Irresponsible ' drone' retailers

[DCW]

As with any model aircraft the irresponsible use of 'drones' can a problem. A problem in that unlike seasoned aeromodellers who would almost always have third party insurance, fly responsibly and probably belong to a model flying club or association, any member of the public can just buy one and 'go fly in the park'. As a retailer myself, I believe that it is the responsibility of the shop to ensure that the would be flyer is acquainted with the laws and rules governing model flying, recommend that the purchaser obtains third party insurance, be issued with a copy of the CAA's CAP658 publication or better still join a model club and of course sign up to 'Model Flying'.

To this end maybe all retailers who sell ARTF aircraft in whatever form above a certain weight or size should be licensed by the CAA to do so. This then would prevent irresponsible retailers who do not provide warnings and safety advice to purchasers from selling such devices.

Please check the websites, adverts and if possible check in the stores especially belonging to the larger retailers if the appropriate advice is given, a bit like a 'mystery shopper'.

It would be much appreciated if the only replies to this thread is factual information of the experiences obtained from a visit to a drone retailer either in-store or on-line.

Many thanks

David

[stu knowles]

Really ????   Do you live next door to a woman who had a model crash into her wall by any chance?

Edited By stu knowles on 16/04/2017 22:42:15

[Guvnor]

1) Do you seriously think the CAA have got the time, the money, the staff, or the will to start 'licensing'retailers?

2) What do you propose doing about the people who a) build their own drone or b) buy from abroad...??

Is it April 1st still...??

[Jon H]

I do think something like this is a good idea but how to implement it is another matter as many retailers (like maplin) will not have experienced sales people selling these models. Perhaps they would have to go through special training as I used to years ago to sell fireworks, but just like fireworks, after its sold there is little that can be done to stop those intent on flying as they please. It would probably reduce the number of accidental infractions by people who just simply don't know any better.

Also guys don't jump down his throat. To me its a logical and reasonable thing to consider and discuss. The sale of certain items are already controlled in certain ways. Most of the issues are caused by off the shelf drones and not diy jobs so builders are not likely to be effected. As for imports, if its that much hassle will the average person bother? unlikely

Edited By Jon Harper - Laser Engines on 16/04/2017 23:06:18

[Phil 9]

Posted by DCW on 16/04/2017 22:20:17:

As with any model aircraft the irresponsible use of 'drones' can a problem. A problem in that unlike seasoned aeromodellers who would almost always have third party insurance, fly responsibly and probably belong to a model flying club or association, any member of the public can just buy one and 'go fly in the park'.

Why single out drones

I bought my first model ( a large electric glider) from a model shop many moons ago. I took it to a park and flew it. the shop did not mention to me anything about insurance or club membership. I lived very near to a club site that I did not know existed until much later.

club membership or insurance are not a requirement to fly such a model. Without any specific knowledge I did however realise that if I caused any damage or injury I could be liable. But that would have been the case if I had bought a bicycle or a sling shot

[iqon]

I don't think it is the retailers responsibility. Why single out model aircraft.

[Bucksboy]

But at the very least they should point out that there are some laws that apply to the drone they sell. Thats the difference and why model aircraft are singled out. Most of what shops sell are not covered by specific laws about their use. You can buy an axe from both Argos and John Lewis but there is not a specific law about it's use after you leave the shop. Both shops are selling the DJI Mavic, both have the same sales information about how far and high it can fly. Only John Lewis point out the 120m height and line of sight restriction and point you in the direction of the Drone Code. There is nothing mentioned at all by Argos.

I agree that both sell many things that can be misused after being sold but at least point out to people that there are restrictions and where to look for them.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[cymaz]

DCW, I understand your argument.

No one polices' the lay-by car sales you see almost everywhere. It is the owners responsibility to make sure everything is legal/lawful. There are millions of cars on the road and nothing is done to police those sales. What chance has Rc flying got?.....none.

I heard a news piece on Radio 4 early this morning that measures will be put in place to stop drones ( read quadcopters I bet) being flown into prisons.

[cymaz]

Posted by Steve J on 17/04/2017 06:56:26:

This is discussed in section 5 of the DfT consultation document.

**LINK**

Note the definition of 'drone' in section 1.1.

Steve

Then it carries on assuming a drone is a quadcopter/ multirotor platform

[Glyn44]

A further problem with such a scheme would be the second hand market. Original purchaser could resell, for whatever reason, to his neighbour, friend, or the bloke down the pub, no paperwork involved. So yes very complicated idea to administer.

[John F]

I think it is important to understand though that a "drone" is any model aircraft. Every single thing we fly is a drone.

