Irresponsible ' drone' retailers

[Guvnor]

Posted by John F on 19/04/2017 08:49:33:

ALL model aircraft are "drones". What you are referring to are Multi Rotor aircraft (MR).

People have been killed by fixed wing model aircraft quite a few times over the years, sadly. Someone being killed by a MR will not change the balance.

Why is there no room in the BMFA and within our hobby for multi rotor aircraft?

No, all model aircraft are NOT 'drones'! This is the issue. Model aircraft are flown by TOTALLY different people to the average drone flyer.

Most drone flyers are members of the public who want to get a camera in the air, with NO interest in the flying bit. Suggesting they go off and expore a model aircraft flying site is bizzare - it won't happen.

If the BMFA end up 'governing' drones or MR if you prefer, then the balance will change dramtically in the case of the inevitable accident. Any links with our hobby will bring legislation down on us too.

I really can't see how the BMFA, which 'governs' 30K model flyers can suddenly take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of drone flyers who have no interest in our hobby. They need their OWN governing body!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Guvnor]

Posted by David Mellor on 18/04/2017 19:40:27:

The first point is the size of the drone market. Worldwide, annual sales of drones are in the many millions of units. It isn't known how many are sold annually in the UK - you'd have to guess (I'd guess 100,000 plus).

The second point is that annual global drone numbers are rising very steeply indeed. Drones are increasingly seen as big business, with global annual sales worth around 5 billion dollars. Contrary to what you might expect, only one of the 4 biggest drone manufacturers is Chinese (DJI), the others are French (Parrot) and American (3-D robotics and PrecisionHawk). Of those, DJI has a market value in excess of 10 billion dollars. All four are significant buyers from big chip manufacturers Ambarella, NVIDIA, Intel and Qualcomm. Also contrary to what you might expect, market data indicates that the hobby-drone "action camera" is not a growth area and may even have peaked (despite its apparent popularity in the UK).

Your information is out of date.

Drone numbers are increasing, but how you can say 'very steeply' is a mystery, seeing as no drone manufacturer I know would ever release sales figures.

Your guess of 100,000 units a year in the UK is precisely that - a guess. If you must quote figures, do some research to get accurate ones. Are you counting kids indoor toys? DJI Phantoms? Useless information is worse than none.

DJI are the biggest manufacturer of consumer camera drones. As for the others...

Parrot - 150 engineers redundant, now concentrating on commercial and military applications.

3DR - Very publically dropped the Solo and getting out of the market, concentrating on commercial and military applications.

Precision Hawk - They don't and never have made drones for consumers...

And you completely missed out DJI's main competitor.

Yuneec - just made half it's engineers redundant and concentrating on commercial and military applications. Intel OWN half of Yuneec, and still can't make it work.

The clue here is that DJI have the market wrapped up and the rest are getting out. Why? The consumer market has hit saturation and is now slowly falling. The peak was probably a year ago...

Just go and look at the number of Kickstarter drones which have failed in the last 12 months - Zano, Lily etc...

As for the pro market, the UK now has around 2K licenced flyers. This market is saturated too. Training schools scrabbling for customers. One of the biggest schools gone under (EuroUSC).

Far from being an increasing problem, I'd suggest the problem will slowly diminish over the years...

Edited By Guvnor on 19/04/2017 09:22:28

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John F]

Posted by Guvnor on 19/04/2017 09:04:25:

No, all model aircraft are NOT 'drones'! This is the issue. Model aircraft are flown by TOTALLY different people to the average drone flyer.

Most drone flyers are members of the public who want to get a camera in the air, with NO interest in the flying bit. Suggesting they go off and expore a model aircraft flying site is bizzare - it won't happen.

If the BMFA end up 'governing' drones or MR if you prefer, then the balance will change dramtically in the case of the inevitable accident. Any links with our hobby will bring legislation down on us too.

I really can't see how the BMFA, which 'governs' 30K model flyers can suddenly take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of drone flyers who have no interest in our hobby. They need their OWN governing body!

With respect;

firstly drones are any model aircraft: The BMFA specifically refers to what you see as a "drone" as Multi Rotor aircraft: **LINK**

The CAA also refers to any model aircraft as a drone, RPAS or UAV.

