illegal; drone flight and non registration fines

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Cuban8 said:

Why all of this should mean that flyers of model aircraft, and in particular, those operating from one of the hundreds of dedicated BMFA club sites should have been mixed up with it is still nuts. The bureaucrats wanted it and they were determined to have it - BMFA did well to get the 'deal' we've got and 99% of flyers couldn't give a fig one way or the other......pay up, tick your boxes and stick your stickers on your models, then go and enjoy your hobby while you can.

 

All true.... for now. I think the 99% of club flyers will be a bit more bothered when remote ID inevitably rears it's ugly head in the UK (as it is now doing in Australia I see).

 

https://www.drones.gov.au/policies-and-programs/initiatives/remote-identification

 

 

[leccyflyer]

Any requirement for onboard remote ID for model aeroplanes would be a ridiculous infringement - Plenty of full-sized, human carrying aircraft fly over every single day, which are apparently not all fitted with transponders. All the more reason for flying at approved club sites, for which notification has been sent to NATS or whoever else cares or needs to know. A number of clubs in this region have long standing NOTAMS that Unmanned Flight Will Take Place, for months at a time. 

[paul devereux]

25 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Any requirement for onboard remote ID for model aeroplanes would be a ridiculous infringement -

It would be pointless as well. Over 10% UK car drivers drive without insurance (Facts + Statistics: Uninsured motorists | III) -  making things more difficult for those of us who are insured would not affect them one jot. More onerous requirements for model plane ID will make no difference to the flyers who don't comply with current regulations. And how would it be policed? We'd need defences like WW2 Chain Home Low to try to track the thousands of drones taking off and flying around gardens, parks and countryside in the UK.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

I just renewed my registration numbers on my planes on the French site, now you have to tick a box if you haven't got a transponder, then they ask you 3 other questions, ie; do you fly in a registered FFAM club,,,

[MattyB]

21 hours ago, leccyflyer said:

Any requirement for onboard remote ID for model aeroplanes would be a ridiculous infringement - Plenty of full-sized, human carrying aircraft fly over every single day, which are apparently not all fitted with transponders. All the more reason for flying at approved club sites, for which notification has been sent to NATS or whoever else cares or needs to know. A number of clubs in this region have long standing NOTAMS that Unmanned Flight Will Take Place, for months at a time. 

 

21 hours ago, paul devereux said:

It would be pointless as well. Over 10% UK car drivers drive without insurance (Facts + Statistics: Uninsured motorists | III) -  making things more difficult for those of us who are insured would not affect them one jot. More onerous requirements for model plane ID will make no difference to the flyers who don't comply with current regulations. And how would it be policed? We'd need defences like WW2 Chain Home Low to try to track the thousands of drones taking off and flying around gardens, parks and countryside in the UK.

 

You both seem to be under the misapprehension that the views and goals of the authorities are based on logic and factual information. We've known that isn't the case for years on this topic, because (courtesy of expensive lobbyists employed by the Amazon's and DHLs of this world) the UK government (and governments worldwide) believe there is massive potential in commercial drone operations. This would lead to lots of jobs and tax £££s if they can clear the skys for BVLOS operations.

 

Whether that is realistic or not is irrelevant - they have been convinced it is, so they are going to put the legal frameworks and controls in place to try and enable it to happen. If they are not going to try and implement RID at some point, why did the SoS for Transport state it explicitly as a target (Grant Schapps in 2020):

 

"Modernising airspace:

As co-sponsor of modernisation, the CAA has a vital role in ensuring the successful delivery of the Airspace Modernisation Strategy. The need to modernise the UK’s airspace remains clear despite the impact of COVID-19 on the programme. Airspace modernisation will create sufficient airspace capacity to deliver safe and efficient growth, whilst reducing the noise and carbon emissions of individual flights. Modernised airspace is also essential to opening up airspace for all users, and an important initiative being led by the CAA is an airspace classification review and reform project to look at the release of controlled airspace. It is vital that all airspace users can access airspace where it is safe to do so. As part of this, I consider the timely and effective deployment of Electronic Conspicuity to be a priority for delivering safety."

 

They will try to implement RID here at some point; the BMFA et al know this, and are keeping relationships warm and their powder dry until then. The only real question is exactly when. I would be surprised if we do not see a "discussion" paper similar to the Aussie one this year or early in 2024 by UKGov, as I'm sure they are watching the US RID implementation with a keen eye to learn how to do it better...

