Government Consultation on Drone Flying in the UK.

[Doug Campbell]

I strongly disagree with some of the BMFA suggested answers. I fly small toy model aircraft and they propose it is acceptable for plod to enter and search my home.

I can imagine the ensuing court case " for failing to set your dethermaliser correctly and allowing your aircraft to fly out of visual sight, there is no sentence too severe......"

[Martin Dance 1]

The 27Mhz band was and AFAIK still an ISM (industrial scientific and medical band) and we shared it with others albeit all users were low powered. Initially CB radio was imported from the USA where 27Mhz was a citizens radio band and could be used for a variety of applications such as radio control. At the time transmitting speech on 27Mhz ISM in the UK was illegal. However the tide of imports and subsequent use proved unstoppable simply because the purchase and ownership of such equipment is not illegal, but using it is! The powers that be had no real way to stop it. so, initially a frequency allocation away from the frequencies was permitted for CB use. However the equipment for this band was more expensive than the imported USA spec equipment so saw little use. Eventually the 35Mhz band was allocated once the military abandoned its use, but there was still a problem because in the UK at the time the TV IF frequency was or close to 35Mhz! So we could interfere with TV at short range.

BTW 2.4Ghz is also an ISM band!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chuck Plains]

AAAARGH!

My Linux Ubuntu PC fails to read the Govt document properly so I cannot fill in the boxes!!!

Anyone have any ideas? I've tried alternative document viewers with the same result. Adobe isn't compatible with Linux machines, apparently.

Yes, I'm even considering buying a cheap laptop just to get a Windows machine!!

[Cliff Whittaker]

I think we need to keep in mind that the questionnaire is not the consultation document; it is the means to respond to the consultation document. The consultation is open to the public, it is not aimed specifically at modellers. It is for everyone with any interest to respond, including aspiring commercial drone companies, drone flyers, mainstream aeromodellers and anyone sitting on a commercial passenger vehicle approaching Clapham who thinks drones are a good thing or a bad thing.

My reading of the consultation document is that it is really about facilitating the commercial use of drones (which is what FINS is a for) and the enforcement powers to stop illegal, dangerous and hostile use of drones. It is not about model flying. If easy to fly auto-stabilised multi-rotors had not been invented there would be no plans to introduce new laws and there would be no consultation. Model flying activities were not the trigger for these proposals (we barely get a mention) and it follows that modellers are not the target of any of this. But our hobby is the potential collateral damage.

My reading of the proposed police powers is that they are to enable them tackle the idiots who are using drones to try to take close ups photos of airliners in flight, and those using drones to do things like smuggling drugs and other items into prisons (which I guess is why they ask if prison officers should get some of the powers).

I really don't have any concerns that the police will want to search my house because they see me flying my DB Scout at our club field. They couldn't justify wasting their man hours on me.

The problem for us is that the government apparently can't write legislation that treats model flying (which, whether we like it or not, now includes flying quadcopters for photography, FPV and racing) differently from someone who buys a drone online and uses it for illegal or antisocial purposes. And we are stuck with that. Complaining about it won't make any difference. The best we can do is to respond to the consultation to try to help the government to strike a reasonable balance between what they want and what we want - (which is essentially to be left alone to do what we have been doing for decades).

[Chuck Plains]

I just spent nearly 40 mins filling in the document, copying and pasting from the BMFA assist doc, and correcting everything I paste because the formating does NOT carry over to the Gov doc.

And the page got closed down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I know it's partly due to this laptop which I'm not used to using, but . . . .

it!!!!!!!!!

So now, I'm going to copy and paste everything into Libre Office, edit and then store it all as plain text files.

THEN, I'll go back to the Govt page and try to fill it in! Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Bott - Moderator]

Chuck the idea is to use the BMFA suggested answers, but in your own words, not cut n paste.

[Cliff Whittaker]

Posted by Cliff Whittaker on 27/08/2018 17:14:55:

 

The problem for us is that the government apparently can't write legislation that treats model flying (which, whether we like it or not, now includes flying quadcopters for photography, FPV and racing) differently from someone who buys a drone online and uses it for illegal or antisocial purposes.

Actually, it can. And has.

The new ANO takes great care in the wording to avoid the word "all" {drones} and instead uses the word "certain" {drones} where it matters most to us model flyers.

