RCMF Donations

Enjoy using RCMF? How about a wee donation to help us keep you in the style to which you've become accustomed?

Welcome to RCMF. Please login or sign up.

February 25, 2020, 17:59:25 pm

Login with username, password and session length

January 7th 2019 - Drone Law Changes

Started by Bad Raven, January 08, 2019, 06:55:34 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bad Raven

Chris Grayling made a statement to house yesterday (7th) with regards amended new Drone Laws.  (The house appeared near empty at the time).

Newspapers are reporting, here is one example:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27D0pNViXno


Most significant comment in this piece (which to the reporters credit does mention twice the uncertainty as to what actually affected Gatwick) is the statement that the "No Fly" zone will now extend to "around 5k" from an airport, where it was 1k.

There was of course no detail, and interestingly no start date mentioned.

One paper is stating that "The exclusion zone around airports will be extended to approximately a 5km-radius (3.1-miles), with additional extensions from runway ends".

Then after further search I found this:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-police-powers-to-tackle-illegal-use-of-drones

which contains this linked official pathetic woolly video:-

https://youtu.be/J0d7cHEixCs


It seems the start date is as per previous stated intent, November 30th 2019.

The other significant mention is the power for the Police to search premises and seize, though the qualification is "where a serious offence has been committed and a warrant is secured".  So not seemingly "at will" and actually surely no different to now?

Don't forget that ALL UAV are "drones" for the purposes of this legislation.

There is no mention I can find as yet with regard the significant number of flying sites from which UAV are currently operated that are within ATC zone and so operate with existing (and in one of my club's situation long standing) ATC permission. Obviously with the no-fly zone extending, some flying sites will now fall within that did not before.


The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

itsme

One would hope that there will be exclusions for clubs with permissions. We have been told often that clubs will be exempt anyway, and really, all that is happening is an emphasis on the regs we already have in place. I see also the police are to be given powers to force land (or crash) a uav now, which is of course illegal.

Alan H

Here is a link to the government document which sets out the new rules:-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/769128/future-of-drones-in-uk-consultation-response-web.pdf
The no fly zone specified on p.12 is a circular zone of radius 4.6km with 5kmx1km extensions from each end of the runway. This has the potential to wipe out many clubs particularly in the SE if members of organisations such as the BMFA are not granted exemption.

PDR

For all the hype, as far as I can see this is just the already-planned implementation of the laws that were always due to come into effect in Q3/19 anyway, with the only change being an increase in the size of airfield protected airspace zones. The only available detail still contains the statement about trying to ensure traditional model flyers in organised clubs are not unduly burdened, and I suspect that the details of this are the subject of the continuing discussions between Failing Greyling's staff and the BMFA/FPVA etc.

I don't think we need to panic YET, but it would probably be worth emailing your MP's office with a reasonably-toned note saying that you recognise the public concern and would just like to add support to the idea of exeptions (or only minimal requirements*) for people flying within the rules of the ANO in recognised clubs and/or at established sites with BMFA[etc] membership, verified comeptence** and insurance. This might add MPs' pressure to strengthen the BMFA[etc]'s psotion in the discussions/ negotiations.

€0.0006 supplied,

PDR

* eg a requirement to have your BMFA number marked on models rather than a unique registration for each one
** Here I'm thinking that a BMFA A-cert or higher [and equivilent in silent flight/scotchville etc] be regarded as meeting/exceeding the requirements of any "drone safety test"
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

itsme



* eg a requirement to have your BMFA number marked on models rather than a unique registration for each one
** Here I'm thinking that a BMFA A-cert or higher [and equivilent in silent flight/scotchville etc] be regarded as meeting/exceeding the requirements of any "drone safety test"
[/quote]I should hope so- they are talking about an online tickbox test. Pathetically inadequate. The A test, in my opinion, should be the minimum requirement to fly alone.

lanicopter

Not everyone is a BMFA member so I can't see how that would work - the requirements have to cover all associations, including those who do not have physical clubs because it is not mandatory to fly from a designated club field.

I mean the A-test would work - but only for BMFA members.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

PDR

Quote from: lanicopter on January 08, 2019, 10:49:00 am
Not everyone is a BMFA member


Which is why I took pains to include all those [...etc] bits - other organisations exist and where they have both organisation and competence-assessment systems they could be included as equivilents.

