Drones Again........

[kevin b]

Posted by ken anderson. on 05/10/2015 10:05:14:

looks like these lads are determined to stop him connecting his drone/lipo's and taking off..taking the law into their own hands etc..........cant really condone it myself.... .... sorry mod's.

 

 

ken anderson...ne...1 stop the drone dept.

We can tell where the photo is taken by the fact that the FAA enforcement officer is brandishing a weapon (hard to know if it is fully automatic, or pump action).

 

This seems to have moved posts as well !

Edited By kevin b on 29/01/2016 18:04:35

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Erfolg on 29/01/2016 17:48:11:

I do have reservations with respect to the BMFA representing both drone, the fixed wing, hot air balloons and helicopter operators.

Can they represent fairly, without compromising one sections interests relative to another, under these circumstances?

The law does not differentiate between powered models they are all treated the same be they fixed wing, rotary wing or multirotor - any segregation between the classes is restricted to us within the hobby, so for the BMFA to stop representing any one segment of the hobby would be illogical and counter-productive

[GONZO]

To quote an in famous politician "we're all in this together"

[Erfolg]

Who would be happy to see additional constraints on say fixed wing models, given that within the existing regulations, the operators are no only compliant, but ensure that issues are avoided. Then in comparison there is a group which both ignores regulations, and from have a track record of perhaps being irresponsible. Would you be happy for all the groups being required to pay for say registration?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

We have a gentleman flys at our club, flys fixed wing, gliders, helis, fpv, multis, he's one of best members we have, he's also a paid up member of the BMFA and has been for 10 years, for some reason he buys fpv insurance as well, I would rather jack the hobby in than try to disassociate myself from the likes of him, the morons on you tube etc are an entirely different thing, The BMFA knows that.

John

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Erfolg on 29/01/2016 20:49:20:

Who would be happy to see additional constraints on say fixed wing models, given that within the existing regulations, the operators are no only compliant, but ensure that issues are avoided. Then in comparison there is a group which both ignores regulations, and from have a track record of perhaps being irresponsible. Would you be happy for all the groups being required to pay for say registration?

I dont particularly want additional controls, but if the government bring in registration or anything else, it will be for ALL UAV regardless of type - whether the BMFA include MR or not wont make the slightest difference at all

[Geoff S]

Posted by kevin b on 29/01/2016 17:53:24:

There will be a way. TV license detecting works and there are a lot more tvs than RC receivers out there !

Edited By kevin b on 29/01/2016 17:56:08

I'm afraid it doesn't in any significant way. It's easy to detect if a TV receiver is being operating in premises but not if that receiver is being used by anyone holding a TV licence.

Over the whole of the 49 years of our married life we've been pestered by the TV licencing authorities, including threatening ones, because we didn't have a licence. They assume every address should have a licence and if you haven't they think you're cheating. That wouldn't work with FPV equipment.

Geoff

[Bravo Delta]

How practical would a specific 'UAV' registration system be to administer ? Multiple models owned by a single person , and the ability to swap parts around and within a short time and have a different 'UAV' would entail quite an admin burden

Perhaps a little more practical would be registration of the owner, and an obligation to have an identifying mark somewhere on aircraft flown by that person . Compulsory Insurance for the owner etc. No purchasing 'UAV's without proof of registration / Insurance .

Not that I am particularly in favor of a compulsory registration system, seems there are already Laws covering misuse of 'UAV's

Are birds going to have to be registered too ? seems bird strikes are an ever present danger but I guess registration of Birds ain't going to happen.

Another big issue in Aircraft safety is the deliberate and malicious use of Lasers to blind/dazzle Pilots . This is a major issue and we don't seem to  hear a great deal about this , perhaps for good reason , don't want to give idiots ideas .

Edited By Bravo Delta on 30/01/2016 00:14:13

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Registering 'Drones' is going to be as effective as registering dogs (dangerous breeds or not) i.e quite useless IMHO. Idiots are idiots, and they'll break the law or ignore regulations - be that in connection with drones, dogs, mobile phones in cars or anything else for that matter as their mindset is one of "don't tell me what to do, I'll do what I like and the law can go to hell".

Take littering as an example. Millions of pounds have been spent on educating the public over dropping litter and much more in clearing it up, yet our streets (certainly in many town centres) remain filthy. Only a small minority are causing a national problem, but until the chance of a person being caught and fined for littering is so high as to be not worth the risk, then it will continue.

