WARNING its the "DEATH OF DRONES" 50m height & 100m range limit if EASA pass these new RULES

[Dinerve]

Agree, the point of post is you have a voice, email [email protected] & voice your opinion, this hobby is growing rapidly & without major incident I believe apart from media hype, as hobbies go ours is probably the most regulated by both manufacturers & enthusiasts alike for what it is, in other words what P2,3,4 pilot wants to lose their bird & investment through stupidity so self regulates

I went to EASA's website found the docs, downloaded them and scanned through them. Wrote an email and sent it already!

I disagree with some points he said, I can tolerate some age restrictions and use, and even some mandatory training in some categories and types of activity, even the registration above certain sizes, but the rest just doesn't make sense at all.

This was made by a few technocrats rotting behind their desks....

This is very serious people!

 

[thousandyard]

Yes it is very serious! There is nothing that EASA has bought to the table that has improved anything to do with commercial aviation and they have almost managed to kill off general aviation (that's smaller aircraft 1 to 4 seats and the like). They were supposed to replace the 27 states individual civil aviation authorities but instead they just added a 28th. Therefore when they start regulating a hobby situation you know it's going to be expensive, bureaucratic and an overbearing nightmare.
The bureaucrats in EASA treat every aircraft that leaves the ground like a 737 so that will include your 1250g phantom 3.
If you don't want these faceless bureaucrats to destroy your hobby along with the unfortunate radio controlled communities too then you need to write to the email address which was included in this thread and also your MP and then your MEP.
Otherwise you will find that they will do what ever they think is best in their uninformed interest which will have nothing to do with your interests.
Nobody wants the aforementioned 737 coming into contact with a hobby or even a commercial drone and have a subsequent incident.
So some form of regulation is probably necessary however do not let the Brussels bureaucrats apply their "straight banana bent cucumber" type attitude or we can all kiss goodbye to using our £1500 flying cameras anymore.

and breathe......


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[PhantomDoc]

I was looking through the document. Where does it mention the 100m range limit for over 250g UAVs? Still 50m height limit would be disappointing.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Ptr]

Hopefully our fellow enthusiasts across the ocean & elsewhere send in a email, like this if you have never flown don't tell me

 

[Jouster]

It could be a sad day for non licensed drone owners.

Once the likes of DJI are forced to make their owners upgrade firmwares to lock limits it will only be a matter of time until firmware hacks are put in place. This could spell problems on its own though and issues arising could be very problematic.

Personally I also think there is some room for extra regulation. Still far too many people flouting the rules and then posting on the likes of YouTube.

This won't stop the 'idiots' doing what they do but it might dissuade them from buying new kit that already limits their abilities. We'll know when people get spooked as there will be drones flooding eBay and the like

I foresee a time when they require some sort of license for all operations, hobby or commercial.

Unfortunately it's been coming since the market went mainstream.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhantomDoc]

The more I've read this document, to me it seems that our current phantoms could quite easily be classed in the UAS3 giving flight ceiling of 150m. Fail safes such as parachutes could easily be installed and they do already transmit data back to the controller including serial numbers etc. It does not mention specifically a beacon of any type.
It really depends how you interpret these documents. As with all legislation, it's all very vague.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Jouster]

The more I've read this document, to me it seems that our current phantoms could quite easily be classed in the UAS3 giving flight ceiling of 150m. Fail safes such as parachutes could easily be installed and they do already transmit data back to the controller including serial numbers etc. It does not mention specifically a beacon of any type.
It really depends how you interpret these documents. As with all legislation, it's all very vague.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Doesn't section 3 requires redundancy of EVERY system though?

