It seems to have got off to a quiet start.
http://droneaware.org/ (http://droneaware.org/)
Still, plenty time left this month for the fun and games and maybe even the odd public flogging or execution. I understand in days gone by these used to be quite social events.
Conveniently all the supporters have links to their web sites. And pretty much all BMFA sites hate Multi Rotors and FPV craft.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quotenew and existing drone flyers can attend and learn about safe and lawful drone operation
"New" drone flyers.... come to our club and pay subs to get patronised at every opportunity
"existing" drone flyers.... come to our club so we can patronise the noobs
Still all quiet on the droneaware front.
Perhaps someone knows if something is supposed to be happening. :+
I'm aware i have drones every month?
Quote from: Steve W on April 02, 2016, 10:23:44 AM
Does anyone else get the feeling that this sort of thing is only actually bothered with by:
a) people with an interest in its success (COME JOIN OUR SAFE CLUB! DON'T FORGET YOUR SUBS!!!)
b) people who want to spoil other peoples fun (LOOK HOW DANGEROUS THESE THINGS CAN BE. OMG!!!!)
Meanwhile back in the real world, people are too concerned with paying the mortgage to be bothered about idiots with drones, the CAA has bigger fish to fry and 99% of the RC community just pop along to their local field to fly a little plane.
Droneaware feels like a sales pitch. I mean, all this death and destruction makes it sound cooler than it actually is. "drone" flying that is.
A far more effective solution if the RC/FPV communities ARE actually against all the crap flying, would be to ban anyone doing it from the forums. Sure, that would leave Youtube, but I'd wager the most views of those types of videos come directly from people in the community (i.e. forums). Remove the audience, remove the incentive IMO.
Meh. It's early.
Let's get the facts straight here instead of left wing propaganda.
Drone Aware is an incentive promulgated by the DfT and the CAA.
The BMFA, LMA, and FPVUK etc are all involved in moderating any proposed legislation by being involved at a grass roots level in any discussions with the legislating bodies.
Drone Aware is just one part of the joint public consultation program being carried out by the DfT this year. The purpose of which is to garner public opinion as to the publics preferred legislation.
You don't need to join a club to belong to the BMFA.
BMFA insurance does not exclude multi rotor UAV or UASV.
You do not need to pass any competency test to take advantage of the protection of the insurance.
Regardless of your personal views on legislation and the limitation government places on your activities as a citizen and your obvious dislike for any curtailment of your activities, there will be additional legislation introduced specifically to deal with the real or perceived risk posed by UAV and UASV.
That is a fact stated by the DfT minister in parliament.
The major perceived threat as seen by the CAA and DfT is that due to the comparatively simple operation of a multicopter with built in stability it is more likely that they will be operated in situations that are dangerous to the public and air traffic.
Left unchallenged the legislation could and probably would be draconian, as in the RoI. Similar legislation in the UK would effectively kill the airborne RC hobby due to the dense population.
Licensing has been ruled out as it implies a government controlled test, the cost of which would have to be born by the tax payer.
Currently a legislation requiring the retailer to complete registration of the pilot at point of sale of RC equipment and models is favoured but how would the selling on of used equipment be handled? Probably in a similar way to the new laws regarding Dog Chipping that came into force this month. Not enforced until you are caught not doing it. And how does a person get unregistered if they leave the hobby?
Banning of grey imports was tabled as an option by the DfT, treating the sale of components in the same way as firearms components. This is largely realised as unworkable.
The point is that the representative bodies that you seem to detest so much are doing their utmost to reduce the impact on the modelling community by being pro active. What else would you suggest? Who else do you want on your side? Perhaps you would like to join up and do you're bit?
You seem to detest the BMFA and all it stands for, or is it just any organisation? I would be very interested to know the reasons for this. Did you have a bad experience you would care to share?
I currently fly at 4 affiliated club sites in the UK (I fly at many others as a guest during the display season). Non ban multicopters or FPV, 2 are in controlled airspace and one is an active airfield.
The only stipulation made is that the pilot has insurance and operates the vehicle within the law.
My prediction is that in my lifetime FPV will be banned, there will be more high profile prosecutions, and non FPV RC pilots will be the "civil police".
That went from left wing to negative rather rapidly :)
I guess a question which may/may not validate one of the points put across there on the "drones are so easy to fly, anyone can fly it and may do so anywhere" and I'm paraphrasing here, are how many "drones" have you guys seen in your ordinary lives. I'm guessing we're a little more wired in to notice these things.
Outside of flying at FPV meets and things (obviously that doesn't count) I've seen one guys flying a Phantom in the football fields near me the day after a fireworks display there. All the fields were still fenced off from the night before, and I would say he was acting perfectly reasonably.
My wife saw another phantom (she called me and asked me if I knew anyone flying near where she was, and I asked her if it was white with little striped) flying around a beach she was on. It was mainly taking video of some jet skiers, but also flying around the beach over people. So, some crap flying there.