Similarly with Drones - a few idiots will continue to break the law and fly their machines close to airports or football grounds etc to get the YouTube shot they're after, as the chance of being caught is again, very small. I fear that the genie's out of the bottle with all this and although there are certain aspects of multirotor flying that do sit well with aeromodelling (I agree with Andrew Ray's sentiments) the publicity surrounding a few drone idiots and their antics will drag us down if we're not very careful.

 

 

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 30/01/2016 08:18:20

[Frank Skilbeck]

We seem to be missing the point sometimes and think all drones are quadcopters, the only "drone" that has been photo'd near a full size light aircraft was a flying wing drone, not the type you'd buy on the high street.

If it was a drone in a near miss with a full size at 4,000 ft it's almost certainly not a high street drone.

The authorities aren't going to distinguish between fixed wing, quad and off the shelf drones, would you rather one body representing us all or would we be better off if the CAA negotiated with various specialist interest bodies and then decided the one size fits all solution.

BTW isn't it about time that full size were fitted with "dashcams" so they can capture these near misses. A few years back when I flew Emirates they used to have live video feed from external cameras.

[John F]

Posted by Andrew Ray on 30/01/2016 05:51:48:

I just don't get why drones are coming under the BMFA, it's the British Model Flying Association. Yes drones fly and use a commonality of equipment but they do not fit the definition of a model. I can see that there are some modellers who will want to fly drones and drone racing could be fun but why on earth do we want to associate with something that is sold on the high street in such huge numbers that the BMFA does not stand a chance of administering? Is the BMFA going to be the responsible body for overseeing the commercial activity of drones used by film makers, photographers, surveyors and so on?

That is a red herring really. How does a multi rotor aircraft not fit into the description of a model? You build it, you fly it, you have fun. Is that not what we do?

Yes, multi rotors can be used in business for film makers and surveyors but so can fixed wing aircraft. One fixed wing predator style model was on Country file at the end of last year providing infra red and other wavelength images of farmers crops. Land surveying is starting to become popular. There is a whole business dedicated to Small Unmanned Aircraft surveying : **LINK**

Some of the aircraft mentioned in the PDF are multi rotor but some look like the aircraft that you would classify as models!

Just because a multi rotor does not look like anything that resembles a full scale aircraft doesn't mean that it deserves annexing from the hobby.

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Andrew Ray on 30/01/2016 05:51:48:

I just don't get why drones are coming under the BMFA, it's the British Model Flying Association. Yes drones fly and use a commonality of equipment but they do not fit the definition of a model. I can see that there are some modellers who will want to fly drones and drone racing could be fun but why on earth do we want to associate with something that is sold on the high street in such huge numbers that the BMFA does not stand a chance of administering? Is the BMFA going to be the responsible body for overseeing the commercial activity of drones used by film makers, photographers, surveyors and so on?

You also misunderstand the role of the BMFA - it is not a "governing body" and does not "take responsibility" for anyone at all - it is a representative body, a lobby group if you will, but it does not "own" or "control" model flying or have any legal authority to control model flying

The "governing body" is the Civil Aviation Authority, it is they that define the rules, yes the listen to the BMFA but they are only one of the many pressure groups competing to influence the CAA and for the BMFA to simply shrug its shoulders and say "They are just high st toys nothing to do with us" would significantly weaken the position of the BMFA in the eyes of the CAA, as the CAA seem to look to the BMFA as a source of expertise for dealing with the needs of model flying - if you favorite expert says "nothing to do with me guv" then you look for another expert!!!!

 

Edited By Dave Hopkin on 30/01/2016 09:13:44

[Erfolg]

It does seem that we all recognise that the seemingly never ending reports of incidents involving supposed drones (or what ever your particular preference) cannot be ignored by both the appropriate regulating bodies and Government. Doing so would inevitably lead to an outcry, together with other expressions of odium by some in the event of a collision of note.

There are presently many differences between both fixed wing and helicopter models as presently operated, in that there is a level of skill required to control the device and in the case of a fixed wing quite a large space to take of from or launch. Drones can be operated out of back gardens, from the edge of the road, in essence even a reasonably crowded space. Very many of them require no skill at all, open the throttle and up and away they can go. Many of them can be set up to undergo a predefined flight programme. These forms of operation are not the common form the way of operating either a plane or heli.

