Drone rules printed in todays Press

[Martin McIntosh]

Not gone through all of that but it would seem to me that the only way round this problem is to make it compulsory for any type of retailer offering these for sale in the UK, whatever the origin, to first see proof of a CAA registration document from the prospective customer and then indelibly impress this on the machine. It would no doubt, alas, have to encompass ARTFs of any type but the sales of the infernal toy drones should plummet.

[Tim Kearsley]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 15:49:23:

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?

What a weird post. Firstly, Piers is absolutely correct in that you would be breaking the law if you fired a gun at a drone. Secondly, how do you know whether anyone is likely to have broken the speed limit? Pointless conjecture and a very good example of waffling!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Play nicely gents please.

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 15:49:23:

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?

Exceeding the speed limit is a civil offence, endangering an aircraft is a criminal offence (Air Navigation Order), It is not just 'criminal damage' either. The law doesn't differentiate between manned or unmanned aircraft.

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 02/01/2021 19:25:50:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 15:49:23:

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?

Exceeding the speed limit is a civil offence, endangering an aircraft is a criminal offence (Air Navigation Order), It is not just 'criminal damage' either. The law doesn't differentiate between manned or unmanned aircraft.

Piers,

All true. But an offence is an offence, be it civil or criminal. It's 'seriousness' is determined by a court, assuming it goes to court at all. Whether it does or not is the decision of the DPP's department, not anyone else's. Though if the evidence is sufficient that's just a 'nod through'.

And the only 'automatic' refusal or removal of a gun licence is if you have accumulated a total of more than four years in jail.

My original comment is based ONLY on that we can't 'pick and choose' which laws we will obey and which we will ignore. And nor are we entitled to make our own 'moral' judgements. That's not how it works.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 02/01/2021 20:03:13

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

What is it about threads with the word "drone" in the title that always leads to nit-picking one-upmanship, repeat airing of knee-jerk prejudices and severe topic drift? If you don't like multirotors or have nothing new to add beyond a moan, why even bother commenting? Has this not been done to death?

 

Come on people, it's a whole new year! At least pretend to try a different tack!

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 02/01/2021 20:10:40

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by Steve J on 02/01/2021 19:42:23:

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 02/01/2021 19:25:50:

Exceeding the speed limit is a civil offence, endangering an aircraft is a criminal offence (Air Navigation Order), It is not just 'criminal damage' either. The law doesn't differentiate between manned or unmanned aircraft.

I do not believe that article 240 applies to unmanned aircraft (except for ones subject to certification) as it is not one of the articles mentioned in article 23.

(See CAP 2013 for the relevant bits of the ANO post AN(A)O 2020.)

 

Edited By Steve J on 02/01/2021 19:44:48

You could well be right Steve. I did wade through the Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2020 and whilst that does mention 'certified unmanned aircraft' I still can't figure out if article 240 applies. I will leave it to greater brains than mine!

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 02/01/2021 20:46:57

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 02/01/2021 20:08:53:

What is it about threads with the word "drone" in the title that always leads to nit-picking one-upmanship, repeat airing of knee-jerk prejudices and severe topic drift? If you don't like multirotors or have nothing new to add beyond a moan, why even bother commenting? Has this not been done to death?

Come on people, it's a whole new year! At least pretend to try a different tack!

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 02/01/2021 20:10:40

I broadly agree.

My 'complaint' is that 'drones' have little to do with model planes as they are in effect 'camera platforms'.

But unfortunately they are the cause of all this CAA licences, tests, fees, yet more unenforceable regulations, and 'penalties for disobedience' stuff. We and the BMFA should have had nothing to do with them and their place is in camera magazines, not model plane magazines.

That is my opinion. You may hold a different one. Fine by me.

[Martin_K]

Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 02/01/2021 20:08:53:

What is it about threads with the word "drone" in the title that always leads to nit-picking ......

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 03/01/2021 06:20:10:

.... My 'complaint' is that 'drones' have little to do with model planes as they are in effect 'camera platforms'.

Model aircraft are in the category 'drone', an all encompassing term from a small toy to a military aircraft equipped with deadly weapons.

Recent threads in which we have discussed new commercial BVLOS operations have all concerned fixed wing aircraft, looking very much like traditional model aircraft.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, whether mutlirotors, fixed wing, or hybrid, comercially operated or hobby, are subject to a single body of law.

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 03/01/2021 06:20:10:

We and the BMFA should have had nothing to do with them and their place is in camera magazines, not model plane magazines.

