Gatwick flights suspended after reports of drones over runway
- Thread starter Jagerbomb52
- Start date
PatR
Premium Pilot
PatR
Premium Pilot
This event has been as predictable as what will happen if you step on a rattle snake. I think I’ll step back to say what I didn’t say after the “suspects” were released. “Told ya so”
. They were just a convenient excuse used to “re-open” the airport, generating a headline of Suspects in Custody, Now Safe to Fly.
PatR
Premium Pilot
And who’s fault is that? After years of multirotor operations we still haven’t banded together to form an organization of multirotor operators. If we don’t care, why should anyone else?
I don't think that we don't care. I think we do care. We have just naively been going about our flying without a thought for a minority of pr**ks that are intent on flying near manned aviation and causing a world of s**T for the law abiding majority. Also, many of the drone organisations that do exist, tend to cozy up to governments and various authorities... You're right though, we do need to band together. We do need a voice, now more than ever.....
[QUOTE=" Paradise by the Dashboard Light....[/QUOTE]
Many a southern father has removed the cargo light from his daughters pickup truck. Saves on ammunition.
Many a southern father has removed the cargo light from his daughters pickup truck. Saves on ammunition.
Many a southern father has removed the cargo light from his daughters pickup truck. Saves on ammunition.[/QUOTE]
PatR
Premium Pilot
Ren57,
I believe the ship needed to carry our baggage sailed away in 2006 when the AMA refused to act on information of an impending ARC committee until it was too late to petition for a position on it that had a voice. Instead they fiddled and agreed to be allowed a presence where they could provide no input, only listen, while being constrained by non disclosure agreements. From that point forward the regulatory development has been tailored to best serve large commercial interests.
Even today with the current DAC ([FAA] Drone Advisory Council) group there is but one member with any possibility of supporting the recreational flyer but that entity is focused on commercial revenue generation through regulatory adoption of their software. The multirotor market leader seems to have little concern for the recreational operator aside from being paid to police them, which is amusing as they are the ones that created the consumer drone BLOS problem to begin with. Doubt the previous statements? Spend a little time reviewing the drone regulatory development history, starting in 2005 and working forward.
For giggles, note what the AMA did when the registration rule started to get bandied about. They used fear tactics to increase their membership by calling in multirotor flyers, abandoned the commercial flyers, then raised dues, and has yet to do anything to help protect recreational flyers from losing their airspace. Worse, they failed to support the guy that sued the FAA to overturn drone registration. Two years later they obtained an insurance carrier for commercial operators but there’s still no representation for them.
I believe the ship needed to carry our baggage sailed away in 2006 when the AMA refused to act on information of an impending ARC committee until it was too late to petition for a position on it that had a voice. Instead they fiddled and agreed to be allowed a presence where they could provide no input, only listen, while being constrained by non disclosure agreements. From that point forward the regulatory development has been tailored to best serve large commercial interests.
Even today with the current DAC ([FAA] Drone Advisory Council) group there is but one member with any possibility of supporting the recreational flyer but that entity is focused on commercial revenue generation through regulatory adoption of their software. The multirotor market leader seems to have little concern for the recreational operator aside from being paid to police them, which is amusing as they are the ones that created the consumer drone BLOS problem to begin with. Doubt the previous statements? Spend a little time reviewing the drone regulatory development history, starting in 2005 and working forward.
For giggles, note what the AMA did when the registration rule started to get bandied about. They used fear tactics to increase their membership by calling in multirotor flyers, abandoned the commercial flyers, then raised dues, and has yet to do anything to help protect recreational flyers from losing their airspace. Worse, they failed to support the guy that sued the FAA to overturn drone registration. Two years later they obtained an insurance carrier for commercial operators but there’s still no representation for them.
Last edited:
PatR
In the UK the BMFA sold us down the river in much the same way. Although I'm sure that they would state otherwise. The BMFA tried to negotiated a separate deal with the CAA when they released (the CAA) their consultation document on the future of drones and RC aircraft in the UK. I don't know if the CAA's consultation document is still available on-line. But it made interesting reading insomuch as it was clear in the language of that document that the consultation part was just playing lip-service to the drone flying community (hobbyist as well as commercial) and that they had already made up their minds on the way they (The CAA) wanted to move forward. Nevertheless, I completed their consultation document albeit with a heavy bombardment of tongue-in-cheek humour and many references to George Orwell and his book 1984.
