RC India

General Topics => RC General Topics => Topic started by: vibranthobbies on April 24, 2016, 07:55:24 PM



Title: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 24, 2016, 07:55:24 PM
Dear All
Please read the draft guidelines as published by DGCA for public comments;
http://dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20circular/AT_Circular%20-%20Civil_UAS%28Draft%20April%202016%29.pdf

We can discuss here and compile our comments together.

Kumaran

Note : Thanks to Himadri for highlighting the above in the whatsapp group.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on April 24, 2016, 09:20:50 PM
Below 200 ft, we are ok, are we?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 24, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Sir,
1. What about UIN as per Clause 4 ?
2. AS per clause 5.3.b
"Aero modelling  activities  carried out within  the  premises  of  educational  institutions will  be  considered  as
recreational purposes"

So, what if we fly out side ?



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 24, 2016, 09:29:56 PM
They have totally ignored Aero Modelling.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on April 24, 2016, 09:31:08 PM
These guidelines seem aimed mostly at commercial UAS usage, withy hobby/ recreational uses added as an afterthought. I am pretty disappointed with these regulations for hobby flying. Here are my main concerns.
For the documents which need to be provided:
  • 4.2.c) Specification of UAS (manufacturer name, type, model number, year of manufacture, weight and size, type of propulsion system, flying capabilities
    in terms of maximum endurance, range and height, etc. including details of equipment) - this will be rather difficult to provide for custom built multirotors/ planes
  • (e)Permission for all frequencies used in UAS operations from Department of Telecommunication (Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing) - How are we supposed to get this when they won't even let a 2.4 GHz toy through customs?
  • (f)Copy of Unmanned Aircraft Flight Manual (UAFM) - how are we supposed to provide this for custom builds?
  • (g)Copy of Manufacturer’s maintenance guidelines for UAS;- Same as above.
Other regulations:
  • The identification plate (made of fire proof material) inscribed with UIN and RF ID tag or SIM shall be affixed to the UA, and appropriate makes to identify
    ownership. - will the DGCA be providing this? They have not mentioned any registration fee so I am not sure.
  • 10.12 The operator shall ensure that the UA is flown within 500m Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) during the entire period of the flight. (Applicable for micro and mini UA) - Does this mean FPV is illegal?  >:(
Equipment to be mounted on UASs:
  • GPS/ INS (with option to GPS tracking and Geo Fencing)/ Return Home option (mandatory in the event of failure) - What about 250 size racers? Foamies? Other small/ medium planes? Does that mean all our aircraft have to be fitted with autopilot systems? If the DGCA expect me to do this let them pay for the hardware.
  • SIM card slot for an app based tracking (Mandatory for Micro & Mini UA); - What? Where is all this hardware going to come from?

I want to know if any of our Aeromodelling bodies were involved in the formulation of these guidelines. They really seem to be throwing hobby pilots under the bus here. A simple online registrations system like the one implemented in the USA would be far better.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 24, 2016, 09:34:35 PM
Further as per 4.2.d
"Verification of character and antecedents of the operator and remote pilots from local sub-divisional police office"
Why it is required to get Identification number for the model ?

This is to be linked with UA OPERATOR PERMIT (UAOP)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 25, 2016, 09:43:59 AM
At the first look it appears HORRIBLE. I'd go though it in details. Also 200 ft. is too low. It should be made 400 ft. at least


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:02:25 AM
This looks stupid to me,

If someone is flying a custom made quad (250 size) it would still need a UIN?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:05:14 AM
The first question came to my mind is "Who has made this DRAFT?" does that person has ever tried to understand what aeromodelling is? or has just drafted this  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :violent: :violent: :violent: :violent:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 25, 2016, 10:14:53 AM
Satyaji
Did you see this clause ?
6.7 Import permission shall be obtained from DGCA based on which DGFT shall provide licence for import of UAS.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:19:38 AM
That is good, i dont mind getting an import license.

I have heard that some already have these kind of license. There are many guys in Mumbai who now buy and provide quad for the shooting purpose and they say that they have license to import these things. One of the seller got a 1200mm bit octa from Chinese supplier (RTF) and provided to one of my friend in 20 days that too without any custom hassle. So they might be talking about this only.

But the rules to regulate the use of UAS is stupid. It should make more sense or else no one buy fly or buy.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 25, 2016, 10:24:06 AM
It appears that UIN will be required for all UAS...even the micros and the minis. This is stupid and we must protest. In hobby related UASs, we assemble and disassemble the items, may change specs...some may get lost or damaged etc. Is it possible to get UIN for every piece? And that too after getting character certificate from police station? That opens us to the bribery issue.

- I suggest changing the classifications:
Micro - upto 4 Kg
Mini - 4 to upto 10 Kg
Midi - 10 Kg-25 Kg
Small - 25-150 Kg
Big - Greater than 150 Kg.

- With the above classifications, requirement of UIN should be exempted for Micro or at least make them self-register online without police involvement. This will exclude most hobby class quads and planes. Fireproof ID plates will only increase weight of small aircrafts

- The height for UAOP should be increased to 400 ft. This is the standard height around the world.

There are other ridiculous requirements for UAOP. They should clearly segregate the requirements of hobbyists from commercial activities.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 25, 2016, 10:31:01 AM
That is good, i dont mind getting an import license.
This is going to be like a WPC approval.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:36:05 AM
I know WPC  and ETA i have filled last year in AUG and still there is no update on it :headbang:

But i dont think its a bad thing if they are providing a license for sellers to import these kind of things then its a good thing. The method of providing or procuring one should be made simple unlike others. Or else no one will ever get one and continue doing the same as they are doing now.


It appears that UIN will be required for all UAS...even the micros and the minis. This is stupid and we must protest. In hobby related UASs, we assemble and disassemble the items, may change specs...some may get lost or damaged etc. Is it possible to get UIN for every piece? And that too after getting character certificate from police station? That opens us to the bribery issue.

- I suggest changing the classifications:
Micro - upto 4 Kg
Mini - 4 to upto 10 Kg
Midi - 10 Kg-25 Kg
Small - 25-150 Kg
Big - Greater than 150 Kg.

- With the above classifications, requirement of UIN should be exempted for Micro or at least make them self-register online without police involvement. This will exclude most hobby class quads and planes. Fireproof ID plates will only increase weight of small aircrafts

- The height for UAOP should be increased to 400 ft. This is the standard height around the world.

There are other ridiculous requirements for UAOP. They should clearly segregate the requirements of hobbyists from commercial activities.

Exactly, just imagine the mini toy grade quads whcih are available. And they are in different name but same model. We would need UIN for that too.?? Its stupid and ridiculous.

IMO this draft is just a way to push aero modelling down and out.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 25, 2016, 10:37:27 AM
Import licence will not be a blanket licence. It will be issued on case to case basis. So licensing is not going to be an easy process. First you have to approach DGCA for NOC. Then apply to DGFT for licence. How many times you are going to do that? But I think there is no licensing for parts. Only for RTF


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:39:11 AM
Right and these days there are customers who need RTF. There are guys who buy parts and assemble things but then there are many customer who just want a RTF or some kind of BNF version.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:41:04 AM
I want to know how there are people who are importing RTF since a long time. That too bigger size not like smaller but the Inspire or the latest phantom how they are doing it???

I tried to get a small RTF (220 sized) but before shipping fedex advised me to not ship it since it comes in drone and customs would not release it.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 25, 2016, 10:45:05 AM
I want to know how there are people who are importing RTF since a long time. That too bigger size not like smaller but the Inspire or the latest phantom how they are doing it???

I tried to get a small RTF (220 sized) but before shipping fedex advised me to not ship it since it comes in drone and customs would not release it.

Misdeclaration with some "setting" probably. Toy is the most preferred declaration


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:47:45 AM
Thats how I used to do but now they are strict and mostly open most of the packages.

Setting is for sure how they are doing it. Its technically not possible to get anything that works on any frequency since custom dont clear it without any ETA.

Hence i have stopped importing radio sets and selling the same :(


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 25, 2016, 10:54:31 AM
By the way, even after these regulations by DGFT/DGCA, the issue of WPC will still be there. So for anyone importing RTFs, I don't know how they will clear those items


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 25, 2016, 10:59:57 AM
True.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on April 25, 2016, 12:35:34 PM
We FPV flyers are now illegal. UAS has to be kept under 500m LOS  :headscratch: Looks like all the rules where drafted without any inputs from any aeromodeller..  :banghead:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 25, 2016, 02:20:17 PM
***


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 25, 2016, 02:28:10 PM
So what do we do? Let us read the draft notice in details and post suggestions here so that we may send comments to DGCA. Once the circular gets finalized there will be no way to change it. So whatever we do, we have to do now.

- I think we need to emphasize the fact that rules for hobbyists/recreational flyers and commercial flyers of big UAS cannot be clubbed together.  

- Micro and mini UAS (at least upto a certain weight) should be exempted from having UIN or self-registration can be suggested online. We have to mention that hobbyists with custom made quads will face problem if they have to get UIN for each piece. In fact there are some documents to be provided for UIN which are impossible to get. How can an ordinary flyer get WPC clearance ?

- The involvement of police should not come for hobbyists and recreational users flying mini or micro. This is the greatest hurdle for common flyers as police will demand money to issue character certificate

- Category of UA should be re-formulated (we need to discuss)

- The height requirement for UAOP should be increased to 400 ft. in line with the rest of the world.

- LHSs also need to formulate their opinions. Requirement of WPC should be dispensed with because running after 3 agencies - DGCA, DGFT and WPC will create enormous hurdles.

- There are many anomalies related to UAOP too. But we should first ask for making the altitude requirement to 400ft. Then most of us won't require UAOP. 200 ft is the height of a 20 storey building. And we have 60 storey or taller buildings in cities.

- I notice that there are other points which have been omitted. Its best not to raise them if not having them suits us. Why bring issues when they have failed to include it? Lets stick to the draft and comment only on that.

- There are some requirements in Para 10. I am not sure whether its applicable to everybody or to UAOP holders only.


I think if UIN requirement is dispensed with or made online without police verification upto a certain weight category then a major problem will be resolved.

Please post your views


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Dharmik on April 25, 2016, 03:25:34 PM
agree with above points.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: merin_83 on April 26, 2016, 12:23:43 AM
I would say UIN should be waved off for MICRO and for MINI its should be made available online..., and unrestricted airspace should not be only on education space, I should be able to fly micros in vacant land where no one is there  ... :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 02:05:41 AM
and unrestricted airspace should not be only on education space, I should be able to fly micros in vacant land where no one is there  ... :)

They don't exactly mean that. What they mean is that UA Operator permit (UAOP) won't be required for flying below 200ft. in non-prohibited area. I don't know why they mentioned educational area here...educational area is treated similarly as non-prohibited area. 200 ft restriction is still applicable in educational area.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 02:23:21 AM
Apart from the issues on UIN discussed earlier, just see how difficult is it to get UIN by an ordinary hobbyist. People will get fed up....either they won't be able to fly or have to fly illegally. Who will take all the hassles and carry out all these procedures for every single UA? It appears that having these procedures in place is like banning the hobby. Those who fly commercially can bear the hassle because they get paid for their service. But how many hobbyists will and recreational flyers will take the hassle for doing all these things?

4.2. Following documents are required to be submitted to DGCA for issue of UIN:

a) Address of Operator along with contact details with valid identity proof. In
case of a company/organization, TIN number will be accepted;
b) Purpose of operation of UA;
c) Specification of UAS (manufacturer name, type, model number, year of
manufacture, weight and size, type of propulsion system, flying capabilities
in terms of maximum endurance, range and height, etc. including details of
equipment); ...............not always possible for custom-made UA by hobbyists.............
d) Verification of character and antecedents of the operator and remote pilots
from local sub-divisional police office; ...........almost impossible if we have to get this for each UA. Police will demand money...
e) Permission for all frequencies used in UAS operations from Department of
Telecommunication (Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing); Almost impossible clause. Those importing UAs mention that they don't get WPC clearance. Is it possible for a hobbyist to run around for permission from WPC? RTFs are supposed to be cleared by WPC during import anyway. Why again? ...................
f) Copy of Unmanned Aircraft Flight Manual (UAFM); ...Most Chinese ones don't have a decent manual. Custom UAs don't even have a manual..........
g) Copy of Manufacturer’s maintenance guidelines for UAS;......WTF? Has anyone ever seen one?.......

The identification plate (made of fire proof material) inscribed with UIN and RF ID tag or SIM shall be affixed to the UA, and appropriate makes to identify ownership. .........will increase the weight of smaller UAs............

So having these rules in place is as good as having a ban in place. Either people won't be able to fly or people would have to fly illegally.

We need to put pressure to change these silly requirements. The best thing is to completely dispense with UIN requirement for smaller UAs or do self-registration online.

Those who have access to DGCA (some of the members apparently met them earlier)...please set up a meeting and explain the points. We don't want to fly illegally. But if they law is made impossible to comply, what is the purpose of such a law?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Swapnil on April 26, 2016, 06:15:59 AM
...
So having these rules in place is as good as having a ban in place. Either people won't be able to fly or people would have to fly illegally.

We need to put pressure to change these silly requirements. The best thing is to completely dispense with UIN requirement for smaller UAs or do self-registration online...

Completely agree with you Santanu. But how exactly should we 'put pressure'?

Strongly worded comments from an individual aren't going to work unless he's a high ranking government official.
Seeing how not many people have replied to even this topic, how do we gather support?

We should protest most aggressively against the necessity of a UIN for micro and mini UAs (particularly self-made ones).
As for the height and LOS range restrictions, I don't think they're going to be running around with laser range finders to check if we are crossing the limits.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 08:18:32 AM
Well...we can write letters seeking amendments. That's why they have uploaded the notice in draft form. That's all we can do. The more letters they get, the more they know that there are lots of people who would be affected by the issues. Whether it works or not, we need to try.

There are so many members in this group...even if one-fourth writes letters or send email then there will be significant numbers. Also some members belonging to this forum probably met Director General DGCA earlier. They should now seek a meeting and put forth our views.

In the letter/email simply writing that "we demand XYZ things" won't probably cut ice. We have to convince them somehow that they themselves will face problems with such restrictive rules. So it is in their interest to streamline the rules.

I agree with you about the height and LOS issues. After all who is going to verify them like traffic police ;) But still, we should mention these aspects because at least on paper let the figures be reasonable. You never know ...this is a draft rule...some wise guy in DGCA may suggest 100ft in the final circular...so we should ask for higher. Its bargaining :)

For every demand, we need to back up the same with solid argument. For example on the height issue, we can refer to the US rules which allow 400ft. They themselves said that they would align with international rules. Also we can argue that today's buildings are getting higher like 600-800 ft. If that does not impact aviation why would a 400ft. UA height cause problems? Similarly we need to back other demands by solid arguments and implementation problems they would face. If we can point out their problems rather than ours, that would have more effect.

By the way, is there any last date to send a response? We have to hurry before the final version is published


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Swapnil on April 26, 2016, 08:24:58 AM
Wow, you have great reasoning and bargaining skills!

But, like I mentioned before, very few people have responded here. So, maybe we ( hopefully you) can write on behalf of all RCIndians and add all our names in the 'signatures' list.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 08:28:56 AM
We can do that. But let us decide on the points and arguments first. In the post title I noticed that comments need to be sent by 21/05/2016. We still have time.

Also, if some members of this forum have access to media, please approach them when we finalize on our views.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 08:31:05 AM
So, maybe we ( hopefully you) can write on behalf of all RCIndians and add all our names in the 'signatures' list.

I can do that. But a letter without signatures and with lots of names cut no ice with govt agencies. Either a letter of that nature has to come from an organization representing lots of people on their "official letterhead". Or there should be lots of letters from individuals.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 08:33:47 AM
Some newspapers have printed the news about the guidelines

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/drones-face-net-of-rules-116042600056_1.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/dgca-finally-brings-drones-under-safety-radar/story-IQNU6q3vYaWFyAZDtbAmiJ.html


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on April 26, 2016, 12:38:11 PM
Address and last date for comments


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on April 26, 2016, 01:09:15 PM
Ref Para 2 Definitions Its very sad that though there is definition for Model Aircraft as an UA without payload the category of fliers (aeromodelling remote pilots) and their activity of Hobby flying activities has been completely left out in the parameters and considerations while drafting guidelines and definitions and all remote pilots have been grouped under one category.

Ref Para 4.1 Its ridiculously Impractical to even think that DGCA is contemplating issue of UIN to all Hobby pilots ( Ref Para 4.2 which is a Blasphemy for all Hobbyist) and their complete hanger of Model Aircraft's all across India. I would be damned if they are at-least capable and in a position to even manage just the commercial UAS operations across India ( They just don't have the ground presence, if they are planing to depend on the local cops who has a vision capability just to see and locate MA just 100mtrs out and 100ft above, Local Cop is only going to harass the hobbist and the few unaware DJI junkies) The Real UAS fliers (The capable systems) and the real threat are still going to be way out of the reach and radar of DGCA.

If they had copied FAA or any other civil aviation auth they should have at least copied 400ft ceiling like FAA which was very much warranted.

By stipulating UIN for all and UIN only for Indians They have killed the sport of RC flying by banning all foreign RC Pilots to India for all the prestigious meets like Ambby valley and AMAI. Let alone no consideration for the upcoming drone racing FPV Sports.

Ref Para 8 and 8.4 in conjunction with definition of Remote Pilots and Definition of Model Aircraft. By only exempting Micro under 2Kgs from requirements of Pilot trainings, Simple RC flying is too killed when today every modeler of repute can put together a RC Model Aircraft up to even 7-30 Kgs with Gas engines and turbines and when they fit in category beyond even mini and you fall under the category of certified pilots one who is expected to have taken a PPL training before operating these machines. Whereas the reality is thanks to the efficiency of muddling of DGCA and the Ilks Infrastructure for PPL training and Microlight Flying Scene is next to Non existent in India. Its ridiculous to think that there has been no consideration for kids under 18 like my son and his capability to fly and develop in this beautiful hobby.

Upcoming FPV Competitions and FPV Racing sports are not part of Commercial Civil UAS operation with payload. These category of pilots and their systems too form part of Hobby fliers and UAS systems.

The guidelines will kill the open source development, student projects and participation in various international competition by students and others by having no category for them and clubbing their classification along with Commercial Civil UAS operation with payload.

The guideline reeks of pessimistic prejudice that Indian Firms and Indians just cannot fabricate their own Aircraft Models and UAS and they can only import their models. . If its all Import license and impost permits and WPC clearance for import where the Bloody hell is Make in India.

Classification parameters are largely biased towards muti-rottor models only seems they have not even considered fixed wing capabilities and parameters.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: RCNeil21 on April 26, 2016, 01:56:05 PM
I agree with you sundaram sir :iagree:

But they arent even open to suggestions only "comments" would our comments be enough to change the guidelines? :banghead:



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on April 26, 2016, 04:28:25 PM
I have been following this discussion. I too feel that these guidelines will lead to harassment. I think a structured response clause by clause will catch their eye. Hence, I am attaching the format which may be used by individuals or rcindia as a whole to voice their concern. All of us can provide the inputs which can be combined or individuals can send their responses to DGCA.

They have deliberately made such guidelines to evoke/provoke response from the community. Otherwise they would have harmonized the rules as per FAA as they had said in the Oct 2014 circular.

Friends I am unable to upload the Word & Excel version of the file as it is not allowed  ??? Any way forward?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 26, 2016, 04:53:27 PM
Goodwork
Can you please send it to me by email in word or excel format as in my profile id.
I will use it as well put in our server so that everyone can download it.
Thanks
Kumaran


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on April 26, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
Your mail id is hidden...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: madaquif on April 26, 2016, 06:46:19 PM
Nothing relating to DGCA guidelines....but just wondering....

God alone knows what's our future.....today UAVs.....tomorrow...cars....day after all geared bikes....then all mopeds (ungeared)....finally bicycle....and to close deal....kids tricycle....will be banned some day...

I cant imagine India with out toys....neither for kids nor grownups...

Basically we are forming a toy less nation without any innovation....
We are just forgetting the famous proverb ....all work no play makes jack a dull boy....  :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

SO ARE WE GONNA BECOME A DULL NATION ??? ??? ???

I just HOPE NOT and hope DGCA thinks about finding solution to our problems ...AND NOT INCREASING OUR PROBLEMS.




Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on April 26, 2016, 06:49:34 PM
Goodwork
Can you please send it to me by email in word or excel format as in my profile id.
I will use it as well put in our server so that everyone can download it.
Thanks
Kumaran
Check your PM.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 26, 2016, 07:07:00 PM
Thanks. Uploaded and the File available in the below links in word / excel formats
http://www.rchyper.com/docs/Comments.docx
http://www.rchyper.com/docs/Comments.xlsx



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 07:31:06 PM
Great job ! Is it possible to upload this doc to Google spreadsheet or somewhere and construct with a form which will insert data in the spreadsheet? Then members can easily fill in the form and will will have the consolidated response in a single file


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 07:34:27 PM

Upcoming FPV Competitions and FPV Racing sports are not part of Commercial Civil UAS operation with payload. These category of pilots and their systems too form part of Hobby fliers and UAS systems.

FPV racing sports is basically finished even before it starts in India. I thought about it but when the whole hobby is in danger due to UIN requirements, FPV is out of question.

I am just fed up. All these noise about India being a superpower and scientific power and so on, they have stifled everything by a single circular :( Backward looking persons are at the helm.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: wtg on April 26, 2016, 10:28:00 PM
.
.
Guys sitting here and commenting won't help. You have to actually submit a response.
Being a RC Fan myself, I would like to see a better future for this hobby in India and I think this is the right time to act and make sure the Guidelines are set right. 

Just like large number of people submitted response for Net neutrality and changed the game, you have to step up and do it. Now you will say easier said than done so,  I am going to make it easy and divide into 3 way process.


Step 1 : Finalise the standard response  

 
The senior members on forum with better knowledge on the subject, please discuss and prepare a standard response that we all will send to DGCA.

Please use This Google Doc.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZclfrXCGlLSGFldKp0Xt4ALs8nVn7B4i6v1PFAE2xQ/edit?usp=sharing


Step 2 : Responding mechanism

Once we have the response, I will make it as a template and setup a system where anyone can put his email ID , name and press send (After reviewing the msg of-course), the response will be sent to DGCA as a separate email from his id.
The more number of emails they get the better it will be.
 

Step 3 : Reach-out to masses


I will make sure the msg reaches out to all the forum members / RC Activities / Photographers and other hobby guys along and will encourage them to actually send a response.  Will need help from Admin to send it out to forum members, rest I can manage myself from various means (Facebook Ads, Google Ads, emails etc).

I have even 10L email database of tech users from india whom I can reach out as well.

Time is less, act now


I am going to do it, Whether you guys come out of your comfort zone or not so better you do and make it a success.

What I need from you

1. In Next 1 week (by Next Tuesday), Please Prepare a response considering all the options and be reasonable with it.
2.  From Admin, If you can create this comment as a separate thread and pin it for few days ? We have very less time and too much to do.


I can be reached out on chandra@subhash.cc  and below is my linkedin profile for identity

https://www.linkedin.com/in/subhashchy





Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: kartikshah on April 26, 2016, 11:17:40 PM
We need to firstly distinguish what we modellers need.

Will list out what we think should be clarified eventually in the final rules.

Will also list out or comment on what others have mentioned.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 26, 2016, 11:26:57 PM


Step 1 : Finalise the standard response  

 
Please use This Google Doc.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZclfrXCGlLSGFldKp0Xt4ALs8nVn7B4i6v1PFAE2xQ/edit?usp=sharing



There is already a well structured Word/Excel file posted above by vibranthobbies for posting para-wise comments. These are at http://www.rchyper.com/docs/Comments.docx
http://www.rchyper.com/docs/Comments.xlsx

If you can upload it at google docs and make a form for inserting response into either of them (excel one would be better?) then it would be better.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on April 26, 2016, 11:32:46 PM
Yes.....the exact response clause by clause would be very good and meaningful......DGCA would be more interested in reading response against their own guideline rather than reading an alien document....I think the document prepared by me and finally uploaded by vibranthobbies if can be uploaded as googleform will be very good....anyways I will try to find a way to upload that as googleforms by tomorrow...





Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: wtg on April 26, 2016, 11:41:19 PM
That sounds good. Doing it.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: allthatido on April 27, 2016, 12:00:51 AM
I would also like to know if AMAI is doing anything in this regard. We should prepare a response and would be more than willing to sign and send.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 27, 2016, 12:08:41 AM
My wish
1. Exempt UA less than 250 gram from Registration. This is similar to FAA Rules. Imagine registering Cx10 and small toy helis with DGCA.
2. Provide a simple online registration form for UAs less than 20kg (Mini & Micro) and used for recreational purpose in uncontrolled airspace. Registration number along with basic information of model with photo of the person and model can be printed and carried in hand while flying. Of course we will install Registration number on the model.

It is to be noted that a person who intend to cause damage is not going to get UIN or pilot license which is not realised by DGCA. Instead they are simply harassing common man who is either going to quit the hobby or going to try religiously to comply to these rules without success.

DGCA shall establish No fly Zones in cooperation with State Govt. and local security agencies and local govt agencies shall install suitable warning symbols in these areas. Public shall be made aware about these No fly Zones and to report any flying activities in these no fly zones. This way there is a possibility to stop a  malicious attempt by local police when they receive message from public.

I am preparing my comments line by line will share.

Kumaran


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on April 27, 2016, 12:15:50 AM
Guys as far as commercial use of UAS is concerned the guidelines are almost perfect by the book drafting with one exception, aspect that there has been no consideration for those who have assembled their own platforms and using it today. I am highlighting this because when it comes to the question of  flight worthiness it is a big merry go around when dealing with any  Civil Aviation Authority.

I am too drafting para by para inclusions required in the draft to include hobby/recreational/Sports RC pilots interest too. This I am too forwarding in personal capacity in Demi Official Position. Give me time till monday. Will post para by para amendment required to guard our interest and will be sharing in all Fora of Hobby Community.

Someone can start a Change.org petition too on that to express our consolidation on those aspects. Similarly all can send similar recommendation from all quarter's.

Kumaran you jumpèd the gun buddy while I was typing. Yours are valid points already in mind to be included. Yes lets work on it. Compare notes by weekend and consolidate response.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 27, 2016, 12:55:34 AM
My wish
1. Exempt UA less than 250 gram from Registration. This is similar to FAA Rules. Imagine registering Cx10 and small toy helis with DGCA.
2. Provide a simple online registration form for UAs less than 20kg (Mini & Micro) and used for recreational purpose in uncontrolled airspace. Registration number along with basic information of model with photo of the person and model can be printed and carried in hand while flying. Of course we will install Registration number on the model.

I think we should demand upto 1 Kg/2Kg for exemption. If you ask for 2 Kg. they'd probably give exemption upto 500 gms :)

If there is option for online self-registration (say AADHAR based, which will identify the person) then there is no problem in registering. The main thorny issue in respect of registration are

- police verification / character certificate
- WPC certification

If these two clauses remain, then flying legally would be virtually impossible.

- Also this fireproof number plate is likely to increase weight in mini quads e.g. for FPV
- The issue of 200ft altitude also has to be taken up. It should be made 400ft

If these issues are taken care of then we'd be able to fly legally.

When I sent a letter to DGCA earlier, I included a proposal for online self registration. Unfortunately there is nothing of that sort in this draft circular. If they had considered AADHAR based online registration then police verification would not have been required. Here's a quote from that part of the letter
Quote
Proposal for Online Self-Registration System for recreational users of UAV using e-Governance

-   A web portal may be created for self-registration of UAV fliers and their UAVs
-   Flyers can be citizens of India or International tourists and can self-register themselves online. This will be a one-time registration
-   Domestic flyers may be identified and linked with Aadhar Card Number or Election Identity Card number
-   International flyers may be identified and linked with their passport numbers
-   Once the person self-registers himself/herself online, he/she can register one or more UAVs flown by him/her
-   Photos, weight and other capabilities of the UAV e.g camera, FPV, telemetry etc. and similar details can be uploaded by the user himself/herself
-   After entering details of UAV, a printout of UAV identification number can be generated from the system and pasted on the UAV itself
-   Places where they are likely to fly can be entered online by the user himself. For example, if someone wants to fly in Goa, he/she will enter the time and dates and locations online. Flying locations can be indicated out on a Google Map mashup at the site or just mentioned.
-   The map can also automatically display restricted areas where flying should not be done. Time based restricted areas can also be shown e.g. around Red Fort area on August 15
-   After the user registers the location to fly (which can be a date or a range of dates) he/she can generate a printout, which he should carry with himself at the time of flying. Authorities can also ask for the slip anytime from the flier


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 27, 2016, 01:15:09 AM
Agree.

Dear All,
It is preferable that we all create unique responses instead of duplicating.
However, we will discuss and agree to some common points to be highlighted using our own words.

Some of the common points in my mind;
Sundaram sir rightly said that the draft is perfect for Commercial drones. Hence, I use the term Model Aircraft hereafter instead of UA.

1. Exempt Model Aircraft less than 1 KG from Registration.
2. Provide a simple online registration form for Model Aircraft less than 20kg (Mini & Micro).
3. Revise Height limit upto 400feet.
4. No WPC involvement since frequencies like 2.4ghz/5.8Ghz used by us are already exempted by WPC from licensing requirement. Further, ETA and Import license for TX/RX are already obtained by the Seller and it is not possible to obtain by Modeller.
5. Exemption for RTH, SIM, GPS etc.
6. No police verification. However, while flying police can verify for availability of registration.
7. Allow FPV Flying with standby spotter.





Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 27, 2016, 01:25:01 AM
Deleted. Wrong post.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 27, 2016, 01:29:03 AM
Agree to all the points. I too think that sending separate letters broadly covering all the points will be helpful. Those who send letters can post their drafts here for others to see.

Before using the term "model aircraft" we need to clarify what exactly we mean by that. There are drones, helis and all sorts of things. How they differ from UA should be explained clearly else babus who deal with the matter will again raise issues with that.

The term "recreational use", "hobby" and "non-commercial" use should be emphasized.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 27, 2016, 01:32:53 AM
The definition in the guideline says
Model Aircraft - Unmanned  Aircraft  (UA)  without  payload  used  for recreational purposes only.

Google search on aircraft results
"an airplane, helicopter, or other machine capable of flight."

This was the first thing i verified when i started reading the guidelines.
So, I think no more confusion.

Edit : If required, we can suggest to include the same under definitions.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 27, 2016, 01:49:52 AM
That's good. So in the letter the terminology should be clarified to them at the beginning and request then to clearly differentiate between the two.

But one point...what about a camera? Camera is also a payload but its used in FPV and recreational flying too. Won't mentioning the issue of payload bring into focus the issue of camera?

By the way, I am not suggesting any reference be made in our letters on camera and photography. I think they have not included any reference on aerial photography in this draft. So we should not raise this matter at all. Otherwise yet another troublesome issue will crop up


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: kartikshah on April 27, 2016, 06:56:53 AM
Hi,

Definition in the guildlines is clearly mentioned. These definition have been largely taken from RPAS Regulations that have been ratified in 2015.

Lets not suggest to lower weight to DGCA as all over the world its 55LBS or 20KGS (note that even a 46 size trainer goes above 2 kgs or a 50size heli goes over 2 kgs). That is too mentioned by DGCA by categorising under Micro & Mini.

We need to ensure that DGCA clarifies in clear terms that these two catagories do not need any regulation when flown for recreational purpose, when flown below a particular height (400ft in the US/Europe), when flown away from buildings,people,stratergic locations etc and when flown within line of site.

As per the international body ratification UAS systems will not be exempted largely, so think dgca will go forward in that direction.

All definitions are already mentioned in different regulations in many countries.

Please do not use the word Drone - thats the problem creator.

Please lets emphasis on recreational or hobby purpose.

We have enough trouble with clearance from WPC we don't need another 2 licencing agencies. So we need to impress upon them to leave out our hobby from the gambit of it by clearly mentioning that.

Lets not suggest to them that the height or weight needs to be monitored if they do then we are doomed.

Ref Para 2 Definitions Its very sad that though there is definition for Model Aircraft as an UA without payload the category of fliers (aeromodelling remote pilots) and their activity of Hobby flying activities has been completely left out in the parameters and considerations while drafting guidelines and definitions and all remote pilots have been grouped under one category.

Ref Para 4.1 Its ridiculously Impractical to even think that DGCA is contemplating issue of UIN to all Hobby pilots ( Ref Para 4.2 which is a Blasphemy for all Hobbyist) and their complete hanger of Model Aircraft's all across India. I would be damned if they are at-least capable and in a position to even manage just the commercial UAS operations across India ( They just don't have the ground presence, if they are planing to depend on the local cops who has a vision capability just to see and locate MA just 100mtrs out and 100ft above, Local Cop is only going to harass the hobbist and the few unaware DJI junkies) The Real UAS fliers (The capable systems) and the real threat are still going to be way out of the reach and radar of DGCA.

Agree UIN no for recreational flying is a total no no......

If they had copied FAA or any other civil aviation auth they should have at least copied 400ft ceiling like FAA which was very much warranted.

Totally agree 400ft should be allowed

By stipulating UIN for all and UIN only for Indians They have killed the sport of RC flying by banning all foreign RC Pilots to India for all the prestigious meets like Ambby valley and AMAI. Let alone no consideration for the upcoming drone racing FPV Sports.
Agree, We need to clarify that if one is from a member country and flying Model Aircrafts for recreational purpose/sport or hobby then they are allowed.

Ref Para 8 and 8.4 in conjunction with definition of Remote Pilots and Definition of Model Aircraft. By only exempting Micro under 2Kgs from requirements of Pilot trainings, Simple RC flying is too killed when today every modeler of repute can put together a RC Model Aircraft up to even 7-30 Kgs with Gas engines and turbines and when they fit in category beyond even mini and you fall under the category of certified pilots one who is expected to have taken a PPL training before operating these machines. Whereas the reality is thanks to the efficiency of muddling of DGCA and the Ilks Infrastructure for PPL training and Microlight Flying Scene is next to Non existent in India. Its ridiculous to think that there has been no consideration for kids under 18 like my son and his capability to fly and develop in this beautiful hobby.
We need them to clarify all models upto 20kgs should be exempted when flown with LOS and below say 400ft this very important.

