Martin_K

Posted by Erfolg on 04/09/2019 11:03:47: We need to remind ourselves, that we see our model aircraft as being different to drones, yet the legislation and regulations do not seem to make any distinction or recognise this aspect. On this basis we could be lulled into false optimism to think we would be excluded from changes to future requirements in this area, such as carrying transponders etc. Many here are fixated on making a distinction between 'model aircraft' and 'drones'. A foam park flyer with stabilisation, auto-levelling, holding pattern, return to home, looks very much like a 'drone' to me. Government does have a genuine problem writing legislation in this area. (I have never had a multi-rotor only fixed wing. All my RX's are receive only, no flight control).

Posted by Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 11:03:42: Posted by Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 10:18:14: Can anyone give me an answer to this....... What good in terms of aviation safety, compared to now, will be forthcoming by having 35000 BMFA members registered in the new scheme? Anything? Anyone? Happy to be educated.................... I am not supporting the registration scheme, just attempting to answer your question. To join the BMFA you pay the membership fee. Once a member you become exposed to material promoting good practices but membership alone does not require any knowledge of 'drone' laws. I joined the BMFA before joining a club. I started flying before joining the BMFA. Yes, not the ideal way of doing things but my starting point was buying a kit to make a balsa glider. Thinking about where to fly, insurance, etc. came later. To change this the government advertising scheme needs to be massive. I doubt it will be.

Posted by Steve J on 02/09/2019 14:18:00: .... As I understand it, both Gatwick and Heathrow currently have counter-UAS systems in place and have had all year to sort out their procedures..... I have witnessed one occassion and had a report from a club member of a second time when the police attended the park where our flying site lies, within the Heathrow FRZ. I inferred from what was said that the authorities have some sort of 2.4GHz network sniffer. Whether they can only decode traffic from specific brands I don't know. I imagine other tools are at their disposal too. They certainly have moved beyond visual sighting to 'detecting' the presence of a 'drone'. This should give position and even make/model data where drones are being flown manually using RC. Catching people is another matter. Expanding the FRZ means there is now a very large area to be policed. Then there are drones flying autonomously. No RC signal to detect. Radar? I would love to try out the detection toolkit! To be convinced about any future drone incidents at Heathrow/Gatwick I am expecting details, not just vague reports.

It looks like the protesters are using the airport's own previous behaviour as a weapon, i.e. see drone, close airport. The protester line seems to be, we are going to show you drones (in the plural, inside the FRZ but not directly over the airfield), go on then, deploy your forces and shut the airport. I can't predict what this means for those of us permitted to fly (fixed wing) inside the FRZ, but it certainly doesn't help.

Posted by Keith Sharples on 01/09/2019 13:50:46: ...Now that is where the difference lies each club/event etc has it's own set of rules and permission to fly requirements, so to fly you have to conform to what ever it is.... Your comment made me think Keith, no argument with you, just want to point out how bewildering this can become if you live somewhere with multiple neighbouring London boroughs. My club site is in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Hillingdon prohibit multi-rotor flying from all council land. This started off as a simple blanket ban but has become more nuanced over time, to accomodate the circumstances under which the council do want 'drones'. The policy now runs to 14 pages. Not something that is pinned to the park notice board! The other two places I fly are in different boroughs where hobby quad-copter use is possible, with restrictions. The mix of UK national, local authority, land owner, BMFA, club rules, etc is horrible. But ..... it's a case of be careful what you ask for. A simple 'clarification' from government could have consequences much worse than an unwelcome registration scheme.

Even if the airport is Heathrow (my case), I'm not sure why there should be any costs when applying to fly inside an FRZ. You can do it on-line via the Airspace User Portal. I understand the process followed by the chairman of my club was to make a Non Standard Flight Application. Electronic documentation came back, an Approval Request Summary (valid for 1 year), and letter. NATS can still rescind the approval however. If you are asking for permission to continue doing the same thing, in the same place, and already known to local ATC, that must be a strong starting point. If your interest is starting a new activity, then I have no experience.

