EssexBOF Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2984676/Royal-parks-declared-no-drone-zones-Remote-controlled-aircraft-banned-areas-near-Buckingham-Palace-royal-homes-terrorism-fears.html Well it had to come in the end, pity it affects all of us as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssexBOF Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 Well they used to fly gliders in Richmond Park plus others in Bushey Park so guess that puts a stop on that. Thing that worries me is when these goons start flying them on NT property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Yes Pete, lots of thoughts on it, most pretty contentious! What it has absolutly shown is that the BMFA has shown itself incapable of pro-active thinking on promoting our hobby and as you say "get our side's point of view "out there". They need and have needed for sometime a professional PR department getting media airtime whenever there is a story in the news. Press releases targeted at mainstream media should be pouring out of Chatsfield House. Where is the BMFA statement on the latest news from the House of Lords? or this Royal Parks ban? We desperately need a model flying body that represents the interest of individual model flyers and whilst we lack one we can only look forward to more prohibition. The ironic thing is that prohibition has been shown time and time again to only affect the law abiding and not deter at all those who might be a potential threat to safety, privacy or security. Whilst we need good relations with the CAA, we need to be fighting in the court of public opinion because that is where the danger is. Sadly most people do not seem to give a monkeys until it is their site or club that suffers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikef Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Well they used to fly gliders in Richmond Park plus others in Bushey Park so guess that puts a stop on that. Some good news. This 'Ban' was brought to my notice by the BMFA (Manny Williamson), who knew that I used Richmond Park. I'm one of a few surviving members of the 'old' Richmond club - having moved away from the area, none of us use the park regularly these days. There are several DLG flyers who fly there regularly and I have been to fly with them a few times. The BMFA was concerned to know if the situation had changed there. I called the Park Police and they told me that there is no change in that Model Flying (and 'drone' flying) is still permitted but only in the designated area as it always has been since I was in short trousers (early 60s). I believe that the 'designated areas' rule has applied to all the Royal Parks for a long time. I don't know if there are designated areas in other Royal Parks but if there are, perhaps the situation there hasn't changed either. The notice seems to be aimed at the 'newcomers' who have been attracted to 'drones' and might not see them as small aircraft or be aware of any of the aviation law that applies to them and all other model flying. I have reported back to the BMFA - good to know they were 'on the ball' again on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Elam Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Very reassuring news Mike for those who use Richmond park. Unfortunately though there is a negative chipping away regarding the perception of certainly drone fliers, and then by association, ourselves. I do wonder where this could all lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Quote from the minutes of full council minutes regarding the PRO, "It came as a surprise to him that he would be here today as he had submitted his resignation to the Executive however they duly persuaded him to withdraw it." This is 2015 and an organisation that has 36,000 members has no professional PRO! So Manny Williamson was "on the ball" by which I suppose you mean he was in touch with the editors of the national newspapers giving the largest organisation representing aeromodelers there opinion on the Lords debate and the Royal Parks issue. And I mean being pro-active getting in there first not as (again from the minutes)defending, "There is much media interest in drones and quite a lot of office resource has been spent defending queries from the media and the public." Some might think a phone call to a member to find out what is happening regarding model flying in Richmond Park is being on the ball, to me it is more like "scrambling across the goalmouth to make a desperate save!" It is however good news that flying continues but it is hardly due to the BMFA. Quote Robin, "It may be that position comes up for election again come the end of this year so, rather that beef on a forum, please consider standing and thus helping in a formal capacity." Unfortunately Robin as a Country Member there is no other way of communicating ones opinions to the wider membership of the BMFA except forums like this and other social media such as facebook. So I apologise if I should not air my views here and kindly delete my post's. I have no wish to be banned from this forum as others have on similar forums for daring to disagree with the direction of the "leadership" of the BMFA. My area of expertise is in management(M.B.A) of a large company, the black art of PR I delegated to professionals within the company. What I do know is that if, as has happened the CAA was to produce leaflets on drones and my company had not managed to get the BMFA on those leaflets I would tender my resignation! Again from the minutes, "The CAA has produced an awareness leaflet to point out the legal responsibilities to potential purchasers of these items. (Copies of the leaflet were handed out). Unfortunately the leaflets do not refer people to the BMFA or other model flying associations where they could obtain much more information." What an opportunity missed! As for the National Flying Centre it shows better than anything just how out of touch and dismissive of the memberships wishes Chatsfield House has become. With all the attempts to publicize the survey it only received support