Drone Near Miss.

[John F]

Posted by Clive Hall on 09/12/2014 15:05:06:

In my view models, . . . ..

The real danger which will attract (draconian) legislation comes from categories 3 and 4, which offer the potential problems already well aired.

Any comments on this grading system?

You have just demonstrated exactly why and how the hysteria starts over a subject that absolutely needs clarity rather than passion.

Draconian? You need to be able to see where the aircraft is at all times. Why? Well if you're simply setting waypoints and other nav aids and it flies on its own accord how can it avoid the air ambulance or police heli or the chartered small aircraft or the news aircrafts or any other smaller, manned aircraft?

You need to be able to see what it 360 degrees around otherwise you're simply asking for trouble. Draconian? I would have thought it would be commone sense.

[Allan Bennett]

I don't think that it's worth making any new law that tries to classify different classes of drones. As the link in kevin b's recent post says, sensible (I think) and simple laws about how to fly them already exist, but they're ignored by some, and seemingly not enforced.  

If you want to fly in GPS mode, it's up to the pilot to ensure that the model doesn't overfly people, structures, no-fly-zones, etc.  If you can't ensure that, you should restrict yourself to line-of-sight flying.

Edited By Allan Bennett on 10/12/2014 08:43:07

[Clive Hall]

I asked for comment on a model grading system: I got it, and I agree with everything that has been said, but although it is all sound and sensible some of it misses the point I was trying to make.

The reason for my grade grouping was that I can see the possibility of forthcoming legislation which could have a too wide effect on what we can fly. I suggested it may be draconian: that means legislation that is oppressive, which is what we could easily get from our politicians. There is an election coming up and they often produce knee-jerk reactions seeking popularity, egged on by our sensation seeking media which will delight in damning all modellers regardless of common sense.

Alas, I think the quads are going to have trouble anyway, but there is no reason why restrictions on them should spread to all model flying; it easily could, so I was just looking for a distinction that might be applied to save the simpler models from inclusion in harsh restrictions. I included models without any kind of stabilisation (Grade 1) because it covers the large majority of models as flown at present.

I don’t see how anyone could quibble with that idea, but it would be brilliant if someone could come up with an idea that the BMFA could put to the CAA to save us from the worst that might happen.

[Alan J Roberts 1]

Your points are all good ones Clive, this has been an interesting discussion so far.

I think I'll go along with Dave and Chris and say that its what people do with the tech that should be regulated and not the equipment.

Of course we all have slightly different ideas of what should, and should not, be allowed.

In many cases I feel that some of us may not be particularly well qualified to comment. For instance some who have never or seldom flown FPV may say that its impossible to have spatial awareness unless you're up there with the model - right now with current technology thats probably true but with wide screen, high definition, 3D and head tracking I'm struggling to work out where the difference is.

The senses of smell, touch, taste are not relevant here

The sense of sound mmmmm, perhaps, but in a noisy aircraft with a headset on, I very much doubt it.

It thats' the case then we're only left with vision, unless you believe in some kind of magical sixth sense

So if we rely on vision, then, maybe someone could help me out with this, I'm certainly struggling . . . . . . .?

[Dave Hopkin]

Because ALL technology fails at some point (The First law of Sod) but its pretty rare for a pilot to be suddenly struck with blindness is perhaps the main reason for the "line of sight" and "observer" rules.....

Yes the tech is pretty reliable, but unlike full sized aircraft where a myriad of checks, cross checks and formal procedures exist to try and reduce human error those are a much more varied feast in model flying, some will be prepare and airframe with great care but others will simply charge the batteries and fly.

[John F]

Posted by Alan J Roberts 1 on 10/12/2014 12:16:55: For instance some who have never or seldom flown FPV may say that its impossible to have spatial awareness unless you're up there with the model - right now with current technology thats probably true but with wide screen, high definition, 3D and head tracking I'm struggling to work out where the difference is.

The senses of smell, touch, taste are not relevant here

The sense of sound mmmmm, perhaps, but in a noisy aircraft with a headset on, I very much doubt it.

It thats' the case then we're only left with vision, unless you believe in some kind of magical sixth sense

So if we rely on vision, then, maybe someone could help me out with this, I'm certainly struggling . . . . . . .?

it is impossible to be aware of what is around you unless you can see 360. Simple. You simply cannot see all around, your vision is fixed to a certain viewpoint and that is normally the direction of travel.

I've flown as an observer for years as a Medic on rotary and I can tell you the pilot and co-pilot need the rearcrews' eyes as much as their own.

On the ground you have a full 360 degree view which, potentially, covers miles of airspace around you and can therefore see any issues in the airspace around you and can take action. Using FPV you cannot do so hence the need for observer and within line of sight rules.

Edited By John F on 10/12/2014 12:55:14

[Alan J Roberts 1]

Ahhh

so nothing to do with spacial awareness then

[John F]

Posted by Alan J Roberts 1 on 10/12/2014 12:54:13:

Ahhh

so nothing to do with spacial awareness then

You cannot be spacially aware viewing through a camera

[Alan J Roberts 1]

Hi John,

you have some interesting points.

