UPDATED Article 16 Authorisation - Simon Dale FPVUK Interview - Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 сер 2024
- Hey everyone! In today’s video we are chatting to Simon Dale, Chief Executive of FPVUK.org about the Article 16 Authorisation, including some essential information regarding the updated version of the operational authorisation! This is the first part of a series of interviews with Simon, so stay tuned for part two discussing Simon’s work with AirProx Reality Check.
Find out more about FPVUK: www.fpvuk.org/
Subscribe to Simon’s UA-cam channel: / simondale123
----
Watch our UK Drone Rules playlist here:
• New UK Drone Rules - 5...
Thank you to our channel sponsors:
Drone Masterclass - find out more about their A2 CofC and GVC courses:
www.dronemasterclass.co.uk
Moonrock Insurance have launched their insurance product aimed specifically at hobby drone operators in the UK. Go get a quote now at:
hobby.moonrockinsurance.com
Chapters
00:00 - 00:45 Introduction
00:46 - 05:00 Article 16 Authorisation Origins
05:01 - 08:28 Why only for members of FPVUK and similar?
08:29 - 11:04 What counts as mitigation for reducing take off separation to 15 metres?
11:05 - 12:22 Flight Safety is the Focus
12:23 - 16:28 Updated Article 16 Authorisation - what was included?
16:29 - 18:30 Excluded Automation Modes from Article 16 Authorisation
18:31 - 20:21 Where next for the Article 16 Authorisation?
20:22 - 22:56 FPVUK members - Please report your incidents!
22:57 - 27:11 FPVUK - the benefits of membership!
27:12 - 28:28 Use Your FPVUK public indemnity insurance in the EU!
You can follow Geeksvana on the following social media as well:
Twitter: @geeksvana - / geeksvana
Instagram: @geeksvana - / geeksvana
Facebook: / geeksvana
If you have any questions or just want to reach out and say hey! My name is Sean, come and talk to me! sean@geeksvana.com
#FPVUK #Article16Authorisation #SimonDale - Наука та технологія
Very interesting. I've got a lot of time for Mr Dale and FPV UK, and I'm a member of it. Article 16 authorisation is better than not having it but honestly, it just shows up the ridiculous nature of the regulations we are all tied down by.
In my youth, I used to make and fly balsa models, some gliders, some with IC motors. Hours / days of work, 5 minutes flying, crash - and repeat. Oddly enough though, it wasn't seen as a problem by anyone, no property got damaged and no-one died. How could that happen - how lucky can you get?
Now we have managed to move to a situation where I cannot even fly a 65mm 25g quad in my garden without a spotter and registration. Goodness knows what might happen - the world could end at the very least.
People kick footballs, hit golf balls, ride bicycles, property sometimes gets damaged and occasionally people hurt. But we don't need a whole lot of overbearing regulations to manage it. Life isn't 100% safe and it never was.
In the main nowadays we fly FPV sub 250g far from anyone / anywhere. We do use spotters - not that it adds to safety in any way. If anyone comes within hundreds of yards, we stop. We never get above around 20 to 30 feet, below the tree line. We never fly out beyond around 100 yards.
But since we time ourselves round courses for performance, and crashes therefore happen, I suppose I am expected to report every single time we clip a bush (sorry, I forgot, everytime it passes behind a bush it breaks the CAA FPV rule) or touch the ground and crash? Well, forget it, I'm not going to. I appreciate why this might be expected, but frankly, the whole CAA system is absolutely barking mad. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
How on earth did we get to this ridiculous situation?
Hey Nick! Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I know a lot of flyers feel the same way. Agree with you on Simon as well, he does a lot for the hobby!
Hi Nick. Thanks for your kind words.
You can fly a 25g aircraft whereever you like without registration. You would only need to be registered with the CAA if the aircraft carries a sensor able to capture personal data - eg a _recording_ camera. If it has no camera, or just a live FPV camera, then no registration is required. Likewise if the aircraft is designed (exclusively or not) for under 13s; then it's a toy and registration is not required.
I'd love it if you would send in some reports of extremely small incidents and accidents. The more reports the better - and the more insignificant they are the better!
Because:
1) It shows the CAA that drones crash all the time, without hurting or killing anyone (It doesn't matter how many times I say this to the CAA, they don't get it). That helps me in pushing them for more permissive rules/ relaxing reporting requirements in future.
Wouldn't it be great to walk into our audit with 1,000 reports of insignificant 'incidents' that didn't hurt anyone or anything? It would demonstrate that it's OK for drones to crash...we don't need to treat them like airliners with over the top rules.
2) I can then push for the reporting requirements to be relaxed too.
@@simondale3422 yes, I understand what you say about tiny quads, but actually, mine always do have FPV cameras, and since the goggles / screens I use have recording capability, and I usually do record for diagnostic purposes - even if I don't keep the recordings long term, I don't think I could easily argue the camera was solely for the purpose of flying the craft. I wouldn't want to try it in front of some magistrate who knows nothing about it, anyway. Mine is not the stuff martyrs are made of (to quote Sir Thomas More in 'a man for all seasons', and look what happened to him).
