Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 15, 2019, 01:26:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: BMFA to see Aviation Minister concerning proposed CAA regulations  (Read 5019 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 440



Ignore
« Reply #100 on: July 06, 2019, 05:27:51 PM »

As an alternative view, to add to this discussion.
I was at the LMA event at RAF Cosford today and got into a conversation with one of the Integro Insurance guys (who provide the BMFA 3rd party insurance most of us have in the UK).

When I asked for his take on the drone registration thing, he sort of sounded like he was on our side but wouldn't offer a specific view, as he said he has no idea how this will pan out.  He did however say "of course the insurance currently pays out even if you have been breaking the BMFA guidelines" (ie you park your car next to where you fly and crash into your or another modeller's car) - instead of having the car parked 100m away from the flightline.  He did not say that the insurer would or would not pay out if you were registered with the CAA scheme or not - he genuinely didn't know.  But I suspect that they will have some more small print to add to the policy in due course, once the dust has settled and they know how the law and the registration scheme is finallised.

So not pos and not neg - our insurers are just as much in the dark as we are.

John M
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #101 on: July 06, 2019, 05:41:04 PM »

That revelation about drones by Garbutt is pretty amazing.  We are looking at pretty big drones clogging up the skies.?
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,131



Ignore
« Reply #102 on: July 06, 2019, 08:06:48 PM »

I agree - that was definitely informative Peter. However I still feel that they would not be treating golfers this way. To me it's still a matter of money. A market has been identified and the technology - which incidentally has been pushed along largely by the hobby industry as in the development of quads and their necessary flight control systems, is now available(in a early commercial form) to utilise this market.

I believe many of the benefits identified are no more than "Lobbying" promo talk. As David mentions - the size required to shift cargo would be substantial. Does any one really wish to see unmanned leviathans floating over their houses?

Here is another interesting side line relating to the control side and the love affair with computer controlled devices replacing human control. No doubt most have heard of the Boeing 737 Max computer control - a similar issue has also been identified in another aircraft - this time a light business jet - the Cirrus Vision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWZhbsGHBss

Fortunately they had a better manual in the Cirrus!.

Unmanned aircraft control systems would seem to require a lot more proof testing - how long this will take depending on what standards of safety are required to be met. These "standards" of course can also be subject to the "tilting table " .

Unfortunately the whole scenario does not appeal to me at all.

John
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,131



Ignore
« Reply #103 on: July 06, 2019, 08:16:27 PM »

Quote
Two questions immediately spring to my mind.  (1) What is 'fuel'? For I/C engines, this is easy isn't it - diesel, glow, petrol.  What about electrics? (2) Are the lines and handle of a control line model 'articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight'?

Jez my take on this would be that the battery of electric models would be regarded as part of the aircraft weight as it is a permanent part of the weight and not a consumable! As for control line models - then I would feel that there is a good argument for not regarding the lines/handle of a control line model being part of the 250g min weight. There is a good argument for CL models not to be included full stop - we are not numerous enough for the authorities to spend the time learning all the differences of our classes! Smiley

John
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #104 on: July 06, 2019, 08:48:07 PM »

Hi Pete.

Firstly, thanks very much for the taking the time and trouble to post the details of your experience, for us all to read. Smiley

Secondly, many congratulations to your son Thomas, you and Carole must be very proud of him - I know that my wife and I would be just that, had our daughter achieved such an accolade. Smiley

Thirdly, shall we just dispense with the people who consider it acceptable to make death threats to people who don't happen to share their view, by describing them as [insert your own word here, please] and leaving it at that?

As you state, he was speaking to a generalised audience of 'mums and dads' rather than to an audience with a specific interest, one way, or the other - so, presumably, tailored his presentation to suit.

