EU - anyone heard an update on when we get the first Class 1 drone?

[JoshC]

Its easy to arrive at that conclusion.

Currently sub 250g drones can fly in the A1 as their weight is classed as flying weight. A new C class drone is based on MTOM. So, if the mini 3, for example is released with a C0 rating it will need to be sub 250g MTOM which means it cannot have a MTOM greater then 250g which currently on the Mavic mini 2 it does becasue it can carry prop guards for example which take it over 250g MTOM. Thats why I suspect the mini 3 could be a C1 as the MTOM is going to be greater than 250g.

Obviously that’s still in A1 but with no intentional overflight of people


This is stated on the CAP2012 from the CAA. It’s the main difference that’s is being overlooked between legacy drones and C marked drones.

Yes but that comes down to the definition of MTOM for standard units. Prop guards aren't standard payload for the Mavic drones, as I said they aren't designed to be flown with a payload. Prop guards are mainly used for indoor flying where these rules don't apply.

It's up to the manufacturer to specify the MTOM based on the standard equipment. You can also strap a go-pro to your DJI mini, but that's not the standard drone that's sold.

Watch the video posted above, which is pretty clear about this issue.

 

[paul09]

Yes but that comes down to the definition of MTOM for standard units. Prop guards aren't standard payload for the Mavic drones, as I said they aren't designed to be flown with a payload. Prop guards are mainly used for indoor flying where these rules don't apply.

It's up to the manufacturer to specify the MTOM based on the standard equipment. You can also strap a go-pro to your DJI mini, but that's not the standard drone that's sold.

Watch the video posted above, which is pretty clear about this issue.

It’s clear on the issue with MTOM and legacy drones which I already knew. I’m just saying that for C class drones going forward MTOM is likely to be more than the actual weight of the drone. Obviously we will just have to wait and see what DJI and other manufacturers set the MTOM of their C class drones.

 

[EsaT]

@JoshC first off the drone makers will have to supply versions of their drones to the various countries for them to test them, and see if they meet the requirements of the C rating...

For EASA rules following countries drone maker needs to certify drone in only single country.
That's the whole point of standardized regulations/rules.
Problem is just that specifications for certifying process are far from ready.

With that bureucratic SNAFU extension of transitory period would be definitely sensible thing.

in the UK it will also require the pilot to have the A2 C of C certificate to be able to fly A2 class drones in the open category

Not sure about specifics of current post-brexit UK regulation, but to be precise at least in EASA countries there's no "A2 drone class":
A2 is operating category with its specific limits and requirements.
And while there's only one drone class, C2, into which those A2 rules are applied, C2 class drone can be flown also under A3 category, if conditions fit into A3 rules.

 

[old man mavic]

@EsaT you are correct it was a typo error should have said C2 class drones in the A2 rules of the open category thanks for pointing it out

 

[EsaT]

However the question is obviously 'when', and additionally whether drones on the market now will get retroactive classification, and whether existing drones will need to be sent to the manufacturer physically for certifcation.

Better not to hold breath:

Cx labels in 2022

It will take about a year before the first drones with a Cx label can appear on the European market. In this blog more information. What is a Cx label? According to EU legislation each drone should have a special label that states the aircraft (within a weight class) meets technical...

www.dronelicense.eu

I was recently in contact with Traficom (Finnish NAA and EASA member organization) and they said that specifics of even remote ID are still under work by some outside (consultant?) company and might maybe be ready in January.
(so we can prepare for more delays to milk money...)

And that retroactive classification is certainly mess even if drone fits into physical (size/weight) and hardware requirements.
Traficom's information was that it would need sending drone physically back to manufacturer, or its authorized service center for basically what's unreversible firmware update and putting new sticker onto it.
Not sure if that's official and final EASA's stand, or just the strictest possible reading of situation.

For drones made when coming of these regulations has been known and designed to be certified there would be way to make users to update firmware to regulation compliant one, or at least newer one taking changes to situation into account:
Just use GNSS provided date information to code firmwares of the drone to demand updating to get drone off the ground after some specific date.
That wouldn't even have to be instant cut off, but could start giving power on "nag screen" say 10 or 20 days before firmware's "expiration date".


