This still looks worrying

[Jef Ott]

I wished to make my views known via the consultation process here -

https://deref-mail.com/mail/client/t0V8xXPRrWs/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fconsultations%2Fdrone-legislation-use-restrictions-and-enforcement

 

Was unsure what response I should give to some of the questions; and having baulked at these questions... 

"3. Are you currently a drone user?

Yes

No

 

4. How many drones do you think you will operate in:

the next 1 year?

2023?

2028?

the longer term?"

I sent this -

"Hi.

I want to voice my opinions on your drone consultation process.

I don't fly drones. (Vehicles with multiple rotors)

I fly SUAs though. (Fixed wing Line of sight vehicles of less than 7kg)

Please consider changing the form as it is poorly worded from the outset, from my viewpoint.

Thank you.

Jeffrey Ott"

to here -

dronesconsultation@dft.gov.uk

What are others doing?

 

[Steve J]

2 hours ago, Jef Ott said:

What are others doing?

I read the consultation document, accepted the definition of 'drone' in section 1.1, accepted the fact that the DfT, CAA, airprox board etc do not use the term consistently and answered the questions that I cared about using the online form.

Some of the people on this forum really need to get over a particular word and focus on the important things.

Steve

[Woodstock]

I never thought I would EVER say this, but.. actually no, I won't 

[Brett82]

No doubt this will tighten regulations but the regulations will have no way of stopping this happening regardless.

 

 

[Phil.Taylor]

7 hours ago, Steve J said:

I read the consultation document, accepted the definition of 'drone' in section 1.1, accepted the fact that the DfT, CAA, airprox board etc do not use the term consistently and answered the questions that I cared about using the online form.

Some of the people on this forum really need to get over a particular word and focus on the important things.

Steve

Its funny how a word comes into general usage. Several times I've been asked, on a hill or clifftop "Is that a drone?"

So - now I can reply - Yes, it is ! - so much shorter than explaining about it being a radio controlled glider with no engine to keep it up, soaring with just the wind...

heres what the form says

1.4 Drones come in a variety of shapes and sizes, ranging from small handheld devices, up to large aircraft, potentially a similar size to airliners. They can be of a fixed wing design like a commercial airliner, rotary wing like a helicopter, or a combination. Drones may also include more traditional radio controlled aircraft, and model aircraft. 

Phil.

 

[oipigface]

Actually, Phil, if you were to quote the form accurately, your answer to “Is it a drone?” should be: “Maybe!”

[Dave Elam]

https://www.bmfa.org/News/News-Page/ArticleID/2539/UK-Government-consultation-on-the-Future-of-Drones-in-the-UK-We-need-your-help-before-17th-September

[satinet]

You'll note they want to ban under 18s from flying drones.

[Steve J]

24 minutes ago, satinet said:

You'll note they want to ban under 18s from flying drones.

No they don't. The new regulations make a distinction between the operator and the remote pilot. The age restriction is for the operator.

Steve

 

[Tony]

3 hours ago, Dave Elam said:

https://www.bmfa.org/News/News-Page/ArticleID/2539/UK-Government-consultation-on-the-Future-of-Drones-in-the-UK-We-need-your-help-before-17th-September

Done, takes quite a while to do but interesting reading, cut and paste, the answers from the BMFA sometimes don't line up with the questions so do carefully

[Brett82]

Takes for ever to fill out but at least Ive had my say. If we all get involved maybe we can help the BMFA get what we want, rather than being unhappy with what they negotiate without our support. 

[Ikura]

Yes it is a long job filling all that out and giving reasons for choices etc but I have done it and we will just have to see if it makes any difference.

[Steve J]

@Ikura You don't have to give reasons and you don't have to answer all the questions.

3 hours ago, Tony said:

cut and paste

Quote

if you do submit any text, it is important that you use your own words; not a direct quote of the associations’ text.

Steve

[Ikura]

24 minutes ago, Steve J said:

@Ikura You don't have to give reasons and you don't have to answer all the questions.

Steve

 

Yes I am aware of that thanks but I felt I should explain my reasons for some of the answers I gave. I didn't answer all the questions, just those that were applicable.

Do you not think it is better to make it as personal and realistic as possible? I do.

[Jef Ott]

Is this whole process being used to prevent us from answering the form for the consultation?

In my opinion, the BMFA guideline for models that are to be considered as drones (for the purposes of the public consultation) is not ambiguous.

"The consultation documents use the term ‘drone’ to mean all aircraft that fly without a pilot on board... The new rules will apply to aircraft exceeding 250g. Therefore, any rules that are developed from this consultation will apply to model flyers."

From this description, I assumed  that freeflight models / modellers would be included.
Quite near to the start of their document though, the BMFA, then suggests we  include all our radio controlled models, and all those we expect to own, in the answer to question 5. (Question 5 doesn't bear any resemblance to questions about model aircraft, no matter how previous answers are answered.)

Do we think that freeflight models >250g are meant to be included in this?

[Steve J]

2 hours ago, Ikura said:

Do you not think it is better to make it as personal and realistic as possible? I do.

I am feeling pretty cynical regarding this subject at the moment, so I think that the most important thing is that lots of modellers respond and I doubt if the "Why"s will be given more than a passing glance.

Steve

[Ikura]

The problem with this thread, and other threads like it, is that all they end up doing is going round, and around, and around again.

Like you Steve, I very much doubt that anyone involved in drafting this legislation really gives a flying fig what any of us thinks, feels or wants.  It's always the same when dealing with legislators. We get whatever they feel like imposing, no matter what we might feel about it. 

Does that make me cynical?  No, it makes me realistic.  It's like when we all troll off to the polling station and secretly know that no matter who we vote for, we will end up with a bunch of muppets in power who don't really have much of a clue about anything.

As Nedd Kelly said just before they hanged him   "Such is life"

 

[Steve J]

14 hours ago, Jef Ott said:

Do we think that free flight models >250g are meant to be included in this?

Yes.

[PeteMitchell]

I  answered the questions in the online consultation  reply document, following BMFA plea for our help, and their guidance on how to do it.

It's not that difficult to do, I just copied and pasted as required, and it took me 3  seperate 20 minute evening sessions.

And I had my own say at the end of the questions.

Some may believe  it  will be a waste of time, I don't think it is .

[Steve J]

While I large response from the modelling community will probably strengthen the associations hand in discussions with the DfT and CAA, I do think that some of the BMFA's answers (which I am sure that a lot of people are blindly copying) are naive and will be spun by the government to support their policy objectives.

Steve