This Looks very Worrying

[Dave Elam]

3 hours ago, Austin said:

The document is dated 11th Dec and a fair bit has been talked about since on various forums. Also below, Robin clearly states it will be discussed.

I agree with your sentiment Austin.

Robin Sleight is Honorary Secretary of the BMFA and very influential within the organisation. I also have the highest regards for the other officials (paid and non paid) within the BMFA and personally got to know them very well during an unfortunate dispute within my club.

I have the utmost faith in the BMFA to fight on our behalf and to achieve the best outcome possible for us all. Unfortunately though that may still involve us losing some of the rights we already have because of things out of their and our jurisdiction.

They are on our side though guys so a little less forum attacks would be appreciated I reckon.

 

[RamJam 53]

Another interesting read, because this situation appears not to have just suddenly appeared. http://openrcforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2453

[Jef Ott]

4 hours ago, Danny Chapman said:

I got a pretty good response from my MP, Andrew Smith, to the letter I wrote (back on page 3): https://goo.gl/photos/1GE4ceVAKRgViEXb9 He is strongly sympathetic to the need to distinguish in legislation between drones and model aircraft operated by bona fide hobbyists, and has written to the Home Secretary pressing that point.

 

 

Nice glimmer of hope there Danny!

My MPs response has been somewhat less positive.

No response at all actually so far, and Danny sent his letter a while after I sent mine, but I am sure it is on the top of her list of priorities for tomorrow...

All the more reason for all of us to individually email all of our MPs, as soon as possible, in my opinion. 

Thanks to all that are, for doing something.

Jef

[Jef Ott]

Pete,

We also need to remember that "The BMFA" (or actually a few individuals that are acting on our behalves, voluntarily) are getting a considerable amount of info from the BARCS forum, as it is OUR facet of this wonderfully diverse hobby which is going to be most severely impacted by any likely proposals, so we need to be driving useful info, concisely their way. 

Slating someone is not the best way of making them act on your behalf.

Jef

 

[Dave Elam]

Pete. How do you know what the BMFA are doing at the moment? They may be working incredibly hard on this matter, in fact I suspect they are. As well as this they will have many other matters in the vast aeromodelling world that need to be worked on too. The resources to do that are very limited with only a few paid staff at Chacksfield House.

So when you criticise the BMFA on here that message is really just your views being passed on to the other people who have enough time to visit this forum and seems to serve no purpose other than venting of a spleen.

You are, like most of us, extremely concerned about the matter, so why don't you get on the phone to the BMFA and discuss your concerns directly with them and at least then you will have some solid facts to then make an opinion.

[RamJam 53]

Sorry to keep adding links but I found this very interesting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11541504/Where-is-the-legal-line-in-flying-drones.htmlThe report seems to definitely separate our models from Quadcopters/Drones. This is slightly heartening in that it has already been discussed in the House of Lords in reference to Quads, in particular the ones fitted with cameras. I think this is a good case to separate an old hobby, with a good safety record and responsible individuals, who have a passion for their sport. A hobby that also has in place a structured learning system, wether from Clubs or competent individuals teaching others. Insurance schemes. In every aspect a hobby which has shown itself to be responsible and accountable. I hope the BMFA push for segregation and I have confidence in their ability to fight our cause. I agree that we need to be kept up to date on a regular basis so we can react quickly. I agree with Skirmish regarding contacting them directly.

I may have come across as anti Quad and I know there are responsible users out there but I am sure that any Glider Guiders bringing problems to the hobby by their own action, would soon be advised about it by fellow model flyers. Self regulating I believe is the correct term.

 

By the way the comments on this report are quite worrying as to how Joe public perceives Drones. We definitely don't want to be included in that argument. 

[Janek]

handbags at dawn 

[Jef Ott]

Looking at this positively, I have a ticket to fly... 

[Danny Chapman]

4 minutes ago, Jef said:

Looking at this positively, I have a ticket to fly... 

I think it would have helped (and still might) to have given very specific grounds for your concern - i.e. the regulations introduced in the USA, Ireland and (I think mentioned earlier in this thread) Italy, which effectively ban such activity, and the fact that drone regulation is almost certain to be introduced in the UK, with a real possibility that it will severely limit legitimate/safe R/C activities unless it is formulated carefully.

 

 

[Jef Ott]

5 minutes ago, Danny Chapman said:

25 minutes ago, Jef said:

Looking at this positively, I have a ticket to fly... 

