Registration of UK drone operators expanded in scope.
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.
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.
The purpose of much Regulation is to give a sanction against those failing to abide by it. You ask how this 'affects the nutters'. It affects them when they are identified and enables them to be the subject of a legal process that did not exist before. This is the point you are missing
The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences
The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences
Nige321
It appears you don't have a derogation, you still have to pay a very modest fee to be recognised by the CAA as having an acceptable level of knowledge as provided by your Association.
Of course £9 is still £9.
The BMFA objectives seem to be:
It appears you don't have a derogation, you still have to pay a very modest fee to be recognised by the CAA as having an acceptable level of knowledge as provided by your Association.
Of course £9 is still £9.
The BMFA objectives seem to be:
- The promotion, protection, organisation and encouragement of model aircraft building, flying and development in all its aspects in The United Kingdom, through the medium of clubs and individual members; assistance and guidance to model aircraft clubs or individuals; collaboration between members of the Society; and co-operation on behalf of members of the Society with the Civil Aviation Authority or other government departments and any other bodies and organisations in the United Kingdom and overseas.
- To produce, collect and distribute information in connection with model aircraft or the model aircraft movement on such terms as Council shall think fit.
- To encourage and support research in model aircraft design theory and construction.
- To control and record model aircraft performance within the areas under the jurisdiction of the Royal Aero Club.
- To act as promoters of National and International model aircraft meetings, contests and exhibitions; as publishers stationers and booksellers, general traders, dealers agents and manufacturers, both wholesale and retail' of any articles of any description which may assist the development of model aviation;
- To establish and support, financially or otherwise or aid in the establishment and support of any educational scheme or establishment with benefit to the model aircraft movement;
Nige321
It appears you don't have a derogation, you still have to pay a very modest fee to be recognised by the CAA as having an acceptable level of knowledge as provided by your Association.
Of course £9 is still £9.
The BMFA objectives seem to be:
It appears you don't have a derogation, you still have to pay a very modest fee to be recognised by the CAA as having an acceptable level of knowledge as provided by your Association.
Of course £9 is still £9.
The BMFA objectives seem to be:
- The promotion, protection, organisation and encouragement of model aircraft building, flying and development in all its aspects in The United Kingdom, through the medium of clubs and individual members; assistance and guidance to model aircraft clubs or individuals; collaboration between members of the Society; and co-operation on behalf of members of the Society with the Civil Aviation Authority or other government departments and any other bodies and organisations in the United Kingdom and overseas.
- To produce, collect and distribute information in connection with model aircraft or the model aircraft movement on such terms as Council shall think fit.
- To encourage and support research in model aircraft design theory and construction.
- To control and record model aircraft performance within the areas under the jurisdiction of the Royal Aero Club.
- To act as promoters of National and International model aircraft meetings, contests and exhibitions; as publishers stationers and booksellers, general traders, dealers agents and manufacturers, both wholesale and retail' of any articles of any description which may assist the development of model aviation;
- To establish and support, financially or otherwise or aid in the establishment and support of any educational scheme or establishment with benefit to the model aircraft movement;
1) All of the BMFA members who have passed an acheivment scheme test are exempt from taking either the BMFA or the CAA online test anyway.
They simply hand over their £9 for the priveledge of registering.
2) True there is new legislation, but the nutter at Gatwick will be charged with breaking the ANO when (if...) sufficient evidence is obtained.
The new scheme simply taxes law abiding airspace users and has zero effect on the people causing the problem...
The purpose of much Regulation is to give a sanction against those failing to abide by it. You ask how this 'affects the nutters'. It affects them when they are identified and enables them to be the subject of a legal process that did not exist before. This is the point you are missing
The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences
The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences
The purpose of much Regulation is to give a sanction against those failing to abide by it. You ask how this 'affects the nutters'. It affects them when they are identified and enables them to be the subject of a legal process that did not exist before. This is the point you are missing
The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences
The question you should be asking is the extent to which any effort will be devoted to detecting and prosecuting those without licences
He holds little hope of it actually happening...
Except it doesn't 'benefit' the model aircraft movement does it!.
1) All of the BMFA members who have passed an acheivment scheme test are exempt from taking either the BMFA or the CAA online test anyway.
