Jump to content
Richard Swindells

Inactivity report...

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

Whenever I see comments floating the probability of government cover-ups it always gives me a smile.......:)

I used to work in the City (of London) at St Paul's and, in those days a working Fleet Street existed........then, it was usually dalliances by ministers, and suggestions of fraud and/or incompetence by MP's that filled reporters working day. It was then, however, that the phenomenon of the "No-news" day came to pass, What's a no-news day you ask? It's when a reporter, or reporters, woke up one morning to find there were NO hints and tips of good stories and, so, just made them up! 

At the time I was friendly with a chap who'd recently retired from the news media circus, and produced things called "War Picture Library" magazines to supplement his pension. He was the one that told me that government cover-ups were 99% the product of NND's and that the majority of Government spokesmen and particularly MP's, were FAR too incompetent to actually initiate a cover-up, but worse still, usually "owned up" to the ones that were put forward just for the notoriety that came with them!

In this instance I am more than 50% certain we're talking NND rather than reality, and c*ck-up, rather than good investigative journalism......but, don't be surprised if someone DOES own up to the drone incursion soon, purely to gain the "glory" of saying "Yep, I dunnit, it was ME!".......:yes::lol::whistle:

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satinet

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentPilot

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

No but, as I understand it,  the first "sightings" were after midnight, no?, so I don't suppose there was a searchlight available anywhere near:no:

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Richard

Thanks for all this feedback - very interesting!

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

I'm also glad that the feedback from the public has all been VERY positive in face-to-face conversations.....they seemed to me to really enjoy letting me know they were on our side on this!:yes::)

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Richard

Quote: - "The decision is already taken, we will be registering our models"...........who is the "we" in this?

Are Sparck aware that the majority of drones are bought online where there is no provision for registration? and who is going to enforce the need for registration at point of sale in shops where they simply don't inform a purchaser of the legal/ insurance and registration required but not offered/provided at their shop?

Sorry to appear to be negative, but it seems to me there's a lot of reality out there that doesn't seem to be being discussed yet

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

Quote - "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" 

I DON'T THINK SO - who will establish and impose this offence? and, once again, who will enforce it? As SteveJ says, in the UK,  it HAS to be the operator who is breaking the law.

Also it must be a law or byelaw on the statute books that has to be INTENTIONALLY broken, This intent must be proven as necessary, in court or by a judge in chambers  and the penalty(ies) for breaking that law has be available to the judge or the court to view and assess before they are applied, and, of course with the right of appeal available 

Please also remember it is one of the most important requirements for the population of the UK, model flyers or not, that the law is a UK law (or byelaw) and NOT an EU law being imposed on the UK.

One last thing, what will the penalty be for breaking this regulation? Three points on a non-existent licence? a ban on flying for the operator? Come on.....think it through....... 

Comments gentlemen?

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilentPilot

I'm not sure what you mean either, Pete.

The offence of flying an unregistered model will be very similar rules (maybe even the same) to full size flying.

The onus is on the pilot to have all the required licences.

 

Tony 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J
53 minutes ago, Richard Swindells said:

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 ? 

Or perhaps the CAA have let the contract to the lowest bidder and they didn't manage to read either the ANO or the draft EU regulation before having a workshop.

Time will tell. 

Steve

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi all

Quote "Everyone knows the new laws are stupid and unworkable" unquote -  Really?

What am I trying to do? I'm trying to remind everyone concerned that there is always the option of just saying "No, I won't accept these rules, because they really are both unworkable and unenforceable, so what are you going to do about it?"

I'm trying to convince you that you/we shouldn't meekly accept what is being proposed, and should register our/your objection to them, and make a stand as individuals exercising their rights as we are all entitled to do

I'm trying to convince you that the law is on our side too......that what the various authorities are proposing is provably bad law......and should be rejected as such

Is that clear enough?

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.