Drones threatening commercial a/c?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of what the government say that they are going to do comes from EASA NPA 2017-05 although you wouldn't know that from reading the government response to the DfT drone consultation (which is what prompted the various reports in the media yesterday).
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 71
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
Perhaps that's answered early in the EU NPA where it says
I confess I have not read all of the 128 pages of the NPA but it seems an all encompassing sledge hammer - no doubt without any means of enforcement
The Agency [EASA] proposes to regulate both model aircraft and UAS through the same rules.
I have not read it all either, but I note that there is a reference to the good safety record of model aircraft flyers, and their culture of safety.
It has been suggested that buyers of drones will have to register ( bit like the old Poisons register ), but GCPTN refers to drones built from components.
I buy balsa wood, ply, glue, fabric, motors, batteries, radio gear etc., all from different suppliers. It would hardly be practical to keep a register of all these purchases just in case I used them to build a flying model.
It has been suggested that buyers of drones will have to register ( bit like the old Poisons register ), but GCPTN refers to drones built from components.
I buy balsa wood, ply, glue, fabric, motors, batteries, radio gear etc., all from different suppliers. It would hardly be practical to keep a register of all these purchases just in case I used them to build a flying model.
UAV Collision report here
One of the most poorly researched and implemented set of tests I've seen in years. Badly thought out and biased.
An excellent appraisal here...
One of the most poorly researched and implemented set of tests I've seen in years. Badly thought out and biased.
An excellent appraisal here...
The authors are fully aware that the data is unreliable, uncalibrated and invalid by their own definition of the modelling process, yet they fail to admit this.
At present the UK government is poised to give Amazon permission to operate delivery drones at altitudes up to 400ft throughout the UK. Amazon drones will be flying autonomously and will have sense and avoid systems. However it is impossible for them, or any drone for that matter, to detect an aircraft travelling at 60 knots or 70mph and move out of its path in time to avoid a collision.
This study therefore demonstrates there is a clear and present danger to the GA community should Amazon be allowed to implement its delivery drone concept. For some reason though this rather obvious conclusion has missed BALPA, the DfT, the MAA, the CAA, and Lord Callanan. Instead once more hobbyist drone pilots are targeted, their potential threat overstated and the real threat to aviation missed entirely.
This study therefore demonstrates there is a clear and present danger to the GA community should Amazon be allowed to implement its delivery drone concept. For some reason though this rather obvious conclusion has missed BALPA, the DfT, the MAA, the CAA, and Lord Callanan. Instead once more hobbyist drone pilots are targeted, their potential threat overstated and the real threat to aviation missed entirely.
The strange thing about the website you refer to Nige 321 is that it contains no biographical information as to the qualifications of those involved. Their twitter account was also quite active in denouncing the report as well without any basis .The twitter accounts that agreed with the website twitter feed are all fake.
Having looked at your post here and the tweets I would suggest you are the same person.Balpa decided to ignore you on twitter and I suggest that Pprune users do likewise.
I struggle to see what you are trying to gain by denouncing the report and where is the bias, or are you one of these people who thinks rules relating to air vehicles shouldn't apply to you.
Having looked at your post here and the tweets I would suggest you are the same person.Balpa decided to ignore you on twitter and I suggest that Pprune users do likewise.
I struggle to see what you are trying to gain by denouncing the report and where is the bias, or are you one of these people who thinks rules relating to air vehicles shouldn't apply to you.
I do have a PfCO and I do fly RC model aircraft as a hobby.
You can think what you like, I don't give a toss...
Oh, and others think it's biased. BBC report I assume you've actually read the report?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gone
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have written to the Airprox Board, CAA & DfT asking for a clear definition of "drone".
To date the Airprox Board has responded to admit they have no definition. Yet they happily use the word in their reports.
The CAA has not responded since I wrote last year.
The DfT has about 14 days left of their promised response time.
Until such a defintion exists the proposed legislation is meaningless.
To date the Airprox Board has responded to admit they have no definition. Yet they happily use the word in their reports.