They simply hand over their £9 for the priveledge of registering.
2) True there is new legislation, but the nutter at Gatwick will be charged with breaking the ANO when (if...) sufficient evidence is obtained.
The new scheme simply taxes law abiding airspace users and has zero effect on the people causing the problem...
1) All of the BMFA members who have passed an acheivment scheme test are exempt from taking either the BMFA or the CAA online test anyway.
They simply hand over their £9 for the priveledge of registering.
2) True there is new legislation, but the nutter at Gatwick will be charged with breaking the ANO when (if...) sufficient evidence is obtained.
The new scheme simply taxes law abiding airspace users and has zero effect on the people causing the problem...
Do you have a better solution to the massive unregulated increase in toy ownership and use?
Avoid imitations
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
The point to remember is that there will remain thousands of unregulated drones/ model aircraft flyers out there, many flyers will not have heard of the schemes as yet and there hasn't been a great deal of publicity outside aviation circles. As of 30th Nov, it was reported that less than half of the estimated 120,000 model aircraft owner/flyers in UK had registered for the scheme. The ones who have a desire to cause a problem with a drone would be totally mentally bereft if they chose to register their drone first!
I suspect this legislation is going to be another dog licence / TV licence debacle because it will be almost impossible to fully enforce.
I suspect this legislation is going to be another dog licence / TV licence debacle because it will be almost impossible to fully enforce.
All-the-while, mind you, there is no scientific proof that toy drones present any danger to commercial airplanes. (The youtube video you just tried to find was a hoax disproved by aerodynamicists.) Their size is much smaller and lighter than, say, geese or swans, and their structure is more fragile than sparrow bones. Yet another "Y2K problem".
To put it into perspective, in the winter there are at the very least 253,000 birds weighing between 1.5 and 5kg flying in UK airspace, all of them uncontrolled, and much heavier than many model aircraft. (From RSPB data, a Canada Goose weighs from 4.3-5kg and 193,000 winter in the UK. A heron weighs between 1.5 and 2kg, with 63,000 wintering here). Between 2012 and 2016 there were between 4 and 5 bird strikes per 10,000 aircraft movements (CAA data). Even using the unrealistically large DfT figure of 170,000 SUAs in the UK, and taking into account that most SUA activity is below 400 feet, the likelihood of an SUA impacting an aircraft is far less than the probability of a bird strike. Putting transponders on that lot will be far more useful than doing so to model aircraft and drones, though probably a bit harder.
and it did get reported 
. So this is not a "new" problem.Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of incorrect science/misinformation above comparing birds with drones (including model aircraft for sale of argument).
On impact with something at high speed the bird's body essentially behaves as a fluid, dissapating energy and without hard points of impact which can penetrate or shatter hardened structures.
A drone is basically some heavy lumps of metal (motors and batteries) held together by light plastic frame. On impact it's the metal bits that do the damage. They don't disintegrate. Vs leading edges, radomes at high speeds the drone will likely penetrate. Vs helicopter rotors it will likely break the blade of even a decent size one, likely causing a fatal accident.
CAT aeroplane windscreens are pretty well protected at below 250kts.
Source: UK govt study of mid air risks from drones.
On impact with something at high speed the bird's body essentially behaves as a fluid, dissapating energy and without hard points of impact which can penetrate or shatter hardened structures.
A drone is basically some heavy lumps of metal (motors and batteries) held together by light plastic frame. On impact it's the metal bits that do the damage. They don't disintegrate. Vs leading edges, radomes at high speeds the drone will likely penetrate. Vs helicopter rotors it will likely break the blade of even a decent size one, likely causing a fatal accident.
CAT aeroplane windscreens are pretty well protected at below 250kts.
Source: UK govt study of mid air risks from drones.
On a slightly different track (pun intended) there is a story that, when designing the APT, British Rail borrowed Rolls Royce’s chicken cannon to test the strength of their windscreens. After several unsuccessful tests with a lot of damage inside the cab, they asked RR’s engineers for advice – they looked at everything and said “you need to defrost the chickens first”.
Possibly just one of those urban myths.
Possibly just one of those urban myths.
