Basically a EASA-wide regulatory approach is welcomed and is certainly an important step to deal with recent developments in the structure of unmanned aircraft. However, the current NPA is completely unclear about how to deal with "traditional" radio controlled model aircraft and their operation, which is currently subject to a wide and often completely deviating set of individual national laws.
- The NPA´s definition of a "Drone" in its current wording will fully cover any RC model aircraft currently operated, without distinction of operational intent (hobbyist, commercial, experimental).
- The use of the name "Drone" will not be recognized to be applicable to them by a very, very large of RC plane operators for their (non-multicopter) remote controlled aircraft, thus leading them into a legally "grey" area - particularly since many of those operators act on long-established national laws and are not organized in any way so that their attention might be drawn to this NPA.
This makes it unlikely - if not impossible - for them to participate in the response/discussion chain. Many may not even know about the EXISTENCE of an entity called EASA.
- German national law currently draws an important line between "drones" operated commercially for remuneration or as a tool within commercial projects (e.g. TV/Filming), and RC aircraft operated for reasons of personal inclination. The NPA does not openly propagate to maintain this distinction and therefore directly affects more people than ANY other regulation ever issued by EASA, as the number of RC aircraft owners is immense.
- Since the traditional RC aircraft section is not explicitly addressed in the NPA, one has the impression that this category might have simply been overlooked.
- The current drone classification affects wide areas of traditional hobby RC plane operation (e.g. thermal soaring above 150m AGL, one of the oldest fields in RC flight) and imposes new rules which can hardly expected to be met by a young RC enthusiast.
Also, some areas such as free flight (uncontrolled) are not mentioned.
Technically, there are currently no provisions in most RC model aircraft to actually allow for an altitude measurement. Altitude telemetry is feasible, but not common. Vertical reference estimates are known to be extremely inaccurate. Thus, it is virtually impossible to operate within a 150m altitude limitation with a traditional RC aircraft.
- It is strongly recommended that EASA introduces a way to generally distinguish between the purposes of operation, and to allow for sufficient space for current RC aircraft activities, old (soaring) and new (FPV flight) by limiting the applicability of certain passages of the NPA to commercial/professional applications while maintaining sufficient freedom fro traditional RC aircraft operation, e.g. based on the existing national laws, or a separate, realisitic framework imposed by EASA.
The classifications and limitations of german national law represent one reasonable starting point
(see
http://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Publik ... cationFile)
to make such a classification.
Classification characteristics may base on, but are not necessarily limited to, the following criteria:
- Type of operation (commercial / hobby)
- Type of control (manual / assisted / autonomous)
- Operational range (within ground sight / out of ground sight)
- MTOW
- Altitude / Air space structure
- Type of aircraft (Fixed wing / rotorcraft)
- Type of propulsion (none / electric / piston / turbine)
- Since 99.9% of all RC model aircraft would currently be among the definitions of Annex-II aircraft (unmanned <150kg), a clear definition/delimitation within the Annex-II criteria would be required, without the possibilities of loopholes (e.g. combinations of "historic" and "unmanned").
- While the NPA is obviously targeted at the operation of "drones" in a non-hobby sense, it should be re-formulated to point out its true applicability.
One possibility would be to define a separate set of rules for the operation of RC model aircraft (and CLEARLY mention the applicability within the text), based on the set of criteria given above. Priority should not be the design type (quadcopter etc.), as the future might bring new configurations yet unknown.
Alternatively, the NPA may make a clear statement that the current national rules for operating RC aircraft remain untouched - and provide a clear definition.
Since the first choice will be very hard to actually enforce on RC pilot´s/operator`s level, the second seems more practical at this time.
- There might also be areas where a decision between "drone" and "RC aircraft" is ambiguous when made on the given set of criteria. For example, the sector of commercially operated RC flight schools (which exist in ever increasing numbers) would represents a difficult area, as the aircraft are clearly traditional RC aircraft, but (at least from the intstructor´s point of view) for a commercial motivation. The situation is similar for RC manufacturer representatives presenting their products at RC airshows. The grouping of these activities to the "drones" part also seems inadequate.
- There are also situations where one and the same aircraft is operated as RC enthusiast model one day and as a camera drone the next. A tool to allow for a clear separation of these operations, in the simplest drone category, could be a "self declaration" where the operator describes his equipment and ops type for the "drone" side of the operation.
- The recent development in "drones" has changed the nature of RC enthusiast´s orientation in many areas - indeed much of the drone development actually started within the RC community. Current RC regulations, at least in Germany, strongly limit the extend of future development (autonomous flight, FPV outside line of sight etc.). It would be appreciated if the NPA would introduce a way to enable and support such developments in the future.
It is hoped that an adequate amandment will develop which does not have a serious impact on the current duties and freedoms shared by at least 200.000 RC pilots operating literally MILLIONS of RC aircraft within the EASA domain (a rough estimate only based on the membership numbers of european RC enthusiast roofing organisations - more than 80.000 in germany´s DMFV alone), a number GREATLY exceeding any GA pilot count.
The subject is discussed hotly within the RC community. Many do not see the applicability to them, others forecast the end of all practical RC flying. Since "EASA", "NPA" and the "EU" regulatory structure is completely foreign to the vast majority of RC enthusiasts, CRT statements will be made only by a very small percentage, and by the roof organisations - which sometimes found drastic words.
Also, the consultation period is considered too short, and has been scheduled so that 50% of the time falls into summer holidays. Since the methods of RC community news distribution often base on monthly or bimonthly magazines, there is no realistic chance for a discussion process between individual RC operators and their roof organisations.
