Excuse me, I understand the diference between minor and major modifications to an aircraft, however it is not clear the implication of significant and not significant changes.
@kantrasha3 күн бұрын
Cringier than the poo2loo UNICEF campaign. Didn't thought it was possible, thank you EASA for going above and beyond!
@nandorfarkas68856 күн бұрын
The app is droniq, and it only operates in germany. Can’t use it in ireland. This video was recommended by the IAA
@TCPUDPATM10 күн бұрын
Utterly useless. I already know this, what is the app name? Classic government move …
@ToumalRakesh15 күн бұрын
I am very much in favor of general conspicuity of every airspace user, be that GA, UAVs, RC models, skydivers or anything else. And it is clear that ADS-B on 1090MHz is not the way to go for this for many reasons. I also applaud the use of ISM bands for this because as RC model control systems have shown, you CAN build robust links on ISM bands if you are frequency agile and design your link for resilience - and you completely sidestep the problem of having to wait a decade or three for ITU... The only thing I am somewhat disappointed by is that SRD860 specifies the use of 2-GFSK. A technically superior modulation would have been CSS (Chirp Spread Spectrum) along with channel hopping. It feels a bit like GFSK was chosen because that is what the contributors to that spec had experience with (Flarm et al) and perhaps also having an eye on adding ADS-L capabilities to existing devices via a firmware update. While this can make sense on paper, in practice the majority of the future ADS-L users don't have FLARM equipped today. Also, not sure what the point of ADS-L4Mobile is. We already have plenty of specs that cover such a capability (see Traffic/Telemetry service in CORUS XUAM Conops Ed 4). I would hope that such a specification at least takes what's already there and improves upon it, and not reinvent the wheel. Very interesting question from DFS about who's going to build the tracker. For sure I hope USSPs don't, because very few companies have the know-how to implement such a thing properly. And you can't just pipe drone telemetry into an ATM tracker without additional development because their traffic movement profiles encompass only what's known and expected in traditional manned aviation. Oh and lastly: I am not sure the current specifications can survive in the real world as they are today. For one, without MLAT you immediately have the problem of being unable to filter out fake transmissions and thus it is easy for anyone with a HackRF to effectively jam the airspace in a wide area. I believe use of the currently-optional signature field in the payload will have to become mandatory.
@vinzenzvega444522 күн бұрын
Thumbnails please
@Grow.YT.Views.95926 күн бұрын
goosebumps 😍🤧
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
HOW WILL PART 21 BE IMPLEMENTED? THERE IS A AUTHORITY REQUIREMENT SECTION B TO BE WORKED INTO ALL AVIATION DOMAINS? THE MAIN DOMAIN WAS PART 21(b) OR PARTS?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
AN AMC IS AN AVIATION MAINTENANCE CERTIFICATION?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
HOW WILL PART 21 BE IMPLEMENTED BY INTRODUCING REGULATION, INTRODUCE REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE REGULATORY, TO DEVELOP AMC PROVIDE POSSIBILTY TO COMPLY AND WHICH ARE A INDUSTRY STANDARD?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
SOME THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE SMS GAP ANALYSIS CHANGES IS CHANGE MANAGEMENT, MANAGEMENT, VOLUNTARY REPORTING CULTURE, RECOURCES OF REPORTING OF THE AMT CHIEF OF AIRWORTHINESS AND CHIEF OF MONITORING COMPLIANCE, DESIGN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO SEE WHO IS ON TOP COMPLETE WITH GRAPHS AND RESOURCES?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
WHO HOLDS A POA OR DOA IS WHO DESIGN PARTS MAINLY OR PART 19 OR PART 21(a) (c) WHICH REQUIRE A SMS REQUIREMENT OF A QA WHICH IS A TRADITIONAL SMS AND THEY ARE A AIRLINE ETC?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