Edited June 22, 2023 by MattyB

[FlyinFlynn]

You can build your own transponder if you need one, using just two components and a bit of heatshrink to hold them together. A Seed studio Xiao ESP32C3 module costing around €7 (or any esp32/esp8266) and an L80R GPS module costing around €6. The sketch is available here.  The reason I chose the Xiao is that the Xiao has a battery connection on the board that allows you to connect a single li-po cell to power the device, so no additional dc/dc regulator is required and it has an on board USB socket to upload the sketch without faffing with a serial to usb adapter........and that it is small and light. The entire device weighs less than 10 grams.  The only changes you would need to make to the sketch is to modify  line 116 in the .ino

char drone_id[31] = "000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYYYYYYYYYYYY";    to suit your selection (following the rules!) and upload that to the AlphaTango site....job done!

 

The 4 wired connections required to connect between the Xiao and the L80 are given in the .ino file

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by FlyinFlynn

[Cuban8]

That's all very well and good, FF, but just as many comments along the lines of "don't know what you're all worrying about, it's only a few quid and few questions to answer to stay legal" argument that was levelled as those of us who were very concerned where all this might wind up............why are model aeroplanes being embroiled in all of this and what good will it do? What might be thought up next?

Those two questions have still not been answered satisfactorily IMHO and of course those that dream up this stuff are well versed in obfuscation in order to have their way.

I really do hope that good sense will prevail, maybe when we have someone in government that looks at all this nonsense and says " hold on, this is costing  how much and what good is it doing anyway"? There are no signs of the lower airspace in this country being swamped with delivery drones or flying taxis or anything else criss-crossing our flying fields, or other open spaces to warrant further controls on our activities beyond the responsibilites we've had for decades under the ANO. To keep saying, it's coming, it's coming.......maybe in a few years time so we need to prepare now etc etc is rubbish. Just go back through the discussions on this site -certainly ten years worth and I'm still getting my Amazon orders delivered by van (diesel by the way). All that CAA doubletalk about modernising the airspace is typical.

Other than being stiched up for ten quid and a few coppers we remain mostly unaffected and can do what we like as before, thankfully. Can't guess a timescale, but it won't remain that way and god forbid, we might have to resort to legal action or whatever to protect ourselves. Costly and not ideal, so lets hope it doesn't come to it.

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Cuban8

[Peter Jenkins]

Cuban 8, as you say, the opportunity to legislate is there but it will depend on how much the use of the airspace below 500 ft actually receives before any further legislation will be introduced.  Remember, that there is a lot of pressure on gaining legislative time and there are a lot more pressing problems with which Parliament has to deal.  Until such time as airborne delivery by Amazon and its ilk becomes more heavily used I suspect there will not be pressure to legislate further at the moment.  Of course, there are many other requirements such as monitoring crop health, moving time critical medical supplies, transmission line inspection and so on that are much more likely to be used than speeding up Amazon deliveries.  Since those are far more likely to get close to our existing flying fields they are likely to be a bigger problem for us.

[MattyB]

28 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Cuban 8, as you say, the opportunity to legislate is there but it will depend on how much the use of the airspace below 500 ft actually receives before any further legislation will be introduced.  Remember, that there is a lot of pressure on gaining legislative time and there are a lot more pressing problems with which Parliament has to deal.

 

Sorry, but I think you have it the wrong way round. Legislators and lawyers have made it clear there can be no BVLOS autonomous or semi-autonomous use of the airspace below 400ft until the legal frameworks and additional controls like registration (tick) and RID (not yet) are in place. You are right about pressures on legislative time though, that could help us out (Covid also put back the next phase too, no doubt about that).

[paul devereux]

Hopefully, the incoming legislation won't affect those of us who don't fly beyond line of sight. And if the thread becomes too great, it might also be a good time for clubs to cut association with the CAA and BMFA and regulate themselves. 

[FlyinFlynn]

1 hour ago, Cuban8 said:

That's all very well and good, FF, but just as many comments along the lines of "don't know what you're all worrying about, it's only a few quid and few questions to answer to stay legal" argument that was levelled as those of us who were very concerned where all this might wind up............why are model aeroplanes being embroiled in all of this and what good will it do? What might be thought up next?

