By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

Read and weep for aeromodelling

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
ChrisB27/07/2018 00:41:23
1226 forum posts
34 photos

I've read the latest consultation today and the one thing that does concern me above all else is the future option for electronic countermeasures to jam radio signals of drone being flown in sensitive locations.

Clearly this measure is in-descriminate and any drone that is subject to this action may not be the only casualty. This should be the focus of any response.

Gordon Whitehead 127/07/2018 08:08:24
avatar
272 forum posts
118 photos

I don't think it will be totally indiscriminate, in that a procedure will be designed, trained for and followed before pressing the tit.

There'll always to be a risk of collateral damage, and I'm sure that any risk will be evaluated before action is taken.

Gordon

PS  I've read it too.

Edited By Gordon Whitehead 1 on 27/07/2018 08:09:02

Ikura27/07/2018 08:35:30
avatar
262 forum posts

From what I have read these anti-drone measures will be very few and far between and will be deployed to 'protect' sensitive areas such as prisons, airports and perhaps government buildings etc.

If anyone does fly in those areas then maybe it will be a jolly good idea to refrain from doing so. Anyone choosing to ignore the regulations is asking for problems.

ChrisB27/07/2018 08:49:41
1226 forum posts
34 photos

I can think of at least 6 clubs that I know of around the country that currently, lawfully fly near airports and prisons and have done for over 30 years. So what you’re suggesting Ikura, is for those clubs to cease flying???

Collateral damage????? That’s ridiculous, there should be no impact from any electronic interference on innocent and law abiding parties! So far I’ve been quite relaxed about the regs, but this is an issue that must be fully addressed!

Steve J27/07/2018 08:51:57
avatar
894 forum posts
37 photos

From the impact assessment published yesterday -

policy.jpg

Steve, keyboard warrior

Steve J27/07/2018 08:54:09
avatar
894 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Gordon Whitehead 1 on 26/07/2018 06:39:08:

Somewhere within these 38 pages Geoff is a reference in the official documents defining ground level as just that, ignoring buildings, trees etc.

It's in CAP1687.

Steve

Ikura27/07/2018 11:06:22
avatar
262 forum posts
Posted by ChrisB on 27/07/2018 08:49:41:

I can think of at least 6 clubs that I know of around the country that currently, lawfully fly near airports and prisons and have done for over 30 years. So what you’re suggesting Ikura, is for those clubs to cease flying???

Collateral damage????? That’s ridiculous, there should be no impact from any electronic interference on innocent and law abiding parties! So far I’ve been quite relaxed about the regs, but this is an issue that must be fully addressed!

I'm not suggesting anything. If regulations or laws change then your beef, if you have one, should be taken up with the law makers, not individuals on the forum.

What has happened is no ones fault apart from the law makers, and the BMFA etc have done what they could. Of course it will not suit everyone but life is like that and we all have to adapt.

The smoking ban changed the lives for millions of people and some were pleased and some were very angry about it but it happened. We have to live with it, and it is what it is.

Nigel R27/07/2018 11:10:58
avatar
2301 forum posts
387 photos

Clubs have to change sites for numerous reasons. Yes, it would be a pain for them.

But. Sometimes we have to bend with the wind.

ChrisB27/07/2018 11:11:47
1226 forum posts
34 photos
Posted by Ikura on 27/07/2018 08:35:30:

From what I have read these anti-drone measures will be very few and far between and will be deployed to 'protect' sensitive areas such as prisons, airports and perhaps government buildings etc.

If anyone does fly in those areas then maybe it will be a jolly good idea to refrain from doing so. Anyone choosing to ignore the regulations is asking for problems.

Surely legitimate flyers should not have give up their sites? Is that reasonable?

I am responding to the consultation and will be emphasising the point, as should we all!

Ikura27/07/2018 11:31:09
avatar
262 forum posts
Posted by ChrisB on 27/07/2018 11:11:47:

Surely legitimate flyers should not have give up their sites? Is that reasonable?

I am responding to the consultation and will be emphasising the point, as should we all!

Legitimate flyers shouldn't have to be subjected to draconian measures but when you are dealing with a government who are highly influenced by the out of control media hype machine there is going to be some fall out.

If the law changes you have to adapt to it, if you can't change it. You might choose to ignore the law and carry on as normal but then you run the risk of being penalised.