The water and land taxis - interesting though they are - we can disregard, for present purposes, I think. Also, anything underwater.  The offshore work - the drone bases will more than likely be shoreside, rather than inland?  If so, may be a problem for any clubs near the sea - but not otherwise (I live about as far from the sea as it is possible, in the UK, to get). Smiley

So, what is left? (And I appreciate that what you have given us is what you remember and no memory is ever perfect, so it is, perhaps, unkind of me to go 'ticking off' the items, like on a shopping list - and if this is the impression you're getting then I apologise - for there is certainly no intention on my part to be unkind to you.) On the contrary, I am very grateful for your post. Smiley

DavidJP mentioned 'pretty big drones'. If they are moving containers, as cargo (which is how many goods are shipped, these days) then we are talking massive drones (or many smaller ones, working in unison) - a 20' dry container weighs  27,300 kg loaded and a 40' dry container, 31,350 kg loaded - drop one of those on your toe - and you are going to know about it. Grin  Vertical take-off, flying over urban areas.  The technology is not here yet (the lady from Thales UK, second oral evidence session, of the Committee) talked about Boeing having 'car sized taxi drones' on show at the Paris air show, with flight durations of a few minutes, or seconds, only).  Joe and Joanna public aren't going to be too pleased, either, I would imagine, about such things flying around over their heads.  As the guy from Nesta said, at the second hearing, they are going to have to start with something less contentious (like blood/organ transfer) and build public confidence from there.  They're going to need to be damn sure that they have proved the technology works, before they fully commission it  - because if they drop a loaded 40' dry container on somebody's house, public confidence is going to disappear in a flash.  The whole point about containers is that they are lift on, lift off (or roll on, roll off) you don't split the contents, until you get to a distribution warehouse - which is not going to be located 'dockside'.

A fire hose is heavy - and there is Newton's third law of motion to consider, also - it takes a team of three firefighters to control a ground-based hose, I think.  Would need a powerful/large drone, to keep 'on station', rather than squirming around the sky, like a snake (or a garden hose, when you turn the tap on and no-one is holding the end).

A drone large enough to transport a person is also going to be pretty large, isn't it (helicopter main body size, maybe)?  Air ambulances have medics on them - a drone would not, unless two people sized - in which case, why not use a helicopter?  Contemporaneous arrival of patient and the correct blood and organs from another location (by drone) would, obviously, be potentially life saving, in certain circumstances.

Conscious that there have been other posts, while I have been trying to word process this one. Smiley

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins                         

     

   
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #105 on: July 06, 2019, 09:33:23 PM »

Jez my take on this would be that the battery of electric models would be regarded as part of the aircraft weight as it is a permanent part of the weight and not a consumable! As for control line models - then I would feel that there is a good argument for not regarding the lines/handle of a control line model being part of the 250g min weight. There is a good argument for CL models not to be included full stop - we are not numerous enough for the authorities to spend the time learning all the differences of our classes! Smiley
John

Hi again OZPAF/John.  'The devil is always in the detail', as one of my old bosses used to frequently state.  So you think the 'fuel' in an electric model is the 'charge' (for want of a better word) in the battery? Seems logical.  On that basis then, the mass of a rubber powered model includes the rubber and the 'fuel' is the 'torque' in a wound motor? I'm not trying to be a pedant - I'm just trying to understand what the words mean. Smiley

Regarding control line, your last sentence is the point that I (and a number of others) have been trying to make, since the outset - with apparently no success, so far. Smiley

I agree with you regarding the 'good argument' about lines and handle of a control line model - but I'm not clear that the words used have this effect.  Depends upon whether or not the lines and handle are classed as 'articles or equipment' - the lines are certainly 'attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight' (if they are not, you either have a problem, or it is not a control line model aircraft). Smiley  The handle is not (directly) attached to the aircraft, because it is (directly) attached to the lines - but it is (indirectly) attached to the aircraft, via the lines.  I've bracketed the direct/indirect, because the S.I. just uses 'attached' and I shouldn't really introduce words which aren't there, as it can change the meaning of the words that are.  Insignificant?  I've just weighed my racing handle (with lanyard) - 50 grams.  Weight of a set of lines? Don't know - yet to dig out an empty reel and one with a set of lines on it, to get a rough idea. Smiley

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins     
Logged
John Webster
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 241


The sun illuminates the structure.