THE PART 21 SHOULD INCLUDE IN SMS THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE WHICH ARE REQUIRING A FULL SMS IS LIMITED FOR COST REASONS BUT THE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS THERE ARE DIFFERENT SMS IN WHICH THEY HOLD A DOA OR POA?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
THE GAP ANALYSIS IS ABOUT BUILDING ON WHAT IS ALREADY THERE? IT CAN INCLUDE CHANGE MANAGEMENT, DO AND NAA REPORTING?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
THE ICAO REQUIRES A GAP ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY WHAT TO REPORT IN THE COMPANY'S SMS?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
CULTURE CHANGES FOR THE OVERSEEING REGULATOR BENEFITS BY STATE SAFTEY RISK LANDSCAPE, NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NAA AND DO FOSTERING CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOUGE?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
THE ARE CULTURAL CHANGE BENEFITS IN SMS WHICH INCLUDE RISK MANAGEMENT IN SRM AND SAS BECOME PART OF THE SAFTEY CULTURE AND BUILDING ON EXISTING PROCESSES?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
THERE ARE BENEFITS OF SMS WHICH ARE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE RISK PICTURE OF MY ORANIZATION? BY ENGAGING IN A ROBUST, SYSTEMATIC IDENTIFICATIONS OF HAZARDS, MANAGING OF AREA OF GREATER RISKS AND PRIORITIES IN A MEANINGFUL WAY BY DIRECTLY CONNECTED CONCERNS OF THE STAFF, ENGAGE SUPPLIERS AND CONTRACTORS, SETTING UP SAFTEY OBJECTIVES?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
ICAO 2010 ASSEMBLY TOOK THE DESCISION TO INTRODUCE A SYMPTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS AND RISK MITIGATION FOR AVIATION? THERE WAS A GLOBAL APPROACH, GAVE BIRTH TO ANNEX 19 WHICH MAKES SMS APPLICABLE FOR DESIGN PRODUCTION BY MANUFACTURERS WITH AN OBJECTIVE MOVE FROM REACTIVE TO PROACTIVE APPROACH ABD FOSTER SAFTEY CULTURE AND SUPPORT JUST CULTURE TO REPORT ISSUES?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
OVERALL SAFTEY CAN BE IMPROVED THROUGH BASIS TO AIM AT IMPRIVING THE LEVEL OF SAFTEY DESPITE GROWING AVIATION MARKET AND INCREASED COMPLEXITY?
@airlinemanagement1676Ай бұрын
WHY DO WE NEED AN SMS IS FOR SAFTEY OF PRODUCTS? BUT A COMPLIMENTARY DESIGN SMS WILL IMPROVE OVERALL SAFTEY?
@keithwalker6892Ай бұрын
What is the BASIS of CERTIFiCATION The FIRE BOMBER was REPORT CL 215 - 100 a modification ofFAR25.
@keithwalker6892Ай бұрын
Reminds me of when I used to work on the CL 215 FIRE BOMMER now the DHC 515. All the drawings had a stress signature which I had to sign.
@bekindandmerciful5145Ай бұрын
This is fabulous, I am working on an engineering project for the rail industry and this is exactly what I needed, I also need some detailsn on how you manage Hazards and risks
@djwaryoussef36252 ай бұрын
What ist the App name for Germany?
@jaimebacarizamorillas67362 ай бұрын
Currently writing my Master's thesis on the enforcement of this exciting new sector and EASA's optimal theoretical role! So happy to see the involvement of different stakeholders. Hope we can soon have multiple working examples all throughout the EU.
@bensonkin8372 ай бұрын
well studied
@ricksanchezzz43833 ай бұрын
Come on guys... ist is very hard to understand due to the French accent. Please ad subtitles. otherwise no-one will understand anything.
@NataliaCiofu-qf7fh3 ай бұрын
Ce pana mea
@panbrood4 ай бұрын
Most airlines are safer than EASA🤔🤐
@Juno_Beach5 ай бұрын
common sense ... Which is why the experts hate it
@huangjian77035 ай бұрын
when will they have production? Anyone knows?
@knabbagluon3 ай бұрын
This year from what I heard. But they only plan to produce 2. And with them they will do manned flights.
@huangjian77033 ай бұрын
@@knabbagluon I think they have opportunity to do manufacturing in China like Tesla exploded as their biggest shareholder is from China, a big internet company. Other EVOLT companies in US cannot do China market business as air transportation is very monitored or limited by gov
@huangjian77033 ай бұрын
@@knabbagluon Thank you. All I know is just they have financial problems as hired new CFO
@bergkongs5 ай бұрын
Any guide for diy implementation?
