Drone rules printed in todays Press

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 12:18:25:

Posted by Stephen Smith 14 on 01/01/2021 09:20:22:

I wouldn't worry about it, how many coppers understand it or even care, only time anyone would look at what you was doing is if you hurt someone or cause massive damage.

I agree 100%. Fly it on the police station front lawn and the police might tell you to go away but that will be all. They certainly aren't going to carefully study the 238 pages of CAP 722

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 01/01/2021 14:27:09

That view is a a bit naive to be honest. Most Police forces are fully aware of what is lawful or not and the knowledge of the individual policeman on the street will only ever improve.

To be honest, when it is so easy to fly safely and lawfully I don't understand why anyone would do otherwise.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 01/01/2021 15:04:12:

To be honest, when it is so easy to fly safely and lawfully I don't understand why anyone would do otherwise.

I certainly agree with that.

But what percentage of hobbyist 'drone only' flyers bother with this CAA stuff?

I suspect not very many. I'm a 'conventional' flyer and I only bothered with this 'toy plane tax' for two reasons. Our model flying club insists on it and BMFA insurance requires that you 'fly legal'.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Steve J on 01/01/2021 15:53:37:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 15:24:19:

But what percentage of hobbyist 'drone only' flyers bother with this CAA stuff?

I suspect not very many. I'm a 'conventional' flyer and I only bothered with this 'toy plane tax' for two reasons. Our model flying club insists on it and BMFA insurance requires that you 'fly legal'.

Your suspicions are incorrect. There are well over a 100k more CAA operator registrations than there are BMFA members.

I can well believe what you say and in fact I already mentioned that a lot of flyers {of all types) aren't in the BMFA. So not "incorrect" at all.

100k registered? Fine, but nobody knows how many non-CAA registered flyers there are. The CAA 'estimates' ('guesses' is probably a more accurate term) that 1.5 MILLION 'drones' have been sold in the UK.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 16:45:25

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 16:46:12

[Brian Cooper]

It is truly amazing how far we have come since the days when flying a model aeroplane was a mere hobby, a pastime and an innocent pursuit for fun and recreation..... eh.

Lol.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Brian Cooper on 01/01/2021 17:57:42:

It is truly amazing how far we have come since the days when flying a model aeroplane was a mere hobby, a pastime and an innocent pursuit for fun and recreation..... eh.

Lol.

It still is. It's just that some would have you believe there are masses of hoops to jump through to be able to participate when in reality there really isn't

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 18:45:26:

Posted by Brian Cooper on 01/01/2021 17:57:42:

It is truly amazing how far we have come since the days when flying a model aeroplane was a mere hobby, a pastime and an innocent pursuit for fun and recreation..... eh.

Lol.

Yes. We used to fly on the local Totton recreation ground, Southampton Common, Testwood Secondary Modern School, the local Grammar School (my best effort there was a Veco Thunderbird control line stunt model powered by an unsilenced Eta 29 - everything was unsilenced then), a field  at Totton next to the 'Jetex' factory, the disused Stoney Cross and Beaulieu airfields in the New Forest (including incredibly noisy pulse jets) and control line at Romsey Memorial Park which was too small for anything else, and if you tried it was likely to end up in the river. Getting drowned in the river was allowed too and happened now and again.

There were no rules and nobody ever raised any objection to any of it.

 

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 18:59:46

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 01/01/2021 18:36:47:

Posted by Brian Cooper on 01/01/2021 17:57:42:

It is truly amazing how far we have come since the days when flying a model aeroplane was a mere hobby, a pastime and an innocent pursuit for fun and recreation..... eh.

Lol.

It still is. It's just that some would have you believe there are masses of hoops to jump through to be able to participate when in reality there really isn't

There are many hoops. Insurance, a CAA tax, silencers, bylaws prohibiting it (including 224 out of a total 225 square miles of the New Forest) and the steady reduction of available sites

[Bob Smitham]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 15:00:07:

I think that's a bit of a broad brush you are using there Dick.Maybe the off the shelf RTF £600+ DJI drones have a lot to answer for.As for the 1.5 million sales I suspect this will include stocking filler £20 units that will be at the bottom of the toy box come Easter, on that point I agree with you.