Those two questions have still not been answered satisfactorily IMHO and of course those that dream up this stuff are well versed in obfuscation in order to have their way.

I really do hope that good sense will prevail, maybe when we have someone in government that looks at all this nonsense and says " hold on, this is costing  how much and what good is it doing anyway"? There are no signs of the lower airspace in this country being swamped with delivery drones or flying taxis or anything else criss-crossing our flying fields, or other open spaces to warrant further controls on our activities beyond the responsibilites we've had for decades under the ANO. To keep saying, it's coming, it's coming.......maybe in a few years time so we need to prepare now etc etc is rubbish. Just go back through the discussions on this site -certainly ten years worth and I'm still getting my Amazon orders delivered by van (diesel by the way). All that CAA doubletalk about modernising the airspace is typical.

Other than being stiched up for ten quid and a few coppers we remain mostly unaffected and can do what we like as before, thankfully. Can't guess a timescale, but it won't remain that way and god forbid, we might have to resort to legal action or whatever to protect ourselves. Costly and not ideal, so lets hope it doesn't come to it.

 

I'm not getting embroiled in the ethics of the changing legislation, such arguments seem to me to be pointless, the powers that be will make up rules that suit themselves and your input, along with the entire minority modelers group, counts for very little. I was simply trying to redress some of the concern surrounding the availability of a solution, it is really quite simple to comply with the existing regulations (here in France) and should such a requirement become law in the UK I doubt it will take long for a suitable device/firmware to become available. 

[RottenRow]

5 hours ago, paul devereux said:

it might also be a good time for clubs to cut association with the CAA and BMFA and regulate themselves. 

 

I doubt any clubs have any association with the CAA Paul... the legislation is something that has been forced upon all model fliers whether in clubs or sole fliers off a remote hill somewhere.

 

All of the laws / regulations are aimed at the individual, not at clubs. The BMFA have done a good job in minimising the effect the legislation has on most model flying, but when they are up against the CAA (which itself is carrying out the will of the government, however ill-concieved that may be) they can't perform miracles.

 

Unfortunately what you are saying isn't realistic or likely to happen.

 

I suspect that you have only been flying models for a very short time and have missed all of the publicity about the regulations that started around 2018. It might be a good idea if you were to take a look at a few old copies of 'BMFA News', either from a fellow club member or online at the BMFA website where they can all be read.

 

BMFA News can be found here....  https://bmfa.org/bmfa-news

 

Brian.

[Peter Jenkins]

11 hours ago, paul devereux said:

Hopefully, the incoming legislation won't affect those of us who don't fly beyond line of sight. And if the thread becomes too great, it might also be a good time for clubs to cut association with the CAA and BMFA and regulate themselves. 

Paul

 

Just a quick note as you are new to this.  I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of common land.  There is NO common air.  The airspace is owned by the Government from above your house/building roof upwards.  There is no alternative to obeying the law of the land, or in this case the air.  The CAA has made exemptions for 4 organisations, one of which is the BMFA, to allow us to use the relaxations set out in Article 16.  I suspect that as a lone flyer you may feel that you can pretty much do as you wish.  As a member of the BMFA, that is true provided you abide by the rules set out in Article 16.  If you haven't already familiarised yourself with Article 16, you can do so here.  There was a very hard fought case that took over 5 years and that included many of us writing into our MPs to express our views on the proposals that were tabled by the Government.  The key person involved in all of this was the Chief Executive of the BMFA.  

 

Provided we maintain our existing excellent air safety record it is unlikely, though not impossible(!), for the Government to introduce more onerous procedures as the data will not support this.  However, other aspects such as Remote ID may turn up sooner rather than later and will have to be dealt with by bringing the power of the BMFA to bear.  Going your own way is the recipe for disaster and I would respectfully suggest that you may not be able to negotiate with the CAA with the same level of credence that the CE of the BMFA has.  

[paul devereux]

6 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Paul

 

Just a quick note as you are new to this.  I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of common land.  There is NO common air.  The airspace is owned by the Government from above your house/building roof upwards.  There is no alternative to obeying the law of the land, or in this case the air.  The CAA has made exemptions for 4 organisations, one of which is the BMFA, to allow us to use the relaxations set out in Article 16.  I suspect that as a lone flyer you may feel that you can pretty much do as you wish.  As a member of the BMFA, that is true provided you abide by the rules set out in Article 16.  If you haven't already familiarised yourself with Article 16, you can do so here.  There was a very hard fought case that took over 5 years and that included many of us writing into our MPs to express our views on the proposals that were tabled by the Government.  The key person involved in all of this was the Chief Executive of the BMFA.  

