Jump to content
EssexBOF

This Looks very Worrying

Recommended Posts

RamJam 53

Good news indeed. Having just ordered a Dreamflight a-hi and flight pack from t9. I can now look forward to getting back into this "Hobby" without having to hide away on some remote hillside. Well done to all involved. I still kept my bmfa membership up to date even though I haven't been out to play for a long while.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ikura
1 hour ago, pete beadle said:

Hi all

When I read the BMFA press notice/bulletin  it said "permission" rather than "exemption". Could that be important?

Anyone know what the difference is?

I don't want us all to be celebrating too quickly, do you?:no:

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

 

You are probably reading too much into it Pete.

The exemption has been granted and we should all be very happy. I know I am and will now get my head around building my 3mtr Horten XL Elektro.

Happy days and blue skies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromit

'Cracking' news  👍.

 

  Stu 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MattyB

I have to admit I am amazed given the responses from the DfT in the run-up to this, but it is very good news - well done to all concerned. Interestingly though the small print shows this is not an exemption for all model types - that's right, multirotors (despite not being formally defined in the ANO previously) are explicitly excluded!

Exemption text.JPG

That will not be popular with FPVUK members I'm sure, but I guess it's proof the CAA and DfT do differentiate between them and traditional fixed wing and rotary LOS models.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Ikura

I'd be very interested in getting some details from you re your Horten.....I've been a fan of the Horten brothers designs (not their political affiliations though) for many years. Could you send me a pic or two direct? I'd appreciate it

Regards

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi MattyB

Yes, I read that too, that's why I was asking

I seem to remember that all three of the parties to the agreement had agreed to how they should refer to R/C gliders, something similar to your "traditional" fixed wing and rotary LOS models.........this is very important to understanding why these planes should NOT be included in the general description that covers drones......

It's how THEY think of them.......small unmanned aircraft but definitely NOT drones.....it would be the description that I could use which would stop me constantly saying "We do not fly drones"......OK, what is your description of what you agree we DO fly?😉

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J

Excellent news. Much better than I was expecting.

Steve

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ikura

Hi Pete,

I'll see what I can dig out for you so give me a few days and I will send you a pm with my email address etc so we can communicate easier.

David.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brett82

Great result, well done BMFA and anyone involved. 

Brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JFreeman

I believe that all the moaners that have had a go at the BMFA over the last 6months on this forum should express there thanks to the BMFA for a job well done. They have worked extremely hard behind the scenes with no thanks for the guys on this site.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JFreeman
1 minute ago, JFreeman said:

I believe that all the moaners that have had a go at the BMFA over the last 6months on this forum should express there thanks to the BMFA for a job well done. They have worked extremely hard behind the scenes with no thanks from the guys on this site.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J
5 hours ago, pete beadle said:

When I read the BMFA press notice/bulletin  it said "permission" rather than "exemption".

Article 94A.

Quote

... the remote pilot of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly it at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RamJam 53

I thought that being a bmfa member was the permission?. Unless flying within 1km of an airfield, where permission would then have to be sought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

BTW I've just received a reply to my question on the forum earlier, that satisfies me, as to how the BMFA/CAA referred to the models we fly, the reply was from a source who wishes to remain nameless, but who regularly reads this forum, and it is that "What we fly is/was agreed to be referred to as "conventional" R/C models not "traditional models", as per MattyB's post........thanks Matt, but the definition conventional R/C model aircraft is what I was after........

So, it's agreed - we fly conventional R/C model aircraft - not drones - I'm happy with that:thumbsup::)

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MattyB
38 minutes ago, pete beadle said:

Hi all

BTW I've just received a reply to my question on the forum earlier, that satisfies me, as to how the BMFA/CAA referred to the models we fly, the reply was from a source who wishes to remain nameless, but who regularly reads this forum, and it is that "What we fly is/was agreed to be referred to as "conventional" R/C models not "traditional models", as per MattyB's post........thanks Matt, but the definition conventional R/C model aircraft is what I was after........

So, it's agreed - we fly conventional R/C model aircraft - not drones - I'm happy with that:thumbsup::)

What they call non-multirotor LOS flown SUAs is tbh irrelevant - the key point is that the CAA and DfT clearly wanted to differentiate multirotors and leave them out of the exemption. Digging through the posts on the BMFA FB thread unearthed this explanation of the rationale...

"The Government was concerned that those wishing to operate multi-rotor drones unlawfully would join the associations solely to benefit from our permission/exemption in order to evade the 400ft limit. There is a lot of data to support permissions for model flyers operating 'conventional' model aircraft (which is why we were able to negotiate the permission), but unfortunately there is also a lot of data showing significant numbers of unlawful multi-rotor drone flights, many of which are at much greater heights than 'conventional' model aircraft would operate (which is why the CAA would not include multi-rotors drones)."

Predictably there are some very angry multirotor flying members of the BMFA posting abut how unfair this is. I can see their point tbh, but it's clear the MFAs were given a stark "take it or leave it" choice - leave out multirotors from the exemption or everyone has to abide by the 400ft limit. In that situation they chose the least worst option for the majority of their members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MattyB
2 hours ago, RamJam 53 said:

I thought that being a bmfa member was the permission?. Unless flying within 1km of an airfield, where permission would then have to be sought.

The permission is the exemption granted by the CAA to BMFA members, not the act of becoming a BMFA member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oipigface
1 hour ago, pete beadle said:

Hi all

BTW I've just received a reply to my question on the forum earlier, that satisfies me, as to how the BMFA/CAA referred to the models we fly, the reply was from a source who wishes to remain nameless, but who regularly reads this forum, and it is that "What we fly is/was agreed to be referred to as "conventional" R/C models not "traditional models", as per MattyB's post........thanks Matt, but the definition conventional R/C model aircraft is what I was after........

So, it's agreed - we fly conventional R/C model aircraft - not drones - I'm happy with that:thumbsup::)

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702 

MattyB's helpful post above says exactly what the 'permission' applies to.  'Model' is not in their vocabulary, but the 'small unmanned aircraft' that we fly must not weigh too much, musn't have any kind of autopilot other than a stabiliser of some sort, and musn't have more than one rotor. Furthermore flying near aerodromes and farther away than you can see are frowned on (as they always have been)..

This long negotiation has thus ended with a sensible set of rules that some drone flyers may be unhappy with, but which enable the glider flyers who contribute to this forum almost as much freedom as we have had in the recent past. 

BMFA DONE GOOD!

Is it time to change the name of this thread to 'This no longer looks worrying at all'?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
martynk
15 minutes ago, oipigface said:

 

Is it time to change the name of this thread to 'This no longer looks worrying at all'?

Without being alarmist, this amendment to the ANO deals with HMG  change in legislation to allow commercial operation of drones. We still have got to get through the EASA hoop yet which was the subject of the original OP. 

However as the UK representative for commercial and private flight operations in the UK  at EASA is the CAA, I don't think we have too much to worry about but the nagging worry is still there. But I always was a conscientious worrier.  :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.