Any model aircraft is capable of being flown irresponsibly and by definition if you're going to insist upon some kind of registration, whether it be sellers or individuals there are a few major hurdles - the amount of sellers is enormous!

From the chap on eBay who sells thousands imported from China to the LMS who sells one a month the number of sellers is almost impossible to gauge.

Registration offers a few options, it could be voluntary and therefore a useless exercise right from the off or it could be mandatory which is, arguably, also useless as there is no way to enforce it without the law to back it up.

Insurance is not mandatory and, again, enforcing insurance would be next to impossible unless you targeted the sellers, of which is almost impossible due to the different types of sellers and worldwide locations.

As others have pointed out the fact that the CAA governs all aviation, and model flying is a tiny aspect, to propose their involvement would necessitate some kind of CAA restructuring, which I would imagine they would be hostile to do.

The other aspect is why ARTF's? A "drone" is any model aircraft and therefore whether it be ARTF, kit form or from a collection of bits of wood from your garage they are all capable of being flown in a manner that could give rise for concern.

It is an admirable aim but I think it is like the Star Trek utopia where everyone works, unpaid, for the betterment of mankind; unlikely.

Rather than target sellers or make mandatory insurance without the staffing or resources to ensure that it is policed the best way is education. Getting the message out to manufacturers, model shops etc to include a leaflet, for example, in every order that describes safe flying and website info etc.

But, lets be realistic here. Many of the people who fly irresponsibly almost certainly know that what they are doing is irresponsible already, they just don't care!  My stepson has a land agency business and he asked me to teach him to fly his MR for aerial shots of land.  He had crashed two MR's in the car park already. 

I mentioned that he must not fly near buildings or property and he must have insurance etc, he simply stated he didn't care; he just wanted to learn to fly his MR!

Well, apart from the chap who wanted to fly a MR through the Natural History Museum in London; he was completely clueless!

**LINK**

Edited By John F on 17/04/2017 08:04:51

[Phil 9]

 

Posted by Bucksboy on 17/04/2017 04:46:49:

But at the very least they should point out that there are some laws that apply to the drone they sell. Thats the difference and why model aircraft are singled out. Most of what shops sell are not covered by specific laws about their use. You can buy an axe from both Argos and John Lewis but there is not a specific law about it's use after you leave the shop. Both shops are selling the DJI Mavic, both have the same sales information about how far and high it can fly. Only John Lewis point out the 120m height and line of sight restriction and point you in the direction of the Drone Code. There is nothing mentioned at all by Argos.

I agree that both sell many things that can be misused after being sold but at least point out to people that there are restrictions and where to look for them.

Is there really some laws that specifically apply to the use of drones of just guidelines derived from aviation law?

even if that is the case there are many examples of products that are governed by law but it is always up to the user to know and comply with the law. The only time I see sales restricted by a retailer is when the law sates an offence is committed by the retailer itself rather than any potential offence that the customer may commit either intentionally or through ignorance. ie if a product can not be sold to under 18's (if you buy online this is done by ticking a box to confirm you are over 18)

As most have said it is a nice idea but it is extremely difficult to enforce . A lot of artf models I buy have some sort of warning about correct use within the instructions. I think in reality that is the best we can hope for

Edited By Phil 9 on 17/04/2017 08:23:36

[Devcon1]

I agree any form of registration would not result in every UAV flyer being recorded but like many other laws it enables a mechanism for prosecution/enforcement in the event of any incident, as in the case of the what I assume to be an accurate statement "ignorance is no defence"

[ChrisB]

Haven't we been here, done this and worn out several t-shirts in the process...

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[alan p]

Agree with ChrisB lets not have all the angst again. Put the tee shirts back in the draw, some one is just fishing for a bite and caught some fish.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

They had drugs etc getting into prisons before drones came on the scene, they have alcohol laws, hows that working out, they have driving laws, they're never broken ? Seems to be lots of regulation and education going on though..conclusion ? there are some idiots about and it's a difficult problem.

Yep lets cocoon ourselves and leave others to educate, not as if we'll cop for any fallout is it. Drone friendly club ours, i suspect the majority are.

Fishing trip ? well i hope you've bought a license

John....gonna need a bigger boat.

[Bob Burton]

Posted by Andrew Ray on 17/04/2017 10:08:16:

Posted by ChrisB on 17/04/2017 09:33:32:

Haven't we been here, done this and worn out several t-shirts in the process...

Yup, and I am even more of the opinion that we as model flyers need to distance ourselves from drones.

Any RC model aircraft is a "drone" in some sense

[Basa]

There is a lot of second hand 'drones' helicopters and aircraft being sold on the market , I recently sold a multi rotor and a helicopter from a car boot sale and both customers wanted them for presents to pass on . How would any future regulation or even safety advise work in these circumstances ? The problem is that to many people they are just toys and why would they have even heard of insurance or of BMFA , CAA or RCM&E .