Gordon Whitehead 127/07/2018 12:30:48
avatar
272 forum posts
118 photos
Posted by ChrisB on 27/07/2018 08:49:41:

Collateral damage????? That’s ridiculous, there should be no impact from any electronic interference on innocent and law abiding parties! So far I’ve been quite relaxed about the regs, but this is an issue that must be fully addressed!

I was thinking more of the impact of a shot-down drone on striking something, be that a car driver's windscreen, baby in a pram, kids playing football, a prison inmate walking round the yard unaware of the drone smuggling going on at the time. There would be lots of scope for media hype in such a situation, hence the requirement for carefully devised procedures and systems.

How would you have dealt with the V1 and the Scud any differently than they were defended against at the time? The falling destroyed missile debris would always risk causing harm to someone or something, but the missiles' destruction would usually have been required to protect the intended target.

supertigrefan27/07/2018 12:57:37
avatar
678 forum posts
5 photos
Posted by ChrisB on 27/07/2018 11:11:47:

Surely legitimate flyers should not have give up their sites? Is that reasonable?

I am responding to the consultation and will be emphasising the point, as should we all!

How many legitimate, established, responsible clubs lost their sites due to noise, Is that reasonable?

Times for us have changed due to drone ownership, there was no legislation to prosecute or dissuade irresponsible or unthoughtful flying of them, this has now been addressed, it doesn't mean it will be applied on a whim, just that there is a mechanism to deal with it.

The same is happening in the cycling world. There was very little legislation to deal with the dangers caused by the minority, recently a pedestrian was killed by a rider on a bike not suitable for the road being used in a dangerous manner, he could only be prosecuted through a piece of Victorian legislation hence a change in law. The minority always ruin it for the rest of us...….blame them not the law makers or the bodies involved in the negotiation of the legislation.

Piers Bowlan27/07/2018 13:13:49
avatar
1630 forum posts
41 photos

Dave Phipps and the BMFA are deservedly congratulated on what to me is the best possible outcome, it could have been a lot worse. I think the CAA should also be thanked for their pragmatic and sympathetic ear to the needs of the model flying community. It takes two to negotiate (EU please note), the CAA could just have said sorry, no exemptions for people belonging to the four associations. I would like to think that British tolerance and pragmatism has prevailed and it will be interesting to see if a similar view is taken by the aviation authorities of other EASA member states.

Piers Bowlan27/07/2018 13:22:49
avatar
1630 forum posts
41 photos

As for those model flying clubs that operate from active airfields, I can see no reason why these clubs won't continue to do so after applying to the CAA for an exemption. If the owner of the airfield is happy and nothing else has changed then I can't see why an exemption or dispensation would not be granted.

Martin Harris27/07/2018 13:32:31
avatar
8164 forum posts
206 photos

I believe the provision is already there, Piers. CAP1687 states that flight within the flight restriction inner or outer zone of an aerodrome is prohibited unless the permission of the air traffic control unit or flight information service unit has been obtained.

Edited By Martin Harris on 27/07/2018 13:34:07

Erfolg27/07/2018 18:24:30
avatar
11211 forum posts
1101 photos

How can any one have issues with restrictions applicable to anyone flying adjacent to a prison etc? It seems that anyone doing so can reasonably have their aerial vehicles control system rendered inoperable.

Ikura27/07/2018 18:32:21
avatar
262 forum posts
Posted by Erfolg on 27/07/2018 18:24:30:

How can any one have issues with restrictions applicable to anyone flying adjacent to a prison etc? It seems that anyone doing so can reasonably have their aerial vehicles control system rendered inoperable.

Agreed.

Martin Harris27/07/2018 18:36:13
avatar
8164 forum posts
206 photos

Isn't there a forum member who flies in Wormwood Scrubs Park? As far as I'm aware he hasn't ever troubled the authorities at the large "hotel" adjacent to the park.

Edited By Martin Harris on 27/07/2018 18:36:47

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Gliders Distribution
Revoc
CML
Overlander
Wings & Wheels 2018
Motion RC
electricwingman 2017
Airtek Hobbies
Slec
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Which part of building a new traditional balsa aeroplane do you enjoy the most?
Q: Which part of building a new traditional balsa aeroplane do you enjoy the most?

 Research & choosing the model
 Building the fuselage
 Installing the engine and radio systems
 Building the flying surfaces
 Covering/painting/finishing
 All of it!
 None of it. I'd rather someone else did it!
 Other

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us