New law about drones in Germany forbits FPV...

[MacPap]

On 6.4.2017 an new law was published in the "Bundesgesetzblatt" (official federal law publication). This law is about drone regulation and entered into force, on 7.4.2017. The law can be found here.

Regardless of what one things of this regulation there is a point that I do really not understand the logic behind it. This point is that according to this regulation it is not allowed to fly First person view (FPV) for aircrafts under 5kg.

Can someone explain why? I mean why under 5kg?

Kostas

 

[alirz]

We recently got stupid rules/law pit in place here in Canada too. All these officials seem to be pulling these rules out of there A55 holes. They make no sense. Its pretty obvious their aim is to simply ban these UAV's without explicitly saying that "Hobby UAVs are banned from public use". Therefore they put these retarded rules in place to stop people from flying.
The rule might as well say no UAVs with FPV under 2.165776464 KG.. These weight limits are just to confuse people.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

FPV is seen as an evil dependent link. If the pilot doesn't have his eyes on the drone, then somehow he'll be disoriented as to where it is relative to him. It may be assumed by the German government that drones under 5 Kg don't have sophisticated backups where ≥ 5 Kg perhaps do (or are mandated to have such??).

(In Canada (and the US?) FPV users must have an "observer" with them to keep the drone in sight at all times).

While "good airmanship" demands that we should be able to see, orient and control the drone (because it's in VLOS, right?) by sight alone there seems to be some notion that dependence on FPV will make for people flying far out of view and losing the ability to see the drone and therefore control the drone.

Why this makes sense: FPV depends on a data link which itself has various points of failure. If the pilot really can't navigate w/o FPV, then FPV (if it fails) means loss of control - how will the pilot find the drone never mind get it back?

Why this offends us: we (many of us) are secret RTH dependants. We are confidant that a properly configured RTH will get the drone back safely in case of RF loss or low battery or (forbidden thoughts ahead) pilot dependant RTH.

The main issue is that not all drones (and operators) are created equal. They don't all have RTH. They don't all have "good" RTH systems. Even when they do, people don't necessarily understand them or configure them properly.

And finally of course, it's dependant on GPS. Aye, there's the rub. Lose GPS while dependent on RTH and one may be done if operating on the fringes of VLOS.

/// beyond this point, I ramble ...///

Now DJI could include a complete dual redundant control system in their drones (they don't). But some drones such as the Inspire 2 have 2 batteries and the system can fly with only 1. But it still has one GPS receiver.

Clever means of mitigation would be better integration of the (dual) IMU's with the (single) GPS and the (dual) mag compasses such that the IMU's alone could navigate accurately enough in case of GPS failure, aided or not by the mag compasses if available. All this takes is a few minutes of flying with a valid GPS signal. DJI don't do this - but it's very much in the realm of doable: the IMU's should be able to navigate back from a reasonable distance (1 - 2 km) with (much) less than 100 m error w/o mag compass and w/o GPS. But that's up to DJI to engage.

But even with all that nifty integration the government can never be sure that any given drone:
-is so equipped
-that the user knows how to set it up correctly

So governments reduce everyone to the smallest common denominator for the safety of everyone else.

 

[MacPap]

Then why don't they simply introduce a licence procedure like a drivers licence for whatever is heavier than (i don't know) say 250gr and thats it. You have it, you fly. You don't, you are grounded.
I mean all this terror and drone phobia is getting ridiculous.

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Then why don't they simply introduce a licence procedure like a drivers licence for whatever is heavier than (i don't know) say 250gr and thats it. You have it, you fly. You don't, you are grounded.
I mean all this terror and drone phobia is getting ridiculous.

Implementing requirements for pilots is complex especially when there is so much variance in drone design, control, etc.

In time, perhaps, esp. for commercial users (as in the US and via insane SFOC in Canada) there will be exams everywhere including Europe.

Germany seems serious about this when you look at marking and insurance requirements, for example.

 

[MacPap]

Implementing requirements for pilots is complex especially when there is so much variance in drone design, control, etc.....