By stating that MR fliers are not interested in flying is tarring a lot of people with one huge brush! We have several members at our club who fly MR's, just to fly or race them, and many fixed wing fliers also fly with cameras.

The BMFA govern all model flying. Please check out the BMFA website. There is no difference to what is being flown as the rules are all the same for all model flying.

[Guvnor]

Posted by David Mellor on 19/04/2017 09:44:42:

Personally, therefore, I think whatever problems some of us perceive here in the UK regarding MR drones are set to get worse, not better simply because the numbers look so big and continue to grow. It is a bit like looking at a falling barometer and pretending that the weather might not deteriorate!

Go and talk to any drone retailer in the UK how sales are going... You'll find that most jumped on the bandwagon a couple of years ago.

Most of the ones I know had a year of good sales.

As for the last 12 months. Not so good. 'Cliffs', 'edges' and 'over' mentioned a lot...

[Guvnor]

Posted by John F on 19/04/2017 09:46:48:

With respect;

firstly drones are any model aircraft: The BMFA specifically refers to what you see as a "drone" as Multi Rotor aircraft: **LINK**

The CAA also refers to any model aircraft as a drone, RPAS or UAV.

By stating that MR fliers are not interested in flying is tarring a lot of people with one huge brush! We have several members at our club who fly MR's, just to fly or race them, and many fixed wing fliers also fly with cameras.

The BMFA govern all model flying. Please check out the BMFA website. There is no difference to what is being flown as the rules are all the same for all model flying.

The CAA may refer to our aircraft as 'drones' but talk to the CAA people and they know the difference. Some are BMFA members...

There are obvously a number of BMFA members who fly MR. I'd contend that the vast maority of the tens of thousands of 'drone' flyers in the UK have zero interest in model flying...

[MattyB]

Posted by Guvnor on 19/04/2017 09:04:25:

Posted by John F on 19/04/2017 08:49:33:

ALL model aircraft are "drones". What you are referring to are Multi Rotor aircraft (MR).

People have been killed by fixed wing model aircraft quite a few times over the years, sadly. Someone being killed by a MR will not change the balance.

Why is there no room in the BMFA and within our hobby for multi rotor aircraft?

No, all model aircraft are NOT 'drones'! This is the issue. Model aircraft are flown by TOTALLY different people to the average drone flyer.

Most drone flyers are members of the public who want to get a camera in the air, with NO interest in the flying bit. Suggesting they go off and expore a model aircraft flying site is bizzare - it won't happen.

But I fly fixed wing LOS and multi rotor FPV drones - what "type of person" am I?

Sorry Guvnor, but there really is no doubt on this point - all sUAS are subject to the same ANOs and regulated by the same laws whether fixed wing, heli or multirotor. The interests of the individual operating them are completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. The only differences come above when a camera is carried and/or if the aircraft is above a certain weight, but once again that is totally independent of the type of craft.

In addition there is nothing in the current EASA proposals to indicate they have any intention of changing this stance and legislating for model flying separately; they are on record as stating that is "too hard" to do so (see page 8):

" ‘Model aircraft’ are not defined but are covered by the reference to leisure flights, air displays, sport or competition activities.
...The option of excluding ‘model aircraft’ was seriously envisaged taking into account their good safety record. We had several attempts to make a definition that could accurately separate classical ‘model aircraft’ from unmanned aircraft. This has proven difficult as a ‘model aircraft’ is indeed an unmanned aircraft, and the variety of model aircraft goes far beyond manually controlled fixed wing aircraft. As we could not identify a satisfactory definition, the option of a transition period combined with an authorisation taking into account the good safety record has been adopted. In our reflexions, we also took into account that the official Fédération Aéronautique Internationale policy is to attract unmanned aircraft hobbyists. This will allow hobbyists to benefit from the experience of ‘model aircraft’ associations and clubs. excluding ‘model aircraft’ may not be in line with this principle."

