Regs changes in the UK - Nov update

[gtmoulds]

My take too. I'm working under the assumption that ALL current drones are going to enter the Legacy classification at some point and I'm possibly going to need to replace my M2P as a result, but until this is 100% finalised there is still some wiggle room as to exactly what that will mean in terms of restrictions and when it will come into force. There is also a possibility that the CAA might decide that given models - especially the more popular ones like DJI's - might be grandfathered into one of the classifications without the necessary marking, although they are certainly not obliged to do this as the law is current written.

What I'm not clear on is whether or not it's even possible for a drone to get the classification mark yet, either in the UK or the EU; AFAIK, no drone currently on the market has one, and I'm not sure that if a new drone were to be released tomorrow it would be able to ship with one either. I can't imagine that manufacturers are going to be particularly keen on releasing newer models of higher-end drones without one given that clueful buyers are unlikely to want an aircraft that will become Legacy less than a year after purchase. Some more clarity on this (and some product annoucements!) would be just as welcome as updates to the operational requirements, IMHO.

I am led to believe after watching many of the 'experts' on youtube that DJI have added some notes on their website about a retro fit for existing models. Interestingly I cannot locate it neither does it seem that the new mavic mini is labelled accordingly which just seems a bit wierd.

 

[maelstrom]

Possibility of assigning “old” drones classes compliant with EU standards​

We would like to kindly inform you that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has informed the national aviation authorities that after December 31, 2020, it will be possible to convert unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) already placed on the market into UAVs marked with classes in accordance with the Commission Delegated Regulation ( EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on unmanned aircraft systems and third country operators of unmanned aircraft systems.

Whilst we are adopting most of the new EU regulations, I'm not sure if that will apply in the UK. In CAP 1789 (The EU UAS Regulation Package – Outline - https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1789 Edition3 June2020 cor.pdf), Annex C – Common questions, on page 44 it says:

Question 8:

8. Can an existing UAS be ‘retrospectively marked’ with a ‘C’ Class from 31 December 2020 (e.g. will my 3kg drone will become a ‘C2 Class’ aircraft)?

No, this is completely wrong! The ‘CE’ Class markings do not work retrospectively. So, a current 3kg aircraft, for example, will never become a C2 model; it will only ever be ‘a legacy unmanned aircraft that weighs 3kg’. In the same fashion, a current 800g aircraft will not become a C1 model; it is just ‘a legacy unmanned aircraft that weighs 800g’.

In order to be given a particular Class marking, the aircraft must have been designed and manufactured to the relevant standards of that class marking. The only way you can get an aircraft with a ‘CE class marking’ is to buy one that has this marking.

 

[zocalo]

Whilst we are adopting most of the new EU regulations, I'm not sure if that will apply in the UK. In CAP 1789 (The EU UAS Regulation Package – Outline - https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1789 Edition3 June2020 cor.pdf), Annex C – Common questions, on page 44 it says: ...

I think the EU change to allow grandfathering in was quite a recent development, presumably because of pressure from legacy drone owners and vendors like DJI, and certainly not something that was in place when I read through CAP1789 in June. Of course, the CAA no longer needs to align with the EU/EASA interpretation of the regs so they definitely do not need to follow suit (assuming the posts above are even correct and this is actually being implemented in the EU as neither are quoting official EU sources), but it does at least open the door to them doing so which would be great news for anyone that is perfectly happy with their current drone.

I guess we'll find out in 2021, if/when DJI et al release details of whatever retro-fit programs they might implement for the EU. If it's just firmware and posting a sticker, then I can see that happening easily enough, but if it's a hardware retrofit of some kind then perhaps not so much. If there is an upgrade programme in the EU, and stickers etc. are available, then it would be pretty churlish of the CAA not to allow eligable models to be grandfathered in once the update is applied as well, but time will have to tell.