I think it would have helped (and still might) to have given very specific grounds for your concern - i.e. the regulations introduced in the USA, Ireland and (I think mentioned earlier in this thread) Italy, which effectively ban such activity, and the fact that drone regulation is almost certain to be introduced in the UK, with a real possibility that it will severely limit legitimate/safe R/C activities unless it is formulated carefully.

 

It would certainly make sense for other letter-writers to learn from this and do so, there must be another BARCS member in the Castle Point Area that can write to her too though? 

That might have greater impact.

I have already been assured by my MP that I can continue to fly my thermal soarers "for many, many more years to come".

Jef

(Sarcasm - my second favourite "asm".) 

[Jef Ott]

@ Ramjam53...

Are your comments actually about the Daily Telegraph report which is currently in the link on your post?
Reason I ask, is because I cannot see any mention of other types of model aircraft (other than toy helicopters) in the Telegraph report, yet you imply that it gives the feeling that there is differentiation between "Drones" and more traditional model aircraft.

Unfortunately there is a confusion on the use of this word (drones) and some may (unfortunately) consider that this term encompasses traditional model aircraft. We need to get it strongly understood and common knowledge that what we (BARCS - Radio Controlled Soarers) fly are not to be included where the word "drones" is used.

Also you specify "Quads, in particular the ones fitted with cameras" being mentioned in the House of Lords, whereas the Telegraph report only uses the word "Drones" (so currently no differentiation between 'us' and multicopters).

Also, can't see "the comments on this report" (are quite worrying) "as to how Joe public perceives Drones." Am I missing another section of the report?

I wonder if the report in the link has been edited since you read it, which is a possible problem of posting such links rather than cutting and pasting sections from them.

As far as I am concerned, I would still like to know about all such reports, so don't stop finding them!

Very best regards,

Jef

 

[Dave Elam]

As well as letter writing it could prove useful to perhaps invite your MP to your flying site. This would then let them see, with their own eyes, what a sensible group of hobbyists we are and how benign our hobby actually is. I suspect many haven't a clue what we get up and are probably just as likely to be horrified by hostile media reports as are the general public.

[RamJam 53]

Thanks for pointing that out Jeff

3 minutes ago, Jef said:

@ Ramjam53...

Are your comments actually about the Daily Telegraph report which is currently in the link on your post?
Reason I ask, is because I cannot see any mention of other types of model aircraft (other than toy helicopters) in the Telegraph report, yet you imply that it gives the feeling that there is differentiation between "Drones" and more traditional model aircraft.

Unfortunately there is a confusion on the use of this word (drones) and some may (unfortunately) consider that this term encompasses traditional model aircraft. We need to get it strongly understood and common knowledge that what we (BARCS - Radio Controlled Soarers) fly are not to be included where the word "drones" is used.

Also you specify "Quads, in particular the ones fitted with cameras" being mentioned in the House of Lords, whereas the Telegraph report only uses the word "Drones" (so currently no differentiation between 'us' and multicopters).

I wonder if the report in the link has been edited since you read it, which is a possible problem of posting such links rather than cutting and pasting sections from them.

As far as I am concerned, I would still like to know about all such reports, so don't stop finding them!

Very best regards,

Jef

 

Thanks for pointing that out Jeff. Quads was my input. I was trying to show that there was a discussion about registering Drones of the type in the pictures as they seem to be the problem. You are however correct that editing could have taken place to emit normal models, which may have been included in this discussion. Something we should be mindful of for future reference.

[Danny Chapman]

2 hours ago, Robin Sleight said:

Even if and when the legislation for "drones" (which arguably is needed to control the operation of airborne vehicles which BARCS members would class as drones) ever comes to pass in years to come, it is as certain as it can be that exemptions would be negotiated for all BMFA Clubs and their flying sites.

That is one of my fears, actually - that BMFA would negotiate this type of arrangement as it would probably satisfy the majority of BMFA members (in the same way that a blanket ban on all R/C flying would probably satisfy the majority of the UK population!), and be relatively simple to negotiate. However, the vast majority (95%) of my flying is with DLGs on non-BMFA sites. Perhaps that's true of most DLG fliers? (I've never actually met one!) I would certainly have to give up flying on anything like a regular basis if this happened.

I appreciate your discussions and input, and look forward to hearing back after the weekend.

Cheers - Danny

 

[Cengiz]

In case some may find this helpful, I have received the following reply to my query (see earlier post) to Dave Phipps, Chief Executive of the BMFA:

The situation as it stands is that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued some draft regulations for consultation in August which outlined their thoughts on the regulation of unmanned aircraft.  The requirement for this had clearly arisen due to the surge in the use of multi-rotor aircraft (drones) by both leisure and commercial users.

