Jump to content
Richard Swindells

Inactivity report...

Recommended Posts

Richard Swindells

Trying to work out what is more worrying. The events of the last 24 hours, or the fact that there does not seem to be a single comment about it from any barcs member.. Or did I miss the thread? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simon_t

Was feeling likewise, but there is a lot of chatter on BMFA FB group, (and also apparently some admin deletions/blocking).  There is even quite a few jokes on there, which just goes to show how little some flyers understand the potential impacts to our hobby - which likely will have impacts well outside the UK - I’m sure the US will be watching with interest.  

And no doubt many of the bad guys will be encouraged by the services inability to deal with the threat.  It may not be terrorists, perhaps just some of the thugs who got busted using drones to re-supply prisoners with phones and drugs, and are getting there own back.  Sad world

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Probably because the media maxim of what has to happen to make it news wasn't followed....... nobody died:(

Regards

Pete

BARCS 1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brett82

The thing that gets me is they will impose more restrictions on us but that's not going to stop people like this from doing it.

This was a deliberate attempt to cause disruption, they don't care what laws there are. How do the people that make the laws not understand this. 

The news had a bloke with the tech to stop drones flying in an area but airports are not allowed to use it. That will work and stop this happening, not stricter laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentPilot

I can't understand why they weren't shot down using the bird scarer shotguns.

There's world champion clay pigeon shooters coaching our guys here, I'm sure they could hit a drone!

Bad guys are just gonna lap this up. They don't even need to make a bomb any more. Just get a bloody drone and terrorise an airport.

This should never have made the news. Just shoot it down and drive out with a bin bag...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satinet
1 hour ago, Brett82 said:

The thing that gets me is they will impose more restrictions on us but that's not going to stop people like this from doing it.

This was a deliberate attempt to cause disruption, they don't care what laws there are. How do the people that make the laws not understand this. 

The news had a bloke with the tech to stop drones flying in an area but airports are not allowed to use it. That will work and stop this happening, not stricter laws.

They do but they want to be seen to do something. Effective solutions cost money. E.g police patrol cars vs gatso cameras (uk accident rate has leveled off since focus on speeding via cameras).

The implications are potentially enormous. I can't help feeling Pete might have been right all along that the bmfa should have heavily distanced itself from fpv at an early stage. Hindsight....

I don't know enough about the technical aspect of anti drone technology. Clearly flooding the 2.4ghz bandwidth could have unforseen effects. I don't know if it's targeted.

I'm not sure fire arms in and around built up areas will be effective. Shot guns, with bird shot at least, are quite short range.

I suspect strong restrictions on fpv types being bought might be on the way. Hopefully not for real models like gliders.

Certainly registration will come quickly now. Not that it would stop this but per my first paragraph....

The drone menace has become tangible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jef Ott

Ask a class full of 12yr-olds how to get an unwanted drone down, and you'll get at least a dozen usable ideas. 

I must be missing a massive point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

Just finished watching Newsnight on BBC2 - Kirsty Wark tried her hardest to get the "shadow" spokesman from the left, to tell us what his colleagues intend to do to overcome this menace, and he said ELEVEN TIMES " we must establish a regulatory framework" he didn't tell us who the "we" he was talking about was, just kept repeating his mantra again and again....unbelievable!

These bozos who have caused this shambles must have been laughing fit to bust

I'm sorry to say that where any form of advanced technology is concerned we shouldn't be looking to politicians for a solution, we should be talking to technically competent drone users who are as hacked off as we are at the stupid minority who are about to get our entire hobby legislated out of existence

Oh, and we should definitely NOT be looking at the BMFA for help.....they're not part of the solution, they are very much the problem itself now.......

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry Peberdy

I think Peter is right in  my a pinyon the BMFA has got into bed with the drone people because numbers have gone down when Buckminster first put out there plans one of the first things was a car track it's  a flying club for god's sake fixed wing cannot believe that now on classified BFMA top of page  drone insurance it's time they looked after fixed wing members the LMFA model flying association do not entertain drones and nore should we and while I am having a rant the hall at Buckminster has no fire retardant paint on steal structure and I believe that a building have that span and open to the public needs have retardant paint on? Could say more but .

Harry peberdy

BMFA 044287

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

When Richard first raised this point about the total lack of press coverage we'd all been experiencing, I couldn't help feeling very apprehensive, the old sayings of "the calm before the storm" and "when the jungle goes quiet, that's  the time to worry"  came unbidden into my mind

According to the police's assistant commissioner/spokesman wheeled, unwillingly,  in front of the BBC TV cameras this morning, we seem to have dodged the bullet this time so, could I make a suggestion?

I think we fixed wing R/C glider flyers must now start pressing the "recreational drone operators" to come clean about WHY they are not self-regulating these problems. WHY aren't the (usually) online sellers, but also across-the counter sellers -helping, by admitting they could do more, and introducing their own regulation at point of sale?

Why not re-direct the spotlight on to the people who are currently ignoring safety issues in order to maximise sales prior to Xmas.....because this is an absolute certainty that, with the problems retail shops are experiencing at present, it'll all be happening again in the New Year's Sales won't it?

Where is the drone industry's PR spokesman in all of this? Is there one? and why aren't the heads of their various sales force(s) being asked/forced  to face government enquiries while the memories of passengers are still fresh regarding this outrage?

