Andreja
 Second Officer
Flight distance : 297464 ft
Germany
Offline
|
The Saint Posted at 7-9 13:04
where does it say that, pointed to the ground? did i miss that part of the "law?"
"when operating at night, ensure that a green flashing light on the unmanned aircraft is activated."
"where does it say that, pointed to the ground? did i miss that part of the "law?"
Welcome to the beauty of EU laws! What I quoted was the "law" which governs responsibilities of the drone operator. There's another "law", which covers the responsibilities of the drone manufacturer, and here's a relevant quote from there:
PART 2
Requirements for a class C1 Unmanned aircraft system
A class C1 UAS shall comply with the following:
(16) be equipped:
(a) with lights for the purpose of controllability of the UA; and
(b) with at least one green flashing light for the purpose of conspicuity of the UA at night to allow a person on the ground to distinguish the UA from a manned aircraft;
Here's the rest of it, for your reading pleasure:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- ... 55052244276&from=EN
Now, DJI is aiming at class C0 with the DJI Mini 3 Pro, which under its requirements doesn't list lights, but if I use a drone at night, I still must ensure that it does have the green light. So, without use of internal lights, I can't use Mini 3 Pro at night.
Now, about strobes, well, "it's the current year" isn't an argument.
A better argument would be the state of the art which we have. If the Mini 3 Pro is 248 g (and some YouTube videos show it to be), and I add the mandatory metallic label with my operator ID to it, and the SD card, well, that leaves me with say 1 gram of mass for the strobe. Now, I could make a PCB with an LED on it and have its mass be lower than i 1 g, but I don't see any user-accessible points for the power supply, and I looking at the mass of batteries and super-capacitors, I also don't see anything that would fit and at the same time have long enough capacity for one whole battery of the drone (and if you do know of something, please do let me know, I'd love to see it).
For the tangent about liability, well, first of all, "realistic" cases don't really matter all that much. Powers that are decided how things need to work.
For unrealistic cases, well, we have a concept of inherently risky activity here, and we need to get an insurance against it as well (and in Germany, where I am, insurance is needed in all cases).
Here's a quick scenario which might sound contrived, but could happen: I'm flying a drone in a area where it is legal to fly, and a person is walking by at some distance. A bird attacks my drone, gets hit by propeller blade, and a small fragment of the blade breaks off and hits the bystander in the eye. Health insurance will probably try to recover the costs of the treatment from me, and if the person is working, the employer might even try to recover its losses from me.
Even if there's no actual injury, I might still get hit: If the person goes to do a medical check, and calls in sick that day, it would still cause losses. Of course, that's all if we assume that the person involved isn't actively trying to overstate its injury, which might happen.
About the "toy" comment. No, it's not a toy, because it doesn't fulfill the requirements of the toys regulation, so it's not an intentional toy, and market surveillance bodies haven't decided to classify it as a toy, so it's not an unintentional toy. If it were a toy, paperwork here would be a bit simpler (you don't need to register as a drone operator for a toy).
I do understand that you're trying to use these things called "common sense" and being realistic and so on, but they don't really apply here. There's most likely no particular reason why 250 g was chosen as the cut-off and not 256 g (which is a nice round number) or 300 g, or 245 g or whatever else.
Finally, I do agree that the regulations here do look like they suck.
|
|