Furthermore, it might be difficult to class these things as toys, which is the other get out. I think the definition of a toy (in the EU anyway) is a product designed predominantly for someone under 14. I build these from parts, and I left my 14th birthday a very long time ago, so since they are designed and built by me for me, hard to class them as toys, I think.
On spotters, I felt after careful reading of the relevant section of article 16 that a case could be made for no spotter in a garden, providing one met certain criteria. However I seem to recall putting that to you, and you felt that was not within the intent of the regulation.
So it comes down to whether one would want to defend all this in front of a magistrate, if push came to shove. Of course, it probably will not, and a lot of people would anyway say "don't be silly, no-one would pay any attention to you doing those things, so why worry?". Maybe true, but a law that everyone ignores as stupid is just a bad law, and that's where I came in.
There is a huge difference between a 25g quad in the garden flying at 5 feet, and a DJI Phantom flying into the flight path of some airport. But the main thrust of the rules applies equally to both.
Again, I hear what you say on reports. They would probably be of the nature "3:10pm - touched bush and crashed, consequences were two broken twigs and a dragonfly with a headache, replaced propeller #2", "3:25pm - hit ground and crashed, no damage", "4:05pm - stuck in tree, twisted ankle falling off ladder trying to recover it", and so on. (Now ladders, they definitely need regulations and registration).
I'll bear it in mind, but the trouble is, I might trust you, but I absolutely do not trust the CAA and especially their political masters. You might want to use these reports to show how innocuous the whole thing is, but the CAA could have a totally different agenda, and choose to use the reports in a quite different way. Do you really want to risk showing the CAA that drones crash all the time? Risky. I listened to a parliamentary debate on this, and it was frankly misinformed and scandalous. I read the report to the science and technology MP committee a couple of years ago, and there was that mad professor from Birmingham somewhere pontificating about the grave danger to society all drones caused, and how they must be banned outright. Those are the people who have power to shape the future, and they have different driving forces - public opinion.
Actually you said it yourself - "... the CAA, they just don't get it ...". If the CAA want me to be honest and open about how things are, they've got to do something first to show they are on my side, or at least objective. If they were really objective now, we would not be where we are.
Bear in mind also that if I were to hypothetically admit flying in and out of trees and bushes, I would be admitting to breaking the FPV rule about direct line of sight. The rule implies a flat open space is the only option.
So, I absolutely don't trust the motives of these people, I'll bear your request in mind - but don't hold your breath! My feeling is the best hope for the future is that it all dies down, people (public and rulemakers) forget about it (short attention span) and we all just quietly get along with our business. A bit like CB radio in the 80s - loads of rules on that, but it all died away as people lost interest, and the remainder just carried on as they were. No-one died.
Sorry this is a bit long winded.
Excellent video and Interview.
Thank you Jason! Appreciate your kind feedback.
Years ago at my club, we dropped an action man from a model aircraft, often his chute did not open, after putting his arms and legs back in their sockets he was good to go up again. perhaps I should have reported this to the FAA.
Got to say, you 2 fellas a great to this community. I was having a problem registering with fpvuk, Mr Dale help me which was really appreciated with the speedy reply,, an outstanding service, and this youtube channel is so informative so thank you both.
This should be interesting. The amount of people who think an article 16 is a cheap A2 CofC…
Sounds like Simon has done a lot more for the hobby than other “organisations”.
Passando pra prestigiar aquele super like 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
Thanks for sharing a nice video. Have a nice day~~👍46
Thanks for this video gents. I am a member of FPVUK and studying to sit A2 Cof C. What’s increasing May apparent to me is that if you try do this hobby by the book, there are very few place to take off and land your drone other than your own back garden. While there are videos about all of the laws etc not many deal with take off land locations that are legal or where the land owner has expressly permitted drone take off and landing. It’s really frustrating. Do you have any answers? Or could you kindly do a video just on that subject please? Thanks.
I've just joined to FPVUK, as well as gaining my a2cofc for the use of my DJI Mavic 3.
I think they are both worth having together as well as multiple insurance's for different place's and for either commercial/recreational.
still looking forward to the mini 3 release
Hi as you have fpvuk membership and the a2cofc. Does that mean your separation distance goes down to 30m with the mavic 3
@@danielzues8917 no, unless flying under article 16.
flying on a recreational field with a 30m separation bubble & 15m for take of and landing
@Flying Lowe thanks for the quick reply. Sorry about all the questions I'm new to this. Am I right in thinking with the A2CofC the distance goes from 150m down to 50m ? I like the the look of the mini 3 Pro but got my heart set on the mavic 3. Don't mind to much about traveling further out
ye, 50m with the mavic 3
with an A2CofC you have to be 50m with any drone over 500 grams.
