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

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.

Quote from: 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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

So, you are saying that it is wise to support ban on FPV?

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.  

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

i am scared what is gonna happen

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.

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

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.

Quote from: pravesh736 on May 19, 2016, 05:22:01 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.

Quote from: SK1701 on May 20, 2016, 11:48:32 AM
The reason I do not want to register with the AMAI is because of this anti-multirotor, anti-FPV attitude they are displaying.

@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.

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.

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?
       

@ 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.  

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.

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.

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..?! 

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

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).

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.