Inactivity report...

[EssexBOF]

BMFA  response on Facebook

 

British Model Flying Association

20 December at 10:56 ·

A statement from the BMFA's CEO, David Phipps.

"The BMFA has been asked to comment on the disruption caused by reports of drone incursions overnight at Gatwick Airport.

In the absence of the full details, we would not wish to speculate on the situation. However, the irresponsible actions are not helpful to us at a time when we are in the midst of ongoing negotiations with the Government on behalf of the model flying community.

All we can say with certainty is that it is impossible to legislate for idiots and the situation at Gatwick simply serves to demonstrate the difficulty in enforcing the law on those who deliberately choose to disregard it."

www.bmfa.org

[Guest]

I don't fly very much  anymore but still trying to stay current with what's going on in the rc hobby.

I find it quite worrying the guys photos were splashed all over the internet yesterday, along with his wife, before he'd even been charged with anything. Whether or not he was cleared today, now makes no difference whats so ever. Even bringing his employer into this and naming where he works. We all know in reality how things are gonna go for that guy now over the next few weeks/months. 

Any even more worrying that BBC News article seems to focus on the fact this guy had rc helis, drones and even a car! So basically, even though you guys fight to not have your sailplanes classed as drones in the law and public eyes, basically if anything like this happened near us, even owning a rc car, or selling something rc related 2 years ago, could still make you a suspect, or at least have you one in the publics eyes if not the laws. 

World has gone mad, stop, I want to get off. 

[Whitmore]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0001pjm

PM Interview with Grant Shapps yesterday (from about 9.00. ) He mentions model aircraft about 12:50 onwards.

[Steve J]

2 hours ago, i_am_mark_evans said:

I find it quite worrying the guys photos were splashed all over the internet yesterday, along with his wife, before he'd even been charged with anything. Whether or not he was cleared today, now makes no difference whats so ever. Even bringing his employer into this and naming where he works. We all know in reality how things are gonna go for that guy now over the next few weeks/months. 

Hopefully the couple who were arrested will end up with some nice cheques from the vermin tabloids.  We really could do with a privacy law in this country to stop people being identified by the press before they are charged (and in some cases, before they are found guilty).

Steve

[Steve J]

2 hours ago, pete beadle said:

Surely you are not referring to Grant SHAPPS MP for Welwyn, Hatfield  and ex Chairman of the Conservative Party

I believe that @Whitmore is referring to Grant Shapps MP, Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on General Aviation who produced this rather worrying release -

http://www.generalaviationappg.uk/parliamentary-aviation-group-pledges-support-for-tough-new-drone-abuse-laws/

Steve 

[Whitmore]

I was just flagging up a relevant comment, not expressing any opinion. The  mention he made of model aircraft in that interview seems to show that 'traditional' modelling is not a deliberate or at least conscious target of the legislation (however effectively or not it is implemented is another matter) .

Thanks for the link Steve J - very interesting.

It's pretty obvious that the Gatwick incident shows up that the  problem is enforcement of the existing legislation.

 

As to 'accountability' - I always put my address on my models and would be pleased to have them returned when the police find them 

[Steve J]

2 minutes ago, Whitmore said:

Thanks for the link Steve J - very interesting.

Here is another one for you -

https://www.altitudeangel.com/blog/gatwick-airport-disruption-due-to-reported-drone-sightings/

2 minutes ago, Whitmore said:

As to 'accountability' - I always put my address on my models an would be pleased to have them returned when the police find them 

A club mate was advised by the police not to put his address on models as it tells somebody who finds it where they can find more. I generally put a mobile phone number on mine.

Steve

 

[EssexBOF]

See this link from the USA, does not make good viewing for our authorities, of any persuasion

 

[SilentPilot]

From what I've just heard there may not have been any drones there after all!

I did think the lack of any kind of photo evidence a bit strange in this era where just about everyone has a camera phone (aside from one photo of a black dot which could have been anything).
Very strange indeed.

I'm thinking that the whole thing was a staged put up job to highlight potential chaos or maybe a diversionary tactic while our government, well Treason May anyhow, signs away yet more concessions while the media were busy reporting this...

Tony

[Steve J]

10 hours ago, SilentPilot said:

From what I've just heard there may not have been any drones there after all!

It doesn't matter whether or not UAVs were present. What matters is that Gatwick did not have the  systems and procedures in place to handle UAVs in it's ATZ. I am expecting to see more trials of UAV detection and tracking systems in the coming year and a the government requiring to major airports to have such systems in place as soon as practical.

Steve

[satinet]

The lack of photos is quite surprising. Although perhaps not given the inevitable police incompetence.

[SilentPilot]

Public posting pics on the likes of Facebook isn't dependent on any police competence! 

 

[f3fman]

 I don't believe this "No drones" theory. Every one of those airlines would have been pushing very very hard to get Gatwick re-opened and the airport manager must have been pretty convinced to keep it closed.

[Steve J]

1 hour ago, satinet said:

The lack of photos is quite surprising. 

There was a map in an article in the Telegraph that put the sightings south of the runway, well away from the terminals. If that map is accurate, it would  go some way to explaining the lack of photos from members of the public.

1 hour ago, satinet said:

Although perhaps not given the inevitable police incompetence.

Another prediction for the New Year. Responsibility for policing airports will be moved to a central body.