Rather than clutter this thread, I'll message you directly

regards

Alan

[Clive Hall]

Quoting Alan Roberts . . .

“ . . . it’s what people do with the tech that should be regulated and not the equipment.”

My point remains that, given the kind of equipment that the majority of people are using, it should not be necessary to regulate them, but there is a danger that this can happen if we get a blanket of ill considered new rules.

[Alan J Roberts 1]

Posted by Clive Hall on 10/12/2014 14:42:20:

.

“ . . . it’s what people do with the tech that should be regulated and not the equipment.”

My point remains that, given the kind of equipment that the majority of people are using, it should not be necessary to regulate them, but there is a danger that this can happen if we get a blanket of ill considered new rules.

Absolutely,

And to be honest, following in that train of thought, I'm wondering if we actually need any more regulation.

Methinks the current rules already cover it nicely.

[avtur]

Posted by Alan J Roberts 1 on 10/12/2014 14:47:53:

Posted by Clive Hall on 10/12/2014 14:42:20:

.

“ . . . it’s what people do with the tech that should be regulated and not the equipment.”

My point remains that, given the kind of equipment that the majority of people are using, it should not be necessary to regulate them, but there is a danger that this can happen if we get a blanket of ill considered new rules.

Absolutely,

And to be honest, following in that train of thought, I'm wondering if we actually need any more regulation.

Methinks the current rules already cover it nicely.

I would agree, this growing problem is caused by people breaking already existing rules ... if those rules were complied with the majority of recently reported problems would not exist; regulating the equipment is unlikely to change this.

Many of the recently reported problems point to issues of education and/or enforcement, both of which require resource; that is a problem in these cash strapped times.

The CAA advice is for any drone issues to be reported to the Police in the first instance, with the best will in the world there is little or no spare Police resource to investigate and enforce, that cold be a real problem.

I would also suggest that this growing problem is widespread, I'm sure most European countries are seeing similar problems, the worry there is that the "EU" might want to get involved ... then it would become seriously over regulated, the only saving grace is that it would probably take at least a decade for them to do anything!

[Guvnor]

Many of the posts here are missing the point.

Banning, licensing and rules are all very nice, but if you are stupid enough to fly on Heathrow's approach, no amount of new rules or bans will stop them being stupid.

Banning the 'sale of UAVs' is a complete waste of time, when you can import from any country on the planet. Who's going to get them all to agree? What about those who build there own from parts?

Do we ban brushless motors? Ban Arduinos and Wii gyros?? (MultiWii)

The probable answer is to have severe penalties for anyone found flying in stupid places, reported on the front pages of the tabloids. Perhaps then the message might get through...

[Erfolg]

We modellers have a certain perspective, where the issues are seen from our view point, yet the issues and concerns seem to be far wider.

It does appear that there is some concern (by commercial pilots) with respect to larger drones being operated by bodies, which may be permitted to operate in a semi autonomous mode. Reading a news report recently, the concerns seem to be directed not as how the situation is now, more about future developments and having an input into controlling these non specific areas.

I just wonder if the sky below 400 feet could potentially in the future be clogged with, Amazon, emergency services devices etc. to ensure that manned air vehicles will not encounter on a frequent basis ony of the smaller devices, whoever operates them.

I know the present focus is on the toy type quads, by some parts of the media, I suspect that the issues will be far wider, including military and civilian type large drone, that does seem to be exercising the minds of pilots. Perhaps they should worry about needing pilots?

There is even talk of autonomous cars and i presume public transport vehicles (more lost jobs)?, now if anything will clog the roads it would be that development. Picking us up from the pub, collecting us at the airport, dropping kids of at school, so many opportunities.

Technology seems to be creating more potential problems than they are solving. Some are worried about safety only, perhaps we should worry about jobs to.

[Bill_B]

And yet another incident: LINK

[Erfolg]

Quads are repeatably in the news for reasons of potential safety, to other aircraft.

I am sure that aviation authorities will be exchanging details of all the reported drone issues

Although RC model aircraft and helicopters which have been around for a long time, rarely if ever are reported as a potential threat.

There will come a point when it is decided to act against drones or whatever you wish to call them, my fear is that we could be adversally affected by any changes. Wether the the changes are intended to or not.

One part of me is tempted to try and distance aeromodelling from Drones, at the same time, I am sure that the distinction would not be made in both the authorities and particularly the wider publics opinion.

Although I would like to see the drone uninvented and banned, this will not happen, as they are both to useful and uninventing does not work. Returning to a previous situation has been doomed through history, from the Crossbow, to the Luddites (looms) through to Nuclear weapons. It seems the average techno-nerd can create a drone of sophisticated potential easier than i can build a chuck glider (much to my envy and annoyance).