Now 8.4. The above training requirements for remote pilots are not applicable for micro category UA & recreational flying. There by they mention that recreational flying does not need training requiremnts and also for UA

Upcoming FPV Competitions and FPV Racing sports are not part of Commercial Civil UAS operation with payload. These category of pilots and their systems too form part of Hobby fliers and UAS systems.

The guidelines will kill the open source development, student projects and participation in various international competition by students and others by having no category for them and clubbing their classification along with Commercial Civil UAS operation with payload.
let them permit FPV racing in a closed or limited space enviroment, anything else will not be permited.

The guideline reeks of pessimistic prejudice that Indian Firms and Indians just cannot fabricate their own Aircraft Models and UAS and they can only import their models. . If its all Import license and impost permits and WPC clearance for import where the Bloody hell is Make in India.

Classification parameters are largely biased towards muti-rottor models only seems they have not even considered fixed wing capabilities and parameters.
We donot have manufacturing largely that we need to agree, mostly its making a few air frames, so we need to ensure that any models or their parts/accessories are not restricted, otherwise we are doomed for sure.

One Very important thing DO NOT suggest them for lower weight classification then if the allow say 1kg then we can only fly small foamies even for an Easystar with a larger battery it tips close to 1kg.

Please note that they mention "Education Institutes and all flying within their premises also constitutes to recreational flying", so we need them to clarify that for recreational flying there is no age barrier and if below or under 14 year then under parential guidance or guidance under adult supervision is suggested.

Will list out more points soon.

Also kindly note that even industry bodies (like FICCI, ASSOCHAM etc) have given their inputs to DGCA, so we need to find out and write to the relevant people in FICCI etc too.




Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 07:54:07 AM
1. Exempt Model Aircraft less than 1 KG from Registration.

I think its too less, there are few custom build models which easily goes more than 1KG what about them? get UIN?? and then if modeller decides to upgrade the model then? get new UIN?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 09:21:26 AM
We have to act fast on this

It has appeared in news paper today: http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/others/If-its-a-drone-you-need-a-permit-for-it/articleshow/52002360.cms

I want to know, who is going to take this suggestions ( that we are putting down here) to DGCA?
Do we have AMAI? if we do then what's their stand on this?
I am sure we have many other modeller association's can this thread brought to their notice? It would be a lot better to have more opinions than few?
If any RCI member can spread the news among fellow modeller it would really help.

This draft is non-sense and it would kill the hobby for sure. (multi,plane and heli)  :'( :'( :'(


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: kartikshah on April 27, 2016, 09:46:53 AM
@ satyagupta,

Largely most of the serious aeromodellers have read the draft and discussing amongst their groups.

Many points are acceptable or been followed already.

Even TV channels have carried the news with interviews.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJB3hqN-CJo

Please note that mostly the multi is shown as Drones in all news channels.

Even AMAI has already given their inputs earlier is what i heard.... more will need to be done.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 10:01:40 AM
The guidelines is good for RTF models like DJI, since they come with manuals and specs from manufacturers. What about the custom builds? How would those be regulated?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Sukhpreet on April 27, 2016, 10:43:42 AM
I dont know whether if what i am going to say will be right or not, but what if <b>ALL The  LHS</b> provide a dedicated page for this particular thing.

What right points we should look out for.  (At this point of time we have no idea about whether if  groups like AMAI etc are working on this or not. But most of us follow LHS or RCIndia so spreading a word from these sources can be helpful and useful )

This will spread the awareness. Because not every body is familiar with all the terms. That Pdf may be too long for newbies like me(Really sorry for this fact). Who have just entered into this hobby . Who really want to participate like you all because of the love/passion for this hobby. But they may have no idea(or may be little idea).

(EXAMPLE as of now newbies like me may think 61m/200ft is enough. But it may not be. So if we get idea, THE REAL IDEA from the experienced people, Then it would greatly help in maintaining the comments/unity in comments)

I read a few points from the pdf draft, Then i read your conversation(and beleive me or not your conversation was much more easier to get into mind :) ) Hope you all understand....!!

And sorry if I said any thing wrong.

Regards
Sukhpreet Singh


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 11:07:54 AM
I think Kumaran ji did mentioned about doing this and i would too on my store. But i think all the LHS should make modellers aware of the rules and how to fly safe and legally.

If getting a UIN is made easy process i think LHS might also guide users to get one to make it easy for them.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on April 27, 2016, 11:59:11 AM
Agree.

Dear All,
It is preferable that we all create unique responses instead of duplicating.
However, we will discuss and agree to some common points to be highlighted using our own words.

Some of the common points in my mind;
Sundaram sir rightly said that the draft is perfect for Commercial drones. Hence, I use the term Model Aircraft hereafter instead of UA.

1. Exempt Model Aircraft less than 1 KG from Registration.
2. Provide a simple online registration form for Model Aircraft less than 20kg (Mini & Micro).
3. Revise Height limit upto 400feet.
4. No WPC involvement since frequencies like 2.4ghz/5.8Ghz used by us are already exempted by WPC from licensing requirement. Further, ETA and Import license for TX/RX are already obtained by the Seller and it is not possible to obtain by Modeller.
5. Exemption for RTH, SIM, GPS etc.
6. No police verification. However, while flying police can verify for availability of registration.
7. Allow FPV Flying with standby spotter.
Adding to this
8. Exemption of giving license to fly to only Indians. This closes the door for international competitions(miniquad and flying wing fpv racing)
9.To have all the registrations online rather than indulging in paperwork. This would prevent hassles. Registration of pilots would be better(each pilot would be given a unique number that he/she could carry all the time while flying) than registering UAS.
10. Removing the age limit(everyone is equally capable of flying..)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 12:01:30 PM
10. Removing the age limit(everyone is equally capable of flying..)

I dont agree to this, everyon is capable of driving still no drivers license for less than 18 yrs.

I think less than 18yrs old can fly but should have a licensed pilot along with them to supervise/guide


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on April 27, 2016, 12:10:59 PM
10. Removing the age limit(everyone is equally capable of flying..)

I dont agree to this, everyon is capable of driving still no drivers license for less than 18 yrs.

I think less than 18yrs old can fly but should have a licensed pilot along with them to supervise/guide
Completely agreed..but sir we we are trying to refer to the FAA model of registering then why should we ignore this? I don't think FAA has made any clause debarring ppl under the age of 18 from flying. Supervise/guidance is a good point.. There are many great young pilots out there..


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 12:13:20 PM
People in India is not responsible hence they we have more road accidents.

You have to understand that, flying these are dangerous what if some one screws it? and it just destroys everything for others too. Then?



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sarvan_me on April 27, 2016, 12:54:03 PM
@Satya and Vibranthobbies,

Off late customs have been very strict with import of drone or quadcopter (however you want to call it)  parts. I have been regularly importing stuffs without any issues but now they impose restriction even for parts. Recently one of my parcel was held in Bangalore customs which had all 2212/13 - 1000kv, 1400kv and some emax motors  around 100 numbers in total and they said that it has been detained because it has parts of drone/quadcopter. I totally understand that import of UAV is restricted but are the parts too ?  Please advice.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 01:50:36 PM
Parts are not i am doing it, and one recently too.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 27, 2016, 02:11:44 PM
@satyaji
We face problems with Bangalore & Chennai Air Customs for parts too and they say that these are for ---



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 27, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
Errr then it would start with others too...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on April 27, 2016, 02:15:40 PM
I don't know what will happen to this hobby in India or this will propel indigenous manufacturing  ???


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sarvan_me on April 27, 2016, 02:26:46 PM
@vibranthobbies, thanks for confirming but I am sure until last moth they were not so strict.  But now my parcel has been held and FedEx people called and told me that even the parts are strictly prohibited since people can indulge in terrorist activities. 
They asked me to give a letter explaining the nature of the product and purpose of import to assistant Commissioner of customs, so I am not sure how I can explain them that it is not parts of quadcopter. 

All my money lost I believe.  Lesson learnt :-(


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on April 27, 2016, 04:17:11 PM
Oh no even I got few stuff coming..  :banghead: No motors but fpv camera Vtx props and few RXs


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sharlock on April 27, 2016, 08:59:06 PM
Well 200 feet height then what about FAI F3A flying do we fly F3A below 200 feet & what about IMAC flying giant scale gas powered planes... this is such a waste of time.. its like talking to dumb Indian people, have they gone through FAI guidelines??


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: shobhit17 on April 27, 2016, 09:16:31 PM
Well the draft guidelines appear to be fine for Commercial use of Aeromodels or Drones what ever one calls them.  But for a true aeromodeller who loves his scratch built its a dead end.  RIP.

I am making my own comments and will share it here.  The weight categories need to change from the draft ones something like this....
Micro - Up to 2 Kgs, Mini - 2Kg + to 5 Kgs, Medium - 5 Kg + to 10 Kgs and Large - from 10Kgs+ to 50 or 100 Kgs or whatever the DGCA wishes.  The exemption from registration must be for all Micro category and Mini category provided they carry no payload other than basic equipment for flying the model.

Height limit needs to be changed to 500 Ft ALG (as 200 mtrs and above is the general circuit height of aircraft at an airfield I am sure 500 ft will be a good height to limit the recreational and hobby flying.

Flight Manuals ????? for scratch built models????? maybe it needs to be ensured that a proper checklist is followed before every flight.  In this case if a model suffers a crash..... do we need to ask the manufacturer to repair and certify the aeromodel fit for flying????? after a crash its us aeromodellers who repair it and fly it... maybe after following a proper checklist of checks....

Lot of dead ends to ensure this hobby dies permanently in India.

WHERE IS THE AMA.......... if its members are not dead.... they must take up the case urgently.... or else someone will need to file a PIL to ensure that the hobby lives to see another day.....

Trust the BABUs.... they can KILL any living and thriving thing on this planet.

regards
Shobhit


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on April 27, 2016, 10:10:52 PM
Shobit Sir Simultaneously we are working with AMAI for drafting additions in the guideline to protect Hobby interest.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Cycloned on April 27, 2016, 10:19:03 PM
I'm confused why everyone is angry about having to register your drone, imo that is the best idea in the entire draft. This way people who fly illegally and irresponsibly can be caught and punished without it having to affect everyone. Of course, I disagree with a lot of the other points (required GPS, 200 ft, grouping of quads by weight and grouping of pilots) but the registering is sensible.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: kartikshah on April 27, 2016, 10:41:01 PM
Lets keep things simple and follow the laws in place currently internationally.

ICAO, FAA, CCA-NZ, CCA-UK, Deutsche Flugsicherung, .....



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Darshan for multirotors on April 27, 2016, 10:44:22 PM
@cycloned I don't think registering is a good option in India. There could be many people unaware of this and when caught might say that they didn't know about it. Plus only online registration should be allowed otherwise the bribe system might start and as there are very less aero modellers, this system will not encourage newbies to come to this hobby.
I might be wrong but according to me this is not the way out.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: kartikshah on April 27, 2016, 10:56:01 PM
https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=84386


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on April 27, 2016, 10:59:57 PM
Actually this is the perfect model we could just copy paste this  :giggle: And suggest the removal of all those nonsensical stuff of adding GPS RTH Mobile Sim and also revaluate the classification  of UAS


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Cycloned on April 27, 2016, 11:02:33 PM
@Drashan for multirotors

The only way to regulate the hobby is registration. And as you said, the only way to make unaware people aware is by getting them registered, that way the DGCA can send emails to all registered users regarding rules and important updates. I agree with the online registration system, that is a good idea.

This is the system the FAA has adopted, and although it has its flaws it's better than a simple ban on all drones.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: allthatido on April 27, 2016, 11:58:35 PM
I think what he means is that instead of registering each and every drone...the aeromodeller should be registered and his registration details be on his every drone...saves hassle for us and still makes someone accountable in case of any crash or misadventures.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 28, 2016, 06:54:41 AM
I'm confused why everyone is angry about having to register your drone

1. Drone is not the correct word, they are using it but you know what is the correct word use that.
2. Have you ever tried to get a WPC or ETA ??
3. Yes registering your MODEL is sensible but what about doc required for registration? how are you going to get for custom builds?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Darshan for multirotors on April 28, 2016, 07:33:02 AM
And also the customs problem will get more complex. Every time we are importing something, a lot of paper work will be required which might lead to other problems....
So I think registration of the aeromodeller(not model) is the only way out of this confusion.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 28, 2016, 10:02:52 AM
And importer should get a license. Hassle free job it should be for ease of importing for LHS


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Voice of deaf on April 28, 2016, 11:30:42 AM
I am willing to register myself but it is difficult to register each and every model.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: crazyhorse21 on April 28, 2016, 11:32:28 AM
this is Nasa'a concept for monitoring air traffic ...

wish our leaders would use their brains (whatever little they have) and then implement the necessary rules ...

chX


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: rcparkjets on April 28, 2016, 12:04:10 PM
Dear All,
Here is my draft comments to DGCA;
My suggestion is
1. To introduce new section for Model Aircraft and a One time Online registration of Model Pilot.
2. Pilot above 14 to 18 Years old under guidance of pilot
3. Foreign Nationals registration under sponsor from the event organizers.
4. Establishing No fly zones

Edit: Further to the above I am preparing comments against each clause applicable to commercial UA


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: rcparkjets on April 28, 2016, 12:22:42 PM
And importer should get a license. Hassle free job it should be for ease of importing for LHS
satyaji
Let us not envy on some others way of operations and invite trouble for us.
Imagine import license for each and every shipment.
The people who has "setting" will still continue the same way.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 28, 2016, 12:34:06 PM
You miss understand, import license for sellers. Where they are authorised to import goods related to our hobbies like motors and others.
No per shipment.

the setting would keep going no matter what.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 28, 2016, 12:42:47 PM
As a legal entity we have IEC. Anything else do we require ?
I think you are concerned about individuals who import on personnel account and sell. Am I right?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Rathi on April 28, 2016, 04:46:15 PM
why not keep these rules, but only for commercial uses (considering custom built platforms, u can register with info about ESC, Motors, FC, FPV gear and size or something on those lines... ) . We get a different license as a hobbyist license where we get our own set of rules, and after a certain period of flying we get higher level licenses after showing our skills and knowledge like a drivers test, when we pass... we get to have LRS systems or something like that... (or this can be completely avoided) everything should be available online(registrations, UIN's and a private profile) and LHS's can sell only to people having this license . this would stop the alleged "terrorist activities" and keep us hobbyist's happy. as far as UIN goes, u can register the plane with a few pictures online and have a UIN stuck on something like your motor or something like your ESC heatsink... with every license u get 3-4 flying platforms and u add more with the proper paperwork or police clarifications (that step could be avoided too... the govt just wants to keep track of things that are flying and for microlite  aircrafts u have to undergo CBI investigation) ... as far as scratch builds go, u can have a scratch build UIN, where u can make upto 3 models under one UIN and just update an online profile about it like pictures and all... u can register it as another UIN if u are very happy with the build... As for foreigners, we can give a temporary UIN for that particular event or series of events. i bet there are many flaws in my post so do share your thoughts on this...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on April 28, 2016, 04:53:19 PM
@ Rathi I have almost Re-drafted the Guidelines on exactly similar lines. Will be sharing it for all of you guys views here in couple of days. Cheers. Lot of minds are working on it simultaneously to protect and include hobby interest at the same time keep this hobby among'st  sensible and responsible enthusiasts.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 28, 2016, 07:46:06 PM
Lot of minds are working on it simultaneously to protect and include hobby interest at the same time keep this hobby among'st  sensible and responsible enthusiasts.

We all have to do it now else the hobby would be gone.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 28, 2016, 07:57:24 PM
@vibranthobbies, thanks for confirming but I am sure until last moth they were not so strict.  But now my parcel has been held and FedEx people called and told me that even the parts are strictly prohibited since people can indulge in terrorist activities.  
They asked me to give a letter explaining the nature of the product and purpose of import to assistant Commissioner of customs, so I am not sure how I can explain them that it is not parts of quadcopter.  

All my money lost I believe.  Lesson learnt :-(

FedEx people are making up things. They don't know the rules. You can contest it. The only recent reference is regarding declaration of drones by passengers in their baggage while arriving in India. Even then, I can't find any notification which says that import of drones is banned.

So where exactly does it say that import of parts of quadcopter are banned? Is there any circular or notification prohibiting such imports? Also many items are dual-use. How can they say that parts are "strictly prohibited" without any basis? Ask them to show under which notification or circular it is prohibited? Do they even know the meaning of prohibition? Can they prohibit import of car tyres because cars can be used as car bombs or for terrorist activities? Instead of dealing through these FedEx people directly deal the matter with Customs.

You can write in the letter to Asstt. Commissioner that these are toy hobby parts motors meant for multiple use. Some may construct toy helicopters or cars or even mini fans using these motors. Also mention that "to the best of my knowledge there is no circular or notification which restricts or prohibits import of motors for any purpose" and that "these are freely importable under the foreign trade policy". Also you can say that "if there is any such circular/notification prohibiting or restricting import of motors, kindly provide me the details".

You can appeal to the next higher authority if they don't release the goods.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on April 28, 2016, 08:43:30 PM
Hi everyone,
I see that
1. Several senior members are trying to make a response that will be meaningful to DGCA
2. DGCA will probably only pay attention to responses in their format, and ignore freestyle comments.
3. So the most effective way may be to make a standard response, which can be copied and emailed to DGCA from at least a few hundred RCI members.

(Remember last time Santanucus' efforts actually elicited a response)

My 2cents worth is to separate hobbyists from commercial operators, like private and commercial driving licences.

Can we suggest to DGCA that hobbyists are different from commercial operators?
And that hobbyists can easily be monitored as suggested by me to DGCA in my email of 12th Oct 2014

1. DGCA could set up a website for flyers of remote controlled aircraft models to register on
2. Flyers of RC aircraft models can register by providing their name, ID, address, phone number, transmitter frequency and location of usual flying site, and get a registration number.
3. Flyers of non remote controlled models need not register.
4. Main restrictions can be:
- weight not to exceed 5kg
- no flight above 400 ft
- no flight within 5km of an ATC airport
- no flight over public or vehicles or houses. Rules for permission can be worked out.

The DGCA registration can be like a car numberplate. Flyers can proudly display on their models.

Anyone caught in suspicious circumstances can easily be identified as a bonafide hobbyist or not.

For many decades we were not allowed to photograph airports, something that is now allowed.
All aeromodellers are not necessarily enemies of the State!

Since I'm retired, I dont have any importance in the Govt.
May I suggest that a member who has the most 'paua' or credibility with DGCA/PMO lead the charge from RCI?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 28, 2016, 10:15:17 PM
Agree with you Sir. As per the posts in this thread, most of us are thinking in the same line. There are very few points of disagreement. Hopefully we'd be able to decide on a response soon.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on April 28, 2016, 11:03:44 PM
I feel a bit sad that many of the members seem unaware of the significance of this issue.
One would have thought that doubts like which wire goes where could have waited awhile...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 28, 2016, 11:09:26 PM
True sir.
At this crucial moment people are busy in logo making too.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Darshan for multirotors on April 29, 2016, 08:30:03 AM
Sir, can this topic be made as a sticky thread? It might be noticed more. Just a suggestion. :hatsoff:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: manojswizera on April 29, 2016, 09:35:52 AM
1- RTF and prebuild models may get licencee, but what about customs made quads or hexas or Aeroplanes.  Where we use different           
    parts from different manufacturers.
2- If we get UIN for a custom made plane, if the plane crashes and we need to replace its parts with different motors and esc, then 
     do we need to again get UIN ???

 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 29, 2016, 10:07:37 AM
Dear All,
We need to come to a common base points and all of us can shoot emails with the similar points.

I am putting here a compiled version of Comments to DGCA;

The current draft guidelines is applicable only to Commercial UAs and a new section shall be introduced for Model Air craft with the following points;
Applicable to :
- Model Aircraft weighing more than 250 gram and less than 20kg.
- Shall be operated below 500 feet AGL in uncontrolled airspace and clear of notified prohibited, restricted and danger areas as well as Temporary Segregated Areas (TSA) and Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA)

Rules
- Registration of Model Aircraft Pilot on DGCA Website and issue of Unique Identification Number for Pilot. This number will be affixed in the Model Aircraft.
- Allowing FPV flying.
- Allowing 14 years above under guidance of other pilot.
- Allowing other nationals pilot registration with supporting document by the event organiser.

----
If we ask more then only they give something. If we ask 500 feet they may give 400feet. If we ask 20kg they may give 10kg.

Please review add/suggest on the above points.

Please let us unite and come to a common ground on the points to be raised.

Different opinions and different suggestions will not yield a benificial result.
Similar suggestions in different words will give a better result.

Kumaran


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 29, 2016, 10:14:05 AM
The above points look good and solid.

My area of concern was the draft does not includes the model air craft (multi,planes or heli) it was more for like the RTF or the commercial UA like the DJI or the WALKERA or any other.

The points said above my Kumaran ji solves the issue for the Custom Models which is good. Also for the Commercial UA i think they should increase the height to 500 ft AGL atleast.

I have a question,
If i am a model pilot and registered also have a UIN. But do i have to also register or inform to DGCA about the models that i have or i build in future? ??? ??? :headscratch:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 29, 2016, 10:25:35 AM
Actually I guess that they have two intentions;
1. They want to know the model capabilities.
2. They want to trace the person who flown the model in case of mishap.

With regard to model aircraft we suggest the model capabilities & flying areas by ourself.
1. We limit the capabilities by our self, say Maximum 20kg (we ask this, they may reduce it), 500 feet, uncontrolled space etc.
2. For tracing, We will suggest onetime Model aircraft pilot registration and this will be affixed to the model.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 29, 2016, 10:27:27 AM
ok so for model aircraft no need to get UIN for aircrafts?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 29, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Yes.
All of us should suggest for Model Air craft Pilot Registration
and NO to Model Aircraft Registration


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on April 29, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
That is just for custom builds or for all? (like the commercial UA DJI and others?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 29, 2016, 12:13:42 PM
satyaji
I believe that the term recreational or commercial is with respect to use and not based on model.
A DJI RTF can be used for recreational purpose too.
Edit: However, we will restrict model aircraft upto 20 kg as recreational use. Even, If they limit to 5kg most of us will be free of trouble.

Further, I believe that Model Aircraft Pilot is more concerned on safety of himself and others.
Whereas people doing it for money will be ready to fly over crowd. So, commercial use to be governed much.

However, there are areas to be commented on guidelines for commercial use.
We can't limit ourselves only to model aircraft. UAs can be used for many productive purposes and as we know the subject, we have to comment to make it right.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 29, 2016, 04:23:24 PM
I believe only Model Pilot Registration is prone to abuse. What if somebody else flies with somebody else's registration no?

Best way is to include a separate micro class without GPS/Cameras and then exempt that class from UIN registration. That will make everybody happy.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 29, 2016, 04:34:40 PM
We can put the Pilot ID inside Model.
A onetime registration will save us from harassment from local police.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 29, 2016, 04:45:03 PM
I believe DGCA will neither have the manpower nor inclination to issue a Pilot ID to anyone. It's a very responsible task.

The best way to check harassment from local police is to form a local group and then handover the list of all registered fliers to them with ID proof, etc. They'll be more than happy to oblige. The group is not responsible for any other flier who is not registered with them.

The group can also insist that all registered members register themselves with amai.in That way, it'll add to more credibility.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 29, 2016, 04:50:10 PM
Dear Vishal,
We are suggesting for an online Portal for registering with facility to upload supporting documents.
If they are planning to approve all Models they can definetly approve the Model pilot.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 29, 2016, 04:57:05 PM
Dear Kumaran, why I'm suggesting to include a separate micro class without GPS/Camera system and no UIN for that class is because we can do away with the whole registration thing. We all know how efficient our system is.

Approving a model pilot is more demanding than approving a model. The former is like giving a license to fly anything. They certainly will not have the setup to checkup the credibility and skills of the pilot nor there is any certifying body here to issue a RC Pilot license.

Yes they are planning to issue UINs for models but within what time frame are they going to issue one?

This whole security thing came up only after the advent of multirotors with GPS/Cameras. Model aircraft flying was there lot earlier without any security concerns. One certainly cannot drop a bomb at a precise location without the help of GPS and cameras. Also, having altitude restriction puts a barrier on accidents with commercial/civilian aircrafts. These were and are the two main concerns of DGCA as understood by their Ban letter dated Oct 2014.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 29, 2016, 07:15:00 PM
This whole security thing came up only after the advent of multirotors with GPS/Cameras. Model aircraft flying was there lot earlier without any security concerns. One certainly cannot drop a bomb at a precise location without the help of GPS and cameras. Also, having altitude restriction puts a barrier on accidents with commercial/civilian aircrafts. These were and are the two main concerns of DGCA as understood by their Ban letter dated Oct 2014.

1. I strongly feel that we should not mention in any of our letter or proposal about camera or photography and dig our own holes. Why raise an issue which DGCA has itself not raised in the draft? Their categories are weight-based. Let's discuss on classification based on weight.

2. DGCA in their draft have themselves suggested inclusion of GPS and RTH. Why then suggest anything about not including GPS?

We have enough problems on the points against hobbyists which they have included in the draft. Let's stick to those points. Why raise issues on points which they haven't mentioned? Do not make this thing any more complicated by assuming things.

I appeal to everybody to only discuss the points in the draft which goes against our interest. Please do not give them ideas about things which they have not included in the draft. That is not in our interest. Else it would be suicidal


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: kartikshah on April 29, 2016, 07:27:56 PM
You can only comment once you take the whole draft into consideration, what i mean is including ICAO, FAA etc..., Also FPV is largely now regulated/banned in many countries.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 29, 2016, 07:31:16 PM
I believe there are two categories of hobbyists here. Those that are old style traditional aeromodellers and have nothing to do with multirotors and complicated stuff and others who are the new generation type, who are into multirotors. Clubbing these two and making a general rule is not possible as the interests and risks associated with both of them are entirely different. Doing so is bound to make life of either of them miserable. I belong to the former type and I don't want to be entangled in this complicated stuff. That's the reason I want a separate class of aircraft without GPS/Camera. There is no point in ignorant about that as that is the reality. The DGCA is well aware of that and that's the reason their entire draft is based on that.

I'm not trying to make things complicated here. Things are already complicated. I'm just trying to simplify things for traditional aeromodellers here.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on April 29, 2016, 07:40:14 PM
True,Vishal

But a UIN for each model? Supported by a manufacturer's manual? What happens to scratch builders?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 29, 2016, 08:32:48 PM
That's what Sanjay sir. Create a new class for models that fly without GPS/Cameras and exempt them from procuring UIN. It's as simple as that. We Aeromodellers have been completely ignored by the draft. It really doesn't make any sense in getting UIN for scratch builds and also simple fixed wings or for that matter simple multi-rotors as well, as they are no real threats.

I'm sorry but I can't ignore the fact that that our life has been made miserable after the advent of these advanced multirotors. Our life was simple and we would like to keep it that way. The hole has already been dug and we don't want to be buried for no fault of us.

Aeromodellers, it would be suicidal if we kept mum on this. This is not a please everybody plan. Either get out or sink together.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 29, 2016, 09:31:44 PM
And regarding weight based classification, it really can't get dumber than this. How can one club together a 1kg fixed wing aircraft and 1 kg DJI Phantom? I would curse myself for the rest of my life I kept mum on this. Wake up guys.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on April 29, 2016, 10:27:53 PM
I don't get why there should be this differentiation between fixed wing pilots ('traditional aeromodellers') and multirotor pilots. Why should you receive preferential treatment? A fuel powered plane as well as medium-large electrics have greater endurance and equal scope to cause damage as most multirotors. Honestly, if it wasn't for the surge in multirotor tech, this hobby would have a fraction of the people it currently does. Also, it is no less impractical to add GPS, RTH and a SIM based tracker on an FPV racer than on a small foamie.

I say we should have a common weight class (say 250-500g below which no registration is required (similar to the FAA's 'two sticks of butter'). This should exempt toy quads, the smallest FPV racers, and small foamies (I guess). Another weight class (say up to 2kg), for which simple online self registration is sufficient. As others have said, a unique ID can be granted to each pilot, which he can then display on all his models. This will be much more practical than a UIN for each model (especially for builders). The requirement for VLOS should be waived as long as there is a trained spotter (I am not particularly bothered about this since I seriously doubt this will be enforced. It's not like they could stop us from flying even when it was 'banned'). The max altitude without UAOP should be raised to 400 feet, comparable to international standards (though again, it's not like cops are going to be chasing us with altimeters). The main thing should be differentiation between 'commercial' and 'recreational use' rather than trying to segregate multirotor and fixed wing pilots.

As santanucus has said, let us not bring cameras into this matter. Why inflict extra trouble upon ourselves?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on April 30, 2016, 12:33:43 AM
Also FPV is largely now regulated/banned in many countries.
You are right sir, after googling I found this link;
https://www.pylo.co/blog/list-laws-and-regulations-about-fpv-and-rc-aircraft-various-countries
I did not verify each rules and regulations, but the link shows that FPV flying is getting regulated or banned in many Countries.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 30, 2016, 08:40:11 AM
I don't get why there should be this differentiation between fixed wing pilots ('traditional aeromodellers') and multirotor pilots. Why should you receive preferential treatment? A fuel powered plane as well as medium-large electrics have greater endurance and equal scope to cause damage as most multirotors. Honestly, if it wasn't for the surge in multirotor tech, this hobby would have a fraction of the people it currently does. Also, it is no less impractical to add GPS, RTH and a SIM based tracker on an FPV racer than on a small foamie.

I say we should have a common weight class (say 250-500g below which no registration is required (similar to the FAA's 'two sticks of butter'). This should exempt toy quads, the smallest FPV racers, and small foamies (I guess). Another weight class (say up to 2kg), for which simple online self registration is sufficient. As others have said, a unique ID can be granted to each pilot, which he can then display on all his models. This will be much more practical than a UIN for each model (especially for builders). The requirement for VLOS should be waived as long as there is a trained spotter (I am not particularly bothered about this since I seriously doubt this will be enforced. It's not like they could stop us from flying even when it was 'banned'). The max altitude without UAOP should be raised to 400 feet, comparable to international standards (though again, it's not like cops are going to be chasing us with altimeters). The main thing should be differentiation between 'commercial' and 'recreational use' rather than trying to segregate multirotor and fixed wing pilots.

As santanucus has said, let us not bring cameras into this matter. Why inflict extra trouble upon ourselves?

I guess you haven't read my previous posts clearly. What I'm saying is that have a separate class for fixed wings that use no GPS/cameras and exempt them from UIN registration. Any sensible person would understand why.

Regarding endurance flying, it's not about endurance here. It's about technology here and a capability of the aircraft to cause damage. Have you tried to fly a fixed wing without GPS/Cameras out of VLOS? Forget VLOS, one can barely control them once they cross about 400ft or so.

And lets not debate on what contributed to this hobby. Right now, it's about what messed this hobby and the whole world knows about it.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 30, 2016, 08:49:25 AM
Its a wrong idea that DGCA is bothered about the camera/GPS issue. Camera/GPS is not their motivation. They are bothered about the weight of the craft because in general the more the weight, the more the lifting capacity, whether it is a multirotor or a model aircraft. They are basically concerned about flying bombs rather than photography. Today even airports allow photography and there is Google Maps anyway This is the same reason for weight-based classification in USA by FAA. And whatever one says, they will stick to the weight based classification. The only issue is the weight category...they may or may not agree about reformulating the weight categories. But they will not do away with weight based classification or exempt some aircraft simply because it does not have GPS / Camera at the time of registration.

Most of the people in DGCA have aviation background. They are well aware of the capability of model winged aircrafts vis a vis multirotors.

- multirotors have to carry its weight and payload all the time. Its hard to get more than 15 minutes flight time in most cases. In a model airplane a significant part of the weight is carried by the wings. So flight time is longer in model winged aircrafts
- Add the fact that most multirotors run on electric. But there are gas or fuel powered winged aircrafts which are capable of flying much longer
- For a multirotor, in order to carry a 5 kg. bomb it should generate a thrust of at least double of (5Kg.+ its own weight). I believe winged aircrafts are more efficient than that. Aeromodellers can say how wingspan can increase flight time.

So GPS or Camera is not the issue. Once you have a model which is capable of carrying a big payload for a longer time, you can always tweak it to attach a GPS or a Camera...how much time or money would that take? But a GPS or Camera in a small multirotor or winged aircraft won't provide it the capability to carry extra payload.

So GPS /Camera was never the issue with DGCA. If you think logically without being biased, the issue is the weight of the aircraft. In fact DGCA prefers GPS because they don't want a 25Kg. aircraft without GPS and RTH function to get out of control and fall on peoples' head. And a camera can be attached in a moment's notice to any aircraft anyway.

So what they can control is the weight. FAA did that. DGCA is doing that too. So there is no use telling them to exclude winged aircrafts irrespective of their weights and without GPS/Camera from weight based classification.

It was never aeromodellers vs multirotor flyers. Its DGCA vs flyers. I hope everybody understand that and won't complicate the situation than it already is.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Darshan for multirotors on April 30, 2016, 08:55:46 AM
Perfectly said @santanucus sir. {:)} :bow:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 30, 2016, 08:57:00 AM
This is really hilarious. Bombs are not new. Fixed wings are not new. Then how come the threat is new? It is just because the technology is new. So saying GPS/Cameras is not the issue is really hilarious to say the least. If one can tweak a 25 kg plane to add GPS/Cameras, then he can as well tweak a 1 kg multirotor to lift additional 1 kg payload. Why all this policy and rules? I'm sure at the time of damage the concerned authorities won't go with a weighing scale. They would be more concerned about the technology used than the weight of the aircraft. And the draft now clearly differentiates use of UAOP for flying above 200ft irrespective of the weight of the aircraft.

And if I have read the Oct 14 ban letter from DGCA correctly, I don't see DGCA hinting anywhere that they are more concerned about 25kg model dropping on someones head. They are more worried about models colliding with real aircrafts up there and endangering the security of the nation.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 30, 2016, 09:13:32 AM
The fact that they suggested in favour of RTH and GPS in their draft goes on to say that their priorities are elsewhere. And if you read the draft properly, it would be evident that they are concerned about people's safety.

Tweak a 1 Kg. multirotor to lift additional 1 Kg? I wish it was that simple. What would that do to the flight time? Its simple maths. In multirotors, grams matter. For carrying 1 Kg more, it would require at least 2 Kg extra thrust. That would require one to change the four motors, propellers, battery and probably even the frame. Then one has to re-calibrate the FC. Its not a simple tweak. Its basically a new multirotor. Its not the same as tweaking a 25 Kg. plane to add a GPS and a camera of few grams weight.

