ken anderson. Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 don't you think that with "drone's"...there is clear distinction between the toy one's that you struggle to see after a couple of 100ft and the big expensive one's that cost lot's of money and can fly themselves......... so where do you draw the line...............doe's every one who buy's a "drone" intend to program it and send it off on an unlawful quest? ........ of course you can see the attraction of flying above your neighbours house's and organised event's ect......... maybe the way that some are advertising them need's attending to....but as previously said - I think there will be a lot thrown away in the cupboard when people realise that they need a bit of tlc to keep working etc......... and yes maybe some rule's need to be introduced....just to make sure that the minority know they will be penalized heavily if they break them... ....... and no matter what it is in life in general -you'll always get the few who want to get up to no good ......they are the one's who will get the attention ... ............................................................................................................................................... PS......long live the BMFA......... as I've noticed on various other 'thread's' they seem to get a bashing...whichever way they go....... three cheer's for andy symon's.. ken Anderson...ne....1......... drone view dept. Edited By ken anderson. on 24/07/2015 09:01:49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The real Ron Truth Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Ken, The rules are already there… The Air Navigation Order. We don't need any more than that. Penalise the few that act irresponsibly and leave the good ones alone. I just hope thats the view the CAA take and don't decide to ban unmanned flying models as a knee jerk reaction. Sad as it sounds, i don't think it will be long before we have to have an 'unmanned flying craft licence' and have to register our models and clubs to the CAA… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Posted by avtur on 24/07/2015 01:10:32: Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/07/2015 22:57:08: The second guy does have a drone operating company - a film company - but what he was really pushing was his other business - ie this one. .... ... Now isn't that rather an sad reflection on our hobby - people would rather pay him than join a club and get a better qualification (the BMFA A and B certs are recognised and accredited by CAA - his aren't) basically for free. Worrying. Either we are failing to promote to and recruit this new membership (wondering where the young people are that aren't in our hobby? They're here!) or maybe its that we seem so unfriendly towards drone flyers? Nah - can't be that surely? BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/07/2015 22:58:10 I don't think it is a sad reflection on our hobby. The guy offering this training isn't aiming at model flying hobbyists, he is aiming at folks who are prepared to pay for a service ... and my interpretation is that his clients will look at training as a means to an end most likely resulting in the use of a 'drone' as a tool to carry out a job. That sort of end user is not going to put up with the faff and bother of trying to join a club and probably taking months to get the required training; the fact that the training will be free will be of little consequence. There are many people buying high end kit off the shelf not because they are interested in aviation as such but because they see the drone as a tool to enable them to capitalise on a commercial opportunity. Those who wish to take it seriously will be quite happy to pay the price for 'professional' tuition and will accept the cost as a the price of doing business. The BMFA and club training environment doesn't stand a chance of being able to compete with such commercials ventures, the latency in the systems and response times would be unacceptable to commercial enterprise. Maybe the BMFA should be looking for some interaction with these commercial training organisations, although my gut feeling is that such interaction would be unlikely. The club training environment just doesn't align with commercial interests, I don't see that as a failing in clubs, they are are just quite different interests. It could be described as a missed opportunity but I just don't think that the BMFA and club training environment is able to respond quickly enough to benefit from this opportunity. I'm sorry Avtur but you are pretty far off beam there! This guy IS aiming very much at the recreational and hobby market with his training. Just look at the list of 9 courses his offering at the moment on the home page - only 3 of them are for commercial use - 6 are for recreational pilots. Speaks for itself were he sees his market. No one aspiring to the commercial use you refer to would use this guy - he is not a CAA approved NQE, so as far as the commercial people are concerned his courses are next to worthless! So - I repeat my question - isn't this a sad reflection on us? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Elam Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3172979/Fears-ISIS-use-drones-packed-explosives-attack-crowds.html Some more drone material in everyone's favourite, The Daily Mail. Edited By David Elam on 24/07/2015 12:24:28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 It could be that some of the suggestions being made by vested interest could be attractive to government and the bureaucrats. That is if money is to be made by agencies of the state, say for licences and accreditation of training and examination programmes. With a plus that it can be argued that the situation is being managed. It reality this is an opportunity for the BMFA to shine, by not only putting the case of hobby modellers to the government institutions, but keeping us, the ordinary modellers informed of there doings, issues and progress. I do have difficultly in understanding what is necessary required to operate a drone. I have very much the impression that they can be completely autonomous, following a predefined flight path and responding to issues using pre defined responses. In this case what do you examine the operator against. Presumably to navigate? In other cases the device seems to auto stable, but guided by a ground based operative. In this case, is the check to ensure that they can manually fly the device? Could there ever be one test, which I never want to see, that would be universally applicable? In my case, it is to my mind a toy that I have, should I need training to be able to use it? Although the reports are about drones, yet in reality there are so many types and control methods and systems out there now, no doubt others will develop, I have no real idea about what is being reported, nor what in the future will be reported by the generic non specific term of drone. Being selfish my main concern that my model flying could be detrimentally constrained by events involving the so called drones. I just hope that my BMFA subs are a very good self interest investment. Edited By Erfolg on 24/07/2015 20:45:07 Edited By Erfolg on 24/07/2015 20:46:28 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 As I said above Erf the agenda here is being set at European level - following the Declaration of Riga. The BMFA are a very very small cog in this particular machine - without a seat at the table I would suspect. So I wouldn't expect too much of them there! If you are interested the current commercial test is a fairly straight forward affair: its mainly about observing your flying procedures and checking them against the safety procedures you have defined in your Operations manual. Also you are tested in certain moves: general flying precision, figure 8's, circuits, ability to align with a set ground target, ability to fly in different orientations (nose in hover etc), finally the examiner gets you to fly it a long way away - so that you cannot see the orientation - then he twirls it around on the yaw control and you have to figure out the orientation and fly it back. None of the test is done in "waypoint" (autonomous) mode. Most can be flown in GPS-Hold but you have to fly some of it in ATTITUDE-Hold mode. generally there is no requirement to fly in manual mode - unstabilised. The objective is to test your ability to fly the UAV yourself - a sensible safety requirement. In fact very little commercial flying is done in autonomous mode - most is done in either ATTI or manual in practice. The one exception is survey type work where precision raster scans of the ground are required - but this is only one type of commercial work and not the most common. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 just had this sent to me .. worth a look. ken Anderson...ne...1.....drone dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by ken anderson. on 25/07/2015 07:53:53: just had this sent to me .. worth a look. ken Anderson...ne...1.....drone dept. Do keep up, Ken. Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 22/07/2015 22:11:56: Here's another interesting site to help owners know where they should and shouldn't fly drones **LINK** Pat...Keep Up dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 oop's..................... never mind its nice to know that I have someone watching over me.... ken Anderson...ne...1 ......... watching over me dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by PatMc on 25/07/2015 10:02:30: Posted by ken anderson. on 25/07/2015 07:53:53: just had this sent to me .. worth a look. ken Anderson...ne...1.....drone dept. Do keep up, Ken. Posted by Chris Bott - Moderator on 22/07/2015 22:11:56: Here's another interesting site to help owners know where they should and shouldn't fly drones **LINK** Pat...Keep Up dept. The owner of NoFlyDrones.co.uk know his stuff - he works at NATS. Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 25/07/2015 10:24:49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 24/07/2015 10:33:34: Posted by avtur on 24/07/2015 01:10:32: Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 22/07/2015 22:57:08: So - I repeat my question - isn't this a sad reflection on us? BEB Probably not, how many clubs have people in them that could instruct somebody on flying a quad as an aerial photography platform, not many I guess we are more into the flying side than using it as a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by Graham Back - Rclife.co.uk on 22/07/2015 12:25:03: A nice Idiot guide. I made this, and gifted it to the CAA (Those are my logos at the end). It seems to be going down well - it was on the BBC 6 o'clock news this week and we got it on ITV News a few weeks back. Its also embedded in many many websites, which is brilliant to see. We put the same information in paper form (this: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf) inside every aircraft sold. Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 25/07/2015 10:33:11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by cymaz on 24/07/2015 08:11:49: Interesting E.B. There could come a time that if there were enough commercial drone pilots who formed an association or proffessional body they could eclipse the bmfa by their professionalism. By the sounds of it, drone and UAV work done properly is skilled and more in depth than anything the bmfa could come up with. It seems creditable training schools have grasped the opportunity and offering high class tuition and training, whilst the bmfa is still talking and fussing around wondering what to do. Sounds like you're talking about http://arpas.