So situation can be only described by this line from movie: Yeah... someone with experience screwed this pooch.

 

[EsaT]

I don’t believe it will be possible for the Mavic 3 to be in the C1 class. its based on MTOM and not weight. I think the mini 3 will end up being a C1 drone because although it weighs under 250g the MTOM will be over 250g.

Defining it by absolute maximum weight/mass at which drone can still take off doesn't really work.
There's simply no way for manufacturer to enforce that some regulations flaunting jerk won't bolt/tape on lots of extra weight:
To be able to resist wind to stay stationary/fly against it drone needs to have major power/lift reserve over what's needed for taking off at its specified weight, be it sub 250 grams or sub 900 grams.

This is good example of amount of that power reserve:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[paul09]

Defining it by absolute maximum weight/mass at which drone can still take off doesn't really work.
There's simply no way for manufacturer to enforce that some regulations flaunting jerk won't bolt/tape on lots of extra weight:
To be able to resist wind to stay stationary/fly against it drone needs to have major power/lift reserve over what's needed for taking off at its specified weight, be it sub 250 grams or sub 900 grams.

This is good example of amount of that power reserve:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Of course but the CAA in the UK have specified that MTOM is the criteria rather than flying weight. How they determine what that is for each class, is up to them. I agree though, it doesn’t really work and I have no idea how manufacturers will measure it.

 

[EsaT]

Of course but the CAA in the UK have specified that MTOM is the criteria rather than flying weight. How they determine what that is for each class, is up to them. I agree though, it doesn’t really work and I have no idea how manufacturers will measure it.

According to EASA MTOM is defined by the manufacturer:

The MTOM (maximum take off mass) will be defined by the manufacturer and written in the drone ​

manufacturer’s instruction.​

Page 10:​

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/de...am questions answers leisure drones 9 Dec.pdf​

 

[paul09]

According to EASA MTOM is defined by the manufacturer:

The MTOM (maximum take off mass) will be defined by the manufacturer and written in the drone ​

manufacturer’s instruction.​

Page 10:​

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/Livestream questions answers leisure drones 9 Dec.pdf​

Yes that’s the same for the UK. MTOM is measured by the manufacture but the CAA set the specific MTOM criteria to qualify for a particular class.

 

[JoshC]

Better not to hold breath:

Cx labels in 2022

It will take about a year before the first drones with a Cx label can appear on the European market. In this blog more information. What is a Cx label? According to EU legislation each drone should have a special label that states the aircraft (within a weight class) meets technical...

www.dronelicense.eu

I was recently in contact with Traficom (Finnish NAA and EASA member organization) and they said that specifics of even remote ID are still under work by some outside (consultant?) company and might maybe be ready in January.
(so we can prepare for more delays to milk money...)

And that retroactive classification is certainly mess even if drone fits into physical (size/weight) and hardware requirements.
Traficom's information was that it would need sending drone physically back to manufacturer, or its authorized service center for basically what's unreversible firmware update and putting new sticker onto it.
Not sure if that's official and final EASA's stand, or just the strictest possible reading of situation.

For drones made when coming of these regulations has been known and designed to be certified there would be way to make users to update firmware to regulation compliant one, or at least newer one taking changes to situation into account:
Just use GNSS provided date information to code firmwares of the drone to demand updating to get drone off the ground after some specific date.
That wouldn't even have to be instant cut off, but could start giving power on "nag screen" say 10 or 20 days before firmware's "expiration date".


So situation can be only described by this line from movie: Yeah... someone with experience screwed this pooch.

Interesting info, I know that Finland is often a leader in Europe on various matters like this, but ultimately can't proceed much further than the EU standard.

What I would really like is someone to release 480 gramme drone with similar specs to the Air 2S, which produces video and photo quality adequate for real estate jobs.

 

[EsaT]

Interesting info, I know that Finland is often a leader in Europe on various matters like this, but ultimately can't proceed much further than the EU standard.

I suspect specification/standard for certifying process might just move further away with EASA conference delayed.