 

Provided we maintain our existing excellent air safety record it is unlikely, though not impossible(!), for the Government to introduce more onerous procedures as the data will not support this.  However, other aspects such as Remote ID may turn up sooner rather than later and will have to be dealt with by bringing the power of the BMFA to bear.  Going your own way is the recipe for disaster and I would respectfully suggest that you may not be able to negotiate with the CAA with the same level of credence that the CE of the BMFA has.  

I think aero modellers are distinct from drone fliers.

Most modellers want to build and fly planes that look approximately like full-size prototypes, at least in the configuration of main-plane, empennage, and system of control, even if they build pushers or canards or even helicopters. Even full-on model planes often have "dummy" cockpits.

Drone flyers are concerned with other criteria such as ability to carry payloads.

It seems to me that the new legislation is aimed at drone flying, especially in public areas.

I reckon modeller fliers don't emphasise this distinction. But maybe I'm wrong, and most modellers are interested in multi-rotor as well, in which case my supposition falls flat.

 

 

[leccyflyer]

Unfortunately, (IMO possibly due to chasing the additional membership that was represented by drone flyers), our national body did not succeed in making the distinction between drones and model aircraft. Some might say that such a distinction was never going to be feasible, because in the end result an aerial object operating in the public airspace is still an aerial object, whatever it's nature it still provides a collision risk for other users of the airspace. The key distinction, for me is operating BVLOS. With the exception of free flight, our hobby is chiefly concerned with flying where we can see and control the model - frankly, if you can't see the model you can't control the model. No matter how cool FPV is, it's certainly not traditional aeromodelling, it is something else and is really at the root of a lot of the problems we are encountering with registration and new regulations. It was always going to create issues, which was apparent from the activities and self-publicity of those who indulged in posting videos of their FPV flights miles away from base and at serious altitudes.

 

Truth be told there's nothing about the registration which should give cause for concern, it makes no significant impact on the hobby. Sticking an unnecessarily long  unique Operator ID number on a model is a trivial manner. A requirement that all of our models >250g have to have onboard radio conspicuity devices fitted would be different. That is an imposition, additional expense and complexity. The fact that if you are well versed in constructing and programming such devices, so there is no problem, only applies to a minority of model flyers, most of us do not have that skill set, so it's essentially a requirement to fit a commercial unit, meaning more complexity and expense.

 

For what? For the model flyer who is operating at the club field, often miles away from anywhere, it's an unnecessary complexity. Before suggesting that you'll only need one such device, which could be fitted just to the model that you are going to fly, which typically crops up in these discussions, please think about that for a second. No, if implemented, in practical terms it'll mean having to fit one to every flight-ready model, they will likely cost as much as a receiver or ESC and they will represent another potential point of failure.  

[J D 8]

1 hour ago, paul devereux said:

I think aero modellers are distinct from drone fliers.

 

 

 

  That is what you may think Paul BUT it is not what the powers that be think.

I spent hours writing to MP, Government, ect and We are where we are with the rules today. All we can do now is fight off ideas of electronic id as per leccyflyer above.    John

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

Unfortunately, (IMO possibly due to chasing the additional membership that was represented by drone flyers), our national body did not succeed in making the distinction between drones and model aircraft. Some might say that such a distinction was never going to be feasible, because in the end result an aerial object operating in the public airspace is still an aerial object, whatever it's nature it still provides a collision risk for other users of the airspace. The key distinction, for me is operating BVLOS. With the exception of free flight, our hobby is chiefly concerned with flying where we can see and control the model - frankly, if you can't see the model you can't control the model. 

 

The problem with this logic (at least according to legislators keen on extracting those tax £££s!) is that in a world where BVLOS commercial operatiosn are widespread, the BVLOS sUAS need to know where everything is in their airspace is in order to avoid hitting them. That includes LOS model aircraft, hence why most nations are pushing for registration and remote ID. Of course this could be addressed by a ground station type model that broadcast whenever model flying was going on to create the equivalent of a FRIA in real time, but that is probably too pragmatic a solution.

