target drone

[Peter Miller]

Just as a point of interest.  How many people are aware that GEESE have been seeing at 30,000 feet.

 

That is a known fact!

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

28 minutes ago, Peter Miller said:

Just as a point of interest.  How many people are aware that GEESE have been seeing at 30,000 feet.

 

That is a known fact!

Higher than that, once my Christmas Turkey reached 45.000 feet in the hold.😆

[Andy Stephenson]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

...It has always been my believe that we should have made every effort to maintain clear blue water (or air) between what we do as model aeroplane flyers and these other activities, which are not model aeroplane flying.

I made this very point to Andy Symonds when he came to our club to talk about the new regulations but he wasn't having any of it.

[Don Fry]

5 hours ago, Don Fry said:

You have checked the source?

 

2 hours ago, Philip Lewis 3 said:

Yes here it is,https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAA RPAS Safety Reporting Project (CAP2356).pdf and also attached, you want page 24 out of 100

CAA RPAS Safety Reporting Project (CAP2356).pdf 5.83 MB · 3 downloads

Bit confused, I looked on page 24 of this document, can’t find any drone on speed evidence. As a said earlier, Bruce is a liar and exaggeration specialist, and if I’m fed his crap I would like to see source data. 

[Philip Lewis 3]

I'm not particularly a Bruce fan, for starters I don't fly multi copters or FPV.

 

BUT, I do think he has a point here. 

 

This is supposed to be a serious document dealing with a serious subject from an organisation primarily dealing with safety so why have a "photo" of a drone taken from the inside of an airliner which is obviously at thousands of feet high?

 

Now you might know it's impossible and so do I but would everybody who might read it? 

 

The point is, why would you put a delibarately faked photo into a doicument that is dealing with safety issues? What was the point of doing that?  

[leccyflyer]

To make a point. That's what all of the highly photoshopped images in the document are for.

[Don Fry]

Arrrrrr I see. Back in the day I was told a photo is worth a 1000 words. Crap then, crap now. Anyway, Bruce does not get better with age.

I take Phillip Lewis’s point, dress a lie up as the truth, and it can get transformed. 

[Simon Chaddock]

This episode does rather confirm what has been said more than once that the people who draw up such documents are there for their journalistic skills rather than technical accuracy.

[Martin McIntosh]

Just watched the informative video which should be shown to our CAA before they come up with some more crazy ideas. Our landlord must have been reading the Daily Mail too since he banned any form of multirotors including the tiny Ladybird and 250mm racers which some of us flew. A bit peeved because I had recently spent a considerable amount of money on some machines and a V3 viewer.

Back to the OP. A club I was in years ago invited a shooting club to have a go at a small foamie model. After 2000 shotgun rounds it only came down when the Rx aerial was severed. Peppered in lead shot.

[Peter Miller]

Once again I go  to my favourite quotation:

 

"Those whom the gods seek to destroy, first they make mad"

 

Which leads on to my favourite prayer:

 

"OK. You have sent them mad. Now for Pete's sake get on with the destruction part!"

 

[MattyB]

7 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

…More worrying isn't the notion that media hysteria is being generated, it's the fact that, as model flyers some of us have actually encouraged being grouped together with drones, multirotors, beyond visual line of sight operations and the whole slew of operations which bring unmanned aerial vehicles into potential conflict with manned aircraft. It has always been my believe that we should have made every effort to maintain clear blue water (or air) between what we do as model aeroplane flyers and these other activities, which are not model aeroplane flying.

Really, you are going here again? You seem to be trying to rewrite history somewhat. The national associations tried repeatedly to work with the CAA to agree a definition of model aircraft that defined this “clear blue water” you seek over a period of multiple years. However, despite all their efforts (and some on this and other forums claiming it was a “simple task”) it proved impossible to find a definition  that was legally precise and acceptable to regulators. Blaming the BMFA, LMA et al for this would be pretty unfair given no other model flying body has managed this successfully anywhere in the world (to my knowledge). 
 

On the basis that there is (and never has been) any legal demarcation between multirotors and other types of model, it therefore makes sense to bring in as many of the drone flying community into national associations. Despite the sensationalist pictures in that report, if you read the content (which few seem to have done, including the infamous Bruce) you will find it is actually very positive in terms of the CAAs view of the work of the national associations. On this basis I still firmly believe that they were right to focus on being as inclusive as possible once it became clear no regulator globally was prepared to provide a clear regulatory demarcation between multirotors and traditional LOS model aircraft. No, it may not be a perfect situation, but the NAs and their members are better off being viewed as an active part of the solution than standing on the side pointing fingers at “illegal drone flyers who give us a bad name”.

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

I skimmed the report and one of the basic premises is the contention that there is likely to be significant under-reporting of incidents, given the claimed half-a-million practitioners and very small number of reports, compared to commercial and general aviation in manned aircraft.

[leccyflyer]

There is also the contention that much of that under-reporting likely results from users of multicopter drones as a tool for photography and videography, rather than any model flying of any type and that such practitioners do not consider the flying of their drones to be the recreational activity that they are engaged in -it's all about the collection of aerial images.

[Philip Lewis 3]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

On the basis that there is (and never has been) any legal demarcation between multirotors and other types of model.

Yes there is, they soon came up with one with the article 16 height limit, not disagreeing with what was said just the above statement. 

[john davidson 1]

One of  the members said yesterday the rules about beyond visual range has altered , have I missed something( not that it would affect me)

[MattyB]

15 hours ago, Philip Lewis 3 said:

Yes there is, they soon came up with one with the article 16 height limit, not disagreeing with what was said just the above statement. 

 

The Article 16 exemptions granted to national associations are not on the statute book - they are targeted exemptions to the law that can be used by certain groups in specific situations, but they are not the law itself. Whilst there are clear differences between craft above and below 250g, and those that carry cameras (or "sensors capable of capturing personal data" as it has been reworded in the new BMFA Art.16 exemption, which is an interesting choice of words...), there is no difference between any variant of LOS model aircraft, helicopters or multirotors in law as is demonstrated in the drone code:

 

https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code

[Engine Doctor]

The problem wont go away any time soon.  Just seen on a FB Walderslade History Group a posting from someone who has taken aerial pics from his home or nearby and has asked about selling them ! The fact that he is about 1/4 mile from Rochester Airport ecaspes him tottaly. He obviously hasn't  noticed all the reports in the papers over the last few years or think like many " it doesn't apply to me ".  Just another Christmas Present new flyer ? 

[Zflyer]

Back to the Original Post. Concerning insurance, clay shooting is a recognised Sport and may be covered under insurance. It maybe that the clay shooting club's insurance would cover the activity and I would certainly look into that, after all they have asked you, seems to me they should be doing the insuring. I suspect they have some kind of cover for stray "clays".

 

[MattyB]

On 01/01/2023 at 21:50, john davidson 1 said:

One of  the members said yesterday the rules about beyond visual range has altered , have I missed something( not that it would affect me)

This should help explain the changes. Slightly surprised there hasn’t been more about this pushed out by the CAA and the national associations.

 

 

[john davidson 1]

Thanks Matty, exactly what my fellow member  said , a dot on the horizon or a flashing light is not seen by the CAA as within sight