 

Sticking one's head in the sand never solves anything.

A lot of kids are going to have their first experience of remote flying with quads, and if the model flying community as a whole adopted a more positive and inclusive attitude, then those kids may very well go on to be club members who fly planes and helis. Who knows, they may even move on from foam ARTF to balsa kit and plan builds... But with the prevailing attitude of modeller NIMBYism, blaming all your perceived woes on a minority of fliers and continued deliberate misunderstanding of the purpose of the ANO changes (monetising airspace below 400' ) it will not happen.

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 03/01/2021 10:31:06

[Tim Kearsley]

Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 03/01/2021 10:30:43:

Posted by Roger Jones 3 on 03/01/2021 06:20:10:

We and the BMFA should have had nothing to do with them and their place is in camera magazines, not model plane magazines.

Sticking one's head in the sand never solves anything.

A lot of kids are going to have their first experience of remote flying with quads, and if the model flying community as a whole adopted a more positive and inclusive attitude, then those kids may very well go on to be club members who fly planes and helis. Who knows, they may even move on from foam ARTF to balsa kit and plan builds... But with the prevailing attitude of modeller NIMBYism, blaming all your perceived woes on a minority of fliers and continued deliberate misunderstanding of the purpose of the ANO changes (monetising airspace below 400' ) it will not happen.

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 03/01/2021 10:31:06

Well said.

[Phil McCavity]

Posted by Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 03/01/2021 10:30:43:

Sticking one's head in the sand never solves anything.

A lot of kids are going to have their first experience of remote flying with quads, and if the model flying community as a whole adopted a more positive and inclusive attitude, then those kids may very well go on to be club members who fly planes and helis. Who knows, they may even move on from foam ARTF to balsa kit and plan builds... But with the prevailing attitude of modeller NIMBYism, blaming all your perceived woes on a minority of fliers and continued deliberate misunderstanding of the purpose of the ANO changes (monetising airspace below 400' ) it will not happen.

Edited By Lima Hotel Foxtrot on 03/01/2021 10:31:06

I tend to agree, I've always been of the view that kids with toy drones is the new gateway into the hobby, in days gone by it was control line, free flight and rubber powered stick models. Things have moved on,tech is much more affordable and desirable, the way I see it is rather than fight it try to embrace it and take the bonuses that it brings.

Edited By Phil McCavity on 03/01/2021 12:11:47

[Roger Jones 3]

Good. I 'voiced' my opinion and now we have three more opinions.

If someone comments on me, a grown up adult, playing with a toy plane (which has happened) I will now say:

"No I don't, the hundred year old terms 'toy plane' or 'model aircraft' have been officially replaced by the term 'Unmanned Aerial Vehicle', and I now operate it rather than play with it, I now have to pay an annual tax to do so. There are two hundred and twenty-eight pages of official instruction about doing this and penalties if you don't obey them. Welcome to George Orwell's 2021"

[kc]

This thread was intended to discuss how the Press had covered the changes to the law and question whether the statements they made accurately informed the public.

Perhaps we could get back to that ?

It was nice to see that the DailyMail website seemed to give slightly better info on how the law affected drone pilots. But it didn't mention the minimum age to fly drones as far as I read. Unless it's privately built the minimum age to fly is 12 years unless it's a toy marked CO. What exactly is the CO marking? Engraved by manufacturers or can you put it on with a felt tip pen! This is an important point that affect many - when is a drone a toy? Seems to be something sold by a toyshop with suitable ages marked on the pack.

[Dickw]

Posted by kc on 03/01/2021 14:27:43:..............................Unless it's privately built the minimum age to fly is 12 years unless it's a toy marked CO. What exactly is the CO marking? Engraved by manufacturers or can you put it on with a felt tip pen! This is an important point that affect many - when is a drone a toy? Seems to be something sold by a toyshop with suitable ages marked on the pack.

Do the following extracts from CAP722 help answer those questions?

Class C0-(can be flown in all subcategories)
Very small unmanned aircraft, including toys, that:•are less than 250g maximum take-off mass•have a maximum speed of 19m/s (approx. 42.5 mph)•are unable to be flown more than 120m (400ft) above the take-off point.

if using a UA with a Class marking (C0 to C4), ensure that:
• the class identification is affixed to the UA;
• the remote pilot is in possession of the corresponding
declaration of conformity.