As for bombs and technology, these are not new. But IAF issued several warnings about remote controlled planes dropping bombs as per their intelligence. That's what changed. And anytime winged aircrafts are more efficient than multirotors in dropping a bomb which can cause sufficient significant damage because of their high payload carrying capacity. I believe a 10 Kg winged plane can carry more payload than a 10 Kg. multirotor and still have longer flight time


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on April 30, 2016, 09:18:17 AM
Very well said Santanucus.

This is really hilarious. 'Traditional' plane pilots are pointing fingers at the multirotor guys and complaining about how they 'ruined the hobby'. A few years ago, they would have been complaining about ARFs. A few years before that it was fuel vs electrics. A year or two from now they will find something else to complain about. Why don't you let us fly what we enjoy and you do the same?

The 'threat' is new because (a) This hobby is experiencing a massive surge in popularity. I say that is because of multirotors, you may disagree. (b) autopilot technology has improved, for both fixed wing and multirotor platforms. Whether you like it or not, technology evolves, and there is no point complaining about it.

Why don't you take a look at the Penguin-B (http://www.uavfactory.com/product/46), which can carry 11.5 kg of combined fuel and payload weight and fly over 20 hours. Or the Penguin-C (http://www.uavfactory.com/product/74) which flew a record 54.5 hours. Both of these look like fixed-wings to me. Even much smaller planes like the X-UAV Talon can easily built with an endurance of 45 minutes+. It takes a lot more effort, and money to design a multirotor which can do that. I'd say fixed wings are a much greater threat than multirotors. And it is FAR EASIER to add an autopilot to a fixed wing platform, than it is to increase the payload capacity of a multirotor, as that requires a complete redesign of the propulsion system.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 30, 2016, 09:34:57 AM
I agree completely! That's my point too. But I think there should not be a difference of opinion on the common points. Surely plane lovers can voice opinions which are in their interest. My only point is that while doing so, please do not harm others' interests. I would not have liked to suggest to DGCA that planes are capable of carrying more payloads for longer times and greater distances than multirotors and hence should be mandatorily registered. Imagine if multirotors fans start writing this to DGCA citing capabilities of fixed wing aircrafts mentioned by SK1701 . Would that do any good to us?

So please let us defend our points and suggest only those changes in respect of those things which serves our common interest. Infighting won't do any good for the hobby.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vishalrao on April 30, 2016, 12:23:36 PM
@santanucus If you wish it was easy increasing payload of a multirotor from 1 kg to 2 kgs, you should very well know how easy it is to add and calibrate GPS to a fixed wing.

@SK1701 Looks like either you are reading between lines or you you want to turn blind to certain things. Both your links points to fixed wings with sophisticated GPS/Camera systems, which is what I'm stressing on.

I'm not trying to harm other's interests here. We Aeromodelling community have already suffered a lot by keeping mum and I'm just trying to keep safeguard whatever is left of us now.

Looks like I'm banging my head against wall. Either Aeromodellers have all left RC India or they are just being mute spectator and don't want to participate in this debate. That's the reason we have suffered a lot. Aeromodellers are too comfortable in their comfort zone. For those who are still lurking behind, below is a link to a PDF file that you can print out and send to the DGCA:

http://jmp.sh/wgFN8Lx

Anyway this is my last post here in the forums. Surely looks like the end of what RC India used to be as pointed out rightly by Gusty sir:
http://www.rcindia.org/chatter-zone/has-forum-construct-has-outlived-its-time/

However, I'm not at all disappointed a bit. I didn't expect much from here. Back to our field where most of the Aeromodellers actually are. Shouldn't be difficult at all to get few hundreds to print and send them. Lage raho Munna Bhai :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on April 30, 2016, 12:49:23 PM
The INDIAN RC CIVIL WAR has begun  :banghead:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: pravesh736 on April 30, 2016, 01:19:53 PM
My understanding- Lets first ask for a fun fliers section on weight first which is the main priority then we can decide to spilt it etc if possible. Multi or fixed wing they are all same, they convert different energy forms into lift etc.
Seen the 50cc and 100cc size, traditional rc flying stuffs, oh and the jets, lets not start, I have always seen jabs to multi/fpv by everyone that cant get into it. tomorrow VTOL rc planes start coming out, then one more section we'll need to ask, because none of us are into VTOL as we fly traditional multirotors and fixed wings. Lol






Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on April 30, 2016, 01:21:34 PM
Vishal - don't self destruct! ;)

The hobby in our country needs all of us together



I'm not trying to harm other's interests here. We Aeromodelling community have already suffered a lot by keeping mum and I'm just trying to keep safeguard whatever is left of us now.



Anyway this is my last post here in the forums. Surely looks like the end of what RC India used to be as pointed out rightly by Gusty sir:
http://www.rcindia.org/chatter-zone/has-forum-construct-has-outlived-its-time/




Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on April 30, 2016, 01:28:31 PM
Instead of looking at it purely from our viewpoint, do look at it from the DGCAs viewpoint also

Their concern is safety in the skies. And (hopefully) rules that can be implemented.

A change in the CrPC to make some kind of offenses serious, criminal, non-bailable eg flying near an airport

Limitations on range : only LoS permitted

Height restrictions

Instead of AMAI empower ACI (which is what it exists for anyway)

Pilots to clear some basic exams before going solo in the air. Without that have to fly with a qualified person

Multiple centres run by ACI with qualified examiners (who could be approved volunteers)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: aniket210696 on April 30, 2016, 02:19:24 PM
I have a question if you put weight limitations on ALL aircraft, what happens to the large scale gassers etc? I remember seeing pictures of a beautiful scale 737 somewhere on the forum... The other day at mahalaxmi I saw an large sbach model...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Swapnil on April 30, 2016, 02:35:13 PM

DGCA's concern is safety in the skies. And (hopefully) rules that can be implemented.

Pilots to clear some basic exams before going solo in the air. Without that have to fly with a qualified person...

I was waiting for this, Sanjay sir.

This hobby of ours is mostly for recreation. Is flying for fun more important than others' safety? Are we that selfish?

A few years ago I would have protested against the need for pilot exams. I learned to build and fly all by myself. That required a ton of reading and understanding which in turn made me aware of all the safety concerns.
Nowadays, every other guy with a fat wallet is buying RTF planes and multicopters. They don't have the slightest idea how much damage lipos, propellers and falling planes can do.

I don't know why we are discussing this so much. The rules are obvious:

No UINs or registration if you

1] Fly in large open areas devoid of people,
2] Fly within line-of-sight,
3] Fly below 400 feet.   


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on April 30, 2016, 03:49:41 PM
Can we arrive at a common minimum set of points to which all of us agree without getting into the winged aircraft vs. multirotor debate? If so, let's decide on those points first.



Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 01:36:36 AM
Less than 250gms no registration, For Hobby Enthusiast Model Aircraft flying without Payload, one registration number per pilot for recreational flying up to 20kgs within the confines of the premises of a local administration and ATS permitted flying feild/club for a flier age 15 upwards. Less than 15 to fly under parental/ Adult supervission. No training requirements for such recreational flying within Premises Ceiling 400ft perimeter radius 500mtrs VLOS. Outside this Premises flying only with explicit permission and permit of UIN for every model and UAOP for everyflight. Radio frequency permitted 2.4ghz with spreadspectrum/ frequency hopping interference proof radios only. Model Aircraft Enthusiasts recreational flying with only a camera payloads Online registration of every Models up to 20kgs for flying within the above defined premises of local flying clubs/feilds. Outside flying will require same UAOP, UIN and training requirements as stipulated for commercial flying of UAS. Model Aircraft above 20kgs with or without payload same requirements of UIN, UAOP and training requirements as stipulated for Comercial Operation of UAS.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Swapnil on May 01, 2016, 08:08:08 AM
That sounds reasonable, Sandy sir.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: allthatido on May 01, 2016, 08:41:47 AM
....within the confines of the premises of a local administration and ADC permitted flying feild/club for a flier age 15 upwards....

What about places where there are no registered flying fields or the field is far away ? I have seen people who wish to learn to fly but stay far away in places like Kalyan and hence it becomes difficult to commute to reach even Thane (exterior of Mumbai) ?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Rathi on May 01, 2016, 09:00:33 AM
i have a lot of open space in and near my dad's factory, what if i want to fly there?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 01, 2016, 09:47:50 AM
It am bit disappointed by the views and the strong negative comments that has been posted by VishaRao, which to me is sounding anti-multirotors.

I am not sure does vishal knows about this but there are many fixed wing which are almost capable of doing autopilot along with mission planning and are very much capable of flying with gps and fpv gears.

Back to topic:
I think the points which are mentioned by Kumaranji and Sanjay sir is good.



Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 10:24:50 AM
You are just a layman. You surely need to verify that the open feild you thought which was open far away, not an obstruction/nuisance  to anyone, uncontrolled, away from airport is actually not restricted for flying from local adminstration and ATS once. With these guidelines this hobby will get its leagal activity status. Once you do it hobbist can culminate at one location participate as a group looking out for each other and grow from there in size and numbers Like wings india of mumbai in time to come why not be there a regustered clubs in every part of the country.


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 10:31:25 AM
One needs to walk extra mile to legitimise your activity. You just can't go about flying anywhere just because you thought it was empty. Even if have a 1000 acre private property to your self for flying under 400ft within that permise. Please do give intimation to local administration and ADC. That's being on the right side of law. When you have such a place please do invite rest of us there to fly too. 😂😂


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on May 01, 2016, 11:34:19 AM
Dear All,
Based on Sundaram Sir's comments, I am redrafting our requirements as below;

- Please exempt registration requirement for Model Aircraft weighing less than 250grams
- Please modify the rule to permit online registration of Model Aircraft Pilot above 15 years and assign Unique Identification Number to them. The registered Model Aircraft Pilot shall be permitted to fly under the following conditions;
    - Model Aircraft weighing less than 20 kg and for recreational purpose and without payload;
    - Flying shall be always under ceiling height of 400 Feet and 500 Meters of perimeter of radius 500mtrs VLOS (Edited as per Sundaram Sir) and always within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS)
    - Flying location shall be only in uncontrolled airspace and clear of notified prohibited, restricted and danger areas as well as Temporary Segregated Areas (TSA) and Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA). The flying location is confined to the premises of a local administration and ATS permitted field/clubs.
    - Model Aircraft Pilot Unique Identification Number shall be affixed on the model on Fire Proof material.
    - Model Aircraft not complying to the above conditions shall follow UIN Registration and other requirements as per the guidelines.

Edit :
If this is acceptable, we can start sending emails but with our own words adding some masala.
Also, someone can make a petition in change.org


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 11:56:15 AM
500 mtrs perimeter is far too less please specify perimeter of radius 500mtrs VLOS.


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 12:02:53 PM
Its a prooven concept that all wings no rottor is capable of unmanned aviation hover, like wise single rotor and no wings too is capable of unmanned flight hover. No wings and no rottor too is capable of unmanned aviation hover. We should not waste our time in such discussions. Agencies are well aware of such capabilities of tech.


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 12:53:41 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 01, 2016, 01:26:21 PM
What about the requirements for Character Certificate from Police in cases where UIN would be required. And also WPC clearance Shouldn't we propose to do away with these? The first one will definitely involve bribery issue. In respect of the second, it would be almost impossible to get one.

If these requirements remain, it would be impossible to fly anything because almost surely one won't get these things.

Also, in my opinion 250gm. is a far too low weight for seeking exemption. Some batteries weigh more than 250 gms.

Moreover, in those cases UIN is required, we should insist upon simple online registration. There are no DGCA office in every town. For every item, should a person travel to the DGCA office in a metro city to get a UA registered?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on May 01, 2016, 01:43:33 PM
We have not specified any requirement for Model Aircraft Pilot Registration. If they want to include we have to get it one time.
Exemption upto 250gram is reasonable and in line with FAA Rules. So, there is a possibility to exempt.
This is just to allow to small quads like CX10 and Toy Helis. etc. 
We are asking for Online registration of pilot upto 20 kg. Is it not enough ?



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sujju on May 01, 2016, 01:50:00 PM
There needs to be a lot more responsibility from our community to monitor newbie’s on getting a FPV quad or plane and fly into restricted and public areas (of course we cannot stop this unless we are aware of this, also during sales of a RTF-FPV unit to newbie’s all LHS’s including us need to make a buyer aware of the basic ethics in recreation flying)..

We wanted to launch a new hi-end transmitter and had approached the WPC the couple of months back for ETA (keeping the background of ALL OUR transmitter are approved from the WPC), however this time the WPC refused to give us the ETA which we think is definitely due to a internal circular from the DGCA. So if you are looking to get a ETA from the WPC at this juncture i would only say.........forget it.......(hence you will not get a UIN)

We get a "once in 3 week" regular visit from the local police authorities in our stores (especially after the event with the gentle man from Russian embassy flying his quad around the parliament with his kid). Believe me the authorities are only bothered about the safety of the general public and our country and not interested in curtailing our hobby. An if our hobby seems to be interfering with the security then definitely the later will prevail. During our many discussion with the police authorities it mostly points to the lack of coordination between our community and a LHS “including us” not doing enough to educate a new comer…(we get 10 year old kids asking for a quad with camera and goggles and lift capability of 5 plus kgs for which is refuted obviously).

As much as we are in line with Sundaram’s comments on the fixed wing and rotary wings fpv capabilities we are also in line with what Vishal commented that this fiasco was born with the advent of multicopters in the hands a few amateur stupid flyers. We have also been part of this fiasco by NOT educating the consumer properly on the “rules of flying”. And Yes multicopters are here to stay and are poised to grow larger then before and WILL enter our daily lives soon…

Coming to the point of DGCA… we need a proper LOUD voice which will be heard by the DGCA before they formulate and publish the circular as it will next to impossible to draft amends later.

I have seen the petition on change.org by a gentle man here from rcindia
https://www.change.org/p/directorate-general-of-civil-aviation-form-rules-for-uav-flying-as-a-recreational-hobby?recruiter=135098595&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink (https://www.change.org/p/directorate-general-of-civil-aviation-form-rules-for-uav-flying-as-a-recreational-hobby?recruiter=135098595&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink)
1.   Would this help if we get around 10,000 plus comments on this link?
2.   Do we need to generate some PR / Media agency help in getting a slot to voice our concern?
3.   Would the DGCA be ready to meet with a committee and discuss (again who will decide who is a part of this committee and how?)
4.   Would a simple letter with lots of signatures help
5.   All of the above?
6.   Any more suggestion are open and welcome…
Also the large question is... even with the above would DGCA listen to us..

We are ready to invest time, effort and money on this if we get some good executable solutions.

In the meantime we can discuss our points here plus other points which are in discussions with a few seniors from this fraternity on the way forward.

Remember, we can only overcome this situation as “ONE”.. if not it will be status quo.

Regards
Sujju

On a lighter note:... someone visited our Bangalore store last week..pehchan Kaun??..   :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Darshan for multirotors on May 01, 2016, 03:16:14 PM
@sujju sir, you could have atleast named the image something else.. The name of the pic itself is "anwar at RCB".  :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sujju on May 01, 2016, 03:20:42 PM
 ;D ;D.. thanks darhsan.. :) dint realize it...


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 03:41:45 PM
There is fixed govt rate for police verification for a passport by local cop he gives a proper receipt for that 100 odd rupees. Its done at your declared address proof automatically. You don't have to knock any police door. Certain category of people of known social repute, their passport is printed even before they walk out of seva kendra and dispatched same day. Everything is possible as long as leagality of the activity established.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 02, 2016, 04:25:39 PM
There is fixed govt rate for police verification for a passport by local cop he gives a proper receipt for that 100 odd rupees. Its done at your declared address proof automatically. You don't have to knock any police door. Certain category of people of known social repute, their passport is printed even before they walk out of seva kendra and dispatched same day. Everything is possible as long as leagality of the activity established.

PVR for passport is a regular process initiated by the government. Character certificate for registering each and every UA (assuming no exemption is given) would be an impossible task. It would have to be initiated by the person concerned. And when police learn that someone has applied for character certificate for "flying a drone" it would attract extra scrutiny and demand for more money than usual. After all, thousands apply for a passport. How many would apply for registering a drone? With this requirement in place, one may as well give up flying these things.

We should write against mandatory PVR upto a certain weight category. Otherwise people will stop buying or making UAs because of police verification.

Also ...no talk about WPC clearance. When LHSs are facing difficulties getting WPC approval, how can individuals manage to get one?



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 02, 2016, 04:33:20 PM
We have not specified any requirement for Model Aircraft Pilot Registration. If they want to include we have to get it one time.
Exemption upto 250gram is reasonable and in line with FAA Rules. So, there is a possibility to exempt.
This is just to allow to small quads like CX10 and Toy Helis. etc.  
We are asking for Online registration of pilot upto 20 kg. Is it not enough ?

I have no problem with exemption upto 250 gms if for higher weight categories (say upto 4 Kg.) they make an easy process of online self-registration without police verification and WPC clearance. But there is no certainty that such online registration will happen at all.

The issue is not about RTF only. If a modeller makes a UA weighing more than 250gm. he will face the same problem of registration, police verification and WPC clearance. So unless we address this issue, only people who fly toys will face no problem.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: laritiewsoh on May 02, 2016, 05:04:13 PM
Hello everyone. I am currently in Europe (Czech/Austria) and these are the laws followed here.
http://www.caa.cz/letadla-bez-pilota-na-palube/provoz-ostatnich-letadel-bez-pilota-na-palube (Czech)
http://www.austrocontrol.at/luftfahrtbehoerde/formulare__serviceinfo/allg_informationen/faq/ulfz (Austria)

I'm sure most of us know already the laws from the FAA. I just want to give a different perspective. Over here there is a clear distinction between a "drone" and a "model airplane". This distinction mostly comes up when there is FPV involved. In case of a drone, there needs to be some sort of registration/clearance otherwise if flown for recreational use then there is no need for any such registration (provided everything is within limits eg. weights, heights, flyzones, etc)


Title: Re:
Post by: sanjayrai55 on May 02, 2016, 07:13:27 PM
UIN to be affixed by the importer/seller/manufacturer? Read LHS

Sent from my Mi 4i using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Dharmik on May 02, 2016, 07:49:53 PM
It's better than nothing but in my opinion 250grams is too low. nowadays only frame weight will reach to 250.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 02, 2016, 07:58:30 PM
UIN to be affixed by the importer/seller/manufacturer? Read LHS

That's not mentioned. It simply says "All unmanned aircraft intended to be operated in India will require an Unique
Identification Number (UIN) issued from DGCA"

It is operator specific as clearly seen from 4.2. So end users and not importer/seller is required to apply for UIN. Also if manufacturer is same as operator, like hobbyists, then he is required to apply for UIN.

The requirements in section 4.2 is sure to cause difficulties for end users. This will make it impossible to fly if these requirements stay in the final version.

- applying to DGCA office
- getting police verification / character certificate report from police for each UA
- getting WPC clearance


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 02, 2016, 11:52:45 PM
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/02/debunking-the-drone-versus-plane-hysteria/


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on May 03, 2016, 11:33:55 AM
Dear All,
Is this is acceptable to all ?

- Please exempt registration requirement for Model Aircraft weighing less than 2kg (Micro Category) for recreational purpose without payload and flying in uncontrolled airspace and clear of notified prohibited, restricted and danger areas as well as Temporary Segregated Areas (TSA) and Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA).
- Please modify the rule to permit online registration of Model Aircraft Pilot above 15 years and assign Unique Identification Number to them. The registered Model Aircraft Pilot shall be permitted to fly under the following conditions;
    - Model Aircraft weighing less than 20 kg (Mini Category) and for recreational purpose and without payload;
    - Flying shall be always under ceiling height of 400 Feet and 500 Meters of perimeter of radius 500mtrs VLOS (Edited as per Sundaram Sir)
    - Flying location shall be only in uncontrolled airspace and clear of notified prohibited, restricted and danger areas as well as Temporary Segregated Areas (TSA) and Temporary Reserved Areas (TRA). The flying location is confined to the premises of a local administration and ATS permitted field/clubs.
    - Model Aircraft Pilot Unique Identification Number shall be affixed on the model on Fire Proof material.
    - Model Aircraft not complying to the above conditions shall follow UIN Registration and other requirements as per the guidelines.

Let us not decide ourselves that they won't exempt 2kg.

@santanucus
- We are suggesting for Online Registration. If they are unable to make a online system, one time registration of pilot through offline system is also acceptable. Is it OK ?
- We have not given any documentation requirements for pilot registration. If they include police clearance requirement, we have to comply. Again, it is one time. Is it OK ?
- You have already permission from WPC for using 2.4 GHz TX/RX. You have to check for ETA from where you have bought the transmitter.
 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 03, 2016, 03:29:22 PM
@vibranthobbies...I'd check in details when I get back home. For now just one comment....is there any difference between the term "model aircraft" and UA? If these are the same, shouldn't we use their term? Otherwise another layer of confusion would be added.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 03, 2016, 03:53:49 PM
Model Aircraft is a UA without Payload used for Recreational Purposes. Refer Definitions.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: laritiewsoh on May 03, 2016, 04:02:44 PM
In the Czech Republic, they use the following definition (roughly translated into English):

Unmanned aircraft (UA) aircraft is designed to operate without a pilot on board (which may be and usually is part of an unmanned system). In the context of the legislative framework of the Czech Republic for unmanned aircraft drones consider all models except for aircraft with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 20 kg.

Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) is a system consisting of an unmanned aircraft, control station and any other elements necessary to enable the flight, such as communication links and devices for draining and return. Unmanned aircraft, control stations or devices for launch and return can be within the unmanned system more.

Model aircraft aircraft which is not capable of carrying humans on board, is used for competition, sport or recreational purposes, not equipped with any device allowing automatic flight to the desired point, and that, in the case of the free model is not remotely controlled otherwise than for the purpose of ending flight or, in the case of remote controlled model, for the duration of the flight via the transmitter directly controlled by the pilot in the visual sight.

While in Austria:

If the aircraft
- in a radius of more than 500 m or
- paid or business or
- for purposes other than for the sole purpose of the flight itself operated,

an operating license by Austro Control GmbH is necessary for it.

For the classification as unmanned aircraft, it is sufficient that one of these alternatives present. Therefore, once a camera is turned on to an aircraft and this is not the purpose of the flight itself serves (when images are saved / photos, videos, etc. are made) is an operating license required. This is regardless of whether the recordings private or commercial nature.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 03, 2016, 10:47:46 PM
@vibranthobbies....that's quite reasonable I guess.

Regarding the registration of pilot, I think it would be proper if the pilot applies to DGCA first and then DGCA itself forwards documents for police verification. This is similar to passport application. Person applies to passport dept. who forwards to police for verification.

But if the pilot concerned has to get a certificate from police first and then apply to DGCA, that would make it tough. So I think the whole process has to be made clear to DGCA.

Regarding WPC clearance, it is ok in respect of aircraft constructed by hobbyist. But what about RTFs? I think henceforth, every seller of RTF and Tx/Rx parts should mandatorily provide copy of WPC clearance to the end user/buyer and that should be incorporated in the rules. But what about aircrafts purchased earlier?

I did not understand this line: "The flying location is confined to the premises of a local administration and ATS permitted field/clubs." Do you mean that we cannot fly in places other than ones designated by the government? If its is meant so, then it is restrictive. We should be allowed to fly in any place except certain pre-designated locations and populated areas.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on May 03, 2016, 11:14:23 PM
Hi,
I don't find anything regarding police verification in our comments.
Repeatedly, I am telling that let DGCA decides what is required for Pilot Registration.
How can we equate Police verification for passport to your hobby flying registration and ask DGCA to do the police verification ?

Regarding WPC, if they exempt UIN registration upto 2kg our problem is solved.

Regarding flying location, initially my suggestions was to establish "No fly Zones". But, based on suggestion by sundaram sir, i adopted the  the proposal for flying at nominated locations.

Alternatively, we have to also provide comments line by line to DGCA guidelines.

Kumaran


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 04, 2016, 07:22:06 AM
Right now they haven't said anything about having to fly only at certain locations. We just need to remain clear of populated/ sensitive areas and airports. Why ask for more restriction then? I don't want to have to travel to a flying field outside the city every time I want to fly. And also, all these proposals are asking for 500m VLOS. What happens to FPV/ long range flying then?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 04, 2016, 08:32:36 AM
Exactly. We shouldn't suggest more restrictions than DGCA already has done. Why suggest that flying may be done in specified locations when there are thousands of locations with no people, away from airports, away from any sensitive area. Safety precautions may be suggested ... but specified areas? India is a big country and we can fly only in a limited number of areas? Not agreed ! I don't think any other country has got such rules. If someone in a village want to fly there, will he be forced to violate the rules? We should be practical.

DGCA will of course decide what it takes for pilot registration. That does not mean that they are not open to suggestion. Else they would not have sought comments.  Whether they would accept our suggestions is their prerogative. But if we don't suggest, they won't understand the issues.

So, regarding police verification, I am sure DGCA will definitely have a registration cell for handling these things. DGCA will simply forward the letter to police to request police verification. On getting reply from police they will grant licence. That's all. We will pay application fee to DGCA and all expenses will be covered by that. Not having anything in our reply on the process of police verification will be a blunder.




Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 04, 2016, 08:50:53 AM
Regarding FPV, I think we need to pay special attention to this upcoming sport. FPV in India will be destroyed in the bud if they make it too restrictive. FPV will give a quantum boost to this hobby. So we should give special attention to this issue and suggest accordingly.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: vibranthobbies on May 04, 2016, 10:21:27 AM
Noted.
Hope you all agree to some common points;
1. Exemption upto 2 kg for recreational purpose
2. Pilot registration upto 20 kg for recreational purpose
3. Height upto 400 feet.

You can include additional suggestions to DGCA as you wish.

Kumaran



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 04, 2016, 10:53:52 AM
That, I think, everybody will agree to.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Rathi on May 04, 2016, 11:33:57 AM
can we not have more complicated things and just keep it as those 3 simple points? maybe a license to differentiate us from commercial users and that set us apart for commercial pilots and we should be set... a lot of people fly slow flyers in their backyards and if u tell them to go to a flying field, it just doesn't seem sensible...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 04, 2016, 12:14:57 PM
Yes...I'd like to have that sort of differentiation and its a good proposal. But weight based exemption can make that differentiation as well because those who fly in their backyards mostly fly smaller aircrafts. Of course I am not in favour of specifically designated flying areas for everyone. That will be severely restrictive. But since it is not being agreed upon by everyone...so we may go for a "minimum common agenda" like above and then individuals can give their own proposals


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sameerpawaskar on May 04, 2016, 12:32:21 PM
sir,
i have clearance for both never paid any chai panni
also if you have papers clear
they are very courteous.
trouble starts when some thing are missing
then they smell blood
&  hunt is on
regards
sameer


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 04, 2016, 01:49:43 PM
Clearance for what Sameer 😀😀. Enlighten us too.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 04, 2016, 01:59:15 PM
Hmm... clearance for what? I even have no problem with chai pani. But with "drones" it may easily become "whiskey soda" ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sameerpawaskar on May 04, 2016, 02:22:24 PM
hi,
you are right about things escalating to "whiskey soda"
clearance for  Character Certificate from Police and WPC clearance
sameer


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 04, 2016, 06:55:35 PM
1. With regard to WPC clearance for recreational use of Model Aircraft, it should be represented that WPC has already type approved many equipment, so as long as the equipment used by a hobbyist is figuring in the WPC approval library that should be sufficient proof of compliance.
2. Make registration for fliers/individuals and not aero models. Make it easy process for greater compliance. The UIN allotted should be marked on aero model during the time of flight. This is what the FAA is doing.
3. Height restrictions removed for aero models up 7 Kg (like UK) as long as these are not flown in various designated restricted/controlled/sensitive areas.
   
Also what we need is numbers to represent. We need each member to write to the designated person at DGCA apart from common ones being organized at various levels. Quote international practice, other countries rules, give evidence of the same along with your point.
It is important that the points/feed backs submitted are in the language the department understands best. Use their acronyms etc.   
I am sending an individual letter and request each one here to do so 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: roysankar on May 04, 2016, 08:16:12 PM
If I am reading these Guidelines right, 2 clauses in particular make me nervous.

One: "Designated Flying Fields". Are areas for these marked out in every major city? Let alone the smaller towns! Most of us fly our scratch-builts in every little safe place we can find. Will we now have to deal with a mama shoving these guidelines in our face and asking for chai-pani?

Two: the clause about "payloads". Will attaching a GoPro to our EasyStar now be illegal? Kucch bhi!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 04, 2016, 10:14:10 PM
There is no mention of designated area in the draft. Where are you reading it?
Second yes per the draft any UA with payload is considered non exempt and will require an UIN and UAOP. Flying with Payload without UIN and UAOP will be illegal per the draft.
However the point that needs to be noted is that Payload is not defined at the draft. That is what needs to be brought up with the DGCA to remove this ambiguity.  


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 05, 2016, 12:42:45 AM
No. The mention of designated area is not there in the draft. Its in one of the proposals drafted by members. That's what we were discussing about. My opinion was that we should not add anything extra in our proposal which causes inconvenience to fliers but which which DGCA has not mentioned in draft.

Payload has been defined in the draft. It says "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."

So a camera, by this definition, is a payload.

Quote
Also what we need is numbers to represent. We need each member to write to the designated person at DGCA apart from common ones being organized at various levels. Quote international practice, other countries rules, give evidence of the same along with your point.
It is important that the points/feed backs submitted are in the language the department understands best. Use their acronyms etc.    
I am sending an individual letter and request each one here to do so

21st is the last date. I think we should discuss and start sending 15th onwards. The format in word and excel posted in this thread earlier is very convenient for making para-wise proposals. And since DGCA thinks FAA is God I'd read their rules in details before drafting my own comments.

This video describes the process of registration by FAA in USA. This gives the details of the rules and registration process for hobbyists in USA. This will help us understand the rules without going through the documents. One can see the video and note down the key points which we may include in our suggestions, if found relevant in our context

If anyone sees the part on the registration process in the video (27 minutes onward), one can see how easy it is to register. DGCA has taken many aspects from these regulations and then introduced inspector raj elements into it like police verification etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XqhjVv1kE8

The salient point in USA for registering UAs are

-UA ranging from 250 gms to 25Kgs which are used for non-commercial purposes need to be registered
- UA below 250gm are exempted from registration
- Registration is simple and online. There is no "police verification" involved. Nor "WPC clearance" like us.
- Registration fee is $5 to be paid once.
- Registration is required for pilots/users and not for individual aircrafts in case of non-commercial use. Using the registration, the pilot can fly as many aircrafts as he wishes.
- The online-generated registration number is to be kept in the possession of the pilot during flying. To be affixed in ALL aircraft that the pilot flies. No need to get UIN for non-commercial operations.
- There is no requirement for affixing fire-proof ID plate.
- allowed height is 400m


Just note the difference with DGCA proposal ! There are hundreds of thousands of drone in USA. They have faced 9/11. But still they have such an easy to comply rule. And here in India, we can't think beyond introducing Inspector Raj into everything. We take parts of their rule and introduce the worst things into it. Our mentality is such that we actually support such outdated proposals in the name of security...security which can't be implemented.

USA has easy to comply registering requirements but a stiff penalty for non-compliance with penalty of $27000 at the minimum which may extend to jails for criminal cases. In India, there would be a stiff and hard-to-comply requirement for registration and people would be forced to violate such rules because it would be so difficult to comply.

It is clear that DGCA has taken elements from the US FAA rules and modified it. So the following would not be unreasonable if we propose individually

- raising height to 400m because its only 40 storey building high.

- for recreational purpose, exemption upto 2Kg. (i.e. for micro)

- for recreational purpose, for weight category >2kg. upto 20Kg. simple web-based online registration WITHOUT police verification or WPC clearance (for mini)

- rather than making registration for each UA, for recreational use, pilot registration may be done. The unique registration number of the pilot may be affixed on every UA flown by the pilot. However if DGCA thinks that every UA need to be registered, that can be done ONLY IF it is done through a simple online web-based system. The online registration system can be made AADHAR based for identifying the pilot.

- for rest of the categories online or offline registration with police verification may be required


The key aspect of registration is simple web based registration (initially it can be made paper based too). But WITHOUT police verification and WPC requirements. This will make it easy to comply with the law and people will not be tempted to not register because of fear of police harassment or WPC delay.

We have to emphasize that they have to make a law which is easy to comply. A law which is difficult to comply will prompt people to try to bypass it.

I think the above modifications will satisfy most recreational users and hobbyists.

P.S. After looking at this fpv video, I think we all should write a paragraph to DGCA to make it easier for this sport to develop. Including allowing foreigners to register.

https://www.facebook.com/quartznews/videos/1169917936375240/


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: shobhit17 on May 05, 2016, 08:34:11 PM
I guess the AMAI has got involved with the entire thing..... we need to highlight the issues from the FAA policy too.... the DGCA is not made of fools.... after all it has the mandate of safe use of Indian airspace which is a very big responsibility..... The very fact that they have put the draft policy for comments by hobby and commercial aeromodellers speaks very well of them.  I am sure a easier policy meeting all demands of the DGCA will come out soon....


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: aamin172001 on May 06, 2016, 11:55:45 AM
And what about all the packages already detained by customs and asking wpc noc, there are thousands of...? Will we hobby lovers have to loss all this? Or will there be any ways to get it cleared after the guidelines will finally announces....?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 06, 2016, 12:46:36 PM
@santanu Absolutely rock solid and to the point!  :salute:  :bow: Lets have no more of same discussion that are leading to all these points santanu has stated. Let us all start flooding DGCA with our mails so that we can make these things happen. We have very few ppl into this field compared to other countries do to the fact of import problems, blown out customs duty. We could add-on this point that this is a Sport meant to grow and the government can do its part in supporting this by bringing changes to the few laws suggested and also exemption(or slight exemption)from unnecesarry documents, customs duty on import of RC items from foreign.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 06, 2016, 12:48:38 PM
Please sign this if you haven't: https://www.change.org/p/directorate-general-of-civil-aviation-form-rules-for-uav-flying-as-a-recreational-hobby?recruiter=135098595&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 10, 2016, 08:25:20 PM
Sending the email now. Hopefully they would at least consider what we are asking from them. I dont want to end up adding useless weight to my 250 sized quad and the guidelines are just silly for hobbyist to follow.


Title: Re: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: merin_83 on May 10, 2016, 09:52:08 PM
Please sign this if you haven't: https://www.change.org/p/directorate-general-of-civil-aviation-form-rules-for-uav-flying-as-a-recreational-hobby?recruiter=135098595&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
I have signed this.. A can we have it as sticky else it might get buried ....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 11, 2016, 06:44:57 AM
I don't plan on signing that petition as it is asking for a ban on autopilots- 'autonomous UAVs controlled by Artificial Intelligence'. Why is it that people feel a need to ask for even more restrictions than what the DGCA wants to impose? Especially on a technology that makes flying safer.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 11, 2016, 10:39:45 AM
I signed that petition earlier. I think its a bit outdated now, after the publication of the draft rules. Many new issues have come up. In fact in the draft rules there is a mandatory(?) provision for GPS RTH/Fencing and Tracking at para 10.23. So autonomous flight is allowed subject to VLOS. I don't think the draft rule is against artificial intelligence as such.

I plan to write the mail to DGCA after 14th and will post it here.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Kiran26 on May 17, 2016, 01:28:53 PM
Hobbyist shouldn't be restricted but as long as safety of others is ensured. What was the person thinking while drafting such a rule, why the paranoia ? ICAO is mentioned but misinterpreted. That's for integration of the UAS with the mainstream traffic and its not required now in India. We should be allowed to continue as most of us are doing away from population and restricted airspace infact instead of the blanket restriction, the govt. should define clearly the restricted air space. the rest of the area should be free for pursuing the hobby as long as life is not risked. I suppose even in the us the 400t rule exists only near the airport beyond that there is no restriction.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 06:44:52 PM
I have sent my comments to DGCA on the draft Circular today. Last date is 21st May. Comments have to be sent to

Shri Lalit Gupta,
Joint Director General,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Opp. Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 003.

email: lalit.dgca@nic.in


My letter and the other enclosed documents have been linked here. There might be some errors as I am busy with other matters and did not get enough time to write. Hopefully, I have been able to communicate the main points properly.

Letter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCLVJteDd1ZGk1WFU
Ref-1: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCaHdiX0pLMGdaUFk
Ref-2: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCdm9kbG53SUczLVU


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 18, 2016, 07:25:44 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: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 18, 2016, 07:36:24 PM
Why mention point 6 in your letter when Dgca has not mentioned anything about cameras? please don't ruin it for others when dgca is not currently concerned about it other points seem fine.


Title: Re:
Post by: sooraj.palakkad on May 18, 2016, 08:20:34 PM
AMAI is in to making more trouble.

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on May 18, 2016, 08:26:14 PM
Agree....we should not suggest anything from our side regarding Camera or FPV....FPV seems to be natural progression for enthusiastic flyers...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 18, 2016, 08:38:35 PM
From the post on the FB group of AMAI its clear that they have no interest in the FPV aspect of the this hobby. Also intend is quite clear that they want us to be sidelined so that hey are protected. Laxman sir says we'll talk in the future about this? But why? When the time is here why you want to wait? I have no problem with AMAI or the things they are doing, but why are they trying to safe guard their own interest by trampling over other's?
Here is the link to the draft Laxman Sir has proposed
https://www.facebook.com/groups/368147636684009/


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 08:49:55 PM
Why mention point 6 in your letter when Dgca has not mentioned anything about cameras? please don't ruin it for others when dgca is not currently concerned about it other points seem fine.

Sorry .. that was a slip of tongue...er computer keys. I shouldn't have written it. It was written in a previous letter and I copied it. Forgot to omit that part. Hope that DGCA does not give it too much notice :(

Anyway I mentioned camera in the passing. Did not write too much on it which would make it too much noticeable.

But what about the AMAI draft ! Its a total piece of sh*t. Sorry for the language but I am totally totally opposed to it and will write directly that AMAI does not serve our interest or interest of most of the recreational fliers. I am going to write another letter opposing it and will pursue it till the end to see that such points are not accepted. Those who are opposed to the AMAI stand please join hands. I have never seen a more self-centred letter than this one


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 18, 2016, 09:10:11 PM

b]But what about the AMAI draft ! Its a total piece of sh*t. Sorry for the language but I am totally totally opposed to it and will write directly that AMAI does not serve our interest or interest of most of the recreational fliers.[/b]

Totally agreed! From the looks of it AMAI is just looking to make money by getting more members to register with them!
AMAI Draft - 9. Mandatory for all recreational pilots to be registered with an Aeromodelling club or to participate as a participant from his college or institution.

This is really upsetting!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 09:12:45 PM

Totally agreed! From the looks of it AMAI is just looking to make money by getting more members to register with them!
AMAI Draft - 9. Mandatory for all recreational pilots to be registered with an Aeromodelling club or to participate as a participant from his college or institution.

This is really upsetting!

Corrupt people ...just intend to make money. We should oppose this vehemently. Preparing a draft opposing AMAI. The government should not allow a corrupt private interest group to dictate flying in India. We should write a letter specifically opposing the attempt of a private group of people to control recreational flying in India.

I am also going to file and RTI to know from DGCA whether they can allow any private body to dictate recreational flying. In any case any such effort will not stand the scrutiny of law. Any attempt to do so by DGCA will attract legal actions.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 18, 2016, 09:18:09 PM
I am just gonna go ahead with your draft removing the fpv / camera part from it.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 09:25:08 PM
I am just gonna go ahead with your draft removing the fpv / camera part from it.

That would be fine. I am preparing another draft specifically opposing the AMAI points. Going to issue RTI too.

Just in case anybody needs my draft in MS Word format, here it is: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCYXJhRWhuWElOZHM


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 18, 2016, 09:42:03 PM
Guys May I suggest you read up and understand what is being presented?
I do not see anything wrong with registering with "An Aeromodelling Club" or "Educational institution".
Please note that they are not forcing you to join "AMAI" or "a particular club".
Once you are part of an institution/Organization you have follow the set of rules. And that is what is being recommended that instead of DGCA laying down the rules we can manage with community (read club/educational institute) based rules.  This will ensure two things
1. That we have least amount of caveats and rules laid down by DGCA
2. That the fringe elements who follow no rules do not spoil the hobby.
   


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 09:48:08 PM
Why should we join an aeromodelling club and pay money to them? There is no such rule anywhere else in the world. Not even in USA from where DGCA has borrowed significant part of the rules.

There are a number of objectionable parts in their drafts.

Notifying police everytime one flies. Is this any sane recommendation?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: allthatido on May 18, 2016, 09:55:45 PM
If they want to safeguard pure aeromodellers, they can definitely do that but not by putting others in bad light.


Santanucus, I will use your last posted comments in doc and send a mail today. Thanks for drafting the document. Very well done.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 18, 2016, 10:02:31 PM
I do not see anything wrong with registering with "An Aeromodelling Club" or "Educational institution".
Please note that they are not forcing you to join "AMAI" or "a particular club".
   

Why pay AMAI? I rather pay the government to for registering since they are the ones creating the rules. The guidelines AMAI has suggested are against automated flying and fpv which personally I feel is rather irrelevant and they should not have mentioned it. They should be looking after everyones interest.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 18, 2016, 10:03:59 PM
Santanu
Do research and read up, there is a requirement in US to be registered with local AMA club and fly at club's field, else you are pretty much on your own in respect to every thing else starting from insurance to ending with brush with the law. And penalties and liabilities are quite hefty if you know in US whether for damage to property or breaking the law :).

However the document AMAI has put up on FB is not a comment/suggestion on the DGCA draft. It can at best be called as an appeal for exemption. Do not know if it will be taken cognizance while finalizing the guidelines    


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 18, 2016, 10:05:28 PM
Guys
That is where the problem is. Neither are you reading what is there in AMAI document, nor are you reading what the other person is writing. Do so please before making use of the omnipresent and oh! so easy to use keyboard and and a computer   


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 10:25:31 PM
I checked the AMAI draft before posting and understand exactly what their intention is.

Anyway, the rule in USA is pretty simple. Register online or else. There might be provisions for clubs but as I understand from my friends who stay in US, majority of people who fly are not attached with any club. Most are casual fliers and don't have time to get attached with clubs. Insurance is available and the premiums are not too much. So "on your own" in US is not as terrible as it sounds


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 18, 2016, 10:36:33 PM
Guys
That is where the problem is. Neither are you reading what is there in AMAI document, nor are you reading what the other person is writing. Do so please before making use of the omnipresent and oh! so easy to use keyboard and and a computer  
tell me what this means?

Exemptions for Recreational Flying / Hobby by AMAI

6. Payload – camera and recording equipment or any other payload onboard of a Model Aircraft while conduction recreational / hobby flying is not permitted.
10. The place, date, and time of operations to be notified to local police in advance, and the notification will be responsibility of the club / institutions.
11. Autonomous flying not permitted, the model Aircraft will not have any sensors / GPS / RTL / or other equipments that lets the model fly without control inputs from the pilot. The free flights Model Aircrafts do not have any radio control. Any device to prevent the model from crashing in case of battery or RF link failure is permitted.

These are the points I am personally against. When AMAI puts something on their page and asks people to send it. People are going to do so without reading the people here who have really noticed the flaws of what they have suggested and are trying to stop people from blindly copy/pasting. and also tell me. why mention the specific use for camera when it has not even been mentioned in the DGCA draft?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 18, 2016, 10:44:54 PM
From AMAI Draft... at https://www.facebook.com/groups/368147636684009/

Point 6. Payload – camera and recording equipment or any other payload onboard of a Model Aircraft while conduction recreational / hobby flying is not permitted.

Not acceptable. When the DGCA draft does not directly mention anything about this, why should anyone write this on their own? (I made the same mistake...it was not deliberate and the issue was not mentioned in details in my letter (just mentioned camera in passing) and of course, I don't ask anyone to blindly copy what I have written..unlike AMAI)

7. Hours of operation only between sunrise and sunset

Don't see any point in writing this point when the DGCA draft does not mention anything on it.

8. Met conditions for operations – min. Visibility of 3000 Meters and wind speed of 20 knots. Ceiling not lower than 500ft

Why do I need such met conditions when I want to fly for, say only 100 metres away? Also what is the point? Is this enforceable? Who is going to measure met conditions which change so often? AMAI has confused between dos and don'ts / guidelines with rules.

9. Mandatory for all recreational pilots to be registered with an Aeromodelling club or to participate as a

Discussed this already. Not at all agreed. How many such clubs are there in India? What does a person in a rural area or a small town do? Why should we mandatorily pay private clubs for flying? Will this rule  stand if challenged in court?

10. The place, date, and time of operations to be notified to local police in advance, and the notification will be responsibility of the club / institutions.

Don't want to even comment on how absurd this rule is! You want to fly in a rural area in a vast open field. You call your city club. They phone and inform the constable in your local police station. Or else, you have to fly in a field designated by your club.  :banghead:

And if something happens, police will say we don't have any letter from anyone. So clubs will need to write letters to the PS everytime you fly. This is a good joke  :bow:

11. Autonomous flying not permitted, the model Aircraft will not have any sensors / GPS / RTL / or other

The DGCA draft says GPS and RTH is required and these people say "not permitted". What to say...I am stunned.

The letter is also badly drafted and does not touch upon most of the contentious points. But I should not teach anybody on that. Still it seems to me that they had drafted what they had planned to say irrespective of whether it is there in the DGCA circular or not.

I don't know what kind of members AMAI have. If their members blindly forward such an absurd letter just because someone has drafted it, God help them. But be sure, I will write to DGCA and file RTI against any such attempt to monopolize flying rights. The letter may sound absurd to many of us but its not. Unless we take such attempts seriously, our hobby will be the fiefdom of a select group of people.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 19, 2016, 08:44:28 AM
Thank you for the detailed letter Santanu. I used it as a base for my own letter, which I have attached below. I added several points regarding FPV and also added a paragraph at the end condemning the AMAI letter. Let me know if anyone has any inputs or suggestions. If not, I will email it to the DGCA today itself.

Here is the document in Word format in case anyone needs it- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6XjbwXPI1coRGhfcHlmMS1JS0U/view?usp=sharing


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 09:15:12 AM
Why go to such length to expose the divide amongst us. Just add a line in AMAI draft to include online registration of Recreational use Model Aircraft up to 30kgs with payload like camera Autopilot GPS purely for recreational purposes and innovations intended to be flown below 500ft away from restricted and sensitive areas without infringing anyones privacy or property. On the similar lines of FAA. Modalities of content of online form is not difficult to compile.

Even you fly in a village you can't escape from registering your self with club or DGCA. No longer you will be able to follow hobby in hiding.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: manojswizera on May 19, 2016, 10:44:19 AM
From AMAI Draft... at https://www.facebook.com/groups/368147636684009/

Point 6. Payload – camera and recording equipment or any other payload onboard of a Model Aircraft while conduction recreational / hobby flying is not permitted.

Not acceptable. When the DGCA draft does not directly mention anything about this, why should anyone write this on their own? (I made the same mistake...it was not deliberate and the issue was not mentioned in details in my letter (just mentioned camera in passing) and of course, I don't ask anyone to blindly copy what I have written..unlike AMAI)

7. Hours of operation only between sunrise and sunset

Don't see any point in writing this point when the DGCA draft does not mention anything on it.

8. Met conditions for operations – min. Visibility of 3000 Meters and wind speed of 20 knots. Ceiling not lower than 500ft

Why do I need such met conditions when I want to fly for, say only 100 metres away? Also what is the point? Is this enforceable? Who is going to measure met conditions which change so often? AMAI has confused between dos and don'ts / guidelines with rules.

9. Mandatory for all recreational pilots to be registered with an Aeromodelling club or to participate as a

Discussed this already. Not at all agreed. How many such clubs are there in India? What does a person in a rural area or a small town do? Why should we mandatorily pay private clubs for flying? Will this rule  stand if challenged in court?

10. The place, date, and time of operations to be notified to local police in advance, and the notification will be responsibility of the club / institutions.

Don't want to even comment on how absurd this rule is! You want to fly in a rural area in a vast open field. You call your city club. They phone and inform the constable in your local police station. Or else, you have to fly in a field designated by your club.  :banghead:

And if something happens, police will say we don't have any letter from anyone. So clubs will need to write letters to the PS everytime you fly. This is a good joke  :bow:

11. Autonomous flying not permitted, the model Aircraft will not have any sensors / GPS / RTL / or other

The DGCA draft says GPS and RTH is required and these people say "not permitted". What to say...I am stunned.

The letter is also badly drafted and does not touch upon most of the contentious points. But I should not teach anybody on that. Still it seems to me that they had drafted what they had planned to say irrespective of whether it is there in the DGCA circular or not.

I don't know what kind of members AMAI have. If their members blindly forward such an absurd letter just because someone has drafted it, God help them. But be sure, I will write to DGCA and file RTI against any such attempt to monopolize flying rights. The letter may sound absurd to many of us but its not. Unless we take such attempts seriously, our hobby will be the fiefdom of a select group of people.

Agreed with 'santanucus ' 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: pravesh736 on May 19, 2016, 10:52:32 AM
Amai is not willing to remove 2 lines from their draft which mentions ban on camera, autopilot etc, let alone adding what you suggested (we hope for same)
We are hoping no one has to pursue this hobby in hiding in villages that is why we need to voice our needs like requesting pilot registration along the faa lines instead of having to join a non government body which has different focus so far.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 19, 2016, 11:13:01 AM
The suggestions that have been put into by AMAI is full of bu****it and crap. They are trying to save something which they are interested into. And yes they are trying to kill multirotors, no FPV no AUTOPILOT??? aren't the main reason why we or many flyers here use multirotors??

I AM SHOUTING A BIG VERY BIG SHOUT TO AMAI and big big big thumbs down.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 19, 2016, 11:30:32 AM
Totally agreed. If only AMAI had paid more attention to the needs of others and not just themselves.
A very selfish move from AMAI.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 12:47:46 PM
Guys no need to complicate the issue at this juncture when dealing with an Govt Authority. We should not expose out weakness of divide among st us.

AMAI is not Institutionalizing AMAI as the only aeromodelling Club. Its just any aeromodelling club. As such majority among-st us are already organised under our own Regional Banner and Clubs. You will surely agree with me that pursuing this hobby as a community of Clubs always gives it more credence as a responsible activity by group of law abiding citizens. No one would like to pursue this in a hiding. its only those who have a ulterior motive would like to saddle back on under the guise of a hobby fora.

Yes AMAI has its own immediate interest of protecting just the Model flying hobby to that end they are interested in taking out a base guideline prompto. we can develop and modify from there once you get a recognition that's the thinking of AMAI.

Not withstanding the above I have modified and sent the AMAI draft as under including guidelines for Model Aircraft with Payload of a Camera purely for recreational flying. Further I have a word to word amendment of the original DGCA draft to include all the above which is still under improvement which I will be sending in due course of time.


Sub :- Guidelines for Obtaining Unique Identification Number (UIN) & Operation of Civil Unmanned    
             Aircraft System ( UAS)

Sir,
I am a Serving Army Officer who has been pursuing the passion of recreational flying in Model Aircraft Aviation along with my Son of Age 14 years for almost six years now with a hope that he will develop interest in a career in Indian Airforce or Commercial Manned Aviation Industry in future or just follow this hobby as a constructive outlet and to develop a creative passion in our personality development.

In reference to your Air Transport Circular XX of 2016 I highly appreciate the concern of DGCA not only in formulating the guidelines but to regulate this sport also. The draft contains all the regulations as required for regulating any sport, however this draft seems to have drafted with more emphasis on commercial flying and less of recreational flying. I would like to bring to your notice the presence of Large Community of Model Aircraft enthusiast in our country who has been safely practicing this beautiful hobby since ages.  Like how DGCA is interested in keeping tabs on all the UAS activity and the parties interested in pursuing this field for recreational as well as for commercial purposes, we also as part of Hobby community would like to proudly proclaim our presence to the authorities concerned and claim to fame in this hobby by loudly declaring our identity and presence and continue to pursue this hobby without being a nuisance to others and without the risk of this beautiful hobby being marginalized into the category of criminal activity.

 In this modern internet age of computerization and IT networking it is very easy to compile and track credentials of the willing participant. Rather than making the entire process unfriendly for the willing common man who wish to comply to be on the right side of law,   it is urged that modern methods of online registration to be put in place on the similar lines of FAA for the common recreational flier who is equally interested in just safely pursuing this passion/hobby without being nuisance to anyone or infringing any property. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest some amendments for Model Aircraft for recreational flying.  These suggestions if accepted would help everyone, including children, new comers as well as hobbyists.

Guidelines for Model Aircraft Recreational Flying / Hobby
1. Aim – to learn aerodynamics, theory of flight, research in field of aviation and flying maneuvers to participate in competitions or to undertake as a hobby, Promote Education /Research and To inculcate air mindedness and career interest in the field of manned aviation amongst the youth of tomorrow.
2. Age – no limit. **Age under 13 to pursue Recreational Model Aircraft flying under strict Adult Supervision/ Trained Adult Model Aircraft Pilot.
3. Type of model aircraft – single / multi- rotor or fixed wing of any dimension
4. Max weight – up to 30 kilos
5. Flying envelope – within visual range of pilot flying and within the confines of the area permitted for carrying out such exercise. Vertical limit up to max 500ft AGL
6. Hours of operation only between sunrise and sunset
7. Met conditions for operations – min. Visibility of 3000 Meters and wind speed of 20 knots. Ceiling not lower than 500ft
8. Mandatory for all recreational pilots to be registered with any Aeromodelling club or to participate as a participant from his college or institution. However, no requirement of UIN or UAOP for recreational flying by DGCA. All club / institutions will be responsible for issuing registration NO to their members to be displayed on their model aircrafts. All Aeromodelling Clubs will maintain following documentation.
(a)   Monthly Summary of Registered Model Aircraft Pilots with the club to be submitted to DGCA with addition and deletion to the club memberships.
(b)   Daily Flight log of all Model Aircraft Pilots flying in the permitted space to be maintained.
(c)   Strict Radio Frequency control in the Flying field to be maintained to prevent interference and accidents.
(d)   Regular Internal Audit of Training standards of the pilots in the Club and their classifications.
(e)   Strict Audit and Control on flight safety and safe flying practices of the Model Aircraft Pilots in the permitted flying field.

9. The place, date, and time of operations to be notified to local police in advance, and the notification will be responsibility of the club / institutions.
10. Not to be conducted over restricted, prohibited, danger areas, military cantonments, security installations and protected monuments as notified from time to time.
11. International operations across the territory over water shall be strictly prohibited & 50 Kms from the international borders.
12. No flying shall be permitted so as to be in conflict of safe conduct of operations in the vicinity including approach paths and departure paths of operational airports, except when authorized. Any violations of this rule will attract severest of punishments including but not limited to imprisonment.
13. Any kind of powered or unpowered model aircrafts can be used for recreational flying.
14. Use of only de-licensed frequency band as notified by WPC from time to time.
15. Dropping of any kind while performing recreational flying is strictly prohibited.
16. Import of model aircrafts, their spares, parts and accessories, by individuals / clubs / institutions / body, should be permitted without any restrictions or conditions of approval from DGCA, in accordance to the Import Trade Control policies as existing or maybe modified time to time.
17. Autonomous flying not permitted for the model Aircraft with only registration numbers of Aeromodelling Clubs and as such will not have any Cameras/Payload/Sensors / GPS / RTL / or other equipments that lets the model fly without control inputs from the pilot. The free flights Model Aircrafts do not have any radio control. Any device to prevent the model from crashing in case of battery or RF link failure is permitted.
18.  All Model Aircraft enthusiasts who wish to pursue purely Recreational flying of Model Aircraft under 25 KGs with a payload of a camera and Command and Control Autopilot flying within the confines of the permitted flying field/ away from restricted airspace and sensitive areas without infringing privacy or property, purely for the purpose of recreational flying under 400ft AGL, within the VLOS of a Spotter, involving RC sports/hobby flying activity, innovation projects, recreational photography has to Log in DGCA Portal and register their Recreational Pilot Credentials and Details of the Model Aircraft for obtaining UIN for display on the Model Aircraft on case to case basis.
(a)   Such Model Aircraft will have flight controllers and Autopilots with Sensors for flight stabilization.
(b)   For all such Model Aircraft above 500gms, It’s Mandatory to have a GPS, a RTL feature, and Virtual Fence feature enabled to perform a Command and Control Auto Pilot flight and return to home.
(c)   Under no circumstances such Model aircraft of any weight category will be flown over property, public, restricted airspace.
(d)   No such UIN requirement for such Model Aircraft for such recreational flying with camera payload under 250gms.


**Considering recreational flying I Personally request DGCA to kindly consider the suggestions, these suggestions if accepted would help the young ones to understand aviation much better and will help in developing the young RC pilots to match with International RC pilots standards.


PS : Its Mandatory for even the Last Bastion of Security of this Country when it proceeds for Training firing in its own feild firing ranges away from any civilization to give an intimation of training firing activity to the local Police before commencing the firing activity.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 19, 2016, 01:07:17 PM
Sundaram Sir, I will have to respectfully disagree with several of the points you have made. As far I as I know we do not have any organised clubs in Bangalore. If there is any, I have definitely not seen any traces of it. What about other pilots in small towns or cities where there are no clubs? Repeating what myself and others have said here earlier, why are we asking for more complicated regulations then what the DGCA wants? DGCA never mentioned anything about " Hours of operation only between sunrise and sunset", Met conditions, "Daily Flight log of all Model Aircraft Pilots flying in the permitted space to be maintained" etc. So why are we asking for further regulation?

Then there is this point - "The place, date, and time of operations to be notified to local police in advance, and the notification will be responsibility of the club / institutions." Will we have to notify the authorities every time we fly even if it is in a location far outside the city limits and away from inhabited areas? What if there is no club/ institution in charge of the flying location? Why not treat this as a courtesy for those flying near populated areas rather than a mandatory requirement? Why are we again asking for a special, extra complicated procedure for FPV/ autonomous flying when the DGCA hasn't mentioned it themselves? Also, making GPS/ geofencing/ RTL compulsory on all camera-equipped aircraft is again ignoring FPV racers who do not use such equipment.

To the AMAI, I just want to say this. This is a turning point for the hobby in India. FPV, and FPV racing is the future of this hobby. You can choose to support and accept us, remain relevant and connect with a new generation of aeromodellers. Or you can choose to ignore us and we will go on without you. FPV and FPV racing we grow whether or not you choose to support it.  All I am asking is that you do not try to hurt our cause just because you are not involved in multirotors/ FPV. I do not understand how removing those 2 lines on FPV/ autopilots from your letter hurts your cause in any way, but their presence there definitely hurts us.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: aniket210696 on May 19, 2016, 01:22:56 PM
I don't understand why can we just not have a simple flying registration setup:

No need of registration for:-
All LOS
FPV on sub 500gm models.
Recreational activity of above

Pilot Registration required for:
aircraft flying fpv and weigh fpv and weight greater than 500gm
Commercial activities such as photography.
Import license for hobby stores

And yes. Pilot license. Not model license. Simple!
As for rules :
Fly in open area, away from people etc
Don't fly near defense establishments
Altitude restriction of 400 ft

Anything else, and you will start killing the hobby. For eg: flying only during daytime kills the fun of flying with LEDS.





Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 01:29:41 PM
@ SK1701

This hobby has always been flourishing safely purely on the self discipline of the individual fliers and a self imposed restraint and safe flying habits of responsible enthusiasts.

Its purely because of the so called FPV fliers and their so called reckless free for all flying habits this entire scare scenario projection has now been blown out of proportion. Model Aircraft Fliers have always had their self imposed restrictions and safe flying habits limited to their minuscule VLOS limits of just few hundred meters.  

If we are interested in not getting this hobby getting marginalized into the category of Criminal Activity, for our own good health please group together in your own regional banners and intimate the authorities of your activities. If you are not ready to abide by these and walk the extra mile no one is going to give you free hand on any kind of free for all flying. I have just thought over it four steps ahead and dictated myself self imposed restriction to be safe while being at it before its is imposed on me.

Read my draft again. Its absolutely more pertinent for the FPV fliers to be organised to a more formal and responsible in this activity. Ideally as for as authorities are concerned they would be interested in UIN and UAOP for every flight. Who cares for your sports or fooling around. Security of National Airspace takes more precedence.

Its for you to walk the extra mile to get the recognition and participate with the recognition. If not its just too dam ease to put you behind and charge under legislation's.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 01:36:08 PM
I am just quoting a senior and a maestro among st us.

Guys May I suggest you read up and understand what is being presented?
I do not see anything wrong with registering with "An Aeromodelling Club" or "Educational institution".
Please note that they are not forcing you to join "AMAI" or "a particular club".
Once you are part of an institution/Organization you have follow the set of rules. And that is what is being recommended that instead of DGCA laying down the rules we can manage with community (read club/educational institute) based rules.  This will ensure two things
1. That we have least amount of caveats and rules laid down by DGCA
2. That the fringe elements who follow no rules do not spoil the hobby.
   


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: pravesh736 on May 19, 2016, 01:43:39 PM
I think in India fpvers recklessness is not the one responsible, but more of phantom idiots. Those are not fpv. Lot of fpvers take care and have own code of conduct. I havent seen any incident related to fpv other than TBS. Rest is just lobbying.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 01:54:38 PM
Appologies to Pravesh on the "FPV reclessness" post. Did not have you in mind buddy.  ;D ;D.

Read  "DJI junkies reclessness" for "FPV reclessness ".

I am ready to register with Pravesh Aero Modeling Club.  :hatsoff:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: pravesh736 on May 19, 2016, 02:07:58 PM
Sir, please don't apologise, i just wanted to correct something that could have been missed/lost in translation. Last line was not required. U are automatically a member if such pan india club is made. :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 02:18:58 PM
I know Pravesh.  :)

That was just for the Sundry who thinks pursuing this being part of a club is very difficult.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 19, 2016, 03:08:07 PM
@sundaram sir, I spend most my time in Sakleshpur (a village). The  people of that place have never even seen an rc plane or quad. I highly doubt that there are any clubs around or even a flying location. I also fly everyday. How would the draft your suggesting help someone like me who keeps travelling a lot? I fly everyday and don't have a fixed flying schedule but I always make sure there is not another soul around me. If the guidelines that you have suggested gets accepted. People like me would have no other option but to pursue the hobby living in the dark. I don't mean to offend anyone.  I am just looking in for my interests by trying to be more free about what we are doing rather then hiding it. I'm sure we would all edit the draft as per what we personally think is right but it would make a greater impact if everyone agrees to the same thing. Peace.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 19, 2016, 04:07:11 PM
Dudes, yes Dudes
While you accuse AMAI (and it's members) of trying to protect their own interest, are you not guilty of same?
Study (not just read) the preceding posts and you will see the point I am making. Comes out pretty starkly, does it not?

Whether you guys agree to it or not, the perception (and to great extent truth) that prevails today in the community is that multi rotors and other flying machines that can be flown autonomous are threat to civil aviation and general security. And the powers that is vested in the entities and establishments that feel threatened are out to control it , and for good measure. I see where AMAI is coming from, they know the perception that multi rotor and likes are what the establishment feels threatened about and any mention of exemption for these would get turned down along with traditional form of flying. And before any one says that I am speaking for AMAI, I am not an AMAI member and speaking what I see as an independent person.
Personally I have seen (some) multi rotor and FVP guys who think they can do whatever they want and have caused issues with local authorities. Thus my opinion about this group of hobbyist is not very positive and I have no qualms about stating this. On the contrary I have seen folks who started with traditional forms of modelling have taken up these and are much better disciplined. Again at the expense of being repetitive I am not against a group or person. Just narrating my personal experience to which one is most welcome to disagree.

For benefit of others I have put my personal response to the draft, out below for all to see and if you feel there is something beneficial do feel free to pick from the same. The response has been emailed and snail mailed to the designated persona at DGCA.

And lastly I saw some one address the designated person as "Madam". And that brought me to what I have been saying please read what is there do not see things where there are none. Mr Lalit Gupta is Mr. Not Ms Lalilta Gupta. The poor guy may have a heart attack right at the beginning even before he has time to read through the remaining contents of the letter. 

My response that has been sent to DGCA

  SUB: AIR TRANSPORT CIRCULAR XX of 2016, Draft Guidelines for obtaining Unique Identification Number (UIN) & Operation of Civil Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) draft dated 21.04.2016.


1.    With reference to the subject draft guidelines put up in public domain for comments, I wish to bring the following points/issues/practical aspects for kind consideration by DGCA and suitable amendment where larger public interest is served. To put my comments in perspective, a bit of background would be helpful.
2.   I am an ex Indian Army officer who has deep interest in aviation. I have been involved with aero modelling right from college days through National Cadet Corps and thereafter have pursued the hobby on my own. I derive pleasure in my hobby from building and flying the entire gamut, from simple hand launch chuck/catapult gliders, free flight powered/unpowered models, Control Line and Radio Controlled models. I have been safely pursuing this hobby from last 28 odd years. This has been possible due to utmost regard for safety, for others, and for self and lastly aero models. I am sure with almost 3 decades of safe experience in this field I can contribute constructively to the commendable process that DGCA has embarked upon. Since my area of interest is aero modeling purely for recreational/hobby purpose I would restrict my feedback/suggestions to the areas of draft that impact aero modelling for recreational purpose alone.
Para Wise feedback/Suggestion/Comments on the subject draft 
Para 2. Defenitions - Model Aircraft - The definition states " UA without payload used for recreational purpose. Payload is further defined as " All components of equipment on board a UAV...... Its transport aims exclusively to fulfill a specific mission"
It is suggested that the definition of payload is restricted to payloads for pecuniary purposes. The reason being a recreational flyer emulating a scale aircraft may have dummy payloads on board the model to gain better points in a competition. However per the current definition the model will not be within the scope of Model aircraft. Similarly the definition restricts to "recreational use " alone. There could be occasions where the Model aircraft is also used for competitions held by various organizations like ACI, AeSI, IIT's etc. Therefore it would be prudent to also incorporate the word "sporting" along with "recreation".  This would help harmonize the definition to international standards (e.g CAA (UK) CAP 658)   

Para 2. Definitions - Use of word UAV instead of UA -
The acronym UAV has no definition in the draft. It is understood that the word may have crept in the draft due to oversight where UA was meant to be indicated. Since UAV is not defined it is suggested that uniform acronym is used throughout the guidelines to avoid any confusion or different interpretations
Para 2. Definitions - Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) -
All Control Line and Radio controlled Model are controlled remotely (i.e some distance away from the aircraft). Since Model Aircraft has been defined separately it is assumed that the guidelines do not intend to club Model Aircraft with RPA. Hence, it is suggested that definition is made clearer so as to indicate that Model Aircraft are separate from RPA.
Para 4. Issue of Unique Identification Number (UIN)
General - In order to ensure greater adherence to this requirement it is suggested that a web based application system with facility to upload required documents is used. This is also in line with practice adopted by FAA 
Sub para 4.1 It is observed that DGCA intends to issue a UIN to all UA's (including Model Aircraft). Use of identifying mark on each flying vehicle is important and helps in tracing back to the owner in case of an event. However given that many hobbyist regularly assemble, model aircrafts from wooden or composite kits, or from published designs etc and may have number of model aircraft, it may not be practical to assign a UIN to each such aircraft. Instead it is recommended that the approach taken by FAA in USA be adopted where not a model aircraft but a person operating such model aircraft is assigned a UIN and the UIN needs to be mandatorily displayed on each model aircraft intended to be operated. Being more practical this will encourage higher compliance.
Sub para 4.2 (c) It is observed that one of the documents required to be submitted is Specification of UAS. While this might be considered mandatory for Small and large UAS flown for pecuniary purposes, basic information like, wing span, weight and engine displacement may alone be considered necessary for Model Aircrafts flown for recreational purposes.
Sub para 4.2 (e) - Permission from WPC for all frequencies used in UAS operations. Given that Min Of Communications has delicensed the 2.4 GHz band and a transreceiver used for radio control model aircraft can only be imported post WPC clearance. Therefore this requirement may be considered fulfilled if the Model Aircraft is controlled using a transreceiver that already figures in Type Approval Equipment library of WPC wing.   
Sub paras 4.2 (e and f) - Provision of UAFM and Manufacturers maintenance guidelines for UAS. Given that many recreational model aircraft are assembled or made by the person operating them, there may not be always a UAFM or maintenance guidelines available. Hence this requirement may be exempted for Model Aircraft up to 20 Kg weight category. This would be in line with practice in other advanced countries (for eg. CAA weight limit in UK under CAP 658) http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?appid=11&mode=detail&id=5631
Sub para 4.3 - Identification plate - This may be suitably modified for Model Aircraft up to 20 Kg to read, metal plate with operators UIN (as recommended in 4.1 above). As model aircraft built and flown for recreational and sporting purposes do not have any provision for RFID or SIM       
Sub para 5.3 (b) Dispensation from UAOP  - It is indeed commendable that DGCA understands and appreciates that aero modelling activities for recreation and sporting purpose pose no threat to air safety. However the height limit of 200 ft AGL is too restrictive and does not leave margin for safety while flying especially for novices. Hence it is suggested that this be increased to 400 ft for Model Aircrafts up to 20 Kg weight limit when flown in uncontrolled airspace. This would be in line with both FAA (US) and CAA (UK) mandates where the height limit is 400 ft AGL.   
Sub para 6.7 - Import permission - The sub para figures under Para 6, that deals with UOAP. This leads to ambiguity if only UA requiring UAOP need import permission or is this applicable to Model Aircraft as well? It is suggested that model aircraft for personal and recreational/sporting use be exempt from this requirement since there is no current law/rule restricting import of Model Aircraft.
Sub para 7.1 - Sale/disposal without permission from DGCA - For Model aircrafts this may become impractical to adhere to. As recommended at preceding paras that UIN be issued to an individual intending to operate Model Aircraft and not for each Model Aircraft, keeping in view the security concerns  it would suffice if the seller obtains UIN number of the buyer and keeps a record of the same. Similarly for old and aged model aircraft that are no longer safe for flight scrapping by destroying the model aircraft airframe by the aero modeller should not require DGCA approval/permission     
Sub para 7.4 - Notification of incident/accidents - For Model aircraft flown for recreation and sporting purposes this may be modified to any incident/accidents involving injury or damage to property during flying of the Model aircraft will be notified to local administrative authorities   
Sub para 10.1 - IN respect of Model Aircraft operation for recreational and sporting use  in uncontrolled airspace limited to 400 ft AGL (as recommended to be modified) this requirement may be waived off or restricted to intimation to local jurisdictional police administration 
Sub para 10.7, and 10.8 (a - f) - Flight Plan and Clearance  - For operation of Model Aircraft in the height limit be modified to 400 ft AGL (as recommended to be modified at preceding paras)
Sub para 10.10 - Coordination with Authorities. This requirement may be waived off for operation of Model Aircraft operation for recreational and sporting use. It should suffice if the operator of Model Aircraft has intimated the jurisdictional police administration (as recommended at 10.1 above).     
Sub para 10.11 - Call signs - For Model Aircraft operation for recreational and sporting use  in uncontrolled airspace limited to 400 ft AGL (as recommended to be modified) this requirement will only add work load to the concerned ATC. Hence this may we waived off for Model Aircraft operation for recreational and sporting use in uncontrolled airspace. Or if this was not intended to be applicable for this category of UA it may be suitably clarified in the verbiage 
Sub para 10.14 - Needs clarity if this applies to Model Aircraft operation for recreational and sporting use? If the intention is to apply this to UA for commercial use beyond the height limit this may be indicated clearly. 
Sub para 10.15 (a -c) - Since sub para 10.12 restricts flight envelop to 500m VLOS, visibility condition of  5 Km can be reworded to fair visibility and weather conditions in so far as Model Aircraft operation for recreational and sporting use  in uncontrolled airspace limited to 400 ft AGL (as recommended to be modified)
Sub para 10.17 - Means to measure actual altitude - Model Aircraft operation for recreational and sporting use may have severe difficulties in complying with this clause as many of the current WPC type approved transreceiver equipment used to control model aircraft do not have this functionality. DGCA can recommend to WPC for type approval of equipment with such capability subject to it meeting other conditions.   
Sub Para 10.23 (b) - Components/Equipment for UA - SIM slot - All most all conventional model aircraft for recreational purpose that are made of wood and other composite material do not have any such capability. Similarly for model aircraft made by hobbyist themselves will not have such functionality. Hence Sub clause 10.23 (a) should suffice for Model aircrafts flown for recreational and sporting purposes.
Sub Para 10.23 (f) - Components/Equipment for UA - Return Home option - Except for ready to fly autonomous or semi autonomous UA's that are sold ready to fly or almost ready to fly, this functionality is not available on model aircrafts constructed by hobbyis. However in the interest of safety it is recommended to adopt the wordings from UK CAA CAP 658 " Any powered model aircraft fitted with a receiver capable of operating in failsafe mode should have the failsafe set, as a minimum, to reduce the engine(s) speed to idle on loss or corruption of signal."
 3.   In conclusion, I would like to once again thank the DGCA and other concerned who have taken the initiative to formulate these guidelines, which when suitably amended will ensure that the traditional hobbyist who flies model aircraft purely for recreational or sporting purposes is able to pursue his/her hobby and not seen as threat to air safety or home land security. At the same time the commercial users have a clear set of guidelines to follow to pursue their vocation. At last it also needs to be kept in mind that too harsh and cumbersome process will lead to decay and ultimate death of the aero modelling industry where India has already been lagging far behind some other and much smaller Asian countries that supply a fair amount of model aircraft kits the world over (e.g. Vietnam). Therefore needless to say, the guidelines should be balanced to ensure air safety while also promoting Industry, trade, commerce and hobby.
4. The more easy and convenient process or rules are, the greater is compliance. This may be readily seen in case of guidelines and registration process initiated by FAA for UA's.
         


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 19, 2016, 04:08:24 PM
Sundaram sir, kyon meri waat laga rahe ho, bhul chuk maafi sir jee 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 04:21:23 PM
@ Captain Manish.  :) :) well articulated draft there. Picking up most of the points conveyed.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 04:25:04 PM
@ mateen270, begin with being the first member of the Aeromodellers Club at Sakleshpur. Its as simple as that.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 19, 2016, 04:28:41 PM
Dudes, yes Dudes
While you accuse AMAI (and it's members) of trying to protect their own interest, are you not guilty of same?
Study (not just read) the preceding posts and you will see the point I am making. Comes out pretty starkly, does it not?
We are not accusing AMAI for looking after its own interest only but the way they are doing it! They are protecting their own interests by endangering ours! Are we doing that?



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 19, 2016, 04:29:45 PM
Sir jee
That letter and email was sent to DGCA about 15 days back, no point crying over the www. I would rather do what I should.    


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 19, 2016, 04:30:53 PM
@ Himadri
A short answer to the question you put at # 235.
Yes 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 19, 2016, 04:34:01 PM
@ Himadri
A short answer to the question you put at # 235.
Yes 
Please enlighten me how?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 19, 2016, 04:37:10 PM
Whether you guys agree to it or not, the perception (and to great extent truth) that prevails today in the community is that multi rotors and other flying machines that can be flown autonomous are threat to civil aviation and general security. And the powers that is vested in the entities and establishments that feel threatened are out to control it , and for good measure. I see where AMAI is coming from, they know the perception that multi rotor and likes are what the establishment feels threatened about and any mention of exemption for these would get turned down along with traditional form of flying. And before any one says that I am speaking for AMAI, I am not an AMAI member and speaking what I see as an independent person.
Personally I have seen (some) multi rotor and FVP guys who think they can do whatever they want and have caused issues with local authorities. Thus my opinion about this group of hobbyist is not very positive and I have no qualms about stating this. On the contrary I have seen folks who started with traditional forms of modelling have taken up these and are much better disciplined. Again at the expense of being repetitive I am not against a group or person. Just narrating my personal experience to which one is most welcome to disagree.

What you have said here is very true and i can see why they have mentioned against multi's but that does not mean that someone endanger multi's. there are many modellers who love it.

Yes we should all be responsible and fly in such a way that does not cause a threat.

Also now when you mentioned and elaborated, i do see the danger of having a autonomous system. Not danger its very very danger. Specially considering the situation in our country where things are used for bad things first before even its being used for anything good.

I think we should not mention anything about FPV or anything about camera. Rest is fine, about the age i think guys less than 18 years old should be supervised along with adult when they are flying.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 19, 2016, 04:38:15 PM
If they want to safeguard pure aeromodellers, they can definitely do that but not by putting others in bad light.
@flyingboxcar I am trying to say this!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 19, 2016, 04:43:28 PM
We had just simple request to AMAI
Remove the clauses that are asking for ban on FPV and Flight controller controlled flight for recreational flying! That's all!
And I really can't see the harm in doing so! Please enlighten me how is it SO DIFFICULT to do that?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 19, 2016, 04:43:52 PM
I do not spoon feed ever. "Study" what is being said and you for yourself will conclude.

Satya, good that you caught my POV. And that is what is preventing recommendation of that branch for the fear of everything being put in one bucket and then capped tightly shut.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 19, 2016, 04:45:46 PM
Care for some mentos?? :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 19, 2016, 04:50:00 PM
Care for some mentos?? :giggle:
Ha Ha Ha


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 19, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
Thank you for the detailed letter Santanu. I used it as a base for my own letter, which I have attached below. I added several points regarding FPV and also added a paragraph at the end condemning the AMAI letter. Let me know if anyone has any inputs or suggestions. If not, I will email it to the DGCA today itself.

Here is the document in Word format in case anyone needs it- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6XjbwXPI1coRGhfcHlmMS1JS0U/view?usp=sharing
Anyways I am going to mail this and will ask all my fellow flyers to do so! The suggestion are to the point and near about the same I would have mailed them!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 19, 2016, 04:53:15 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2015/12/18/faa-finally-admits-names-and-home-addresses-in-drone-registry-will-be-publicly-available/#161c61f252bd

Interesting debate still raging on weather or not to register a Model Aircraft with FAA by members of AMA.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: pravesh736 on May 19, 2016, 05:22:01 PM
I agree and get the point of them not wanting to be clubbed together and flushed.
When it comes to autopilot, a wooden 50cc fixed wing with AP is much more capable than any multirotor. Adding a AP is one night job. Can probably fly to China and back. So it still doesn't safeguard the country. But let them think how ever they like and protect themselves and stamp on others.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 19, 2016, 06:01:31 PM
Exactly pravesh, you hit the hammer on the nail. I was thinking about the same too. If you setup an autopilot system in fixed wings they can go distance that you can never think of. Also these  fixed wings consume less power (1 motor compare to 4) hence they can fly a lot longer than a multi's.

The point is since they have mentioned to ban autopilot (which when said is thought of multirotors believe or not) it means they are talking about banning multi too. Which is why i think everyone is angry with draft by AMAI.

I think they should have elaborated it a bit more or somewhat made is specific. Like models with capability of autonomous flying should be controlled or required extra or some strong set of restrictions.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: aniket210696 on May 19, 2016, 07:52:53 PM
i honestly think, if people want to do something bad, they will. all the guy has to do is to NOT follow the rules. then what will dgca do? like i stated earlier, why can there not be clear cut SIMPLE rules for registration.

Registration needed for
Aircraft with payload or FPV> AUW 500g
 flying commercially


Registration not needed for:
Recreational flying
All LOS models
models with payload or FPV < AUW 500g

THAT IS IT!
No special cases for planes, multirotors, helicopters, autogyros etc etc
No need to give conditions like daytime, GPS, etc
No need to ask for banning of anything.



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: shobhit17 on May 19, 2016, 08:23:44 PM
Well Well Well... camera or no camera.... The DGCS is no fool and they know exactly what is happening around in the hobby... Further inputs from all defence services, police and intelligence agencies have been taken into account to make the draft guidelines as all of them are a stake holder in the system.... They will come out with what is necessary.  Be ready to register yourself


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 19, 2016, 09:42:09 PM
I am not sure who all and how many have sent suggestions to DGCA. And if many have sent as per the guidelines suggested by AMAI. Which is good for AMAI's interest.
Guidelines puts a bad light on multirotors, if you remove 2 points which are against multi it would had been a very strong and excellent guideline.

If DGCA considers this guideline or accepts any suggestion them RIP multi  :'( :'( :'(

I came into this hobby only because of multi. And i think most of the new comers in this hobby are interested in multi.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 19, 2016, 09:53:56 PM
I am not sure who all and how many have sent suggestions to DGCA. And if many have sent as per the guidelines suggested by AMAI. Which is good for AMAI's interest.
Guidelines puts a bad light on multirotors, if you remove 2 points which are against multi it would had been a very strong and excellent guideline.

If DGCA considers this guideline or accepts any suggestion them RIP multi  :'( :'( :'(

I came into this hobby only because of multi. And i think most of the new comers in this hobby are interested in multi.
I am pretty sure this won't happen, as Shobbit sir said DGCA is no fool, it also keeps knowledge about all that happening around! It also knows how fast growing and economy wise advantageous this aspect(FPV and Multirotors)of the hobby is!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on May 19, 2016, 09:57:41 PM
Dear members,
Hope you are aware of the Geospacial Information Regulation Bill 2016 presently under consideration.

Sample clause:
"Every person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India either through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehiclesor any other manner including value addition prior to coming of this Act into effect, shall within one year from the commencement of this Act,make an application alongwith requisite fees to the Security Vetting Authority for retaining such geospatial information and grant of licence thereof."

So those who have taken aerial photos know what they have to do now...

Its not just model aircraft, multirotors, or even aeromodelling in general, but even possession of 'geospacial information', ie, maps

Line mae gir padein?
 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on May 19, 2016, 10:26:49 PM
Are we confusing DGCA with too much detail, especially of our different view points?
For what it is worth, i've again sent to DGCA today what i sent him in Oct 2014:
"Respected Sir,
This is further to earlier email regarding UAV/UAS NOTICE OF 7th Oct 2014

It seems to me that there is a simple way to address the the safety and security concerns of DGCA, without curtailing the rights of hobbyists to enjoy their hobby.

1. DGCA could set up a website for flyers of remote controlled aircraft models to register on
2. Flyers of RC aircraft models can register by providing their name, ID, address, phone number, transmitter frequency and location of usual flying site, and get a registration number.
3. Flyers of non remote controlled models need not register.
4. Main restrictions can be:
- weight not to exceed 5kg
- no flight above 400 ft
- no flight within 5km of an ATC airport
- no flight over public or vehicles or houses. Rules for permission can be worked out.

The DGCA registration can be like a car numberplate. Flyers can proudly display on their models.

Anyone caught in suspicious circumstances can easily be identified as a bonafide hobbyist or not.

I sincerely hope that you would consider these suggestions.
You would recall that for many decades we were not allowed to photograph airports, something that is now allowed.

Sir, all aeromodellers are not necessarily enemies of the State.

Yours faithfully,
K.K.Iyer
Retired Director
State Bank Foundation Institute -Chetana
Indore.

Respected Sir,
Does your captioned notice mean that that all recreational flying by aeromodellers is to be stopped?
Since i have been an aeromodeller for the last 45 years, and i and my wife fly RC models at an empty plot on sundays with a few friends, i need to know if it is still legal to do so.
Regards


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Rathi on May 20, 2016, 12:08:13 AM
I have a different approach to this just read me out,
1. register yourself as a hobbyist,
requirements for this: an online test/test at some place like a post office or police station where you can be monitored while taking up this test, where we have to study general laws like the ones we are debating about (400ft, 500-5000g should not have any UIN on board(but have to have a UIN), area's where not to fly, emergency situations etc, FPV is NOT exempted for this)(please take up police verification... it is the best way out of this mess and it is better than some random guy buying it for someone else and then the activities that the govt is scared of.) People appearing for this should have basic knowledge of the sticks transmitters and frequencies.... u can have multi level licenses like FPV, small aircrafts, LRS etc.like we have in the RTO like geared motorcycle or gear-less motorcycles so pure aero modellers will not have to bother about the FPV spect of questions...
2. LHS
LHS play the starting role in this, i request all LHS ask the person's registration number using a safe and secure server in colab. with the govt (if that is okay) or having one login ID and password throughout all LHS (again its a very big thing and it's not going to function) and products can only be given once the registration number is received and verified, this can be the same in the custom's office, making products easy to clear. if not unified u can have a better alternative, u can ship products only once u verify it and can keep track if a customer is verified and ship them the products hassle free. this would be an amazing feat to achieve in itself.(i know i typed a lot of different ideas in one point, but do get what i am trying to say.)

this makes the work on DGCA a little lesser...
and come on, don't hate on FPV, most of the hobbyists are responsible enough to know what they are doing and you sadly have to agree, its all DJI junkies.... as sad as it makes me, DJI just made it too easy and literally no amount of research goes into it except for " flight time, range and extra batteries". FPV hobbyist's don't have to take the L's for people having DJI products and miss using them. we cant ban DJI products or any RTF products, we can however make the people more aware and easy licenseing is the way to spread this awareness. even a kid can pick up a DJI and crash it into some person. almost all the drones that have made it to news are DJI or something similar (RTF's).
this is not regarding the rules but a way to implement it (although not necessary right now) this way we can at least broaden the rules as per as our convenience, this way we will know people are educated and if they do something stupid it is all their fault and they can take the L for it. This we can have 500 ft altitude and aircraft registration issues fit our convenience and the laws can be easily accepted by DGCA.
 :hatsoff:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: manojswizera on May 20, 2016, 08:46:04 AM
KK iyer sir has summrised very well in short.  {:)}
I dont think, DGCA will read all those lengthy paras from all of us.
its better to be short and precise.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 09:56:16 AM
A very pertinent topic has been highlighted by KK Iyer Sir.

He has hit out with a Cushioned Hammer of Geospatial Information Regulation Bill 2016.

It is just the tip of Ice berg on how serious things are about to take shape with regards to the Autonomous Flying and data collection.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 20, 2016, 10:21:37 AM
So, you are saying that it is wise to support ban on FPV?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 11:07:35 AM
Satya who is saying ban on FPV or for that matter anything. Present state is UIN and UAOP for all. No where its a ban.

AMAI is just looking out for flying without UIN and UAOP for just Model Aircraft Recreational flying without payload. (which includes all type of Model Aircraft fixed wings and multirotors without payload)

They have just kept aside the recreational flying of model aircraft with payload aside for the time being to begin with to obtain a recognition for our self among authorities. Frankly why should they stick out their neck for someone who is not even willing to associate with them or any Aeromodellers club. For that matter in the many who are arguing for or against how many are actually a member of AMAI or any aeromodelling club to begin with like me.

That leaves FPV still in previous sphere of UIN and UAOP for flying.

Many of the guys here are supporting with your arguments with an intent to wriggle into this domain of No UIN and No UAOP for FPV recreational flying with payload too without any intention of taking up any responsibility of registering or being part of a any club.


Some like me are supporting an online registration of every platform/or Every Recretional Flier for Recreational flying with payload and while we are at it to get some sort of semblance of an organized activity in the entire chaos of free spirited flying attitude of ours.

What ever we may wish for ourself's not much room is left for us to wriggle a space for ourself's if we are not ready to walk the extra mile. we have no option to wriggle out any room for ourself's. its in our own best interest that we get our act together  to some sort of mature activity rather than still trying to hide behind student attitude of not willing to share any responsibility towards what we pursue.

PS : When threat is eminent for real that you are going to be disrobed completely, Its not wrong in trying to protect the Under Garment first to begin with.  ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 20, 2016, 11:20:12 AM
Thanks for the clarification sir.

Even i am supporting an online registration. There is no problem with that, and i think no one will object with that too. But the process should be easy, should not create problems for the flyer to register. Where they just dont want to register anymore


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Ahmad Ilyas on May 20, 2016, 11:24:46 AM
i am scared what is gonna happen


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 20, 2016, 11:48:32 AM
As I said in my letter to the DGCA, as well as over here, I have absolutely no objection to an online registration similar to that in the USA. I also support the idea of each pilot getting a UIN that he can affix on all his aircraft, whether FPV or non FPV. I requested that the ceiling for flying without a special UAOP be raised to 400 feet, and that aircraft below 500g be exempted from registration as they are mostly harmless.

Nobody here is asking the AMAI to stick their neck out for us. All we are saying is that they send a letter asking for what they want, and don't mention FPV, camera, autopilots at all. However, they have decided to include those items and ask that those using these items be excluded from the banner of recreational flying, in an attempt to distance themselves from FPVers. As Pravesh said, this attitude is coming from the FPVers being (unfairly) clubbed with the irresponsible DJI guys who fly recklessly over crowded areas, airports etc. However, we have had more turtles hit airplanes than 'drones'. To the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a single verifiable incident of a 'drone' hitting a plane. The Heathrow incident which was all over the news was a plastic bag! People have been killed by fixed wings and large helis, while there have been no fatalities due to multirotors. Anyone can buy a Pixhawk from China, install it in their plane and have a fully autonomous aircraft that is far stealthier and has greater range and endurance than most multirotors. The threat posed by FPV, and multirotors is being blown out of proportion. If we are looking to regulate this, let us ask for a more detailed registration system for all autonomous aircraft, and not point fingers at FPV (which is unrelated) and multirotors. Also, a registration system, even one such as the FAA model, is not going to stop anybody who wants to misuse RC technology.

The reason I do not want to register with the AMAI is because of this anti-multirotor, anti-FPV attitude they are displaying. I am not a member of any club as of now, and I am not aware of any in Bangalore. However, I am definitely open to joining a club and flying in an organised manner if they are willing to accept multirotors and FPV. However, I will only pay as long as it has benefits for me as well (go ahead, call me selfish). I also think a central registry is better than each club maintaining records and club membership being made mandatory.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 11:57:34 AM
Some of the points highlighted by some is mostly weighing against them in their own arguments. Like how easy it is for you to reach china. I am happy that youngsters are so optimistic today.

Hope you read this on Online registration of FAA.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2015/12/18/faa-finally-admits-names-and-home-addresses-in-drone-registry-will-be-publicly-available/#161c61f252bd


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 20, 2016, 12:17:18 PM
Please check again. I said nothing about reaching China. I simply made a point regarding how multirotors are (incorrectly) considered a greater threat than planes.

I have also been following the FAA registration debate on international forums and Facebook groups for a while now.I definitely prefer their system to the one outlined in the DGCA draft, and have suggested something similar in my letter.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 12:26:00 PM
When it comes to autopilot, a wooden 50cc fixed wing with AP is much more capable than any multirotor. Adding a AP is one night job. Can probably fly to China and back. So it still doesn't safeguard the country. But let them think how ever they like and protect themselves and stamp on others.

My mistake then, might be as on offshoot from the same argument from Pravesh post.

Amended my post please.

What I was getting at was that no model is a perfect solution we have to improve upon as we go along with our experience gained.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 20, 2016, 12:43:13 PM
The reason I do not want to register with the AMAI is because of this anti-multirotor, anti-FPV attitude they are displaying.

:thumbsup:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 20, 2016, 12:44:54 PM
@sundaram sir, i apologise for not mentioning this in my previous post. I have nothing against registering, it should just be an easy process and an online platform.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 03:49:40 PM
Ok...if AMAI is bent on writing against multi-rotors, I am going to send them a letter showing comparison on why fixed wing aircrafts are more dangerous for the security of the nation than multi-rotors. Some of the points had already been discussed earlier in this thread.

I have no intention of spoiling anyone else's fun. Even I would have taken interest in flying fixed wing aircrafts someday. But what kind of people are these who want to spoil other peoples' interest rather than protecting their own when there is no conflict between the two? Isn't this childish?

So I am drafting a letter detailing the "dangers" of allowing fixed wing aircrafts a free run and will send it by tomorrow. It may have nothing to do with DGCA draft but just in case they get too much influenced by AMAI, its sort of a pre-emptive measure. I shall try to post the draft here by today. Those who are against the AMAI move may kindly suggest corrections. It will be a direct letter with no holds barred. They leave us with no choice.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 04:10:41 PM
And you do believe that what you say will be taken as gospel truth and carved in stone there after? Don't you?
A simple search on www will tell one that far more cases of multi-rotors and fpv have been on the wrong side of the law than traditional models.
By the way when you send that representation, do include, kites, balloons, flying debris, and oh the birds please as they are the biggest reason for aerial incidents especially the debris and birds. Therefore they must be banned from Indian airspace (on second thoughts may be indoor use would be fine).

On a serious note,
I can not understand what is making you feel so incensed and threatened?  Do you think DGCA will take the AMAI representation promulgate that in to a law?
       


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 04:15:48 PM
@ santanucus Definition of Model Aircraft Includes everything fixed wing, Multiwing, single rotor and multirotors which is used for recreational flying without payload.

Where is the animosity against mutirotor.  :banghead: :banghead:

Neither original Draft of DGCA is differentiating in any form or the AMAI amendments are differentiating or alienating it. who is saying a fixed wing with payload is allowed.

Any type of UAS Operation with payload you are going to be subjected to some form of guidelines and restriction.

You cannot assume yourself to be the only Smart Alex in the world who thinks he can argue one self out of the subjected restrictions by confusing the matter and not willing to take any responsibility. why even try it.

Its this DJI Junkie attitude which is the root cause of all bane we are being subjected to.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 04:55:21 PM
Well..for the record, I am not a DJI Junkie. I mostly make my own multirotors.

As for DGCA taking representation from either me or from AMAI as gospel truth, I am not under any such illusion. But I am against any interest-group with questionable intentions (and I emphasize that) controlling our hobby and writing things to DGCA against other hobbyists' interests. Since they have done that (I have already mentioned the relevant points from their draft in a previous post), I (and all other like-minded people) do have the right to counter that.

I have already posted my previous letter written to DGCA and their reply (see below).
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCdm9kbG53SUczLVU

I have also posted my letter on the draft circular too, which I had written after discussing the agreed common points with the members here. It clearly shows that I am not against restrictions. In fact I had suggested many of the points in an earlier letter written in 2015, much before DGCA formulated the draft rules and when FAA in US did not have the requirement to register UAs, I suggested about the online system for registering UAs.

In any case, I am here as a ordinary hobbyist who is still learning things ... I don't flaunt my official position in any letter to DGCA to try to give more weightage to my views even though I have worked closely with DGCA for a while and all my letters written to them have been done in my capacity as an ordinary hobbyist.

So...coming back to the points, I have discussed the offending points in the AMAI draft in a previous post in this thread and there is no need to repeat it again. There is enough ground for grievance. Just like AMAI has right to write anything (irrespective of requests of non-member hobbyists to omit certain points), I think we have the right to defend and counter AMAI views by whatever means we think fit.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 20, 2016, 05:03:02 PM
Why cant we all have a simple system like the FAA uses. If your RC aircraft is greater than some given weight you have to register. Registering being online and should be as easy as making account on an e-commerce site and attaching documents like passport,driving license, aadhar card,etc. Then above a certain weight say 30kg it would require a few more paperwork and a separate paperwork if the UAS is recording some video or capture photos that are being used for commercial purpose. Why do we want to complicate the things by adding so many classes, banning thos that for recreational stuff..?!  :banghead:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: RCNeil21 on May 20, 2016, 05:07:47 PM
I am a fan of both, flying fixed wing as well as multirotors. All i can say is that we shouldnt care what the AMAI want to say to the DGCA.
We should write our own letter strongly highlighting why multirotors in the right hands are not a threat to the nation.
All RC models do crash due to various factors, if AMAI is telling DGCA that fixed wings are safer than multirotors then let them.
We shouldnt be fighting amongst ourselves but rather try to make a space for multirotors and their safe operation whether with or without payload,FPV,AP etc. To do this all multirotor fans should come together and send a letter to the dgca highlighting the approximate value of our ranks and what multirotors mean to us as well as the future of the nation and the hobby :hatsoff:

I would also like to say as himadri pointed out that we should not let the dgca regulate the recreational part of the hobby to such a point that their inclination to be in it wears off, i dont see recreational photography being regulated even though with the correct lenses i can be spying on someone or using my camera in the wrong way. Till now the conscious hobbyists have taken care of the hobby it is the ones who show a dont care attitude who have to be weeded out and the simple to use DJI products are the ones that have created most of such characters. UIN and UAOP should be handed out to them as they are the ones who are more in the commercial side than us(the common RCist).


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 05:12:12 PM
I would have loved to do that. I already sent my letter to DGCA and it solely rests on relevant points. And then I see what AMAI has written or intends to write...and that totally makes me angry. Given this stance from a known aero-modelling club, if nobody counters it and we remain silent, things may turn out differently in the final circular. Because AMAI has already written things which have no relevance with the DGCA draft. Hence the need to counter.

@Himadri Roy

I have read your letter and the added part on AMAI. Since I have already sent my letter with comments on DGCA draft circular, I am drafting another one specifically on AMAI related matters. Will post it here today and seek the views of the members before sending it.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 20, 2016, 05:23:31 PM
As I have already said here, there have been a grand total of ZERO verifiable incidents of drones (the media's blanket term for all multirotors) hitting airplanes. Here is an interesting little statistic for those who think drones are a major threat to civil aviation:
(http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll36/siddharth_kumanduri1/Screen%20Shot%202016-05-20%20at%205.12.11%20PM_zpsschpvkeo.png)

The recent 'drone strike' at Heathrow, hailed as 'a sign of things to come' was most probably a "a plastic bag or something". (http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/22/11486256/drone-collision-uk-plastic-bag)



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 05:50:29 PM
Baba
Apna ke  :bow:  :bow: :bow:

Raghupati Ragahav Raja Ram, saab ko sanmati de bhagawan

And as Bapu had said, an eye for an eye will soon turn the whole world blind.

If you still do not get my drift, file an RTI please


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 05:51:51 PM
I am going to stop spending lesser on this hobby and starting to save monies to visit US of A. I may get to see flying Turtles.
Any one want to come along?   


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 20, 2016, 05:52:12 PM
And you do believe that what you say will be taken as gospel truth and carved in stone there after? Don't you?
A simple search on www will tell one that far more cases of multi-rotors and fpv have been on the wrong side of the law than traditional models.
By the way when you send that representation, do include, kites, balloons, flying debris, and oh the birds please as they are the biggest reason for aerial incidents especially the debris and birds. Therefore they must be banned from Indian airspace (on second thoughts may be indoor use would be
Sorry just cant agree with this! Just do a google search you will find more no of accident and deaths due to rc planes than multirotors. That's how "harmless" the fixed wings are. And also the fact SK posted!

On a serious note,
I can not understand what is making you feel so incensed and threatened?  Do you think DGCA will take the AMAI representation promulgate that in to a law?         
Why not? AMAI's suggestion may out weigh our individual suggestions as it is the national body for "so called aeromodelling". That's why we are worried. Had it been some ABC individual we wouldn't have worried much. The government will surely give more ear to what they say won't they?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 05:59:03 PM
Himadri
Who gave AMAI the national status?
And if they are then so be it. I am all for a national body representing me.

   


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 06:00:05 PM
"And also the fact SK posted"
So you want to see flying turtles??


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 06:01:59 PM
@santanucus. On what basis did you presume AMAI is asking for a ban on multirotor or a model aircraft with payload.

Please read the original draft of AMAI.

It has just taken it upon itself to mediate on the issue of registration numbers for its members flying recreational model aircraft without payload and with a room for other club members to do so on the similar lines for its members with a self imposed restriction of not to fly with payload for all those model aircraft issued with registration numbers of clubs.

You are free to follow your own path.

How did you presume that AMAI is asking for a ban on others with payload or multirotors.

Why this emotional outbusts and personal attacks.

By the way DJI Junkie attitude was a reference to the free spirited unrestricted flying choice we all have and was not directly aimed at you.

PS : You seem to be having a problem with official positions of representations too. That's childish if I put it bluntly. Please hope to influence only that which is within your control.


Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 06:06:58 PM
Sundaram sir
"free spirited unrestricted flying choice we all have"  :giggle:
Not for long, how I wish people see the ominous writing on the wall.


And folks
Just noticed another thing, there are quite a members on the forum who proudly mention the radio equipment they use under their signature blocks. From a cursory research appears that, not all such radios may be legal within India. 



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 20, 2016, 06:15:39 PM
I am going to stop spending lesser on this hobby and starting to save monies to visit US of A. I may get to see flying Turtles.
Any one want to come along?   
"And also the fact SK posted"
So you want to see flying turtles??

I would have thought someone so dead against spoon-feeding would have done some searching of their own before claiming the statistics I am presenting are false. Go ahead, try a quick Google search and you might be surprised. You can also start with popular media outlets (http://www.popsci.com/airplanes-hit-more-turtles-than-drones) and work your way all the way back to the FAA database (http://wildlife.faa.gov/) of wildlife strikes.

Sundaram Sir, you make a very fair point. I have partially missed that interpretation and have got pretty salty over here. However, since it is mostly multirotor pilots using autopilots/ FPV, as per the AMAI suggestions we would have to apply under the commercial category, which I am against. I am in favour of a simple online registration process and centralised database.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 06:21:01 PM
And hey if that Official position barb was directed towards I,  to be very rude (if you will excuse me for that ) "go stuff up dude".
I and Col Sundaram have earned that and are proudl about it. Whether you like it or not is your problem.

And may I suggest?  grow a funny bone please, will help you navigate through this thing called life    


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 06:22:35 PM
@SK1701 Its purely your assumption that only multirotor pilots use Auto Pilot or fly FPV.  

I would proclaim multirotor pilots are just new kids in the block of FPV clan.  ;)

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 06:27:06 PM
SK
Did I say your post or data was false?
All I said was I wanted to go to US to flying turtles
But pray tell me, unless those are flying turtles what is the use of using data that has no relevance to the threat we are discussing?  I am still under impression that we were discussing about flying incidents, not wildlife strike. That is unless the topic veered off to wildlife and likes somewhere and I completely missed the bend in the path.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 06:28:43 PM
See yaa folks need to work for a living


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 20, 2016, 07:12:43 PM
SK
Did I say your post or data was false?
All I said was I wanted to go to US to flying turtles
But pray tell me, unless those are flying turtles what is the use of using data that has no relevance to the threat we are discussing?  I am still under impression that we were discussing about flying incidents, not wildlife strike. That is unless the topic veered off to wildlife and likes somewhere and I completely missed the bend in the path.

Qoute from the website PLEASE READ
“To investigate the risk that small drones pose to the airspace,” Dourado said over email, “my collaborator Sam Hammond and I downloaded the full dataset to run some analysis on it. We found not only reports of bird strikes, but strikes of all kinds of mammals and reptiles as well. We thought this evidence was very revealing—planes hit objects all the time. Meanwhile, there still have been no confirmed collisions with drones in the United States.
So why turtles? “I picked turtles because turtles are funny,” Dourado said, “You don’t think of turtles as posing much of a threat to planes, and they don’t. If we’ve hit turtles 198 times and drones 0 times, then maybe we are worrying too much about collisions with drones.”
Earlier studies have shown that drones under three pounds show no more risk to airplanes than small birds, especially if flown below 400 feet and more than 5 miles away from airports, as the law already requires. Registering drones smaller than that means flying toys are now more controlled than ducks, but no deadlier.
This fits into a larger portrait of how bad people are at assessing risk, whether that of plane crashes, cyberterrorist attacks, or even the liklihood of rain. Drones are new and easy to fear, while turtles are ancient and an accepted part of life. If a turtle on a runway isn’t that scary, maybe a drone flown five miles away from an airport shouldn’t be, either


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 07:17:17 PM
On the funnier side. We all are missing on one important Suggestions for add to DGCA.  ;)

We all should  be allowed to fly within the terms of guidelines with an AF UIN board along with name and mobile number till such time DGCA issues a registration number for the online application or otherwise. Problem solved   :giggle: :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 07:43:09 PM
Thanks for setting the perspective regarding turtles right. So the turtles have no relevance in our discussion here.
But again there are lot of unknowns there, in that extract. But does the same article also give out the number of aerial collisions with conventional model aircraft's without FPV or autonomous gear?
Prima facie the article (from which extract is taken) appears to be done by an interested group or people and hence needs to be taken with pinch of salt ( I prefer a bag full please).

 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 07:52:30 PM
So far as official positions are concerned, some people like to flaunt it, some don't. I have earned mine too..but official positions are meant for official purposes so far I am concerned. So far as the hobby is concerned, I am just another individual here and even a 13 year old who knows more than me and is into this hobby longer than me is my senior.  ;)

Ok folks...let's do the draft response on AMAI letter and finalize it by tomorrow. Why I think that AMAI is surreptitiously pushing fixed wing over multi-rotor will be clear from the draft letter itself.

Kindly suggest amendments and additions.



Quote
Dated: 20.05.2016
To
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
TECHNICAL CENTRE, OPP. SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,
NEW DELHI.

Madam.

Sub:  Draft Guidelines for obtaining Unique Identification Number (UIN) & Operation of Civil Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) – additional comments reg.

Kindly refer to my letter dated 18.05.2016 on the draft guidelines of DGCA for obtaining UIN and operation of Civil UAS in which detailed comments and suggestions had been sent.

It is understood that representations from a number of organizations and individuals have been sent on the draft guidelines, some of which reflect the views of entities like AMAI which claim to be aeromodelling clubs representing the interests of all aeromodellers but are actually organizations having specific interests including commercial interests.

It may be noted that a vast majority of the recreational users of UAs in India are not attached with any such club and their opinions and views are not appropriately reflected by these clubs, contrary to any such claims made by them.

It has come to my notice that AMAI has made following representations on the DGCA draft circular which are based on points either not in the circular or are against the interest of vast majority of recreational users and hobbyists of UAs and favours specific groups.

   They have demanded that it may be made mandatory for recreational pilots to be registered with aeromodelling clubs and that the clubs should be made responsible for issuing registration number for the UAs. It would be obvious that there is a vested commercial interest behind such demand. Moreover, these entities have no presence across India and it is neither practical not legal to hand over matters of national security to such private clubs. In the USA, FAA has made no such requirement and it is suggested that such demands may not be acceded to.

   They have further demanded that before flying, local police be notified of place, date and time and that should be done by the club. This is a clever ploy to force recreational users and hobbyists to register with these clubs because it would be impossible for individual users to approach police on a regular basis. Moreover, people with no access to such clubs such as in remote or rural areas would be debarred from flying.

   They have also demanded that autonomous flying be banned and model aircrafts should not have any sensors, GPS, RTL etc. This is a strange demand and is contrary to that proposed in the draft circular that GPS/RTH should be mandatorily available in the UA. It is well known that GPS and RTH facility helps maintain the orientation, height and direction of UA. It also enables UAs to “Return to Home” in case it goes out of control. In fact it would be dangerous to have a UA without these faculties as it could endanger peoples’ lives without such failsafe mechanism.

   AMAI also demanded that flying envelope be confined in the area permitted for such exercise and asked for vertical limit to be 500ft. Both of these proposals are contrary to the international norms. US FAA has fixed the height to 400ft. as per international norms and all areas except prohibited areas and populated areas are allowed for flying. In fact this is a surreptitious attempt to control the hobby and recreational flying. There is no reason why someone cannot legally fly in a rural area away from populated places just because it is not designated.

   Further, Demand for met conditions is absurd and not enforceable. What may be construed as “favourable” met condition can only be a guideline. It is not enforceable or measurable. It appears that they have confused guidelines with rules. Moreover, the term Model Aircraft has already been defined in draft circular as one without payload. There is no need to separately prohibit payload in respect of model aircrafts.
 
While they don’t specifically mention it, from the set of suggestions it appears that AMAI is biased only towards a certain type of UA, which is fixed wing aircrafts. It would not be proper to introduce certain new clauses (in the guise of general clauses) in the DGCA circular which would surreptitiously favour one kind of UA over another.

It is suggested that a common set of rules be made for all kinds of UA irrespective of its nature. A fixed wing UA is not “safer” than other types of aircrafts from the national security point of view, although some quarters may try to portray as such. On the contrary, as the wing provides the lift, it is possible for a fixed wing UA to go further with the same amount of battery/fuel and carry more payload than multirotors and other kind of UAs. In fact the real-life drones which are used in military warfare are all fixed wing aircrafts (and not multirotors) for this reason.

Further, the demand of AMAI that aeromodelling clubs be made the authority to control the hobby by the above means (either directly or indirectly) may not be acceded to, as it may not stand the scrutiny of law to grant private commercially motivated organizations such leeway.

Thanking You                     
Yours faithfully

Downloadable .docx version is available here for modification: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCZnI0TFpiaWlNelk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: allthatido on May 20, 2016, 08:13:00 PM
And as Bapu had said, an eye for an eye will soon turn the whole world blind.

Fun fact : There is a conspiracy theory that Gandhi actually never said any such quote (No recorded usage of this quote). It was popularized by Ben Kinsley in the movie Gandhi.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 08:23:00 PM
Ok then if you wish, do read it as "Bapu in movie Gandhi said" 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 08:28:00 PM
@santanucus to  clear the misunderstanding and to set the record straight here. The proposed guidelines for civilian use of UAS in indian airspace has no effect on the flying activities of mine, Gusty or our sons for next 10-12 years till the time we hang our boots. We have our own wide open cleared controlled airspace to fly.

Its just that we are part of this beautiful community of hobby enthusiasts so we choose to waste our hard earned money on memberships of AMAI to be part of the community formally.

While being part of this community we are just trying to contribute to the draft guidelines for the community as a whole with common mans perspective in mind.

PS : please read defenition of controlled airspace from DGCA draft.

PPS : Please do not subject us to such awkward position of justifying to some kids in the block on our positions official or personal.

To put it Arrogantly blunt, You have no business in the representation of my official capacity.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 08:32:29 PM
Whether you wish to or actually use your official, demi official or unofficial position anywhere or not is your choice, but no one gives you the right to question how and why I or others use it, as long as it is not harming your interests in any way (and I am only hoping that by using my previous rank etc in a letter addressed to DGCA your multi rotor and FPV flying interests are not impinged). So take the advice and chill buddy.
The take away I have after all this Angreji is that I will send one more e-mail and snail mail to DGCA asking them to include a clause in the proposed guidelines that all recreational and non recreational purpose/s flying of UA/UAS in India be regulated by Santa Claus .  

Now for this yeomen service to Santa Claus will he bring a me a nice not ARTF shiny scale fixed wing this Christmas?? ;D ;D



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 08:44:20 PM
@santanucus further since you claim to have been associated with DGCA. Let me make it clear here, if you go through my ammendments suggested as an improvement to AMAI's draft which will actually go a long way in making DGCA's life easier if they have any intention at all of implementing guidelines for recreational use with even an iota of sense of control


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 08:45:58 PM
@sundaram...I have no business or interest in your controlled space. I am just bothered with flying my multirotors in whichever airspace law permits.

I have no interest in AMAI either, formal or informal, as long as they don't step on our interests

You are welcome to try to contribute in whatever manner you deem fit. But be assured, that we are as free to respond if something hurts our interest.

PS: No need to read it again. I am not going to suggest changing the definition of controlled airspace.

PPS: No I am not suggesting the DGCA that letter written by someone mentioning official positions be ignored.
That frankly, I agree, is not my business. All I said was that I, personally, won't do it to influence somebody by stating my position in a non-official matter. I would like to try to convince them on the merits of the points written in my letter. What others do is their own business.

By the way, I have not read your draft. My comments are based on the points in the AMAI draft. If that is now the "official" line of AMAI, I will surely go through it. And just to add, I don't need to bother about the jargon on the commercial aspects of the rules. I believe AMAI does not bother about the commercial aspects of the circular either. (correct me if I am wrong). My concern is only about the recreational, non-commercial part of it. Most members in this forum, I believe, are concerned only about those aspects.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: saikat on May 20, 2016, 09:14:45 PM
- You guys should listen to flyingboxcar and sundaram .... they know officialdom more than most
   and their collective experience is something you cannot even come close.

   as for FPV - sundaram was flying it >6 years ago with ranges in the 10's of kms

   don't be too quick to brand ....


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 09:21:00 PM
@santanucus For all the storm kicked up, I am really surprised to know that you have not even read my suggestion for amendment.

I am begining to wonder weather  you have even read the latest DGCA draft completely. I sincerely hope that you are not in the 2015 perspective still.

I would insist that you read the definition of controlled airspace and  DGCA draft completly to make sure you understand all my post correctly.

If you are asking me if my suggestions for ammendments are the new official lines of AMAI. You are being rediculously stupid.

To answer to your query IMHO AMAI is allergic to commercial interest of operation of UAS.

To repeat my perspective on AMAI draft again here AMAI has just taken it upon itself to mediate on the issue of registration numbers for its members flying recreational model aircraft without payload and with a room for other club members to do so on the similar lines for its members with a self imposed restriction of not to fly with payload for all those model aircraft issued with registration numbers of clubs members. Model Aircraft being defined as any type of UAS without payload.

You are free to follow your Path.

PS : why am I getting a feeling that I am wasting my time with someone who is just jabbing away on the keyboard without even going into the previous contents on the entire Subject.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 09:28:38 PM
@Saikat da. :)

When it comes to FPV we are still in awe with likes of Gaurav Agarwal and Pravesh and have lot to explore.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 09:30:25 PM
I also read the post of @flyingboxcar upto the part on "Madam" and had a good laugh. Did he see to whom I addressed my letter? It was DGCA ... The Director General. And she is a lady.

And at the end there was a "copy to:" to Mr. Lalit :)

I know to whom the comments are supposed to be sent. But I wrote the main letter to DG and mailed and posted to her address too...and there's a good reason for it.

I hope someone understand the difference between Directorate General and Director General in the first line.

Finding faults is good. But don't underestimate the intelligence of others ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 20, 2016, 09:51:35 PM
I am not sure how many have read sundaram sir's suggestion for amendment you should read it here

http://www.rcindia.org/rc-general-topics/draft-dgca-guidelines-comments-requested-by-21052016/msg255278/#msg255278

Read it 2-3 times it's very nicely written and suggestions are better than AMAI's guidelines.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 20, 2016, 09:56:41 PM
I am not sure how many have read sundaram sir's suggestion for amendment you should read it here

http://www.rcindia.org/rc-general-topics/draft-dgca-guidelines-comments-requested-by-21052016/msg255278/#msg255278

Read it 2-3 times it's very nicely written and suggestions are better than AMAI's guidelines.
Yes quite well written! Lets not waste any more time in this cat fight of proving each other wrong and do some work to get the best result! :thumbsup:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on May 20, 2016, 09:58:46 PM
I guess we can
Hang together, or
Hang separately.

What is it that we wish to protect?
Our right to fly a model plane/multirotor, with reasonable safety requirements, isn't it?
Thats what we need to impress upon the DGCA, no?
And maybe thats ALL we should say.
The more we talk in detail, the more difficult it becomes.
Single/multi, electric/glow/gas, fixed wing / rotary, auto pilot, GPS, FPV, RTH, video tx, autonomous capability, payload, camera, infra red, night vision, jet, rocket...
This is just BEGGING for more regulation.

So can we keep our request simple?
Maybe that will make it easier for her* to free hobbyists (as opposed to commercial operators) from too much regulation
(*yes, santanucus, we do know)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 10:00:06 PM
Just confirm to me two things...are lines with green additions to the existing AMAI points? And secondly, is this or is this not official draft of AMAI or simply Mr. Sundaram's own letter?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 10:01:45 PM
@KK Sir, I am all for keeping it simple. In my draft only the points that were agreed by all had been mentioned.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Dharmik on May 20, 2016, 10:06:47 PM
send mail guys, whatever your suggestions are press send. time is running.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 10:08:27 PM
Hey Santanu,by addressing your letter to the DG you gave me a great idea. Thank you for that  
For greater impact and effect, I will make copies of the already sent letter with some revisions, and  address that to HE The President, with cc to others in descending order of protocol till the cc list reaches to the correct recipient. And will also retain a personal copy.
Imagine, that way I will be able to create maximum impact in the system when the DGCA DG receives my letter forwarded through proper channels from higher up, and when (and if) the letters reach the desk of JDG he will have no other recourse than sit up, take notice and act.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 10:14:31 PM
@flyingboxcar, I hope you now admit that Madam was not Lalita and I'm not as stupid as you thought ;)

As for why I addressed the letter to DG, there is a different reason than what you think, which is not important to discuss here. Others may choose to do it or may address it to Mr. Lalit.

As for the rest of your comments, I know the officialdom at DGCA much better than you do. If you want to send it to the President, please do so ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 10:18:47 PM
@ santanucus Greens are addition to AMAI's Points and its purely my recommendations which anyone may wish to adopt if they like it.

To be frank I am literally peeved at your interpretation of AMAI's Draft and representaion to DGCA on that.

@rcindia

There are already more than 10 Highly active Aeromodellers clubs functioning in various parts of the country with or without the affiliation of AMAI. With some members who have chosen to take up membership of AMAI to be part of national events whenever its happening.  In any case all memeberships of any and all clubs have been collectively taking part with all enthusiasm in all major events till now inspite of the occasional friction amongst.

Best Example of that are the Mizoram Gang of Aeromodellers and their club. Such a large gathering at eastern most tip of the country with no commercial interest what so ever and purely a hobby community.

Its not difficult for us to organize into few hundreds more aeromodellers clubs in the country if we have the will under or on a separate banner to AMAI. IMHO with affiliation of a National body would be have been great for Unity of our community.

Rest is up to the community to fight their own battle.

PS : Last few hours are left. Few thousand more representation from this community is solicited aimed towards DGCA keeping it simple and to the few points desired without any subversion attempts please.    


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 10:25:45 PM
@sundaram...your draft is better but still the points of contentions remain in that draft.

Its not my interpretation alone. There are others who are angry with AMAI draft. And if AMAI thinks they can steamroll their point of view on others, should we remain mum? That's my point.

I kept everything simple and sent my comments. Then I saw the AMAI draft.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 20, 2016, 10:29:44 PM
Sir
I Never alluded you to be stupid. If you think that way, that is your outlook and does not matter to me a bit.
Have fun and take care


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 10:33:12 PM
send mail guys, whatever your suggestions are press send. time is running.

Here is my letter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCYXJhRWhuWElOZHM . Please amend it suitably. It refers to one of my previous letter and DGCA reply. You have to change it.

Counter to AMAI Letter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCZnI0TFpiaWlNelk  . I am not insisting that others send it. But I don't like the clauses, even after Mr. Sundaram's modification. Also other members of AMAI may send the original draft anyway. If AMAI is unbending on their stance, why do we have to relent? Those who find it logical may send it. Its a preventive measure.

DG's email is : dgoffice.dgca@nic.in

It is to be sent to: lalit.dgca@nic.in  . Additionally, sending to DG is your choice.

Postal address is:
Shri Lalit Gupta,
Joint Director General,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Opp. Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 003.

I sent a copy by post too.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 10:56:17 PM
Those clauses which you claim to be still the irritants are to encourage safe flying habits in Novices in the community.

Not everyone are expert pilots from the day 1 when they enter in this hobby. I consider myself still in the learning curve in the hobby. Self imposed discipline for me for safe flying habits I would like to follow you might say. I have to look at my 14 year old son's perceptive too.  ;) ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 11:07:24 PM
How many people fly model aircrafts and multirotors in India? A few thousand at the most.

In the USA the figure would be much more...maybe approaching hundreds of thousands.

So why such Red Tape-ism for people in India only? In USA there is no such restriction even though they faced 9/11

So is it a result of some old bureaucratic mindset, I wonder.

In the name of safety, we like controls.

This is what makes me wonder that behind this suggestion of "safe flying" there is actually a desire to monopolise. Maybe I am wrong but this attitude is seen in every field in India.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 11:10:49 PM
Red Tape-ism. I would not say when the draft is still out, asking for comments to amend by the National Authority.

Yes everyone is getting worried about the activities ;D of the ones that does not like any form of control and the resultant threat to privacy and safety of rest of humanity as a whole.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
I won't blame the DGCA. They asked for opinions. But look at the irony. In those domains where DGCA did not propose controls, someone else is suggesting that. Strange!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 11:27:34 PM
I hope you understood from the original draft that DGCA totally forgot recreational flying aspect of Model Aircraft flying and chose to mention only in the passing at 5.3. DGCA had clubbed Recreational flying aspect with commercial guidelines.

If you desire to carve out a space for recreational flying with least interference from DGCA you need to take more responsibility for your own actions. That's what AMAI has done.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 11:32:19 PM
Yes...DGCA circular had many drawbacks. But that does not mean that someone should suggest more controls than that done elsewhere. Of course AMAI would want DGCA to give them advantage. But that does not mean everybody should accept that.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 11:41:00 PM
Why am I  getting convinced that you are just anti AMAI for what ever personal reason and jabbing away to create anti AMAI sentiments and I am wasting my time with you. Who rubbed you on the wrong side from AMAI for such animosity.  ;)

At the cost of repetition I am saying again AMAI is not the only clubs in India there are more than 10 highly active and much more successful Aeromodellers clubs functioning in India.

Many have already sent their recommendations without any expectations from this forum. They did not even care to ask you if you might.

Please do not waste your energy in subversion on others efforts. You have your own keyboard and send button. No one is stopping you. National Authority is formed by level headed blokes. They will get the drift for whatever its worth.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 20, 2016, 11:45:17 PM
True. Its good that I saw the AMAI draft. Now I know what these clubs are upto  :P

I am not anti-AMAI. I am anti-control by non-government agencies.

If DGCA has level headed fellas, no problem with my letter either and no need for you to be concerned. I wrote about AMAI. I will add names of other clubs too.

Subversion is a harsh word. Its simply conflict of interest. AMAI has every right to further its interest but others have right to protect theirs' if there is a conflict. Its as simple as that. DGCA is the deciding authority. Let all of the stakeholder write their views and let DGCA decide. Its democratic.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 20, 2016, 11:57:43 PM
I will add names of other clubs too.

Did't you say that you were associated with DGCA earlier in this thread.  >:D Do I infer and detect a DGCA Mole amongs't us in you who is subverting against interest of all aeromodeller's and clubs who are successfully functioning till date safely creating grounds for domination by DGCA. Your representation against AMAI (and now claimed against other clubs too) gives that picture for most part if you read again.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:02:40 AM
Haha...now comes the conspiracy theory :)

So I am subverting the interest of the aeromodeller clubs.

But I admit that already...not about being the mole. About intention to subvert their interests :)

Because their interests conflicts with ours. They want to control us. We don't want to submit.  ;D

Let them talk about our interests. I will support that !



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 12:07:18 AM
Because their interests conflicts with ours.

Please be specific that it conflicts your interest not ours.

Why not the DGCA Mole. You did while ago claimed to glory how closely you were associated with DGCA.

We are all closely following the animosity existing between AMA and FAA for the same reason to retain/gain control.  

I did a second read of your representation against AMAI and it does give that picture with your claim of association with DGCA.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:10:12 AM
My interest as well as that of many other people (maybe silent). Ask them who want to be a member of such clubs in order to be able to fly and see their reaction. I am not forcing anybody to write anything. I am only a junior member here


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 21, 2016, 12:19:21 AM
These folks do not want to be a member of any club (not even where they take lead and form one) for two main reasons.
1. They will have to follow rules
2. They will have to contribute money
There are plenty who just wish to do whatever they want to, and do it free of cost. Not just this hobby, but the country at large is full of such souls.

And are you saying that you represent the voice of the silent souls? I doubt it seriously. On the other hand AMAI has a member base and can as such say they represent the voice of it's members.                   
If you wish to truly represent the voice of those who you think are silent, go ahead form an organization/club whatever and get yourself accredited by ACI. Then you or the spokesman of the club/organization can truly represent the voice of it's members.

Till then you will be seen as a subversive element               


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:23:41 AM
True. We want to follow the rules framed by the government...not by the clubs which are places of vested interests.

And money? Why pay money to somebody else. We can invest that in the hobby.

Plain and simple.

And so far as subversion is concerned...ok..fine..whatever :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on May 21, 2016, 12:25:08 AM
See the second sentence clearly proves my both points. Good night and see you tomorrow  :hatsoff:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:27:05 AM
Great...and if you want to fatten up the purse of some clubs...go ahead and do it sir :)

I'd rather spend it on the hobby ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 12:32:12 AM
@santanucus

Bottom line is weather you like it or not some guideline is going to come out imposing major restrictions, which you have no option but to adhere to. Its just lucky that the authorities have cared to ask all concerned, when they could have just issued it.

That's not the end of it. Its just now DGCA has decided to walk into the domain of recreational flying of model aircraft where we were so comfortable so long with the same perspective of Initial days of FAA. FAA too had changed its perspective with its experience gained for online registration. That's still not final. Which will also be improved upon in due course of time with the experience gained and DGCA too will improve upon the guidelines as time goes with various representations and experience gained on the go.

Out of the 10 Highly active clubs claimed earlier by me close to 07 are functioning with no contribution from members as a community effort. That proves your claim on money angle wrong. The 2-3 functioning with member contributions are the ones involved in organizing national level events of the Recreational flying of Model Aircrafts. That again proves your money angle wrong.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:38:07 AM
@sundaram...I am all for restrictions. I have already posted my earlier letters to DGCA...even those written in DGCA and the current suggestions to DGCA.

What I am AGAINST is an attempt made by some clubs to control the hobby and speaking against our interests. That's why I decided to write to DGCA against that. And many members agree in private as well as in public.

So what's the problem? Let DGCA decide.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 12:45:12 AM
I have no problems whatsoever with your decision on being the DGCA Mole or a lonesome flier  ;)  :giggle: Read it for the third time definitely giving that impression.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:48:38 AM
And I am getting the impression that there is some hidden commercial interests involved in making such representations seeking powers for AMAI which is a private body. But anyway...you are free to do it as I am doing mine. No issues.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 12:51:26 AM
Good night.  :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:57:20 AM
Good night too  :salute:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 02:37:03 AM
Today is the final day for submitting comments on the DGCA draft circular. Members who have not done so already are requested to submit their informed opinion to DGCA by today.

1. Here is the DGCA draft circular: http://dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20circular/AT_Circular%20-%20Civil_UAS(Draft%20April%202016).pdf

I have already sent mine. If anyone needs to refer to it, here is the file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCYXJhRWhuWElOZHM

Note: You may need to change certain points which were specific to my case. Please read it thoroughly before amending it. This letter is addressed to the DG. You can also change the addressee to the address given at the bottom if you do not want to send the main copy to DG.

2. You may be aware that AMAI has recommended a draft for its members. It is available at https://www.facebook.com/groups/368147636684009/

Unfortunately AMAI is going to suggest that membership of an aeromodelling club be made mandatory for flying a model aircraft. This, along with certain other points will put severe restrictions on an individual's ability to pursue the hobby and to fly recreationally. Although it is not specific, AMAI's recommendations also appear biased against multi-rotors, FPV etc. Please read their recommendations carefully and form your own opinion.

3. As it is apparent that AMAI's move impinges upon the individual's right to fly, I am planning to send another letter to DGCA today which counters the suggestions put forth by AMAI. Those who support the move may read the letter carefully and form their own opinion.

Here is the letter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCZnI0TFpiaWlNelk

4. The address to which the letters are to be sent/mailed:

Shri Lalit Gupta,
Joint Director General,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Opp. Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 003.

email:    lalit.dgca@nic.in

Shri Lalit Gupta,
Joint Director General,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Opp. Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 003.

email of DG: dgoffice.dgca@nic.in


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
You have still not buried the hatchet against AMAI.  :giggle: :giggle:  :banghead: :banghead:

Sense prevailed in you only till your first draft. Before you are doing any more damage to the community as a whole Let me attempt to excite your intellect to get the grip on the concept.

@sundaram... I am just bothered with flying my multirotors in whichever airspace law permits.


@santanucus I am sure most of you are with no clue as to what's that airspace law permits involves in identifying or obtaining or getting permission from whom. Would you even care to elaborate for benefit of the fora on how you propose to identify and obtain such heavenly space which law permits. I absolutely insist before one more word of blame from you on others You have not even cared to address the issue with DGCA in any of your post. Limited to your intellect you just presumed the limited unoccupied open space next to your hut is a air space law permits like every other nuisance monger How so convenient for the ever so lazy common man of India who does not even want to get out of his hammock

The Draft DGCA Guideline is very explicit on how to go about it for commercial operation. I hope you are not considering adopting it.

When most of you are so poor that you are absolutely petrified on the very thought of just so that you know the remotest possibility of   memberships of few thousand Rupees, can't expect you to own 100 acres of private land. If its not yours or the students or the scratch builders, then it belongs to a third party or the govt's who's privacy or the space you will be infringing upon illegally.  Mind you all those who own 100 acres of land who are in the hobby already own turbine jets like me in the lakhs. Cake walk for them to obtain UIN or UAOP. Its jokers like you who can't even afford a memberships are actually creating nuisance by infringing on some body else's space which do not belong to you or obtained permission for flying with all sorts of monkeying around.

Please get your head out of this hole that someone is compelling you for membership fees. Please see MAA, PAA, Indore club, Noida club, Gurgaon Club, and many more..... not just AMA or Wings India

You did not even care to read this part under my recommendation in PS
PS : Its Mandatory for even the Last Bastion of Security of this Country when it proceeds for Training firing in its own feild firing ranges away from any civilization to give an intimation of training firing activity to the local Police before commencing the firing activity.

Is is not mandatory to inform local police for any community activity in your village.

What if every Joker and every loansome loony flier like you in every town decided to exhibit his PDA for rc flying in his heavenly space which he thinks law permits to his understanding. Worse case scenario is one each for every lonesome loony in the same village just because he is beyond control.

is it not the root cause of original problem that every lonesome loonies decides to exhibit his PDA for RC flying in his heavenly space which he thinks law permits


Would it not be easy for the community if you were organized into Aeromodellers Club like Mizoram Aeromodellers Club and carved out recognition and space for the activity amongst to deal with local authority.

Would it not give more recognition and credence for the aeromodellers Club of Institution or College in dealing with local authorities.

Would't it give the RC community opportunity to nurture the lonesome loonies under their wing and guide and give them environment to grow in this hobby.

Would't it not be easier for the clubs to interact with local Law enforcement authorities for permissions. Would't the Club give the community more recognition and identity when dealing with authorities.

AMAI has just attempted to put in place guidelines for all clubs and education institutions to obtain permissions for such spaces which law permits and much desired recognition and credence for the already existing clubs. Is it that difficult for you to wrap your head around the concept.

I can understand your ever so compelling urge to infringe on the space belonging to a third party for that golden moments of photography of someone else property.

In the times of storm one loose cannon like you is enough to blow major hole in the hull of this ship of RC Community. I presume you already have done irreparable damage to the years of hard work of all the clubs, who were already functioning successfully with much recognition with your irresponsible assumptions.  

Its absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable that without even completely understanding the intention of the other party trying to make a complete mockery of good work done by all aeromodellors clubs all over India.

Not a word more from you against any club for that matter before you clarify your stand on how do you propose to identify and obtain that piece of heavenly space which law permits for everyone to fly.

You even think that your perception is any better than any seasoned hobbyist who has been in this field for years together and you have absolutely no respect at all for the seniors in the RC Community. I am a six year old baby only in RC arena not in life, Its a pity that you even consider yourself worthy enough to contest my perception.  

PS : Do read the above twice thrice and attempt to understand before you even think that you have anything to respond to the above.

PSS : Given some more time to marinate this issue, we ever so melodramatic Indians would have got our differences of caste colour, creed, community, language, religion, region also into this. Don't they all call us as the bucket filled with crabs.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 09:44:53 AM
@Sundaram, thanks for trying your best to convince all how being controlled by a club is good for us. I am not buying it (with my dim wit) as long as AMAI sticks to its narrow perspective. Period.

DGCA has enough intelligent people to decide whether I am loony, lonesome or dimwitted or whether clubs like AMAI have vested interests.

Your firing range analogy is ridiculous. So I better not comment on it. Firing bullets and flying a UA is the same thing, I guess :)

Quote
When most of you are so poor that you are absolutely petrified on the very thought of just so that you know the remotest possibility of   memberships of few thousand Rupees, can't expect you to own 100 acres of private land. If its not yours or the students or the scratch builders, then it belongs to a third party or the govt's who's privacy or the space you will be infringing upon illegally.  Mind you all those who own 100 acres of land who are in the hobby already own turbine jets like me in the lakhs. Cake walk for them to obtain UIN or UAOP. Its jokers like you who can't even afford a memberships are actually creating nuisance by infringing on some body else's space which do not belong to you or obtained permission for flying with all sorts of monkeying around.

Your frustration is causing you to write incoherent and irrelevant things. I don't care how many acres of land you have, you much money you have, what post you hold, how superior you are from me, how big an aircraft you own. Frankly I care a hoot. People flaunt wealth when they lose their dignity. By saying all these, you have destroyed yours. Your argument now boils down to this: You are rich and I am poor.So I have to submit to you. Perfect argument ! I hope the members here will enjoy this argument ;)

Loonies and dimwitted lonesome people can't understand your intelligent argument. I think US is full of such loonies. That's why they adopted easier rules. In India we have intelligent people like you who, with their greater perception, want to control others.

I have debated enough on this issue and will not do so further unless AMAI changes its stance. Period. But what makes you so afraid, I wonder? This is a democratic country. Any loony and lonesome people can write anything. DGCA don't have loonies, do they? You give your argument to DGCA. I give mine. Let them decide.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 09:58:57 AM
@sundaram... I am just bothered with flying my multirotors in whichever airspace law permits.


@santanucus I am sure most of you are with no clue as to what's that airspace law permits involves in identifying or obtaining or getting permission from whom. Would you even care to elaborate for benefit of the fora on how you propose to identify and obtain such heavenly space which law permits.

Is not mandatory to inform local police for any community activity in your village.

is it not the root cause of original problem that every lonesome loonies decides to exhibit his PDA for RC flying in his heavenly space which he thinks law permits


In the times of storm one loose cannon like you is enough to blow major hole in the hull of this ship of RC Community. I presume you already have done irreparable damage to the years of hard work of all the clubs, who were already functioning successfully with much recognition with your irresponsible assumptions.  

Its absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable that without even completely understanding the intention of the other party trying to make a complete mockery of good work done by all aeromodellors clubs all over India.

Not a word more from you against any club for that matter before you clarify your stand on how do you propose to identify and obtain that piece of heavenly space which law permits for everyone to fly.

As long as you don't have a single word to contribute on how to obtain this heavenly piece of land which law permits for everyone to fly.

What gave you the impression that you speak for everyone else. You are just a common selfish nuisance monger who is just not interested in anybody else interest but himself. You are "The Nuisance Monger" who is the root cause of this entire problem.

I have debated enough on this issue and will not do so further

Don't even attempt to till such time you have a better solution to everyone's problem of Space permitted by law. Only your foolishness will be exposed more.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 10:05:40 AM
Go ahead just attempt your dim wit to answer that pertinent question. The answer will pop right out as "Granted"

Prove me entirely wrong in my assumption by coming out with a better solution to the problem of space which law permits. Do you even have the moral courage to attempt that question.

Don't let everyone else here get convinced here that you lack that moral courage or the intellect to come out with a solution for that problem of everyone else.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 10:13:21 AM

When most of you are so poor that you are absolutely petrified on the very thought of just so that you know the remotest possibility of   memberships of few thousand Rupees, can't expect you to own 100 acres of private land. If its not yours or the students or the scratch builders, then it belongs to a third party or the govt's who's privacy or the space you will be infringing upon illegally.  Mind you all those who own 100 acres of land who are in the hobby already own turbine jets like me in the lakhs. Cake walk for them to obtain UIN or UAOP. Its jokers like you who can't even afford a memberships are actually creating nuisance by infringing on some body else's space which do not belong to you or obtained permission for flying with all sorts of monkeying around.

Your frustration is causing you to write incoherent and irrelevant things. It also convinces me (again) that decency does not come with rank or money. Decency comes with real education which you appear to be lacking. I don't care how many acres of land you own, you much money you have, what post you hold, how superior you are from me, how big an aircraft you own. Frankly I care a hoot about your wealth. People flaunt wealth when they lose their dignity. By saying all these, you have destroyed yours. Your argument now boils down to this: You are rich and I am poor.So I have to submit to you. Perfect argument ! I hope the members here will enjoy this argument


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 10:21:53 AM
Your frustration is causing you to write incoherent and irrelevant things. Frankly I care a hoot.