I agree! however the same goes for cars. I mean an S600 mercedes is certainly not comparable to a VW Beatle. Yet I drive them both with the same licence anywhere in the world. The reason being that when I get a license it is based on if I can safely drive any car of a given size. Not the distance and speed it can achieve. Same goes for planes boats anything one can drive.
I believe that this should is the way to go and not the restriction of what a drone can do. Especially if one considers that evolution in technology is not going to stop. These things will get faster and go further with more capabilities by the end of each month. Restricting what they can is not going to be valid for long.
It is as if back in 1900 one would be able to drive a car only say 60 miles away.
That being said I fully agree that the flying should be regulated somehow but restricting the capabilities of the machine is useless. especially now that the cat is out of the bag....

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Both the 'benz and the Beetle are, however, compliant with German (or European) automobile standards wrt to dimensions, safety, signals and emissions. (Well, maybe not emissions ) and can both be operated safely by anyone with a driver's license. Coming from Canada all I need is my Quebec driver's licence to rent a car there and it's assumed that I know German driving law well enough - though "habits" differ.

And then, for the same roads, one needs a class A license for trucks above a certain weight (Quebec). e

When it comes to real airplanes, there are many limitations depending on pilot qualifications. Indeed anything over 12,500 Lbs in Canada needs a type rating - a/c by ac; and a type rating for any commercial operation (ME), Even high performance S.E. a/c need a type check. IFR. Multi-engine. Floats. VFR-night. VFR in class B airspace. All require specific qualifications.

The disparity amongst drones is very wide.

 

[MacPap]

Yes but still I think what they could do is create classifications in drones (as in cars) and say that to drive until that size (whatever the description may be) you need that permit etc. Banning everything out of the sky just because it can go far or is fast is not the way to go and sincerely I do not think that it will last. Imagine one day one invents a drone that can teleport. Will you stop its production on the basis that it can go anywhere?

 

[AlanTheBeast]

Yes but still I think what they could do is create classifications in drones (as in cars) and say that to drive until that size (whatever the description may be) you need that permit etc. Banning everything out of the sky just because it can go far or is fast is not the way to go and sincerely I do not think that it will last. Imagine one day one invents a drone that can teleport. Will you stop its production on the basis that it can go anywhere?

We're all in the same boat: governments reducing us to the smallest common denominator.

 

[Capra Vecinului]

It's incredible; they even copied stuff from the Canadian law and made it worse, as follows (tried a translation from German): "...each owner of a UAV [does not specify weight, so basically all of them] has to make sure that before the flight he has marked his UAV with name and address in a visible & fireproof [lol, but that is what they say!] manner".

 

[MacPap]

Speaking German I confirm it. Yes that is what it says.

 

[mephisto]

DJI Goggles won't happen in Germany as it seems (if they don't build in a VLOS feature . BT300 would be some semi legal option..

 

[MacPap]

Is there anyone able to use this thing I got dizzy by simply looking at the video lol.

 

[erkme73]

The tin foil hat wearing side of me has a very rational explanation as to why the <5kg limit. Those in power like to stay in power. Being remotely monitored for illegal or questionable activity by your constituents using tiny, barely audible aerial platforms that cannot be seen by radar, and can be operated from a safe distance (to avoid capture) is a real threat to the way governments operate. Just look at how defensive/aggressive police get when you start recording them doing their jobs.

These laws are sold to the public on the basis of safety. But the reality is, human nature dictates that those in authority want absolute authority - and the serfs/peasants having a way to quietly observe is a non-starter.

Once the aircraft is above 5kg (or 11lbs), it's a pretty big platform. Realistically, it'll be a commercial or even military application - one which doesn't offer the same kind of resistance to governance that a private entity might have. And at that size, it can likely be heard, or seen on radar making tracking and whereabouts easier.

I hate to be so cynical - but if there's one thing I've learned in life, it's that laws have very little to do with their publicized intent.

 

[MacPap]

That makes sense for above 5kg.

 

[mephisto]

Times 10 u'll have a Radar Echo.