Either way, pilots outside the EU that want to fly in the EU are likely to find it beneficial to get the upgrade and sticker just to avoid more onerous restrictions for legacy aircraft when they are visiting the EU. Hopefully DJI will realise that and allow anyone to get the potential update and sticker, regardless of where they live, rather than just use this as an excuse to try and sell more drones.

 

[maelstrom]

assuming the posts above are even correct and this is actually being implemented in the EU as neither are quoting official EU sources

Unlike the quote from the CAP 1789 document which (whilst it might still change) is official. Either way, as a Mini owner I’m probably in the best position as it will continue to have the least restrictions of any drone, even beyond 2023. By the time I get around to upgrading, I’m sure that all new (serious) drones will come with the CE markings from the outset.

 

[Hiwayman]

I think the EU change to allow grandfathering in was quite a recent development, presumably because of pressure from legacy drone owners and vendors like DJI, and certainly not something that was in place when I read through CAP1789 in June. Of course, the CAA no longer needs to align with the EU/EASA interpretation of the regs so they definitely do not need to follow suit (assuming the posts above are even correct and this is actually being implemented in the EU as neither are quoting official EU sources), but it does at least open the door to them doing so which would be great news for anyone that is perfectly happy with their current drone.

I guess we'll find out in 2021, if/when DJI et al release details of whatever retro-fit programs they might implement for the EU. If it's just firmware and posting a sticker, then I can see that happening easily enough, but if it's a hardware retrofit of some kind then perhaps not so much. If there is an upgrade programme in the EU, and stickers etc. are available, then it would be pretty churlish of the CAA not to allow eligable models to be grandfathered in once the update is applied as well, but time will have to tell.

Either way, pilots outside the EU that want to fly in the EU are likely to find it beneficial to get the upgrade and sticker just to avoid more onerous restrictions for legacy aircraft when they are visiting the EU. Hopefully DJI will realise that and allow anyone to get the potential update and sticker, regardless of where they live, rather than just use this as an excuse to try and sell more drones.

As you say zocalo, I'm happy with my M2Ps and was pleased to see there may be just a glimmer of hope for these drones being brought up to the CE standard.

 

[gtmoulds]

Whilst we are adopting most of the new EU regulations, I'm not sure if that will apply in the UK. In CAP 1789 (The EU UAS Regulation Package – Outline - https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1789 Edition3 June2020 cor.pdf), Annex C – Common questions, on page 44 it says:

Question 8:

8. Can an existing UAS be ‘retrospectively marked’ with a ‘C’ Class from 31 December 2020 (e.g. will my 3kg drone will become a ‘C2 Class’ aircraft)?

No, this is completely wrong! The ‘CE’ Class markings do not work retrospectively. So, a current 3kg aircraft, for example, will never become a C2 model; it will only ever be ‘a legacy unmanned aircraft that weighs 3kg’. In the same fashion, a current 800g aircraft will not become a C1 model; it is just ‘a legacy unmanned aircraft that weighs 800g’.

In order to be given a particular Class marking, the aircraft must have been designed and manufactured to the relevant standards of that class marking. The only way you can get an aircraft with a ‘CE class marking’ is to buy one that has this marking.

Apparently there is info on the DJI site about which models will be considered for retro fit by manufacturer and they allegedly have legal reps all over the world consulting with individual authorities to maintain compliance.

 

[scro]

Heliguy has just published a blog post on this too:

Can DJI Drones Be Retrospectively Class Marked?

Current DJI drones could receive retrospective class markings to enable pilots to enjoy greater freedoms under UK drone regulations. Indeed, the DJI Mavic 3 has just become the first drone in the world to become C1 class marked in Europe, with a retrospective class-marking procedure, while the...

www.heliguy.com

It does make a lot of sense to allow retrospective CE classification. After all, if an existing drone can be made (or already is) technically compliant then why should it not be allowed retrospective classification if the exact same drone could be given classification were it to be sold as a "new model"?