But we may have to accept that the multicopter flying "free-for-all" in any public open space is a thing of the past.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

FlyinBrian

Quote from: lanicopter on January 08, 2019, 10:49:00 am
Not everyone is a BMFA member so I can't see how that would work - the requirements have to cover all associations, including those who do not have physical clubs because it is not mandatory to fly from a designated club field.

I mean the A-test would work - but only for BMFA members.


BUT if the holding of a BMFA "A" cert allowed a UAV flyer to operate his aircraft (of whatever type) and meant the holder was exempt from other "TESTS" surely it would be in that persons interest to gain an A cert. Actually I do not think one has to be a BMFA member to take an "A" test but am not certain of that.

If joining the BMFA is required to allow UAV flyers more freedom - by being a member of an affiliated club - then that is a GOOD THING as the more BMFA members there are the stronger the BMFA are able to argue our case for minimal legislation.


Just my 20p worth
Basic Research is what I do - when I don't know what I'm doing!.

lanicopter

January 08, 2019, 11:10:09 am #8 Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 11:13:08 am by lanicopter
There are more associations than the BMFA, some of which have done far more for drone pilots in terms of legislation - and let's not forget the ZERO deaths that have happened despite the regulation being "lax" in comparison with the proposed amendments.

I remember reading on here that drones would be everywhere causing mayhem - honestly now, how often do you see a drone flying over your head in your day to day business? If it weren't for reading about them in the media (which has its own agenda), how big of a problem would they actually be? I'm thinking "not much".

The legislation as it stands is perfectly adequate and serves those who obey it while having a safety net built in for those wishing to be "protected from drones". You do not need an A test to fly a drone - for all intents and purposes they fly themselves. What you need is education about safe operation which a pamphlet could provide - I'd argue that is more useful from a safety point of view than knowing how to fly a figure of 8 correctly.

And since we're trying to be safer, surely that is a better route to take? Noone flying dangerously or illegally will take an A test anyway. They're not even going to register their aircraft, or adhere to the new 5km limits either.

The whole thing is a sham if you ask me. A false sense of security is still no security.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

itsme

You do not have to be a BMFA member to take a test, plus other groups have their own. The online test would simply be to ensure you know that flying over the next door neighbours BBQ is not a good thing, nor is flying across Gatwick. It could mean that it is illegal to fly without the protection of the various bodies- ie everyone a member. No, no deaths (yet) from quads etc, but a great many injuries and huge disruption. A few more idiots up in front of a beak would help, too. Since the moron from Nottm was slammed with a huge fine there have been no more overflights of football matches or nuclear facilities.

mart49

QuoteThe legislation as it stands is perfectly adequate and serves those who obey it adequately while having a safety net built in. You do not need an A test to fly a drone - for all intents and purposes they fly themselves. What you need is education about safe operation which a pamphlet could provide - I'd argue that is more useful from a safety point of view than knowing how to fly a figure of 8 correctly.


Whilst agreeing with most of the paragraph. The 'A' achievement scheme test does, since its revision, include compulsory questions aimed at ascertaining whether the candidate has a reasonable understanding of the law surrounding the operation of remote controlled model aircraft (UAS). So it's not all about the flying test. On the point of non members of the BMFA taking an 'A' test. It's really a non starter. The tests are tests of achievement for members of the BMFA. and nothing more. To use them as a measure of competence for some other purpose is way outside their intended scope.Whilst I as an examiner might be willing to test a non-member I would suspect there may be some insurance issues if the worst happened.

itsme

Quote from: mart49 on January 08, 2019, 11:27:57 am
Whilst agreeing with most of the paragraph. The 'A' achievement scheme test does, since its revision, include compulsory questions aimed at ascertaining whether the candidate has a reasonable understanding of the law surrounding the operation of remote controlled model aircraft (UAS). So it's not all about the flying test. On the point of non members of the BMFA taking an 'A' test. It's really a non starter. The tests are tests of achievement for members of the BMFA. and nothing more. To use them as a measure of competence for some other purpose is way outside their intended scope.Whilst I as an examiner might be willing to test a non-member I would suspect there may be some insurance issues if the worst happened.
Yes, thats quite true. As a club, we use the A test as a measure of competency for some one to fly without supervision, but that is not its purpose. However, something similar could work, the online test is to ascertain you can actually read and scrawl an X...

lanicopter

Sorry:
No, no deaths (yet) from quads etc, but a great many injuries and huge disruption

I'm going to need some sources - "a great many injuries" is how many? Give me some numbers - we need to be specific here. It needs to be proportional to the hoo-har and resulting legislation. I don't think you'll be able to find much really.

