EASA 'Prototype' Commission Regulation on Unmanned Aircraft Operations

[Steve J]

EASA have issued their 'Prototype' Commission Regulation on Unmanned Aircraft Operations and an explanatory note to go with it.

In an attempt to preempt certain predictable comments, I would like to point out that we will be a member of EASA for at least the next two years and that EASA does have members who are not EU members.

Steve

[satinet]

R.I.P model flying.  50m

[Steve J]

From the explanatory note -

"Article 15 provides the transitional provisions for recreational operations of UA in the frame of associations or clubs (‘model aircraft’ operations).It is proposed that they can continue to operate as of today in accordance with National regulations or practices. After 3 years after the entry into force of the regulation an authorisation shall be issued by the national authorities to associations or clubs taking into account their safety record and defining limitations and deviations to the subpart B. No risk analysis will be necessary as the idea is that the safety record, the procedures, the safety culture of the associations and clubs provide an equivalent safety level.

‘Model aircraft’ are not defined but are covered by the reference to leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities. The reference to associations or clubs has been made because they have a structure, procedures and safety culture that created good safety record.

This also means that individual hobbyist should either comply with the rules or join an association or club."

Steve

[satinet]

So you can fly a drone and just say it's a hobby aircraft or whatever?

just more money for bureaucrats. More money for public sector.

[paul w]

4 hours ago, Steve J said:

......This also means that individual hobbyist should either comply with the rules or join an association or club."

Steve

 

I have been the sole member of my own flying club for in excess of 25 years.

My club has a perfect safety record with very strict safety procedures in place 

 

[Weysoar]

1. Do we get an explanatory note (in non EU tech speak plain english) to explain the explanatory note?

2. Now we are all grouped together as 'UA' and our safety records examined as a whole, will we all fall together?

3. The situation with the EASA inspecting, certifying and monitoring on an on-going basis our organisations, are we not a sovereign country or soon will be again? 

4. If as some say, nothing will change why do we need any more regulation and interference?

5. Who will pay for it?  I know the answer to that!

[Weysoar]

Like it Pete!

[martynk]

On 07/09/2016 at 09:19, Steve J said:

From the explanatory note -

"Article 15 provides the transitional provisions for recreational operations of UA in the frame of associations or clubs (‘model aircraft’ operations).It is proposed that they can continue to operate as of today in accordance with National regulations or practices. After 3 years after the entry into force of the regulation an authorisation shall be issued by the national authorities to associations or clubs taking into account their safety record and defining limitations and deviations to the subpart B. No risk analysis will be necessary as the idea is that the safety record, the procedures, the safety culture of the associations and clubs provide an equivalent safety level.

‘Model aircraft’ are not defined but are covered by the reference to leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities. The reference to associations or clubs has been made because they have a structure, procedures and safety culture that created good safety record.

This also means that individual hobbyist should either comply with the rules or join an association or club."

Steve

It will be interesting to see how the BMFA adopt this for multicopters. To me it seems that there will be 2 classifications.If you are a simple retail customer and not a BMFA member then you will be bound by the proposed regulations. If you are a member of the BMFA then you will be bound by the 'rules' and 'guidelines' defined by the BMFA (or other approved body) and in the context of the manner of operation (sport, contest etc). That seems pretty unenforceable to me..

Edit. Just a thought. It refers to historical agreements. If no agreement or operating standard currently exists or defined then does this mean that the proposed legislation will be enforced irrespective of what the BMFA/national body wants? How will this affect new flight technologies?

[Steve J]

8 hours ago, pete beadle said:

In theory, Brexit has thrown all organisations such as the EASA into the waste paper basket of EU membership

Who knows what the Brexit strategy is regarding EASA? Does HM government want to remain a member? Or do they want to expand the CAA? I doubt if they know at the moment, but I suspect that it may end up being the former and we end up joining Norway and Switzerland as countries that are EASA members and not EU members.

Anyway, as far as I can see, the main effect of the regulation on recreational flyers of unmanned aircraft in the UK seems to be the requirement for a registration scheme.

Steve

[Fletch]

This form of easy/pre existing registration didn't get accepted in the USA or Ireland. Why would it! No money to be made by the official aviation authority.

[martynk]

BMFA have now responded

https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/ArticleID/2400/Threat-to-Model-Flying-from-European-Regulation-EASA-Prototype-Rules-for-Unmanned-Aircraft

Not inspiring reading..

[satinet]

That's well written.  I makes me very angry how completely unnecessary the whole thing is. 

The people making the rules can't even define what it is they are actually making rules for. 

[martynk]

Yes Tom

I agree with your sentiments entirely. Bloody annoying and fundamentally unnecessarily noise.. Still very worrying though 

[mikef]

Has anyone attempted a definition of the 'model aircraft that we have flown for many years' to distinguish them from the 'drones' that seem to have started this process of new legislation?

Some folks here are very clear that there's a big difference but I I have not seen a definition.  If a solid one can be written, might that not be of potential value in the BMFA's efforts (= our efforts)?

 

[satinet]

2 minutes ago, mikef said:

Has anyone attempted a definition of the 'model aircraft that we have flown for many years' to distinguish them from the 'drones' that seem to have started this process of new legislation?

Some folks here are very clear that there's a big difference but I I have not seen a definition.  If a solid one can be written, might that not be of potential value in the BMFA's efforts (= our efforts)?

 

 

But then we start accepting the "great drone menace" as if it is axiomatic.  The reality is that fpv drones haven't caused death and destruction across the land.  The idea that drone regulation is going to stop stuff like terrorism is hardly warrants discussion.   To repeat what I said in the other thread, I have actually seen one multi rotor drone being flown in public since the beginning of the great drone terror. And being an RC flyer, like the rest of you, I am quite interested when I see someone flying RC. 

Where are the figures that tells us the number of injuries caused a year by drones in the EU?  It's absolute cobblers of the first order. 

[martynk]

Here is your starter for 10:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_aircraft

I think it would be difficult to define unambiguously unfortunately. The second problem would be to get the definition translated into different languages (including Welsh and Belgian) and then accepted universally.

Perhaps a 'Duke of Wellington' approach may be  better that simply differentiates one from the other.

[Steve J]

This has very little to do with "the great drone" menace and a lot to do with regulating the commercial use of unmanned aircraft in the EU. Have a read of the Riga declaration. 

Good article by Dave Phipps.

Steve

[satinet]

5 minutes ago, Steve J said:

This has very little to do with "the great drone" menace and a lot to do with regulating the commercial use of unmanned aircraft in the EU. Have a read of the Riga declaration. 

Good article by Dave Phipps.

Steve

There's quite a clear difference between use for commerce and use for pleasure though.

[Steve J]

2 minutes ago, satinet said:

There's quite a clear difference between use for commerce and use for pleasure though.

Indeed. And that is a split that the CAA use. It is a shame that EASA haven't decided to go that way. 

Time for a note to my MEP's. 

Steve

[Steve J]

Article on the New Europe website -

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/eu-moves-forward-drone-regulation-industry-booms/

Steve