Taking flight: the future of drones in the UK

Consultation document

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dppvy451r95uf0y/ConsultationResponseGuidance.pdf

The  government  intends  to  introduce  new  laws  to  address  the  perceived  safety,  security  and  privacy  threats  that  arise from the increasing  use  of  drones of all kinds.  

The  consultation  documents  use  the term  ‘drone’  to  mean all  aircraft  that  fly without  a  pilot  on  board.  They  do not  distinguish  between  model  aircraft (including manually  flown  quadcopters) and  multi-rotor  semi-autonomous aircraft  –commonly  recognised  by  the  public  as  drones.  
The new rules  will  apply  to  aircraft  exceeding  250g.  Therefore,  any  rules  that  are  developed  from  this  consultation  will apply  to all model  flyers.


These  new  rules  will  affect  all model  flying.  You  have  been  sent  this  document to  encourage  you  to  support  your  model  flying  association,  and  your  hobby,  by  responding  to  the  public  consultation,  preferably  in  accordance  with  the  advice  given  below.  

The  government’s  proposals  are  in  a  document  called  “Taking  Flight:  The  Future  of  Drones  in  the  UK”  which  may  be found  online here...



https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/drones/

This looks a bit ' interesting' to say the least .

The interesting part is it will effect all "The  consultation  documents  use  the term  ‘drone’  to  meanall  aircraft  that  fly  without  a  pilot  on  board.  They  do not  distinguish  between  model  aircraft(includingmanually  flown  quadcopters)and  multi-rotor  semi-autonomousaircraft  –commonly  recognised  by  the  public  as  drones. "

I have filled in the survey as link below using the guidance as above.

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/drones/

That's exactly what I picked up on ! I'll have a look at the survey.

Some of the Consultation may have a point however more seems to be based on pandoras box.

They started by trying to define the word Drone to a craft that has no relation to what was originally called an actual drone, now they seem to be redefining it back to a model that is remotely flown.

If they have a problem with GPS multirotors then they should have commented on this type of model not tried to still all in one box.

Coming back to the Consultation the things I don’t like are as below….

Minimum age of a drone operator; Its always best to teach when someone is young as we all know when we get older we have our own opinions and sometimes we wont change these to accept change. A young mind wants to explore and this is where we can come in to help provide the boundaries in witch to do this safely.

Drone flights close to airfields, this is confusing to me as someone must have used a trigonometry to work out 1km exclusion zone and a safe buffer zone within a radius of an ATZ, or did they. Now they are exploring this again just after they have changed the law…

Whether the government should work with the model flying associations; The CAA and Government should always work with model flying associations as these should have boots on the ground and know all about there members needs. The one this would like to see is model flying associations not siding more with another and embracing a new type of craft into is fold and help to provide a more open-door happy face to those wishing to join them in the interests of enjoyment and safety. I also wish more clubs would be like this and not see all multirotor pilots as outcasts but to embrace them as pilots that just wants to fly. Together is stronger…

Use of radio jammers; This is something I can agree on in circumstances of national security where they can`t find a pilot to get the craft to land.

As for more powers to police and others; If some one in a park disapproves of you flying even if it’s just one person these powers could be used in harassment to the pilot to hinder them flying and move the pilot on. Also, why would someone who is not a pilot have a power to tell you to land NOW when you are the pilot in command who should know when its safe to do so. Would you land your craft where it is as someone has told you so when your craft is clearly going to endanger others?

The police already have powers that they don’t have the boots on the ground to enforce, but prisons, military and ATZ should all be protected with Law.

As for FINS I use NATS app when on my own to help but not many know about this app, however reliance on this should not be used as you still have a responsibility to fly safe. NATS is good to determine if an aria is safe to fly in, but this wont work where you have no phone or data points to download the data needed. I know they are trying to prevent someone from getting something of the shop shelf and flying it but someone who puts their time into developing their own craft from parts are not going to fly it to intentionally loose it.  Also GPS is not fitted on all craft so geofencing data collection is not always possible.