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Bob Burton on 17/04/2017 12:20:04:

Posted by Andrew Ray on 17/04/2017 10:08:16:

Posted by ChrisB on 17/04/2017 09:33:32:

Haven't we been here, done this and worn out several t-shirts in the process...

Yup, and I am even more of the opinion that we as model flyers need to distance ourselves from drones.

Any RC model aircraft is a "drone" in some sense

I have mixed feelings on this topic and no glib answers come to mind. There are two main schools of thought...embrace them or distance ourselves from them. I can see arguments for either so I suppose I'm in a third school...tolerate them.

When I meet people I haven't seen for a while, it's noticeable that almost without fail they bring up the subject of "drones" and ask if I have any interest in them. They don't mean conventional models - they know my interest in model aircraft, it's clear they are referring to multicopters and they either have one or are close to someone who has bought one. This suggests to me that the general public are well aware that they are not mainstream models and would accept them as a separate interest.

Is it in our interest to distance ourselves from hobby and surveillance drones?

We don't exclude either at our club but I don't think the argument that encouraging them will attract newcomers to our hobby with the advantage of imbibing in them a responsible attitude to operating SUAS devices holds much water. There is simply no interest from the average member of the public in operating a drone in a rural field - they want pictures of their neighbourhood or "interesting" places.

Drone racing is the fly in the ointment of the "ban 'em" brigade - this is a legitimate sporting interest, well suited to a club environment and requiring flying skills - utilising FPV SUAS technology in a very useful way.

There's no way that the genie will get back into the bottle - the problem is here to stay and how we, as a hobby, handle the situation may have a significant impact on our future well-being. The various representative bodies have a huge responsibility and we need to support/cajole them whenever and however possible.

Edited By Martin Harris on 17/04/2017 14:15:48

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Piers Bowlan]

Excellent post Martin, as usual. The problem is the camera or should I say, SUAS, whether a MR, helicopter or or fixed wing model aircraft. Would consumer MRs have sold in the prodigious numbers they have were it not for the on board video camera and the ability to take 'awesome' aerial footage in 'amazing' locations and post it online. A gyro stabilised aerial camera platform that anyone can fly without training or a licence. Yes, it is too good to be true which is why there are incidents. Ownership without responsibility can be a recipe for illegal operation above crowds and near buildings or structures. Model aircraft owners needs are entirely different, craving wide open spaces devoid of people and obstructions that pose a collision risk to their precious model. Model aircraft/MRs, might both be UAVs but the mind set of the two groups that use them is entirely different.

I took my son to Park Cameras in Burgess Hill at the weekend. Now my son is passionate about all things photographic and on entering the shop we were treated by an impressive array of prosumer dgi 'drones'. He has no interest in flying in general or or model aircraft in particular but the photographic opportunities that these MRs offer was not lost on him. I picked up the DGI promotional leaflet and there was no mention of the ANO or any advice of where the device could be operated legally in the UK or links that might assist responsible use. It is not down to the retailers to educate in my view but I think that all manufacturers should be required to enclose a leaflet produced by the CAA simply stating what the rules are. It won't affect personal imports or stop people willfully breaking the rules but it is a good starting point, - rather like a packet of fags having a health warning on it! I can't see why MR owners would want to join a model flying club (although some do) because generally they are not interested in model aircraft but photography. I am not anti M/R, in fact I have collected enough bits to build a hexacopter (sometime) but I do think it a shame that the model flying fraternity have been lumped together with the drone flying brigade by classifying both aircraft as UAVs. This to me seems a bit random as I feel different rules should apply if the aircraft carries a camera. The likely outcome is that our whimsical hobby will become bogged down in layers of EASA red tape which will do nothing to reduce incidents or improve safety.

[John Privett]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 17/04/2017 18:44:40:

...but I do think it a shame that the model flying fraternity have been lumped together with the drone flying brigade by classifying both aircraft as UAVs. This to me seems a bit random as I feel different rules should apply if the aircraft carries a camera.

Piers - different laws do already apply if the aircraft carries a camera. See the text of ANO Article 95;

(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the
aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in
accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.

(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:

(a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;

(b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than
1,000 persons;

(c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the
control of the person in charge of the aircraft;
or
(d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned
surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.

(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small
unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in
charge of the aircraft.

(5) In this article 'a small unmanned surveillance aircraft' means a small unmanned
aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data
acquisition.

The above - and particularly 2(c) and (d) and 3 would appear to me to make most "drone" flying in a lot of public places difficult to achieve legally.

Edited By John Privett on 17/04/2017 19:20:04