I think what you'll get is, that BMFA see us as the problem! Really? And the one more thing. I hadn't seen that sad story about that little girl being killed by a model aircraft but now that it's happened, there's a good chance that drones will get lumped together with model aircraft!!!! That's all we need......!Yes, very hard to see that as fair, isn't it ?I might write to them and ask why they didn't feel the need to represent UAV pilots in this regard.
UK Government Drone Consultation 2018: Use, restrictions and enforcement.
- Thread starter oldcelt
- Start date
MMmmmmm, I didn't know that the BMFA had those exemptions. I'd love to fly FPV with goggles. I know, we are allowed to do it with a spotter. I get it, the CAA say that you haven't got the same spacial awareness if you're flying full FPV. And whilst that maybe true, we still do have common sense and ears! I don't know about anybody else but when I'm out flying my drones, if I even hear any type of manned aviation anywhere, I bring it straight down to about 50ft and hover there until I can ascertain exactly where said manned aviation is at and what direction it is going! It's just best practice and common sense.
Moving on to the BMFA being allowed to fly up to 1,000ft AGL. Well, the 400ftAGL limit is there for a reason and I get that. But! I think we should have the same regulation as our fellow drone pilots over the pond in the US. They have the same 400ft AGL limit as us but, as long as they are no more than 500 metres from an object that is over 400ft high, they are legally allowed to fly up to the top of the object (whatever it may be) and then fly 400ft above it. Sounds perfectly sensible to me. Imagine this scenario - You are stood no more than 500 metres away from the base of a 1000ft hill. At present, you can take off but you are legally not allowed to fly even half way up the hill. And yet, you can haul your arse (and your drone) to the top of said hill and legally fly 400ft above it! Not only that, but whilst you are flying from the top of the hill you can legally fly down (negative altitude) to the bottom of said hill to where you were standing before! Makes no sense?
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Actually that's not quite right. In the UK it's 400 ft AGL from wherever the craft is at any particular time, NOT just from the launch site. If we fly off the edge of a hill, we are expected to descend into that valley, maintaining <400ft AGL at all times. I hate that rule - the FAA version makes SO much more sense. Of course our altimeters report height above launch altitude, so how the hell are we supposed to know what is 400 ft when we are over hilly or otherwise uneven terrain ?
So, does that mean that one can fly to the top of the 1000ft hill then and fly 400ft above it?
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
I have flown fixed wing model aircraft for many years ,and have recently found flying quadcopters suits me as I approach my 70th year however many friends who are in the BMFA think I've gone over to the dark side sad but true.
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
And just to highlight one point that was made in that video about giving police powers to confiscate your stuff. A part of this consultation that I really, REALLY don't like. If the police ever do confiscate your stuff, drone, tablet, smartphone, whatever. You'll never get it back! Yes in theory you would think that you would but trust me, once the police have got your stuff, you'll never see it again! So you might as well kiss all that money you spent goodbye.Here's an excellent video I found today (late to the party again) that sums up pretty much exactly how I feel about the BMFA and their multi-rotor prejudice AND the DoT 'Drone Pilot Punishment' survey...
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
I understand your worry about it, but that isn't always the case. I don't know if you follow hilarious 'low-level law-breaker' Ally Law on youTube, but he is constantly getting his camera gear confiscated by police, and he pretty much always gets it back eventually, though sometimes it has taken years. I see no particular reason that UAV confiscations would be any different, but of course grant you that any time without your machine is way out of order unless there is firm proof of serious recklessness on the pilots part.
Don't get me wrong - I REALLY don't want them to have the power to do that, but as they consider it the only way to gather evidence against us (via our telemetry), then I suspect we are facing a brick wall trying to avoid it, and that leaves us at the merest whim of whichever officer is handling a situation.
Very very depressing. I think CurryKitten is right - they really are trying to hound us out of the airspace so they can flog it to amazon.
If it was just the confiscation of your drone and controller for gathering telemetry evidence, that would be bad enough. But no, they will also get powers to bust into your home and take stuff like all your computers, cameras anything they feel might contain evidence. The police have 2 speeds when investigating something, slow and stop! If you ever do get your stuff back, it'll be years and I'm talking many years. Your stuff will be out of date and probably won't work anymore anyway. It's state sponsored theft, no other word for it. This is the UK isn't it? It's starting to feel a bit like China or Russia!
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Yeah that is several degrees worse isn't it
Although I note in China and Russia people can pretty much fly wherever the heck they want, so we're EVEN WORSE than that !!!and there's irony for you........!Yeah that is several degrees worse isn't it
I hear stamp collecting is still a thing...
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
In some ways, no matter how draconian the law becomes, it will usually be down to the attitude of the individual policeman (hopefully not contracted official) on the day, and hopefully any response will be proportional and fair, as I think most police officers in this country still are if you treat them politely and calmly comply with their requests. I don't honestly think that (unless we are doing something obviously dangerous) they will be seeking to remove our gear at the first opportunity - if for no other reason than that I'm sure they don't need the paperwork !! I would hope those search and entry powers are restricted to cases where people have done only the most reckless things and endangered manned aircraft or similar, but it's certainly a worry for all of us I imagine...
Nah, I'm not quite ready for that. I've just bought one of these
Attachments
1st new bike I had. 1974Nah, I'm not quite ready for that. I've just bought one of these
Mine was an 88 Yamaha V Max...loved that bike! Now I ride a 2006 Suzuki GSXR1000...looking at new though...
AeroJ
Well-Known Member
Yes, very hard to see that as fair, isn't it ?
Well I did write to them, and they wrote back in under 10 minutes, so in the interests of fairness, here is the first part of what the BMFA said...
Apparently they did try 'extremely hard' to get UAVs included in that exemption, but apparently the CAA were utterly immovable on that, based on 'European Research Papers', which showed UAVs were a much greater threat to aircraft than fixed wing models etc. They have also referred my letter on to their CEO, who is away at the moment, but can apparently answer my questions in more detail on his return. That's better info and service than I was expecting to be honest ! I'll update this if I get a further response from them.
Similar threads