Ignore
« Reply #106 on: July 07, 2019, 03:04:41 AM »

If you choose certain snippets of the above posts it sounds like the government wants to regulate control line flying (max altitude 70 feet) to prevent unfortunate interactions with drones carrying 60,000 pound cargo containers.
Logged

A pilot starts out with a bag full of luck and an empty bag for experience. The object is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,918




Ignore
« Reply #107 on: July 07, 2019, 03:29:12 AM »

Thanks Jez; yes very proud of our son of course. Lots of very bright kids in that room and nearly all of them will probably end up in some kind of computer based careers. If half of what the FBI guy says is true, we're all going to need their young brain power before long and we'll be glad that they view all new technology as an exciting challenge full of opportunities, and not just as a threat to our old way of life.
As far as aeromodelling and model flying goes, I don't think we can have it both ways. We always say that practical hobbies encourage innovation in the young, so we can't complain when they start inventing stuff we don't really like. We can try and protect our freedom to fly our models without interference, and I really hope we succeed, but we can't hope to halt the technology or to stop the sky gradually filling up with air taxis, pilotless ambulances, delivery drones or whatever is coming.

It's always been the same: in the 1850s, small boys rushed down the valley to watch the new locomotives go past whilst their grandparents mourned the loss of their peace and quiet.
In the 1950s, small boys rushed over to the airfield to see the new jets take off, whilst their grandparents longingly remembered the puttery little biplanes.
In the 2010s, small boys and girls point at a skyline full of wind turbines and say, "Wow, Grandad! Look at those!" Grandad shakes his head and wishes he still just had his pretty, but empty, hill to look at.
In the 2030s a little girl says, "Grandad, hurry up and get in. This skycab's ready to leave and we'll be there in 2 minutes if I just press this circle on my phone screen."
"No," says Grandad, "As it's your birthday I'm going to treat you to a ride in one of these lovely old black cabs they kept on for the nostalgia tourists. We'll be there in 2 hours, but we won't be bored at all because the driver keeps turning round to tell you his political views for the whole way! Won't that be fun?!"
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,131



Ignore
« Reply #108 on: July 07, 2019, 05:09:13 AM »

Peter as I see it - it's not the Technology that is the problem it is the use of it to benefit a minority while at the same time dispensing with some of the facilities of others simply because it affects their profit margins.

Anyway I guess this all getting way too far from the thread so I'll pull my horns in.

John
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,918




Ignore
« Reply #109 on: July 07, 2019, 05:23:13 AM »

Yes, I’ll also shut up now. Way out of my depth on all this stuff anyway. Apologies if I’ve trivialised anything and good on anyone who’s looking out for our interests.
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #110 on: July 07, 2019, 05:27:22 AM »

First Pete well done your Son - but Carole and yourself must have had a hand in it at one stage by way of nurturing this talent so well done you both as as well.

Aeromodeling has benefitted from modern technology so it would be churlish of us to be selective because of the threats.  I am not sure why you seem a little obsessed about the old ways in some folk because again we all use technology today.  May not like some of it but for my part rather it was there than not.  My beef is with our society - a different thing entirely.

The prospect of huge drones trundling around is both daunting and amazing to people like myself but to the younger folk they will as already they do take it in their stride.  In my lifetime I have seen incredible progress as you will appreciate and things that were stated to be impossible are now easily achieved so for my part again nothing will surprise me.  If some today think that a drone weighing tonnes is practical well so be it.   It is what society will need clearly. I doubt though they will be flying over peoples houses at a low altitude.  But will be controlled as are airliners today. But hopefully they will not be so toxic.

So we are minnows in the pool - but I am pretty sure we will adapt - if we want.  As aeromodellers we have the ability. I am not sure though about the buy and fly people because they may simply find another interest.  I feel they are a transient lot anyway.

Have you put all this before david Phipps Pete - he may well know but it does seem Garbutt has some commitment and all this is not that far ahead?  

I noted the reference got death threats though - comes as no surprise - the internet facilitates this and to many issuing them is just a "hobby" - it  may well not have come from an aeromodeller even.  
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #111 on: July 07, 2019, 05:50:44 AM »

If you choose certain snippets of the above posts it sounds like the government wants to regulate control line flying (max altitude 70 feet) to prevent unfortunate interactions with drones carrying 60,000 pound cargo containers.

Hi John

One of the questions that I've been asking the Department for Transport and our CAA (without response, so far) is just how a control line model is a safety risk to a full size manned aircraft, or to a 'drone' such as the above?  Smiley

To bring in SP250/John M's post about insurance - you'd better make sure, if you don't get your (FAA, where you are, CAA over here) certificate, that your C/L model doesn't dent 'ACME Co's' drone or container - because, even if you thought you had insurance, they will have figured out the 'small print' by then and you'll find that you're not covered. Smiley

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins   
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #112 on: July 07, 2019, 06:48:42 AM »

To Pete Fardell and OZPAF/John

Pete - Due to haste, I forgot to add, in my post last night, about perhaps the most interesting point (from an aeromodelling perspective) to come out of your chat with Robert Garbett - the bit about us being 'okay if flying off our official designated fields'.  Also, his view about no home deliveries by Amazon.  The video that Squirrelnet posted a link to, in this thread, a while back shows exactly that.  Would need to check the second oral evidence Committee meeting, to be sure if the witness from Amazon was talking about home delivery.  Time will tell, I guess, as with all things. Smiley

Pete (and OZPAF/John) neither of you need to 'butt out' - all opinions are valid.

Pete, you are talking about (more mature) people being 'resistant to change'. Yes they are - large companies have 'change management specialists' , for just that reason and small companies 'buy in' such expertise. Change is difficult for people and needs to be managed properly, if the changes are to be successfully introduced. Smiley

OZPAF/John, could be a minority (that benefit financially) might be a majority that benefit from the improved technology - the 'sacrifice of the few (aeromodellers)' for the benefit of the 'greater good'? Is that an acceptable price for the 'few' to pay, or not? Some could maybe argue that, either way.  What you are talking about goes deeper, anyway - but still not sure it's not valid comment, in this thread.  Just why did the DfT/CAA not talk to the BMFA/SAA, etc., between January 2019 and April 2019 - a question that none of the (6,000?) who wrote to the DfT (Baroness Vere) and CAA (Richard Moriarty, CEO) have had a substantive answer to, so far as I am aware? Why did the (UK) Government's 'Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy: Consultation on the Safe Use of Drones in the UK' Consultation (already linked by me, earlier in this thread) get just 678 responses, from all sources, when the CAA's CAP 1775 consultation on proposed fees for unmanned aircraft operator registration yielded over 11,000 responses (according to an article by Dave Phipps, BMFA CEO, at page 40 of the August 2019 edition of the BMFA News, which I received in the post yesterday)?  Why was the 'registration scheme' brought in by Statutory Instrument - secondary legislation, minimal debate, rather than by a 'Bill' and then an 'Act' - like the 'Drones Bill', which is expected to be published soon, apparently?

