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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: santanucus on May 21, 2016, 06:06:42 PMIf 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.

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.

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:    

6. In case anyone needs to send response to DG,
email of DG:

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?

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

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

Thank you sir for the insight, but in very simple words answer for the following? simple words mein rakhiye please

Quote from: satyagupta on May 21, 2016, 08:34:42 PMsir 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??

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

But same also applies for custom build models with FPV capabilities right?

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

So for fpv get a UIN which is UAS - Identification Number right? as suggested in the DGCA draft

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

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

Too perfect sir.

Could have asked for 25kg.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

Comments sent....

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.  

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.

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..  

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

QuoteAdapt 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.

@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.  

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  

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.

Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short.
– Henry David Thoreau