The Wright Stuff Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Posted by Peter Christy on 25/07/2018 22:28:56: And if I was feeling harsh, I would say, why would they expect the support of such organisations, if they, in turn, refuse to support the organisations? Nail. Head. Bang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn K Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 It aint over until the fat lady sings Consultation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i12fly Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Well done David Phipps in particular, and all at BMFA and the other associations. It is an excellent start and we have been recognised as being a reasonable bunch of people who can behave -we need to make sure we do. We must also comment constructively on the consultation to help the associations in their further endeavours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 "Keyboard Warriors" chuckle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 I have posted earlier that i do see the outcome as positive. I have not changed my mind. Have we lost some privileges, of course many have. Yet, I truly feared that the restrictions and requirements would be so onerous that the long term future of the hobby would have been in doubt. I did predict that there would be a requirement to be a member of the BMFA, if the BMFA could manage it. I do see that there being a choice as beneficial, in that there is a choice. Not as good as there not being a requirement. Yet, a lot better than i had feared. I personally do feel for the lone flier in some respects. Yet, on the other hand, staying within 400 foot (and less than 7kg etc), still allows them to operate. In the round a better outcome than i expected, as it still allows people to enter the hobby without being a member of the 4, yet most will want to join one of the 4, just for insurance, at the very least, as they become aware of the risks, the opportunity to join a like minded group. I am less happy about the restrictions on children. Perhaps when i have greater awareness as to what it means in practical terms, i will be less despondent. Some modelers have always started as children, even if addiction does not strike until the 30-50s. I am nor sure i get how slope soaring is affected. I am guessing and would expect that 400 foot is measured from under the model, not the launch point. Are these sites club sites, and so on? Yet, when I take my grumpy head off, things are seemingly better than i had feared. From a selfish perspective, nothing has really changed. Particularly as I no longer fly from the moorlands, when visiting one of my daughters , and so on. A great out come, the BMFA team in addition to the others, and get a huge thank you from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Elam Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 I think anything that persuades (or even forces) fliers into joining the BMFA (or other similar organisation) and therefore having insurance cover has to be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Posted by Gordon Whitehead 1 on 26/07/2018 06:39:08: Somewhere within these 38 pages Geoff is a reference in the official documents defining ground level as just that, ignoring buildings, trees etc. I read and noted it because we have tall trees bordering our flying field so our club has a vested interest in knowing the situation ref ground level. But I'm not wading back through this lot to find it! Gordon I must admit it was only a vague comment because it doesn't affect me at all except that the runway at Ashbourne has a slope and one end is a metre or so higher than the other Is a child classed as anyone under 18 (ie 17 years and 364 days)? I was living separately from my parent at 17 in lodgings 130 miles away and my wife left home at 15 after 'O' levels to attend secretarial college and live at the YWCA so I find it strange that someone the same age would be classed as a child. I thought kids grew up quicker these days. Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i12fly Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 Geoff it all depends, a child is normally classed as such until he/she or gender neutral is 18, (I'm being PC here), but if they are an unaccompanied child from abroad then they are cared for until age of 25. Our age group grew up quicker, By 24 I was married and owning a house (by saving hard whilst paying rent too!!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I've read the latest consultation today and the one thing that does concern me above all else is the future option for electronic countermeasures to jam radio signals of drone being flown in sensitive locations. Clearly this measure is in-descriminate and any drone that is subject to this action may not be the only casualty. This should be the focus of any response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Whitehead 1 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I don't think it will be totally indiscriminate, in that a procedure will be designed, trained for and followed before pressing the tit. There'll always to be a risk of collateral damage, and I'm sure that any risk will be evaluated before action is taken. Gordon PS I've read it too. Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 27/07/2018 08:09:02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I can think of at least 6 clubs that I know of around the country that currently, lawfully fly near airports and prisons and have done for over 30 years. So what you’re suggesting Ikura, is for those clubs to cease flying??? Collateral damage????? That’s ridiculous, there should be no impact from any electronic interference on innocent and law abiding parties! So far I’ve been quite relaxed about the regs, but this is an issue that must be fully addressed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Clubs have to change sites for numerous reasons. Yes, it would be a pain for them. But. Sometimes we have to bend with the wind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Posted by Ikura on 27/07/2018 08:35:30: From what I have read these anti-drone measures will be very few and far between and will be deployed to 'protect' sensitive areas such as prisons, airports and perhaps government buildings etc. If anyone does fly in those areas then maybe it will be a jolly good idea to refrain from doing so. Anyone choosing to ignore the regulations is asking for problems. Surely legitimate flyers should not have give up their sites? Is that reasonable? I am responding to the consultation and will be emphasising the point, as should we all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Whitehead 1 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Posted by ChrisB on 27/07/2018 08:49:41: Collateral damage????? That’s ridiculous, there should be no impact from any electronic interference on innocent and law abiding parties! So far I’ve been quite relaxed about the regs, but this is an issue that must be fully addressed! I was thinking more of the impact of a shot-down drone on striking something, be that a car driver's windscreen, baby in a pram, kids playing football, a prison inmate walking round the yard unaware of the drone smuggling going on at the time. There would be lots of scope for media hype in such a situation, hence the requirement for carefully devised procedures and systems. How would you have dealt with the V1 and the Scud any differently than they were defended against at the time? The falling destroyed missile debris would always risk causing harm to someone or something, but the missiles' destruction would usually have been required to protect the intended target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Dave Phipps and the BMFA are deservedly congratulated on what to me is the best possible outcome, it could have been a lot worse. I think the CAA should also be thanked for their pragmatic and sympathetic ear to the needs of the model flying community. It takes two to negotiate (EU please note), the CAA could just have said sorry, no exemptions for people belonging to the four associations. I would like to think that British tolerance and pragmatism has prevailed and it will be interesting to see if a similar view is taken by the aviation authorities of other EASA member states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 As for those model flying clubs that operate from active airfields, I can see no reason why these clubs won't continue to do so after applying to the CAA for an exemption. If the owner of the airfield is happy and nothing else has changed then I can't see why an exemption or dispensation would not be granted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I believe the provision is already there, Piers. CAP1687 states that flight within the flight restriction inner or outer zone of an aerodrome is prohibited unless the permission of the air traffic control unit or flight information service unit has been obtained. Edited By Martin Harris on 27/07/2018 13:34:07 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.