I have flown through both rain and hail and seen the damage from each, I have also had ricochet damage from both mud and spent rounds. The hard things do a lot more damage.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Washington state
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Third, anyone who has ever dismembered a chicken for cooking purposes will seriously doubt that a bird's head is less dense or rigid than a battery
I have carved a fair number of turkeys and have help lift a fair number of batteries out of holds and can conclusively state that batteries are far more rigid and dense than birds heads. Seriously, looks are deceptive. Try picking up a li-ion bike battery sometime, you will be surprised by the weight versus its size. I have some telecom style batteries that are the size of a very small briefcase, and it takes two burley men to pick them up safely. That said, neither birds nor batteries are good things to have impacting jets or helicopters, but we have more ability to control drones than we do birds. In my view the drone hobby craze will soon pass, but commercial use of drones is expanding exponentially and will continue to do so, making it prudent for regulators to consider this issue and take early action to ensure that the skies remain as safe as possible.
There's no reason to expect hobby drone use to decrease, as it enables pictures and videos to be taken. Including ones invading privacy, but mainly views of yourself climbing or sailing.
Recently a large number of drones were stolen from a US retailer.
Registration will not affect illegal use. Few people are so stupid as to register stolen property.
Recently a large number of drones were stolen from a US retailer.
Registration will not affect illegal use. Few people are so stupid as to register stolen property.
Drone law changes to permit beyond the visual sight without CAA approval
You could not make it up...…
"David Tait, Acting Head of the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s Innovation Team, said: “Enabling everyday drone flying beyond visual line of sight is a game changer, providing the opportunity for unmanned vehicles to monitor critical infrastructure, make deliveries and support our daily lives in an efficient and environmentally friendly way."
Drone law changes to boost use on construction sites | Construction Enquirer
"David Tait, Acting Head of the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s Innovation Team, said: “Enabling everyday drone flying beyond visual line of sight is a game changer, providing the opportunity for unmanned vehicles to monitor critical infrastructure, make deliveries and support our daily lives in an efficient and environmentally friendly way."
Drone law changes to boost use on construction sites | Construction Enquirer
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Devon
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been intense lobbying by Amazon and others to gain acceptance for their kind of drone operation. Their ambition is to use 200 - 400 feet AGL. A kind of “dronosphere” as it were, for package delivery. UPS have approval to start in the US I believe. They claim to have Part 135 certification. A UPS drone pilot needs to hold “Commercial Pilot certificate and Part 107 Certificate” according to the UPS website. Mr Tait seems to be a bit behind the curve already. Innovation has arrived!
Oh well, I’ll just keep to stick and tissue for now!
Oh well, I’ll just keep to stick and tissue for now!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/fren...rone-operator/
French sailor allegedly assaults Scottish drone operator
What started as a routine drone flight quickly spiralled into a violent confrontation for a Scottish drone operator at the Port of Leith, Edinburgh.
The incident led to allegations of physical assault, ensuing charges, and a contentious legal debate that’s garnering attention.Dave Cullen was piloting his 249g drone near a French naval ship berthed in the port, the FS Chevalier Paul. While the flight was within the parameters set by existing legislation, the drone’s presence prompted four sailors to demand the operator obtain permission from the ship’s command.
This confrontation swiftly escalated, resulting in the operator alleging that he received a punch to the shoulder.
Following the incident, a spokesperson for Police Scotland confirmed that an assault report had been filed at Ocean Drive in Edinburgh around 3.25pm on Sunday, 7 May. The spokesperson added, “No one was injured,” and revealed, “A 24-year-old man has been charged in connection with the assault and issued with a recorded police warning.”
However, the assault isn’t the only legal trouble stemming from this incident. The drone operator himself now faces charges regarding his drone’s operation. According to the Police Scotland spokesperson, “A 48-year-old man has been charged in connection with offences relating to the use of a drone. He will be the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal.”
This legal predicament has led to questions about the legitimacy of the charges laid against the drone operator. An expert in drone flight operations has told me that the operator’s flight was within the boundaries set by the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) and the guidelines from the Drone Code issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The operator maintains that he kept the drone within visual line of sight and at a safe distance from the docked ship, something backed up by flight logs I have viewed.
