Erfolg Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 Steve, you are being far to kind, in some ways they are not that clever. Yet in others far more devious. I imagine that £16 (or so pounds) was selected as a means to go either way. Probably the objective is to establish the concept of us paying. I always have mixed feelings, in itself £16 is not a lot, together with BMFA and club fees, it starts to add up. Many of our members are pensioners, for what ever reason not all pensioners have much spending power. At present i feel myself lucky and really do come close to crying when i see some pensioners counting every single purchase in the supermarket, to exist on a limited income. Some of us are amongst this group and £16 could be the straw that breaks the Camels back. I also worry (truly) that those in their 70s are in a age group where the risk of dying is at the highest level (I am in my 70s), after which the probability of death reduces, although death seems inevitable. My worry is that not enough are entering the hobby to replace those at risk. We seem now to be seeing a steady decline in BMFA numbers. Can fees be increased, a hard call. So where do the new members come from. As the present regulations will act as a deterrent, or a hurdle that will discourage many, in their sub 60s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Green Posted September 12, 2019 Share Posted September 12, 2019 Just what we dont need, Yorkshire Air Ambulance airprox on BBC Look North tonight. Sorry about the sound, all I had to catch the report was my phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conrad taggart Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 12/09/2019 18:02:11: Posted by MattyB on 12/09/2019 15:54:02: Had there not been a change of minister this would not have happened - responses to the “consultation” had been conclusively flat batted/ignored, with the path ahead defined in stone and not in our favour. Indeed. That's why I said 'Thanks Grant' on the previous page . I have a theory that they never intended the fee to be £16.50 (it is £5 in the impact assessment that was issued with the '16 consultation). The £16.50 was just to distract people from the other stuff and to give them something to concede so that they could say that they had listened. Steve Strange how elections focus the mind ... the last thing you need to do is piss of a lot of your potential supporters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by Phil Green on 12/09/2019 23:32:21: Just what we dont need, Yorkshire Air Ambulance airprox on BBC Look North tonight. Sorry about the sound, all I had to catch the report was my phone. Cannot use the four word expletives I would like to use in regards to this drone pilot! (assuming it was indeed a drone, but report from pilot does seem plausible). Typically biased anti-drone news reporting though. The UK airprox board does not help either, as the media always quote their flawed drone near miss figures. (125 incidents this year - I think not). Also quoting the Gatwick drone incident again as if it was fact, yet still no evidence that a drone was ever involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Watkins Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Grant Shapps MP is known to be sympathetic to aeromodelling and critical of the CAA. Earlier this year when he was chairman of the APPG-GA he wrote to the DfT about AN(A)O 2019. Steve Edited By Steve J on 13/09/2019 10:39:47 Steve J You are our Factual Lifeline So please don't disappear next month when all this becomes fact You have an handle on the important bits that can smooth our transition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by conrad taggart on 13/09/2019 10:07:57: Strange how elections focus the mind ... the last thing you need to do is piss of a lot of your potential supporters A lot of potential supporters? Err, not really... If we aggregate all of the members of the national associations together that might be 45,000, and that's probably generous. Even so that would represent only ~0.07% of the population of the UK (based on 66m inhabitants), or ~70 voters for each of the 650 constituencies. Not exactly massive numbers! This has nothing to do with any upcoming election; if it were we'd probably have seen more draconian suggestions being put forward to try and hoover up the votes of outraged Daily Fail readers whose xmas holidays were impacted by the (seemingly imaginary) drones at Gatwick. No, it's mostly just a slice of timely good luck (plus good work by the associations and their members in the campagn) that a minister has been appointed that has some actual knowledge of the space, and one who is prepared to stand up for the rights of a minority sport such as ourselves. Edited By MattyB on 13/09/2019 12:26:55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Yep modellers got a break, doubt my vote will be much influenced by this. Edited By john stones 1 on 13/09/2019 12:40:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 13/09/2019 13:06:12: Posted by Jason-I on 13/09/2019 10:14:28: Also quoting the Gatwick drone incident again as if it was fact, yet still no evidence that a drone was ever involved. I know that I am going to regret asking this, but if there wasn't a 'drone', what do you think happened at Gatwick? A mass hallucination by the 115 people who reported see a 'drone'? A conspiracy to shutdown the airport for some unknown reason? Steve I'm not