Andrew Russell 2 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Hi guys I thought i would just air some frustration about a maplin store. They have been flying quad copters in the car park of the retail centre where they are based in the middle of a very busy town some times within feet of people and cars. Its been going on for the past year and despite promises from maplin head office that the practice would stop they have been spotted doing it again at the weekend. It has been reported to the bmaa and caa but nobody seems to care.... Is it a double standard for large companies and model flyers? I'm geussing if a member of the public reported me for repeatedly flying like that i would at the very least be getting a stern talking to from the caa. I can only see this practice taring the rest of us with a bad name when the inevitable happens and it hits a car or a person. See the attached video for some of the photos and videos members of the local model flying club have taken. ahh that's better rant over for the day. Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Perhaps if Maplin were to read the complaint as "Staff giving Maplin a bad name" their PR might take more interest. Perhaps it would be worth giving the local paper a 'free story' and and opportunity to educate the public. Also an opportunity to publicly distance ourselves from such iresponsible action. I am no rule book evangelist but that is a sizeable quad to be flying in an RF confused environment. Edited By Kevin Wilson on 25/11/2015 10:59:01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon barr Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 That's not good, especially when the battery falls out during flight...! If that had become detached and fallen on somebody...!! Did anybody challenge him about what he was doing? Edited By simon barr on 25/11/2015 11:24:08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John F Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 It's advertising. I am not sure how it gives multirotors a bad name though. I am not pro Maplins - before I get a good old tarring with a large brush, but I don't think that the company has any more influence other than a strongly worded email. In order to get folk in the doors the best way is to show folk what you've got. Seeing a multirotor flying around a car park does that. Unless the CAA gets involved directly with that store there will probably only be lip service applied to the regs. Having said that, in Milton Keynes shopping centre there is a stall with multirotors there being flown just, at times, inches away from people!! At any one point there's probably twenty to thirty people walking past within a couple of feet of a guy showing how he can make it do flips! We might know the rules and regs but, in general, folk don't and are not immediately interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McIntosh Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Whilst I don't agree with it. Walk into any of the MenKind, Boys Toys, type stores(We have several different ones here at the Metro Centre) and you will see staff flying the small helicopters. Granted they are only small but how big to they have to be to cause personal injury. At least this guy is outside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engine Doctor Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 E-mail it to the CEO of Maplins ; Mr Oliver Meakin at [email protected] and cc it your MP and the CAA . It should then get the appropriate attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Best way forward seems to be to report it to the Police. The CAA don't have the resources to deal with this and I believe the system now in place is that above 400 ft the CAA get involved and below that it's the Police who do the enforcement. Question is, is it true and will the Police respond to a complaint especially of continuing breach of the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Trouble is, while we may see the dangers in the situation, does Joe Public? While there are specific limitations applying to FPV and data gathering SUAs, if these quads are being flown as simple small unmanned aircraft then unless an accident occurs then I would suggest that the police would be unlikely to take the lead on something subjective. Of course, articles 138 and 166 of the ANO will apply, but unless something goes wrong, the operator can argue that the flight was considered safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Posted by Engine Doctor on 25/11/2015 11:48:33: E-mail it to the CEO of Maplins ; Mr Oliver Meakin at [email protected] and cc it your MP and the CAA . It should then get the appropriate attention. ............................................................................................................................ waste no time and do as engine doctor has said...if not he'll do some damage to someone/thing.. ken anderson...ne...1........ tell maplin dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I don't think there is anything truely subjective here. Its a Phantom - so it has a camera. Turned on or not it still falls under 166 and 167 as it is a SUSA. The list of regs he's breaking is impressive: Failure to be reasonably sure the flight can be completed safely (ANO 166). No reasonable person could describe that flight in those terms. Congested area, no observer etc. etc. Flying within 50m of structures etc. over which he does not have control. (ANO 167) And possibly even, undertaking a flight for the purposes of valuable consideration without a Permit for Aerial Work. (ANO 167) And caught on film doing all that! Actually putting it on YouTube with the CAA's name attached is a smart move - the CAA do monitor YouTube for instances of breaches so its quite likely they will come across it. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge here BEB - I didn't realise it was camera equipped! (and please don't think I condone this operation in any way - just pointing out that the Police would be unlikely to want to get involved unless an accident had occurred if there was no specific measurable offence committed.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Posted by Martin Harris on 25/11/2015 15:13:15: I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge here BEB - I didn't realise it was camera equipped! (and please don't think I condone this operation in any way - just pointing out that the Police would be unlikely to want to get involved unless an accident had occurred if there was no specific measurable offence committed.) There have been several cases recently where no specific accidents occurred yet the Police took action and secured a conviction of breaches of the ANO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Jones Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 This is why we have to be burdoned by legislation that reasonable and sensible don't need. Time it was enforced, especially in the light of the alleged promises from Maplin head office. I shop at Maplin from time to time, well I did. This thoughtless and stupid behaviour will probably change that. Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Posted by Dave Hopkin on 25/11/2015 17:14:00: Posted by Martin Harris on 25/11/2015 15:13:15: I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge here BEB - I didn't realise it was camera equipped! (and please don't think I condone this operation in any way - just pointing out that the Police would be unlikely to want to get involved unless an accident had occurred if there was no specific measurable offence committed.) There have been several cases recently where no specific accidents occurred yet the Police took action and secured a conviction of breaches of the ANO Just to clarify Dave - the specific distances etc. apply to SUSAs and FPVs not "normal" RC models where the requirements are for the operator to have satisfied himself that he can complete the flight safely (very subjective where no incident has occurred)...I was under the impression that the quad being flown in the car park was not camera equipped. I believe the prosecutions were for those types covered by the SUSA/FPV legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevejet66 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 I dont think anyone realises what can really happen if things go wrong. **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Posted by Martin Harris on 25/11/2015 17:55:56: Posted by Dave Hopkin on 25/11/2015 17:14:00: Posted by Martin Harris on 25/11/2015 15:13:15: I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge here BEB - I didn't realise it was camera equipped! (and please don't think I condone this operation in any way - just pointing out that the Police would be unlikely to want to get involved unless an accident had occurred if there was no specific measurable offence committed.) There have been several cases recently where no specific accidents occurred yet the Police took action and secured a conviction of breaches of the ANO Just to clarify Dave - the specific distances etc. apply to SUSAs and FPVs not "normal" RC models where the requirements are for the operator to have satisfied himself that he can complete the flight safely (very subjective where no incident has occurred)...I was under the impression that the quad being flown in the car park was not camera equipped. I believe the prosecutions were for those types covered by the SUSA/FPV legislation? I was thinking of the numptie that flew an FPV Fixed Wing very low over a road bridge then crashed into the Nuclear Submarine Yards at Barrow - No damage was inflicted but of course flying into a area covered by nuclear authorities causes an instant sense of Humour failure..... Also the very recent prosecution of the guy from Nottingham who overflew football grounds in Manchester and Derby and did some filming in central London But as you say both of these would qualify as SUSA/FPV Though no doubt they could also be done under the catch all criteria of Article 166.2 (Line of Sight) rules anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Well, it simply proves that you can legislate until you're blue in the face, put into place training/safety awareness/rules and regs etc but sadly, foolishness will often prevail. The accident with the little boy losing an eye is heartbreaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 circa 2006...i had to go to the local A/E with my dad.....on christmas day.....time we were waiting there- several kids comming in with nasty injuries to arms legs etc...i asked on of the nurses what was wrong with one of them and she told me that christmas day was a nightmare...parents buying kids mini motor cycles .....one had gone straight down the garden path...couldn't stop and hit the gate...part of the handle bar/brake had gone through his calf ...so moving on to today's times...we may see a few injuries from the current craze for the quadcopter's....as we all know ...most get them out the box put in the batteries and bingo...... ken anderson...ne...1 christmas dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Several years ago small IR heli's were all the craze, some of which could be paired and used for dog fighting type games. Now it seems to be quadcopters. If I were to see someone in a shop flying one I'd have no hesitation in telling them exactly where they are going wrong and if met with the inevitable "I just work here" type reply then id play hell there and then and report them. The CAA don't have the resources but the Police need to be careful as if a bobby were to interfere with the pilot, who may have control of the aircraft and as a result of the officer snatching the TX away the aircraft crashes then that officer would have broken the law. Much better for the aircraft to be in control with no accident but be in breach of the law than be uncontrolled, an accident occur and be in breach of the law. Maplins should get a formal warning from the CAA and be monitored. Out of interest does/has/will the BMFA be introducing some sort of scheme which informs retailers such as Maplins, BHS, Debenhams, Menkind, The Gadget shop etc etc, perhaps by a publication, leaflet, email etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Obviously the CAA have produced the 'drone code' and although it has been published and somewhat advertised through press reports have there been any active communications with retailers? The CAA is seen as very high level. Perhaps the BMFA and us as its members should be more proactive in spreading the word. Like Percy says we have a responsibility as it could quite easily come back on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Gorham_ Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Interesting debate, but I fail to see why the BMFA should have to spread the word to prevent air law or codes being breached. The CAA have taken a pretty active stance on things so far and I have read articles in newspapers and bbc website etc giving a "how to operate a drone and be legal" type guide, so the message is getting there. I really don't think the BMFA's resources should be used in engaging with retailers to try and get John Q Public to obey the law. I would contend that the prosecutions carried out so far and the media reports of personal injuries have probably started to spread the message quite widely. 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.