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

Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Nigel Heather24/07/2019 21:24:36
242 forum posts
7 photos

Yay, Chris Grayling has been kicked out, good riddance.

 

I know it won't change anything but at least it is something.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 24/07/2019 21:25:38

Martin Harris25/07/2019 01:21:25
avatar
9348 forum posts
252 photos

Let's hope Boris takes a look at the "distinguished" record of a certain person:

She was the Conservative candidate in the constituency of Brighton Pavilion at the 2010 general election. She finished third with 23.7 percent of the vote.[2] She served as a director of the No 2 AV campaign during the UK's 2011 referendum on changing its voting system,[3] later working as Executive Director of 'Conservatives In', an unsuccessful campaign supporting a remain vote in the 2016 European Union membership referendum.

She was nominated for a life peerage in the 2016 Prime Minister's Resignation Honours

On 21 December 2016, she was appointed as a Baroness in Waiting (i.e. government whip in the House of Lords).[5]

She became a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Transport on 23 April 2019, with responsibility for Aviation.

Steve J25/07/2019 07:19:57
avatar
1908 forum posts
54 photos

We now have a Secretary of State for Transport who appears to be sympathetic. It will be interesting to see if anything changes.

Steve

Steve J26/07/2019 19:42:13
avatar
1908 forum posts
54 photos

Baroness Vere is returning as Aviation Minister sad.

Steve

MattyB29/07/2019 15:20:03
avatar
2073 forum posts
32 photos
Posted by Steve J on 26/07/2019 19:42:13:

Baroness Vere is returning as Aviation Minister sad.

Steve

wink

Edited By MattyB on 29/07/2019 15:20:41

Steve J31/07/2019 14:04:32
avatar
1908 forum posts
54 photos
Posted by Steve J on 25/07/2019 07:19:57:

We now have a Secretary of State for Transport who appears to be sympathetic.

We have the first written questions answered by Mr Shapps.

Lee Rowley MP asked:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment his Department has made of the potential effect of the UK Drone Registration Scheme on levels of criminal activity involving drones."

Grant Shapps MP replied:

"The Government’s response to the 2018 consultation on ‘Taking Flight: The Future of Drones in the UK’ sets out that it is likely that the majority of users of small unmanned aircraft (SUAs) who break the law, do so unintentionally. Therefore, the introduction of a registration and education scheme will raise awareness of how to safely fly an unmanned aircraft. SUAs will be required to display their registration number on their aircraft, which will help law enforcement agencies identify the operator of the aircraft where an offence has been committed whether intentionally or otherwise.

The Government recognises that a requirement to register will not prevent criminals intent on breaking the law from causing damage and disruption. That is why it plans to introduce the Unmanned Aircraft Bill, which includes new police powers to help tackle the misuse of unmanned aircraft.

The Department for Transport is also working closely with Home Office, other Government departments, police forces, airports and other stakeholders to ensure a joined up, holistic approach to safety and security in relation to unmanned aircraft."

Lee Rowley MP also asked:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what criteria his Department used to calculate the £950,000 cost of the annual upgrade of the UK Drone Registration Scheme."

and

"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, on what evidence his Department based its estimate of the predicted registration of 170,000 drone users within the first 18 months of the UK Drone Registration Scheme."

Grant Shapps MP replied:

"The Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) consultation document explains that the predicted 170,000 unmanned aircraft operator registration figure has been calculated using adoption rates for other national registration schemes (such as those in Ireland and the United States) against the UK population, and available research on drone use and attitudes.

The document also sets out the rationale for the cost of ongoing upgrades to the service. The initial scheme will be launched with a minimum scope and service level and, in common with best practice and the Government Digital Service framework, the CAA plans to make minor service improvements and major functionality improvements. Major improvements may include a renewal invitation process and incorporate the existing unmanned aircraft service for commercial operators."

MattyB may be right .

Steve

Colin Bernard31/07/2019 16:25:39
avatar
503 forum posts
93 photos

It will be interesting to see the answer to one of the other questions Lee Rowley submitted - "To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of using British Model Flying Association drone registration data to avoid duplicate registrations in the UK Drone Registration Scheme."

I guess it will be the same woolly 'not fit for purpose' type answer!

Steve J31/07/2019 17:50:56
avatar
1908 forum posts
54 photos
Posted by Colin Bernard on 31/07/2019 16:25:39:

I guess it will be the same woolly 'not fit for purpose' type answer!

If I was a gambling man, I would put my money on the answer saying something about all unmanned aircraft operators being treated equally.

Was Lee Rowley the MP that you had on a buddy box?

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 31/07/2019 17:52:45

Gary Manuel31/07/2019 18:36:01
avatar
2274 forum posts
1552 photos

I can think of a few MP's that ought to be on a buddy box cheeky

Colin Bernard31/07/2019 19:04:32
avatar
503 forum posts
93 photos

Yes, that's right. He tabled the questions after I moaned about the answers we had had up to then - but of course we got the same answers!

