Jump to content
pete beadle

Meeting with Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 4th June 2019

Recommended Posts

John Minchell

Here is a transcript of the discussions raised in the Commons between MP's about the drone registration scheme. 

All seemingly positive and on our (model aircraft) side until the last paragraphs - worth a read though. 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-07-10/debates/FBB5D051-6552-4C5A-AA8B-7A5A3046104B/DroneUsersRegistration.

John M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Minchell

Sorry guys - I didnt realise Pete Beadle had started a new thread on same subject.

Mods, please delete if you think necessary.

John M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi John

Why not just copy your link onto t'other string and see what others do?:)

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lloyd_d

If the geofencing requirement is true this will not be economically possible on previously non flight controlled models. For the following reasons:

flight controllers require specific positioning on the C of G within a model

FC will require specific integration requirements due to their size, voltage and load handling capabilities

they require tuning specifically for the model they are fitted to. There is NO one size/calibration fits all

taking control/making it fall out of the sky of a model with high KE means the pilot cannot be held responsible for death or injury resulting from the controller taking control/doing the wrong thing. How do you prove who/what was in control in a court of law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Lloyd-d

Are you just beginning to realise that the Minister of Transport and Baroness Vere just HAVEN'T thought ANY of this through! Join the club!

Because they haven't you know! ........the way things are going with politicians and Brexit I believe we can now see the future for drone owner/operators being exactly the same! Oh joy!:frantics:

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EssexBOF
On 09/07/2019 at 15:26, pete beadle said:

Hi all

I think David and Graham have been trying hard not to ruin your day........

Just look at the video from the start of Baroness Vere's contribution for the highlights.......

She believes that, even though she is aware of the difference(s) between R/C model aircraft flown LOS, and drones, she believes both are capable of causing damage to other aircraft, so the rules for drones must apply to R/C model aircraft.........or, as she calls them "unmanned aircraft"........

All model flyers must take the two online drone tests and there will now be an offence of non-registration of your "drone"punishable by a warning and a fine

There WILL be a charge for registration and it will be approx £16.50 but, your registration number can be applied to all your other models to identify you as the owner of all these aircraft  - and

Finally we WILL all be forced to put a transponder or similar device to identify it, and the owner, into every model we are flying, just not for up to three years

If you don't believe me, look at the video of the proceedings on the Parliament UK website

Have a nice day!

Pete

BARCS1702 

When I watched her give forth with her views, it filled me with despair, that any fair or reasoned debate has gone from the subject and the powers that be are totally one sided as to the facts of the case being debated. Believe they have worked out, that control line models should not be included in the knew regulations, but i remember many years ago now when some went free flight when the flyer lost grip on the handle🤐

BARCS 230

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Brian

Don't be dismayed....:(

No sooner did the Baroness trot all this out (BTW she is nicknamed  Julie Andrews, by her less respectful staff - see the vid - see the reason) when Tim Loughton MP responded by saying "Why is she trying to re-invent the wheel?" as there is already a structure in place, of clubs and associations, which is perfectly capable of doing what she wants.....This is why I posted the subject "Thank you Tim Loughton MP"........ straight away:yes::)

Look at the vid of Tim's rebuttal to Julie Andrews and you'll see most of want you wanted, said.....I promise you it'll be an uplifting watch.....and you'll also see there are three, yes three, more MP's agreeing with Tim!:yes: 

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graham Woods
1 hour ago, pete beadle said:

Don't be dismayed....:(

 

I'm sure most power fliers and flat field fliers will be OK with the new rules. They will just have to modify their flight practices. I have worries though, being a slope flier myself.

1) Trouble is, I fly slope and on every hill there's some sort of footpath ☹️.  This is problematical. 

2) Of course on those slopes shared with hang-gliders and para-gliders any slope fliers would be immediately be reported to the police or warden in order to get sole access the hills.

