Wrong.... these “laws” are born from ignorance. A ignorant regulatory government and the public at large. Combine this with no organized push back or lobbying efforts by the drone hobby community and we are where we are. It has very little or nothing to do with safety (here in the US at least)
U.K. Registration petition
- Thread starter colinfowler
- Start date
jagraphics
Well-Known Member
If you respond to one of my posts, please respond to what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote.
jagraphics
Well-Known Member
you said the laws are born of ignorance. So do explain.
Those making the laws are not ignorant.
The public by and large are
not here in america. you don't need a license or a permit for any government agency for hobbies like photography, skiing, sailing, knitting, jogging, hiking, cooking, gardening, writing, camping, painting, dancing, shopping, or playing your favorite musical instrument. we are free in this country unlike in the uk/canada.
perhaps we just have a difference of opinion about the definition of "fly" and "controlled airspace." for example, in america, we don't agree the air in your back yard 10 feet off the ground is controlled airspace. and we certainly don't agree to the extent which they have taken this whole licensing scheme, if they going to do it. i'm not hating it right now but i certainly hate where this is headed.
Small update, but the BBC has an update on this here. Not a great article, tbh, but it does claim the CAA got 6,000 responses from BFMA members to their consultation alone, so clearly passions are high over there. I posted some of my thoughts in the other thread on this, if you're interested.
I like this forum in general but it’s a pity there is not a “dislike” button and only a “like” button.
jagraphics
Well-Known Member
The reality is that there have been radio controlled model aircraft for years. There have been very few (tending to zero) incidents. in the last few years that have been very many incidents using the type of radio controlled model aircraft called "drones".
Cause and effect: The laws are comming in due to the the behaviour of the drone flyers.
Like it or not in small areas like the UK the airspace is crowded and controlled. Until recently the controls on the airspace below 400 feet has only been heavily controlled in some critical spaces (eg airfields) but controlled airspace is from zero feet everywhere. All the authorities are doing is adjusting the rules and conrols due to the increase in the miss uses of the airspace.
If you want to fly aircraft, maned or unmanned, in controlled airspace you are going to have to fly by the rules civila aviation decides you have to adhere to.
Cause and effect: The laws are comming in due to the the behaviour of the drone flyers.
Like it or not in small areas like the UK the airspace is crowded and controlled. Until recently the controls on the airspace below 400 feet has only been heavily controlled in some critical spaces (eg airfields) but controlled airspace is from zero feet everywhere. All the authorities are doing is adjusting the rules and conrols due to the increase in the miss uses of the airspace.
If you want to fly aircraft, maned or unmanned, in controlled airspace you are going to have to fly by the rules civila aviation decides you have to adhere to.
It's undeniable that the introduction of cheap drones to the masses have resulted in many more incidents of reckless flying of SUAVs, although not exclusively so - there was an incident with someone with an RC plane getting arrested (and ultimately fined) for flying within an NFZ a few months ago, for instance, but I can absolutely understand and sympathise with BMFA members who might feel aggrieved at essentially being tarred with the same brush. Equally though, we do generally occupy the same part of the airspace and having similar restrictions are going to make it a lot easier to avoid loopholes - not all drones are quads, so if there's a separate set of rules for model aircraft then where would a camera drone resembling a traditional monoplane or helicopter fall?
As you say, we have to share a crowded airspace. The safest way to do that is to endeavor to ensure that everyone flies responsibly and, in turn, that the CAA has the confidence to set rules that let us all fly as freely as possible. The best way to do that, IMHO, is to try and bring drone pilots up to the safety standards that the BMFA holds its members too, and that's going to be a LOT easier if the BMFA stops treating the entire drone pilot community as some kind of enemy because of a small number of bad apples. Better still might be to actually encourage drone pilots to join the BMFA (or similar bodies) and adopt their safety policies; safer skies for everyone, more revenue for the BMFA to fund events with, and a much louder voice for getting our collective views across.
jagraphics
Well-Known Member
Agree completely though it is a bit like comparing apples and pears. Most of the <250gms drones are used as camera platforms for filming, surveys etc Most RC aircraft flyers fly from large open spaces where as a lot of drone users are flying in and around people and places to capture images/video. Either commercially or as a hobby.
Also most AFAIKC RC aircraft people are aircraft builders. (even if it is from a kit) where as 99.9% of those not making racing drones buy an off the shelf aircraft. I am not flying a "model" but an SUAV .
Whilst I agree with the principal of the suggestion I don't think that would work for the reasons above. A complete clash of cultures. I have seen this before in an other area. The resultant forced marriage gives you an organisation neither want.
I have no interest in building drones and just flying them. Like, AFAICS from Youtube, most drone users my drone is simpley a camera platform. How many BMFA aircraft have cameras fitted? I have seen a lot of video of RC aircraft on YT but none taken from them.
I think that the Drone community is best in it's own organisation rather than expecting another organisation with different aims to bring it to heel. That said there does need to be a "BFMA" for drones
Agree that the overlap is mostly in the general use of a segment of airspace, hence the need in the eyes of the CAA for a common legislation and administrative process that the BMFA is up in arms about. In terms of flight objectives it's apples and pears, but in terms of legislation a single set of rules and processes does make more sense.
That would definitely be better. There are issues that are of particular concern to drone pilots that are unlikely to have much impact on members of the BMFA (most NFZ expansions, NFZs implemented by major landowners like English Heritage/National Trust, privacy concerns over camera use, etc.), so a dedicated body would be in a better position to address those. I can't see anything like that getting organized until we know what the CAA is ultimately going to propose regarding the registration requirements though, and maybe not even then. For now, the BMFA is the loudest voice we have, and I don't think they're doing themselves any favours by not realising that as far as the CAA is now apparently concerned we're all in this together.
No it isn't.
You clearly have no idea how to read a sectional chart or do not understand what class G airspace is.
This controlled airspace fixation isn't really the issue.
Even aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (Golf only in the UK) are expected to adhere to the rules of the air to reduce the risk of conflict. The issue is a lot of drone users have no idea of the rules of the air or even that such a thing exists.
Just because its not controlled doesn;t mean you can do whatever you like in it.
Drones are shiny toys that have potential to cause damage and disruption to other legal users so whether owners like it or not, they need to obey the same rules as everyone else when sharing airspace regardless of its designation.
If drone operators were a bit more mature about that fact there'd be far less of a problem.
Even aircraft in uncontrolled airspace (Golf only in the UK) are expected to adhere to the rules of the air to reduce the risk of conflict. The issue is a lot of drone users have no idea of the rules of the air or even that such a thing exists.
Just because its not controlled doesn;t mean you can do whatever you like in it.
Drones are shiny toys that have potential to cause damage and disruption to other legal users so whether owners like it or not, they need to obey the same rules as everyone else when sharing airspace regardless of its designation.
If drone operators were a bit more mature about that fact there'd be far less of a problem.
I am well aware of Aviation law, CAP393 and it's pertinent sections appertaining to UAV/SUAS operation having held PfCO and PFAW for a number of years.
I was mearly pointing out a lack of basic understanding of UK sectional airspace - not advocating "flying as you like" in Class G.
Another option is that they are wilfully ignoring it rather than doing so through ignorance. Whether that's deliberate disruption like Gatwick, dropping contraband into prisons, or just someone in search of a more up votes for a social media post by getting something a little "edgy", pilots in those cases would almost certainly know they were pushing the envelope too far, even if they didn't know/care about the specifics. We've also commented here repeatedly about how much anti-drone coverage there is in the media, yet most of it I've read has usually included a reference to the Drone Code somewhere, which pretty effectively sums up the essentials in a single basic infographic, a hard copy of which is often included with many drone purchases. That's a lot of ways for a drone pilot to become aware of regulation, even if they are not actively participating in a forum such as this, so I suspect any attempt to claim ignorance in a prosecution is going to fall on very stony ground indeed.
Either way though, if that's the extent of awareness and compliance with the Drone Code after a few years it doesn't bode well for the communication and adoption of the registration scheme that has yet to see any official promotion with only a few months to go, does it?
Rules need to be backed up by worthwhile enforcemet.
Without that there is no incentive for people to comply.
There'll be a lot more awareness once people start getting prosecuted.
Without that there is no incentive for people to comply.
There'll be a lot more awareness once people start getting prosecuted.
I agree but who is actually going to enforce these new rules?
Our already overstretched, underfunded police force?
Unless there is an instance like occurred at Gatwick do you really believe the local constabulary are going to prioritize a call that comes in saying “Oh, there’s a drone flying illegally over our housing estate”?
If dispatch could be bothered to send a car out, by the time it got there, little Johnny would have flown his 3 or 4 batteries, packed up and gone home.
This strong arm of the law stuff is really not going to happen.
Oh, the "strong arm of the law stuff" really is going to happen. And it doesn't need to "overstretch the underfunded police force". Surveillance and Detection technology is the key and it has already been implemented in a few locations. It's early days but you can bet your bottom dollar that there are a lot of very smart engineers and software developers currently working feverishly on practical solutions.
The other obvious thing is that Gatwick was, regardless of whether or not it was a hoax, a huge wake-up call to the authorities - they are now deadly serious about doing everything possible to prevent a potential catastrophe. As has been said ad nauseam, the damage has already been done. The recreational drone flying community's reputation has been trashed by a minority of idiots who continue to thumb their noses at any kind of regulation or oversight that would somehow infringe upon their selfish and misguided principals.
From incidents i know of currently its enforced by the police turning up at the owners house 3-4 weeks after a flight as a result of a call complaint from a member of the public. In other words, they'll do it when they have time. No need to prioritise if you have a name, car registration number etc.
Don't forget police of late LIKE stuff like this. Any offence they can "solve" with minimum effort looks good on paper. Thats why they're really into prosecution mean comments on twitter far more than they are for turning up if your house gets broken into. It makes the stats look better.
Plus as others have said, things like Aerosense etc make it very easy to ID and fine people, the evidence is already recorded and all they need to do is pay a visit during a quiet shift to tick the box.
Ultimately for the vast majority of drones in the sky, they're a flying, easy to detect radio transmitter than in DJIs case, passes vital and personally identifiable information completely unencrypted for all to read. Someone with an SDR and a few days could easily code a detector and deplot it.
Effective enforcement of the regulations has to happen ASAP otherwise you can kiss recreational drone flying goodbye forever. It really is as simple a that - you don't need a crystal ball to work it out. Even Blind Freddy ...... and so on.......
Similar threads