As for the "huge disruption" ... I think it's fair to say that a LOT of media reports, pilot reports, etc are defaulting to drone sightings when in fact they're not actually able to identify what they saw at all. In fact it's becoming a bit of a running joke that anything is now a drone - pigeon, carrier bag, etc. it used to be UFOs only that made you sound like a bit of a mental - nowadays saying you saw a drone paints you as some sort of guardian angel of the public lol.

A manufactured drone sighting designed to cause disruption is NOT the same as someone deliberately flying a drone in an illegal manner designed to cause the same problems.

I do honestly think the whole thing is being overblown and it's a shame because as a technology, drones are fantastic little bits of kit and a lot of fun to use (yes, even legally).
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Bad Raven

The BMFA achievement awards for BMFA members are model specific.  Logical enough as a one off practical flight test, less so as a check of overall competency with regards ever changing laws/regulations/etc. Especially since it never needs update.

Plenty of responsible people exist that fly fixed wing power, fixed wing flat field glider, slope glider, helicopters, and multi-rotors without currently any BMFA achievement record.

Does the current system appear practical when many if not most aeromodellers are multi-type operators?

The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

PDR

Quote from: lanicopter on January 08, 2019, 11:53:45 am
A manufactured drone sighting


Gonna need some evidence for that, otherwise it's just a Fake Fact.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

Bad Raven

January 08, 2019, 17:56:19 pm #15 Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 17:59:39 pm by Bad Raven
Heathrow Airport closed due "drone sighting"

Edit:   Though Flight Radar still showing planes landing (albeit one just gone around)
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

pooh

and the contextual ad next to this thread, as I read the last post is for, guess what?

a drone !

but all this guff about having to have training, join the BMFA, read a pamphlet on safety is all a complete sideshow. Idiots are idiots, criminals are criminals, they break the law, they do stupid things and they will ignore all of the rules, regulations and common sense.

The only way is to catch them if possible, and throw the legal book at them. We don't need new laws, just enforce to the maximum the ones that exist.
Confucious he say "more than one aircraft in the same airspace leads to structural failure"

lanicopter

Pooh has nailed it - laws never did stop criminals...
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

itsme

Quote from: pooh on January 08, 2019, 18:20:04 pm
and the contextual ad next to this thread, as I read the last post is for, guess what?

a drone !

but all this guff about having to have training, join the BMFA, read a pamphlet on safety is all a complete sideshow. Idiots are idiots, criminals are criminals, they break the law, they do stupid things and they will ignore all of the rules, regulations and common sense.

The only way is to catch them if possible, and throw the legal book at them. We don't need new laws, just enforce to the maximum the ones that exist.
as I said, some high profile cases and make an example of them, m'lud

Bad Raven

Quote from: itsme on January 08, 2019, 19:30:09 pm
as I said, some high profile cases and make an example of them, m'lud


They tried that at Gatwick..................went well..............  ::)
The user formerly know as Bravedan........... Well if Prince can do it....................

FlyinBrian

Quote from: pooh on January 08, 2019, 18:20:04 pm
and the contextual ad next to this thread, as I read the last post is for, guess what?

a drone !

but all this guff about having to have training, join the BMFA, read a pamphlet on safety is all a complete sideshow. Idiots are idiots, criminals are criminals, they break the law, they do stupid things and they will ignore all of the rules, regulations and common sense.

The only way is to catch them if possible, and throw the legal book at them. We don't need new laws, just enforce to the maximum the ones that exist.


Sure Joe public can buy a 20 - 30 quid drone from a supermarket and go fly, Bu99er paying as much again and more to join the BMFA!
however this type of multicopter is hardly likely to cause any sort of catastrophy and will either be broken within a few flights or the interest will wain quickly.


My concerns are related to the thousands of legitimate, conscientious and sensible model flyers - flyers of UAV's of all types. not just "Drones"
for me that means normal fixed wing model aeroplanes however each to their own.

If drone flyers have their own association that meets the needs of their interests better than the BMFA that's fine but my point is that the BMFA IS the recognised body to represent model flying in the UK, the more members they (WE) have the better able they (WE) are to represent ALL model flyers.