Mini 3 give you zero separation distance
Hey Sean, although my mini doesnt have this feature from DJI, what is your thoughts about orbiting around say a statue or the like but the drone doesn't actually move on its own, more like it uses the distance away from the object and you have to move the sticks to physically move the drone? sorry if that is hard to understand
You mean point of interest? Where you identify the item to stay focused on but then use your sticks to perform the orbit? If so, I would absolutely say you can use it because without stick input the drone would just hover. Hope this helps but let me know if I have wrong end of the stick.
Thoughts please? So many changes it's off putting. Me being a photographer, just want drone still shots from above in C mode. I got a Mini 3 Pro, and Operator/Flyer ID, but one question I have. I want to use filter lenses on the original lens, and wrap it in a fluro skin for easier vision. I'm considering Public Liability Insurance, but if an accident occurred, and my drone is wrapped with a filter lens on also, will that PLI still be valid.....or not?
I join FPVUK to fly my Mavic pro under. I’ve just bought a DJI Mini 2, do I have to still stick to the same rules with this drone with being a member?
Hey Sean. Is it possible to clarify whether an Mavic air 2S for example is covered by the article 16 if you are not using any ‘smart modes’
Hey Paul! Great to see you sir! Yes, the Air 2S is certainly covered under Article 16. The only restriction is not using any automation or smart mode which moves the aircraft without stick input. Otherwise point of interest, panorama etc are all acceptable. RTH is the only 'moving' auto mode allowed when required for safety reasons. The way Simon put it was perfect, as long as the automation does not move the aircraft in the sky it can be used. Hope this helps.
@@Geeksvana Thanks, I thought is was just for FPV drones!
@@paul-thys I did keep telling you multiple times on your youtube channel but you kept deleting my comments! LOL I hope before you join FPVUK you will send me an apology!
I am a member of FPVUK but also just about to do my A2CofC. But from watching this from what i can see nothing has really changed so if you are not going to fly commercially or autonomous then in my opinion you will be better just joining club and using Article 16 Authorisation.
I agree completely! If you're not flying commercially, or autonomously the Article 16 Operational Authorisation gives you more freedom.
But....if you are going to do your A2 CofC anyhow (perhaps for one of those two reasons), don't forget that FPV UK members get 50% off at UAVHUB and UAV Academy.
Hey ThatsBigDave! Thanks for taking the time to comment! An excellent combination for sure and I agree the Article 16 Authorisation is a great way for hobbyists to keep flying.
Hi. I have a question...
I've got Flyer ID and Operator ID in UK. Recently I become a happy member of FPVuk.
Do I need register my drone in UE country, let say Poland, if or when I'm going for my holiday ... for example?
Hey Robert! Yes. If you are travelling outside the UK, you will need to register. We recorded a short video about this here: ua-cam.com/video/UIyBTqrhi-U/v-deo.html
Hope it helps!
@@Geeksvana THANX Sean 👊🏼
Good video. One for Simon. Any progress on t shirts or hats. Or should i say this on Sean's channel. Oops.
Thanks for the kind feedback Geo Keo. Hope you are well. Sure Simon will this 😎.
Hey Geo Keo. Coming very very soon!
I think waypoints are a little bit ambiguous then because although they are considered as an automated mode it is not the aircraft doing what it thinks it wants to do it’s the aircraft doing what you’ve told it to do and as such is not exactly in the class of automated mode. It’s preprogrammed mode it’s almost like saying that commercial aircraft are not allowed to use autopilot
Although I would expect the person who gained the permission and wrote the authorisation request to know accurately what the interpretation is...
Do you have to be member of a club to get the benefit of this article. Is that how this works. Or can I use my drone as it says in this article. All I want is to look around and put my air 2 up. Bit look around bit video/pics ect and down. It's all very complicated now. One thing. I'd be surprised if they sell many Mavic 3s to Joe public
Hey Paul! Yes, you need to be a member of one of the authorised associations like FPVUK, BMFA etc. This is an operational authorisation granted to them. Article 16 allows you to fly from any area which is primarily used for leisure purposes, so it sounds ideal for the kind of flying you describe. Hope this helps.
@@GeeksvanaHii Sean. It certainly does. Cheers
I vote for no spotter required if can do so safely
Agreed. A policy that makes complete sense only to those who don't fly fpv.
Hey Andrew! Great to see you! It seems a rule which is so often not followed and as you say if a safe way to remove the requirement could be found it would open the hobby up to even more people.
@@gmivisualsjason3729 we already have people flying DJI drones turning there back to the drone so that that can see there phone screen and have no spotter, we have people who have a spotter that are not real spotters, just there incase we get stopped flying FPV, then we have someone who just flies without a spotter, only real risk is getting mugged, being mugged is not a job of the CAA, police do not care about drones, they also crash them two lol
So when you say that maybe you are flying your FPV drone in the park I assume you’ll be wearing goggles so therefore I also assume that you will have somebody with you as a spotter stood next to you just to make sure that you’re following the rules LOL
Hey Mark! Spot on! Although at the moment, as I am still very new to FPV, I really need that spotter 😂.