new regulations for drone users (1 Viewer)

[ivorantony]

Not much to say except it’s about time,

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-drone-laws-bring-added-protection-for-passengers

 

[pappajohn]

The new laws will also require owners of drones weighing 250 grams or more to register with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and for drone pilots to take an online safety test to ensure the UK’s skies are safe from irresponsible flyers.

Discrimination in the first degree.

RC model aircraft pilots, either rotary or fixed wing, are NOT obliged to take a proficiency test and the average weight of a 'club' type model plane is between 2.5kg and 5kg with larger scale models easily weighing upwards of 20kg.
They can have an altitude limit of 'out of sight'

 

[Nasher]

I'm not a model flyer (paragliding's my bag) but the British Model Flying Association has a comprehensive safety code drawn up from the legal obligations all model fliers have to meet, such as Air Navigation Order Articles 240 and 241, Civil Air Procedure 658, the DOE Noise Code and the Environment Act. It also includes measures and advice on accident prevention and how to avoid the many pitfalls that can befall model aircraft fliers.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Pete5996]

Being an RC fixed-wing model flyer myself, as well as having built and flown three or four multi-rotors from components, rather than picking one off a shop counter, I've held my counsel reading some of the drone threads here. However, I cannot let pappajohn's comment about discrimination go unchallenged.

There are two principal factors which have led to the intended legislation, which is similar across Europe, following the EASA discussions.

The first is that the development and widespread sale of relatively easy to fly multirotors has resulted in them being bought by many who have no fundamental interest in aviation, yet see the MR (or 'drone') as a useful tool for offering a different viewpoint for photography/video etc. Unfortunately many of these purchasers chose to ignore the existing restrictions on the flying of model aircraft and many examples of them being used unsafely in towns and cities, close to groups of people and buildings. Although the payload of many MRs is low, they were also seen as being able to present a security threat, as well as being used as a means of delivering contraband to prisons.

This inevitably led to concern and complaints from the public, so the politicians inevitably had to be seen to 'do something'.

The second (and, I think, more compelling) reason for the legislation is that, historically, the airspace between ground level and about 500ft has been of no use to anyone, so RC model flyers and kite flyers were left undisturbed, provided they kept to the basic rules of safe operation, ie they flew from their own established sites or used public areas such as slope-soaring sites with due regard to the safety of the public. This was done overwhelmingly responsibly and there have been very, very few accidents involving members of the public over the many years RC flyers have been enjoying their sport.

With the development of larger MRs for commercial use such as site surveying and delivery services (Amazon seem to have been busy in this field) the 0-500ft level now has a commercial value and the commercial operators want control over the airspace. The Govt also see operations in this airspace as being a lucrative source of revenue in the future.

During the EASA consultations, those forming the legislation have been either unwilling, or unable, to define an acceptable difference between a DJI Phantom and and RC model Spitfire, or a balsa and tissue vintage sport model with a 1.5cc glow engine. They have therefore lumped everything under the heading of a UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The balsa-bashing classic model flyer will be considered exactly the same as the drone that flies over a football crowd, or up and around the Houses of Parliament.

The net result is that RC model flying is destined to be more restricted and controlled than ever before, for, frankly, no good and valid reason. There is a very good chance that this will have a real effect on the model industry in the UK and Europe, with many unwilling to go through the hoops to legitimately fly anything over variously 250-800g, depending on the country. The amateur model flyer has effectively been given the heave-ho in terms of no longer being able to operate from a friendly farmer's field or the established slope sites.

To finally answer pappajohn's point, the BMFA represent model flyers in the UK. All members have a multi-million pound 3rd party insurance cover for model flying activities. There is an Achievement Scheme which establishes the competence of individuals and this will apparently, in some form, be accepted by the CAA as proof of ability and the understanding of safe flying practices. Recognised club flying sites will also be given authority to fly above the intended height limit of 400ft, based on their record on safe operation over many years. Those sites will also be established on the low-level airways map which will inevitably ensue as more and more commercial operations are realised. The Amazon delivery drone will be programmed to fly around, rather than through, the site, much as it would avoid a prison or power station.

The majority of traditional RC model flyers have already established themselves, through good practice, as being safe and self-regulating. The CAA seem to have recognised this, which is why they apparently intend to allow flying to continue, overseen by the BMFA. That does not extend to those who have recently found their pockets deep enough to indulge themselves with the latest all-singing and dancing DJI, with not a thought as to the consequences of their actions, and with little or no idea of the regulations that already exist.