This in principle anticipates exemptions and/or block allocations to - for example - model flyers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid I don't agree.

My point was that the legislation - the Air Navigation Order (ANO) - does not distinguish between drones and model aircraft.

The ANO articles apply to Small Unmanned Aircraft - also abbreviated to SUA. The word 'all' is not included because it would be superfluous. No aircraft under 20kg are excluded from the scope of the ANO articles, so they apply to them all. There is provision for the CAA to issue certain permissions and to exempt - if they can come up with words that "ring fence" the flexibility they are allowing. But there is nothing in the ANO that separates what we would call a model from any other aircraft under 20kg.

For the recent 'permission' to allow members of model associations to continue to fly SUA - not 'models' - above 400ft, the permission excluded aircraft with more than one lifting rotor - so that quadcopters can't use the exemption to exceed 400ft. But this is not the same as saying that quadcopters aren't model aircraft, or that anything under 20kg that is not a multi-rotor is a model aircraft. Also, the CAA is not obliged to issue exemptions, which, in effect, negate the rules that the government has decided to put in place. It would be better to influence the government to put in place rules that we can live with, rather than rely on persuading the CAA to disapply inappropriate rules afterwards.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By Cliff Whittaker on 27/08/2018 19:13:35

Edited By Cliff Whittaker on 27/08/2018 19:14:16

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

These posts are off topic gentlemen! This thread is not about the nature and adequacy of Government legislation, its about this consultation exercise and completing it.

Any further off topic posts will be deleted!

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Geoff S]

I completed the questionaire a few evenings ago (actually early morning!) and it's certainly time consuming.

I also emailed our club secretary about it with links to the BMFA page with the suggestion that he circulates the information to all our members. He's on holiday at the moment but he agrees it should be done so that will perhaps generate a few more responses before the closing date.

Geoff

[Tim Ballinger]

Interesting you say that Geoff. I mentioned the survey to a couple of flyers at the club field yesterday and neither was aware. They do not read this forum and expressed surprise that if it was important that the BMFA had not encouraged a mail shot either directly or through club secretaries. I suspect not many visit the BMFA website either.

Have other clubs taken action to advertise the survey ? If not it will not really be surprising if the uptake is low.

Tim

[David P Williams]

The BMFA did email club secretaries with a link to BMFA Club Bulletin 237 asking them to circulate to members, as my club secretary did. Unfortunately, this is not a nice tidy link to either the survey or the suggested responses, but to a list of all bulletins. If you then find the correct bulletin and load it it starts with two pages headed "To all full council members" followed by two pages of Agenda for a full council meeting, at which point I suspect most of our club members decided 'nothing of interest here', 'typical dry boring BMFA committee stuff', and didn't read the rest of the bulletin.

Even if they did, the link provided in it just leads to the Government survey home page. You have to do a bit of rummaging to get to the BMFA info sheet.

It could have been done in a much clearer fashion in order to motivate the average club member.

[Rob Ashley]

Hi Tim,

We have at my club. I sent an email request for members to read and fill it in, providing all the relevant links etc.

It will be interesting to find out how many completed it.
Rob

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Chuck Plains on 27/08/2018 16:41:23:

AAAARGH!

My Linux Ubuntu PC fails to read the Govt document properly so I cannot fill in the boxes!!!

Anyone have any ideas? I've tried alternative document viewers with the same result. Adobe isn't compatible with Linux machines, apparently.

Yes, I'm even considering buying a cheap laptop just to get a Windows machine!!

Didn't have any problems here, running Slackware Linux. PDF is a variation on Ghostscript, which is Linux' native scripting system, and so PDF is supported natively. Must be something odd about Ubuntu....

Which desktop are you running? Using KDE here, and the Okular reader reads everything perfectly. Perhaps try Kubuntu?

(Sorry about the O/T, but might help others having a similar problem!)

--

Pete

[stu knowles]

The section on Police Powers has the ability to cause mod flyers much grief even if that was not the intention of the legislation at the outset.

Question 50: Do you agree that the police require powers to instruct a remote pilot to land a drone if a constable believes that: It will protect persons from harm, harassment, alarm or distress; It will protect persons occupying any premises from nuisance; It is causing an annoyance relating to the occupation of a premise; It will protect public order; It will protect property from damage; It would assist in exercising the functions of a police constable. Why?