 

[old man mavic]

i hope that something can be done to allow my trusty old MPP to fly with the less restrictive separation distances that my A2 C of C will allow me to do next year,especially as if i fit the prop guards, and go into Tripod mode, then the MPP is well inside the low airspeed requirements for the reduced distances to be used ,and even without the prop guards fitted it would comply as Tripod mode is slower than the maximum low speed mode that the new C rated drones will have
i am sure DJI will have been doing testing to see if the older drones can meet the new impact to people , based on the mass and weight of the drone ,time will tell

 

[scro]

I too, look forward to their response. It may take "up to 28 working days" so we might just find out some time next year... patience ?

I'll post up what response I get?

So... the CAA replied today. That was quicker than expected! Here is what they said:

Thank you for your email.

CAP1789 was issued as advance information regarding the new regulations and is imminently going to be withdrawn.

Please refer to the more current CAP722 for the most up to date and correct information and reflects the exact wording of the regulation.

I hope this clarifies.


Kind regards,

@old man mavic Tagging you as you'd mentioned you would be interested in what they responded with ?

 

[old man mavic]

So... the CAA replied today. That was quicker than expected! Here is what they said:

Thank you for your email.

CAP1789 was issued as advance information regarding the new regulations and is imminently going to be withdrawn.

Please refer to the more current CAP722 for the most up to date and correct information and reflects the exact wording of the regulation.

I hope this clarifies.


Kind regards,

@old man mavic Tagging you as you'd mentioned you would be interested in what they responded with ?

thanks for the heads up

 

[gtmoulds]

Im Already Looking at CAP722..... Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace – Guidance (caa.co.uk)

 

[scro]

I've been pondering this retrospective CE classification...

If the MA2 were to get retrospective classification it would presumably get classed as a C1 UAS (<900g, max speed of 19m/s) and hence you'd be allowed to fly in A1 (not over people) category without the A2CofC. The only advantage the Mini1 and 2 would have then is you can fly over people but not "assemblies of people".

More interestingly the M2P and M2z would only very narrowly miss out on potential C1 classification. Just 7g (pro) and 5g (zoom) over the 900g weight limit and just 1m/s over the max speed limit!

 

[maelstrom]

So... the CAA replied today. That was quicker than expected! Here is what they said:

Thank you for your email.

CAP1789 was issued as advance information regarding the new regulations and is imminently going to be withdrawn.

Please refer to the more current CAP722 for the most up to date and correct information and reflects the exact wording of the regulation.

I hope this clarifies.


Kind regards,

@old man mavic Tagging you as you'd mentioned you would be interested in what they responded with ?

This doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not an existing drone will be allowed to be retrospectively given a CE class certification (unless I just missed that in CAP 722). Based on the previous comments from the CAA that this wouldn't be allowed, nothing in CAP 722 appears to change that.

 

[scro]

This doesn't seem to answer the question as to whether or not an existing drone will be allowed to be retrospectively given a CE class certification (unless I just missed that in CAP 722). Based on the previous comments from the CAA that this wouldn't be allowed, nothing in CAP 722 appears to change that.

Correct, it doesn't answer that question. The discussion in this thread hadn't moved on to the topic of retrospective classification when I emailed the CAA. We were discussing whether the horizontal distance limit for C0 aircraft and the corresponding legacy aircraft was limited to 120m or VLOS, and that was my question to the CAA.

It would be interesting to know if the CAA's view on retrospective classification have changed since publication of CAP1789. I suspect it's under review at the moment.

 

[maelstrom]

I suspect it's under review at the moment.

I agree. As an aside, CAP 722 says this about the C0 class:

Class C0 - (can be flown in all subcategories)
Very small unmanned aircraft, including toys, that:
• are less than 250g maximum take-off mass
• have a maximum speed of 19m/s (approx. 42.5 mph)
• are unable to be flown more than 120m (400ft) above the take-off point

Note the last bullet point. Not "are not allowed to be flown more than 120m above the takeoff point" but "are unable to be flown more than 120m above the takeoff point". Interesting choice of words. None of the other classes include this bullet point. I wonder how this would affect flying your drone up a hill side whilst maintaining 120m above ground level, but not necessarily above the takeoff point.

