Mavic mini and the new drone rules - UK

[TaylorL]

Ok i don’t really know what i’m doing

 

[Lastrexking]

Ok i don’t really know what i’m doing

With what?

 

[sli-woody]

I've had six run-ins with Police around the country. Four have been very easy to deal with, two not so much. On all six occasions I was flying as part of my job, and I work for the Government and have all of the required paperwork (and the weight of being a warrant card holder too) - but, they were still on one occasion threatening me with confiscating my gear.

Dam thats is $hi%%y . What happened exactly, would love to know now.

 

[TaylorL]

the website

 

[Lastrexking]

the website

What exactly? Maybe we can help.

 

[Zbip57]

I think the intention of the definition of MTOM [Maximum Take Off Mass] in the EU draft rules is that it's a figure that the drone manufacturer specifies, which is the sensible maximum mass of drone+payload in a flyable and fully controllable condition. Similar to maximum weight of a road vehicle being vehicle+fuel+passengers+cargo. In both cases you could possibly go beyond that weight but it would start to more adversely affect handling and reliability.

Agreed.
But, the Mavic Mini User Manual only specifies "Takeoff Weight=249g" as including battery, propellers, and microSD card. But we know for a fact that the Mini can and does safely take off when fitted with the additional prop guards supplied in the Fly More Combo. Under those circumstances the take off weight is clearly some number greater than 250g. Therefore the Mini's potential "maximum take off weight" is certainly greater than its normal 249g "Takeoff Weight".
With the CAA changing their wording from MTOM instead to "flying weight", it becomes much clearer that the regulation's weight threshold is intended to apply to the actual weight of the thing as it is currently being flown, as opposed to the theoretical potential maximum weight at which it could be flown.
In that regard, the CAA is doing a good thing.
My worry is that here in Canada the regs still refer only to "maximum take off weight", a number which is not explicitly declared anywhere by DJI, but is apparently greater than 250g.

 

[scro]

@Zbip57 I understand your worry exactly, as the maxiumum takeoff weight definition is quite ambiguous, particularly when considering the MM. I'm quite glad it's not in our current regulations, and looks like it won't be used for the sections of the proposed new UK regs that are applicable to the MM. Someone in Canada really mustn't like drones!

 

[Zbip57]

... the maxiumum takeoff weight definition is quite ambiguous, particularly when considering the MM. [...] Someone in Canada really mustn't like drones!

We went through a few years suffering under ridiculous "interim rules" that were imposed on us overnight without warning in a knee-jerk reaction to imagined threats and media hysteria. Fortunately our official regulations, when finally published, turned out to be mostly acceptable and certainly better than the US regs. For example, we no longer make any distinction between commercial or recreational flying. The only major distinction now is between basic or advanced licensing requirements. With the easier basic licence you are not permitted to fly within controlled airspace. If you have a need to do so, you must pass the advanced licensing tests which are much more stringent.
Anything under 250g is exempt from pretty much everything except the Cardinal rule of "don't be an idiot!", i.e. don't interfere with manned aviation and don't put people in danger. You still can't fly in specifically flight-restricted zones, such as over our Parliament Bldgs or over Niagara Falls etc.
Transport Canada has even explicitly responded to inquiries making it clear that the Mini is exempt due to its being under 250g. So I'm not that worried. It's just that in my career I've had experience dealing with lawyers and it's astounding how they can twist words into meaning something entirely different than you or anyone else had ever before understood them to mean. A regulatory definition or requirement that is ambiguous presents an open doorway to litigious lawyers.

 

[Skyfli]

That might just start up a debate about what is a toy and what isn't

Controlling my tello directly from my phone it struggles to get even to 100m away without losing signal (definition says can't be flown more than 120m away). However, with a simple wifi repeater in my pocket it can get to 300m or more away while maintaining a good signal. Tello marketing aims it at kids as much as grown ups... so... toy or not a toy??

Theyre all toys - even the military drones are toys. Boyz Toyz. Even if its a work tool. As life is just a game, a drama.. IMO But each to their own.

 

[Skyfli]

I've had six run-ins with Police around the country. Four have been very easy to deal with, two not so much. On all six occasions I was flying as part of my job, and I work for the Government and have all of the required paperwork (and the weight of being a warrant card holder too) - but, they were still on one occasion threatening me with confiscating my gear.

Were the millenial - lol effing...snowflakes

 

[Alex2]

On reflection, the new freedom to fly might well be short lived. A requirement for remote identification has been added also:

"
While the sections of the DR relating to Class C1, C2 and C3 unmanned aircraft already
describes requirements for these types to be fitted with a ‘direct remote identification’ system, the
IR amendment has now added a requirement from 1 January 2022 that operators must ensure
that each individual unmanned aircraft is installed with an active and up to date remote
identification system. If the unmanned aircraft is not fitted with such a system, details of the
requirements for a direct remote identification ‘add-on’ (for separate purchase) are contained in
Part 6 of the DR...".

It's not fully clear if the existing DJI remote ID via phone will be accepted in order to become compliant. If not, an add-on device will have to be added to the MM aircraft itself which will definitely take the weight over 249 grams.

 

[Zbip57]

It's not fully clear if the existing DJI remote ID via phone will be accepted in order to become compliant. If not, an add-on device will have to be added to the MM aircraft itself which will definitely take the weight over 249 grams.

One would hope that logic might prevail [as if that's ever happened].
On the one hand they consider anything under 250g is "safe" enough that it doesn't require registration. But now they're thinking about forcing you to make it even "safer" with the addition of a remote ID device which puts you into a less "safe" weight category. Oh ya, I can see that happening.

 

[Alex2]

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