The mainstream media are another big obstacle in the way of the truth. That much can be seen by the Gatwick fiasco. The alternative media, the on-line world has (as you might expect) a different angle on the whole story. It's getting harder and harder for governments and authorities to perpetrate their lies however. That's why governments around the globe have suddenly woken-up to the on-line world and the power of the truth. They want to control the on-line world and want to know exactly what you and me are doing in that world. They want to know what we're looking at and what we are saying. Trust me, if your name just happens to be Winston Smith, you'll be like a pig in muck at this moment in time.
I have always been the glass is half full sort of guy though. And I although I might be entirely naive in my assumptions, I believe that the real truth will win through in the end. I did sat naive
Getting back on-topic, I believe the whole Gatwick fiasco has been completely fabricated and helped along by our appalling mainstream media. Who was it who said - " Never let the truth get in the way of a good story". But you already know that don't you..... Sigh.
Anyway, it's Christmas eve. I am having a quiet one, just me and the wife in at our place in Wales. At this moment I am getting acquainted with a bottle of Scotch! Have a great Christmas and safe flying while we still can
All the best to everyone on this forum, Ren.
Phaedrus
Premium Pilot
I was an associate VP under Rich Hanson at this time. I had a front row seat for a lot of this. The thing you forgot to mention is how roundly the vast majority of MR pilots shunned the FOG circle flyers in the AMA. None wanted to join AMA and none wanted to support the AMA in their efforts to protect hobby RC flying of all types. But most were more than happy to use the intellectual property of the AMA (Safety Code) in order to ultimately comply with the new sUAS Rule/Section 336. Even today, very few MR folks want to support the AMA.
Your recollection is also flawed regarding AMA participation on the ARC.. AMA was present and a voting member of the first sUAS ARC which was ordered in 2008 and which published their report on 4/1/09.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/SUASARC-4102008.pdf
AMA was a non-voting member of the second sUAS ARC, which was focused on the integration of commercial sUAS into the NAS.
The irony here is that most AMA members feel AMA focused too much on helping MR pilots over their more traditional FOG circle flying members.
Meanwhile AMA has continued to do what they can to protect our hobby, but when dealing with the FAA that is often an insurmountable task. For example, the new Section 349 contains provisions for FPV with a VO that are not present in Section 336.
SO it is factually incorrect to characterize AMA as not being involved or effective in all of this. Have they won every battle? No, of course not. But they have made progress and we would not have had Section 336 without them. And while the new Section 349 is not all that was hoped for, it did make some improvements and AMA continues to work to keep the heavy hand of the FAA from pressing into the ground.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Despite all the doom and gloom, it most certainly is Christmas Eve, the night before so many good things were given to this world a couple thousand years ago. Those good things are still present and available for those that seek them. A good place to start that search is with our own family and friends in admiring their positives and ignoring their negatives, and remembering the reason for the day.
Merry Christmas to all, even if you don’t believe. Peace, love, and goodwill to all are not dependent on a religious perspective, but something we all should desire.
Merry Christmas to all, even if you don’t believe. Peace, love, and goodwill to all are not dependent on a religious perspective, but something we all should desire.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Phaedrus,
I was one of those providing industry plan info to an Executive Council member in 2007 prior to formation of the ARC committee. We both know the AMA almost missed being in attendance on that committee. The AMA may have voted, but they had no voice in developing what was voted on. I was also one of those AMA, IMAA FOG plank flyers that got to see how new genres of RC flying were routinely rejected by the circle flyers and saw numerous flying fields closed to their activities. Those rejected were helicopter, 3d, and anything else that disrupted the lack of talent oval pattern at flying fields. JFYI, after 25 years of AMA membership I gave up on them last year. The AMA has been great at education, competition, and radio frequency dedication for modeling but they have consistently maintained a perspective 5-10 years behind where the hobby was going. They flat blew it when they threw their support behind FPV flying, which bears heavily on what promoted multirotor development, the genre that has in and of itself severely damaged the RC community forever.
Those safety guidelines are just fine for dedicated field flyers but don’t function well for platforms that can take off and land anywhere. At least where insurance coverage is concerned. If common sense was common we would not have safety issues though.
I was one of those providing industry plan info to an Executive Council member in 2007 prior to formation of the ARC committee. We both know the AMA almost missed being in attendance on that committee. The AMA may have voted, but they had no voice in developing what was voted on. I was also one of those AMA, IMAA FOG plank flyers that got to see how new genres of RC flying were routinely rejected by the circle flyers and saw numerous flying fields closed to their activities. Those rejected were helicopter, 3d, and anything else that disrupted the lack of talent oval pattern at flying fields. JFYI, after 25 years of AMA membership I gave up on them last year. The AMA has been great at education, competition, and radio frequency dedication for modeling but they have consistently maintained a perspective 5-10 years behind where the hobby was going. They flat blew it when they threw their support behind FPV flying, which bears heavily on what promoted multirotor development, the genre that has in and of itself severely damaged the RC community forever.