But building a small quad copter choosing motors, ESC,props along with the complexities of software like INAV is where I started.The enormous fun of FPV flying has brought many new flyers into the fold .Also you will find that a great number of quad builders end up using spare electronics for wing builds.This then leads on to Bixler type models.And in my case giving a traditional balsa glow powered model a go.

The think the main reason not many of these new to fixed wing flyers are seen at clubs or are not members of the BMFA is they get the idea they are not welcome.

I have a 250mm quad ,a foam twin boon equipped with GPS and FPV and all the other whistles and bells a simple 600mm foam wing and a glow powered Moth.

I have a foot in all camps and just enjoy flying each type.I think it's a tad unfair and not constructive for the future of the hobby to view quad flyers/builders as the enemy.

The blame for legislation lies (like you pointed out)with the bodies in charge the media and the politicians.Who have always failed to keep up with technology .They simply react to the tabloids latest feeding frenzy with ill thought reactions and legislation so they appear to be doing something.

It seems you are both right.

If you are a member of the BMFA, LMA, FPVUK, or SAA you need to be looking at the Article 16 Authorisation, and Andy's link is good for that.

The rest, as you say, will have to search on the CAA website.

Dick

Dick,

My purely personal view.

I have no interest whatsoever in 'drones' (meaning quadcopters and similar), I am only interested in 'conventional' model planes and to a lesser extent conventional model helicopters. Plus the occasional model boat.

I suspect very few 'drone' flyers have any interest in conventional model planes or helis. They are mostly used as camera and video 'platforms' so they can bore their friends with poor quality videos. And unlike the equally boring holiday pictures their victims cannot quickly flick though them while pretending to be interested.

'Drones' are basically 'tall camera tripods' and their place is in photography/video magazines, not model aircraft magazines or model flying clubs - ours already places severe restriction on their use at our field though NOT at my instigation..

They have given us a bad name, thus resulting in all these 'knee jerk' rules that exist only to show the public the authorities are 'doing something'. I suspect they are a 'fad' that will vanish sooner or later when the next toy arrives, but unfortunately the rules they have caused will remain.

It might even get worse. There is talk within the authorities of making all our models have 'squawk boxes' (of the type commercial aircraft often carry) to identify the 'drone' when ir is bathed with air traffic control radar. The authorities don't seem to have considered that this will require a huge expansion of ATC facilities. .

[Dickw]

Posted by Bob Smitham on 01/01/2021 19:23:17:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 15:00:07:

I think that's a bit of a broad brush you are using there Dick.............................

I have a foot in all camps and just enjoy flying each type.I think it's a tad unfair and not constructive for the future of the hobby to view quad flyers/builders as the enemy.

The blame for legislation lies (like you pointed out)with the bodies in charge the media and the politicians.Who have always failed to keep up with technology .They simply react to the tabloids latest feeding frenzy with ill thought reactions and legislation so they appear to be doing something.

It seems you are both right.

If you are a member of the BMFA, LMA, FPVUK, or SAA you need to be looking at the Article 16 Authorisation, and Andy's link is good for that.

The rest, as you say, will have to search on the CAA website.

Dick

................................

?????????????????

Bob

You seem to be blaming me for something someone else said.

I suggest you re-read the posts you were quoting (or trying to quote!) .

Dick

[Bob Smitham]

Oopps sorry Dick.

Quoting a quote from my phone with one eye on the football.

It was addressing Rogers point.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Bob Smitham on 01/01/2021 20:26:27:

Oopps sorry Dick.

Quoting a quote from my phone with one eye on the football.

It was addressing Rogers point.

Yeah, you were.

The people to 'blame' for all this stuff is ultimately the government, which is where the buck stops.

And people of evil intent will probably not buy a licence and certainly won't make themselves identifiable by putting the licence number on their drones so there is no point in any of it.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 01/01/2021 21:23:44:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 20:41:36:

And people of evil intent will probably not buy a licence and certainly won't make themselves identifiable by putting the licence number on their drones so there is no point in any of it.