3) How long before 'drone policing' is put out to tender? Some enterprising  **** will offer to police every club, field and slope, armed with the Gov.uk data on his Smartphone,  in return for a share of the fines. Who knows even countryside rangers and wardens employed by the National Parks, NT, English Heritage etc. will be incentivised to do likewise.

4) Apart from sloping, sport fliers,  I guess we can say goodbye to F3F racing and Scale Glider meets too because of the footpath issue and higher public  awareness UAVs by the public.

5) Not sure about marking all models either Pete, I may take to putting BARCS or BMFA  or even Registered members' numbers on my models starting with 1702 😃

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J
13 hours ago, Lloyd_d said:

If the geofencing requirement is true this will not be economically possible on previously non flight controlled models.

At the moment, there is nothing in EU or UK law to require either electronic identification or geofencing of traditional models. The EU regulations don't even use the word 'geo-fencing', they use 'geo-awareness'.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J

@Graham Woods Which "new rules" do you think are going to impact slope flying?

Steve

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sloper
59 minutes ago, Steve J said:

@Graham Woods Which "new rules" do you think are going to impact slope flying?

Steve

 

im worried of the affects of new rules and of more focus on us as many slopes especially the Blwch we fly over public highways, close proximity of roads, HOH next to public pathways and to the objection of local falcon club, it gives anti modellers more amo, so to speak to get us kicked off sites we use. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi SteveJ and sloper

If the rule comes in about not flying within 50 metres of the public, it will render Ivinghoe useless for flying.....every slope is within the 50 metre limit.....how about that one?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J

@Sloper How is registration and testing going to impact slope sites? The endangerment clause in the EU implementing regulation 

Quote

be conducted in an area where the remote pilot reasonably expects that no uninvolved person will be endangered within the range where the unmanned aircraft is flown during the entire time of the UAS operation;

isn't that much different to ANO articles 241 and 94(2).

I can understand people objecting to being milked to pay for systems that will be of no benefit to us, but I don't see anything that will stop me slope soaring.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi Graham

Normally I'd be deliriously happy to let you display 1702 - BUT the number you must display is not yours to choose......it is your unique owner/user number and whoever is doing the registrations for the DfT will tell you what it is......if you're very lucky, you might get 666 though:)......

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pete beadle

Hi SteveJ

So where does the 50 metres exclusion zone distance/limit come from? I thought it was specified in the new rule?

Regards

Pete

BARCS1702

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sloper
5 minutes ago, Steve J said:

@Sloper How is registration and testing going to impact slope sites? The endangerment clause in the EU implementing regulation 

isn't that much different to ANO articles 241 and 94(2).

@Steve J its the focus on us as UAVs only will take one person to complain for whatever reason, police will have to act, armed with the new rules, and enforce.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve J
13 minutes ago, Sloper said:

police will have to act, armed with the new rules, and enforce.

The police can only act if the law is being broken. What new rules do you think that you will be breaking this December or July next year?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sloper
34 minutes ago, Steve J said:

The police can only act if the law is being broken. What new rules do you think that you will be breaking this December or July next year?

Steve

as per post: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graham Woods
1 hour ago, pete beadle said:

Normally I'd be deliriously happy to let you display 1702 - BUT the number you must display is not yours to choose......it is your unique owner/user number and whoever is doing the registrations 

The point I was making is that 'bad actors' could simply use an 'innocent's' reg number for nefarious purposes. Just like cloned car number plates, Vehicle Registration documents etc. 

That just about defeats the Government's idea of identifying rogue drones straight away.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wookman

If you are obliged by law to display an id number conspicuously on your lovingly crafted UAV that you fly on open publicly accessible land there is nothing stopping almost anybody obtaining that number and potentially using it nefariously.

We could of course individually register each UAV that we fly. It would flag up fraudulent use of id numbers.

We could even register the sites that the UAV is going to operate from.

The government could set up a multi million pound data base with enormous ongoing running costs which would keep track of even more useless information they don't need.

We could even pay for it with a small, likely to be quadrupled, fee. 

  • Haha 1

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.