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins       
 

 
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,918




Ignore
« Reply #113 on: July 07, 2019, 08:27:30 AM »

Thanks Jez. Okay- I shall butt straight back in again, particularly as you've triggered a few more memories from yesterday. One is that, on the Amazon right-to-your-door/roof drone delivery thing, Robert Garbett specifically mentioned the Amazon ad showing a drone doing just that, but assured us that that was merely ad-world hyberbole, put in to look make us all think Amazon are supercool and sexy. Of course the Head Drone Honcho at Amazon might tell us something different, but Garbett was adamant they're not going to do it. Another thing he said was in response to a question from the floor along the lines of, "How are you going to convince the general public that we need all these drones before they come into our lives?" His answer was that we should never worry about trying to convince the public beforehand. You simply bring in the new technology and if people like it, they'll use it. He's got a point. There would be no progress at all if we all waited for the public's approval to bring in anything radical. Yet, here we are, with people of all generations using all the modern things people used to worry about: smart phones, online shops, motorways, decimal coinage, these new fangled electric kettles etc. etc. etc.
Of course, sometimes that 'bring it in and they'll use it' policy backfires badly, which is why I don't drive a Sinclair C5 to work or why I, and everyone living near me, still chooses to queue up at the one open checkout in our local Co-op and pay the human till lady, whilst every single one of the six shiny self service machines stand idly by taking up valuable floor space!

As well as the Garbett talk it was quite an insprational day all round, especially if you left your big bag of cynicism at the door. Lots of good quotes in the opening address to get us all going, such as the janitor at NASA who, on being asked by JFK what his job was, stated that he was helping to put a man on the moon (8 years before it happened) or Henry Ford's "If you think you can do something or you can't do something... you're right" and also some pithy statement about taking 55 minutes of an hour to define a problem, and then the final 5 to solve it. I think that last one was from the scruffy 'apworth pictured*.

*To be fair, that photo was taken in the 1950s and most people probably didn't worry so much about wearing ties or combing their hair in those days.

Attached files Thumbnail(s):
Re: BMFA to see Aviation Minister concerning proposed CAA regulations
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #114 on: July 07, 2019, 11:03:16 AM »

Can’t agree with that about the 50’s Pete - that was the era of short back and sides and brylcream.  And suits.  I remember it well.  But yes there were a few who felt they had more important things to do than worry about their appearance. Artists philosophers and the like.  Didn't someone also say my brain is for thinking and I have books for remembering things.

Surely it will be impractical for home deliveries by drones from Amazon to  people in towns and cities but possibly practicable for deliveries to places in the sticks - which was the subject of the ad.  Mr Garbett is in the promotion business so I am sure he knows about ad world hyperbole.  But the sight of a drone arriving outside a window on the 37th floor of an apartment building, extending a telescopic arm to tap on the window which is then opened and a package deposited might be quite fun?

PS Glad to hear about the use of the self service tills - I avoid them too - surely it will likely put the checkout people out of a job.  But some don’t realise it. A short while ago I was in a Bank and was told “Oh you can do this online...”.  I don’t like that and said so, pointing out as well that it would hasten the demise of high street banks if we all did it and she would be jobless possibly.  All I got was a blank stare - not thought of that one!

My guess on the drone business is that at the moment it is the “thing” to be involved in for some people.  Including HMG.  So it will proceed as we are seeing it and then be a hiatus in a year or so and we will carry on for a while doing our thing until a revival in some years time.  So I think we can relax.  But it has been an interesting discussion.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 11:21:30 AM by DavidJP » Logged
vintagemike
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 7
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 142



Ignore
« Reply #115 on: July 07, 2019, 02:05:06 PM »

I thought it was accepted in law that you owned the area above your land, so surely Amazon and the like need permission to overfly your property. Just think if we could galvanise the general public to oppose the use of drones for commercial purposes, (fat chance I Know) just think what you could achieve.
Logged
cvasecuk
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 5
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 262



Ignore
« Reply #116 on: July 07, 2019, 03:21:12 PM »

Jez, Like you I do not understand why CL models are not exempt when kites are. They can legally fly to a height of 60m and note I use the term "fly". Remeber that William Cody developed man carrying kites to be used as observation platforms to be used by the army early last century.
Ron
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #117 on: July 07, 2019, 07:37:55 PM »

Welcome back, Pete and thanks for your latest contribution. Smiley Regarding Amazon's  parcel delivery service by 'drone' - we seem to have two experts giving us different views then, don't we?  Difficult for us, as laypersons, to try to establish which of the two experts visions of the future, is going to come true.  The only way to be sure, is to look back at things in, say, ten years time and see what has happened.  That does not really help me, in terms of deciding whether us 'jumping through hoops' from November this year, is something that I'm going to be able to stomach easily, because it is for the 'common good', or is going to be more difficult to come to terms with, because there is no real justification for the 'hoop jumping'.

Mr Garbett's answer that we should never worry about trying to convince the public beforehand and simply bring in the new technology and if people like it, they'll use it - is certainly a point of view - but the four witnesses present at the second half of the second session of the Committee meeting on 26 June 2019, seemed to me to be all of the view that the technology needed to be proved before introduction and that less contentious uses (such as blood/organ transfer) should be introduced first, before moving on to more contentious uses.  Again, experts disagreeing.

I know what you mean about the self service machines in shops - I don't like them, or use them either - and, like DavidJP intimates, the staff whom promote their use (and online services) are, potentially, 'turkeys voting for Christmas' - although at least some of them could, I suppose, be redeployed - dependent upon their existing skill sets, or willingness to retrain.  The PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which I provided a link to, in an earlier post, refers to an estimate of 628,000 people, in the UK, working in the drone economy by 2030.  What isn't stated, so far as I can see, is the number of people who are currently working as Heavy Goods Vehicle/conventional taxi/courier, drivers, chartered surveyors etc., etc., who will lose their jobs, as a result of the introduction of 'drone technology' - in other words, what is the net effect, on the jobs market, of the introduction of such technology - which would, I think, be a more revealing estimate than the one PwC are using.

It's widely thought that Albert Einstein had 'High Functioning Autism' (aka 'Aspergers') - although cannot be absolutely proved, in respect of someone who is no longer alive.  Not that uncommon, in 'famous people', apparently http://www.asperger-syndrome.me.uk/people.htm

I thought it was accepted in law that you owned the area above your land, so surely Amazon and the like need permission to overfly your property. Just think if we could galvanise the general public to oppose the use of drones for commercial purposes, (fat chance I Know) just think what you could achieve.

Hi vintagemike.  I'm no lawyer.Smiley  Off of the top of my head, I thought that there is a qualified right to the land below your property and the air above it.  Bit of searching revealed that (in the UK) the air is divided into a 'lower stratum' and an 'upper stratum'. It would appear that you have no more right to the 'upper stratum' [500' to 1,000' above your property] airspace, than any other member of the public.  The 'lower stratum' seems to be a bit more, erm, 'nebulous.'  I found references to the 'lower stratum' being 'the airspace immediately above/around the land' - without a height being defined. Also references to 'Interference with this air space would affect the landowner’s reasonable enjoyment of the land and the structures upon it. You can prevent people from interfering with or intruding on this airspace.'  Anybody thinking of taking on Amazon, would need to have a very good legal team and very deep pockets, I would suggest. Smiley Public opinion about 'drones' ('narrow' definition) does vary, apparently - the lady from PricewaterhouseCoopers gave some figures, towards the end of the second oral evidence session, but I forget what they were.  Depended upon the circumstances - public acceptance was the highest for blood/organ transfer and emergency services, so far as I recall, and lower for other things.

Jez, Like you I do not understand why CL models are not exempt when kites are. They can legally fly to a height of 60m and note I use the term "fly". Remember that William Cody developed man carrying kites to be used as observation platforms to be used by the army early last century.
Ron

Hi cvasecuk/Ron.  Doesn't make much sense, does it?  I'm hoping that something maybe comes out about this, at the third oral evidence session, on 9 July 2019.  It needs someone on the Committee to ask Dave Phipps the 'right' questions though, doesn't it? - as he (and the other three) are 'witnesses' and, as such, don't really get the opportunity to just make whatever statements they might wish to.

