|
Title: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: Gulzaar on May 18, 2016, 06:47:31 PM Hello all,
I received two emails today about suggestions to the DGCA guidelines which have been requested to send to the DGCA by May 21. Both suggestions are fine for the most part, but both include suggesting a ban on cameras. A ban on cameras would effectively kill the FPV aspect of the hobby for good. My question is - the original DGCA guidelines did not mention anything about cameras, so we should we mention it for them? Leave the rest of the suggestions in place, just omit the section on cameras. In all honesty, though, we should just ask them to exempt everything below 500 grams for multirotor craft and below whatever weight you guys decide for planes. Anything above that weight is subject to whatever regulation you'd like. Here are the two drafts: https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3w07wazszpa4m8/Dgca_draft%202016_pgm.docx?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/189io568urqsv1v/DGCAExem.doc?dl=0 Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: SK1701 on May 18, 2016, 07:12:27 PM Looks like the LOSers are trying to kill FPV for good. Even the AMAI draft letter is similar to this. What I fail to understand is why they have to ask for guidelines SPECIFICALLY TARGETING FPV pilots, especially since the DGCA draft did not even mention these points. You go fly your big gassers with 72 MHz radio LOS, and leave us alone if you're not willing to help us. Anyway, it looks like they are missing their chance to move with the times. Too bad AMAI and others, you're going the way of the dinosaur. FPV racing is the future, and you have to be blind not to see it. It is not that you can stop us from flying FPV anyway. I am honestly quite disappointed to have such an organisation claiming to represent us.
Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: Himadri Roy on May 18, 2016, 07:22:34 PM NOT AT ALL COOL! AMAI IS CLEARLY TRYING TO PUSH ASIDE FPV FLYERS TO SAFEGUARD THEIR OWN INTEREST! :banghead: :banghead:
And yes I am shouting, really pisses me off how grown up adults can act so childish(Looking at their own interests by crushing others)! Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: mateen270 on May 18, 2016, 07:51:29 PM Totally disagree with point 3 why mention what dgca has not in their previous draft? We should be allowed to mount a camera on. I would like to know why so many senior members are against fpv? I'm sure you would love it if you gave it a shot. Please reconsiderand and do not mentioning the camera for the future flyers of India. Peace.
Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on May 18, 2016, 08:21:10 PM And I am planning to enter FPV... :-\
Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: flyingboxcar on May 18, 2016, 09:08:00 PM Gulzaar
DGCA guidelines very clearly mention about no payload, and payload is again defined, so Cameras (or any other payload) were already covered by DGCA. Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: SK1701 on May 18, 2016, 09:35:15 PM Payload is defined in the DGCA circular as "All components of equipment on board a UAV that are not needed for the flight or for its control. Its transport aims exclusively to fulfill a specific mission.". As far as I'm concerned, an FPV camera/ system is needed for control of my ZMR. HD recording cameras may be a problem then but (a) who's going to enforce it and (b) DVRs are always an option.
Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 09:37:12 PM That why my view is... don't worry too much about FPV and cameras ;)
Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: flyingboxcar on May 18, 2016, 10:27:27 PM "As far as I'm concerned"
The problem is not what you are concerned with, but what Govt (Read DGCA) is concerned with :giggle: Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: SK1701 on May 18, 2016, 10:38:26 PM If they haven't bothered to be more specific, then the guidelines are open to interpretation. If they start enforcing any of these guidelines, let alone the minutiae of what does and does not constitute payload, then I will comply to their standards.
Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: rockinaero on May 18, 2016, 10:45:03 PM FPV would never see the light of the day if cameras are banned. Maybe a law permitting to be flown within designated areas.
I would suggest to refer to the laws which are being drafted by the FAA , EASA and other countries for cameras/FPV flying. Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 10:54:22 PM DGCA is open to such suggestions and rules in other countries. It seems some of our members want to tread the opposite path
Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: Ahmad Ilyas on May 20, 2016, 10:58:27 AM well my suggestion is that a rc plane or multirotor weighing more than a particular weight should be registered
that could be a hell lot better than ban on cameras Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: akki on June 01, 2016, 08:20:44 PM I suggest going with the FAA guidelines.
It will allow us to fly atleast 500 mts high and also 5 km range. Im a hobby photographer. I need those height and range for a good trip video. I think my fellow hobby photographers would like it too. Title: Re: DGCA guidelines suggestions Post by: Axis power on June 29, 2016, 10:18:30 PM Hi,
I wanted to let you know about this petition I just started on Change.org, "Directorate of General Civil Aviation (DGCA): Immediate Govt. regulation change regarding recreational Rc flying". You can read more about it and sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/directorate-of-general-civil-aviation-dgca-immediate-govt-regulation-change-regarding-recreational-rc-flying?recruiter=456616274 Created in struggle by the will of aeromodllers |