Perhaps this area is one where the BMFA could inform us what the current stance and how this translates into interactions with appropriate authorities. That is in addition to actually doing something, as we do know a little from the BMFA Mag.

The issue is with us an will not be going away soon.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Wow - guys get a grip! Have you listened to yourselves. Erf, scroll back mate - you posted here Dec 2014, now (with just one intervening post today) you post again - speaking like its some sort of epidemic! Its two incidents in eight months!!!! One in the UK and one in Poland! "What are BMFA doing about it"? Its in Poland for heaven sake!

OK two incidents is two too many - I agree. But please, let's not start talking like this is the leader page of the Daily Mail!

BEB

[ken anderson.]

Poland! "What are BMFA doing about it"? Its in Poland for heaven sake!

OK two incidents is two too many - I agree. But please, let's not start talking like this is the leader page of the Daily Mail!

.......................................................................................................................................................................

or even worse The Sun.....

ken Anderson...ne...1 end of the world etc dept.

[Erfolg]

BEB

No one is expecting te BMFA to do anything about the events, other than being involved with dialogue with the authorities.

You contend that there have only been two events, it depends on what you determine to be events. There have been numerous reports in the media of events, alleged, or real, in the UK and across the world. These vary from flying in a prohibited area in Cumbria and a drone flying close to Merkel at a rally. These are just typical of high profile reports.

Unfortunately these issues know no boundaries.

We have had the airport police at our field, making some general comments with respect to drones and how we fly our RC models.

Part of the problem with so called drones is that they really do vary greatly in size, capabilities and control systems. To an outsider that the capabilities and control systems are continually both changing and increasing in capability. We have had one at our field (yet another), that can essentially fly itself. This incredible capability to my mind is pretty impressive. Any BMFA test seems irrelevant to such a device, other than a bureaucratic requirement.

I am sure there will be some changes, it is a case of what and when.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I despair!

BEB

[Bill_B]

Another discussion HERE if you've got some time to kill.

[Dave Hopkin]

There have been a series of EU discussions about "drones" this culminated in the "Riga Declaation" of March this year - it would be logical to assume that any legislation beit at country or EU level would broadly be in line with the content of the declaration

**LINK**

[kc]

I don't often agree with Erfolg ( we usually just agree to disagree! ) but I thought his comments this week were just right. We fixed wing flyers fear that drones and partiicularly FPV might lose us all the right to fly models.

However FPV drones did get a positive report on news programmes this week when Sky ( I think ) showed film of drones flying in and out of derelict building windows etc in an organised contest somewhere on the South Coast. Positive PR I thought.

[Don Fry]

I would not be too comfortable about the differences between various types of the toy we fly. Perhaps the real difference was that at one time it was very difficult to get anything to to raise off the ground, and go home with the creation in one piece. Today we can keep throwing money at the problem, it is not the vale of tears and frustration it once was. But make no bones about it, politicians do not differentiate between toys. Can you not see a piece of legislation which starts " approved flying sites". Don't get complacent, we are a very small minority.

The Olympic standard pistol shooters thought they were the good guys. Bye bye

Fox hunting, lots of others got hurt in trying to ban that.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

A $1million dollar competition - but of course that doesn't feature does it.

Current world market $2.5biliion per year - and all the jobs associated with that. That doesn't make the cut either.

The professional drone market growing at a staggering 800% in 2013. Nope no sign of that in "panic, shock horror" brigade's tale of doom.

70,000 new jobs created by the drone industry in the US alone over a three year period. That doesn't get a mention either.

And what about all the positive use stories:

Mountain rescue

Flood rescue

Fire Fighting

Delivery of medicines to remote regions

Energy and other utilities

Food production

Personal security

I could go on - they are just few from a quick search. Oh I'm sure you can find negative ones too - you'll probably find them even easier - bit that's kind of my point. You'll find them easier not because there is more of them - no. You'll find them because every sensationalist journalist in Christendom (and beyond) will have posted his "shock - horror - another nasty drone" story. And people lap it up - like mother's milk!

Guys this is happening in our technological back yard - it is our technology! Its potentially the biggest social technological revolution since the invention of the PC. We are in a unique position with regard to this technology - it grew out of what we do.

And what are we actually doing?

Well, its seems to me that too many of us are: Snivelling in the corner. Demanding legislation. Wanting them "uninvented". Banned. Actively promoting every negative story we can find in the press in threads like this. Then dissecting it and morbidly gloating over it, speculating on pointless "doom and gloom" scenarios. Exactly what the manipulative gutter press want you to do. Instead we should be celebrating the achievements of this technology, the fact that it grew out of what we do and has the potential to change the world; in many cases very much for the better.

It's disappointing. Unimaginative, closed minded and very disappointing. We are supposed to be the techo-nerds - what's happened to our sense of adventure? Our excitement at new technology? Our spirit of techno-exploration? Is this the attitude that pioneered radio control of model aircraft? I don't think so.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 21/07/2015 21:01:07