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

Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
cymaz27/06/2019 06:47:13
avatar
8530 forum posts
1150 photos

26 June Committee

Chris Berry27/06/2019 08:05:04
44 forum posts
1 photos

Careless, clueless or criminal???

NATS have apologised on their twitter account, although Andy Sage remains quiet!

cymaz27/06/2019 08:16:53
avatar
8530 forum posts
1150 photos

Oh yes, but the Genie is out of the bottle. The comments are on the public domain and on record, just another unnecessary dig at the model flying community.

A feeble apology hidden away on a Twitter account is unacceptable

Steve J27/06/2019 08:23:18
avatar
1221 forum posts
38 photos
Posted by Chris Berry on 27/06/2019 08:05:04:

Careless, clueless or criminal???

That expression goes back a while. It is used by the FAA, e.g. at a conference earlier this month their acting administrator said "We’re first focusing our education efforts on the clueless and careless and our enforcement efforts on the criminal.”.

Steve

Pete B - Moderator27/06/2019 11:02:49
avatar
Moderator
7561 forum posts
732 photos

I've just emailed NATS here.

Sir,
I am utterly appalled at the description given to 'drone flyers' as 'clueless, careless or criminal' by your NATS representative in yesterday's Science and Technology Committee sitting. I am a member of the BMFA and have flown radio-controlled model aircraft since 1975.


It is no fault of we model flyers that the authorities have decided to include our activities, as well as those of the irresponsible minority of multi-rotor flyers, in an oppressive, restrictive piece of legislation which will have significant consequences on our, so far over many, many years, demonstrably safe hobby.


It is apparent that NATS has a partisan and jaundiced view of model flyers. If not, then it has demonstrated a lamentable lack of understanding of the subject. Such a prejudiced view from witnesses should have no part in Parliamentary proceedings.

Andy Sage is clearly not competent in his role and consideration should be given to replacing him with one who is more open-minded and knowledgeable on the subject. At the very least, a public apology and retraction of that statement by the head of NATS is the least that we should expect.

I await your response with interest - as do the 36000 BMFA members who fly in the UK.

Not expecting anything constructive from this but, hey, it gets it off your chest....smile

Pete

cymaz27/06/2019 11:09:41
avatar
8530 forum posts
1150 photos

yes

will -027/06/2019 11:11:44
avatar
553 forum posts
19 photos

**LINK**

frown

GONZO27/06/2019 11:21:50
avatar
1217 forum posts
13 photos

Well, thought I'd pop back and see what's what during a break with my battles with the building trade/structural engineers/Welsh water and now the NHS. Watched some of the video, I was starting to loose the will to live. But, the obvious attitudes, condescending and disparaging, and lack of knowledge/understanding of our operations was manifest. It further reinforced my opinion that we are being used, they just want us to help finance the setting up of the system and then we will be given the big 'E' (elbow) and squeezed out.

Martin Harris27/06/2019 11:28:06
avatar
8668 forum posts
214 photos

"Helicopters are uniquely vulnerable to drone strikes"...

If you assume that the BALPA representative has a working command of the English language, this means that the Garwick fiasco was entirely unnecessary as fixed wing cannot be endangered by drones!

The "careless, clueless or criminal" comments are at 9:52:23.  Having watched them I'm not surprised that the NATS representative has apologised! What a terrible attitude...

One slightly optimistic view is that I've had dealings with NATS in the past, hopefully presenting a "professional" approach and had excellent responses in granting extensions to existing airspace exemptions.  It may be that despite these unfortunate comments, NATS have fallen into the common misuse of the defined term "drone" to mean a typical multirotor and not a model operated by a traditional model flyer.

Edited By Martin Harris on 27/06/2019 11:51:42

Steve J27/06/2019 15:31:39
avatar
1221 forum posts
38 photos

Andy Sage's apology for the overly sensitive:

**LINK**

Steve

Don Fry27/06/2019 17:14:58
avatar
3725 forum posts
42 photos

Where's the apology, all I saw were PR claims.

A bit like E Bay, we are sorry to hear of your ......... was not ...............

I always reckoned, the words what come out the mouth, are what's in the mind. Sometimes wrong words come out, and corrected quickly. His colleagues at Nats use these words. That's why they blunder out

BTW, not challenged at the time, just words that do not jar enough to challenge.

Gonzo, good luck with your battles. But don't confuse a conspiracy theory, with good old fashioned ignorance and stupidly.