 

PS - The other gaping hole in their argument is why so many full size aircraft of different types are not required to have this, but then people who participate in those sports will tend to have more money and influence to lobby than model flyers and their national associations...

 

1 hour ago, leccyflyer said:

...No matter how cool FPV is, it's certainly not traditional aeromodelling, it is something else and is really at the root of a lot of the problems we are encountering with registration and new regulations. It was always going to create issues, which was apparent from the activities and self-publicity of those who indulged in posting videos of their FPV flights miles away from base and at serious altitudes.

 

As has been confirmed many times (including by the BMFA in their webcasts), FPV is not the driver of the legislation we have seen over the past few years. The real driver is that new long range, BVLOS (and LOS) technologies evolved that were quickly recognising as having commercial value, and governemnts want to capitalise on those using the airspace below 400ft. Commercial use has been a formally declared goal ever since the RIGA declaration way back in 2015, where they discussed openly the requirement for registration and RID. Whilst I agree irresponsible FPV flights have not helped us, they are not the driver here.

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

Exactly - I can see from ADS-B how many light aircraft come overhead which are not equipped with transponders and so don't show up. As far as I'm aware iy is not, at the moment mandatory, for all manned aircraft to carry a transponder. You could say that, as a manned aircraft they all have the capability to see and avoid, but we all know how fallible that is.

 

With FRIAs in place for my club fields and notifications published as long lived NOTAMS -as some local clubs are practicing - there's no reason why Amazon's drones or any other BVLOS drones should infringe on that airspace - they won't be able to overfly airfields without permission, they would have to obey NOTAMS for obstacles and other security-sensitive sites, so why not model flying fields.

 

Bottom line is we have a century of operating model aircraft safely, with no significant impact on full scale commercial and general aviation operations and what impact there is can be mitigated. As Cuban8 pointed out earlier, maybe flying deliveries might eventually transpire in built up areas but up here in the wilds of Scotland it's all you can do to get a parcel delivered by a big van, without being fined for having a hill on the horizon - the chances there will be airborne delivery of good at any sort of significant scale in the next decade doesn't appera tot be very feasible.

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, paul devereux said:

I think aero modellers are distinct from drone fliers.

Most modellers want to build and fly planes that look approximately like full-size prototypes, at least in the configuration of main-plane, empennage, and system of control, even if they build pushers or canards or even helicopters. Even full-on model planes often have "dummy" cockpits.

Drone flyers are concerned with other criteria such as ability to carry payloads.

It seems to me that the new legislation is aimed at drone flying, especially in public areas.

I reckon modeller fliers don't emphasise this distinction. But maybe I'm wrong, and most modellers are interested in multi-rotor as well, in which case my supposition falls flat.

 

Before posting any further views on what should and should not be done, you may want to watch this webcast from the BMFA which will explain a lot of what has happened.

 

If you don't have time to watch all of it, focus specifically the part between 57:30 and around 1:05:45 (just press play on the video below and it should jump straight to the relevant section) where ex-CAA employee Cliff Whittaker explains the background to current regulations, which dates way back to 2001, and had nothing to do with model fliers.

 

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by MattyB

[John Lee]

32 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

PS - The other gaping hole in their argument is why so many full size aircraft of different types are not required to have this, but then people who participate in those sports will tend to have more money and influence to lobby than model flyers and their national associations...

 

Full size aircraft will be required to have electronic conspicuity. It's a question of when, not if, and much of the present work is centred upon which standard(s) to adopt.

 

It is still work in progress but right now full size pilots can obtain a 50% rebate on the cost of EC devices (Max £250 rebate). Whilst not without controversy such devices, eg PilotAware, SkyEcho, Flarm are already widely adopted as they are seen as a great asset in enhancing 'See & be seen'. They broadcast the aircraft's position & altitude and receive the same. The units can either be mounted in the aircraft or used portably with a Powerbank supply.

 

Whilst in general the devices mentioned can detect each other and conventional transponders they may not appear on FlightRadar.

They will either have a dedicated display or, more usually, be linked to a tablet (eg iPad) to display other traffic.