The one thing we modellers could do is present a unified front, which would make it easier for organisations like the BMFA to represent our views. This thread suggests that will be difficult. I felt the need to join the forum to argue against taking the militant line advocated by many here. That would risk negative PR. My own self interest at play, yes, as I meet the public every time I fly. My impression is the public thinks government policy is to limit drone use, when it is actually to increase drone use by organising low level air space for the benefit of commercial operators. How you get international standards for air traffic management into the public consciousness, prior to drones appearing overhead, I have no idea.

Posted by Steve J on 29/08/2019 19:16:01: I would suggest practicing the SF(E) 'A' and then getting in touch with the area achievement scheme co-ordinator to get it done...... Steve Steve, that is a helpful suggestion. Thanks. It would get me back to thinking about the sort of flying that inspired me to take up aero modelling, rather than a half-hearted attempt to embrace power, runways, and stunts.

Posted by john stones 1 on 29/08/2019 12:47:52: Not sure why achievement scheme is being discussed, no clubs ever put barriers in my way, some have rules you need to abide by, the choice is yours, ours you need to demonstrate you're safe to be let loose, pretty similar to the A test, barrier ? nope just sensible precaution to protect the site and its membership, not much to ask after the years of work people have put into their clubs, your barriers learning to fly, have fun. Demonstrating basic competence to a club, face to face on site, is not the barrier. Being told you cannot fly without the 'A' is the barrier. I will not say where, I still hope to get in one day. I am having fun.

Posted by Steve J on 29/08/2019 11:10:03: Posted by Martin_K on 29/08/2019 09:03:39: There are two other locations where I would like to fly, but both require an 'A' certificate. At my own club I need the 'A' to fly solo. My interest is primarily in gliders, and building my own planes. I am currently working on a powered sport model with undercarriage to practice for, and take, the 'A'. Not how I envisaged spending my time (and money). As alluded to above, the hobby has placed this barrier to my participation, not some outside agency. Won't the clubs let you take the Silent Flight (Electric)? Steve A complicated answer to a simple question. When using a public space the club is not the only party to be satisfied. The club may only exist to enable people who have traditionally flown at a site to continue so doing. One instance is Chobham Common. From memory it is the Surrey Wildlife Trust that stipulate membership of a particular club to fly on the common. The club then has rules to keep the land manager on-side. Additionaly clubs can become fearful. After the expansion of the Heathrow FRZ my own club's committee initially banned gliders. The imagined consequences of someone catching a thermal and going outside the field's boundary were deemed too great a risk. I am glad to report that things are a bit more relaxed now. Another complication was my own understanding (lack of) the multitude of BMFA schemes. I may now have a better chance of negotiating alternatives.

Hello All, A few disparate thoughts in relation to this thread, from a newish aero modeller living just west of London. I currently have three fields available for me to fly, all public spaces. The cooperation of the public is essential to operate safely so when expressing 'injustice' about new regulations please do nothing that would make my relationship with the public difficult. There are two other locations where I would like to fly, but both require an 'A' certificate. At my own club I need the 'A' to fly solo. My interest is primarily in gliders, and building my own planes. I am currently working on a powered sport model with undercarriage to practice for, and take, the 'A'. Not how I envisaged spending my time (and money). As alluded to above, the hobby has placed this barrier to my participation, not some outside agency. The result is I do most of my flying (Hi-Start and electric launch) in an unmanaged space shared with pedestrains, dogs, horse riders, herds of roaming deer, plus a helicopter air lane directly overhead. It is actually the least fraught of the three locations, with the limitation that your timetable is set by what else is happening. I suspect the other users of the park would object strongly to commercial drone operations, so if this comes to the public's attention they can possibly help keep my access to low level air space. I do not object to taking the 'A' test, but I do want to fly meanwhile when there is no club member available to assist. Maybe once a week, weather permitting, at a time the club chooses, is too limited. Even when 'qualified' a club with exclusive use of a piece of private land is something I may never experience. Around here, restricted membership and prices too high.