Dave Hopkin Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Posted by Cuban8 on 02/08/2015 12:02:15: PV, I take your point about what people ought to know...............in my own club, I can think of half a dozen people who just inhabit their own little aeromodelling world and haven't got a clue as what's going on outside of it. I don't fly drones myself (have a little quad for a bit of fun) but I can understand how things can go wrong. Take a person who buys his drone, gets it home, sets it up and goes and flies it outside his house in the quiet road or cul-de-sac. Seems innocuous enough to our new drone pilot, but as far as I understand it might contravene the rules. What about if he took it over the park and as he's flying it, a few curious onlookers approach and come within 50M of the model? Is that illegal? The CAA's advice seems to be unclear according to what is allowed when a camera is fitted or not. Only it wasnt a "drone" if was a fixed wing FPV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 but how can the bmfa help-if what he was doing was against the law? etc. ken anderson...ne...1 grey area dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eejit severn Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 It makes no difference if it was a wing as opposed to a Multirotor, if a craft is fitted with a camera capable of collecting data it is considered a UAV. There is a thread including participation by the perp, that outlines how things happened from his POV. It can only be taken at face value, your opinion is of course your own... It seems he was flying LOS (NOT FPV), lost orientation and control and the wing went off on it's own into the base. AFAIK, there was no "quiet word" attempted from the CAA, it was "straight to jail do not pass go" What I took from reading the whole thread at the time was the single thing that landed this guy in trouble was that either he did not set a throttle fail safe or he did not check it worked before the fateful flight, something I can personally attest almost no-one at the clubs I fly at does each flight, so people in glass houses.............. The media love to sensationalise, and many of the stories about this incident included pics of multirotors, I consider this professional incompetence on the part of the journos but hey, why would a detail like that worry them? The UK is the most observed (by CCTV) country in the world and "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" doesn't quite feel so smug self comforting when you have a drone filming you through your bedroom window does it? The problem may be that the prevalence of video recording devices in the modern world means that law enforcement and government can't have it all their own, sometimes fictitious way. I do wonder if a certain amount of anti-drone law is about preventing the public from possessing tech with which they can not only prove their innocence but possibly prove the guilt of government/law enforcement...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Here we go again: **LINK** It really can't be much too longer before an airliner is bought down through this sort of idiotic behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott cuppello Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 A bird strike is far, far, far more likely and a lot of these alleged incidents have either proven to be false or have never been substantiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill_B Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Scott, bird strikes are a daily occurance worldwide and are an act of nature, however, engine manufactures are still required to certify their engines to withstand a certain amount of damage as a result. Without going over old ground ad nauseum, drones are a different kettle of fish. Any sized drone in the vicinity of a live airfield is a risk which is unacceptable and IMHO, unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eflightray Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Posted by eejit severn on 02/08/2015 18:33:17: It makes no difference if it was a wing as opposed to a Multirotor, if a craft is fitted with a camera capable of collecting data it is considered a UAV. ................................... So an RC car, boat, robot, whatever, as long as it doesn't fly can be fitted with a camera and is perfectly legal ? Same as a car with dash-cam, cyclist with a Go-Pro, etc etc, all legal, ....... until you go too fast over a humpback bridge, then the CAA will have you in jail before the wheels touch back down, (Ok so you would have to be going pretty fast at that humpback bridge We are not being picked on, we are not being picked on, (keep repeating ...... ) Edited By eflightray on 21/09/2015 20:26:06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Isn't the clue in the name - Civil Aviation Authority? Cars, boats and robots (provided they don't fly) don't fall within their jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 22, 2015 Author Share Posted September 22, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Posted by eejit severn on 02/08/2015 18:33:17: It makes no difference if it was a wing as opposed to a Multirotor, if a craft is fitted with a camera capable of collecting data it is considered a UAV. That's not quite correct. The definition for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or a Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) is for the vehicle to be remotely piloted without a pilot on board. There does not have to be a camera on board. The whole point of prosecution is for safety reasons so you do not injure or kill people rather than be able to fight the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Just to be absolutely accurate - it doesn't have to be a camera to be classed as a Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft, the rules are not specific they basically say "any data gathering device". The terminology is potentially very confusing. But here goes: RPAS or UAV - generic term, any aircraft remotely piloted, with or without a camera of any other data gathering device. SUA - tends to mean an RPAS or UAV without a data gathering device. This is not a hard and fast rule - but it seems to be CAA usage as this is the definition used by them in section 1 of the application for a PFAW. SUSA - a UAV/RPAS with a data gathering device - e.g. a camera, gas detector, temperature sensor, LIDAR etc., etc. DRONE - a total vague, non-technical and rather unflattering term used by the media who are too lazy to learn the correct terminology. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Actually, thinking further, it may even possible to make a distinction between UAV and RPAS. Technically a UAV does not have to piloted at all! All those free-flighters in the BMFA are operating UAVs? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 22, 2015 Author Share Posted September 22, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott cuppello Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Posted by Bill_B on 21/09/2015 19:49:28: Scott, bird strikes are a daily occurance worldwide and are an act of nature, however, engine manufactures are still required to certify their engines to withstand a certain amount of damage as a result. Without going over old ground ad nauseum, drones are a different kettle of fish. Any sized drone in the vicinity of a live airfield is a risk which is unacceptable and IMHO, unnecessary. I have flown around airfields plenty of times (with permission) with a "drone".....but then I have flown lot's within active airfields with an RC model aircraft as well.....I am sure there are lot's of RC clubs who would take issue with the idea of them being classed as an "unacceptable risk". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flyer Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I think the problem is not so much as the term 'drone', but the lack of sensible use by the person operating. I would suggest that the majority of people purchasing the 'drones' do not realise that they need to confirm with the regulations put in place by the CAA. I think we are all worried that model flying may inadvertently fall under increased legislation (as per gun clubs etc) by the inconsiderate use by people who fly these things inappropriately. The end users need to be brought into clubs etc to ensure that they are aware of the operating regulations. There is a place for all model aircraft (including drones), as long as they are used responsibly. In that sense, there are many club flyers who need to revise the BMFA handbook !!! as even a small trainer could cause a lot of damage. If people are aware of their responsibilities, and they chose to ignore them, then by all means throw the book at them. Just my two pennarth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Done some flying at Finningley when it was active, all manner of models flown, no model was ever a problem. The occasional pilot was John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott cuppello Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Posted by Flyer on 22/09/2015 13:52:17: I think the problem is not so much as the term 'drone', but the lack of sensible use by the person operating. I would suggest that the majority of people purchasing the 'drones' do not realise that they need to confirm with the regulations put in place by the CAA. I think we are all worried that model flying may inadvertently fall under increased legislation (as per gun clubs etc) by the inconsiderate use by people who fly these things inappropriately. The end users need to be brought into clubs etc to ensure that they are aware of the operating regulations. There is a place for all model aircraft (including drones), as long as they are used responsibly. In that sense, there are many club flyers who need to revise the BMFA handbook !!! as even a small trainer could cause a lot of damage. If people are aware of their responsibilities, and they chose to ignore them, then by all means throw the book at them. Just my two pennarth. I think you will find it is the minority.....not the majority. As for traditional flying clubs, some are clearly hostile and the truth is, FPV racing aside, your average model aircraft club has nothing to offer the average "drone" flyer. Edited By scott cuppello on 22/09/2015 17:39:16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Best give our Drone flyers their money back then, I reckon we're pretty much an average club John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott cuppello Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Assuming by "drone" the reference is camera platforms.......well if taking video's of the same field every time you fly is your bag, fair enough, it's a free country! Something tells me the majority wouldn't be so keen.....this highlights the problem of the common use of the word "drone" and the generalisations associated with it, the genre is more sophisticated than it's given credit for, to me a drone is something capable of autonomous flight, that could be fixed wing or Multi-rotor. When somebody uses the term "drone", what are they actually talking about? FPV platforms, FPV racers, video and photography platforms, acro & 3D Multi-Rotors?......all quite different, some really well suited to clubs....some really not. Edited By scott cuppello on 22/09/2015 18:22:46 Edited By scott cuppello on 22/09/2015 18:24:20 Edited By scott cuppello on 22/09/2015 18:27:34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 The comment "the average model flying club has nothing to offer" is as ridiculous as tarring every drone flyer with the same brush, I can't comment on other Drone flyers but the ones at our club seem to have more in their bags than just videoing the field. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott cuppello Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Almost as ridiculous as jumping to conclusions when somebody is trying to make a subtle point that generalisations are not helping and this thread is full of generalisations. Edited By scott cuppello on 22/09/2015 19:06:41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eflightray Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 It would seem the Cambridge News hasn't heard about drone regulations -- **LINK** 'Amazing footage gives birds eye view of Cambridge's incredible beauty' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 i would have thought a" flying club"....would offer the 'drone' flyer the facility to operate his machine...ie take off/land and fly in the clubs bit of sky? ...... so saying nothing to offer is a wrong statement.... ken anderson...ne...1 ....... club faciilty dept. 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.