Two compass, rotor redundancy, and so on. ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhantomDoc]

"be designed as far as practicable to avoid single failures resulting in a loss of control, or be equipped with an automatic system ensuring a safe flight termination in case of failures, or be equipped with an impact energy limitation device"

Noting that specific.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Jouster]

"be designed as far as practicable to avoid single failures resulting in a loss of control, or be equipped with an automatic system ensuring a safe flight termination in case of failures, or be equipped with an impact energy limitation device"

Noting that specific.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

That's a pretty weakly written section. I'm pretty sure they could throw a lot of specs in there once published.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jouster]

The more I've read this document, to me it seems that our current phantoms could quite easily be classed in the UAS3 giving flight ceiling of 150m. Fail safes such as parachutes could easily be installed and they do already transmit data back to the controller including serial numbers etc. It does not mention specifically a beacon of any type.
It really depends how you interpret these documents. As with all legislation, it's all very vague.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Also the problem with parachutes it that thy give no control over where the UAS can land. If you are 300m away and require the use of the parachute, what is to stop things dropping onto a car doing 60 on a quiet country road


Not disagreeing that these measures wouldn't mitigate a lot of issues, just that for every argument given will have a counter argument from the authorities.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhantomDoc]

Also the problem with parachutes it that thy give no control over where the UAS can land. If you are 300m away and require the use of the parachute, what is to stop things dropping onto a car doing 60 on a quiet country road


Not disagreeing that these measures wouldn't mitigate a lot of issues, just that for every argument given will have a counter argument from the authorities.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. But also users/manufacturers will have further arguments for every counter argument.

The fact is, that CAA, could at any point change the current laws. They already state limit us to VLOS and 120m height.

The parachute was just a quick example btw.

I personally agree that most of this new proposed legislation is somewhat pointless as reckless drone use, as much as reckless driving, or motorcycling can be done whether there are rules or not.

But, there is a risk that quads could cause fatalities, as can everything else in life including birds, and therefore laws and education regarding their use should be thought of. Some formal training and registration is probably not something that is unreasonable.

Policing would also be difficult. In congested areas we are already bound by CAA rules to certain areas only and if police want to question pilots behaviour then they have all the right to do this. In the countryside, I doubt they would really care unless quads cause disturbance to others, which we should avoid anyway.

I am not trying to defend this legislation which is not all that specific and hence as it stands could be adapted to current hardware.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Jouster]

I do wonder if this is their way of pushing. Ore people to be licensed as pretty much all of this has no bearing on licensed pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhantomDoc]

I do wonder if this is their way of pushing. Ore people to be licensed as pretty much all of this has no bearing on licensed pilots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect that's the case.

But then the licensing would have to be accessible to all. Otherwise not it would not be fair.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Jouster]

I suspect that's the case.

But then the licensing would have to be accessible to all. Otherwise not it would not be fair.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

The licensing IS accessible to all, isn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhantomDoc]

I wouldn't say so st the current price points.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Jouster]

No different to obtaining driving license and owning/running a car.

Yes it's not cheap but neither is a £1500 drone.

That price would keep a lot of the idiots away that's for sure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhantomDoc]

No different to obtaining driving license and owning/running a car.

Yes it's not cheap but neither is a £1500 drone.

That price would keep a lot of the idiots away that's for sure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plenty of them on the roads though.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Jouster]

Plenty of them on the roads though.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

Don't even get me started on that one.

After being hit by a driver two weeks ago, going to see if they were OK only to find they run off on foot and abandoned their car.

People need cars for work so they are forced to pay all the above. Forced licensing would definitely weed out a lot of idiots and people looking to purposely flaunt the regs, these in particular are the ones that have got us to this point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PhantomDoc]

Don't even get me started on that one.

After being hit by a driver two weeks ago, going to see if they were OK only to find they run off on foot and abandoned their car.

People need cars for work so they are forced to pay all the above. Forced licensing would definitely weed out a lot of idiots and people looking to purposely flaunt the regs, these in particular are the ones that have got us to this point


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess that sort of demonstrates why having licencing and registration does not always weed out those who really want to cause problems. But might make some think twice.

It is true though, like in car insurance, those idiots will cost the rest of us dear.

 

[Elsopix]

This is serious. If this is definately happening any idea of dates? I may need to sell up. I love the hobby but don't want to get arrested for it!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots