Quote from: kartikshah on April 29, 2016, 07:27:56 PM
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.

Quote from: 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?

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.

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.

Perfectly said @santanucus sir.

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.

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

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, which can carry 11.5 kg of combined fuel and payload weight and fly over 20 hours. Or the Penguin-C 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.

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.

@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

The INDIAN RC CIVIL WAR has begun 

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

Vishal - don't self destruct!

The hobby in our country needs all of us together

Quote from: vishalrao on April 30, 2016, 12:23:36 PM


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/

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)

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...

Quote from: sanjayrai55 on April 30, 2016, 01:28:31 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.   

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.

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.

That sounds reasonable, Sandy sir.

Quote from: sundaram on May 01, 2016, 01:36:36 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) ?

i have a lot of open space in and near my dad's factory, what if i want to fly there?

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.

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.

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. 😂😂

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

500 mtrs perimeter is far too less please specify perimeter of radius 500mtrs VLOS.