The BMFA understand this and are working on our behalf to get the best deal, but let's not kid ourselves - the cat is out of the bag. There is no longer any chance that the current rules and framework will remain unchanged, especially given the (theoretical) taxation opportunities available to governments to free up the airspace below 400ft for Google, Amazon et al. Additional legislation is coming, the only question is how impactful it will be on the traditional model flying disciplines.

What the BMFA cannot afford to do is wash their hands of drones/multirotors in a futile attempt to "save" model flying. Why? Because if they do they will lose credibility with the authorities they are negotiating with. EASA know very well that multirotors and drones are governed identically to traditional model aircraft and all other sUAS, so the BMFA must maintain an inclusive stance whilst negotiating the future framework or risk losing any influence they have at the table.

Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:30:40

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Guvnor]

Posted by MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:18:53:

What the BMFA cannot afford to do is wash their hands of drones/multirotors in a futile attempt to "save" model flying. Why? Because if they do they will lose credibility with the authorities they are negotiating with. EASA know very well that currently multirotors and drones are governed identically to traditional model aircraft, so the BMFA must maintain an inclusive stance to all forms of SUAS or risk losing their influence at the table.

In that case the average BMFA member had better brace itself for a bumpy ride. The costs, the administration and the hassle involved with the influx of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new members will destroy the BMFA as we know it....

[Guvnor]

Posted by Steve J on 19/04/2017 10:21:54:

From the DfT consultation document that very few people seem to have bothered to read -

1. 1.1 A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.

1. 5.2 The CAA has recently revamped its Dronecode to better communicate the rules to users and launched a new drone safety website – www.dronesafe.uk – to make the guidance more accessible to the everyday leisure drone user and the public. The CAA is also using the opportunity to re-engage with manufacturers and vendors to ask that they include the Dronecode in drone packaging or hand it out when it is sold. However, whilst many major vendors and manufacturers do so or point towards it online, it is not compulsory to do so, so some do not. Equally, it is not clear how many of those who receive the Dronecode actually read and digest it. They may therefore not be aware of their responsibilities when flying drones, which could be leading to safety, security or privacy incidents.

2. 5.3 Given this, the Government is seeking input in this consultation as to how this situation could be addressed, to improve current guidance and education for users and thereby reduce incident numbers.

5. 5.7 There are options for further developing the CAA’s safety awareness campaign to improve it, such as potentially working with manufacturers to create a ‘Dronecode approval mark’ if the Dronecode is being issued by this manufacturer or vendor.

6. 5.8 However, the Government is also open to exploring options at a national and EU level to mandate the inclusion of official guidance on safe flying with drones sold in the UK. This approach would put a burden on manufacturers and/or sellers to ensure that their production and logistics processes include issuing the official guidance, but it would ensure that drone buyers in the UK are exposed to this safe flying guidance.

Steve

And thereby hangs the problem! Any mention there of traditional model flying???

[MattyB]

Posted by Guvnor on 19/04/2017 10:27:18:

And thereby hangs the problem! Any mention there of traditional model flying???

No - there never will be, nor has there ever been! What is "traditional model flying"? How do you define it?

Put simply if the authorities are targeting improved safety (the stated aim) or aiming to free up the airspace below 400ft for commercial use (which I personally think is the main objective) there is no advantage to them in differentiating between drones and traditional model flying; to do so just makes the regs harder to write and more difficult to enforce. The very best we can hope for is a framework that will apply to all sUAS, but where restrictions are eased for those operating in line with guidance from an overseeing authority for model flying such as the BMFA or LMA.

Edited By MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:48:28

[MattyB]

Posted by Guvnor on 19/04/2017 10:25:51:

Posted by MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:18:53:

What the BMFA cannot afford to do is wash their hands of drones/multirotors in a futile attempt to "save" model flying. Why? Because if they do they will lose credibility with the authorities they are negotiating with. EASA know very well that currently multirotors and drones are governed identically to traditional model aircraft, so the BMFA must maintain an inclusive stance to all forms of SUAS or risk losing their influence at the table.

In that case the average BMFA member had better brace itself for a bumpy ride. The costs, the administration and the hassle involved with the influx of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new members will destroy the BMFA as we know it....