saying it wasn't a drone, but likewise, there is no hard evidence that there was a drone. Some of the initial sightings at night could have been navigation lights of distant aircraft, or some debris in the wind (such as a bin bag). As the police admit themselves, most of the later sightings were probably of the police drone which was being used to find the alleged drone.... No problem with press refering to an "alleged drone sighting', but they don't do that, they always refer to the drone as fact. Edited By Jason-I on 13/09/2019 14:09:43 Edited By Jason-I on 13/09/2019 14:10:41 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Kearsley Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 13/09/2019 13:06:12: Posted by Jason-I on 13/09/2019 10:14:28: Also quoting the Gatwick drone incident again as if it was fact, yet still no evidence that a drone was ever involved. I know that I am going to regret asking this, but if there wasn't a 'drone', what do you think happened at Gatwick? A mass hallucination by the 115 people who reported see a 'drone'? A conspiracy to shutdown the airport for some unknown reason? Steve Given that almost everyone now has a mobile phone with camera (s), why did not one of the 115 produce usable video or still photographic evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by Tim Kearsley on 13/09/2019 16:06:38 Given that almost everyone now has a mobile phone with camera (s), why did not one of the 115 produce usable video or still photographic evidence? My thoughts exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Steve, I bet you are regretting it. But it provides innocent entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by Steve How do you know that they didn't? Police stating that they had no evidence suggests not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Kearsley Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 13/09/2019 16:25:01: Posted by Tim Kearsley on 13/09/2019 16:06:38: Posted by Steve J on 13/09/2019 13:06:12: Posted by Jason-I on 13/09/2019 10:14:28: Also quoting the Gatwick drone incident again as if it was fact, yet still no evidence that a drone was ever involved. I know that I am going to regret asking this, but if there wasn't a 'drone', what do you think happened at Gatwick? Given that almost everyone now has a mobile phone with camera (s), why did not one of the 115 produce usable video or still photographic evidence? How do you know that they didn't? Show me where they did. I said "produce", i.e. make public. The Wikipedia article on the incident states no photographic evidence was given to police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Detective Chief Superintendent Jason Tingley told the media that "it was a possibility that there may not have been any genuine drone activity in the first place" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 "Despite tens of thousands of people being stranded at Gatwick and thousands more searching the local area, not one managed to use a smartphone to video anything that looked like a drone flying near the airport." Edited By Jason-I on 13/09/2019 16:35:43 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 There is no evidence of the *original* drone sighting, that caused all the panic, and the Chief Super quoted above was hastily silenced! Why? Because there were subsequently several confirmed drone sightings that caused even more confusion and chaos. Unfortunately, the drones in question belonged to the police and were sent up to try and apprehend the original (non-existent) drone. There is now an embarrassed silence from the police on this front! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 Possibly not an embarrassed silence. A new management team is a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bisset Posted September 13, 2019 Share Posted September 13, 2019 And the Gatwick shambles shows how absurd the furore over drones is. It is highly probable that many of the reported sightings and 'near-misses' listed by the Airprox Board are reports made in error. Some are clearly nonsense, given the heights and positions reported. Others simple mis-idents , probably of full size aircraft further away or of sundry aerial oddities and curiosities. After more than fifty years of flying, I have had occasional close encounters, but many more instances when surprise after momentary inattention or distraction made me think there was a conflict when there was not. Also searching for downed aircraft showed me how hard is to spot other aircraft and how small they are - drones are smaller, so a good sighting & tracking is darned hard to get ! Yes, the risk exists, especially at low level for slow traffic and helicopters, but it is less than the public noise about it suggests. It will get worse - both the noise and the real risk. Meantime, well done the BMFA & all the objecters for getting some thinking about changes to the rather silly plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Whitehead 1 Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 Does anyone know the type of drone used to attack the Saudi oil refinery? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 Bit bigger than my X Wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 Posted by Gordon Whitehead 1 on 14/09/2019 19:03:46: Does anyone know the type of drone used to attack the Saudi oil refinery? I hope it was registered! 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.