Enforcement of model flying regulations

[GrumpyGnome]

Sorry Arthur, I think we did shoot you down....

[Ron Gray]

13 minutes ago, MattyB said:

For this reason those who intend to go guerilla will save themselves the time and expense of buying land and just go flying in places where the chances of enforcement is minimal.

Come the revolution!

[Arthur Harris]

18 minutes ago, MattyB said:

 

 

Indeed. Under the current regs and new proposals you'd still need to be registered as a pilot and operator, and still need RID for anything over 250g. For this reason those who intend to go guerilla will save themselves the time and expense of buying land and just go flying in places where the chances of enforcement is minimal. I suspect the chances of you finding 10 members in your locale who'd support the plan you propose is extremely minimal, let alone the 100s you'd actually need to make it economically viable.

I was floating an idea that we might have to adopt if model flying becomes illegal.

It's not something I would want, I quite like the current arrangements. I've just this morning paid my BMFA fee, it's not their fault, the pressure put on model flying is worldwide because of the irresistible lure of commercial drone flying. I say irresistible because businesses won't drop the idea of pilotless drones as it will be so cheap once it has entered the mainstream. They won't want hobbyists cluttering the airspace.

 

[Ron Gray]

It would take me back to the 60s, 70s and 80s. I didn’t belong to any club, I didn’t have any insurance (irresponsible) and I flew off any empty field I found. When I moved down to Sussex in the late 70s I was then able to go slope soaring off any hill I had the energy to climb (and as I was in my 20s and fit that amounted to all of them) and still carried a couple of smaller hand launched IC models in the car for when I found an empty field. When I came back home to visit my parents in Norfolk I used to fly my Cambria Instructor off a number of the disused airfields that pepper the county. 
 

History has a habit of repeating itself.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Ron Gray

[MattyB]

39 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

I was floating an idea that we might have to adopt if model flying becomes illegal.

It's not something I would want, I quite like the current arrangements. I've just this morning paid my BMFA fee, it's not their fault, the pressure put on model flying is worldwide because of the irresistible lure of commercial drone flying. I say irresistible because businesses won't drop the idea of pilotless drones as it will be so cheap once it has entered the mainstream. They won't want hobbyists cluttering the airspace.

1. Model flying won't become illegal - that's a whole lot of work for the authorities, probably wouldn't have great optics to the eyes general public, and would be easier to challenge in court than what they are really planning. It's far easier to make it just difficult and expensive enough to put off most recreational participants from bothering, freeing up the airspace for commercial use. 
2. Even if model flying were to become illegal, as we've just pointed out buying land is pointless - it doesn't make it any more legal, just more expensive. One passer by, one complaint, one visit from PC Plod and your whole (expensive) undertaking comes crashing down. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by MattyB

[Cuban8]

54 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

I was floating an idea that we might have to adopt if model flying becomes illegal.

It's not something I would want, I quite like the current arrangements. I've just this morning paid my BMFA fee, it's not their fault, the pressure put on model flying is worldwide because of the irresistible lure of commercial drone flying. I say irresistible because businesses won't drop the idea of pilotless drones as it will be so cheap once it has entered the mainstream. They won't want hobbyists cluttering the airspace.

 

Why would model flying become illegal? My answer is that it won't, because there is simply no good reason short of war, to go through all the legal palarva to divest a group of people from following  their previously quite legal activities. Playing devil's advocate.........I can think of quite a number of reasons make say golf or cycling illegal on the grounds of safety or public nuisance......how far would that get?

 

No.....the issue IMHO is one of proportionality and good sense to address an issue that at this moment that doesn't exist as a safety problem, BUT might, and I emphasise, might, impinge on other users of 'our airspace' in the future.

[Arthur Harris]

On 09/12/2023 at 11:00, Ron Gray said:

Personally I don’t think that not having ID or RID will affect an insurance claim.

I don't actually know what the new proposal is. Is a RID a sort of IFF or squawk given out by each of our model planes? If it is, it seems a bit pointless as all the authorities will get is hundreds of squawks clustered at low altitude over a model flying field. If the flying field is in the route taken by an Amazon hub to say, Manchester, the model flying field will just be closed down. The CAA could just get the info on the location of model airfields from the BMFA without needing RIDs. 

And I agree, Ron, insurance claims will be decided on common sense- if the presence or absence of a gadget would have made no difference to any accident, it would be immaterial (I'm thinking of the tragic accident where a lone flyer in a UK park killed a young girl about 10 years ago when the pilot failed to keep his plane under control). 

[GrumpyGnome]

55 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

 

And I agree, Ron, insurance claims will be decided on common sense- if the presence or absence of a gadget would have made no difference to any accident, it would be immaterial (I'm thinking of the tragic accident where a lone flyer in a UK park killed a young girl about 10 years ago when the pilot failed to keep his plane under control). 

