Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin_K]

The BMFA News page also links to new documents from EASA.

The part that caught my eye is The Guidance Material (GM) to the Implementing Regulation pertaining to Article 16 UAS operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations.

See pages 125,126,127.

I am wondering if the 'lone flyer' has a future, as everything seems to be geared around clubs and associations.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Seems generally well balanced from a quick scan but the following raises some concerns to me:

24. The Government should also ensure that all existing drones are retrofitted with electronic conspicuity within the next two years. (Paragraph 132)

[Old Geezer]

Which takes us back to: do the legislators define a Drone to be a multirotor (whether Programmed, flown by FPV or Line of Sight), or are they using this as a portmanteau term which would include our model aircraft flown exclusively for recreational purposes?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[John Bisset]

The suggestion to reduce registration fees is nice to see.

I agree that the electronic conspicuity requirement is a worry, the more so because it looks to me to be largely pointless for our r/c purposes. Steve J says the technology exists - I know nowt of that area so I take his word on that. My question is that while that may well be true in a technical and theoretical sense, how far is it from being practical - and at what cost?

Recent experience with fullsize light aircraft and with both transponder fitting and the 8.33 MHz frequency separation radio farce does not fill me with confidence. So far these capers have cost me and many others a great deal of money to little or no practical benefit. The new technology radios are in quite few instances poorer in reception, range and quality of operation that those they replaced and the change to 8.33 was done in this country more for political reasons than technical or practical ones. It was all something of an little needed shambles, which gives me sparse confidence in the CAA's organising abilities - they have been cut so far back in staff that capability is at a minimum. (One small bright spot, the EU provided funding to help offset the costs to private owners - around 20% offset if I recall correctly. That funding has largely worked through to us now, through a fairly complex process run by the AA. To be fair, they got there, but clearly struggled)

As for the recent Mode S transponders fittings - they are occasionally of additional use, but again reception is patchy across the country and in some areas when things are really busy controllers clearly prefer to leave us simply squawking the base code. Adding drone transponders to that busy mix will add further complication, possibly of doubtful practicality. As it is, I carry an entirely separate system in one machine so I can safely interact with sailplanes and their operations. Relatively few power aircraft carry that system, so far. So much for the fullsize arena -

To also require our radio control models to carry transponders - hmm, I'd say quite pointless. What expected range, what battery power, and weight, what cost and what protocols?

Frankly I think that is the sort of idea which sounds good to a civil servant or politician who does not himself or herself fly or have much knowledge of the technicalities and the practical limitations, Having everyone squawking to identify sounds great, but in practice will be hard to do in a worthwhile way.

[Handyman]

Why not resort to "Civil disobedience" over this typical attack on our years old hobby that in the main has always operated safely and policing its own members. I started out as a solo flyer, but I always took out public liability insurance, and joined up to a club as soon as I found one in my area. I have never had to claim on my flying insurance, and always flew sensibly. The other club members would soon have told me off if I had not done so.

Because of the actions of a few Drone operator idiots, we are all being penalised. This is an attack on our Civil Liberties.They are taking the easy option, the D of T and the CAA. They know that the BMFA has the names and addresses of all its bona-fide members,so how easy to attack an easy target. There should be a clear division between the operators of drones and the Father and Son who have built a model together and then gone out to see it fly. I for one would resist any form of legislation from the word go. If they get away with this Big Brother attitude, it could mean the death knell of aero modelling.

We either take a stand now, and refuse to comply with their proposals completely and insist that they come up with some other form of control over the idiots who endanger aircraft and airfields by their stupidity. What else can we do?

[John Bisset]

I sympathise, Handyman, but that won’t actually help. Only folk in positions of power can ignore the law, and even they only sometimes... If we try that we will be condemned on all sides and not just by the sanctimonious few ! This isn’t France.

Some of us have been here before – I was a radio control modeller when the CB radio fad arrived in this country. Although we held radio licences and the CB radios were illegal to use, the authorities did nothing until far too late, when many CB radios were in use. Then they decided that we had to move to new frequencies, ‘for safety’ No apologies. No compensation, no attempt whatever to support us the law abiding or penalise the law breakers. A shambles, not unlike the drones caper in some ways. There were people saying a few years ago that these things could get out of control and that some means of ensuring the purchasers understood the requirements of law, including air law That was ignored – either ‘not interested, minor problem’ or ‘too difficult’, so the genie was allowed right out of the bottle, again.

C'est la vie. Our representatives are doing a tricky job well, working hard to try to get a more sensible outcome.

[Jason-I]

Posted by Handyman on 11/10/2019 17:30:37:

Why not resort to "Civil disobedience" over this typical attack on our years old hobby that in the main has always operated safely and policing its own members. I started out as a solo flyer, but I always took out public liability insurance, and joined up to a club as soon as I found one in my area. I have never had to claim on my flying insurance, and always flew sensibly. The other club members would soon have told me off if I had not done so.

Because of the actions of a few Drone operator idiots, we are all being penalised. This is an attack on our Civil Liberties.They are taking the easy option, the D of T and the CAA. They know that the BMFA has the names and addresses of all its bona-fide members,so how easy to attack an easy target. There should be a clear division between the operators of drones and the Father and Son who have built a model together and then gone out to see it fly. I for one would resist any form of legislation from the word go. If they get away with this Big Brother attitude, it could mean the death knell of aero modelling.

We either take a stand now, and refuse to comply with their proposals completely and insist that they come up with some other form of control over the idiots who endanger aircraft and airfields by their stupidity. What else can we do?

Sounds good to me (as a lone flyer with 30+ years of on and off flying all with an exemplary safety record)

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Stick with the BMFA myself, but thanks for the offer.

[Chris Berry]

I think the aim of he conspicuity is that manufacturers fit them during production. I don’t think the spirit of this suggestion is aimed at balsa bashers it ARTF assemblers flying at a fixed site, such that it could be marked on a map/notam.

Again, there could be a requirement that if not being flown at a ‘registered’ site, the aircraft must have electronic ID.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]