The BMFA suggested response says 'Yes' to this proposal. How many model fliers and club have received noise complaints in the past? Presently this would be directed to Environmental Health who would make assessments of the noise by careful measurements and so on.

New Police powers, more than likely awarded not just to Police but the raft of quasi police council people who enforce everything nowadays from parking to litter dropping. This shifts the response to noise nuisance from what we have now to a new regime where presumably with 'reasonable suspicion' flyers can be ordered to stop flying to prevent nuisance. Nuisance is not defined. If one person says that they are annoyed is that a nuisance? No full investigation is needed. Stop now, Here's fixed penalty, If you disagree, go to Court. The model flyer is on the back foot instantly.

There are a number of words in the whole consultation document which need to be defined in order to prevent unintended consequences. It struck me as a consultation exercise that allows the DfT to say that they have consulted widely but can then do anything that they want.

Am I being too negative?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[bert baker]

Haven’t read all previous stuff just flicked through it,,,

We had a chap at our club saying there’s no point to taking BMFA achievements as cap won’t recognise them..

Duno

Anyone heard of this

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by stu knowles on 29/08/2018 09:30:01:

The section on Police Powers has the ability to cause mod flyers much grief even if that was not the intention of the legislation at the outset.

Question 50: Do you agree that the police require powers to instruct a remote pilot to land a drone if a constable believes that: It will protect persons from harm, harassment, alarm or distress; It will protect persons occupying any premises from nuisance; It is causing an annoyance relating to the occupation of a premise; It will protect public order; It will protect property from damage; It would assist in exercising the functions of a police constable. Why?

The BMFA suggested response says 'Yes' to this proposal. How many model fliers and club have received noise complaints in the past? Presently this would be directed to Environmental Health who would make assessments of the noise by careful measurements and so on.

Am I being too negative?

I filled in the survey before coming across the guidance from the BMFA and I have to say that this was an area where I differed. It seems (and I stated|) that it could become a local objector's charter to harass model flyers, leading to malicious complaints and wasted resources investigating them.

I don't think Bert's question is really on topic but I believe the official BMFA position is that they don't envisage the achievement scheme having any validity and don't have the means to administer an official scheme but I wouldn't discount the possibility that the authorities might use them for some form of grandfathering rights.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Dance 1]

Surely there is no need for increased Police powers My guess is at the moment if a police officer asked you to land your drone/UAV and you refused without a clear reason. You will be arrested for obstructing an officer in the execution of his duties and duly dealt with.

As far as the validity of the achievement scheme is concerned in its present form its difficult to see what the CAA could add other than a compulsory medical and psychological assessment with say an annual review, that shouldn't more than quadruple your BMFA sub

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Just think about this for moment chaps! The BMFA suggest we answer "yes" to the questions about police officers entering premisses to search and ordering pilots to land. My initial reaction was "no" - but then I realised that BMFA are probably right.

Suppose you answer "no" to the question, then you are saying that police officers (who have reasonable gounds to suspect etc.) can't followup that investigation - that would be at odds with practice in all other fields (stolen goods, drugs etc) Doesn't make sense and doesn't appear reasonable.

Similarly, suppose you say "no" to the question about a police officer having the authority to ask a pilot to land. Again that would be inconsistent - police officers have such authority over car drivers - why are SUA pilots different? There are safety issues in ordering a drone to land, but so are there in stopping a car.

As for the comment that if the police have the powers so will council officials etc. There is a specific question dealing with that and the BMFA suggested answer is that the powers should be confined to police officers only.

I think the idea that we will become some sort of persecuted minority in a police state, constantly having our houses searched etc. is faintly ridiculous! As I say the police have these powers to enter your house now - when was the last time they did? The police have the power to stop you on the road in your car - when was the last time they did (without good cause - often for your own safety). I think police officers are busy enough and are very unlikely to take up "who's home is it" style games with aeromodellers don't you! And anyway, even if they did there is legislation to protect against such harassment.

I think part of the game BMFA are playing here is to be "seen to be reasonable and co-operative". By conceeding details that we can't really oppose sucessfully anyway, we keep our powder dry and then on the issues that really matter to us, the ones we really want to win, we are on stronger ground to say "NO" firmly!

What was it the old prayer says? "God grant me the fortitude to withstand the things I cannot change, the courage to to change those I can and the wisdom to recognise the difference between the two"!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 29/08/2018 12:09:42