To be classed as a toy, a product must be able to comply with the ‘Toys (Safety) regulations 2011. Essentially, a ‘toy’ is a product that is considered to be suitable for use by a person who is under the age of 14 years. Therefore, if the product is not marked as such within its packaging, then it cannot be considered to be a toy.

Dick

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Steve J on 03/01/2021 15:14:04:

Posted by kc on 03/01/2021 14:27:43:

What exactly is the CO marking?

EASA leaflet

Very pretty. Makes a certain amount of sense too, for those who like to read 'guidance' or 'instructions'.

Problem is, where do you find such a leaflet?

I've never seen one in a model shop, inside a 'drone' box (bear in mind a regular toy plane with the usual wings is classified as a 'drone' too), or a toy plane kit.

I've not seen one in Argos either.

Perhaps the local police station? Unless people have been burgled, been caught robbing a bank, or are producing their driving licence within the statutory time few visit such places.

Anyway very few sane people look for leaflets or search the internet for a list of things they are not allowed to do.

So, bearing in mind all the above, the leaflet is an exercise in futility.

[leccyflyer]

Like lots of folks I've just received an urgent email from BMFA requiring that if reliant on a pre Dec 2020 BMFA Achievement Scheme award as demonstration of competency, that they will require a check box to be checked on the Member Portal, from 5pm tonight, stating that one has read and understood the Article 16 bumf..

 

Edited By leccyflyer on 04/01/2021 14:49:33

[Dickw]

Posted by leccyflyer on 04/01/2021 14:47:57:

Like lots of folks I've just received an urgent email from BMFA requiring that if reliant on a pre Dec 2020 BMFA Achievement Scheme award as demonstration of competency, that they will require a check box to be checked on the Member Portal, from 5pm tonight, stating that one has read and understood the Article 16 bumf..

Edited By leccyflyer on 04/01/2021 14:49:33

Yes, just done that. CAA requirement for continued use of an AS certificate as a demonstration of competence.

The site is a bit slow, so I assume there are a lot of people ticking that box right now!

Dick

[Geoff S]

I've just completed the BMFA Registration Competency Certificate and uploaded it to my BMFA member profile. I got 34/40 apparently but when I reviewed my results I could find only 1 error highlighted (I forgot to include an achievnemt awarded post 31/12/20 as a requirement).

Anyway, a pass is a pass and I did read the whole Article 16. Most of it is irrelevant to me and all of it is largely common sense. There's nothing to object to except the £9/annum tax, of course but even that is a small cost compared to my modelling spend overall.

All I want is all this Covid nonsense to go away so I can joyfully mix with cubmates, friends and family but I guess everyone feels the same.

Geoff

[kc]

I also ticked the box - no problems there. However when reading the stuff there is a BMFA summary sheet with basic rules but as far as I could see no way to print it out for reference. I searched the BMFA site but no way could I locate that document again or any similar info. Surely basic rules should be the first thing you see! Links to downloads etc failed to locate it and I gave up after 10 minutes searching. Crazy that you cannot easily find the basic safety & legal requirements!

[Geoff S]

One of the attachments I got from the BMFA with my membership 'card' (just a pdf file) was a Quick Start Guide pdf you can save and then print if you wish. Plus there's a link from the Article 16 explanations which were on the recent email fom them (this pm).

Geoff

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by kc on 04/01/2021 20:07:47:

I also ticked the box - no problems there. However when reading the stuff there is a BMFA summary sheet with basic rules but as far as I could see no way to print it out for reference. I searched the BMFA site but no way could I locate that document again or any similar info. Surely basic rules should be the first thing you see! Links to downloads etc failed to locate it and I gave up after 10 minutes searching. Crazy that you cannot easily find the basic safety & legal requirements!

See **LINK**

and **LINK**

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Geoff S on 04/01/2021 18:09:32:

I've just completed the BMFA Registration Competency Certificate and uploaded it to my BMFA member profile. I got 34/40 apparently but when I reviewed my results I could find only 1 error highlighted (I forgot to include an achievnemt awarded post 31/12/20 as a requirement).

Geoff

Just checked your results, 34 is correct there were 5 where you didn't select all the answers that apply and one where you selected a wrong answer.

Andy

[Gary Manuel]

 

.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 04/01/2021 22:39:35

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Noticed this while ticking the box - it seems a bit odd - why 7 months? Anyone else have a similar renewal time shown or does this mean it can be renewed 6 months from expiry?