On that one I agree with you - the current governance model and org structure for the BMFA does not look well set up to deal with a huge influx of new members (based on how the NFC was green lighted I am not sure it's even suitable to manage the 30k of current members). That is a separate issue to look at once the EASA regs are finalised though. All I am saying is that given the current regulatory framework deals with multirotors exactly the same as more traditional models, it is not tenable for the BMFA to sit at the table with EASA and attempt to distance themselves from drones - they will lose their credibility and influence if they take that route.

[Piers Bowlan]

I have read the dft consultation document Guvnor and it seems that EASA have taken the easy option of not attempting to differentiate between consumer, stabilised, camera equipped M/Rs and traditional model aircraft. I do remember seeing a couple of sentences paying lip service to model aircraft but then saying it was 'too difficult' to exempt models from the regulations, so by definition they are all UAVs. Job done!

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 19/04/2017 12:23:21

[iqon]

Back on track - it`s not the retailers problem. Buyer beware !!!

[MattyB]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 19/04/2017 12:08:01:

I have read the dft consultation document Guvnor and it seems that EASA have taken the easy option of not attempting to differentiate between consumer, stabilised, camera equipped M/Rs and traditional model aircraft. I do remember seeing a couple of sentences paying lip service to model aircraft but then saying it was 'too difficult' to exempt models from the regulations, so by definition they are all UAVs. Job done!

Yes, I linked to that and quoted from it in my post further up this page. The statements about it being too hard to define "model aircraft" do hold some water - it's not easy given the broad range of activites that fall under model flying - but to my cynical eyes I suspect it is more about the fact that they want to completely clear the skies for commercial deliveries below 400ft, so there is no incentive to create a distinction.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There seems to be some misinformation being propagated by this thread.

The BMFA are an advisory body - flying activities are governed by the CAA - who state that model flying is exempt from the majority of the provisions of the ANO and list those which do apply.

Most affiliated clubs operate to the general guidelines laid down by the BMFA but are free to vary any of its provisions regarding flying activity as long as they comply with the ANO.

[Piers Bowlan]

You are right of course Steve, thanks. (Note to self - Always engage brain before typing!)

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Phil 9]

To go back to the original question about retailers I have noticed some online retailers do have a page giving advice on the responsible use of drones. So in this case the retailer is doing their part? but like all the terms and conditions of online retailers who in reality is going to read it anyway

I think this reiterates the point the responsibility of correct operation lies with the user

Edited By Phil 9 on 19/04/2017 18:18:42

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

I think you'll find that references to the BMFA as a "Governing Body" refer to its duties for *competition* purposes. Competition flying for all aircraft comes under the FAI as the international body controlling the sporting side of things, but this has nothing to do with any *legal* obligations, which fall under the CAA. The FAI delegates national bodies - such as the BMFA - to be the "Governing Body" for competition purposes.

The CAA exempts model flying from much of the ANO, and recognises the BMFA as representing model flyers, but the BMFA has no statutory duty or responsibility for model flying, as far as I am aware.

--

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Hopefully one of the BMFA representatives who frequent this forum might give us the definitive view but the word "governance" is defined as The action or manner of governing a state, organization, etc. Yes, they do govern the sport of model flying and may impose rules for competitions although there are other organisations outside of the BMFA governance (e.g. ACES 1/12 scale combat if it's still active) but the BMFA is recognised as the sporting organisation for model flying the UK by the FAI.

However, the advice published in the handbook is just that - you cannot be prosecuted (or as far as I'm aware, be subject to any sanctions) by applying your own rules at your club. Obviously you cannot be reckless but that is a matter for the CAA/ANO - not the BMFA.

Telling John that he is governed by the BMFA in matters pertaining to flying at his club appears to be incorrect advice, by my interpretation.

Edit:  Posting overlapped with Peter but I think we're in agreement...

Edited By Martin Harris on 19/04/2017 19:15:20

[Phil 9]

BMFA "Its aims are to promote, protect, organise and encourage model flying within the UK"

If proposed laws may curtail or restrict model flying I think its members expect the BMFA to do what it can to "protect" model flying

Edited By Phil 9 on 19/04/2017 19:11:53