@NikiPetrovAtanasov5 ай бұрын
It's 2024 already, 6 years passed and this is still complete mess. This SORA thing seems a good plan for making a software for automated categorization based on some user input. But this is complete disaster for the business to throw all that mess to the end user who will flood the authorities with tons of paper work with everyone's subjective opinion how to operate safely. How all this guarantees the declared mitigations will took place and a drone will not fall on someone? Just waste of time and huge bureaucracy that probably made many to cease their drone companies. Why doing those STS for drones who doesn't exist on the market yet 6 years later and leave the actual busineses to coup with this mess? Why not simply did a simple research how the actual drones are used by small business at the moment and take care for making rules that cover current needs and what is available on market? Without thinking too much I can name just a few industries that probably cover 95% of the use of drones that are over 4kg and are more dangerous for public use. Inspections, video productions, search and rescue. All ment for taxies or deliveries are simply another cathegory that shouldn't be messed at all with small business and their rules to be developed separatelly. It seems the beer was not enough or too much!
@SupTube5 ай бұрын
Also, why is the F*** video in English if the UK no longer belongs to the EU? I no longer know if Europe is a US, Russian, Chinese, African, Muslim, Iranian, Moroccan or Qatari province. Sovereign of the European people she is certainly not!
@SupTube5 ай бұрын
It is a confusing video, the truth is that there are countless rules to comply with. Many of these rules are stupid for small drones, but future, more dangerous delivery drones will not have to comply. Europe is walking inexorably towards backwardness, servility to foreign powers. Europe is a marketing product dressed in a very green and ecological African outfit.
@nash04275 ай бұрын
Well done Anne!
@RATINDEXA3205 ай бұрын
well, if you get caught by surprise and slam the power pedal and start to droop, you will not have enough TR to stop it. The curve looks pretty on a power point but does it take into consideration overpitching? 1% in the MR is 6% on the tail, pretty sure that pedal curve would change?
@bummer77365 ай бұрын
propaganda
@RafalGalinski_drony6 ай бұрын
Well, the info is unfortunately not full and the rules are not following during everyday situations. Just a few samples: - we can fly under A1 subcategory - copters sub 250g + a spotter, - flying FPV low, between obstacles - there is no chance to keep VLOS by the spotter - nonsense, - what about flying FPV for TV, commercial and film industry (eg. Red Notice film opening scene from Rome)?, - what about long range flights performed eg. in Norway, Alps - Italy, Ferance, Austria, Switzerland or Iceland? - what if I wanna practice tiny FPV quad alone in my garden or on Sunday morning 50g copter on empty supermarket parking? Unfortunattelly EASA has not done the homework and as an effect we have very invalid "FPV regulations" that are so far from the reality and literally every FPV pilot seems to become a criminal.
@wltr-dev6 ай бұрын
Agree. And also those points are incredible: - not higher than 120 metres of altitude. - spectators are not allowed. Like what the hell? How can anyone say that spectators are banned? And max altitude 120m from ground? Just WHY?
@wltr-dev6 ай бұрын
Real life example: I have to have a spectator (i.e. spotter) when I fly an FPV drone. However, I must not have spectators. The spotter must see the drone at all times, but the drone must be 150m away from him, just like other people. I am not allowed to fly at an altitude of more than 120m, but a distance of 150m must be kept from settlements and people. List just continues. This makes no sense, FPV enthusiasts will be a big criminal group in Europe.
@ulungprabowo3 ай бұрын
Also to add to your list is a quad with propguard is designed to be safe to be flown near people, that is why cinematic FPV drone is built with the propguard to be able to be flown near people safely.
@majavaskova79856 ай бұрын
Great presentation!
@warrenmills79356 ай бұрын
Please can you confirm that after the discovery both Boeing and the FAA killed all those on the 2 Boeing crashes that you will not clear the Max to fly even though the FAA has without completing your own full independent checks! You stated after thise crahses you would no longer rely on the FAA and do your own investigations and qe expect you to keep us in Europe safe!
@jassonsw6 ай бұрын
Can anyone tell me why they put the ducted fans on top of the wings rather than underneath?
@SuryaSarav_6 ай бұрын
You don't want faster moving air below the wing, as in from the suction of the fans right?