My Frustration!!! that fact pretty much got you frustrated. While you are at it no one is stopping you to fight for a free RC Airplane too from the govt to fly along with the permission.  >:D

By the way that was just an attempt to get your grip on the concept of open spaces to fly and your lack of ownership of those. And You claim of a better education than me. What the hell gave you that idea. :rofl:  

It also convinces me that decency does not come with rank or money. Decency comes with real education which you appear to be lacking.
Yes I know you have neither Money, Status, Rank nor the decency. yes the perfect psych profiling for the one with least at stake here and absolutely allergic to any form of control

Prove me wrong in your claim that you have at least the Education buddy by attempting to answer the question

Its pretty clear that you lack the intellect for a better solution to the problem of space permitted by law. Frankly you don't have to make it any more loud and clear about that and you care a hoot about any body else'e interest but yourself. We get that pretty clear.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: pravesh736 on May 21, 2016, 10:22:40 AM
i hope dgca listens to no one and blindly copies FAA, that is better than what any of us could come up with so far. :D


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 10:24:10 AM
i hope dgca listens to no one and blindly copies FAA, that is better than what any of us could come up with so far. :D

If they blindly copied FAA ...nothing better than that ! If they did, we'd probably have no need to open this thread. Unfortunately they didn't ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 10:31:52 AM
i hope dgca listens to no one and blindly copies FAA, that is better than what any of us could come up with so far. :D

What gave you the impression that FAA's model is the perfect solution Pravesh. :) It is still grappling with lot of issues including privacy concerns of Registrants.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: pravesh736 on May 21, 2016, 10:59:22 AM
Its not perfect, its better than our nonsense. :)
registrants info is easily available online because they are automated, ours isnt that much. they can always omit that which faa may do too eventually.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 11:09:00 AM
Now DGCA is looking like an angel if you see what kind of restrictions AMAI has suggested.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 11:15:41 AM
Neither FAA is better nor our's is a nonsense Pravesh. If every regional body becomes more active like MAA. Its a perfect solution.

Either the law is ready to turn a blind eye to every Shantanu or Subhanjan who decides to Exhibit his PDA for his hobby in some corner of country which he thinks is the heavenly space permitted by law. If not then its better to get the Shantanu or Subhanjan to the actual space permitted by law with the community effort.

How much more do you expect yourself to fly with that fear that Some Subhanjan is going to step out the line and infringing someone else's privacy or property with or without the Registration numbers just because he does't like to be controlled and you are going to be grounded.


PS : @santanucus Now that you have claimed better education than me I hope that you are working on a better solution to the space permitted by law for everyone here. Just because you don't have one that does not mean you will beat around the bush to make us accept DGCA Solution. I have already expressed my apprehension in you of being the DGCA mole.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 11:20:03 AM
I have already have expressed my apprehension in you of being the DGCA mole.

 :iagree: I'd rather be a "sarkari" DGCA mole than have vested interests as AMAI mole  :giggle:

I being the "sarkari" DGCA mole suggested this: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCYXJhRWhuWElOZHM
And look in my signature what private mole has suggested.

Now decide...do you like a sarkari mole or a private mole?  :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 11:22:37 AM
@santanucus Should I take that on record that you are the "Sarkari DGCA Mole" working against our interest without any solution to the space permitted by law problem at hand because he lacks the education too for it.  Cool that settles it then  :giggle:

PS : Thank you for participating and Highlighting the eminent threat of Santanu and Subhanjan type lonely fliers who do not like to be controlled and just because he does not like being controlled will not even adhere to their own suggestions proposed and will be nuisance to all with their monkeying around in private.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 11:47:17 AM
Only if you are the certified AMAI mole ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 11:54:32 AM
Its no secret that I am AMAI member Inspite of having unrestricted access to cleared controlled airspace for 12 more years.

I am sure with your lack of education You have even understood the definition of Controlled Air Spaces. Did not even care to read it even till now is it.

Oh I forgot You care a Hoot about everyone else.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 12:37:56 PM
Today is the final day for submitting comments on the DGCA draft circular. Members who have not done so already are requested to submit their informed opinion to DGCA by today.

1. Here is the DGCA draft circular: http://dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20circular/AT_Circular%20-%20Civil_UAS(Draft%20April%202016).pdf

I have already sent mine. If anyone needs to refer to it, here is the file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCYXJhRWhuWElOZHM

Note: You may need to change certain points which were specific to my case. Please read it thoroughly before amending it. This letter is addressed to the DG. You can also change the addressee to the address given at the bottom if you do not want to send the main copy to DG.

2. You may be aware that AMAI has recommended a draft for its members. It is available at https://www.facebook.com/groups/368147636684009/

Unfortunately AMAI, due to its vested interests have suggested that membership of an aeromodelling club must be made mandatory for flying a model aircraft. They have demanded informing police before one flies everytime. They have asked DGCA to make them the authority to grant licence and register UA. They have asked for specifically designated flying fields. This, along with certain other points will put severe restrictions on an individual's ability to pursue the hobby and to fly recreationally. Although it is not specific, AMAI's recommendations also appear biased against multi-rotors, FPV etc. Please read their recommendations carefully and form your own opinion.

3. As it is apparent that AMAI's move impinges upon the individual's right to fly, I am planning to send another letter to DGCA today which counters the suggestions put forth by AMAI. Those who support the move may read the letter carefully and form their own opinion.

Here is the letter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCZnI0TFpiaWlNelk

4. The address to which the letters are to be sent/mailed:

Shri Lalit Gupta,
Joint Director General,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Opp. Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 003.

email:    lalit.dgca@nic.in

Shri Lalit Gupta,
Joint Director General,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Opp. Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 003.

email of DG: dgoffice.dgca@nic.in


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: laxmansuthar on May 21, 2016, 01:26:09 PM
Thanks for All your support Dear, .....
we will receive Good News Very soon.(Officially)  {:)}

Regards
Laxman Suthar,



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 21, 2016, 02:21:25 PM
Good news: which is in the interest of AMAI.

Now that's more precise


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 02:25:51 PM
Good news: which is in the interest of AMAI.
Now that's more precise

Not so fast ;)

He who laughs last, laughs best  :giggle:

Wait and Watch. ;D


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: laxmansuthar on May 21, 2016, 03:53:46 PM
Good news: which is in the interest of AMAI.
Now that's more precise

Not so fast ;)

He who laughs last, laughs best  :giggle:

Wait and Watch. ;D


+1 to u sir.. :thumbsup:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 04:09:33 PM
@rcindia

Let me summarize some primary term of reference for the entire fora which you are getting into by whatever suggestion you might have recommend for obtaining the UIN or registration number by online means or in the hard copy in individual capacity or through some body. The bottom line is that there is no escaping the requirement of UIN or registration number for Flying even recreational.
 
That registration number is going to be given to you only after you surrender your credentials to the authority, which every tom dick and harry of law enforcement in the country will be having access too. That’s if at all some amongst us can even manage to obtain one number with your credential in individual capacity.
That’s for all the hoopla about not wanting to be controlled by non-govt agencies.

For not wanting to take any police permission for flying.
Its not as if that this process of obtaining a number is the end of all for flying and you can go happily flying into the sunset for eternity with that number whenever or where ever you wish to fly in your love bubble with your model in that Air space you thought permitted by law to your understanding without taking anyone’s permission.

Entire fun starts now with your neck in the choker block with your credentials in the hands of the law enforcement agencies. After obtaining a Number from DGCA, I dare the bravest  amongst you with your personal endevour of PDA with your model in spaces which does not belong to you without taking someones permission for exclusive usage of the space for your monkeying around. More wealthier lineage that monkey comes from more fun he will be subjected too. My best wishes to you all in that personal venture. Its just that you are a criminal with identity now.

Even before the Guidelines were out the commissioners were found displaying their catch in the news and you are hopping it will be any easier after the guidelines and number without anyone's permission.

Most of the monkeying will get the Numbers issued cancelled permanently once and for all within a months. That is if at all you do not find yourself behind bar for trespassing.  You are most welcome to tread that path of lonesome ranger with your endevour.  Wouldn’t  be surprised that you with your number finds yourself behind bar for someone else’s monkeying around just because you have a number with your identity on hold and you are also a lonesome ranger. Law will take its course to wean out the monkeys.

For all those who think who can obtain permissions as a lonesome ranger for that space permitted by law which does not belong to you.  My sincere best wishes to you. Please let us also know too whenever you get one, we will join you whenever we are in your town. That's for all that allergy to the concept of RC club.

I am sure most of you lonesome rangers will come sashaying back expecting to be absorbed into the folds of the local hobby clubs or will be found putting your bit double time to create one in your area. Its always easier in more numbers. You are most welcome to say thank you then.

In the mean time in the last few hours left, at least to show your consolidation in the strength of the hobby community, for all that it matter if you decide even send the santanucus second representation for whatever it is worth. My +1 to Santanucus second recommendations.

He who laughs last, laughs best  :giggle:
 

@santanucus you are behaving like that Toddler whose sucker has been plucked every time. So worried that someone is stealing your thunder.  :giggle: I hope you are happy now with my recommendation for your second proposal.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 04:25:26 PM
UIN or not, that's in the hand of DGCA. We don't even expect UIN to be withdrawn...but merely streamlined. But that will never be in the hands of money making private bodies with vested interest like AMAI hoping to control the hobbyists as demanded in their letter...that's for sure. And for my "proposal"...you are mistaken if you think I'm giving mere proposals ;)

The rest of your post does not even make any sense :) Its just a bunch of bla .. bla .. bla :) In fact the more you write, the more nonsense it becomes ;) Special awards to anyone who can understand what you want to say. So keep monkeying around in your 100 acres rather than exposing your mentally challenged side  :P


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 04:46:49 PM
And for my "proposal"...you are mistaken if you think I'm giving mere proposals ;)

So I am supposed to be scared of the toddler now is it.  :giggle:

Did't expect you of all to understand any of it anyway. For your notice that was for @rcindia. did't for a bit say you are not welcome to comment.

Continue Grinding your Personal Axe for AMAI. Good luck to you.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 04:49:44 PM
Unless you were scared, you wouldn't  have written at least 20 posts justifying AMAI letter and more posts with creative writing explaining how wealthy you are,  would you?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 04:54:03 PM
You are on your own personal loony trip with that opinion of yours.

whats 20 more post got to do with anything in the thousands. You will find a few hundreads more on the same topic before your topic on the subject by me.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 04:57:27 PM
Those hundreds were written before you got scared by my two page letter :) And then your posts got very "creative". Good luck with creative but  unintelligible writing :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 05:01:14 PM
Scared by your letter.  :rofl:

Can only feel pity for you for your interpretation.  :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 05:04:09 PM
Yes...scared...as in ghost movies. Go back and read your posts. It will be evident how a two-page letter spooked you. So much so that you had to describe your wealth, 100 acres of land, big flying machines and what not in ornamental and sometimes unintelligible langiage ! So much insecurity of a macho man over  a mere two page letter ? Surprising !!! I didn't think a puny letter can be so...terrorizing to some one.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 05:07:05 PM
Why the toddler is still crying even after getting back the sucker please.  :D

Given a Plus +1 to your proposal long time back.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 05:08:17 PM
As if I needed your +1 :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 05:11:23 PM
So man...be frank. What do you have to lose for a mere letter? Money? Nah...you have 100 acres and big flying machines. Anything else? Prestige? Ego?  :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 05:12:31 PM
So whats the grind for the toddler now.  You are free to send whatever suggestion to DGCA.

Oh the toddler who who's so allergic to control is in its tantrum that he wants to control everyone else's Opinion.  :rofl:
 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 05:14:49 PM
Oh! I am free? Thank You Sir! You just gave me permission to send my proposal! Thank You! Thank You ! Thank You! That's very considerate of you Sir. If you had given me permission last night...I would have sent it a long time back.  :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on May 21, 2016, 05:15:09 PM
Santanucus: I have never seen such utter trash written by anyone in the forum. Just who, or rather what do you think of yourself? As you should know, your opinion or desires are hardly going to matter much. Then what is the need to be so offensive to one of the seniormost members of this forum, with proven expertise, and and a genuine proven desire to help others - always?

Shame. Shame on you sir


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 05:16:08 PM
Santanucus: I have never seen such utter trash written by anyone in the forum. Just who, or rather what do you think of yourself? As you should know, your opinion or desires are hardly going to matter much. Then what is the need to be so offensive to one of the seniormost members of this forum, with proven expertise, and and a genuine proven desire to help others - always?

Shame. Shame on you sir

Have you seen the earlier posts? For example the description of wealth of Colonel sahab? The language and adjectives he used against me? Please go back and check that sir. The choicest adjectives he has used. Please check it and post your opinion and then tell me. Do you think that he has right to use indecent language? Check my posts. Not a single expletive. So he has right to insult me just because I had written a letter against AMAi?

Do you mean to say that just because he is a senior member in the forum he has right to insult someone because someone has written against AMAI? Judge for yourself impartially before pointing fingers and please go back in the topic to see his attitude. I wish there was a moderator in this forum to check these things


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 05:21:39 PM
Sanjay Sir I am halting with you on the thread.  :hatsoff:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 05:23:19 PM
I least expected my letter to create any ripples at all. Then I saw your posts and understood that it has :)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 05:27:35 PM
My intention was only to prevent youngsters getting excited seeing the crap you had written and following suite with similar rubbish deviating from the topic to the National Authority just because you don't like to be part of larger group and averse to spending just a K extra per year. I must say I failed miserably to convey any perspective with you in the so closed bubble of yours.  

Take care and good luck to you.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 05:35:34 PM
Thank you. I hope matter ends here. You are entitled to your views as I am entitled to mine and the youngsters are mature enough to form their own opinion after hearing all sides, crap, rubbish and gibberish. So let's proceed to important things.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 05:56:29 PM
To set records straight.

None of the analogies used by me were in any way directed at you personally or supposed to have conveyed in any way that it was personally aimed by me at you in the entire thread leaving aside the Toddler part for which I apologize.

I do take very strong objection to your post #372. and your Intimidation's in the earlier posts after #336 hiding behind the anonymity of the forum with an intent to confuse the context

You were just being compulsive and just refused to understand the context of any of the analogy implied and took it as a personal attack which is not my problem.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 06:06:42 PM
If I want to, I can dig up a number of posts in which you insulted me. But I thought matter ended there. It would not be prudent to rake up things again for another round. It is clear that you can't change my opinion. So let's end the matter here. I have no inclination on carrying on this fruitless discussion any further and will not respond any more. Hope you maintain the same.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 06:16:39 PM
If I want to, I can dig up a number of posts in which you insulted me.
And I thought you are ending the matter here.

Anologies which if you understood as indicated at you personally as personnel attack that's your personal problem.

I do take very strong objections as conveyed in #377.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 06:21:14 PM
Counter has clocked more than 700 plus in all the responses to DGCA from various clubs all over India.

Please do send your's rcindia whatever it is. We are more interested in the number to indicate our strength in numbers.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 06:31:07 PM
Lets get back to the topic. If anyone else is there who is yet to send response to DGCA please do so by today.

1. Here is the DGCA draft circular: http://dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20circular/AT_Circular%20-%20Civil_UAS(Draft%20April%202016).pdf
2. My response. If anybody wants they can change it suitably https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCYXJhRWhuWElOZHM
3. You may be aware that AMAI has recommended a draft for its members. It is available at https://www.facebook.com/groups/368147636684009/ There are certain points which are against the interests of non-members.
4. Sent another letter to DGCA today as a protest against AMAI demands. Those who support the move may read the letter carefully and form their own opinion. Here is the letter: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6UgXTZBN0sCZnI0TFpiaWlNelk
5. The address to which the letters are to be sent/mailed:

Shri Lalit Gupta,
Joint Director General,
Office of the Director General of Civil Aviation,
Opp. Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110 003.

email:    lalit.dgca@nic.in

6. In case anyone needs to send response to DG,
email of DG: dgoffice.dgca@nic.in


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 21, 2016, 08:34:42 PM
Yes please do send the comments.

AMAI's Suggestions are strongly against multirotor's interest. Where they have suggest to not permit payload like camera so no FPV
And have suggested against UIN or any other kind of registration with DGCA but have suggested to register with any club or institution.

Sundaram sir's amendment over the AMAI's suggestion is better, where he has nicely suggested better methods how to include or regulate the use of FPV

The only thing which i had problem with is registering with any club or institution. I was thinking about this yesterday whole night and even today morning.

But i think this suggestion is better than registering ourselves with DGCA, think about it?
Which registration would be easy? registering with a club (can be AMAI or can be any other club for that matter)/institution or registering with DGCA, where i think it would be troublesome and not a easy process. (even if we plead them to make a easy process)
Whereas with any club i think they would understand and make a easy registration process.

Sundaram sir has been continuously saying this the root cause of this problem is phantom maniacs. And i hope when any club is registering any modeller then they keep this in mind.

Sundaram sir i have one question: If a modeller (say pilot) registers himself. He can fly any models? say i get registered and i have 2 quads, and later on i go ahead and buy a DJI Phantom. Would i be able to fly phantom without any problem? or do i have to inform the club where i have registered about the new model??

About notifying police before going to fly, its good thing to do but then police have to be co-operative. I would like to point that not all places have helpful police. Which is why i think @santanucus is against this. I think few of us who know how to deal with police can get this done but then many hobbyists are not comfortable with this. Now question here is would club helping in setting some kind of guidelines or suggestion in how to get this done?


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 08:59:20 PM
Entire intent of the Govt agencies with the guidelines is to know the identity of every individual flier. As long as you are not infringing on anyone else's privacy or property while operating it. You will never get criminalized.  As a larger local group of resonable resposible gathering its very easy to convince authorities for the space and routine modalities for permission. Which will get more easy with greater recognition. MAA is live example for all these years. After all this hobby is pursured by majority well settled blokes of the society. Situation is not so grim as one would presume. Its just apprehension of the uninitiated.

Point notted to be flagged to clubs for being more accomodative to models with UIN within the club airspace. I don't see a reason for such a problem when you have a UIN and club registration number and not infringing.

Regular flight logs at local clubs were some suggestions proposed by me to that end.

Those were just my suggestions lets see what comes out in fine print. We will continue to fight for ammends as time progress.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 09:13:04 PM
Why not a Quad racing club in your town while we are at it.

A simple quad puts you back by anything between 10K to 70K phantom. Upper limit is quite open.

Most of us have more than a couple. Why not a 1K more for your annual registration to a local or a national club.

I fail to see the logic against when it has all the advantages of group of law abiding sensible members and collective effort for everything from space to permissions.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 21, 2016, 09:18:04 PM
Thank you sir for the insight, but in very simple words answer for the following? :D simple words mein rakhiye please :D

sir i have one question: If a modeller (say pilot) registers himself. He can fly any models? say i get registered and i have 2 quads, and later on i go ahead and buy a DJI Phantom. Would i be able to fly phantom without any problem? or do i have to inform the club where i have registered about the new model??



Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 09:27:33 PM
Ok in simple words if phantom does not sport a camera or GPS you can just fly without any issue with same registration number. :) ;)

Please look at this way. AMAI is national body has least control over any of the fliers in regional chapter. It just cannot take responsibility or risk for a payload model with its registration number found infringing.

For that matter why would anyother club do the same.

Please do get your own UIN for models with payload.

I am sure you would agree with their perspective on the issue

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 21, 2016, 09:34:35 PM
But same also applies for custom build models with FPV capabilities right?


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 09:35:28 PM
Absolutely

That's why I was saying earlier
why not a Quad racing club on similar lines with your own recommendations.


Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 21, 2016, 09:38:38 PM
So for fpv get a UIN which is UAS - Identification Number right? as suggested in the DGCA draft


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 09:48:19 PM
Not exactly on the similar lines of commercial UIN.

IMHO Online one per recreational pilot serves the purpose too. As long as DGCA agrees to it which makes all our life easier

As long as we are not found infringing which party should be concerned.

IMHO ones mobile number too serves the purpose of all concerned for recreational use.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on May 21, 2016, 10:52:40 PM
My last msg to Lalit and DGCA Madam,
Sir,
You could categorise aeromodellers into 2 groups:
1. Commercial interest professionals
2. Hobbyists

I take cudgels on behalf of Hobbyists.
This includes
A. Those who build/fly model airplanes/multirotors for personal satisfaction
B. Those exploring new technologies like telemetry, FPV, solar power etc
C. Those who teach newcomers to fly for a fee

Please do regulate Group 1, as considered necessary

But Group 2?
What harm can they do?
As long as they stick to certain self imposed restrictions that I've mentioned in emails to you since Oct 2014, namely

1. Model weight below 5kg (11lb limit has been there from FAI for over 50 yrs)
2. Fly below 500 ft
3. Dont fly within 5km of an airport
4. Dont fly over public/buildings/cars

Whats the harm if they carry a camera, video tx, gps, autopilot etc?

If DGCA starts a website, such hobbyists could register themselves online, and carry the regn num on their models.

Unique ID for each model?
I have more than ten at any time. And i build a new one whenever i get the mood.
You wouldn't ask a painter to register every new painting he does, would you?

For the sake of credibility, i may add that i'm a fairly senior (retired) sarkari, and my wife, also a flyer, is a (retired) school Principal.

My request?
Please let honest janata be free!
Regards

Sent from my iPad


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 21, 2016, 11:18:33 PM
Too perfect sir. :)

Could have asked for 25kg.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on May 22, 2016, 12:05:39 AM
Comments sent....


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 22, 2016, 12:20:23 AM
KK Sir wrote eloquently and in simple words about all the points which most of us have in mind. It brings a whiff of fresh air in the complicated issue. That's the result of long experience, I guess.  :hatsoff:

I sincerely hope DGCA gives it due weightage.

I agree about the weight issue too, although I did not write in similar lines to maintain consensus. In my view it is not correct to club all UAs ranging from 2 Kg to 20 Kg. under the group "Mini". Upto 5 Kg. is what most of us require. A 20 Kg. UA can carry much more payload which could be dangerous for security. 5-20 Kg. should be put in a higher category and restrictions should be put in place while for light category UAs, restrictions should be less.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 22, 2016, 12:39:35 AM
(http://www.modelairplanenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/x1.jpg)

Hornet nano at 16gms carries a lethal payload for survilence. With upcoming Geospatial Information bill.

Every UAS platform is under threat of being under scanner for payload then. We all need to close shop for the shortage of gap filling glue In the inventory..  :giggle:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on May 22, 2016, 08:32:39 AM
Interesting article I found, which to some extent reflects how I feel about the situation here: http://noobrc.com/2016/05/the-hobby-has-changed/

Sundaram Sir, I agree that an online registration system for all recreational pilots will serve the purpose best. I would prefer that this system is for all aircraft, whether FPV or GPS-equipped or not. If the AMAI/ other clubs are willing to take care of registrations for models without this technology, all right, but they should at least specify what the FPV pilots will have to do, as you have done in your letter. As they have said they will only register recreational aircraft without GPS/ FPV, that would mean we have to be clubbed with commercial operations. Anyway, the deadline has now passed so there isn't much point arguing over this. I only hope the the final guidelines will not be too harsh towards the recreational pilots



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 22, 2016, 10:16:17 AM
Quote
Adapt and survive. If the AMA wants the support of the New Guard, then they need to support us.  No more baby steps, you need to step up and protect our rights from overbearing legislation.  You raised our membership fees, now raise your game and show us you’re worth it. To the New Guard it’s hard to justify $75 a year when I could just pay the FAA $5.  To the Old Guard, embrace us or lose us.

That's exactly what I had in my mind. I guess the situation is the same in USA...but more so in India.

The difference between USA and India is...they have simple and easy to comply rules but stiff penalty for violation. Here, the rule is such that people won't be able to comply. Golden opportunity for "setting" and bribery. That's the fundamental difference.

By the way, due to the upcoming geospatial bill which KK Sir posted in another thread, any image or video captured from a UAV becomes illegal and there is stiff penalty for violation. Even licence has to be taken for older videos and photos. I think the bill is targetting big players. But it does not provide any exception. So whosoever is engaging in FPV or getting photos from UA is violating the law and can be imprisoned. That is dangerous.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 22, 2016, 12:10:26 PM
@SK1701

Its easy to just look at the requirements of the hobby community from the park flier’s perspective (including the huge bone of contention "payload" of the FPV park flier category #). The piddly park flier who does not even want to get out his backyard, flies with no restriction and least safety considerations. He does not want to be part of a larger group where he may be subjected to discipline in flying and safety control restrictions. The teeny meany piddly Park flier is just too happy taking off from his backyard and revolts and demands that he should be allowed to do that in everyone of us. This Park flier catergory’s  perspective, what he desires, proposes  does not offer solution to rest of the community at the national level.  Agreed his interest should also be accommodated if its in national interest and larger hobby community interest like how FAA has. We should propose for it.

(# Rest of the FPV category beyond the park flier category are the real professionals and commercials for whom the present DGCA draft meets their requirement perfect including the long distance FPVers like me included a 400ft AGL clause)

As far as this piddly park flier’s desire goes. I would like to fly without any restriction of the numbers too if its acceptable to the rest of the community.  :giggle:

So for the Park flier’s community it might appear that this Golden Number from the authority is the ultimate “Kumbaya”  for eternity with which he can continue to keep taking off from his backyard with least restictions and safety considerations and keep flashing it to the authorities like a James Bond’s Security Batch.

Some Childish Park Flier may even find it convenient to argue, how the bigger categories are the real threat to the national  security and hobby community as a whole due to their payload capabilities and should not be allowed. @ Pravesh no offence meant to you  :giggle:

For the rest of the higher category in the National Hobby arena or the local clubs the Ordeal has just begun with that number. Every time we need to create a space for this higher category to participate in national level or at local clubs level and we need to follow strict safety  considerations. Take permission for flying from local ADC and law. DGCA draft guidelines has no where excused any of us from that requirements

Even if he thinks the DGCA has forgotten about it, Its merely a misnomer in the minds of the pidly park flier that he thinks he need not follow any safety considerations, he can take off at any time of the day with LED at night, under any weather conditions, from wherever he wants and he need take no one’s permission for it.

Where the real fun is FPV inside a forest or inside a diapilated buildings (already Indoor). For that too piddly, teeny,  meany  FPV park flier racer like me with that Huge bone of contentions "Payload", we are just new born baby in the block. First we need to get recognition in the international arena, then may be in national arena. We have been just able to create a ripple in virtual world’s pond. In the Real Spectator Sport arena we have not even been able to move a leaf till now. Unless we do not create a storm in real world spectator sports arena we will die a natural death or forevermore remain as that teeny meany FPV park flier racer kids in the Vanvas in the forest where we fly now. Those of you following it in international arena will agree. Frankly Speaking I find myself very comfortable in that forest where no one disturb's me in my racing with my friends I don't disturb anyone. who's got time to come and search for me in the forest. I find myself more comfortable in the Forest next to runway than on the runway

Why go up to the Jets category, What was the fault of the gassers (upto 25Kg category) like Harshil Mane 17, Tanmay 24, Real Gems and expert pilots in national arena in 3D and pattern, who are very much competent to participate in international arena. At the National Arena as a national body their interest takes precedence no matter what the piddly park flier like me desires or wants. No where it is implied that the piddly park flier is not welcome to be part of the national level community or take its recognition. He is most welcome to join hobby community at the national level, as long as he is willing to abide by the safety guidelines and safe flying practices stipulated by the national body.

For all that Money angle conspiracy theory and vested interest in AMAI. That Park flier’s desire to save a mere 1K or 0.5K (student) per year in not wanting to subscribe membership, when every crash of his model puts him back by few thousands looks ridiculously childish. No one is compelling for member ships. You go propose to take it from the govt if you desire so.  Bottom line is those Golden numbers are not going to be offered free by anyone including govt. Even if permitted by govt to be issue by a hobby club you would agree that govt is going to insist on component going to it.

PS : Before any of the Teeny Meany Piddly park flier here starts chasing me with sticks, let me clarify that myself, Iyer Sir, Sanjay Rai sir,  Gusty are all part of that Piddly park flier category for most of the normal days of flying. We are all lazy by nature you know. But that did not stop us from finding our self a field and gang to fly with and form a pseudo local club.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 22, 2016, 10:03:26 PM
Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short.
– Henry David Thoreau


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Voice of deaf on May 23, 2016, 07:07:55 PM
I am very concerned with all this.
But it would be nice to simplify all the things.
Its very difficult to understand.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 23, 2016, 08:47:27 PM
I am very concerned with all this.
But it would be nice to simplify all the things.
Its very difficult to understand.
That's the whole purpose ! Things are deliberately made complicated so that people wouldn't be able to understand it and it would be easy to control them. Lawyers and middlemen would have a field day and make money by mediating between you and the government. If rules are simple, they won't be able to make money and control you. So they would try their utmost so that complex rules are made.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: shobhit17 on May 23, 2016, 10:45:37 PM
Well.... forming some sort of a club or joining a club be excellent as the responsibility will be of the club to control the members and so the members will need to toe the right line.... This will probably also help the security agencies to keep better control on their activities....


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 24, 2016, 01:07:05 AM
So coming back to where I was from Reply # 398 on the real dog in the fight with biggest bone of contention. “Payload.”. The FPV Park flier Category.

Let me summarize the flying style of this dog in us. If you see any of the Youtube video of this dog you will agree.

1.    He is not limited to the VLOS range of few hundred meters like any other category of fliers. He is just comfortable at any range of reach even if it’s without clear data down link or radio link he can enable RTH, fly autonomous and reach back home from any range.

2.   He is not restricted like the rest of the category by the dire need for a runway to take off or a clear spaces to fly. Even the simple park flier needs a clear space to fly even if he can hand launch.

3.   He does not need a spotter or a buddy to watch out for other fliers in the field like the rest of the category. He can just fly at ease among his clan without any coach or a spotter.

4.   Unlike the rest of the category of flier who always fly standing at ease with his two feet planted firmly on ground always facing the model aircraft while flying, this dog flies from anywhere. From under a tree shade sitting reclined/lying on an easy chair at field, from inside a car with AC on, even from inside a building with AC on.  :giggle:

5.   Unlike the rest of category, he is just not threatened by the obstructions in the field like trees, building, or the people inside his flying space. In fact, because its first person views perspective of flying, his real fun starts when he is within these obstructions. Rest of the category of fliers are even threatened by the disturbance by the spectator in the field and at max 5-6 flier can fly at one time in the field. They are even threatened by this dog when he flies with them in the field. However, just not this dog, immersed in his virtual world.

6.   This dog can fly in any visibility condition, any time of the day, even at night with Night vision camera, even through zero visibility of fogs and clouds with OSD enabled, even through tunneled spaces at night. This Dog is only obstructed by a blind wall which surprises him or an innocent obstruction which falls prey to it by accidentally getting in its path.

7.   In reality this dog gets bored in clear open spaces but enjoys thoroughly within obstructions, buildings and trees and rules this world.

8.   Since this dog is not restricted to the VLOS like the rest of category this is the only dog that has every potential to be of risk or nuisance to public if he chooses to be reckless.

9.   Because of the reach of this dog, Public is threatened when knowingly or unknowingly he gets reckless, when he becomes a peeping tom, Invade property, invades privacy, he bangs into innocent obstructions in his flight patch, threatens the manned aviation by being near its flight path, buzzes over building or public unnerving them below.

10.   Even the DGCA is not worried for the Model Aircraft without Payload and its recreational flying if you read the draft.

11.   Because this dog in every one of us can fly from anywhere unrestricted, some us have even become so delusional that they are now so allergic to any form of control. He thinks this style of flying is “The Recreational Flying” and with least concern for the nuisances to others has come into a mode of one might say care a hoots for others.

12.   Some of us with this dog are even worried that he will be left with the Commercial Route to fend for themselves.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 24, 2016, 01:11:07 AM
Continuing from the previous reply #403.

Reality is as long as this dog is happy inside his secluded favorite forest or Empty Stadium or Building without being nuisance to others, he does not even need a UIN as no one is going to come and search for him there.

Till such time this dog does not create a storm in Real World Spectator Sports Arena in near future his recreational activity will be reduced to, just his personal fooling around in his favorite forest so long as he is not a nuisance to others. If ever he gets out he will be caged as nuisance to others.

Only way he can get out is for a Commercial Purpose with permission of all stakeholders of the property and law. Even the R&D and code development is indoor and has commercial angle.

Apart from the above fooling around in the forest, there is nothing-recreational left in the activity of this dog. The moment he gets his head out from there even above the tree line in his forest any where his every activity has the potential to be of commercial nature. Some which are as under.

1.   Personal holiday scenic photography has the potential for advertising campaign publication.

2.   His own property photography too has the potential for advertisement and commercial angle.

3.   His personal Sports Photography has every potential for advertisement campaign for the sports goods in use or the sportsman.

4.   Even the personal video publication has the potential for monetization.

5.   Every Photograph he takes has the potential for commercial use.

With the weight of the upcoming Geospatial Information Bill, If ever he decides to raise his head above the forest tree line he will be pushed back into the tree cover for fear of law or into the commercial route.


With this Dog who has such a huge potential for every commercial arena in immediate future and with the risk so high, I wonder why anyone would be still be fooling around and wasting his time in this area for recreationals outside his forest/tunnel flying without a commercial interest and commercial route.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 24, 2016, 09:54:09 AM
here is a classic example of phantom junkies and the idiots who are causing the damage to our hobby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHubxzzvq_A


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: abhayf14 on May 24, 2016, 10:10:20 AM
People like this :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Darshan for multirotors on May 24, 2016, 10:12:45 AM
What the heck is he trying to do with his life?  :banghead:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 24, 2016, 10:34:51 AM
He is a vlogger. Very popular on youtube.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on May 24, 2016, 12:53:47 PM
 >:( >:(


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: manojswizera on May 24, 2016, 10:04:48 PM
I dont know how people can tolerate such videos, and watch them.  :banghead:
i was, just when the video will end ?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Himadri Roy on May 24, 2016, 10:43:35 PM
I dont know how people can tolerate such videos, and watch them.  :banghead:
i was, just when the video will end ?
Not a new thing actually, if you follow few youtube vloggers you will find that everyone of them have DJI Phantom, and how recklessly they use it. Most of the people actually aren't aware or they are just worried more about the "Cool" shots. And the people who criticise these acts are usually abused by the vlogger's followers! These people are just hopeless! Even losing one drone won't matter to them as they have the YouTube money at their dispense! :banghead:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: cyberhack on May 25, 2016, 12:23:18 AM
hey guys had spoken to mumbaikar nikhil who owns the blog he is very understanding and has agreed to pull down the dji part of the video as he has so many followers and he understands the hobby part and dgca rules which i told him he is ready to support us
thank you :hatsoff:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 25, 2016, 09:25:15 AM
That's better. A few months ago I also messaged an NRI who took (admittedly breathtaking) videos of various Landmarks in India and got a decent amount of publicity in the media. He was not aware of the rules and agreed to tone down media interviews after I messaged him because if the authorities noticed it would cause problems for the rest of the fliers. He didn't take down the videos though. NRIs think they are above law because they stay out of India. Its good that Customs has restricted bringing drones from abroad as part of baggage.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 25, 2016, 09:35:48 AM
Superb job Rohit.  {:)} {:)} {:)} {:)}

And a big thank you to Nikhil to understand the issue and supporting our cause.  {:)} {:)} {:)} {:)}



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: satyagupta on May 25, 2016, 09:38:36 AM
Customs has restricted bringing drones from abroad as part of baggage.

