CAP 1763

[VinceC]

To quote an old saying, "it's a buggers muddle". What starts off as good intent gets taken over by lawyers.

I fly over the sea, launching off a near vertical cliff 300 feet high, so where I stand I can be 400 feet above me, but as soon as I cross the cliff edge where the lift is and over the sea I have to descend to 100 feet above my position. What nonsense !!

[Barry_Cole]

To quote an old saying, "it's a buggers muddle". What starts off as good intent gets taken over by lawyers.

I fly over the sea, launching off a near vertical cliff 300 feet high, so where I stand I can be 400 feet above me, but as soon as I cross the cliff edge where the lift is and over the sea I have to descend to 100 feet above my position. What nonsense !!

I think the BMFA are working on that one.

BC

[VinceC]

I hope so Barry. Further problems for me looked to be looming. I have always flown 'smaller' models inside controlled airspace, but clear of the ATZ for over 40 years legally and without any issues. To fly larger models I have an exemption from my local airport which I renew annually. At one time that was sufficient, until a change of management insisted I phone up ATC every time I intend to fly. That was a nuisance, but hay ho! Now it seems that the law will cover all model weights to require authorisation. After such a long time of flying and zero problems, now Drones have given us yet another hurdle.

[MDev]

I noticed the bit which says 'police may search and seize data contained within the drone with a warrant' tbh the rule makers haven't got a clue.

Oh and watch out for over 2kg kites they especially dangerous at that weight!

The bit that will upset the scallies is the 10 number registration they will have to display.

[VinceC]

They certainly are. The law is an Ass as with all the Kite Surfing that goes on here, nobody questions their legality

[MDev]

Another load of crap inspired by the EU. We will have to live with it forever now. I wrote to my MP + three MEPS, they all replied with the same reply about public safety, in other words they haven't got a clue.

Now, who will contibute to binoculars for the police to read the ten figure registration number on our gliders (sorry drone, uav or whatever) ?

[Mark Erwood]

I agree with Cliff. We and the BMFA need to distance ourselves from drones.Perhaps definition of a drone should be anything with more than 2 lift rotors. Anything else is a model aircraft. Personally, I always felt that once FPV came along we were headed for disaster. Maybe legislation should be aimed here not at within line of sight flying.

Mark

[Philkiteflyer]

Hi from NZ, seems that you guys are now catching up with the rest of us.
We have had your 'Proposed' rules in force for quite a number of years. I have attached a section of NZCAA 2015 rules (current but under review).

101.207 Airspace
(a) A person operating a remotely piloted aircraft must—
(1) Unless operating in a danger area under Part 71, avoid operating
–
(i) in airspace above persons who have not given consent for
the aircraft to operate in that airspace; and
(ii) above property unless prior consent has been obtained
from any persons occupying that property or the property
owner; and
(2) maintain observation of the surrounding airspace in which the
aircraft is operating for other aircraft; and
(3) not operate the aircraft at any height above 400 feet above
ground level except in accordance with paragraph (c).
(b) Nothing in paragraph (a) requires a person to obtain consent from any
person if operating—
(1) under the authority of an approved organisation; and
(2) in airspace used by that organisation before 1 August 2015.
(c) A person operating a remotely piloted aircraft more than 4 km from
an aerodrome boundary and above 400 feet above ground level must—
(1) operate in a danger area designated for that purpose under Part
71; or
(2) ensure that the operation remains clear of Class C, D, and E
airspace and that, at least 24 hours before the operation, a person
authorised by an approved person or organisation, notifies the
aeronautical information service provider, for the issue of a
NOTAM, of the following information:
(i) the name, address, and telephone number of the operator:
(ii) the location of the proposed operation:
(iii) the date, time and duration of the proposed operation:
(iv) the maximum height above ground level proposed for the
aircraft operation.

This section has all but killed our local park flying as the land owner (City Council) has given us unreasonable days for use of the park we have been flying at for over 15 years. No flying in winter even though no-one else uses that park for sports.
The 400ft has been here for years and as members here have noted, how is it managed. Well, its done by the club safety officers. Fly-ins all operate with a NOTAM in place, usually 1500ft.

All I can say is do what you normally do (under 400 ft) as best you can. Keep on the good side of your local control zone manager and you should still enjoy our hobby.
Best of luck,
Phillip C

[Mark Erwood]

This requirement - 'at least 24 hours before the operation, a person authorised by an approved person or organisation, notifies the aeronautical information service provider, for the issue of a NOTAM' would completely stuff slope soaring around here. Until you wake up in the morning and see the wind strength and direction you wouldn't know where you would be able to fly! It may be acceptable for powered flying from a club site but it is not helpful if one flies on a variety of sites depending on the weather. In the U.K. we have had an excellent record of safety under a relatively free Air Navigation Order regime. This is only under threat because of a few irresponsible people with multicopters aka drones. I see no reason why we should just roll over and accept infringements on our liberty without a fight especially as there is nothing in the new rules that will improve safety.

Mark

[John Vella]

Ladies and Gentlemen, you know what happens when a law is proven to be an Ass, one carries on as before.