|Daithi O Buitigh||22/07/2017 03:05:18|
1399 forum posts
OK - the article does say 'drones' but, technically any remotely controlled aerial vehicle is a 'drone' (and has been since the days of the De Havilland Queen Bee) so action needs to be started now before some civil servant insists that all flying objects over 250 grammes will have to be registered. This happened in the uS (although I believe that has now been rescinded - maybe one of our trans-atlantic cousins can give us an update on that).
The article was in the Independent and does appear to be using the usual 'scare tactics' of claiming that they can be used by terrorists, people smuggling drugs, etc into prisons. What we need to be careful about is that it's made abundantly clear that fixed wing models are very unlikely to be used to drop supplies of whatever into Dartmoor.
9451 forum posts
Someone has got hold of half the story and printed it. I'm sure there will be new rules under EASA
Edited By cymaz on 22/07/2017 06:19:23
Edited By cymaz on 22/07/2017 06:19:43
|David Ovenden||22/07/2017 06:40:42|
421 forum posts
BBC are also reporting the story.
|bouncebounce crunch||22/07/2017 07:03:13|
1739 forum posts
The logical answer is this.
you are proven legitimate within a club environment before you can purchase any model over 2kg including more than 4 channel radio. once this is accepted your bmfa or maaa insurance etcetera will restrict you to buying inappropriate models and equipment..
i hate beauracracy they make many silly rules but this is an issue.
|Dave Hopkin||22/07/2017 07:36:18|
|3672 forum posts|
That might work for a percentage of sales - but what about the Internet sales from overseas ???
While I strongly advocate club membership I would hesitate before making it a legal requirement,
|Frank Skilbeck||22/07/2017 07:47:29|
4867 forum posts
Sounds like they want to register users (pilots) and make sure they are aware of the safety rules, this will probably apply to all model fliers not just multi-rotor pilots.
As regards the US the need to register was overturned, but is now being re-introduced https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?2925228-AMA-Pushing-a-New-Bill-So-we-all-can-register-all-over-again%21%21
|Former Member||22/07/2017 08:04:51|
|8090 forum posts|
[This posting has been removed]
|Steve J||22/07/2017 08:06:13|
2105 forum posts
I wonder if this means that the results of the DfT consultation are about to be published?
It will be interesting to see how many model aircraft flyers bothered to respond to the consultation.
|Steve J||22/07/2017 09:10:05|
2105 forum posts
The government response has indeed appeared -
213 people who said that they flew model aircraft responded to the consultation.
|61 forum posts|
i thought i was sort of already registered with my SAA membership and bronze cert (BMFA - A cert)
Edited By og on 22/07/2017 09:34:36
30 forum posts
Only 213 model flyers responded to the consultation. That will make the government think they won't up set many people when they start to make up silly rules to stop us flying. Once again it's ruining a past time for the many because of the stupid actions of a few. I know the BMFA is watching these rules coming out but I think we should all be aware now before the government sneak them under the door before we get a chance to oppose them in numbers.
|John Emms 1||22/07/2017 09:48:41|
|242 forum posts|
Clearly a Government press release of this morning: Following consultation, all drones over 250g will have to be registered, and I will have to undergo "Safety Awareness Training".
I have a very limited number of "drones" currently in flying condition, 6, with 4 kits that I intend to complete in the next year or so - do I get a bulk discount rate?
Does my 50 years of model flying, BMFA B, BMFA FW Instructor, and LMA Cert mean that I still have to pay to sit through a day of Safety Awareness Training? Presumably with "Active Participation".
I know that most forum members will have considerably more "drones" than I, perhaps a survey is called for? Will this spark a new interest in 249g models? Would large numbers of 249g models cause new concerns about an increase of flying in local parks?
Feel free to discuss
Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 22/07/2017 13:37:40
|Brian Cooper||22/07/2017 10:07:31|
615 forum posts
This will probably seem a tad controversial, but I really don't care:
Personally, I regard drones as the biggest threat to the continued existence of our cherished hobby. . Therefore I would like to see Drone operators (I won't call them pilots) coming under a similar scrutiny as people who apply for a firearms licence.
Anyone wanting one would have to undergo a background check and give convincing reasons for wanting one before being granted a licence to purchase one..... and the licence should be expensive.
Then, and only then, could someone buy one. . . After that -- and before any flights can be done -- the Drone operator would have to apply for a Provisional Flying Licence, and would have six months in which to pass practical tests with regards to their piloting ability and an awareness of the law. All of these flights should be fully documented and have a police-approved witness to confirm them. . Also, a drone should be kept in a locked cabinet and its Tx in a separate locked cabinet (just like firearms).
Any test failure would mean the licence being removed for ten years.
Anyone caught flying one without a licence should face a minimum of 10 years in jail.
1503 forum posts
that depends on your definition of a drone.
|Simon Chaddock||22/07/2017 10:16:46|
5807 forum posts
My own view is this has become a problem with the advent of FPV rather than multi rotors themselves.
When controlling visually only from the ground line of sight is a done deal.
If a way can be found to control/restrict radio transmissions from model aircraft........
1939 forum posts
What is it. Adding a camera, adding Fpv, adding Gps, adding more than 1 propellor ?
|Bob Burton||22/07/2017 10:50:39|
|186 forum posts||
Should your rules be adopted then I assume that they will apply to the pilot of *any* unmanned aerial vehicle ...
|John Privett||22/07/2017 10:52:17|
6106 forum posts
Only 213? That is depressing. We have about 36,000 BMFA members and less than 0.6% of them responded to the consultation. Where was everybody else? I know the consultation was mentioned on here a few times (eg. here, here, and here.) Should we have made it more prominent? I hope I'm not the only person from here to have responded! Who were the other 212?
|Ray Farrimond||22/07/2017 10:56:35|
|36 forum posts|
|Ray Farrimond||22/07/2017 10:56:59|
|36 forum posts|
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!