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 25/07/2015 10:31:45: Posted by Graham Back - Rclife.co.uk on 22/07/2015 12:25:03: A nice Idiot guide. I made this, and gifted it to the CAA (Those are my logos at the end). It seems to be going down well - it was on the BBC 6 o'clock news this week and we got it on ITV News a few weeks back. Its also embedded in many many websites, which is brilliant to see. We put the same information in paper form (this: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf) inside every aircraft sold. Edited By Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 25/07/2015 10:33:11 Hmm, looks familiar... Posted by Graham Back - Rclife.co.uk on 22/07/2015 12:25:03: A nice Idiot guide. Pat...Keep Up dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Flyer Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 And again **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Yeah thanks WF. That is a excellent contribution to the debate. And you wonder why multi-rotor flyers feel a certain lack of welcome eh? But hey, this is a model flying forum - so lets do everything we can to draw maximum attention to every misdemendour by every nutter with a drone. Very sad. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Why not try looking at the glass being half full instead, see here - it might make a refreshing change? Of course it's only 7-8 detailed articles by some pretty serious exponents in the field, not much to put against the mindless, sensationalist gutter press I agree - and of course it has no naked people in it and requires an attention span of more than 35 seconds. But let's let's give it go eh? - it might even give us all something to talk about regarding drones other than the moronic fringe. We can but hope! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Flyer Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 BEB, why would you imply that those against drones are mentally impaired? Come on BEB, you're better than that, aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Where have I done that? Quote me one example of where I have said that those against drones are mentally impaired! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 BEB..it may be your description "nutter" ? ken Anderson...ne...1 ...mod the mod dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Ken, "nutter" referred to a certain type of drone users not to those against drones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Flyer Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 Hmmm BEB, maybe where you stated that reading an article would require an attention span of more than 35 seconds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/12/2014 10:59:45: I share your concern Dave about "knee-jerk" legislation - but actually in practice it would not be so easy for the politicians to do that - the CAA would be strongly opposed to any UK only legislation for two reasons: 1. It would be unworkable - the internet would ensure that. 2. We are party to a number of international treaties which make unilateral legislation on aviation matters very difficult. Aviation is essentially an international matter - the CAA will want legislation that is at least pan-European and preferably would include the FAA in the States - ie equivalent legislation in all major countries. This is one reason why progress in these areas is so slow! As to whether such legislation could be effective. Well to stop possible terrorist attack I think the answer is "no". Those people are hell-bent on death and destruction, 99% of what they already do is illegal anyway so one more piece of legislation isn't going to stop them. Its only advantage in that case is that it would give the authorities one more thing they could lock these nutters away for. But in terms of the "cowboys" - the people who often inadvertently cause danger with these devices by using them in an inappropriate way largely out of ignorance or a misplaced sense of "fun" - then I do believe legislation would be effective. If it was illegal anywhere in Europe/USA to sell, purchase or use a combined stabilisation/GPS equipped UAV without a licence then that would effectively cut off the supply to the lunatic fringe. I believe most of these people are stupid - not evil. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/12/2014 11:02:32 If you are referring to this quote ken the "nutters" in question in the penultimate paragraph are the people who do stupid things with drones - not those who are opposed to drones. Surely there would not be much disagreement on here that people who, for example, undertake unauthorised UAV flights in the vicinity of an airport are "nutters"? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by Wiltshire Flyer on 25/07/2015 17:01:14: Hmmm BEB, maybe where you stated that reading an article would require an attention span of more than 35 seconds? Well that's a statement of fact - it will require a longer attention span. I did not imply that any specific group of people couldn't offer such an attention span; merely that they will require it if they wish to move from sensationalist journalism to reading some more informed comment that is all. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Posted by PatMc on 25/07/2015 16:55:17: Ken, "nutter" referred to a certain type of drone users not to those against drones. Thank you Pat BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.