Drones sir? i think you meant multirotor or a big RC Toy?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 25, 2016, 10:06:07 AM
Drones sir? i think you meant multirotor or a big RC Toy?

When I say "Drone", I mean it sir :) I use the official terminology of the Government of India.

I don't think we should pretend any longer that multirotors are not popularly called "drones". That's self-deceiving. US National Drone Championships and Dubai Drone Prix have been held this year. They were not exactly messing with those military staff, were they? :)

As for the new inclusion in Customs Baggage Rules, see Notification No. 31/2016 here: http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2016-17/cen/cusnt3116.pdf

They use the term "Drone" officially. Now if we bring a multirotor and try to explain them that we did not declare it because drone is something used by US in Afghanistan which looks like a plane and these are mere multirotors, they will probably put us behind bars.  :giggle:

So no more point in pretending we don't know anything about drone. It is officially in Govt. of India's terminology. It is what people around the world use. And we should accept that or face the consequence of our "ignorance".



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on May 25, 2016, 10:15:17 AM
Continuing from Reply # 404 The reply which I had PMed to Rohit for the right question he asked me, I am posting here.

If you ask me as far as I know, there is actually no differentiation left between the military grade drone and the hobby grade drones left in modern times in terms of their capability, performance, usage, wt class, payload, ruggedness or in terms of which one can outperform the other. If you ask me the hobby grades have capabilities to out perform the military grade ones multiple times over now a days.

That's also with no denial to the fact that R&D of military drones are greatly depended on open source, free thinking developers in the hobby scene.

The differentiation now is only left in the intent of the operator to what purpose he is intending to use its capabilities. As long as the both military and civilian grade UAS retains the same capability in terms of surveillance and potential or to effect a lethal package. They will continue to be called for eternity as "DRONES". "That's the irony of the whole situation".

"Cut to the chase and long story short"

As long as this is going to be the situation for eternity, its now left to the operator of these so called drones to act responsibly and use these in only those spaces where with prior permission of all stake holders and law where you have reasonably established the legitimacy of the hobby activity in which you are involved in or for the purpose of commercial activity you desires to employ these for your own cause of sufficient legitimacy in legality aspects.

That would be the exact same case even after when we manage to establish the most simplest process for obtaining that golden number, or if when majority don't cooperate with DGCA and law traces you, comes to your home with folded hands, hands you over the golden number and the law pleads with you that you paste it on your Drone. (That's in reply to the query of @ voice of deaf at post #400)



Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: cyberhack on May 25, 2016, 04:44:24 PM
http://www.diyphotography.net/can-we-stop-calling-them-drones-theyre-just-rc-helicopters-with-a-camera/


http://bestbeginnerquadcopters.com/quadcopter-vs-drone/


"drone" its juss a fancy word used so as to get the attention of people nthng else by the word and calling it drone it doesnt become drone :)
thank you sundaram sir :)


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 25, 2016, 06:49:52 PM
I Agree with that view point too. :)  ;)

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Rathi on May 26, 2016, 08:24:59 PM
Did anyone file a RTI to know the situation of these guidelines?
What if I take my own quad abroad? Will I be banned from getting my own items back into the country?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: mateen270 on May 26, 2016, 10:43:11 PM
@Rathi while leaving the country just declare the products your carrying with customs. There won't be much issue getting it back.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: TRA on May 28, 2016, 06:04:19 PM
Dear members,

We have submitted detailed comments to the DGCA on their draft guidelines. For the benefit of all, our comments are available at this link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/313547630/TRA-UAV-UIN-Guideline-Comments

Some of our suggestions pertaining to aero modelling and recreational use of UAs are:

Registered aero modelling clubs
1. The DGCA should register aero modelling clubs based on certain eligibility criteria. Flights by members within the premises of such clubs may be considered as recreational and may further be exempt from the altitude limitation (200 ft AGL) applicable to recreational flights. 

2. The DGCA may also permit aero modelling clubs to adopt community based safety standards and permit flights by members to be regulated viz such guidelines as opposed to any generic guidelines prescribed by the regulator.

3. Members of such registered aero modelling clubs to be allowed to attach payloads to model aircrafts so long as  they are in line with the community based safety guidelines.

Miscellaneous
4. Prior intimation of flights need not be made to the Local Administration for recreational flying of Micro UAs below 200ft.

5. The guidelines should be amended to clarify that age limit of 18 years shall not apply to Nano UAs and for Micro UAs flown for recreational purposes below 200ft AGL. The limit may be relaxed to 13 years.

6. There should not be an omnibus restriction on payloads for recreational flights. The DGCA may issue a general list of approved payloads such as light cameras. A model aircraft fitted with a camera for personal photography should be classified as recreational.
 
7. Insurance requirement should not apply to UAs weighing less than 2kg flown for recreational purposes.

We hope this leads to something! Your comments are welcome.

Thanks
Anirudh Rastogi,
TRA


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 28, 2016, 06:19:53 PM
6. There should not be an omnibus restriction on payloads for recreational flights. The DGCA may issue a general list of approved payloads such as light cameras. A model aircraft fitted with a camera for personal photography should be classified as recreational.
 

Since TRA is a Law Firm, you should be aware that any suggestion of photography from a UAV contradicts the proposed Geospatial Information bill. Unless an exception clause is kept in that bill, DGCA won't be able to do anything about it.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: TRA on May 28, 2016, 06:53:34 PM
Thanks for bringing this up. It contradicts a bill, which is not law yet. We are commenting on the bill as well from the perspective of UA operations. It is important to have certain end-use linked exceptions to the GIR Bill.   


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 28, 2016, 07:59:58 PM
@TRA well thought out comments which covers requirements of hobby community aptly.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: saikat on May 28, 2016, 08:57:47 PM
@TRA - very well and articulately put.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 28, 2016, 10:57:36 PM
Thanks for bringing this up. It contradicts a bill, which is not law yet. We are commenting on the bill as well from the perspective of UA operations. It is important to have certain end-use linked exceptions to the GIR Bill.   
That would be great !


Title: Re:
Post by: rcrcnitesh on May 29, 2016, 09:05:36 AM
@TRA your comments are very good and I really appreciate it but there is a problem. According to what you have said if any individual wants to fly then it will become really difficult for him. The comments which you've given are really good for people who are from cities but what about people who are from towns? Those guys only fly individually because there is no one to accompany them. It would be difficult for them to travel to cities and join a aeromodelling club.
These are just my views.

Sent as a payload using a Drone.


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 29, 2016, 09:49:26 AM
@ Nitesh The main agenda of all our comments was to get the legitimacy of the hobby activity which we pursue where we fly.

Flying alone with a wish to fly wherever one wants too will never get you the legitimacy or the recognition of hobby activity but has every potential to be looked down upon critically as nuisance to others be it village or a town.

Legitimacy can only be established with prior permission of all stakeholders of property where we fly and law. As long as you are striving for this you will always have legality and you have already established a fledgling pseodo local club.

Where there is a will there will always be a way.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re:
Post by: rcrcnitesh on May 29, 2016, 10:59:30 AM
Well Sir other than the above mentioned problem which I had posted I don't find any other problem in thee comments which were posted by TRA. In fact I found them to be better than most other solutions suggested in this thread earlier. You've clarified the question which I was having in my mind.

But still the question remains, what will happen to the aeromodellers of villages and towns. You are right that legitimacy can't be obtained without getting permissions.
I have just one suggestion. The person who is from a town or a village can become a member of the nearest aeromodelling club. He/she can then find a place to fly which is "safe". He/she can then get the permission to fly from the owner of that land. He/she can then send the official document about the permission stuff to the aeromodelling club to approve and then the aeromodelling club can then get dgca's permission and then send him/her the paper which days about the legitimacy and legality stuff.
I know that this is a lengthy process.

I also have one more suggestion i.e. the aeromodelling club should get the flying field to be declared safe to fly from the dgca.

Sent as a payload using a Drone.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on May 29, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
I endorse Nitish's viewpoint

Why should one have to be a member of a club?

One should be able to get online permission from Aero Club of India, period. The consequences of giving wrong information in the application should be ..... severe, to say the least


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 29, 2016, 03:38:06 PM
Its only in the interests of the clubs that all people should become members of the clubs. Power, money, control, vested interests. And making complex rules is one of the ways to achieve this end. Simple rules are for USA which has faced 9/11: Pay $5 and you can fly as long as you follow the rules. No clubs required. But in India, even in the cases where restrictions have not been proposed by the Government, these clubs will hammer the Government to impose restrictions, so that their control is established.

Interesting Case Study: Inform police every time you fly. Government/DGCA did not suggest this. Who suggests? AMAI. Why? To make flying by individuals impossible. How many time would you go to the police and inform them that you want to fly your RC aircraft for 10 minutes? Join the club...we have "setting" with the police. Without us you won't even get permission. And even if you, the puny park flier, manage to get permission once in a while, how many times would you manage to do that before you get fed up? Case closed  :o

Sorry for calling a spade a spade.




Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: rcrcnitesh on May 29, 2016, 06:02:02 PM
I was thinking this.
I'll give an example to say this.
In Chennai generally, people fly in 3 locations. One is Medavakkam, the other is Kovalam and the final one is Sholavaram.
The flying which is done in Kovalam is mainly under RCForall or MUAV. They fly there regularly. Now what I am saying is RCForall should take the responsibility and form a club for people who fly in Kovalam, they can get the field registered from  dgca. Dgca can set up an online portal and people can submit details about their flying fields, DGCA can then later on approve the fields. In medavakkam as of now what I know there are two to three guys flying every sunday. In these two three guys someone can take up the responsiblity and get their flying field registered. In Sholavaram there are many flyers including some guys from popular lhs's. Those guys can set up a club.

One thing which can also be done is that all lhs should take up a major responsibillity and setup a flying spot in their cities. They can partner with different LHS and also do this. This will help in their sales and also hwlp their customers.

There can also be one more thing, a national body can be set up which is not in "favour to a particular group". The flying locations can be sent to them and then they can apply to dgca or the national body representing aeromodelling can themselves approve the flying locations.

Vibranthobbies, RCSportz and RCBazaar Chennai are you listening???

About those guys who fly in villages a possible slutiuon to their problem is given in my earlier post.

More than registering members I think it is more important that recreational flyers don' fly in the cities, it is more important to register flying locations. I am not saying registering flyers is not important it is just a teeny but less important than registering airfields.

Clubs can be good, they can also help us. Read the comments by TRA to understand how clubs can be good and how registering airfields can be good.

@Santanucus it's not necessary that clubs are bad.


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 29, 2016, 06:59:51 PM
Registering a flying field with DGCA and allowing hobby enthusiasts to fly in these premises unhindered without the riders of DGCA Registration of model or the individual fliers is a great idea to moot Nitesh. I appreciate the benefits which comes along. Great idea. Nitesh

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on May 29, 2016, 07:08:09 PM
@Santanucus it's not necessary that clubs are bad.
Not necessarily. Unless they give proposals like informing police every time you fly. The hidden agenda behind such a proposal is palpable.

However, I like your idea about a national body approved by the government. This has to be given a serious thought. Did anyone propose this to DGCA? I don't think any club proposed it because they are concerned with their own interests.

As for the issue of flying in the city, not every city has got the same issue. For example in Kolkata, there is a vast open area of a few square miles at the city centre known as Maidan. Also members of some RC club, probably AMAI, fly at the race course near the Maidan on Sundays. So all places within the city do not necessarily mean congested areas. Maybe flying fields in cities should be demarcated wherever possible. But there are other areas in the city which have open spaces where flying is possible. Registering all such areas is not possible.


Title: Re:
Post by: sundaram on May 29, 2016, 07:34:11 PM
Thank god for the vision and forethought of Britisher's, Engineers and Town planners of EIC they left roads wide 200ft or more wherever they planned cities even in 18th and early 19th century.

We were much happy with our bullock kart those days.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: akki on June 01, 2016, 08:23:02 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.
And also lisence for under 4 kg quads should have most benifits in licensing


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on June 01, 2016, 08:46:42 PM
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.
Photography from any UAV would be illegal if the Geospatial Information bill is passed.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: akki on June 01, 2016, 08:59:52 PM
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.
Photography from any UAV would be illegal if the Geospatial Information bill is passed.
Come on bro, this will be a true set back for us the photographers.
Actually, we have to think about a work around solution for this problem.
I'm sure there are many interested areal photographers in this forum.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: akki on June 01, 2016, 09:01:57 PM
And i just check it on internet. That bill is just for generating and publishing map data.
Its not for photographs restriction.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on June 01, 2016, 09:08:18 PM
Quote
“Geospatial Information” means geospatial imagery or data acquired through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles including value addition; or graphical or digital data depicting natural or man-made physical features, phenomenon or boundaries of the earth or any information related thereto including surveys, charts, maps, terrestrial photos referenced to a co-ordinate system and having attributes;
Quote
(1)Save as otherwise provided in this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder, or with the general or special permission of the Security Vetting Authority, no person shall acquire geospatial imagery or data including value addition of any part of India either through any space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles, or any other means whatsoever.
(2) Every person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India either through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles or any other manner including value addition prior to coming of this Act into effect, shall within one year from the commencement of this Act,make an application alongwith requisite fees to the Security Vetting Authority for retaining such geospatial information and grant of licence thereof.

Could this mean you are fine as long as you don't geotag your pictures? I am not sure. This won't hurt the wedding photographers but for those who do surveying/ mapping using UAVs it will be a problem.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on June 02, 2016, 02:18:44 AM
I had read that definition part many times and also read news articles such as http://thewire.in/2016/05/07/geospatial-bill-another-attempt-to-control-the-free-flow-of-information-34505/ . All depends on the definition of "Geospatial Information".

As you can see from the news article at the URL mentioned by me above, they have defined "Geospatial Information" as "...means geospatial imagery or data....." etc. But they have not clearly defined what "Geospatial Imagery or data" exactly means. Everything depends upon it. And the drafting is also bad.

I hope the term "Geospatial Imagery" is clarified in the final bill as otherwise people may have to depend on the definition in technical literature or dictionary and sooner or later it has to be settled by a court judgement.

So, what @akki has said and @SK1701 has interpreted may be true but there is a thin line on which we are treading here.  For example, if police catches someone filming from a UAV fitted with a GPS, it can be argued by them that what has been shot is a potential geospatial imagery and one can always link that image later with spatial coordinates from phone data or flight log data.

Suppose you shoot a video or a still photo of Taj Mahal from a UAV and post it on YouTube or Facebook. Even if you do not mention the coordinates, doesn't it become a geospatial image because people know the coordinates of Taj Mahal from existing maps and hence your photo and video can easily be associated with geospatial information. Somebody may even post your pictures/video in sites like Google Earth with or without your consent. Doesn't mere mentioning of the name of the location in your post make it a geospatial image?

I hope that since many legal experts and others are already up in arms against the bill, these lacunae will be pointed out and the final draft will clearly specify what is exactly meant by "geospatial imagery". If that is not done, there is every chance that any kind of photography of any open area done using UAVs will be in the danger of classified as geospatial information.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Ahmad Ilyas on June 12, 2016, 04:32:15 PM
Any update???
What going on there???


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: santanucus on June 14, 2016, 08:16:59 AM
Nothing visible. Government process is slow. If they care to read all the comments, it will take them at least a couple of months. Redrafting and approval could, by itself, could take 3 months, if not more.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Axis power on June 29, 2016, 10:15:34 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

It's for the general benefit.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: rcrcnitesh on September 19, 2016, 03:25:19 PM
This is what I was talking about in my earlier posts.
Hats off RCBazaar.  :hatsoff: :hatsoff: :hatsoff:

Check their latest post on facebook. http://www.facebook.com/RcBazaarbangalore?fref=ts (http://www.facebook.com/RcBazaarbangalore?fref=ts)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: akshay550 on September 19, 2016, 06:36:32 PM
Draft DGCA guidelines !!!! Who are we to draft guidelines ??? Dgca is there. Its instituted , let them draft


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on September 19, 2016, 07:00:58 PM
I think the reference is to lobbying, we the aeromodelling community having a vested interest


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: soamz on December 02, 2016, 12:10:27 AM
Any update on this guys ?
Is the DGCA really working on it, or we simply keep on flying illegally ?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: saurabhhsrivastavaa on December 02, 2016, 12:47:41 AM
Our politicians and bureaucrats are busy sorting out their so called party funds!!! 😬


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: soamz on December 02, 2016, 12:52:18 AM
Our politicians and bureaucrats are busy sorting out their so called party funds!!! 😬

Incredible india.
Anyways, I have the permission letter from my city police head, so I fly without stress :D


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: saurabhhsrivastavaa on December 02, 2016, 12:55:33 AM
Good for you 👍🏼
Let us know how you managed that... 😛


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: soamz on December 02, 2016, 12:56:47 AM
Good for you 👍🏼
Let us know how you managed that... 😛

Simple, they dont know anything about DGCA or drones.
I shot a nice video of their police HQ and they were like WOW!
Immediately signed my paper :D


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: saurabhhsrivastavaa on December 02, 2016, 01:00:41 AM
Ha ha ha...
But be careful. It's just a matter of time. They would come to know eventually...😬


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: soamz on December 02, 2016, 01:01:40 AM
Ha ha ha...
But be careful. It's just a matter of time. They would come to know eventually...😬
I fly only in events or else outside the city only.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Cpt_Rajesh on March 07, 2017, 06:02:07 PM
....within the confines of the premises of a local administration and ADC permitted flying feild/club for a flier age 15 upwards....

What about places where there are no registered flying fields or the field is far away ? I have seen people who wish to learn to fly but stay far away in places like Kalyan and hence it becomes difficult to commute to reach even Thane (exterior of Mumbai) ?

Hi guys,
allthatido, we are having club of 4 people at kalyan and some guest audience ;)
we fly frequently in the field in kalyan. If anyone is interested please join us.
here is link for field.
http://www.rcindia.org/rc-locations-and-clubs/rc-plane-ground-in-kalyan/


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: rajrinku on March 17, 2017, 03:26:27 PM
Hello everyone
I m new to rcindia forum
I want to ask a question regarding noc from dgca to release quadcopter from customs
Does anybody has received uin from dgca till now....??????


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: hellfire on March 17, 2017, 05:28:14 PM
You can say goodbye to your quadcopter.Ask them to send it back to the seller.

DGCA won't be giving a all clear any time soon and even if they did you will still need a NOC from WPC for the transmitter, which is next to impossible.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Jintumoni23 on March 17, 2017, 09:38:24 PM
Customs will never clear the multicopter unless you provide him with the NOC from DGCA. So if you want to order quadcopter order the flight controller board, GPS, FPV, frame from AliExpress, sp4mm3r, Banggood, tomtop, etc and the motors, ESC, RC TX RX, propellers, battery from India from sites like Robu.in, RC Mumbai, rchydrabad,Rcbazaar, eBay.in etc. Customs will send you a letter to provide DGCA approval notice  if you order quadcopter above INR 2000/- even RC Transmitter and Receiver and LIPO Battery. So its better you buy a quadcopter from Indian sites or order the parts and customize yourself.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: rajrinku on March 18, 2017, 01:34:25 PM
I have received x8 syma for 3 times
X5 for 5 times
Mjx x600 3 times
H36 jjrc 7 times
My other friends has already received dji 3 times
That means somewhere its gaped


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on March 18, 2017, 07:48:29 PM
Guys there is something called as relevance. If you guys want to teach how to hoodwink the system or break the law suggest take it elsewhere.
The thread was meant to discuss DGCA guideline/drafts and suggest we keep it that way.
Thanks for your understand


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: K K Iyer on March 18, 2017, 08:00:19 PM
If you guys want to teach how to hoodwink the system or break the law suggest take it elsewhere.
The thread was meant to discuss DGCA guideline/drafts and suggest we keep it that way.

I second that.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on March 19, 2017, 05:43:00 PM
And I third that


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: roshan.dixit on April 22, 2017, 04:07:35 PM
I believe Burocrates are more dangerous ! They appoint a pseudo technical team for formulation of guidelines and then use there own brains ! I don't understand only one exam gives them ability to do whatever they want and give opinion over things they dont know with brute force ! 200 ft is too low , I make me believe Indian is not a democracy anymore  Even countries like China,US how have stricter laws concerned with security haven't put up such mind less guidelines ! I will put up a RTI and try to like up some contacts with DGCA to make them understand the flaws they have , I mean let aside Aero modelling which is my hobby , The world is moving ahead with UA and other research where we are lagging behind and by putting up such stupid rules no one will further be interested in Aero modelling and UA development .


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: ashbash on April 23, 2017, 08:29:28 PM
@roshan.dixit brilliantly said! This hobby will die soon if this continues. All normal people and police knows is that drones are ban thats it ..Its becoming a huge concern !!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: csagnik on July 17, 2017, 03:15:52 PM
Hi Everyone.
I came to know about these rules recently. It is tragic that India is still stuck in the 19th Century British Raj mindset of stifling innovation rather than nurturing it. No wonder we're still stuck worshiping cow dung and talking about how aeroplanes were made 5000 years ago in India.
My question pertains to foamies. I have a WLToys A949 RC plane. Does anyone know what I must do to keep flying it? I mean it is a <100 g plane and it would not be even to carry that UIN tag. What happens to it? Also, what's the UIN procedure? Is there an address that I can send them to?
Reading the draft made me feel so scared. While security is of paramount importance, this regulation simply cannot be implemented in its present form. Even if 1% of the population buys a toy helicopter, that becomes 1.5 cr applications for the DGCA to process. I'm sure they do not have the manpower to sit and examine 1.5 cr applications- it might become like the license raj days. You will get your UIN for a RC plane you bought in college when your kid graduates from college.
If only we had better bureaucracy in India. With one sweeping judgement, these people have destroyed the entire aeromodelling hobby in India. No one would make RC planes anymore. Everyone would choose the chinese made RTF planes that come with manuals etc required for the UIN. So much for make in India. We're gifting our business to Chinese companies. 
It is fortunate that some of us could enjoy a few years of flying before this draconian legislation kicked in. Sad. India is in a big mess. 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sundaram on July 19, 2017, 10:01:17 AM
We should keep contributing to improve the systems in place.  No point loosing trust in the system.  After all it's our nation. Who else is going to improve it.

PS : Iyer Sir Thanks  :hatsoff:


Title: Re:
Post by: sanjayrai55 on July 19, 2017, 09:38:39 PM
+1 Sandy sir

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on August 29, 2017, 12:40:58 PM
Any update on DGCA guidelines...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: ghoshatanu56 on August 29, 2017, 01:20:48 PM
https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%2520circular/AT_Circular%2520-%2520Civil_UAS(Draft%2520April%25202016).pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiA4YPU-vvVAhXEMo8KHQM2AZIQFggmMAA&usg=AFQjCNG-IKS542JMx1dNpOB-j1pdvOyx9w


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on August 29, 2017, 01:28:59 PM
I know this draft....

Have the guidelines finalized...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: ghoshatanu56 on August 29, 2017, 01:44:30 PM
This is circular for obtaining UIN and for flying guidelines. So this is not the draft but final circular


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on August 29, 2017, 01:55:37 PM
Atanu da it's just a draft that was put in public domain for consultation. That draft is still to be converted to an order


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: ghoshatanu56 on August 29, 2017, 01:59:02 PM
Yes now I saw .the draft was written in the background. Thanks


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: unidrakeshrc on August 29, 2017, 02:01:19 PM
I think you are from West Bengal and from your language it can been clearly seen the influence of the coummies and the mamtas. India is changing and we have progressed. Progress is slow but it is surely there so it is my request not use such type of language
Quote
"stuck in the 19th Century British Raj mindset of stifling innovation rather than nurturing it. No wonder we're still stuck worshiping cow dung and talking about how aeroplanes were made 5000 years ago in India".
Unquote.

I hope this forum is only for discussion on RC Hobby and not politics or hurting other peoples feelings!!!. India is great country and we are bound to follow the rules and regulations that are set by it. The decision making people must have thought of something which is above our thinking , hence we must respect law and order set by it instead of abusing it.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: ghoshatanu56 on August 29, 2017, 02:05:14 PM
Dear unidrakesh .I am as Indian as you are .where did this politics come into .did I mention anything about my political opinion?no then why drag politics into this.
And when did I say this?
Quote
"stuck in the 19th Century British Raj mindset of stifling innovation rather than nurturing it. No wonder we're still stuck worshiping cow dung and talking about how aeroplanes were made 5000 years ago in India".
"
I have no idea where you got that from.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: unidrakeshrc on August 29, 2017, 02:08:50 PM
Sorry friend it was for csagnic post!!!


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: xNitin on August 29, 2017, 04:52:11 PM
Here's an update:
http://www.livemint.com/Technology/ogNdG66VQeMvHpyA0ac2nO/DGCA-may-soon-issue-drone-flying-licence-for-civilians.html


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on August 29, 2017, 05:09:20 PM
Here's and update:
http://www.livemint.com/Technology/ogNdG66VQeMvHpyA0ac2nO/DGCA-may-soon-issue-drone-flying-licence-for-civilians.html
Thanks for the update...but I hope DGCA's action for civilian license is not just a verbal reaction to what happened at IGI....


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: madaquif on August 29, 2017, 05:18:31 PM
I just hope this moves fast......


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on August 29, 2017, 05:56:03 PM
At the IGI did they confirm that the suspected object was a UAS? Or was it just something the reporting pilot suspected?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on September 12, 2017, 10:53:37 AM
Its the tussle between DGCA and Home Ministry which is causing the delay in finalizing the guidelines..See the article published today in The Hindu...

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/aviation-home-ministries-spar-over-regulating-drones/article19665327.ece


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Arjuna101 on September 12, 2017, 11:19:33 AM
Yea saw it, the MHA seems to have made a parallel law/draft to DGCA's own draft.
This is stupid , the babus and netas are unaware of each other's work and jurisdictions  :P
but them fighting over this issue could go anywhere from here. Hope the change is for the best


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: madaquif on September 12, 2017, 07:38:19 PM
looks like a fight between two teams.....

both don't know each others language.... :banghead:

n guess what.....both wanna win... :headscratch:

LORD  help us n this hobby...... :bow:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: ujjwaana on September 13, 2017, 03:32:31 PM
We are indeed a Banana Republic ...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on November 01, 2017, 08:10:03 PM
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/draft-regulations-on-drone-usage-announced-5-categories-prior-permissions-required/article19961631.ece

Interesting that despite the AMAI's best efforts against multirotors there is no distinction made here. Weight categories are better now but there is still that problematic requirement of 'RFID/SIM' (which needs to be clarified) and RTH hardware. The VLOS requirement should be clarified w.r.t spotters and a 200ft ceiling isn't really enforceable in most circumstances

It's also pretty funny that we are coming up on a year and half since the initial draft and arguments here and we are still on the draft stage. I need to check where we can send comments about the new draft.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on November 01, 2017, 08:13:55 PM
Something moving atleast....the inaction was killing..


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: SK1701 on November 01, 2017, 08:16:25 PM
Something moving atleast....the inaction was killing..

You could argue that an unenforced ban is better than enforced rules that are bad ;)


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on November 01, 2017, 08:16:36 PM
Now whom to give the suggestion....


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on November 01, 2017, 08:19:34 PM
True....this is how they want India to be the world class user of drone...again taking us to the Permit Raj...Nano and Micro categories should have been excluded from the stringent requirement...


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Rathi on November 01, 2017, 08:55:56 PM
I would agree that the micro class should not be put under such stringent hardware requirements as we will not only loose performance, we will loose a lot of our freedom in the sky. RTH features are fragile for to take the everyday beating of a race quad and when you do an invested fall, good luck getting sats. Ceiling height is too low. If they do not implement this we should have an out like a part 107 or something on those similar lines which allow you to much more than what the govt restricts you to do.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on November 01, 2017, 09:45:40 PM
SK1701 Where did you get the document from? It's not yet on DGCA site


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: PRANAVK09 on November 01, 2017, 11:32:26 PM
Guys check the draft.
http://www.dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20cars/CAR%20-%20UAS%20(Draft_Nov2017).pdf
There is note after section 4 regarding students and Aeromodellers.
There is no UIN required for them.  And can fly under 200ft with max. Take off weight of 2kg.

The only problem is no clarification on imports of parts like tx or batteries


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on November 02, 2017, 05:36:02 AM
Guys check the draft.
http://www.dgca.nic.in/misc/draft%20cars/CAR%20-%20UAS%20(Draft_Nov2017).pdf
There is note after section 4 regarding students and Aeromodellers.
There is no UIN required for them.  And can fly under 200ft with max. Take off weight of 2kg.

The only problem is no clarification on imports of parts like tx or batteries

Its conditional...UIN/UAOP not applicable for Students/Aeromodellers if flying in an educational institute  premises.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on November 03, 2017, 07:41:59 PM
Time to send in your views again. Please refer the link.

http://www.dgca.nic.in/misc/notice.htm

Scroll down to middle of the page to see the Heading Civil Aviation Requirement. Comments should reach by Dec 1, 2017

Once again, request every one to be sensible, polite and base the comments on hard evidence and logic when you send in the comments to DGCA

Also an interesting take by an outsider on the draft. Shall give you enough pointers to frame your responses

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=g4v44ADjP-4


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on November 03, 2017, 07:43:08 PM
Now whom to give the suggestion....

See my latest post on this


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: VIPIN_KUMAR on November 03, 2017, 07:48:40 PM
Ok


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: topalle on November 03, 2017, 10:05:06 PM
The Rules are too ridiculous.
They should just adopt the rules followed globally if they don't have any knowledge on this matter, or first, gain some knowledge and then form rules.

Who would put a RFID and Sim Slot, transponder, etc. on a Sub 2kg Aircraft?
It only makes sense to have such tracking features on larger UAVs above 10kg.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: prabal276 on November 03, 2017, 10:33:53 PM
So who is going to write back regarding this?
Anybody?
I don't have much knowledge regarding the RFID and sim card requirements.
Comments will have to be sent. It would be not-good if these set of rules are implemented.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Dharmik on November 03, 2017, 10:39:41 PM
Let's send them feedback again to exclude upto 2kg.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: prabal276 on November 03, 2017, 10:41:30 PM
Yes, let's.
I mean it's not at all sensible for a ~2kg model.
If it would have been 9-10 kg then the requirements would have been fine.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on November 03, 2017, 11:25:57 PM
All of us can and should write. Please do make it a point to write in with whatever knowledge you have. It can all be through an email. Make it logical, and coherent instead of just saying it is ridiculous or something like that. Give constructive points and be heard. We need to write in numbers to make sure atleast some of our points are heard and hopefully Incorporated in the final order. All of us have no other choice. So please make yourself heard


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: prabal276 on November 03, 2017, 11:39:55 PM
Roger.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: Arjuna101 on December 07, 2017, 04:14:09 PM
I politely requested them to let nanos and mini UAS owners to fly without a UIN. Hope the listen.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: KR8NUX on December 25, 2017, 04:11:09 AM
Anything happening in this space at all ? It was supposed to come out in a month.. Nothing happening on this front now. What are we supposed to do ?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on December 25, 2017, 08:47:34 AM
Yes lot of work is happening and that may not be apparent. What is known at this juncture is that the published CAR will deal with autonomous/semi autonomous multicopters for commercial use, there will be a separate CAR for aeromodels. But do not expect anything too soon. Govt machinery takes time to move


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: topalle on June 05, 2018, 11:03:11 AM
Any Update on this?


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on June 05, 2018, 03:46:05 PM
Yes,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Pending in the file trays at various ministries


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: taksh on June 05, 2018, 04:01:08 PM
/


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: sanjayrai55 on June 05, 2018, 05:59:34 PM
Taksh, mind your language. You are being offensive and insulting to an extremely senior member, and I have complained about that remark of yours to a moderator


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: prabal276 on June 05, 2018, 06:07:09 PM
@ taksh
You are insulting a very senior member. And that is not spamming.
He is more than 30 years older to you. He must have thought and written unlike you.
For your convenience, monsieur, I have attached the definition of SPAM below:


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: taksh on June 05, 2018, 06:18:48 PM
Sorry flyingboxcar
I don't know about rcindia rules.
@prabal276  @sanjayrai55
In many facebook groups,
this dot is a type of spam and many people used much dot ... to spam in group. Admin of many facebook banned group member for posting dots.
So, I said

My intention is not to insult other. I don't know other personally. So i don't  know age. So, Sorry.

@prabal276
Google is not everything. Join public groups on facebook. You will know how dot is a type of spam.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: rcrcnitesh on June 05, 2018, 06:36:28 PM
https://factordaily.com/digital-sky-drone-reulation-pilot-mysore/ (https://factordaily.com/digital-sky-drone-reulation-pilot-mysore/)

The last time I checked, this was what our government and some Startups were up to. Really disappointing that nothing has been done yet.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on June 05, 2018, 07:56:57 PM
Taksh
I don't know what you typed (said) so no offence taken. Guys my only intent was to liven up a dry subject. A bit of humor makes life easy does it not? 


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on June 05, 2018, 08:00:59 PM
https://factordaily.com/digital-sky-drone-reulation-pilot-mysore/ (https://factordaily.com/digital-sky-drone-reulation-pilot-mysore/)

The last time I checked, this was what our government and some Startups were up to. Really disappointing that nothing has been done yet.

As I said earlier, and from what I have heard, there will be a CAR for drones and a separate CAR for aero-modelling. First they will come out with CAR for Drones as they feel it is important to regulate them and then separately for aero modelling community.
Given the pace Govt works, it's anyone's guess "when"


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: topalle on June 12, 2018, 04:17:24 PM
It's been almost 4 years since government banned the use of drones, still no regulation on this,  some companies got a special permission, (nobody knows how) to fly without taking permission each and every time.

I tweeted the Civil Aviation Minister about this, but got no response.


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: flyingboxcar on June 12, 2018, 04:22:06 PM
File an RTI if you are really keen to know


Title: Re: Draft DGCA guidelines - Comments requested by 21/05/2016
Post by: topalle on June 12, 2018, 04:23:32 PM
Good idea. I will try doing that, will post what I got back.