Seems that unless the group is hundreds of thousands of people moaning, with headlines in the Daily Wail, then you just get walked over.

SR 7131/07/2019 19:43:25
avatar
452 forum posts
140 photos

Start a campain in the Daily Wail

cymaz31/07/2019 20:38:01
avatar
9255 forum posts
1196 photos

A hahahahahaha......finally its not our fault. Thankfully no children were injured.

**LINK**

Gary Manuel31/07/2019 21:39:28
avatar
2274 forum posts
1552 photos
Posted by cymaz on 31/07/2019 20:38:01:

A hahahahahaha......finally its not our fault. Thankfully no children were injured.

**LINK**

I smell a rat.

The cause and remedial actions are all based on failure of the emergency parachute system. No mention of why drones were allowed to fly above a crowded area in the first place or why the emergency parachute system was deployed. Looks like the interested parties are diverting attention away from the real questions.

If I was to have a cynical guess at what happened, I'd guess that a motor was still running when the emergency system was deployed and a propeller cut through the parachute wire.

Bottom line is that it's not a good idea to fly drones above people. The more people that understand this, the safer our hobby will be.

Old Geezer01/08/2019 07:56:59
670 forum posts

3000 successful flights, yes, but the article mentions TWO 'arrivals' when a parachute had to be deployed, so we're down to a failure rate of 1 in 1500, how many more have been glossed over in the report. I agree with Gary ( and the reg's that apply to drones in the UK anyway ) flying drones, especially containing if pathological material, over people isn't a very good idea.

Remeber, drones, like the tree living sheep in the Python sketch, don't so much glide as plummet.

David Ashby - Moderator01/08/2019 08:44:36
avatar
Moderator
11020 forum posts
1723 photos
616 articles
Posted by Gary Manuel on 31/07/2019 18:36:01:

I can think of a few MP's that ought to be on a buddy box cheeky

😁

Don Fry01/08/2019 12:27:14
avatar
4557 forum posts
54 photos

Gary, cynicism is always wise. A clue to your wisdom, part of the proposed fix is to introduce wire into the parachute lines. And I burst a gut, also part of the fix is to make the decent whistle louder. Presumably so you can blame the grounded peasant for not shifting quick enough.

Steve J01/08/2019 13:01:06
avatar
1908 forum posts
54 photos

Has anybody heard anything from the BMFA in the last few weeks on either the CAA's registration and testing system or the CAA's interpretation of the EU regulations?

Steve

Nigel R01/08/2019 14:14:57
avatar
3928 forum posts
685 photos
Posted by Gary Manuel on 31/07/2019 21:39:28

The cause and remedial actions are all based on failure of the emergency parachute system.

Bottom line is that it's not a good idea to fly drones above people. The more people that understand this, the safer our hobby will be.

We could engineer the risk of this stuff happening right down, but them drones will become mighty expensive if we do.

One thing is certain, eventually, things that fly will come down a bit before their expected arrival time. As you say, the easy thing is to not put them over people in the first place.

I note the report states it was 50 yards away from people. What's the minimum allowable distance right now? It might simply have never been over people anyway.

Don Fry01/08/2019 16:03:09
avatar
4557 forum posts
54 photos

This company, Nigel, are doing the PR blurb as though they are on a par with a 'proper' designer. The question of expensively engineering the problems out hasn't got past not deploying the parachute, while the blades are turning and cutting the string. They are still in the toy area, somehow crashing near to uninvolved people. And also ramping up public opinion that drones are not good.

Cuban801/08/2019 18:04:01
2960 forum posts
1 photos
Posted by Nigel R on 01/08/2019 14:14:57:
Posted by Gary Manuel on 31/07/2019 21:39:28

The cause and remedial actions are all based on failure of the emergency parachute system.

Bottom line is that it's not a good idea to fly drones above people. The more people that understand this, the safer our hobby will be.

We could engineer the risk of this stuff happening right down, but them drones will become mighty expensive if we do.

One thing is certain, eventually, things that fly will come down a bit before their expected arrival time. As you say, the easy thing is to not put them over people in the first place.

I note the report states it was 50 yards away from people. What's the minimum allowable distance right now? It might simply have never been over people anyway.

Which is what we've been on about again and again and again..........................model flying i.e aeromodelling, usually takes place from an organised club with properly managed facilities, or failing that, from a recognised other site or private property. Very rarely is the public admitted to our flying sites on a casual basis, although there are a number of exceptions and in those cases the appropriate measures to ensure safety are put in place for everyone's peace of mind. For the most part it's worked well for decades.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Support Our Partners
electricwingman 2017
Sussex Model Centre
CML
Slec
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E!