 A meeting was called by Europe Air Sports (EAS) to discuss the draft EASA regulations and this took place in Cologne in early September.  I attended this meeting both as ‘Aeromodelling Adviser’ to EAS, but also as the UK representative.  A response to the draft was submitted on behalf of all model flyers within Europe, essentially arguing that model flying should not be subject to any additional regulation and should instead be left to each European Member State to regulate (as per the current situation).  The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) also submitted a response to the draft EASA regulations which was also very supportive of the existing arrangements for model flyers.  I also submitted a response directly from the BMFA to re-state the case.

The EASA Technical Opinion on the results of the consultation was issued just before Christmas and has taken into consideration the long and excellent safety record established by model flying throughout Europe with a clearly stated intention to ‘develop rules which will not affect model aircraft flying’.  In addition, model flyers operating under the umbrella of model flying associations will benefit from ‘grandfather rights’ for their existing arrangements.  The regulation will remain within the Member States, so in our case it will remain with the CAA who are supportive of model flying.  As such, we don’t envisage any major changes as a result of the EASA proposals.

 The situation in Ireland is perhaps not as bleak as it first appeared either and in actual fact it seems that much of what I’ve described above is likely to apply for those model flyers operating within MACI.

 So in response to your question, I confirm that the BMFA is very much involved in the discussions and we are doing all that we can to preserve the established rights of model flyers in the UK with the support of the CAA.

However, we understand that the UK Government will be conducting a public consultation on ‘drone’ operations later this year.  We will again take steps to ensure that BMFA Members are well represented, but depending on what transpires, we may at that point call for the direct input of members.

 I hope this helps.

 Kind regards

 

Dave Phipps

Chief Executive

[PeterT]

A comprehensive response from David Phipps and also quite encouraging. My only comment is that much of the debate here could have been avoided if the BMFA had promulgated information on a regular basis, as and when it became available.

Peter

[Fletch]

+ 1

[FrankS]

1 hour ago, PeterT said:

A comprehensive response from David Phipps and also quite encouraging. My only comment is that much of the debate here could have been avoided if the BMFA had promulgated information on a regular basis, as and when it became available.

Peter

In hindsight true, but at the time there wasn't much to report. Looks like we are a bit more fortunate in the EU that we won't have to use lawyers to resolve the issues which seems to be the norm in the US. 

[satinet]

Public consultation would lead to very restrictive laws. The only people who are going to have a say are people who are strongly anti it (which there are always plenty in this country). The average person who is not bothered either way is not going to attend a public consultation.

As the link I posted previously in the thread there are about 2500 bird/plane air strikes per year in the UK. As such, since the great "drone apocalypse", that was started under the Christmas tree this year, we have to assume a large amount of air strikes, property damage, injury and death since Christmas.  I do wonder why this has not been reported on. Must be a cover up by the bmfa and fpv-uk working legion with the daily mail!

People who are flying drone over streets/houses/airports etc are already breaking the EXISTING rules on what they are allowed to do. The problem is the current laws are not being enforced or are unenforceable in practical terms.  Unless you bring in a registration at point of sale system, currently laws can basically just be ignored. The chances of someone getting caught not registering (say in the maci scheme) are close to zero, and the consequences minor enough not warrant concern for people who ignore the rules. Especially as with an unmarked drone you can "leg it" post incident, epecially with FPV were you could be no where near the drone.

Bringing in new  legislation is going to have very little practical effect on the thing it is trying to stop, it is just going to create more bureaucracy and hassle for the rest of us (business as usual for the EU/government gravy train). 

The idea that everything is okay if you were allowed to fly from BMFA sites is, no offence, rather ridiculous as it would essentially stop a large proportion of slope soaring, dlg flying, park flying and flying on private land.   No doubt the bmfa would be very keen on such a scheme to increase membership and bolster free flight supplies at Chacksfield House!

Another point to say is that in the midst of this great done apocalypse we are enduring, you don't need any licence or anything to fly a paraglider, hang-glider or foot launched micro light at all, and I don't hear anything suggesting there should be greater restrictions.  If safety was such a big issue paragliding would have been banned outright years ago! 

[ceebee]

The response from Dave Phipps is just what I had hoped to read and makes good reading to my eyes but as I said to Robin on Wednesday evening, "Why are the BMFA not keeping us informed?" The work going on in the background is what we would expect but they have been remiss to keep the membership in the dark. I do not point the finger here but the likely hood of loose cannons firing off with either informed or uninformed missives and perhaps muddying the water is too great. Let's all take a deep breath, stand back and let OUR National body do their job. 

Ceebee