As I've bored you many times before by saying, WE, in the main, don't fly drones, so why not ask the people who do instead?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sloper

issues raised in this incident is that authorities don't know how to react to the threat. The aftermath of all this will be pressure from the aviation industry with the commercial loss and disruption. Safety regulations already exist around airports and public places, which like any other laws can be broken with intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oipigface
2 hours ago, pete beadle said:

Where is the drone industry's PR spokesman in all of this? I

On the Today programme ( BBC Radio 4) yesterday morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnthonyB

I'm a Radio Ham and the reason we have a slice of every band is because they needed (past tense) us. In the event of war / national emergency there would be 1000's of trained people who could relay messages / set up stations / service equipment ….. Yep – we were needed. The RSGB being the governing body...... RAYNET for emergencies. (Radio Amateurs Emergency Network)

In the same way the BMFA should be right at the front of the fight, with trained teams …... Not A or B license but The Drone Flying Emergency Network License (DreFENeL), capable of performing the exact task they are asked to do, like follow a drone or knock one out of the sky.

From Zero to Hero.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi OPF

My Q - Quote - "Where is the drone industry's PR spokesman in all of this?"  - reply "On the Today programme ( BBC Radio 4) yesterday morning" unquote.........not a BARCS forum member then?:)

Go on, watdiddysay! Is there any way of hearing that again? Do they have anything like the IPlayer? - I think I'd find that really interesting........did he explain why he hadn't spoken until now? or whether he had he been contacted by any of the authorities to see if he could help them out?......maybe just to comment?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Whitmore

Thanks for this - I'll use it again, apparently I'm already signed in as a user through my IPlayer account

Trouble is, I couldn't find details of the piece OPF refers to - according to the menu there were four specific subjects referred to, none of which involved a spokesman for drones or drone companies.......

I think I'll look to see if they have a trade association next.....any ideas?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oipigface
2 hours ago, pete beadle said:

Hi OPF

My Q - Quote - "Where is the drone industry's PR spokesman in all of this?"  - reply "On the Today programme ( BBC Radio 4) yesterday morning" unquote.........not a BARCS forum member then?:)

Go on, watdiddysay! Is there any way of hearing that again? Do they have anything like the IPlayer? - I think I'd find that really interesting........did he explain why he hadn't spoken until now? or whether he had he been contacted by any of the authorities to see if he could help them out?......maybe just to comment?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

The short version of what he said is ‘Exactly what you would expect, given the shortage of any detail about who, why  or even what.” ‘Malicious intent’ was mentioned several times, and the relevant law was rehearsed. The other speaker (apart from the journalist moderating the discussion) was from the airport. 

Seems to me that shortly after 8 on the morning after the activity started is pretty snappy. I also think that your call for a government enquiry is quicker than snappy, premature even. We don’t even know yet whether the incident is over.

I am told that you can access the programme using BBC iPlayer. The radio part is now called BBC Sounds. I’ve never accessed this myself, so I’m in no position to offer further help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

Apparently the trade association in the UK is ARPAS UK - the Association of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems

They have released a statement,,,,,,

Quote  - "Graham Brown, CEO of ARPAS-UK, commented:

The above details are what we have learned from various news channels. We don’t have any further details of the incident(s) at this time. We will await confirmation that it was a drone or multiple drones.

It is illegal to Operate a Drone at an airport, without the appropriate approvals. This incident at Gatwick clearly involves the illegal operation of a Drone and we fully support the police in their endeavours to apprehend the individuals responsible.

Understandably, Gatwick Airport has to err on the side of safety and unfortunately, this causes a lot of inconvenience to those wanting to fly today.

ARPAS-UK members have been trained and have obtained the CAA’s Permission of Commercial Operations, which permits them to fly within the legal limits. They understand the regulations and adhere to the ARPAS-UK Code of Conduct.

As of November 2019 the law will require registration of drone operators and there will be a pilot competence test for all drone users including those that only use them for leisure purposes. In the meantime all drones sold in the UK come with instructions on the Drone Safe Code. It is the responsibility of the drone user to know the law and adhere to it.

Counter Drone technology is currently being developed and will in due course assist the Police in situations like the one today at Gatwick. Longer term it will also help reduce disruption caused by illegal Drone Operations. ARPAS UK fully supports the development and roll out of this technology, which will be used by appropriately qualified and authorised Operators" unquote

Almost as fact free as a BMFA press release:( - doesn't bode well

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skip

What about that release is fact free? Do you know of some facts that were omitted?

It reflects the exact state of play with regards to the level of trust there was, and shows that it has been broken and eroded by the person or people using drones illegally and against the current and future regulations.

It highlights that the CAA/Police til now have not taken seriously the threat to commercial airspace and will now accelerate their countermeasures (which we can assume will no longer be gentle) of drones (UAV's) in restricted airspace.

The police need to try their best to find the person/people involved and throw the entire book at them. (I'd start looking at disgruntled ex-employees and go from there). If I find any footage from the drones on the internet, I'll be forwarding it to the police, and sharing it on social media in an attempt to get the perpetrator/s apprehended.

On the suggestion of a government enquiry, haven't we learned in the last 2 and a bit years that any government input is useless? Why on earth would you want them to step in to Drone regulation or even an investigation???. Surely industry led is far better than some pocket lining, dipstick politician? 

How many people who made decisions regarding flammable cladding on highrise accommodation have been held responsible, accountable, culpable by the government enquiry?

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Skip

Some interesting comments, thank you

One thing though, when you say  "The police need to try their best to find the person/people involved and throw the entire book at them" what makes you think they are not already trying their best? and when you say "throw the book at them"what makes you so certain they won't?

I assume your last comment referred to the Grenfell enquiry which has already exposed the fact that the cost-paring and failure to apply the correct safety standards has all been driven by large corporations that form a large part of the very "industry" you are asking us to trust..... I find this confusing

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.