I can see that the BMFA likes to see itself as the representative of all model air sports (again you can have your own definition). To that extent, there are various groups and specific committees etc within our organisation, from BARCS, LMA and technical committees. In some respects the biggest group all fixed wing models is not specifically represented (other than specialist committees). My one big worry is in trying to represent all and be seen to allowing one group being needing additional constraints, that bulk of the membership finds itself being sold short.

Without siding with the authorities, it is apparent an issue with the operation of some drones. We can say that this is a small bunch of anti-social etc, the reality appears to be there is a problem. I had sincerely hoped that by the fuel of publicity and education, that the irresponsible behaviour would be consigned to recent history.

I truly believe that both helis and FW have a an outstanding record for sensible operation, I do not want our interests to be sacrificed on the alter of inclusiveness, seeing alternatives as discriminatory. In this case the discrimination is between responsible and in some cases irresponsibility.

 

Edited By Erfolg on 30/01/2016 10:11:42

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

It's not the machines that are at fault per se, so I think we should put aside the semantics of the word drone. it's the reckless few operating on their own and thumbing their noses at the regulations, thereby bringing everyone else into the firing line and hence us being required to justify our existence.

The ANO is robust enough as it is to deal with the bad guys and some heavy fines have been imposed on those who have been caught doing wrong. As with my point on litter, so is the case with drones  (of whatever configuration) - you can legislate, educate, bribe and cajole people into better ways and most reasonable people will respond positively. However, unless you can guarantee to catch those that persist in doing wrong and fine them very heavily, then a solution will not be forthcoming. Tying up the 'good guys' in additional red tape isn't an answer.

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 30/01/2016 10:38:32

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Andrew. How does a Wot 4 fit your definition of model?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 30/01/2016 10:39:35:
Andrew. How does a Wot 4 fit your definition of model?

Which is exactly why the CAA refer to "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" which include all types of flying craft be they scale or not, and any legislation that emanates from the CAA will affect all UAV regardless of how we feel about that

[Owdlad]

 

Posted by Andrew Ray on 30/01/2016 05:51:48:

Definition of a model: "A small object, usually built to scale, that represents in detail another, often larger object". Please explain how a drone fits this description? The definition is one of many slight variations found in dictionaries and on the internet.

 

I'm now confused by the above statement and now seek clarity

Does this mean all my aeroplanes are not models because they're not to scale and just sports aeroplanes (not derived of a full sized example) Does this mean I'm not a modeler as first envisaged?

Am I a member of the wrong association [bmfa]? So; which association do I now join?

Please advise

Yours in anticipation

Owdlad

 

Edited By Owdlad on 30/01/2016 10:53:11

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Andrew Ray on 30/01/2016 10:55:17:

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 30/01/2016 10:51:12:

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 30/01/2016 10:39:35:
Andrew. How does a Wot 4 fit your definition of model?

Which is exactly why the CAA refer to "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" which include all types of flying craft be they scale or not, and any legislation that emanates from the CAA will affect all UAV regardless of how we feel about that

Wrong, see my post above yours. The proposals state that any changes will not affect us.

Edited By Andrew Ray on 30/01/2016 10:56:20

I suggest you re-read the EASA Proposal....... there are three categories of Unmanned vehicles based on risk nowhere in the EASA proposal does it differentiate between vehicle types other than on mass

[Erfolg]

Suggesting that all UAV are all covered and will continue to be covered by the same regulations, although apparently is correct. It does disguise the relality of the situation.

There are even now distinctions made between various UAV. The ones that immediately come to mind are those, which are defined by weight, leading to a variety of requirements, with requirements  as varied as  inspection processes through to air traffic control requirements.

On that basis it would not be unique to have additional requirements that are particular to the control and operation of drones.

Then we are all aware of differing regulations on commercial drones

Categorisation already is here with us.

All of which convinces me that there is no need at a practical or moral level to adopt a one size fits all approach with respect to the various groups of UAV, however convenient. The interests of the law abiding FW and helicopter interests do need protecting.

Edited By Erfolg on 30/01/2016 11:30:33

[Fun Flyer]

The new regulations from the IAA, which are based on those of he EASA and the FAA, specifically state that;
" model aircraft and drones are both considered small unmanned aircraft and the same rules apply to their operation". This is the first time that that distinction has been made.

None of these regulation will have any effect on the activities of the uninformed or irresponsible flyers.