@jassonsw6 ай бұрын
@@SuryaSarav_ I did a little checking, it's because the ducted fans are attached to the flaps and not the fixed part of the wing, so they need to be on top or the intake area would be blocked by the fixed part of the wing in the vertical position.
@SuryaSarav_6 ай бұрын
@@jassonsw Indeed makes sense from a practical perspective
@wernerzikeli23054 ай бұрын
to create the lift of an aircraft the air on the upper side of the wing should be speed up (less density) and on the belly side slow down for (high density). This lift will be economicaly in travel.
@wheelswingsthings6 ай бұрын
I'm british. Living in spain. I fly mi I rc planes (Park flyers) for 2 years now. Now I want to fly a bigger glider. (Conscendo evolution 1.5m) I have a local club near me and hope to join. What exactly do I need, in terms of cetificates, to fly at the model airfield?
@dploit6 ай бұрын
very interesting please upload more aviation content like this to expand our knowledge !
@rossjahromi96437 ай бұрын
EASA, DOA, SFAR,SERA,FFA, ANAC, CVE, TC DOA, !!!
@akramakram-yw2cd7 ай бұрын
The EASA should revisit the safety of MAX 8 and MAX 10 aircrafts. In my view the max 8 aircraft has the same structural fault as the TITANIC, I therefore, refer to the Max 8 as the TITANIC of the air. The Titanic had three propellers. The center propeller was directly in front of the ship's redder which was responsible for the turning of the ship. In order to break the Atlantic record, the Titanic was travelling at full steam. Therefore, the thrust created by the center propeller neutralizes the turn position of the redder as a result the ship still continues in a straight line and when the radder does takes effect by then Titanic had already hit the iceberg. In the case of Max 8 the airplane is low, and the engineers were attempting to install two efficient large modern engines under the wings but could not fit without touching the ground. To overcome this problem the engineers moved the engines to the front of the wings and moved them up to get clearance from the ground. This brought the engine's takeoff thrust directly in front of the Aeron's of the wings. At takeoff the engines of the aircraft is at full thrust which neutralizes the movements of the Aeron's (just like the thrust of the propeller of the Titanic) as a result the airplane remains in a stall. Now the nose of the airplane has to come down to level the airplane. At full thrust this is not happening. A new problem because the Aeron's of the wings are now out of action. To overcome this problem the engineers moved their attention to the rear stabilizer (wing) of the aircraft. The stabilizer moves a few degrees up or down to keep the aircraft stable and cannot be used as an Aeron's. The engineers re now utilizing the stabilizer electronically to move beyond the few degrees to level the aircraft. The stabilizer is split in two sections one on the left and the other on the right of the aircraft and is synchronized by a center cockscrew. Once engaged and if it does not return in time the nose of the aircraft will remain down till it hits the ground. Please note: In the Max 8 there is no clearance between the wing and engine and the engine is moved closer the body. In my opinion these airplanes must be scrapped and requires a new design. I know nothing about airplanes except that I fly often i am concerned of safety.
@johnmartin77787 ай бұрын
Thank you for this excellent video, simplifying a complex topic with perspective on what may happen in the future on EASA regulations.
Пікірлер
Excuse me, I understand the diference between minor and major modifications to an aircraft, however it is not clear the implication of significant and not significant changes.
Cringier than the poo2loo UNICEF campaign. Didn't thought it was possible, thank you EASA for going above and beyond!
The app is droniq, and it only operates in germany. Can’t use it in ireland. This video was recommended by the IAA
Utterly useless. I already know this, what is the app name? Classic government move …
I am very much in favor of general conspicuity of every airspace user, be that GA, UAVs, RC models, skydivers or anything else. And it is clear that ADS-B on 1090MHz is not the way to go for this for many reasons. I also applaud the use of ISM bands for this because as RC model control systems have shown, you CAN build robust links on ISM bands if you are frequency agile and design your link for resilience - and you completely sidestep the problem of having to wait a decade or three for ITU... The only thing I am somewhat disappointed by is that SRD860 specifies the use of 2-GFSK. A technically superior modulation would have been CSS (Chirp Spread Spectrum) along with channel hopping. It feels a bit like GFSK was chosen because that is what the contributors to that spec had experience with (Flarm et al) and perhaps also having an eye on adding ADS-L capabilities to existing devices via a firmware update. While this can make sense on paper, in practice the majority of the future ADS-L users don't have FLARM equipped today. Also, not sure what the point of ADS-L4Mobile is. We already have plenty of specs that cover such a capability (see Traffic/Telemetry service in CORUS XUAM Conops Ed 4). I would hope that such a specification at least takes what's already there and improves upon it, and not reinvent the wheel. Very interesting question from DFS about who's going to build the tracker. For sure I hope USSPs don't, because very few companies have the know-how to implement such a thing properly. And you can't just pipe drone telemetry into an ATM tracker without additional development because their traffic movement profiles encompass only what's known and expected in traditional manned aviation. Oh and lastly: I am not sure the current specifications can survive in the real world as they are today. For one, without MLAT you immediately have the problem of being unable to filter out fake transmissions and thus it is easy for anyone with a HackRF to effectively jam the airspace in a wide area. I believe use of the currently-optional signature field in the payload will have to become mandatory.