Amsterdam Drone Week, EASA conference postponed over Omicron fears

Amsterdam Drone Week and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) High Level Conference on Drones are now scheduled for March 2022.

dronedj.com

Well, at least around home anything fitting A3 goes.
(and living couple km inside ADIZ area usually filing flight plans...)
But certainly makes it hard to get decide on any update from Mavic Pro Platinum without possible limits elsewhere.


With likely no need for the longest endurance in real estate jobs Autel Nano could work with its sub 250 gram weight guaranteeing least strict flying rules.
Sub 500 gram "legacy" drone becomes anyway A3 only after next year.
Though who knows when it's actually available with Autel's tradition of paper releases.
And ability to resist wind might be limited.

 

[ADB57]

I was looking to see if there were any other rated drones yet and came a cross this post so thought I would share, after seeing a few positive reviews online I took delivery of my C1 Flyhal FX1 on December 12th 2021. I was very shocked to see the class logo on, yet over the moon. It's partnered with MJX and is identical to the Bugs 16, which after some digging also holds the class 1 mark. I'm overjoyed with the image quality for the price too, it physically feels quality and flies well too. I also have a Phantom 3 standard and a Parrot Anafi although I don't have quite the same level of confidence in it, for £150 with 2 batteries it shapes up very well for the money.

 

[EsaT]

I was looking to see if there were any other rated drones yet and came a cross this post so thought I would share, after seeing a few positive reviews online I took delivery of my C1 Flyhal FX1 on December 12th 2021. I was very shocked to see the class logo on, yet over the moon. It's partnered with MJX and is identical to the Bugs 16, which after some digging also holds the class 1 mark. I'm overjoyed with the image quality for the price too, it physically feels quality and flies well too. I also have a Phantom 3 standard and a Parrot Anafi although I don't have quite the same level of confidence in it, for £150 with 2 batteries it shapes up very well for the money.

And that logo is fake/fraud/scam, because there are no authorities giving those class certificates and certifying specification isn't ready.
Not even sure if technical specification for remote ID is yet ready.

 

[ADB57]

And that logo is fake/fraud/scam, because there are no authorities giving those class certificates and certifying specification isn't ready.
Not even sure if technical specification for remote ID is yet ready.

I see its a friendly forum here. Like I said I was very surprised to see the mark on there which is why I did some digging around and, well..... I'm not the only one who has one. Here's a link to a YouTube video, if you want to skip to around 43 seconds in, I doubt a large established company like MJX would commit fraud. If you scroll roughly 2/3 of the way down their product page on the MJX website you can see an image with the battery partly removed and the C1 logo is definitely on there. BUGS 16 PRO - Bugs Series - MJX | Dream Of The Future

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Here's one of the videos that prompted me to buy it, half chrome is an amazing channel when it comes to drone reviews. Check 1 minute 45 seconds in, their flyhal also has the C1 logo on, though I didn't mentally register the information until it came to sticking my Operator ID on the other day.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[EsaT]

I see its a friendly forum here. Like I said I was very surprised to see the mark on there which is why I did some digging around and, well..... I'm not the only one who has one. Here's a link to a YouTube video, if you want to skip to around 43 seconds in, I doubt a large established company like MJX would commit fraud.

Frauding is standard practise for many Chinese makers.
Safety authorities regularly ban sales/mandate recalls of various China Export devices (like USB power supplies) claiming compliance with regulations.
No need to understand Finnish for dates of "judgment":
Etusivu - Marek
Etusivu - Marek
When buying Mavic Pro saw videos of third party Mavic battery charger, which would get automatic sales ban from any European safety auhority, because of mains voltage electric shock risk in case of break down.
And worst PC power supplies can be even literal fire hazards.

Why should drones themselves be any different from other electronics commodities in that frauding business, if even basic electric and fire safety regulations are skipped?


And if certifying was actually available DJI would have certainly made press release about that and how to get already received Mavic 3's updated for class certificate.

Why is it taking so long?​

However legislation is ready, further requirements have still to be formulated into specific standards. Subsequently, these standards must be officially published by the EU, in the Official Journal (OJEU). The deadline for creating the standards for class C0 to 4 is June 30, 2022.​

Cx labels in 2022​

Two months ago Finnish EASA member organization didn't have any estimates for real appearance of these drone classes.