I'm not sure the sample of 2 flights we're seen between us give much value, else we'd declare that 50% of people are safe, and the other 50% are potential menaces. More telling is the fact that in all these years of "the drones are coming", I've seen 2. Yep, the Phantom 4 is clearly a piece of piss to fly, and can give brilliant results to a beginner. However, it's still £1299. I don't know about you guys, but to me that's not a spur of the moment "oh, would it be nice to film the BBQ in our garden from 100m up ?" buy. So whilst they might be a bit of a threat if every man and his dog had one and flew them anywhere they pleased... it's just not happening as some predicted.
That's true but there are a lot more than there used to be when people were winding their own motors and stripping down Nintendo controllers to make them fly. So there may some merit to the argument that they will continue to increase in number as they continue to get better and cheaper. Personally I've seen a few out and about and I think probably every square inch of the coastline round here has been filmed by someone or other with a quad.
*But* I'm still not at all convinced that it's not going to just be a fad for most people, a large part of the appeal for casual types rather than the slack handful of obsessed geeks like us lies in the novelty and when, as I just mentioned someone has already filmed everything, then the lure of doing it for YouTube diminishes.
Quote from: BigT on April 06, 2016, 09:53:58 AMThe purpose of which is to garner public opinion
That is quite possibly the WORST way to go about this... the "general public" has a massively skewed perception of so called drones due to how the media portrays them...
I can already tell you that the majority of the public's opinion will be negative towards drones...
Heck, why not just ask the Daily Mail how to deal with "drones"
My experience would tend to say otherwise.
We fly a lot, and encounter the public a lot. The general public are more interested than annoyed. Many stop and ask questions and watch for a few minuets. They always love a passenger ride on the goggles.
We have only had 1 complaint, and that wasn't because we were flying drones, but because we had gates set up and he thought we were advertising.
Your general moaner who just sits at home to complain about anything and everything tho, that's another story. ;D
Quote from: Gundummy on April 06, 2016, 10:04:27 AM
That went from left wing to negative rather rapidly :)
😂😂😂
Just in case anyone was wondering where my posts went after being quoted above, I figured better not to have an argument on here again so I removed them.
Quote from: Steve W on April 06, 2016, 08:47:00 PM
Just in case anyone was wondering where my posts went after being quoted above, I figured better not to have an argument on here again so I removed them.
Too late Steve :o ;D
Quote from: BigT on April 06, 2016, 09:53:58 AM
Let's get the facts straight here instead of left wing propaganda.
Drone Aware is an incentive promulgated by the DfT and the CAA.
The BMFA, LMA, and FPVUK etc are all involved in moderating any proposed legislation by being involved at a grass roots level in any discussions with the legislating bodies.
Drone Aware is just one part of the joint public consultation program being carried out by the DfT this year. The purpose of which is to garner public opinion as to the publics preferred legislation.
You don't need to join a club to belong to the BMFA.
BMFA insurance does not exclude multi rotor UAV or UASV.
You do not need to pass any competency test to take advantage of the protection of the insurance.
Regardless of your personal views on legislation and the limitation government places on your activities as a citizen and your obvious dislike for any curtailment of your activities, there will be additional legislation introduced specifically to deal with the real or perceived risk posed by UAV and UASV.
That is a fact stated by the DfT minister in parliament.
The major perceived threat as seen by the CAA and DfT is that due to the comparatively simple operation of a multicopter with built in stability it is more likely that they will be operated in situations that are dangerous to the public and air traffic.
Left unchallenged the legislation could and probably would be draconian, as in the RoI. Similar legislation in the UK would effectively kill the airborne RC hobby due to the dense population.
Licensing has been ruled out as it implies a government controlled test, the cost of which would have to be born by the tax payer.
Currently a legislation requiring the retailer to complete registration of the pilot at point of sale of RC equipment and models is favoured but how would the selling on of used equipment be handled? Probably in a similar way to the new laws regarding Dog Chipping that came into force this month. Not enforced until you are caught not doing it. And how does a person get unregistered if they leave the hobby?
Banning of grey imports was tabled as an option by the DfT, treating the sale of components in the same way as firearms components. This is largely realised as unworkable.
The point is that the representative bodies that you seem to detest so much are doing their utmost to reduce the impact on the modelling community by being pro active. What else would you suggest? Who else do you want on your side? Perhaps you would like to join up and do you're bit?
You seem to detest the BMFA and all it stands for, or is it just any organisation? I would be very interested to know the reasons for this. Did you have a bad experience you would care to share?
I currently fly at 4 affiliated club sites in the UK (I fly at many others as a guest during the display season). Non ban multicopters or FPV, 2 are in controlled airspace and one is an active airfield.
