Registration of UK drone operators expanded in scope.
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.
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.
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...
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Tana
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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)
Is there any intention to deny the licence? (As can happen with pilots, drivers and gun owners)
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?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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?
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?
As for competence, you would of course pass the test. Wouldn't you want others to meet the same standard?
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...
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...
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 *****.
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 *****.
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.
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.
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?