Basic Research is what I do - when I don't know what I'm doing!.

itsme

Quote from: Bad Raven on January 09, 2019, 05:26:50 am
They tried that at Gatwick..................went well..............  ::)
As Bowie said, the lawman, beating up the wrong guy...I would hope that they can catch some real crims eventually. Its a vain hope, I know.

lanicopter

Well to be fair it's a lot easier to pull a non-violent male + female out of the suburban home than it is to chase a knife-wielding gang member around the streets of London ...
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

itsme

Quote from: lanicopter on January 09, 2019, 13:01:17 pm
Well to be fair it's a lot easier to pull a non-violent male + female out of the suburban home than it is to chase a knife-wielding gang member around the streets of London ...
Maybe, but I would not like a coppers job in this day and age. Its only two days ago a bobby was carved up by an allah akba nutjob trying to stop him knifing innocent bystanders. Bit of respect, please.

needforspeeduk


dickw

Map of all the new restricted zones here:- https://dronesafe.uk/restrictions/

Clicking in the restricted zone gives contact details for the airports, presumably so you can start the process of getting permission to fly in that area if you need to.

Pleased to see my club is not affected!

Dick
Grow old disgracefully

itsme

Its a bit of a catch all....Wickenby in Lincs is on the list, so you could not even fly a paper plane in this area...bit silly really.



Michael_Rolls

Crazy - but hardly surprising - politicians must always be seen to be 'doing something'
Mike
Properly trained, a man can be a dog's best friend

paulinfrance

You think that you have problems, our field is somewhere in the middle of this,,

https://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/donnees/restrictions-pour-drones-de-loisir

Sorry but I can't upload our map, the forum won't take it,,
Mode 2 THE only way to fly

itsme


paulinfrance

It is  :'' find a field that isn't in it, and at least 500 metres from a building, horses or other
animals in a field, 150 metres from a road and no trees, and oriented N/S for a runway of
at least 150 metres,,  :co

And YES that is what we now have,,  :af
Mode 2 THE only way to fly


PDR

February 24, 2019, 16:20:08 pm #33 Last Edit: February 24, 2019, 16:59:15 pm by PDR
You know there could be ways we could make this work to our advantage.

From the beginning the government claimed they wanted to implement their defence against the drone apocalypse in a way that had the minimum of effect on the long established hobbyists in accredited clubs. Our approach to the government could therefore be one of saying "we recognise your concerns and would like to operate outside those areas, so could you help us by passing laws which give us more protection against the fascist criminal gits in the local councils who keep denying us planing permission to set up those accredited, controlled, organised flying sites?".

Obviously our starting position would be asking that the law allowed summary execution of any council official who denied planning permission for a flying site, but we could negotiate down from that position to one where they would find it extremely difficult to ban any reasonably-located flying site. I personally would still like to see long jail sentences and seizure of all assets of the offending council staff in there as well, but I recognise this may not be the time to hold out for such things even when they are so obviously fair and appropriate...

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

itsme


SteveBB

Quote from: PDR on February 24, 2019, 16:20:08 pm
You know there could be ways we could make this work to our advantage.

From the beginning the government claimed they wanted to implement their defence against the drone apocalypse in a way that had the minimum of effect on the long established hobbyists in accredited clubs. Our approach to the government could therefore be one of saying "we recognise your concerns and would like to operate outside those areas, so could you help us by passing laws which give us more protection against the fascist criuminla gits in the local councils who keep denying us planing permission to set up those accrided, controlled, organised flying sites?".

Obviously our starting position would be asking that the law allowed summary execution of any council official who denied planning permission for a flying site, but we could negotiate down from that position to one where they would find it extremely difficult to ban any reasonably-located flying site. I personally would like to see long jail sentences and seizure of all assets of the offending council staff in there as well, but I recognise this may not be the time to hold out for such things even when they are so obviously fair and appropriate...

PDR


Are times so hard that you can't get one of your gillies to give them a damn good public flogging Pete?
Rimmer: Step up to Red Alert!
Kryten: Sir, are you absolutely sure? It does mean changing the bulb.

PDR

Why give the gillies all the fun?

Besides, I was thinking we could raise funds for Buckminster upgrade by running the executions as a TV game show...

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

Dave Lowe

Yes but modern executions are far to quick, we could use medieval methods to stretch out the shows. :ev
Take off optional --- landing essential..

Gaspin

Quote from: Dave Lowe on February 24, 2019, 23:06:11 pm
Yes but modern executions are far to quick,  :ev

Only if they are done correctly, there is enormous scope for error  :study: :study:

lanicopter

Current fuel status: "Master Caution"