Phantom Drone over Etihad Stadium

[FilmBuff]

Story here on BBC Website

[Frank Skilbeck]

And then you get the guy who filmed above Nottingham saying

"I believe I am within the rules. People can be negative because it is something new and they don't understand it.

"I think the rules say you have to be more than 50m from built-up areas and that's at take off. As long as you keep it within sight it's fine.

"I'm not saying problems can't happen but they are down to poor piloting. It's only like people driving a car badly."

And as far as his comment re the 50m he is wrong as he would have known if he'd read the guidance on the BMFA, just needs a few more high level prosecutions in the press to get the message across I suppose.

[Dave Hopkin]

If he's flying over a Man City Game then the Premier League can also sue him for Copyright Infringement

[ken anderson.]

another silly person me thinks he will end up with a lighter wallet....I think that all of the retailer's should include a copy of the ANO166b in the package when they sell them to the public...who prob aren't aware of rule's and reg's....for them........fair enough the jack the lad's will ignore them but.....cant argue the case after they have been told....

ken Anderson ne...1 ........ lighter wallet dept.

[avtur]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 20/10/2014 17:21:40:

If he's flying over a Man City Game then the Premier League can also sue him for Copyright Infringement

The cynics are suggesting this is the most likely reason for following up this matter ...

[Pete B]

Seems the debate may be gathering pace, if this page is anything to go by.

'The BBC asked the CAA if it had the resources to deal with the growing popularity of drones, but it did not respond.

Instead, it said it would shortly be launching a public information campaign to raise awareness of the rules and regulations.'

As suggested elsewhere, more information at the point of purchase would be a start but that would need world-wide cooperation from manufacturers/distributors and I can't see that happening any time soon.

It must be abundantly clear by now that most of these occurrences are being committed by people who are no more aeromodellers than my dog, so should the BMFA being doing more to embrace them - or should they be distancing our hobby from the renegades?

Pete

[Dave Hopkin]

As the regulations vary so much between countries, I cant see manufacturers wanting to put country specific information in each kit all you could realistically hope for is a general warning that legislation exists and a web address for each countries regulatory body - but how many would actually go and look, not many I suspect and those that would are liable to be the sensible ones that wouldn't make such idiotic flights anyway

I wonder if the CAA will make some high publicity prosecutions as a warning to others, publicity in the mass media is the only way the message is going to get through

Should the BMFA embrace them? A very double edged sword I fear, one one hand yes they should be embracing them and encouraging legal compliance and best practices on the other hand, would it be wise to jeapordise the BMFA's reputation and standing with the CAA by seeming to embrace idiots who refuse to comply with legislation

Tricky..... very tricky.......

[Essjay]

I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the BMFA have ever advertised themselves in the National Press.

Perhaps, in the light of present activities, it would be worthwhile doing so, and thereby informing the general public of their existence, and more importantly their role in aero modelling in general in this country.

As has been said already, a lot of "Joe Public", who buy models (maybe over the Internet) for "Junior Joe", have probably never heard of the BMFA or the role it plays in the hobby.

If we are to bring more responsible youngsters into this hobby, then surely the National Body should be doing more to advertise themselves, and where to obtain advice on how to do things properly and responsibly!

[Area 51]

Doesn't sound as if the dust is going to settle.... now Liverpool football club too!

"A hearing on Monday of a House of Lords committee investigating the civilian use of drones will be addressed by a range of figures from the aeronautical sector."

 

Latest....

Wonder if the BMFA are going "out of interest"?

Edited By Area 51 on 26/10/2014 22:52:52

[cymaz]

As a club we have just passed a resolution banning the use of FPV and any flying machine equipped with gps. The discussion at the club meeting was lively. In the end the consensus was that the club should be active in avoiding the risk of having fly aways. And also be seen to avoid complaints in the future of multi rotors hovering over people and gardens etc , invading privacy.

Now we won't stop anybody doing it in the local area but as a club we can't be blamed for individuals who act outside club rules and who may not even belong to the club. But hopefully this will show the local council that we are nothing to do with it and any complaints would not affect the running of the club.

All rotary wing air craft are now flown on a seperate day ( Monday afternoons only). This avoids the conflict of drones , multi rotor ,helicopters and fixed wing on the strip.