Thumbnails please
goosebumps 😍🤧
HOW WILL PART 21 BE IMPLEMENTED? THERE IS A AUTHORITY REQUIREMENT SECTION B TO BE WORKED INTO ALL AVIATION DOMAINS? THE MAIN DOMAIN WAS PART 21(b) OR PARTS?
AN AMC IS AN AVIATION MAINTENANCE CERTIFICATION?
HOW WILL PART 21 BE IMPLEMENTED BY INTRODUCING REGULATION, INTRODUCE REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE REGULATORY, TO DEVELOP AMC PROVIDE POSSIBILTY TO COMPLY AND WHICH ARE A INDUSTRY STANDARD?
SOME THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE SMS GAP ANALYSIS CHANGES IS CHANGE MANAGEMENT, MANAGEMENT, VOLUNTARY REPORTING CULTURE, RECOURCES OF REPORTING OF THE AMT CHIEF OF AIRWORTHINESS AND CHIEF OF MONITORING COMPLIANCE, DESIGN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO SEE WHO IS ON TOP COMPLETE WITH GRAPHS AND RESOURCES?
WHO HOLDS A POA OR DOA IS WHO DESIGN PARTS MAINLY OR PART 19 OR PART 21(a) (c) WHICH REQUIRE A SMS REQUIREMENT OF A QA WHICH IS A TRADITIONAL SMS AND THEY ARE A AIRLINE ETC?
THE PART 21 SHOULD INCLUDE IN SMS THAT ARE MADE AVAILABLE WHICH ARE REQUIRING A FULL SMS IS LIMITED FOR COST REASONS BUT THE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS THERE ARE DIFFERENT SMS IN WHICH THEY HOLD A DOA OR POA?
THE GAP ANALYSIS IS ABOUT BUILDING ON WHAT IS ALREADY THERE? IT CAN INCLUDE CHANGE MANAGEMENT, DO AND NAA REPORTING?
THE ICAO REQUIRES A GAP ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY WHAT TO REPORT IN THE COMPANY'S SMS?
CULTURE CHANGES FOR THE OVERSEEING REGULATOR BENEFITS BY STATE SAFTEY RISK LANDSCAPE, NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NAA AND DO FOSTERING CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOUGE?
THE ARE CULTURAL CHANGE BENEFITS IN SMS WHICH INCLUDE RISK MANAGEMENT IN SRM AND SAS BECOME PART OF THE SAFTEY CULTURE AND BUILDING ON EXISTING PROCESSES?
THERE ARE BENEFITS OF SMS WHICH ARE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE RISK PICTURE OF MY ORANIZATION? BY ENGAGING IN A ROBUST, SYSTEMATIC IDENTIFICATIONS OF HAZARDS, MANAGING OF AREA OF GREATER RISKS AND PRIORITIES IN A MEANINGFUL WAY BY DIRECTLY CONNECTED CONCERNS OF THE STAFF, ENGAGE SUPPLIERS AND CONTRACTORS, SETTING UP SAFTEY OBJECTIVES?
ICAO 2010 ASSEMBLY TOOK THE DESCISION TO INTRODUCE A SYMPTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS AND RISK MITIGATION FOR AVIATION? THERE WAS A GLOBAL APPROACH, GAVE BIRTH TO ANNEX 19 WHICH MAKES SMS APPLICABLE FOR DESIGN PRODUCTION BY MANUFACTURERS WITH AN OBJECTIVE MOVE FROM REACTIVE TO PROACTIVE APPROACH ABD FOSTER SAFTEY CULTURE AND SUPPORT JUST CULTURE TO REPORT ISSUES?