Providing data to prove innocence is crazy, thought that in this country we were indecent until proven guilty not the other way round.  

All need to look at helping multirotor pilots instead of just moving them on and saying not on my patch and nothing to do with me. Again together we are strong..

Really good comments. I'm not sure about the 'jamming' option as this could lead to unintentional crashes if a 'jammed' area was flown into without knowing of it & therefore introduce potential dangerous risks. However, any areas should be advised of ( military , prisons etc ) I don't think club fields would be affected by this ?
Model flying associations should be actively involved but I guess that all this is aimed at people who fly outside clubs etc. & don't want to or just don't understand any laws or safety implications. The document is probably compiled by someone with little knowledge of model flying of all types of machine. Many of us have been flying "drones", as all types model aircraft now seem to be known, for years & are generally responsible people. Everyone who flies any remotely operated aircraft of any type for pleasure should be involved in this & all work to support each other ( together stronger). Whatever happens it will be very difficult to enforce especially with people "on the loose" who just do what they want to do. I recently saw some film on twitter from an airborne camera of big passenger aircraft taking off from an airport as seen from a great height ! Nice to see but definitely not responsible operation.
Interestingly there has been a jamming trial on GPS going on in Cardigan Bay area ! It is in NOTAMS but I am not aware of what it is aimed at.

Had a very quick look at the doc. but it needs a lot of time to read through. The first thing I think is that someone needs to get definitions sorted out of what a "drone" really is, as opposed to remotely operated model aircraft , including multi rotors. To me a "drone" is something that is sent off to do something on its own & then return, or not, without any input from anywhere ? Could be wrong, but that's my view.

Gary M Jones wrote:Had a very quick look at the doc. but it needs a lot of time to read through. The first thing I think is that someone needs to get definitions sorted out of what a "drone" really is, as opposed to remotely operated model aircraft , including multi rotors. To me a "drone" is something that is sent off to do something on its own & then return, or not, without any input from anywhere ? Could be wrong, but that's my view.

Agree

Also jamming equipment would have to be under some kinds of license as if the public get hold of this then all kinds of things can be done. Criminals could use this against police drones and more.

Like I say pandoras box

Well said. It doesn't take long for anything electronic to be replicated these days. Mobile phone jammers are easily available, but mobiles have been jammed over localised areas by "invisible forces" in the event of emergencies such as terrorist events. I can see the logic as terrorist devices are known to have been detonated by phone.
I remember in the late 70's/ early 80's when communications over a large part of the country were jammed by a USAF F-111 Raven accidentally turning on its electronic countermeasures. A Pandora's box for sure.

UK GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON THE 'FUTURE OF DRONES IN THE UK - BMFA NEED YOUR HELP BEFORE 17TH SEPTEMBER!

As reported previously, the government intends to introduce new laws to address the perceived safety, security and privacy threats that arise from the increasing use of drones. These new rules will affect model flying. We would encourage members to support the model flying associations, and your hobby, by responding to the public consultation.  We have prepared some advice to assist members which can be found via the link later in this article.

The government’s proposals are in a document called “Taking Flight: The Future of Drones in the UK” which may be found online here:

Click on text below
UK GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON THE 'FUTURE OF DRONES IN THE UK -B,FA NEED YOUR HELP BEFORE 17TH SEPTEMBER!

Just seen this on twitter , worth a read...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45394789

The sky for a long time has increase in air traffic for some time now and it not just a fact of model craft though this dose not help. Also there has been some amazing reports of so called drone 4,800 ft for most drones this would be a one way trip due to the battery and possible range issues.
I have seen loads of near miss reports that Question the fact it was a drone. Near miss reporting has now changed from a UFO to a drone a easy way to enplane something.

"Hundreds of the more than 2,000 incidents investigated by the UK Airprox Board in the past decade involved military aircraft, including planes, helicopters, gliders, drones and even parachutists."

Sadly there seams to be a case of all aircraft involved and not supersizing but a worry.

Your last sentence makes the point.