Steve

[Richard Swindells]

On 22/12/2018 at 11:45, pete beadle said:

Hi Richard

I'm glad to see you got good value from attending this consultation/workshop - BTW who are the company contracted to implement drone registration and implementation please?

I'm fairly sure that the main reason no other hobbyists weren't present because they don't see the sense in listening to a presentation when, in their opinion, the fight (if there is one) is already lost. My personal investigations into the views of other flyers at Ivinghoe, and other clubs produced largely negative feedback where most who answered, they said that they felt that the introduction of these new regulations was effectively a fait accompli already. Some said that these new regulations provided just the push they needed to give up the hobby, some actually said they were going to take up R/C sailing as a substitute and others said they felt they were now too old for "one last big fight"

When you said you thought that no other hobbyists had spoken to them up to this point did you ask if the BMFA had approached them yet? or perhaps you already have the answer to that one?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

The company is called Sparck. 

They were aware of bmfa. 

In the consultation almost every question that we were asked to discuss was simply not relevant to fixed wing RC. I spent a lot of time helping explain why the questions were not relevant and they were definitely a lot more educated by the end of the session.

In particular I felt that there was some traction with the possibility of defining drones by their level of automation.

> line of site only. No feedback loop. I. E not a drone

> line of site only. Stabilised 

> fpv, stabilised, no gps (drone racing) 

> fpv, stabilised, gps, return to home. {fully autonomous} 

> any commercial. 

I also highlighted that the order of the list also reprisented the level of pilot skill necessary to operate. I. E. Commercial and fully autonomous requires little to no skill level. 

I explained that the level of pilot skill on my pfco course was the lowest of any group of rc pilots I have experienced in 30 years in the hobby. 

I don't believe the cause for traditional rc gliders is lost, its more of a case that rants on forums, online petitions or straw polls of your own mates at the flying club are pointless and lazy(flame suit on). There are still plenty of ways to lobby face to face, it's far easier to persuade decision makers if you can get them to warm to you first. 

RC sailing is good fun. The local club is 20meters from my front door, but I've been bitten by the full size yachting bug, so am taking extended break from RC soaring after the summer

Richard 

[Steve J]

So, adding 2 +2 and probably getting 5, it sounds like the CAA have place a contract for a registration system with a one line specification. Did Sparck give any indication that they knew about all the consultations, draft regulations and declarations that have been flying around for the last three years ?

 

Steve

[Richard Swindells]

11 hours ago, pete beadle said:

The best part about face-to-face lobbying/contact is you actually get to see their eyes glazing over when they're presented with uncomfortable truths!......I'd have loved to see the reaction when you explained that there were differing levels of flying skill, and indeed competence to fly a drone, depending on its type

The decision is already taken, we will be registering our models. They are (at the moment) considered drones. 

The purpose of the consultation was for Sparck to discover some of the nuances and difficulties with implementing the registration system, along with them gaining a better understanding of ideas from everyone present around legality and security. As I mentioned before, the workshop was well run and they were enthusiastic to learn more. 

Throughout the meeting, I pressed for us not to be referring to "drones" but rather "autonomous"/"semi-autonomous"/"non-autonomous" aircraft as it helped everyone understand the specific aircraft type that was relevant to each topic of discussion. Speaking a common language around the aircraft types helps them relay their findings back to CAA/Government.

Hopefully the registration process will include a classification along these lines for the aircraft in question. This should at least help in future, when statistics can be generated around the type-classification of registered aircraft involved in recorded incidents and could provide leverage if our model type is largely absent from incident reports. 

I have no idea if BMFA passed on information about the consultations to SFTC, or if this was then filtered to BARCS committees. Similarly if no representative from these bodies attended any of the consultation workshops it demonstrates that any claim of "reprisenting" RC soaring pilots as false (although I do acknowledge they do offer significant support to their members in respect to organising and flying competitive RC soaring events.

 

[Richard Swindells]

The "we" is anyone who flies model aircraft over 250grams weight

It will be the responsibility of the pilot to register their models, not the seller. It will be an offence to fly an unregistered model. 

These laws are decided and freely available. Ranting on forums or signing petitions will not change them. We just have to hope that BMFA can continue to work towards a more permanent lifting of the 400ft limit for non-autonomous models.

The reality is not relevant to those making the laws, but it is of interest to those who have been tasked to implement them. The company contracted to do this is not the enemy, but rather an opportunity to lobby someone with greater influence than BMFA/SFTC/BARCS.

 

[Steve J]

8 minutes ago, Richard Swindells said:

It will be the responsibility of the pilot to register their models, not the seller. It will be an offence to fly an unregistered model. 

Neither the ANO (as amended earlier this year, see CAP 1687) nor the current EU draft regulation require registration of individual models. The ANO requires operators to be registered from November next year.

Registration of models over 800g is now required in France.

Steve

[Richard Swindells]

Pete,

I have no idea who you are talking to.  I have no idea what I am supposed to think through?

Everyone knows the new laws are stupid and unworkable, but just like Brexit , there is a determination to carry them through.... you can either rant one forum, sign a petition or actually bother to try and speak constructively with those able to influence change.

I've simply relayed the experiences I had in the consultation workshop I attended, where the discussion revolved around registration of models. Perhaps we expect an updated ANO ?