OVERALL SAFTEY CAN BE IMPROVED THROUGH BASIS TO AIM AT IMPRIVING THE LEVEL OF SAFTEY DESPITE GROWING AVIATION MARKET AND INCREASED COMPLEXITY?
WHY DO WE NEED AN SMS IS FOR SAFTEY OF PRODUCTS? BUT A COMPLIMENTARY DESIGN SMS WILL IMPROVE OVERALL SAFTEY?
What is the BASIS of CERTIFiCATION The FIRE BOMBER was REPORT CL 215 - 100 a modification ofFAR25.
Reminds me of when I used to work on the CL 215 FIRE BOMMER now the DHC 515. All the drawings had a stress signature which I had to sign.
This is fabulous, I am working on an engineering project for the rail industry and this is exactly what I needed, I also need some detailsn on how you manage Hazards and risks
What ist the App name for Germany?
Currently writing my Master's thesis on the enforcement of this exciting new sector and EASA's optimal theoretical role! So happy to see the involvement of different stakeholders. Hope we can soon have multiple working examples all throughout the EU.
well studied
Come on guys... ist is very hard to understand due to the French accent. Please ad subtitles. otherwise no-one will understand anything.
Ce pana mea
Most airlines are safer than EASA🤔🤐
common sense ... Which is why the experts hate it
when will they have production? Anyone knows?
This year from what I heard. But they only plan to produce 2. And with them they will do manned flights.
@@knabbagluon I think they have opportunity to do manufacturing in China like Tesla exploded as their biggest shareholder is from China, a big internet company. Other EVOLT companies in US cannot do China market business as air transportation is very monitored or limited by gov
@@knabbagluon Thank you. All I know is just they have financial problems as hired new CFO
Any guide for diy implementation?
It's 2024 already, 6 years passed and this is still complete mess. This SORA thing seems a good plan for making a software for automated categorization based on some user input. But this is complete disaster for the business to throw all that mess to the end user who will flood the authorities with tons of paper work with everyone's subjective opinion how to operate safely. How all this guarantees the declared mitigations will took place and a drone will not fall on someone? Just waste of time and huge bureaucracy that probably made many to cease their drone companies. Why doing those STS for drones who doesn't exist on the market yet 6 years later and leave the actual busineses to coup with this mess? Why not simply did a simple research how the actual drones are used by small business at the moment and take care for making rules that cover current needs and what is available on market? Without thinking too much I can name just a few industries that probably cover 95% of the use of drones that are over 4kg and are more dangerous for public use. Inspections, video productions, search and rescue. All ment for taxies or deliveries are simply another cathegory that shouldn't be messed at all with small business and their rules to be developed separatelly. It seems the beer was not enough or too much!
Also, why is the F*** video in English if the UK no longer belongs to the EU? I no longer know if Europe is a US, Russian, Chinese, African, Muslim, Iranian, Moroccan or Qatari province. Sovereign of the European people she is certainly not!
It is a confusing video, the truth is that there are countless rules to comply with. Many of these rules are stupid for small drones, but future, more dangerous delivery drones will not have to comply. Europe is walking inexorably towards backwardness, servility to foreign powers. Europe is a marketing product dressed in a very green and ecological African outfit.
Well done Anne!
well, if you get caught by surprise and slam the power pedal and start to droop, you will not have enough TR to stop it. The curve looks pretty on a power point but does it take into consideration overpitching? 1% in the MR is 6% on the tail, pretty sure that pedal curve would change?
propaganda
Well, the info is unfortunately not full and the rules are not following during everyday situations. Just a few samples: - we can fly under A1 subcategory - copters sub 250g + a spotter, - flying FPV low, between obstacles - there is no chance to keep VLOS by the spotter - nonsense, - what about flying FPV for TV, commercial and film industry (eg. Red Notice film opening scene from Rome)?, - what about long range flights performed eg. in Norway, Alps - Italy, Ferance, Austria, Switzerland or Iceland? - what if I wanna practice tiny FPV quad alone in my garden or on Sunday morning 50g copter on empty supermarket parking? Unfortunattelly EASA has not done the homework and as an effect we have very invalid "FPV regulations" that are so far from the reality and literally every FPV pilot seems to become a criminal.