The only stipulation made is that the pilot has insurance and operates the vehicle within the law.
My prediction is that in my lifetime FPV will be banned, there will be more high profile prosecutions, and non FPV RC pilots will be the "civil police".
like I've mentioned previously , there will never be a outright right fpv ban .............it is impossible to impose such laws, the consensus I got from my chat with the caa when I actually rang them twice now and I'm ringing them again next week regarding some questions my members have towardsme to ask they are optimistic in that a happy medium can be reached with regards to (drones) entering occupied airspace or flying / entering a nfz the latest geo fencing from dji is helping the cause . Restrictions and (*in my lifetime fpv bans will, never happen) copy and paste that bit if you like in fact I'll go on record and say I'm 1000percent certain it won't. ...I won't divulge any further but the future is looking greater by the year you just have to look around the next corner .
Are you sure Mark, that seems to be at odds with what BigT says in his post...
Once an industry becomes a certain size, and a benefit to an economy, it's virtually impossible to ban.
Certain Steve. ....certain.
Make sure your tune in ch4 this Sunday 8pm fingers crossed Tony Robinson tours uk with drones. .....should give a positive spin.
Quote from: mark1975 on April 07, 2016, 12:04:14 AM
Certain Steve. ....certain.
You do surprise me.
Nice work :)
Quote from: mark1975 on April 06, 2016, 09:04:10 PM
like I've mentioned previously , there will never be a outright right fpv ban .............it is impossible to impose such laws, the consensus I got from my chat with the caa when I actually rang them twice now and I'm ringing them again next week regarding some questions my members have towardsme to ask they are optimistic in that a happy medium can be reached with regards to (drones) entering occupied airspace or flying / entering a nfz the latest geo fencing from dji is helping the cause . Restrictions and (*in my lifetime fpv bans will, never happen) copy and paste that bit if you like in fact I'll go on record and say I'm 1000percent certain it won't. ...I won't divulge any further but the future is looking greater by the year you just have to look around the next corner .
The CAA are on record at the meetings stating that they are happy that the current legislation (with a few tweaks) that is in place to govern UAV and UASV operation is fit for purpose. However it's not just the CAA that have a finger in this pie. Obviously BALPA has its own agenda and DfT have theirs. Interestingly both CAA and DfT have now put officials in post to directly deal with the "drone" issue. Google these people and check their background and affiliations.
General chat around the clubs suggests to me that the average club flier with his electric foam wot4 would happily throw FPV and drones to the metaphorical lions if it meant preserving their Sunday flying. In a way this is self policing, which is good, but means grassing up a club mate for having illegal kit.
Earlier points made about the lack of number of quads flying was made by Manny at the seminar. Paraphrasing here, "despite the retailers reports of many thousands being sold for Christmas, where are they all? We should be knee deep in them by now if the Daily Mails figures where correct. So where are they all?"
Actually they are relatively simple to operate for a complete beginner. 2 examples, one phantom copy turned up last weekend fresh in from BangGood and was flown straight away no problem. But what will he do with it next? The fact is basic quad flying up and down the patch is boring. Add the bother of repairing it when it's broken and it will end up in a wardrobe or bin. Second example was a very experienced FW pilot with a lot of spare cash bought a Phantom 3 pro last year to "take on holiday to Spain" which he did, getting it through security etc at Heathrow by taking a print out of the rules from the CAA web site. He took 30 mins of video in 2 weeks. It's been in its box ever since. Reasons: feels a dick when he's flying it in public, worried about getting hassle from the public, restricted in the places he can legally fly it that are interesting.
Just a couple of examples that I suspect are common.
Just because he "feels like a dick in public, worried about getting hassle etc" doesn't make it illegal to operate.
Would it be fair to ask why the BMFA isn't doing anything to help people like him, having invested in expensive kit, by attempting to improve the public perception of drones? Everything I've seen so far is negative and pitched to the operator on why they shouldn't fly anywhere, why they're a danger to life and limb etc.
Is it too much of an ask for the BMFA to assist with off-field flying in a safe manner? We're not talking petrol-powered fixed wings here flying in the high street, but a Phantom flying near a castle to get some picturesque shots + video seems like a legitimate and enjoyable pastime to me. Is it possible for them to get behind this type of thing by publicising the good that these things can do while operated safely? Telling someone they can't do something "just because" is not the way forward. Educating them how to do it safely seems like a better approach (to me).
I think it's time to stop tarring everything with a criminal brush just because they don't fly at a BMFA field - technology is moving on fast. "Grassing" on a mate will have the net result of yet another FPVer leaving a club and flying "off-piste". Is that really what the BMFA wants? Further fragmentation?
I think there should be less legislation and far more education + positive encouragement.
Think about it.