 

[pappajohn]

I'm not a model flyer (paragliding's my bag) but the British Model Flying Association has a comprehensive safety code drawn up from the legal obligations all model fliers have to meet, such as Air Navigation Order Articles 240 and 241, Civil Air Procedure 658, the DOE Noise Code and the Environment Act. It also includes measures and advice on accident prevention and how to avoid the many pitfalls that can befall model aircraft fliers.

The BMFA is not a legally binding body.... Its a modellers club in the broadest sense. .
Their recommendations are part of their Ts&Cs if you are a member but there is no obligation to join.
There is nothing in law saying you have to take any test or exam or even register as a model pilot.
Im not saying it doesn't make sense, but it's certainly not obligatory whereas the requirements (online test/exam) to fly a drone evidently are compulsory....... Discrimination.

 

[Allanm]

Will that mean I will soon have to ensure my Peter Powell Stunt Kite keeps below 400ft too?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ShiftZZ]

I have had a drone for some time, never flown it in town or anywhere near people or property, used it for photography of places hard to visit.

 

[Chockswahay]

I think Drones are great, the problem is that unlike model aircraft they require little/no skill to fly and are often flown by irresponsible people with little regard or understanding for the safety of others.

I am a professional airline pilot and have to say that the increase in frequency of 'near misses' with Drones is alarming and becoming a serious risk to aircraft and passengers.

A couple of weeks ago whilst on the approach to Bristol the pilot of the aircraft in front of us a reported seeing a Drone left of the approach path at 2500 feet altitude.

Just last week while flying into Stanstead I heard another pilot announce to ATC (Air Traffic Control) that he saw a drone at his level at an estimated 500 metres distance from the aircraft. Now it is true to say that it is very difficult to estimate distance in the sky but the real concern is that the aircraft was at 6000 feet altitude (!) and flying at a speed of 250 MPH ............... a collision with a drone at this speed have serious (even fatal) consequences.

Drones are potentially lethal to aircraft and (thanks to a small minority!) must be regulated.

 

[SuperMike]

As usual, law abiding members of society will comply and the rest won’t give a $hit, and will carry on as usual, because it will be very difficult to police.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Silver-Fox]

Will that mean I will soon have to ensure my Peter Powell Stunt Kite keeps below 400ft too?

Excellent another PP Kite owner

 

[Jaws]

I was about to post almost word for word what @SuperMike said
Once again the law makers are shown up to be the morons most take them for

 

[Arrius]

I have had a drone for some time, never flown it in town or anywhere near people or property, used it for photography of places hard to visit.

Same here, I visit Turkey sometimes for business and fly my drone but the regulations here are so strict, you can't fly a drone even on places with 0 people. There are great places here to capture on vid but their dumbass rules make it almost impossible.

With all the new regulations and bans and rules, soon it will be pointless to have a drone.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Encantador]

Just last week while flying into Stanstead I heard another pilot announce to ATC (Air Traffic Control) that he saw a drone at his level at an estimated 500 metres distance from the aircraft. Now it is true to say that it is very difficult to estimate distance in the sky but the real concern is that the aircraft was at 6000 feet altitude (!) and flying at a speed of 250 MPH ............... a collision with a drone at this speed have serious (even fatal) consequences.

Like a lot of these 'sightings' by commercial pilots, they take some believing.

 

[Encantador]

The majority of traditional RC model flyers have already established themselves, through good practice, as being safe and self-regulating.

As have the 'majority' of drone operators.

 

[johnp10]

Maximum height 400 feet, eh?
Brings them well within shotgun range.
Good alternative to clay pigeons.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Encantador]

Maximum height 400 feet, eh?
Brings them well within shotgun range.
Good alternative to clay pigeons.

Which of course begs the question about why shotguns are not more tightly regulated. Licenced yes, but not much else in the way of testing the person is competent to use one or for that matter not stupid enough to try and shoot a drone out of the sky with one.

 

[johnp10]

Which of course begs the question about why shotguns are not more tightly regulated. Licenced yes, but not much else in the way of testing the person is competent to use one or for that matter not stupid enough to try and shoot a drone out of the sky with one.

Got one!


Surely shooting one out of the sky would demonstrate competence?

As I understand things, at the moment drones don't need a licenc, nor does the "expert" flying it need to demonstrate competence.
Is that not the case?

 

[johnp10]

As have the 'majority' of drone operators.

Really?

You should see some of the self appointed "expert pilots" around here.
Apparently expert status is assumed on purchase.

I wouldn't trust most of them with a wheelbarrow.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}