Nobody is expecting them to. This is not about criminals.

Indeed. It amazes me that so many expressing opinions still believe this is about safety; that has never been a significant driver. I can only assume they have not read many of the documents released by EASA, the CAA et al over the last 5 or so years.

Ever since the Riga declaration in 2015 (and probably before; that was when I started to follow this in detail) the agenda has been about integrating commercial BVLOS SUAS operations into the airspace across Europe. This is has always been about the gaining access for the big corporates like Amazon and the logistics companies, and for governments the jobs and tax receipts they believe will go along with that. Yes doing that safely is important, but the "don't you want our airspace to be safer" angle is in the main just a convenient sales pitch that goes down well with the press and the public.

Paragraph1, Riga declaration...

"Today Europe is taking a decisive step towards the future of aviation. The European aviation community gathered in Riga to exchange views on how, and under which conditions, drones can help create promising new opportunities in Europe, offering sustainable jobs and new prospects for growth both for the manufacturing industry and for future users of drones in all sectors of society. Drones offer new services and applications going beyond traditional aviation and offer the promise to perform existing services in a more affordable and environmentally friendly way. They are a truly transformational technology."

 

Edited By MattyB on 01/01/2021 21:50:54

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 01/01/2021 21:58:03:

...PS When quoting documents on this site, I always do it via a plain text editor .

Give me a break, I got there in the end! . I did actually resort to that for the fourth edit...

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by MattyB on 01/01/2021 21:43:40:

Posted by Steve J on 01/01/2021 21:23:44:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 01/01/2021 20:41:36:

And people of evil intent will probably not buy a licence and certainly won't make themselves identifiable by putting the licence number on their drones so there is no point in any of it.

Nobody is expecting them to. This is not about criminals.

Indeed. It amazes me that so many expressing opinions still believe this is about safety; that has never been a significant driver. I can only assume they have not read many of the documents released by EASA, the CAA et al over the last 5 or so years.

Ever since the Riga declaration in 2015 (and probably before; that was when I started to follow this in detail) the agenda has been about integrating commercial BVLOS SUAS operations into the airspace across Europe. This is has always been about the gaining access for the big corporates like Amazon and the logistics companies, and for governments the jobs and tax receipts they believe will go along with that. Yes doing that safely is important, but the "don't you want our airspace to be safer" angle is in the main just a convenient sales pitch that goes down well with the press and the public.

Paragraph1, Riga declaration...

"Today Europe is taking a decisive step towards the future of aviation. The European aviation community gathered in Riga to exchange views on how, and under which conditions, drones can help create promising new opportunities in Europe, offering sustainable jobs and new prospects for growth both for the manufacturing industry and for future users of drones in all sectors of society. Drones offer new services and applications going beyond traditional aviation and offer the promise to perform existing services in a more affordable and environmentally friendly way. They are a truly transformational technology."

 

Edited By MattyB on 01/01/2021 21:50:54

Matty,

We all know that the reason for the CAA annual tax, 'registration' of hobby flyers, etc is the usual "We must be seen to be doing something" government garbage. It will have zero effect on 'safety' among those unlicensed flyers who have apparently bought 1.5 million of these hobby 'drones' even if half of them count as 'toys' and the government knows it, as does the CAA, who are just 'going through the motions' because they have to.

I went through the CAA procedure in November 2019 when it came out and renewed it in 2020. Merely because I don't want to to have to 'look over my  shoulder'  for a policeman while I am flying, not because of any sense of responsibility.

We live within 5 Km of Southampton airport. However the rules will not discourage me from giving my 91 glow heli a quick go in our back garden after doing a few mods or giving a non-modeler friend a demo in the same place.

I'm not encouraqing this behaviour. I am just openly admitting I am no more 'perfect' than the next guy.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 08:43:36

[Stephen Jones]

Talking of drone rules being printed in the press.

I have not got to much info to hand at the moment, but my kids watch a lot of YouTube and they told me that a youtuber has had his videos taken down due to a couple complaining about him flying his drone into their garden and filming their daughter.

And they have been on the BBC saying all sorts of things about him and others invading their privacy.