The CAA has not responded since I wrote last year.
The DfT has about 14 days left of their promised response time.
Until such a defintion exists the proposed legislation is meaningless.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
‘unmanned aircraft (UA)’ means any aircraft operated or designed to be operated without a pilot on board, which has the capacity to operate autonomously or to be piloted remotely;
The UK DfT give a definition of 'drone' in their consultation document
A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.
I have also complained to the Airprox board about their use of the term. They came back saying that they default to the term drone as UAS is too technical for the general public and press.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gone
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dft has pointed me to a document which was published last year and from which the definition that you give is taken, I suspect. (See page 10).
What is a drone?
1.1 A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.
1.2 Drones come in a variety of sizes – they can be as small as your hand, weighing less than 250g or as big as a small plane, weighing several tonnes. As they increase in size, they are able to travel further. Smaller drones tend to use electric motors for propulsion, whereas larger drones tend to use combustion engines like other conventional aircraft.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-of-drones.pdf
So there we have it. My interpretation is all radio control, wi-fi or bluetooth controlled models, regardless of type. This will no doubt upset many model flyers who have been flying their > 250g models safely for years and who consider drones to be something other than what they fly. There will be rioting on the streets for sure.
So there we have it. My interpretation is all radio control, wi-fi or bluetooth controlled models, regardless of type. This will no doubt upset many model flyers who have been flying their > 250g models safely for years and who consider drones to be something other than what they fly. There will be rioting on the streets for sure.
Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...
Not sure about the rioting but the BMFA has been looking out for the model flyers for a long time on this subject. Trying to persuade EASA and the CAA that 'traditional' R/C flyers are different from the nutter with a drone at the end of Gatwicks runway is an uphill task - they are all 'drones' as far as the lawyers are concerned. (Exactly the same argument is happening in Germany with their DMFV)
Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...
Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...
To me 'Line of Sight' is the obvious criterion; if outside that it's a 'drone'. Inside it can be a radio control model. The slope soaring r/c folk have the greatest problem there - LoS can be a fair distance.
While drones around large airports are an obvious danger, I'm also concerned about any spread of drone use generally at low level. While we ought to be able to define the main commercial use low level areas adequately, I doubt that the many light aircraft and microlight strips around the country will be well enough surveyed to ensure drones stay clear of active circuits. Will they have adequate avoidance mechanisms? I doubt it.
I think another snag here is that the CAA no longer have enough people left to carry out all the tasks they are assigned, especially practically experienced and knowledgeable ones.
What is unfortunate is that out of 35,000 BMFA members plus quite a few thousand other model flyers who don't bother to support the sport's national body, only 241 bothered to respond with comments on the consultation document. Numbers do count and this apathy has doubtless given the DfT the impression that model flyers aren't bothered what happens.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See the Riga declaration, the Warsaw declaration and SESAR drone outlook study.
Buster11 - I agree. I felt it wasn't well advertised either in the model world or the light aviation world in the UK.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gone
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is unfortunate is that out of 35,000 BMFA members plus quite a few thousand other model flyers who don't bother to support the sport's national body, only 241 bothered to respond with comments on the consultation document. Numbers do count and this apathy has doubtless given the DfT the impression that model flyers aren't bothered what happens.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gone
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the rioting but the BMFA has been looking out for the model flyers for a long time on this subject. Trying to persuade EASA and the CAA that 'traditional' R/C flyers are different from the nutter with a drone at the end of Gatwicks runway is an uphill task - they are all 'drones' as far as the lawyers are concerned. (Exactly the same argument is happening in Germany with their DMFV)
Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...
Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...
Electrotor, I agree the consultation document was certainly pretty dense and obviously biassed heavily towards commercial operations, but that was surely the very reason model flyers did need to comment. I think BMFA News referred to the paragraphs relevant to model flying well ahead of the response deadline. Trouble is, a lot of BMFA members say there's nothing in the magazine of interest to them and just bin it. Blinkered or what? I certainly didn't read every word and just focussed on the sections that affected 'orthodox' model flying before responding.