Steve J27/06/2019 17:53:59
avatar
1221 forum posts
38 photos
Posted by Don Fry on 27/06/2019 17:14:58:

His colleagues at Nats use these words.

The FAA administrator uses those terms. I actually think they work as a way of classifying people who fly outside the law.

Steve

Don Fry27/06/2019 18:00:06
avatar
3725 forum posts
42 photos

You are right Steve. I used to use for jobs, NHBI (for no human beings involved), and pondlife. But this idiot is getting confused. And he is not getting confused in isolation. You are watching "canteen culture" in public. And canteen culture is difficult to shift.

Steve J27/06/2019 18:20:20
avatar
1221 forum posts
38 photos
Posted by Don Fry on 27/06/2019 18:00:06:

But this idiot is getting confused.

Calling NATS' Head of UTM an idiot doesn't really help our position. I hope that the mob reaction today doesn't end up backfiring on us.

Steve

GONZO27/06/2019 18:33:30
avatar
1217 forum posts
13 photos
Posted by Don Fry on 27/06/2019 17:14:58:
But don't confuse a conspiracy theory, with good old fashioned ignorance and stupidly.
None of the above.
Builders: can make easier money converting garages etc for inflated prices than doing the job I require.
Structural engineers: have to prove they are worthy of the name and actually 'design' a bespoke solution.
Welsh water: Bureaucracy!
Then its getting this lot, when I manage to get both of the first two to not back out once they realise the full implications of the job, to interact and agree without running up a very large bill.
The NHS: its North Wales where the health board has been in special measures for 4 years and still no sign of improvement! After last years experience when I had a stroke I'd be much better and safer just staying at home!
Pete B - Moderator27/06/2019 18:49:09
avatar
Moderator
7561 forum posts
732 photos

I don't think it's a matter of being over-sensitive. I think it's exposed the core attitude of the 'full-size' organisations as to their disdainful dismissal of model flyers as an irrelevance. Make no mistake, this is about money and the use of sub-500ft airspace for commercial use. They would be far happier to sweep us aside without any consideration... we are economically worth zilchface 5

Pete

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 27/06/2019 18:49:47

Don Fry27/06/2019 19:51:33
avatar
3725 forum posts
42 photos
Posted by Steve J on 27/06/2019 18:20:20:
Posted by Don Fry on 27/06/2019 18:00:06:

But this idiot is getting confused.

Calling NATS' Head of UTM an idiot doesn't really help our position. I hope that the mob reaction today doesn't end up backfiring on us.

Steve

Possibly, but he said it, and then he did a PR job of an apology, signed off by the organisation. And if they feel that can get away with that, they have not much regard for us in the first place.

BALFA, the airports, the carriers, NATS, regard the fiasco at Gatwick as the last straw. They want the camera carrying drones gone. And we are bigs kids with toy planes. Collateral damage.

And the conjecture of we occupy valuable airspace, whilst possible, does not represent anything other than science fiction. The likes of Amazon can use an aircraft to deliver a book, or a little mobile letter box on wheels, trundling down the lane at 2 mph, emailing the entry code as it comes. You do the maths as to what will work.

Steve J08/07/2019 21:46:01
avatar
1221 forum posts
38 photos

Dave Phipps is giving evidence to the committee at 9:30 tomorrow.

Steve

Steve J08/07/2019 21:56:41
avatar
1221 forum posts
38 photos

Posted by Don Fry on 27/06/2019 19:51:33:

BALFA, the airports, the carriers, NATS, regard the fiasco at Gatwick as the last straw. They want the camera carrying drones gone.

BALPA and the airports want us out of the FRZs. NATS want the UTM contract. The counter-UAV people want to sell systems. The government wants the economic activity from commercial UAS but aren't prepared to pay for the foundation systems.

Steve

cymaz08/07/2019 22:54:46
avatar
8530 forum posts
1150 photos
Posted by Steve J on 08/07/2019 21:46:01:

Dave Phipps is giving evidence to the committee at 9:30 tomorrow.

Steve

Good luck Dave yes

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
Pepe Aircraft
Slec
Wings & Wheels 2019
Cambridge Gliding Club
Addlestone Models
CML
Gliders Distribution
electricwingman 2017
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Does your club have a safety officer?
Q: Does your club have a safety officer, or is the emphasis on individual members to each be their own safety officer?

 Yes we have a SO
 No, it's down to everyone

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us