I don't think it's productive to pay much attention to the more vociferous old giffers at clubs because they don't represent the views of most. I've bumped into the several blokes from the club where I used to fly and not one of them has done anything except show genuine interest. That's because real enthusiasts have no truck with stifling new things that come along. The same old twats doing the moaning probably moaned about helicopters when they became popular, or ARTFs or electric or fixed wing 3D flying or basically anything that was different to what they were into.
I wonder why they choose the month of April to be Drone Aware Month ?
Could it be anything to do with April 1st being April Fools' Day ???
:P
Agreed ^^^ (with Loop)
We have a few of those at my club. Moan about anything and everything different to what they fly.
The rest know who they are though, and it is all taken with a handful of salt and generally ignored.
The majority are interested, with quite a few even owning multis now, and some venturing into FPV.
My thoughts when I started this thread were to find out what was actually happening to mark this out as a month different to any other. I also wanted to bring this to the attention of forum readers so that they could also be aware, but aware of what was being said or done concerning our oft bad press. Thus far I am not aware of the CAA or BMFA doing anything special. This is disappointing to say the least.
Droneaware news hasn't been updated since 31 March.
The BMFA and CAA websites appear to be equally uncluttered by updated awareness of drones.
Quote from: Steve W on April 07, 2016, 10:31:57 AM
Just because he "feels like a dick in public, worried about getting hassle etc" doesn't make it illegal to operate.
Would it be fair to ask why the BMFA isn't doing anything to help people like him, having invested in expensive kit, by attempting to improve the public perception of drones? Everything I've seen so far is negative and pitched to the operator on why they shouldn't fly anywhere, why they're a danger to life and limb etc.
Is it too much of an ask for the BMFA to assist with off-field flying in a safe manner? We're not talking petrol-powered fixed wings here flying in the high street, but a Phantom flying near a castle to get some picturesque shots + video seems like a legitimate and enjoyable pastime to me. Is it possible for them to get behind this type of thing by publicising the good that these things can do while operated safely? Telling someone they can't do something "just because" is not the way forward. Educating them how to do it safely seems like a better approach (to me).
I think it's time to stop tarring everything with a criminal brush just because they don't fly at a BMFA field - technology is moving on fast. "Grassing" on a mate will have the net result of yet another FPVer leaving a club and flying "off-piste". Is that really what the BMFA wants? Further fragmentation?
I think there should be less legislation and far more education + positive encouragement.
Think about it.
How can an organisation that represents the modelling community to government endorse activities that break the common law of the land?
The point I was making regarding the phantom owner was this is what has probably happened to the majority of so called drones.
The bmfa have promoted multicopters into the club scene by promulgating the multicopter tests. Whatever your opinion of the test is.
Flying a Phantom near a castle is not against the common law of the land Big T - you know it, I know it.
So my question still stands - why don't the BMFA do more to convince the public that drones are not inherently dangerous and can be used for good purposes? Surely that is more beneficial to the hobby and its participants than them being falsely vilified in public just because it's easy to follow the Daily Mail train of thought that all drones + aircraft are deadly and should be confined to a flying field on a Sunday morning.
Come on, I'm calling you out. Answer me why the BMFA isn't more positive in its stance towards things that ALREADY EXIST in the hobby that may not actually involve flying at a BMFA field but are still perfectly legal, safe and enjoyable and, importantly, NOT GOING TO GO AWAY. You guys do have "Country Members" (I used to be one myself). Is it right that your fully paid-up members should be afraid to fly their aircraft perfectly legally and while insured? What are you guys doing to help them and their image in the public eye?
As far as I can see you are doing nothing except protect the BMFAs interests in making everyone fly at a club field at the expense of everyone else who choses not to fly like that.
It's ridiculous, out-dated and you are not giving me any answers (presumably because you didn't even read my bloody question properly).
The "multicopter test" is meaningless to anyone who doesn't fly at a BMFA field and does nothing to assure the public that Joe Phantom may not be the monster he is made out to be in the media.
The BMFA is supposed to stand for all modellers, not just ones that pay subs to fly at a field. If you guys can't do that, step aside and leave it to FPVUK or RCHA but do not try to criminalise us just because we don't subscribe to your outdated theory that all flying should be done on a Sunday morning.
Two of the threads above have referred to common law. This post is simply a reminder that common law in Scotland is not the same as common law in England. There are similarities and diffrrences and you cannot necessarily apply one in the other country. For example Scots Law does not recognise common law spouses whereas English Law does.
If i every turned up to do a "Multicopter test" WTF is a multicoter anyway. i'd want to make sure that the person taking the exam was considerably more experienced than me, and also holds a commerical ticket.
I have decided to lock this particular thread as it has not achieved the desired goal of bringing to the attention of forum readers anything which the CAA, BMFA and others are doing in April to make this month anty different or special as regards drone awareness. This is due in part to the complete lack of new publicity and in part to the degeneration of the thread. I may unlock it should there be any positive developments.