|Martin Harris||04/12/2019 14:47:25|
9168 forum posts
The pictures from the video in the previous post are are great, the flying is impressive and much of the video may have been shot on private land under the control of the operators but the problem of peripheral vision still exists.
To expand on Don's point, the human brain and optical system has evolved to pick up threats in peripheral vision and only then swing the eyes to focus on and identify it. Have you ever stood on an airfield trying to spot an incoming aircraft from a distance? I had some experience of this during gliding competitions and it isn't as easy as you might think. Some people are much better at it than others and it isn't due to their visual acuity but in the way they scan, constantly moving their head and/or eyes and varying focal distance. I expect we've all had similar experiences where you search for an object and it suddenly becomes very clear as soon as it's seen and you can't undersand how you hadn't seen it sooner.
To notice an object that you are looking at at an undetermined distance often just doesn't happen - how many times have motorcyclists heard the words, "Sorry mate, I looked but I didn't see you" as they pick themselves off the road? Because there is no relative movement between objects on a collision course, the brain fails to pick up the object until very shortly before impact when the object starts to expand exponentially in the vision, creating that peripheral movement.
Goggles and screens tend to focus in front of you and present an impression of human vision - they don't wrap round the critical peripheral vision areas. Therefore that threat perception mechanism is at best degraded and probably almost nullified, resulting in far more danger to uninvolved people that the pilot is unaware of.
Edited By Martin Harris on 04/12/2019 14:55:51
19 forum posts
Looking at all this stuff I think now that seeing "most" of us should have done the same as we did with Maggie's "poll-tax' and refused to pay. We seem to be a soft touch. I think it will get worse until the hobby goes further down the pan.
|Don Fry||04/12/2019 17:23:36|
4557 forum posts
Linds.W, love the idea, just don't see us charging up Whitehall, chucking railings, and rolling marbles under the police dobbins.
|Steve J||04/12/2019 17:45:40|
1774 forum posts
The CAA published CAP 1868: A Unified Approach to the Introduction of UAS Traffic Management yesterday.
610 forum posts
Here we go again. We need the BMFA more than ever to look after us.
1353 forum posts
Steve J well a quick scan of that document confirms, at least to me, that the majority of us are just required for now to help with the set up costs. In a few years most of us will be squeezed out, seen as an inconvenience, by increased regulation and cost unless some special provisions are made. I know my view does not find favour with most on here but then this has been my view from the start when everyone believed nothing was going to change. I hope time proves me wrong and others right.
|Chris Berry||04/12/2019 19:20:27|
|247 forum posts|
This information has been about for a while. As I see it there will be several options.
By far the best are exemptions for association members or specific affiliated sites.
Ground stations which are ok but subject to weather, vandalism and human error.
Retrofitted onboard units with separate power and switch systems. Switch on fly, switch off. (Lots of little dots darting about the sky for 10 minutes at a time). Cost and size will be an issue.
Modified or retrofitted radio systems or add-ons to them. Again, cost and size are an issue.
It's a long way off and nothing to worry about just yet.
|Steve J||04/12/2019 19:55:59|
1774 forum posts
I don't believe that 'direct remote identification' is "a long way off". How much it will affect traditional modellers is another question.
|Chris Berry||05/12/2019 09:22:13|
|247 forum posts|
The other thing to remember is that this whole concept is intended to help with the control of unmanned aircraft and their integration with manned systems.
That concept assumes that in a few years there will be thousands of 'drones' flying around delivering parcels an doing SAR and surveying etc as well as hobby flyers. There are those in government who genuinely believe drones will become significant users of our airspace or they want to believe it, as they can make money from government now, even if it doesn't materialise.
As we all know, the reality is that mass market and widespread use of drones by the likes of deliveroo and Amazon is never going to happen and the concept will be significantly watered down from the bright ideas they have at present.
Were'nt we all supposed to by commuting by flying car, hoverboard and jetpack by now?
Edited By Chris Berry on 05/12/2019 09:22:45
|Chris Berry||05/12/2019 10:12:59|
|247 forum posts|
The other thing to remember is that UTM will only work if all flying machines have transponders. At the moment there is no requirement for micro lights, hot air balloons, paragliders or gliders to have transponders or iirc light GA aircraft. Therefore the system would not work.
Furthermore, UTM is aimed at BVLOS and not VLOS. Its aimed at those flying drones BVLOS or FPV or the autonomous systems they dream will happen like amazon.
For the majority of us, the whole point of the hobby is see the masterpiece we've created. We don't want to fly BVLOS and we don't fly BVLOS. We fly about 500m from ourselves VLOS and do so because that's the whole point of the hobby.
There was a consultation on UTM late last year/early this year iirc.
The other issue is how do we get notified of a possible conflict? Ok, we fly VLOS and we see and hear a full size approaching so we do as we do now, but how will the UTM/TCAS type system notify us of a conflict, as it must work both ways to be effective.
Much discussion will be had by the CAA and our associations in coming months and years, as theres a lot to iron out despite the waffle from the witch of Norbiton.
|2867 forum posts|
OK, we've all been good little boys and have done as we're told by registering, throwing £9 away etc etc ..... next thing is to get a groundswell of members to lobby the BMFA to devise and publish their plans to get us out of the flawed registration scheme. Not a good start by the BMFA saying a while ago that they're not opposed 'in principle' to registration. I think they'll find that the membership is very opposed to the imposition of registration and need to see action to get our case looked at properly and the manner in which we've been bounced into something that we had no reason to be included in from the start. Can any one put forward a valid reason for our inclusion, given that if we'd been a problem before, then all this would have been dealt with ages ago before hobby drones were invented?