Cheers,

Jez wilkins
 


                 
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,131



Ignore
« Reply #118 on: July 07, 2019, 09:18:31 PM »

Pete I was not trying to imply that your comments were trivial - it's just that I have strong feelings about the abuse of positions of power/money. I believe that the technology could still be introduced while considering the activities/rights of others.

However as you point out - that hasn't been all that common so far.

I am also a non user of automated serving machines. I prefer to see people working as well.

John

Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 123
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,918




Ignore
« Reply #119 on: July 08, 2019, 02:04:10 AM »

John, don’t worry- I certainly didn’t think you were implying my comments were trivial; I was just aware that I was rambling on a subject I knew little about.

Something I need to clarify though: Robert Garbett wasn’t suggesting that the new technology shouldn’t be proved before being introduced. As he is responsible for writing the standards, such a view would be ludicrous. Rather, he’s saying don’t ask people if they want it first, but make sure it’s already so well tested to meet the standards, and implementation systems are so well thought out, that by the time the public get anywhere near it they have no real cause to disapprove.

This absolutely didn’t happen with self service supermarket checkouts. Yes, we don’t use them because they put people out of work, but so do all kinds of things that we DO use. Those other things mostly worked properly as soon as we got them though (or at least don’t still tell us there’s an unexpected item in the bagging area even when the item is something as mundane and expected as a loaf of bread!)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2019, 02:47:12 AM by Pete Fardell » Logged
Squirrelnet
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 33
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 594




Ignore
« Reply #120 on: July 08, 2019, 09:43:58 AM »

Interesting article in todays Guardian .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/08/met-become-first-uk-force-deploy-drone-monitor-road-users?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I think the adoption of drones by many different agencies will come sooner than we imagine, my thoughts are that we are a tiny minority that are in the way 
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,131



Ignore
« Reply #121 on: July 08, 2019, 08:20:48 PM »

Lots of other interesting snippets there as well Chris. However I doubt that they will use quads - more likely fixed wing due to their much better endurance and speed. That won't help us though!

I noticed in one of the linked articles of a Google delivery trial in Canberra Australia, where some people complained of noise coming through double glazed windows! These windows are supposedly good enough to reduce airline and road noise.

Larger units could well be very obnoxious! and 3 cheers to that!

John
Logged
fred
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 504



Ignore
« Reply #122 on: July 09, 2019, 12:07:02 PM »


I noticed in one of the linked articles of a Google delivery trial in Canberra Australia, where some people complained of noise coming through double glazed windows! These windows are supposedly good enough to reduce airline and road noise.

John
Y
Youtube 'wisdom' ..not very reliable is it ?
Double glazings are virtually ineffective at at aircraft noise abatement.  Only salesmen perpetuate  that fantasy.
Triple glazings  stops.. some... noises but only partially Triple glazings and masonry sheatings, if not construction,  as well as double roof systems are necessary
( albeit only in jurisdictions where the building authorities are competent ) to mitigate  a portion of Airport noises, enough  so that residents can sleep reasonably.
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #123 on: July 11, 2019, 08:01:55 AM »

Hi all.

Not claiming any kudos for this link - unashamedly 'nicked' from another online Forum website. Smiley https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-07-10/debates/FBB5D051-6552-4C5A-AA8B-7A5A3046104B/DroneUsersRegistration.

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins 
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,131



Ignore
« Reply #124 on: July 11, 2019, 07:35:08 PM »

Very interesting Jez - thanks. Lots of questions raised by Laughton and not much willingness to answer by the CAA? No real explanation of why so much money is needed by the CAA if they run the Registration system. Hmm! why am I not surprised.

No real concern that I could see by the CAA to separate legitimate model flyers from the illegitimate and no real explanation of how a registering system would eliminate illegal drone usage. In summary from my quick review the CAA does seem happy to receive the registration fees though!

Also interesting to see that more model aircraft are flown in the UK than light aircraft and there are more model flyers, than light aircraft owners but still they need to fight for a fair hearing.

I've saved the report.

John
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!