DGCA guidelines suggestions

Started by Gulzaar, May 18, 2016, 06:47:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gulzaar

Hello all,

I received two emails today about suggestions to the DGCA guidelines which have been requested to send to the DGCA by May 21.

Both suggestions are fine for the most part, but both include suggesting a ban on cameras.

A ban on cameras would effectively kill the FPV aspect of the hobby for good.

My question is - the original DGCA guidelines did not mention anything about cameras, so we should we mention it for them? Leave the rest of the suggestions in place, just omit the section on cameras.

In all honesty, though, we should just ask them to exempt everything below 500 grams for multirotor craft and below whatever weight you guys decide for planes.

Anything above that weight is subject to whatever regulation you'd like.

Here are the two drafts:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3w07wazszpa4m8/Dgca_draft%202016_pgm.docx?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/189io568urqsv1v/DGCAExem.doc?dl=0
ZMRX210, QAV210
http://fpvfrenzy.com
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpmH-nJComfpkn3F6-PHXCw

Sponsored by Quadkopters for IDRL S01E01

SK1701

Looks like the LOSers are trying to kill FPV for good. Even the AMAI draft letter is similar to this. What I fail to understand is why they have to ask for guidelines SPECIFICALLY TARGETING FPV pilots, especially since the DGCA draft did not even mention these points. You go fly your big gassers with 72 MHz radio LOS, and leave us alone if you're not willing to help us. Anyway, it looks like they are missing their chance to move with the times. Too bad AMAI and others, you're going the way of the dinosaur. FPV racing is the future, and you have to be blind not to see it. It is not that you can stop us from flying FPV anyway. I am honestly quite disappointed to have such an organisation claiming to represent us.


Himadri Roy

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)!
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with eyes skywards for there you have been and there you will long to return
- Leonardo Da Vinci

https://www.youtube.com/himadrifpv

mateen270

Totally disagree with point 3 why mention what dgca has not in their previous draft?  We should be allowed to mount a camera on. I would like to know why so many senior members are against fpv? I'm sure you would love it if you gave it a shot.  Please reconsiderand and do not mentioning the camera for the future flyers of India. Peace.

VIPIN_KUMAR

And I am planning to enter FPV... :-\

flyingboxcar

Gulzaar
DGCA guidelines very clearly mention about no payload, and payload is again defined, so Cameras (or any other payload)  were already covered by DGCA.
If you are really into scale you should be here. www.rcscalebuilder.com

SK1701

Payload is defined in the DGCA circular as "All components of equipment on board a UAV that are not needed for the flight or for its control. Its transport aims exclusively to fulfill a specific mission.". As far as I'm concerned, an FPV camera/ system is needed for control of my ZMR. HD recording cameras may be a problem then but (a) who's going to enforce it and (b) DVRs are always an option.

santanucus

That why my view is... don't worry too much about FPV and cameras ;)

flyingboxcar

 "As far as I'm concerned"
The problem is not what you are concerned with, but what Govt (Read DGCA) is concerned with  :giggle:
If you are really into scale you should be here. www.rcscalebuilder.com

SK1701

If they haven't bothered to be more specific, then the guidelines are open to interpretation. If they start enforcing any of these guidelines, let alone the minutiae of what does and does not constitute payload, then I will comply to their standards.

rockinaero

FPV would never see the light of the day if cameras are banned. Maybe a law permitting to be flown within designated areas.

I would suggest to refer to the laws which are being drafted by the FAA , EASA and other countries for cameras/FPV flying.
|| ALIGN TREX-100 || JR NEX E6-550 || JR FORZA 700 || SPIRIT - PRO || KONTRONIK || JR XG-8 ||

santanucus

DGCA is open to such suggestions and rules in other countries. It seems some of our members want to tread the opposite path

Ahmad Ilyas

well my suggestion is that a rc plane or multirotor weighing more than a particular weight should be registered
that could be a hell lot better than ban on cameras

akki

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.

Axis power

Hi,

I wanted to let you know about this petition I just started on Change.org, "Directorate of General Civil Aviation (DGCA): Immediate Govt. regulation change regarding recreational Rc flying".
You can read more about it and sign the petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/directorate-of-general-civil-aviation-dgca-immediate-govt-regulation-change-regarding-recreational-rc-flying?recruiter=456616274

Created in struggle by the will of aeromodllers