Not good news for EU owners

spudster · Oct 19, 2021

Hopefully they will change this before it goes into affect.

spsphotos · Oct 20, 2021

Thankfully I don't ever plan on flying in the EU.

. Draconian government.

eEridani · Oct 20, 2021

The video has a lot of concern over Class 0 drones, but Class 1 is right there, with the only limitation being 'don't fly over people' - which is hardly a problem, and the added requirement you register your drone and pass some training. From the wording I'd expect TRUST like levels of online training and test, not Part 107 training and tests.

Hardly Draconian. More like getting a drivers license.

Madmyke · Oct 23, 2021

Well nothing new. this guy explain what is in fact the situation since 1 of Jan 2021. He is late.

maelstrom · Oct 25, 2021

This certainly doesn't seem to change anything in the UK. See this video from 8 October 2021 where the CAA rep confirms that the sub-250g drones will not be affected after December 2022:

Soutero · Oct 25, 2021

In Poland we can do NSTS (cost is about 150 EUR) and fly in according to rules similar to the old ones (we choose the safe distance from people for example). It's valid until 1st December 2025. Maybe there's a hope for other countries in EU to prepare NSTS also.

peterf · Oct 25, 2021

eEridani said:
The video has a lot of concern over Class 0 drones, but Class 1 is right there, with the only limitation being 'don't fly over people' - which is hardly a problem, and the added requirement you register your drone and pass some training. From the wording I'd expect TRUST like levels of online training and test, not Part 107 training and tests.

Hardly Draconian. More like getting a drivers license.

Drone class is only half the story, you also have your operation subcategories. At the end of the current transition period, any existing drone without a class label (that is all of them) heavier than 250g will be restricted to operating in A3 meaning you have to stay away from urban areas altogether even if you as an operator are cleared for A1 or even A2.

The only real point I seem to be able to extract from the video is an interpretation that the way the MTOM figure is calculated may push some of these sub-250 drones over the edge when things like prop cages are factored in even if the user is not putting them on. However it's up to the manufacturer to declare that MTOM with the maximum payload factored in, and correct me if I'm wrong but the video seems to provide no solid evidence that DJI will have to go back and change it for the old minis on account of the prop cage.

maelstrom · Oct 25, 2021

peterf said:
However it's up to the manufacturer to declare that MTOM with the maximum payload factored in

Not necessarily for legacy drones. In the UK, for legacy drones below 250g the current regulation in CAP 722 says the following:

2.2.1.4 Open category – interpretation of ‘Mass’/’Weight’

Although the UAS Regulations make reference to ‘maximum take-off mass’ (MTOM) throughout, as defined in Article 2 of the UAS IR, this term creates some confusion when referring to ‘home built’ or other ‘legacy’ unmanned aircraft where an MTOM has not been defined by the manufacturer. The term ‘take-off mass’ is also used when referring to legacy aircraft, but only within one article (Article 22 – transitional arrangements) and the term is not specifically defined.

To clarify the situation the UK interprets these terms within the Open category only as follows:

Unmanned aircraft marked with a Class marking (C0 to C4) – MTOM will continue to be used as defined.

Unmanned aircraft without a Class marking – any reference to MTOM or ‘take-off mass’ should be taken to mean the weight of the unmanned aircraft at the point of take-off for that particular flight (which is referred to as the ‘flying weight’)

peterf · Oct 25, 2021

maelstrom said:
*

I can't really speak to the UK's current interpretation or how they plan to carry things forward post-Brexit or indeed if anything on the EU side supercedes what's highlighted in the video, I was reacting to the EASA page that's cited in the video and the assertions that the uploader derived from that.