UAS" is way to low.

The law as it is now says that operating an RC aircraft outside of comfortable unaided visual range is prohibited.  This range varies vastly depending on the size of the RC aircraft.

How would this rule be implemented if flying from a hill?  The means of controlling this do not currently exist.

The weight limit of 250 grams to avoid all these regulations is just too low.

Not having any other weight categories in between 250g and 25Kg is just too broad.

We already have different weight categories or RC aircraft in the UK that work just fine as they are. Aircraft over 20 Kg';s are classified as full-sized aircraft and need a certificate of airworthiness from the CAA.

All of my current RC aircraft will be too heavy to fly without needing the unworkable extra electronic requirements as they stand.

The proposal to prohibit the operation of anything that is self-built and weights more than 250 grams is terrible for many reasons not least as it will stifle many small enterprises in the UK that cater to the many people who do build their own RC aircraft.

The fast growing sport of "FPV racing" will be killed of entirely.  This would be a very negative consequence as I feel this sport has a huge amount to offer people of all ages.

It will also stifle innovation and enterprise in a very negative way.   Almost every RC aircraft that most people own and operate currently would be a self-built or would have been modified by the owner in some way.

The age limit of 14 to operate anything that isn';t in the A0 category is wrong.

Many champion RC aircraft pilots started flying at 5 years old!  Surely it is better to be able to start building on RC aircraft piloting skills in a young person as early as possible if they are interested in it. Many young people operate RC aircraft very well indeed and go on to be superb pilots.

Using the battery voltage of the main battery is a ridiculously blunt way of differentiating between different categories of "UAS".   Most "700" sized electric helicopters use two 25 volt batteries in series so they would be in the A3 category.  They do not usually have any kind of GPS guidance.  Aerobatic RC helicopter competitions would be impossible under these regulations.  One of my helicopters uses a 6 cell battery so that would be in the A2 category.  It will not be able to carry any of the electronic devices required currently and it flies no differently from my other "450" sized helicopter that uses a 12 volt battery which would be in the A1 category.

I do understand EASA';s position in that it must be seen to be doing something to counter pressure from a the (generally very ill-informed) public about the virtually non-existant problem of "DRONES" or "UAS".

However feel that the "problem" has been vastly over inflated.  As far as I am aware there has been very few incidents where a "UAS" has come into conflict with a full sized aircraft and caused any damage.

These regulations are a huge hammer to crack a very small nut.

The main problem I see with all of these proposed regulations is the total failure of EASA  to differentiate between Remotely piloted aircraft that can fly under GPS guidance with a raft of electronic flight assist features  by a total novice and the vast majority of RC aircraft currently being operated.   The novice can then fly his ready-to-fly RC aircraft it up to 4.2 miles away from himself!

This is the problem that needs regulating, off-the-shelf mass market remotely controlled aircraft with high levels of flight assistance.

This high level of skill to build and operate the vast majority of RC aircraft is the main factor that prevents dangerous flights.

The operator of such aircraft must be able to fly within his own abilities and be able to see the aircraft at all times or the flight will end in a crash.  This discourages all but the most determined individuals from operating almost any kind of RC aircraft.  Not legislation.

The way these RC aircraft or "DRONES" or "UAS" are marketed needs to be more tightly controlled.

The main manufacturers in the "DRONE" or "UAS" market as just totally irresponsible in the way they market their products.  Demonstrating that many different very unsafe operational practices are possible with their products and that it is normal to operate them in very dangerous ways.

In summary I am very unhappy about EASA';s proposed regulations. 

In short they are just ridiculous and totally unworkable on the whole with the state of current electronics and totally unnecessary. 

They will be enormously damaging to almost all areas of a hugely popular pass-time that has been enjoyed safely for a long time by millions of people globally. They will have the effect of virtually stamping out all forms of RC flying and their associated enterprises.

They represent the very worst of unnecessary, insanely over-the-top, high handed all encompassing totalitarian bureaucracy.

Finally, the UK voted to leave the EU, so these regulations should not apply to us anyway.

Be assured EASA, I will do everything I can to resist these regulations and not comply with them as they stand.

I am also going to write to my MP and my Euro MP';s asking them to block this totally ludicrous, unfit for purpose legislation.

Yours Sincerely

Two-Six
(Real name supplied)

****************
If anybody has any suggestions or corrections or additions please PM me.

[hoverfly]

Not a lot if anything to add to the above.

[Elmattbo]

Drop the bit about leaving the EU. It';s a bit... Tacky.

Have to say I agree with Steve';s comments above. Quite a few people are getting their knowledge from the forums rather than original sources which does tend to build into a frenzy of hype. EASA regulations are aimed at all nations within EASA - as the reply states above, some nations don';t even have regulations at the moment.
Hopefully in the end the regulations will be similar to home-build aircraft where the national agencies are able to use their own ruleset if the have one in place.
Now can we all calm down a bit. Please do let EASA and others know your feelings, but keep them informed and without supposition.
And the moment it gets xenophobic is also the moment you devalue your own opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Powernumpty]

! No longer available

[Hawkeye]

I was in agreement with him right up until he went off on a tirade about Phantom flyers at the end. That sort of backstabbing isn';t helpful. Another example of a traditional model or home built flyer willing to throw people who have the ';nerve'; to buy off the shelf under the bus as long as they';re fine.

[kilby]

Sadly for the most part it is the RTF crowd that has caused the drone fury headlines.

I';ve had several people come up to me in work and start complaining as if it';s my fault so I ask:

What is the problem (always flying in inappropriate places, over families at the beach or in a park)

Second question is what colour is it (the answer has always been white, followed by the words what other colour would not be)

In the past he has also went through the issue and quite rightly he has always said it';s education, most ';phantom'; owners wouldn';t do the stupid things if somebody talked then through why you shouldn';t do such things (they think a phantom is like a TV, it will work flawlessly for years, and let';s face it DJI don';t really dissuade them from that belief)

Even supplying a DVD with the machine showing the basics, showing what happens when the compass is messed up, GPS or transmitter connectivity is lost or other minor things.

At the end of the DVD you complete a simple test and get an unlock code so you can fly tour Phantom, Magic, Solo or Karma.

Then again I';m a strange individual and wouldn';t mind having to carry out such an process, built then I like to know how my stuff works

There are always those who won';t confirm to any rules/guidelines regardless of the machine they are flying but they are in the minority.

TBH the same ignorance is shown with the proposed regulations going on about GPS and identification, they are also assuming the Phantom or similar.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[kilby]

BTW the other side of why regulations like this are being proposed this sums up how we got here in the first place (regardless if the sins of some Phantom owners)

https://youtu.be/NwMRfhE6JVM

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk