Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Registration of UK drone operators expanded in scope.

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Registration of UK drone operators expanded in scope.

Old 30th Nov 2019, 09:38
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: N Ireland
Posts: 261
Not withstanding the obvious perils of flying drones/model aircraft in the proximity of airfields has there been any concrete evidence that Gatwick was disrupted by actual drones. At the time I wondered at the lack of pictorial evidence given today’s culture of using mobile phone to record just about everything.
I read a report somewhere in one of the flying magazine that there was some doubt as to what caused the Gatwick incident.

As for the CAA they certainly don’t do themselves any favors.
Solar is online now  
Old 30th Nov 2019, 11:00
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 127
For what it's worth I had heard that the reported sightings of drones suggested they came from someone with a good knowledge of Gatwick's internal communications systems and were made at exactly the right time after an earlier 'sighting' to re-ignite safety concerns. Another suggestion was that the whole charade was BALPA originated, as they were, understandably, keen to ensure drone-free approach and departure zones for the future. Not one single photograph ever appeared of one of the alleged drones, and as a result of politicians' "we must be seen to be doing something" attitude Britain's most popular air sport, model flying, has been seriously affected by the usual knee-jerk legislation, while none of it will deter drone users with malicious intent. One would think that after the ludicrous legislation post-Dunblane, which among other things, banned an Olympic sport in the UK, or the barmy Dangerous Dogs Act governments would have learned. But I suppose from experience by now one probably wouldn't...
Buster11 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2019, 22:53
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 125
There's a new formula of establishing guilt in Britain introduced by Mizz May. It is "highly likely" that drones were the source of trouble in Gatwick. Proof who?
UltraFan is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2019, 11:59
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,428
Originally Posted by Buster11 View Post
Another suggestion was that the whole charade was BALPA originated, as they were, understandably, keen to ensure drone-free approach and departure zones for the future. ...
Probably a suggestion made mostly by folks operating in serious tin-foil hat territory.
wiggy is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2019, 22:12
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
Probably a suggestion made mostly by folks operating in serious tin-foil hat territory.
With BALPA, nothing is tinfoil territory. The organization itself is pretty much a Bedlam. They praised May's "firm and swift" decision to increase the no-fly zone around airports from a few hundred meters to 5km.
UltraFan is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 09:51
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,026
Why is it such a bad idea to ensure that the people who fly toys that can be dangerous understand the dangers and rules?
Is there any intention to deny the licence? (As can happen with pilots, drivers and gun owners)
beardy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 13:04
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 127
For umpteen years model flyers have been and still are bound by the ANOs, and that worked fine. What many regard as unacceptable is that legislation that arose from the proliferation of drones (i.e. multi-rotor devices, usually carrying a camera, and requiring minimal flying skills) now includes model aircraft, which have not been perceived to be a problem in the past century or more of the sport's existence. Flying a powered parachute requires no licence, no test and no fee, so how can an annual fee of 9.00 + a competence test be justified for model flyers?
Buster11 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 13:19
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,428
Originally Posted by UltraFan View Post
With BALPA, nothing is tinfoil territory. The organization itself is pretty much a Bedlam. They praised May's "firm and swift" decision to increase the no-fly zone around airports from a few hundred meters to 5km.
So you think it's credible that persons or persons unknown in an organisation run for and to some extent by professional licence holders sanctioned the flying drones in controlled airspace, airspace that some of it's own members were operating in or planning on operating in...???

Not impossible I guess (nothing is) but if you really want to spend time on conspiracy theories (and I don't) I'd respectfully suggest the obvious starting point would be some in HMG, the Police, Home Office....perhaps even those who manufacture drone defence systems.





wiggy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 13:27
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
So you think it's credible that persons or persons unknown in an organisation run for and to some extent by professional licence holders sanctioned the flying drones in controlled airspace, airspace that some of it's own members were operating in or planning on operating in...???