 

I bought a portable Pilotaware unit about 6 years ago and for 5 years used it in a number of aircraft but in the last 12 months every aircraft I have flown (power, microlight & glider) have had an EC device permanently installed, such has been their widespread adoption.

 

There is plenty about this on the CAA Website, just search 'Electronic Conspicuity' on their site.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, John Lee said:

 

Full size aircraft will be required to have electronic conspicuity. It's a question of when, not if, and much of the present work is centred upon which standard(s) to adopt.

 

It is still work in progress but right now full size pilots can obtain a 50% rebate on the cost of EC devices (Max £250 rebate). Whilst not without controversy such devices, eg PilotAware, SkyEcho, Flarm are already widely adopted as they are seen as a great asset in enhancing 'See & be seen'. They broadcast the aircraft's position & altitude and receive the same. The units can either be mounted in the aircraft or used portably with a Powerbank supply.

 

Whilst in general the devices mentioned can detect each other and conventional transponders they may not appear on FlightRadar.

They will either have a dedicated display or, more usually, be linked to a tablet (eg iPad) to display other traffic.

 

I bought a portable Pilotaware unit about 6 years ago and for 5 years used it in a number of aircraft but in the last 12 months every aircraft I have flown (power, microlight & glider) have had an EC device permanently installed, such has been their widespread adoption.

 

There is plenty about this on the CAA Website, just search 'Electronic Conspicuity' on their site.

 

It is good to hear adoption is becoming more widespread, though as suggested by @leccyflyer my expereince is that ADS-B and equivalents are a long way off standard kit at this point. It should certainly be made mandatory before they even think about trying to rollout RID for models in the UK.

[PDB]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

 

If you don't have time to watch all of it, focus specifically the part between 57:30 and around 1:05:45 (just press play on the video below and it should jump straight to the relevant section) where ex-CAA employee Cliff Whittaker explains the background to current regulations, which dates way back to 2001, and had nothing to do with model fliers.

 

 

That was a real eye opener and very educational, essential viewing for the foil hat brigade.

[Cuban8]

22 hours ago, PDB said:

 

That was a real eye opener and very educational, essential viewing for the foil hat brigade.

"it isn't all logical and sensible"................that's abundantly obvious.

If the powers that be at the time couldn't tell the difference between a multi-million dollar military or commercial drone and its capabilities, with that of a a foamy Wot 4, or at least were really unable to come up with a water tight definition (in their judgement) to prevent someone mistaking the two, (I don't believe that for one second) then............maybe they should give AI a chance at it.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Cuban8

[David perry 1]

On 21/06/2023 at 00:00, RottenRow said:

. A free-falling object falling from 50m possesses about twice the kinetic energy of the same object falling from 25m, so is much more likely to inflict serious injury or property damage.

 

Brian.

I doubt that.  Once it has attained terminal velocity no more energy will be added to a falling body. 25m, 50m, 25 miles...

 

Of course, i dont know how far a drone must fall to attain TV so by chance, you could be right.

 

 

I hate drones.  The nasty high pitched whining and the absolute UN aerodynamic shape and flight characteristics.  I loath them. And the hundreds used at night to make pretty pictures make my skin crawl.  

[Cuban8]

I don't know about hating drones - I'm not interested in them at all, and originally thought that aeromodelling i.e BMFA, should keep them at arms length, but live and let live.

Obviously, widespread drone use in public by techie people looking for another way to spend their money  until something else comes along was going to be a problem - they would be unlikely to be interested in aviation per se, but merely as a means to the end of getting photographs and videofrom a viewpoint that would have been out of reach before, and that has given us the issues seen at large sporting events, airports and so on.

My view now is that BMFA did the right thing in offering anyone who operates drones, a base for operating safely and legally along with insurance etc.

However, I doubt if many actually thought......."oh I've got my drone now, so I must be responsible and join BMFA" - at least the opportunity is there and we've done the right thing to show that we've acted well, and can offer something worthwhile. Our membership numbers and that of the drone flyers option would suggest that it hasn't been taken up anywhere near as much as it might have been, but a few is better than none at all.

The fear that a few of my club mates had, was that we'd soon be the BDFA............. that was way off the mark.

The mania for drones has had its 'big bang' moment of rapid expansion, and our little aeromodelling universe is now left with its own 'cosmic microwave background' of rules and regs left over, and perfusing through it.

Edited June 24, 2023 by Cuban8