 

[scro]

I agree. As an aside, CAP 722 says this about the C0 class:

Class C0 - (can be flown in all subcategories)
Very small unmanned aircraft, including toys, that:
• are less than 250g maximum take-off mass
• have a maximum speed of 19m/s (approx. 42.5 mph)
• are unable to be flown more than 120m (400ft) above the take-off point

Note the last bullet point. Not "are not allowed to be flown more than 120m above the takeoff point" but "are unable to be flown more than 120m above the takeoff point". Interesting choice of words. None of the other classes include this bullet point.

That caught my attention too. I wonder how you demonstrate that? Is having the software altitude limit set to <120m sufficient?

Being pedantic, the second bullet point is interestingly worded too. The Mini and Mini2 definitely don't have a maximum speed of 19m/s, as seemingly required. I do suspect they mean the maximum speed should be no greater than 19m/s, but that's not what is written?

 

[gtmoulds]

I agree. As an aside, CAP 722 says this about the C0 class:

Class C0 - (can be flown in all subcategories)
Very small unmanned aircraft, including toys, that:
• are less than 250g maximum take-off mass
• have a maximum speed of 19m/s (approx. 42.5 mph)
• are unable to be flown more than 120m (400ft) above the take-off point

Note the last bullet point. Not "are not allowed to be flown more than 120m above the takeoff point" but "are unable to be flown more than 120m above the takeoff point". Interesting choice of words. None of the other classes include this bullet point. I wonder how this would affect flying your drone up a hill side whilst maintaining 120m above ground level, but not necessarily above the takeoff point.

The 120m point is illustrated clearly in the current CAA guidelines ( the picture actually shows a hill ) which will be adopted in the new rules.

 

[scro]

If you read the criteria for C0 classification in CAP722 it explicitly refers to the take-off point as the datum for the 120m max altitude, not the ground immediately under or around the drone during the flight. This means with a C0 class drone you aren't allowed to fly straight up to 120m altitude, fly towards a mountain and "follow" the slope up to a higher altitude. This is clearly doesn't follow the same logic as other classes, where they have to remain "within 120m of the nearest point of the earth" - ie within a 120m bubble around the ground, mountains, cliffs etc.

I really don't think that's the intention of the wording, but that is exactly what the official document says, and it is difficult to interpret those words any other way.

 

[maelstrom]

The 120m point is illustrated clearly in the current CAA guidelines ( the picture actually shows a hill ) which will be adopted in the new rules.

There are a couple of significant differences between the existing regulations the new ones. The existing drone code says to never fly more than 120m above the surface whereas, for the C0 class, the new regulations talk about 120m above the take-off point. I'm hoping that this is just a poorly written order as page 36 of CAP 722 says for VLOS operations: "The ‘operating height’ is limited to a maximum distance of 400 feet (120 metres) from the closest point of the earth’s surface"

Additionally, we are the ones who currently limit the height we fly our drones to 120m whilst the new regulations talk about the C0 class being unable to be flown above 120m which sounds like some type of hardware/firmware limitation. Again, it may just be a poor choice of words but, as i mentioned in an earlier post, it's odd that none of the other classes specify this.

Interestingly, and as mentioned briefly in the first post in this thread, the VLOS explanation on page 36 of the guide says: "The CAA will normally accept that the VLOS requirement is met when the UA is flown out to a distance of 500 metres horizontally from the remote pilot, but only if the aircraft can still be seen at this distance". I don't recall seeing the VLOS distance specified before, but am happy to be corrected on this.

 

[gtmoulds]

OK...another angle I wish to explore. Making money. If assuming I will be flying with a kind of amnesty in the open category over 250gms until 2023 as it is presently proposed...Will I then be able to operate 'commercially' i.e set up a money for service business. Unless I have missed something in the million pages I cant seem to get a clear indication on that.