Your opinion of drones

Yes the BMFA is campaigning for control on Drones along with all model flying. They, along with other flying models should only be flown by competent people on recognised sites.

Don't get me wrong, drones are fun to fly (in the right places), our club flies them indoors on club nights, they are fun. But we recognise the danger of even the smallest and insist on everyone wearing eye protection.

I'm not so sure about being able to disable them in flight, that could only be done by jamming the radio signal, the drone would then continue to fly uncontrolled until it crashed.

One of the worst concerns for me, which just does not bear even thinking about- is the potential for terrorist attacks with chemicals, like anthrax. It would be so so simple to do....

No legislation could prevent terrorist using them. They are quite easy to build from basic parts that are readily available. Many enthusiasts build their own.

They do however have a very small payload so could not be used for explosives etc.

Perhaps they should be licensed.

Licensing implies a cost to the tax payer to administer the licence. Making it illegal to use any model aircraft without insurance would have the same effect without the cost to the tax payer. My £25 million insurance costs me £39/yr.

Whatever the system, there will always be those that flout the law.

Make the licence expensive enough to pay for itself- and make 25mio minimum insurance compulsory too.

The argument about licensing having a cost could apply to anything- so why bother with any for anything?

Yes, and the ones who don't buy a licence will be the ones who cause the trouble of course.

Impossible to administer

Same argument as gun control in the USA.

Control by the BMFA would ensure that only registered flying sites could be used. Anyone flying elsewhere would then be flying illegally.

Pompa, TerriBull

Have you heard about the Netherlands Police training eagles to catch drones. No not an April Fools joke, I saw a report on Sky I think it was and have put a couple of links up.

EAGLE CATCHES DRONES - YouTube

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/02/01/dutch-police-are-fighting-drones-with-eagles/

A house in our town is up for sale and the outside photos are taken by a drone. There has been much debate on the local Facebook page about the dangers of flying over a built up area with a very busy road underneath. Someone is looking to make a complaint about this practise.

POGS, yes I saw that.

Ellenemery.

This is an extract from the BMFA rules relating to aerial photography

"However, where a flight is made for payment or the purpose is in any way commercial i.e. not as a sport and recreational activity, then it becomes classed as aerial work by the CAA and requires an exemption to the Air Navigation Order to be issued in order to take place lawfully."

If they did not have that exemption, it would have been illegal.

Id like a drone so that I could take over head pictures of my boat, the canal as it winds its way through the countryside. It would also be useful for helping to identify off towpath footpaths suitable for dog walking and would let me know if there were sheep, cattle or pigs in the fields that the footpaths ran across so I would know which areas to avoid. A fellow boater has one and has some cracking pictures of his boat and the canal from above. I shall have one, one day.

Near us we have the most beautiful nature reserve- it's called Le Creux-du-Van if anyone wants to Google it. It is massive limestone circle, a little like Malham Cove for you Yorkshire people, but much larger- and normally accessed from the top- and with a walking path all around the rim (avoid if suffering from vertigo or are afraid of heights)... It has very rare species, like the Tichodrome Echellette- a small wall-creeper bright fuchsia and light grey in colour, and as in Malaham, Peregrine falcons. It also has swifts, and skylarks, red kites and buzzards- and a great colony of wild Ibex. No climbing is allowed, etc- in order not to disturb the breeding sites. Views of all the Alps on one side, and 'my' Jura on the other- and Lake Neuchâtel and Bienne in the distance.

Recently people with drones have all been rushing there to try and outdo each other with taking the best films- getting so close to the cliff and nesting and breeding sites. The films are amazing- but the likely effects are absolutely disastrous. There is a team of wardens- but those people go very early in the morning, etc.

One of them also put a fabulous video of another very wonderful and wild walk around the corner- a long wild dale called 'Les Gorges de l'Areuse' - with 100s of walkers daily, herons, dippers, etc- right in the middle of the nesting/breeding season!!!

Pompa- yes, drones cannot carry heavy bombs, etc- and all it takes to seriously inflict terrible damage and suffering, is a small amount of anthrax.

Another huge concern is helicopters- especially air ambulance.

Twice this year already, our Air Ambulance helicopters have landed in our field to pick up injured people to take to Lausanne hospital. They have to fly very close to habitations and villages, and are real experts- I am in awe. They have no time to notify locals, they leave their base within a minute or so of getting the call, and it takes them about 8 minutes to get here.

That is another good reason for having recognised model flying sites. The CAA and therefore air ambulance etc would be aware, and quite possibly use the field to land. Aero-modellers are quite used to sharing flying sites and airspace with full size aircraft, there are rules in place to ensure safety.

Agreed- my neighbour in East Leics was a very keen large model flyer and totally responsible.

Problem is, people with drones want to be able to make (very lucrative- as well as massaging their ego) videos of towns, like the one about London, or wild areas, like the one about the Creux-du-Van, etc- and not 'just' fields-

was going to buy a drone for DH's 70th BD- but then thought better of it due to all the above.

I think they should be banned. Whether people have licences or whatever safety measures are put in place, there is always some lunatic who will break the rules and put people's lives - perhaps many people's lives - at risk.

Drones have practical uses in the right hands and can be fun, we cannot ban things just because someone uses it in a dangerous manner, should we ban bicycles ?, I'm sure they have caused more deaths than drones.
Their use is already banned in the vicinity of airports etc. as are all flying models. This is set in law under the CAA regulations. ATM lasers seem to be a bigger risk to aircraft, somewhat difficult to ban them.

hmmm Pompa, not quite sure about your analogy- although I get what you are saying - but ....

If we were to ban everything that had the potential to cause harm, rather than impose controls, his list would run off the end of this page.
Drones are not dangerous in themselves, it is the users that are the danger. This is the same with thousands of common place things.

as said, what the NRA says about guns too. Wrong analogy too, I am aware, but ...

Agreed though, much tougher controls required, including registration and clear marking on each drone- compulsory liability insurance, and compulsory training.

But probably too late our local paper was offering some for about £55 the other day- and everyone and his dog seems to have one.

They ought to be sold under license and to over 18s only. They ought to be fitted with a tracker device which feeds back information to the authorities so they can be traced and preferably destroyed when they infringe the rules, and the owners prosecuted.

The owners should only be allowed to fly them when they have passed a test similar to the driving test.

The problem with so many of these ideas is the cost of implementation.

I would hate to see children banned from flying them, the youngsters at our club have great fun flying them.

One problem with the press coverage of drones is that they do not distinduish between the types available.
The fun ones are small (from just 3" across) and could not carry a camera, this is the bulk of those sold. The more serious and commercial ones are much larger cost far more (£100's) and can carry the weight of a camera.

It would be difficult to control them at the point of sale as the components to build one are readily available.

I certainly agree with flying being limited to recognised flying sites and insurance being required (the requirement of insurance would mean that tuition or a certificate of competence would be required) The BMFA already have tests in place for multi rotor aircraft. There are 2 levels of test, one for normal club flying and another for flying in public displays.

Details of the tests can be found here (but it does run into 35 pages)

www.bmfa.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=1636&language=en-GB&PortalId=0&TabId=220