I don't think anything else would work. Imagine you file a flight plan only to get there and find a family having a picnic - flight over before it starts. Generally I only know the area I'm going to fly with a few 'alternates' - not the specifics which I decide at the time based on the local conditions / circumstance.
The Future of Drones in the UK (release of consultation Doc')
- Thread starter FoxhallGH
- Start date
Dose not seem to bad, like everything though, government send out the diluted version and feel the water to ease us in then make it twice as bad and normally add some sort of tax, like everyone else has said though, wont stop the idiots or criminals, having gun licences don't stop the shootings by the gangs does it? As for the flight plan i can see that destroying the hobby, people would get fed up doing it and not bother.
Sure, but what of the opposite? You're driving along and you see an ideal spot for a legal drone flight, everything is perfect... except no mobile signal so you can't log the flight plan. Does that mean you can't fly either? Given the correlation between areas where it's legal to fly and poor mobile reception, that's a major issue for me, especially given how fickle the weather and light can be in some areas of the UK.
Anyway, hopefully it's all moot. The results from the consultation were pretty clear on the matter of compulsory FINS usage; the idea has been shelved, with the scenario above cited as one of the reasons. That doesn't mean it's gone for good, and I do see it as a possible carrot - behave and we won't need to bring this in as well - but for now at least it's not something we need to be too worried about.
Lastrexking
Well-Known Member
I’ve tried a few times to make a notification on NATS and it’s worked maybe one in five times.
I keep trying, but I've mostly given up on it. I'd like to say that fixes to the app or its backend would solve the problem but that doesn't appear to be the case. The main issue I have is a near total lack of mobile signal in many of the mostly rural areas of the UK where I can get the kind of imagery I want. If I have a stable 3G or better signal I'll give it a go and it'll work more often than not, but any less than that seems to be a non-starter and I often have one bar and/or GPRS on location at best.
To make matters worse, I'll often react to changing weather and light conditions as the day goes on and change plans accordingly. That means that while I might be able to give a general area where I'm planning to be on a given day while I do have a signal, those plans can change significantly at the drop of a hat, and I might not even fly when I get there and shoot with my SLR instead. Realistically, there's not a great deal of difference in usefulness between no flight plan and "might fly somewhere in $nationalpark/$county"...
Lastrexking
Well-Known Member
Yep. I think the scenario explained in your second paragraph are why the flight plan submission (can’t recall the name they gave it) are completely impractical.
FINS. Flight Information Notification System.
To be fair, they do cite comments where people pointed out the lack of mobile coverage being an issue for a mandatory usage requirements. Counter proposals were a whole suite of exemptions when no coverage is available is also mentioned, or if your battery is flat, or if...
It all seems like a can of worms to me. You can't really have so many exceptions on a "mandatory" requirement as you're just asking for loopholes that can (and will) be abused. You've either got to keep it optional albeit maybe with some "best effort" wording, allow extremely broad zones for potential impromptu flights, or be prepared to deal with people abusing loopholes. Alternatively, you can mandate a hugely unpopular requirement that will probably be widely ignored - no mobile coverage generally means not too many people around, so not much chance of getting caught. Not exactly the kind of mindset this law is supposed to encourage!
Maybe if the UK had near universal 3G/4G/LTE coverage from multiple providers this would work, but for now I think it's a non-starter, and they at least seem to realise that.
mfc
Well-Known Member
I'm a microlight pilot as well as a drone operator. I am a member of the BMFA (essentially required for flight in the Warwickshire model flying areas).
I do not understand why drones and model aircraft are not treated in the same way. I have, on a number of occasions, had to abort landings (go-around) of my microlight due to model aircraft flying too close to the approach/runway. Memorably, on one occasion this happened twice in a row and put me very low on fuel ( I would not have been able to risk a third go-around).
A fast, heavy, jet model is especially dangerous and distracting, and it is clear that the operator's control of such models is far less precise than that of almost any drone -- which just stops and hovers if control sticks are centred.
'Hands-off' or loss of signal is fail-safe for drones; that is not true for model aircraft -- so why do the latter have relaxed rules?
I do not understand why drones and model aircraft are not treated in the same way. I have, on a number of occasions, had to abort landings (go-around) of my microlight due to model aircraft flying too close to the approach/runway. Memorably, on one occasion this happened twice in a row and put me very low on fuel ( I would not have been able to risk a third go-around).
A fast, heavy, jet model is especially dangerous and distracting, and it is clear that the operator's control of such models is far less precise than that of almost any drone -- which just stops and hovers if control sticks are centred.
'Hands-off' or loss of signal is fail-safe for drones; that is not true for model aircraft -- so why do the latter have relaxed rules?
Good question! I think it's because model aircraft (generally) don't have camera's - and model aircraft pilots (generally) don't publish 'look at me breaking the rules!' type video's on YouTube. You are being practical and sensible in your suggestion, where the drone regulations are being driven by opinion, predjudice and outright paranoia - that's fed a heathy diet by a few rule breakers that not only don't care, but insist on making their transgressions public!!
Kokopelli633
Well-Known Member
May I ask what strip this happened at?, I am always visiting new airstrips as I enjoy the experience but also like to be well prepared for any unusual operations to take into account
Many have co-existing model flyers and so far have found them to operate safely and land if not well clear as soon as they spot me in the Overhead, Old Warden being a good example.
mfc
Well-Known Member
Long Marston. It is now pretty much closed, but two years ago it was very busy, with motor gliders, microlights, and light aircraft using its tarmac and grass runways. After the event I described I walked over to the model flyers to ask who they were -- they turned their backs on me and refused to answer. I never found out what 'club' they were, but they were there almost every day.
mfc
Well-Known Member
Kokopelli633
Well-Known Member
Aah, I know it well, can't say I ever had a problem there apart from the bumpiness of the grass strip.
As you say, it is closed now, which is a shame, I know a couple of people who had to re-locate their aircraft to Sywell and elsewhere.
I think you were very unlucky, but of course once is once too often
As you say, it is closed now, which is a shame, I know a couple of people who had to re-locate their aircraft to Sywell and elsewhere.
I think you were very unlucky, but of course once is once too often
mfc
Well-Known Member
That was my home field, and I was flying from it for 7 years. The model aircraft flyers were there almost every time I flew (like them I could only fly in good weather and low winds). So it was not 'bad luck' -- they simply felt that 'real' aircraft were a nuisance, and clearly tried aimed to discourage them. They seemed to have no idea that they were risking pilots' lives.
Kokopelli633
Well-Known Member
mfc
Well-Known Member
Seems to be just a simple question and response. AFAICT, Baroness Randerson asked the Government what progress they have made towards introducing new regulations on the use of drones. Was told (probably by the Aviation Minister, Baroness Sugg) what we already knew was in the works; new laws including registration to be introduced around September and become mandatory by November, plus additional police powers to be granted.
No other documents or information links have been posted, so I don't think it was anything more than that.
No other documents or information links have been posted, so I don't think it was anything more than that.
That was part of the original announcement,so I guess you missed it (it wasn't very well publicised, to be fair). The registration scheme is supposedly being introduced in September and will be mandatory by the end of November, so you should have at least 8 weeks in which to register your drone(s), take the proposed competency test, etc., depending on when all this actually goes live.
Details on what information will be required for registration, whether you'll need to attach any ID to aircraft, the competency test, and what the new police powers are going to be all seem to be still under discussion at this point. You can get a feel for the way things might go from the PDF in the first post, but keep in mind all of that was produced before the disruption at LGW & LHR.
Similar threads