Adding a layer of complexity to this case is the fact that there were no flight restrictions in the area at the time of the flight. This information supports the operator’s assertion of compliance with local airspace regulations. The operator’s flight logs and considerable drone operating experience further substantiate his claims of the flight’s legality.
According to a drone flight expert I spoke to, “This flight was not reckless,” casting doubt on the charges brought against the operator. He added, “Assuming the drone is a sub-250g model. The drone was operated close enough for visual line of sight and never dangerously low or close.”
Following this incident, the operator found himself facing charges of culpable and reckless conduct from the Procurator Fiscal, who issued a conditional offer of a fiscal fine or a court appearance. This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures, thereby posing a threat to the public as “reckless endangerment”.
Let’s take a closer look…..
French sailor allegedly assaults Scottish drone operator
What started as a routine drone flight quickly spiralled into a violent confrontation for a Scottish drone operator at the Port of Leith, Edinburgh.
The incident led to allegations of physical assault, ensuing charges, and a contentious legal debate that’s garnering attention.Dave Cullen was piloting his 249g drone near a French naval ship berthed in the port, the FS Chevalier Paul. While the flight was within the parameters set by existing legislation, the drone’s presence prompted four sailors to demand the operator obtain permission from the ship’s command.
This confrontation swiftly escalated, resulting in the operator alleging that he received a punch to the shoulder.
Following the incident, a spokesperson for Police Scotland confirmed that an assault report had been filed at Ocean Drive in Edinburgh around 3.25pm on Sunday, 7 May. The spokesperson added, “No one was injured,” and revealed, “A 24-year-old man has been charged in connection with the assault and issued with a recorded police warning.”
However, the assault isn’t the only legal trouble stemming from this incident. The drone operator himself now faces charges regarding his drone’s operation. According to the Police Scotland spokesperson, “A 48-year-old man has been charged in connection with offences relating to the use of a drone. He will be the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal.”
This legal predicament has led to questions about the legitimacy of the charges laid against the drone operator. An expert in drone flight operations has told me that the operator’s flight was within the boundaries set by the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) and the guidelines from the Drone Code issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The operator maintains that he kept the drone within visual line of sight and at a safe distance from the docked ship, something backed up by flight logs I have viewed.
Adding a layer of complexity to this case is the fact that there were no flight restrictions in the area at the time of the flight. This information supports the operator’s assertion of compliance with local airspace regulations. The operator’s flight logs and considerable drone operating experience further substantiate his claims of the flight’s legality.
According to a drone flight expert I spoke to, “This flight was not reckless,” casting doubt on the charges brought against the operator. He added, “Assuming the drone is a sub-250g model. The drone was operated close enough for visual line of sight and never dangerously low or close.”
Following this incident, the operator found himself facing charges of culpable and reckless conduct from the Procurator Fiscal, who issued a conditional offer of a fiscal fine or a court appearance. This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures, thereby posing a threat to the public as “reckless endangerment”.
Let’s take a closer look…..
Last edited by ORAC; 16th Jul 2023 at 13:34.
"the drone’s presence prompted four sailors to demand the operator obtain permission from the ship’s command."
Why do that when the ship's command could have sent one sailor to extend permission?
"This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures"
Maybe a better understanding of the nature of terrorism is in order?
This guy has a drone - they have a warship. How do we know they aren't about to launch a salvo on the city? Would they have had a similar reaction to a kite?
I would like to know how the anti-terrorism system is triggered. My guess, it's someone saying "There's a drone!" (but in French) and Chicken Littleing their way along the ship. But thanks to this over-reaction actual terrorists have more insight into problem-causing efforts they might make. Good Job! Attack the good guys and tell the bad guys what they need to know.
Why do that when the ship's command could have sent one sailor to extend permission?
"This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures"
Maybe a better understanding of the nature of terrorism is in order?
This guy has a drone - they have a warship. How do we know they aren't about to launch a salvo on the city? Would they have had a similar reaction to a kite?
I would like to know how the anti-terrorism system is triggered. My guess, it's someone saying "There's a drone!" (but in French) and Chicken Littleing their way along the ship. But thanks to this over-reaction actual terrorists have more insight into problem-causing efforts they might make. Good Job! Attack the good guys and tell the bad guys what they need to know.