How does one communicate one's view given the BMFA's antiquated organisational structure? Forget going to regional committee meetings before anyone brings those up. Perhaps next year's membership figures might wake someone up if they carry on in the same downward trend?
As for CAP 1868 it's very little other than pure fantasy, but a nice glossy document that should have a place reserved for it in the fiction section. Come on KC I dare you to put out an RCM&E editorial to set our position straight. Are we for registration or against it?
|Steve J||05/12/2019 11:12:25|
1774 forum posts
Is Amsterdam Drone Week also a fantasy?
2014 forum posts
Sorry Cuban8, but we have been here before and that ship has well and truly sailed. Like it or not governments across the world are implementing registration as a key component in the overall system to manage UAS alongside other airspace users, whether they be commercial or recreational. They want this primarily because of the tax £££s that theoretically come with increased commercial UAS usage, and also to placate Daily Fail readers who want something done about the (mostly fictional) "drone menace".
Whether we agree that widespread commercial use is likely or possible is completely irrelevant - we are a tiny minority group with little or no popular support from the wider population for our activity set against the government who hold all the cards. Remember, the BMFA and other National and European model flying associations lobbied unsuccessfully to be excluded from registration for >2 years, primarily because no definition of model aircraft could be agreed with the authorities that sufficiently (and legally) differentiated it from multirotor drones/UAS. If it were unsuccessful then, what makes you think it will be successful now?
No, the only way registration will be rolled back now is if it is seen to be ineffective and/or the much vaunted commercial use by the likes of Amazon is found to be technically impossible, or the wider public push back against it. The latter two I think are pretty likely even in the relatively long term, but they are not within our control - unfortunately we as a community are always going to have minimal influence in these matters vs. the government and commercial operators.
|2867 forum posts|
Amsterdam Drone Week? Quite a nice jolly by the look of it. I understand that the Flat Earth Society and Alien Abduction people can also drum up a few deluded folks as well.
Matty, your final paragraph sums it up in a nutshell except that I'd replace your first "if" with a "when". That said I fully accept that we are where we are. However, to remain quiet about what's happened to our hobby and not keep questioning our inclusion and generally holding the legislators' feet to the fire while we wait for the whole rotten registration system to collapse through ineffectiveness (in the UK at least) will be a serious mistake. If nothing else we'll be able to say "we told you so". Our silence would be tantamount to acquiescence.
No more going round in circles, but I wait with interest what the official position will be in the next BMFA Mag.
Edited By Cuban8 on 05/12/2019 12:01:45
2014 forum posts
"Hold the legislators' feet to the fire"? We tried that already - a few 10s of thousands of letters were written by members of the national associations which had been batted back dismissively with little or not effect. Only a lucky change in the Sec of State for Transport brought some (mild) concessions at the last moment, but even those concessions weren't in line with EASAs recommendations for a registration programme or those of the Government's Science and Technology Committee (on pg 17 they clearly state the registration should be every 3 years rather than annually).
In short our tiny numbers and lack of a mainstream profile mean a better analogy might be trying to light a damp match in a thunderstorm 30m from the legislators feet...
The official position will I'm sure be exactly what they have stated already - register as a Remote Pilot and Operator (the later via the BMFA or other National Association) by the deadlines, read BMFA updates as they continue negotiations with the CAA/DfT and support them if they ask for it (letter writing etc). I would be amazed if the national associations start a campaign against registration at this point - if they do they are almost certain to be unceremoniously ejected from negotiations (as they effectively were early this year when the CAA went completely silent over registration).
By all means start your own campaign against registration so you can personally say "I told you so" if you want, but don't hold your breath waiting for the BMFA, LMA etc to join you.
Edited By MattyB on 05/12/2019 13:05:14
|john stones 1||05/12/2019 13:22:03|
11173 forum posts
Why don't yous form an association, and get in there and fight it, as you see it ? You could start by building this groundswell.
BMFAs antiquated structures, Why write that ? They trekked through to Donny on a cold Winters night, without us having to ask, it was offered. Presented a where we are, and how we got here, stood and answered all questions, sat and took members through the online test (all passed) all at no cost to us on the night, then had to drive home late at night. Plus they're on here and elsewhere, answering the same questions over and over.
What is the point of these continuous cheap digs ?
|2867 forum posts|
What cheap dig? I and virtually all the BMFA members are grateful for what's been done on our behalf to deflect the worst of what could have been an immediate sessation in our activities and make the administering of all the new regs as easy as possible - working on it now, actually.
BMFA's antiquated structures? By that I meant how little involvement an ordinary member is permitted given the power of clubs and the way their votes are weighed, and as a consequence, how us ordinary folk are effectively voiceless. We've been around this particular favourite a number of times, it's not going to change, so enough.
604 forum posts
Ordinary members get to vote on who runs the BMFA - what else do you want?
At our Area meeting this week there were 24 people representing 18 clubs - they all had a chance to say their piece.
|john stones 1||05/12/2019 14:41:14|
11173 forum posts
Enough indeed, so when are yous gonna form a "proper" association ? Numerous digs in there you side stepped.
What is your plan to build this Groundswell ? And what actions do you propose ?
Seen the critical posting plan numerous times, you got owt else ?
|133 forum posts||
An immediate cessation in our activities?
The objective of the EASA proposals, as adopted by UK government, is to encourage 'drone' use. They reduce the restrictions on some operations, e.g. commercial use via the Open Category, low speed mode, C2 UAS.
I have been careful when voicing my concerns to reference privately built models, my own interest and a category which will be changed unless we get exemptions.
It will be interesting to see what the likes of Horizon Hobby, Multiplex, and HobbyKing do with regards to ARTF fixed wing models, once the FAA and EASA finalise their new rules.
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!