I worked in insurance for a while. Depending on economic pressures, anything to reduce a payout would be considered. Common sense doesn't really come into it......

[John Lee]

This is from the latest AAIB Monthly accident bulletin.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65671bacd6ad75001302fc86/AAIB_Bulletin_12-2023.pdf

 

There is no evidence of any enforcement activity following this accident despite the pilot having had no training or qualification (would not have happened in BEB's day!). Likewise there is no evidence that this will not be undertaken, although by implication it seems to have been left to the University to correct matters going forward.

 

"AAIB Bulletin: 12/2023 DJI Mavic 2 Pro AAIB-29098

ACCIDENT
Aircraft Type and Registration: DJI Mavic 2 Pro
No & Type of Engines: 4 DJI electric engines
Year of Manufacture: Unknown (Serial no: 163CJ1JR0A780V)
Date & Time (UTC): 27 March 2023 at 1000 hrs
Location: Liverpool
Type of Flight: Private
Persons on Board: Crew - None Passengers - None
Injuries: Crew - N/A Passengers - N/A
Nature of Damage: Front left, rear left and rear right arm modules damaged and damage to the camera gimbal module
Commander’s Licence: None
Commander’s Age: 28 years
Commander’s Flying Experience: 0 hours (of which 0 were on type)
Last 90 days - 0 hours
Last 28 days - 0 hours
Information Source: Aircraft Accident Report Form submitted by the
pilot and further enquiries by the AAIB
Synopsis
During a short flight the unmanned aircraft collided with a building. The pilot reported he
inadvertently pressed the wrong control lever. He did not hold the necessary qualification to
operate the aircraft. The operator has implemented new procedures to prevent recurrence.
History of the flight
The unmanned aircraft (UA) had been purchased by the university to assist with research.
The university had registered as an ‘operator’ with the CAA.
On the day of the accident the aircraft was being flown by a research student. It was his
first flight of any UA and he had not undertaken any training. He was intending to evaluate
how the aircraft could be used to assist his research. He decided to fly it from the window
of his living quarters on the third floor of the building.........."

 

As you can imagine it did not end well!!

 

 

 

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

There here,,,,😨

 

 

[GrumpyGnome]

He has good eyesight........

[Steve McIntosh]

On 09/12/2023 at 11:11, GaryWebb said:

 

Any operation that is outside of whats legally required including ID & RID when finally in force I'm sure wud effect any insurance claim in the same way as someone driving without a license,,,,,, No license tax or mot renders the insurance policy as void/invalid so I wud guess flying with out ID & Rid when in force wud also render model insurance as void/invalid.... However I could be wrong

Not quite. Use of a m/v without valid MOT or Insurance would render your part of fully comp down to 3rd party only. Insurance companies are legally required to cover at least 3rd party risks... or they did up until I retired from traffic 7yrs ago

[Arthur Harris]

5 minutes ago, Steve McIntosh said:

Not quite. Use of a m/v without valid MOT or Insurance would render your part of fully comp down to 3rd party only. Insurance companies are legally required to cover at least 3rd party risks... or they did up until I retired from traffic 7yrs ago

You are right in saying that not having a valid MOT does not void insurance automatically: No MOT Doesn't Invalidate Insurance - Patterson Law

You can't even be fined for having no MOT in certain circumstances- I gave the instance when someone drives a works vehicle with the expectation that it is roadworthy. (I'm not talking about a truck driver who regularly uses the same truck- he is obviously responsible to ensure it is roadworthy, I'm talking about being asked to run an errand in a pool car. No one would expect you to request the maintenance log and go through it).

Crimes are of two main types- most require an act (actus reus) and an intention (mens rea) to commit it. A smaller number of offences are absolute- failing to stop at stop sign or red traffic light, or speeding, for example. Having no MOT is not an absolute crime- there are a number of permitted exceptions: driving to a MOT centre, for example.

 

[Learner]

45 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:

You are right in saying that not having a valid MOT does not void insurance automatically: No MOT Doesn't Invalidate Insurance - Patterson Law

You can't even be fined for having no MOT in certain circumstances- I gave the instance when someone drives a works vehicle with the expectation that it is roadworthy. (I'm not talking about a truck driver who regularly uses the same truck- he is obviously responsible to ensure it is roadworthy, I'm talking about being asked to run an errand in a pool car. No one would expect you to request the maintenance log and go through it).

Crimes are of two main types- most require an act (actus reus) and an intention (mens rea) to commit it. A smaller number of offences are absolute- failing to stop at stop sign or red traffic light, or speeding, for example. Having no MOT is not an absolute crime- there are a number of permitted exceptions: driving to a MOT centre, for example.