Agree. And also those points are incredible: - not higher than 120 metres of altitude. - spectators are not allowed. Like what the hell? How can anyone say that spectators are banned? And max altitude 120m from ground? Just WHY?
Real life example: I have to have a spectator (i.e. spotter) when I fly an FPV drone. However, I must not have spectators. The spotter must see the drone at all times, but the drone must be 150m away from him, just like other people. I am not allowed to fly at an altitude of more than 120m, but a distance of 150m must be kept from settlements and people. List just continues. This makes no sense, FPV enthusiasts will be a big criminal group in Europe.
Also to add to your list is a quad with propguard is designed to be safe to be flown near people, that is why cinematic FPV drone is built with the propguard to be able to be flown near people safely.
Great presentation!
Please can you confirm that after the discovery both Boeing and the FAA killed all those on the 2 Boeing crashes that you will not clear the Max to fly even though the FAA has without completing your own full independent checks! You stated after thise crahses you would no longer rely on the FAA and do your own investigations and qe expect you to keep us in Europe safe!
Can anyone tell me why they put the ducted fans on top of the wings rather than underneath?
You don't want faster moving air below the wing, as in from the suction of the fans right?
@@SuryaSarav_ I did a little checking, it's because the ducted fans are attached to the flaps and not the fixed part of the wing, so they need to be on top or the intake area would be blocked by the fixed part of the wing in the vertical position.
@@jassonsw Indeed makes sense from a practical perspective
to create the lift of an aircraft the air on the upper side of the wing should be speed up (less density) and on the belly side slow down for (high density). This lift will be economicaly in travel.
I'm british. Living in spain. I fly mi I rc planes (Park flyers) for 2 years now. Now I want to fly a bigger glider. (Conscendo evolution 1.5m) I have a local club near me and hope to join. What exactly do I need, in terms of cetificates, to fly at the model airfield?
very interesting please upload more aviation content like this to expand our knowledge !
EASA, DOA, SFAR,SERA,FFA, ANAC, CVE, TC DOA, !!!
The EASA should revisit the safety of MAX 8 and MAX 10 aircrafts. In my view the max 8 aircraft has the same structural fault as the TITANIC, I therefore, refer to the Max 8 as the TITANIC of the air. The Titanic had three propellers. The center propeller was directly in front of the ship's redder which was responsible for the turning of the ship. In order to break the Atlantic record, the Titanic was travelling at full steam. Therefore, the thrust created by the center propeller neutralizes the turn position of the redder as a result the ship still continues in a straight line and when the radder does takes effect by then Titanic had already hit the iceberg. In the case of Max 8 the airplane is low, and the engineers were attempting to install two efficient large modern engines under the wings but could not fit without touching the ground. To overcome this problem the engineers moved the engines to the front of the wings and moved them up to get clearance from the ground. This brought the engine's takeoff thrust directly in front of the Aeron's of the wings. At takeoff the engines of the aircraft is at full thrust which neutralizes the movements of the Aeron's (just like the thrust of the propeller of the Titanic) as a result the airplane remains in a stall. Now the nose of the airplane has to come down to level the airplane. At full thrust this is not happening. A new problem because the Aeron's of the wings are now out of action. To overcome this problem the engineers moved their attention to the rear stabilizer (wing) of the aircraft. The stabilizer moves a few degrees up or down to keep the aircraft stable and cannot be used as an Aeron's. The engineers re now utilizing the stabilizer electronically to move beyond the few degrees to level the aircraft. The stabilizer is split in two sections one on the left and the other on the right of the aircraft and is synchronized by a center cockscrew. Once engaged and if it does not return in time the nose of the aircraft will remain down till it hits the ground. Please note: In the Max 8 there is no clearance between the wing and engine and the engine is moved closer the body. In my opinion these airplanes must be scrapped and requires a new design. I know nothing about airplanes except that I fly often i am concerned of safety.
Thank you for this excellent video, simplifying a complex topic with perspective on what may happen in the future on EASA regulations.
what's the difference between SPIs and KPIs?