The Youtuber in question has now been allowed his videos back on as he was filming a manor house and not the persons in question he has also posted a video of the confutation he had with them and shown the video data of the flight path in question and it does show he went nowhere near them and that the camera was at no point looking towards their house.

Is this a case of to much info for the public which will allow them to make up stories to stop others flying.

Steve. Sad times. Sad people.

[Roger Jones 3]

Filming the manor house. Hmmmm.

If I lived in the manor house his drone would get both barrels

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 14:53:10:

Filming the manor house. Hmmmm.

If I lived in the manor house his drone would get both barrels

'Manor house' or garden shed, giving a drone 'both barrels' would be a criminal offence (endangering an aircraft) and so put you on the wrong side of the law.

[Andy J]

Sure Mr Trump would use the term "Fake News" about most things printed in our press regarding drone flying. About time they introduced some regulations about what they can or can't print. Problem is that most people are not interested in the truth and it does not sell newspapers.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 02/01/2021 15:19:57:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 14:53:10:

Filming the manor house. Hmmmm.

If I lived in the manor house his drone would get both barrels

'Manor house' or garden shed, giving a drone 'both barrels' would be a criminal offence (endangering an aircraft) and so put you on the wrong side of the law.

Funny how so many people who most likely have broken the speed limit at some time or another like to waffle on to others about "breaking the law", isn't it?

[Stephen Jones]

More info now.

He was filming a abandoned manor house . At the back of the manor house are some houses. and it was one of the occupied houses that have threatened the drone flyer.

https://youtu.be/zsSesdudQlY

Steve

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Andy Joyce on 02/01/2021 15:22:31:

Sure Mr Trump would use the term "Fake News" about most things printed in our press regarding drone flying.

I think you understate the case! Many of us think "fake news" about MOST of the stuff we read in the newspapers!

Its not called "gutter press" for nothing!

--

Pete

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Andy Joyce on 02/01/2021 15:22:31:

Sure Mr Trump would use the term "Fake News" about most things printed in our press regarding drone flying. About time they introduced some regulations about what they can or can't print. Problem is that most people are not interested in the truth and it does not sell newspapers.

If they did that then people would complain about a 'state controlled press'.

The 'reality' is if you have expertise in some field or another, no matter what field it is, you will find that the press usually gets it wrong.

This is a combination of widespread press ignorance and simply not caring. And TV, be it the BBC or 'commericial' is just as bad.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Stephen Jones on 02/01/2021 15:49:50:

More info now.

He was filming a abandoned manor house . At the back of the manor house are some houses. and it was one of the occupied houses that have threatened the drone flyer.

https://youtu.be/zsSesdudQlY

Steve

Good. No problem then. But as so often the report leaves out that important factor.

But also, while we do not control the airspace above our property we do have a 'common law' right to privacy. And in some instances we can legally enforce that right ourselves. This right includes discharging a licenced firearm on your property provided you do it a certain distance away from a place to which there is public access, such as a road. Whether an 'object' can trespass on/or at a low altitude above, your land has, I believe, not yet been tested in court.

It is not clear whether he overflew any of those other properties or not.

This right to privacy is why the law makes some distinctions between camera carrying 'drones' and 'drones' that do not carry a camera.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Steve J on 02/01/2021 16:19:48:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 08:38:01:

We all know that the reason for the CAA annual tax, 'registration' of hobby flyers, etc is the usual "We must be seen to be doing something" government garbage. It will have zero effect on 'safety' among those unlicensed flyers who have apparently bought 1.5 million of these hobby 'drones' even if half of them count as 'toys' and the government knows it, as does the CAA, who are just 'going through the motions' because they have to.

Wrong.

If you gave a 'drone' 'both barrels' and hit it that would be criminal damage and you would be kissing your shotgun licence goodbye.

Wrong? Of course it isn't. Being seen to 'do supposedly meaningful things' is one of the main drivers of all governments in a democracy.

I do not see how the second part of your post relates to the first. But anyway it is not always true, even if it involves guns. I could give examples, even a personal one, (though it was not related to guns) but I can't be bothered.