 

Sounds like Patterson law are unsure, they also say

However on the face of it it’s highly unlikely that your insurance was void/invalid and we anticipate that you will have a defence.

 

 

[Arthur Harris]

32 minutes ago, Learner said:

Sounds like Patterson law are unsure, they also say

However on the face of it it’s highly unlikely that your insurance was void/invalid and we anticipate that you will have a defence.

 

 

Yes, each case is argued on its individual merits.

[leccyflyer]

The overwhelming majority of respondents to that video of the drone flyer are highlighting the overreach of the police officer in that case. Nobody, that I saw, questioned on what possible basis the drone pilot was flying right next to a police firearms training centre. Why on earth was he there. FWIW the police officer was correct - the guy couldn't possibly have been in constant line of sight to his drone, he was looking directly at the police officer and not looking at the drone at all. Shouldn't he have also had a spotter? In the later part of the video you could clearly hear a full size light aircraft operating and, again, he was flying the drone from his screen - where was his spotter to prevent any possible conflict with the full size?

[EvilC57]

6 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

There here,,,,😨

 

 

This appears to be one of the so called ‘audit’ videos of a type I’ve seen on YT before. They deliberately fly over or near military, police or company installations to try and get a reaction from their security staff. They use their knowledge of drone law to try and argue their case, but it always seems a pointless and inflammatory pursuit to me.

[Arthur Harris]

4 hours ago, EvilC57 said:

This appears to be one of the so called ‘audit’ videos of a type I’ve seen on YT before. They deliberately fly over or near military, police or company installations to try and get a reaction from their security staff. They use their knowledge of drone law to try and argue their case, but it always seems a pointless and inflammatory pursuit to me.

To my mind, this just highlights the dissimilarity between model aircraft flying and drone flying. Drone pilots use videos (for FPV or to publish); model plane flyers want to learn skills or try out planes they have built. Drones don't take (much) skill to fly, model planes take a lot. Drone flyers court publicity, we are content to just enjoy flying.

I've never flown a drone, so I am happy for someone to correct me, but I think their main purpose is to take videos of interesting things, whereas our main purpose is just to fly, with no specific goal.

 

[Philip Lewis 3]

This person is simply out to cause trouble and deliberately courts it, he deliberately provokes confrontation, these kind of people call themselves "auditors" which is a massive affront to true auditors, just watch his other videos. He has absolutely nothing to do with me or this hobby and fully deserves everything he gets in my opinion.

[GaryW]

12 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

There here,,,,😨

 

 

 

 

One of the reasons we now have operator/flier ID registration and why the CAA is bringing in Remote ID,, So many idiots out there breaking the law including this idiot

Edited December 21, 2023 by GaryWebb

[Peter Jenkins]

I know that if you fly for hire and reward in a light aircraft that you need the aircraft to be on a Public Transport C of A and the pilot needs to hold a commercial licence.  The tragic death of that footballer who trusted his life to a cowboy who flew him from the UK to France and then ended up losing control of the aircraft as he wasn't a rated instrument pilot was a classic case in point.  

 

To fly for hire and reward with a model aircraft also requires the right insurance not your ordinary insurance.  The Policeman should have checked that and he'd no doubt have found that was not the case.  The guy had said he earned his living from posting videos on the internet.  He should have been prosecuted in my opinion.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

What worries me most about this video is reading some of the comments on YouTube.  I couldn't believe how understanding and reasonable the policeman was in the face of several obvious transgressions but apparently he was the very epitome of fascist thuggery according to most of the responders!  Perhaps they were watching a different video?  I saw an enthusiastic and patient police officer winning round an initially obstructive and opinionated "cowboy" operator and giving him some useful hints and advice. 

 

It's easy to understand why there may be unease in some quarters about reckless UAS operation if these attitudes are prevalent and sadly, whether we like it or not, we are seen as a connected activity.

 

Far from some of the opinions expressed in this thread, it does show that at least some in the police force are aware of the legislation (even if expressed a little hesitantly/inaccurately in conversation) and it was quite telling that the OP-ID was checked along with awareness that the compliant battery kept the drone below 250g.  Yes, he was a police drone operator but he was specifically tasked to attend by other officers due to his specialist knowledge.

[Nigel R]

8 hours ago, Philip Lewis 3 said:

these kind of people call themselves "auditors" which is a massive affront to true auditors,

 

Quite. They're not auditors. I'll use the word "wally".

 

6 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

the comments on YouTube.

 

Are often best avoided or ignored.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

A bit of fresh air, maybe these Pilots started with stick rubber powered planes without any regulations, what will happen to this generation ?.

 

 I put it here not in 'regulations' as it seems to getting a bit overcharged.

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

9 minutes ago, Nigel R said:

They're not auditors. I'll use the word "wally"

In Essex that's a big gherkin, sold in fish and chip shops,,,