Those safety guidelines are just fine for dedicated field flyers but don’t function well for platforms that can take off and land anywhere. At least where insurance coverage is concerned. If common sense was common we would not have safety issues though.
Phaedrus
Premium Pilot
And yet so many MR guys happily pretended to use them to give the impression of compliance.
From Day One I tried to make the point that traditional RC model airplane flying and MR/AP are not even close to the same thing. I enjoy both and think they are both great hobbies. But they are not the same hobby.
I will agree, and have often stated, that AMA dropped the ball hugely in not making that distinction early on. As a result model airplanes and MR are now all lumped together. MR will come out of it a bit better than airplane guys will. I mostly fly F5J gliders and giant scale aerobatics (IMAC). Neither one will survive a 400 foot altitude limit.
On the ARC the AMA was simply outvoted. They were one small voice which was drowned out. Let's face it, at the end of the day the AMA is viewed as representing the toy airplane guys.
With respect to AMA insurance you should know as well as I do that coverage is not contingent on flying at an established AMA club fixed location field. It is primarily contingent on following the Safety Code.
Bottom line is there is more than enough blame to go around. AMA made big mistakes early on. I am not terrible confident about the future for model airplanes, which is one reason I am glad I started flying MR a few years ago.
I think AMA has done what they can once they realized they missed the boat early on. While I have my gripes about them, I also feel that it is unfair to lay all the blame at their feet.
PatR
Premium Pilot
I agree that RC and multirotors have at best only a distant relationship. Sort of like 8th cousins twice removed.
Where I feel the AMA caused irreparable damage was their decision to separate the recreational multirotor fliers from the commercial, abandoning the commercial flyers in the process. Until that moment they had the opportunity to be the industry voice for the entire hobby, including the commercial folks that needed a voice the most. Revenue is what makes things happen and commercial was generating the revenue at the time. The consumer drones and their sales revenue had yet to take root.
Ultimately, I think you and I are cut from the same cloth but have perspectives that differ because of the position the cloth was in when it was cut. BTW, I started the RC side of aero modeling with gliders. I still believe it to be the purest form of the hobby with the possible exception of free flight.
What’s scary is what was being discussed inside the big money UAV industry in 2006-2007 is what is now coming to pass. It was supposed to have happened in 2012 on an international scale. That “insider info” is partially why I don’t believe the Gatwick incident to have been initiated by lone wolf operators.
Where I feel the AMA caused irreparable damage was their decision to separate the recreational multirotor fliers from the commercial, abandoning the commercial flyers in the process. Until that moment they had the opportunity to be the industry voice for the entire hobby, including the commercial folks that needed a voice the most. Revenue is what makes things happen and commercial was generating the revenue at the time. The consumer drones and their sales revenue had yet to take root.
Ultimately, I think you and I are cut from the same cloth but have perspectives that differ because of the position the cloth was in when it was cut. BTW, I started the RC side of aero modeling with gliders. I still believe it to be the purest form of the hobby with the possible exception of free flight.
What’s scary is what was being discussed inside the big money UAV industry in 2006-2007 is what is now coming to pass. It was supposed to have happened in 2012 on an international scale. That “insider info” is partially why I don’t believe the Gatwick incident to have been initiated by lone wolf operators.
Last edited:
Phaedrus
Premium Pilot
I cannot agree with that. AMA was, and is, an association for hobbyists. It is only lately that they have begun to embrace commercial pilots, which I disagree with, since again, they are primarily a hobby organization. Commercial and hobby are by definition different things. So being unhappy that they remained true to their roots and primary missions seems odd to me.
And that in a nutshell is why the AMA's voice is not as strong as many wish it was. Money talks, and nothing else really matters.
I agree, this Gatwick thing is very fishy.
Indeed. I think the world has seen their response to this appalling act of state intrusion into their lives. I hope they receive the appropriate legal advice and sue the arse out of the police and any other state authorities that were involved. This is what needs to happen now, to make authorities think twice before they do anything like this again.
Moving forward to next year, when our illustrious police get given the powers to issue on-the-spot fines of up to £300 if (THEY) think (YOU) are flying inappropriately. And confiscate your drone and any image recording/storage equipment that you have. My heart sinks at the prospect of this and I can just imagine what the stories will be like in our mainstream media rags when this comes to pass.
Phaedrus
Premium Pilot
It is indeed ironic that worries about invasion of privacy from drones is a line too far for the most surveilled population in the free world.
Similar threads