Not impossible I guess (nothing is) but if you really want to spend time on conspiracy theories (and I don't) I'd respectfully suggest the obvious starting point would be some in HMG, the Police, Home Office....perhaps even those who manufacture drone defence systems.
You misunderstand, the premise is that no drones were flown anywhere near Gatwick - there were just phone calls reporting sightings of drones.
Surlybonds is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 13:47
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by Buster11 View Post
For umpteen years model flyers have been and still are bound by the ANOs, and that worked fine. What many regard as unacceptable is that legislation that arose from the proliferation of drones (i.e. multi-rotor devices, usually carrying a camera, and requiring minimal flying skills) now includes model aircraft, which have not been perceived to be a problem in the past century or more of the sport's existence. Flying a powered parachute requires no licence, no test and no fee, so how can an annual fee of 9.00 + a competence test be justified for model flyers?
Whilst being bound by the ANO and accepting that ignorance of the law is no excuse surely removing that ignorance can only be a good idea. 9 is a small fee, small change in a pub and one ticket in the cinema, so it seems like a very reasonable cost of administration.
beardy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 16:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 325
How much do you spend on your hobby each year? Is 9 more really a problem?
As for competence, you would of course pass the test. Wouldn't you want others to meet the same standard?
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 17:45
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
How much do you spend on your hobby each year? Is 9 more really a problem?
As for competence, you would of course pass the test. Wouldn't you want others to meet the same standard?
You miss the point.
BMFA members haven't been the problem, yet they are the ones who are paying up...
The registration scheme is a political knee-jerk, it solves nothing.

As for Gatwick, the rumour goes that the operator is known and has been questioned, but providing sufficient hard evidence for the CPS has been an issue...

Nige321 is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 17:54
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 325
We'll have to disagree then. Airspace is becoming increasingly busy, and inevitably there must be better regulation of those who use it. What has been possible before cannot always have a free pass into the future.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 18:47
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
We'll have to disagree then. Airspace is becoming increasingly busy, and inevitably there must be better regulation of those who use it. What has been possible before cannot always have a free pass into the future.
Again, you miss the point. BMFA members are already regulated, paying out 9 for nothing, changes nothing...
Nige321 is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 22:11
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by Nige321 View Post

Again, you miss the point. BMFA members are already regulated, paying out 9 for nothing, changes nothing...
Regulated or self-regulated?
beardy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 23:00
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
Regulated or self-regulated?
Model flying is regulated under the ANO and CAPs 658/722...

Please explain how paying 9 to the CAA changes anything...?
Nige321 is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 23:02
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
Angry

As a country flyer Iv'e spent my 9 and I don't even have a drone in the fleet.
For those of us who stick by the rules CAP 658 was good enough to self regulate. Those who care nothing for the rules of any ANO or CAP will duly be disregarded and remain unregulated and will not give a *****.
Rocchi is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 08:56
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by Nige321 View Post
Model flying is regulated under the ANO and CAPs 658/722...

Please explain how paying 9 to the CAA changes anything...?
Your licence administration is covered by your 9. Your licence shows that you understand the rules governing your hobby. Does membership of your hobby's association prove that you have read and understand the rules ie does it test your knowledge against the ANO or just against its own regulations? If against the ANO and the same level of knowledge as the new licence, then your association should apply for a derogation for its members.
In the meantime I see 9 as a very economic way of establishing a level playing field. You should welcome such a low fee for establishing the confidence of the general public.

​​​
beardy is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 09:00
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 1,026
Originally Posted by Rocchi View Post
Those who care nothing for the rules of any ANO or CAP will duly be disregarded and remain unregulated and will not give a *****.
Sort of true, they may disregard the rules, but they remain regulated. There were also those who were ignorant of the regulations, licencing should help inform them.
beardy is offline  
Old 3rd Dec 2019, 09:37
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 641
Originally Posted by beardy View Post
Sort of true, they may disregard the rules, but they remain regulated. There were also those who were ignorant of the regulations, licencing should help inform them.
How does paying the CAA 9 help to inform them?
The (free!) 'Dronecode' has been around for years, what's different?

You keep on missing the point.
The only people registering and paying are the responsible model and drone flyers who aren't the problem.
The nutters at Gatwick won't register.
Where has this excercise got us?

Nige321 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.