from less than 10% of the membership. Yet still the powers that be push on with it, offering no alternative for the "future of the BMFA" than a museum. Although to be fair that might be the only place to view model aircraft if we don't get some real leadership on the "drone" issue. Finally I do not think it is those that have a contrary opinion are the problem, I think those that have no opinion at all are the issue, apathy is what will see us legislated out of existence. However as I have noted at least two gentlemen employed by the BMFA membership would prefer no discourse on social media unless it is positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Please Robin, I clearly stated the Survey only received support from 10% of the membership despite attempts to publicise it. That is an epic fail to engage an organization's members any way you look at it!. The National Model Center itself got a resounding NO of 57.52% if it means an increase in subs from those that bothered to reply. So unless the leadership progresses on the understanding there will be NO increase in subs (which it hasn't) then it has no mandate to proceed. I have made it clear that I believe the BMFA requires a professional P.R.O. perhaps you can tell me how to get support for that idea other than the use of social media. Oh and by the way I have already visited and reported to Manny on the largest collection of aeromodeling subjects in the country at his request. So I have picked up a specific and relevant ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Thank you Robin I will do so, and contact you directly. I see this as a "everybody who fly's a model issue" so maybe I should try to get support from BARCS for the proposal as well. Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oipigface Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I am not particularly interested in politicking, but I would like to report that I was flying a Rotmilan at a local site recently, when a group of walkers came past. One of the men explained to his girlfriend that 'it's a drone'. The distinctions that we make because we are involved are not necessarily those that the public at large make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 From the CAA website, to me this is the sort of thing it is in our interest to promote. http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16842 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John T Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 In todays news, yet happening overseas last year apparently. http://news.sky.com/story/1450107/smugglers-use-drone-to-fly-drugs-into-prison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_B Posted March 22, 2015 Share Posted March 22, 2015 This isn't goodhttp://www.noflyzoneuk.org/control-hub.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cull Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Aren't all websites meant to state the legal entity that operates them ? This feels like a scam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Aren't all websites meant to state the legal entity that operates them ? This feels like a scam No-one is going to go to the trouble and expense of compiling a web site of that sophistication as a scam. They include their address, a map, phone numbers, what more do you need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oipigface Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 No-one is going to go to the trouble and expense of compiling a web site of that sophistication as a scam. They include their address, a map, phone numbers, what more do you need? But they do not say who they are, what their legal powers are, or where those powers come from. However, they are not alone in wanting to enforce no fly zones: http://www.freeindex.co.uk/profile(no-fly-zone-u-k)_121856.htm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cull Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 No-one is going to go to the trouble and expense of compiling a web site of that sophistication as a scam. They include their address, a map, phone numbers, what more do you need? It has all the hallmarks of a scam or a site aimed at click bait advertising The domain appears to be owned by an advertising company Registrant Name:John TansleyRegistrant Organization:Tansley Hall LtdRegistrant Street: New North House, 78 Ongar RoadRegistrant City:BrentwoodRegistrant State/Province:Brentwood http://www.192.com/atoz/business/brentwood-cm15/advertising-agency-services/tansley-hall-ltd/076a508461dbffa4b7a368bab7379663e52d8a48/comp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cull Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 and the telephone number is used for selling insurance among other things https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=01277+888+564&oq=01277+888+564&aqs=chrome..69i57.400j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=%2201277+888+564%22 I would almost go so far as to say it has a ring of "ambulance chaser" about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_B Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 My thoughts exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John T Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 Noflyzone 'UK' may be a 'copy' of the below. If you read in the FAQs 'Who is behind this' sounds a tad more genuine? https://www.noflyzone.org/#/faq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Cull Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 sorry my view still stands - How will you make money? In the future, we may decide to charge businesses to register for NoFlyZone. Additionally, when drones become connected by internet, we may offer individuals certain premium services that allow them to customize their airspace preferences. In the future, we may decide to charge businesses to register for NoFlyZone. Additionally, when drones become connected by internet, we may offer individuals certain premium services that allow them to customize their airspace preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now