Yeah reminds a certain incident at Lossie when a Sqn Ldr thought it would be a good idea to plug in a usb in to his MODNet laptop to charge his office helicopter toy and the GOSC went mental when they got alerts of Chinese firmware being downloaded to a MoDNet device …
Hi everyone,
I am new here but have been intimately involved in the development of the drones policy for RAFAC, so wanted to quell some of the rumours.
Whilst I totally get that this should be easy to organise and roll out, the layers of complexity in merging what are CAA and MAA governance are not without their challenges. The MoD consider these aircraft and are governed as such, this is not our train set to change, but we have influenced some change. This all takes a considerable amount of time, which is unfortunate. Also, as this is to become a core activity, with funding cuts, this has to be scaled to meet the available cash. There are also security implications that had not fully been articulated to RAFAC previously, which we are now retroactively sorting. Add to this that CCF do not allow any drone flying, this has been a huge challenge. That said, we are getting there and hopefully will have a solution to roll out soon.
This roll out will provide regional training for all CAA drone qualifications and will provide indoor and outdoor drones, some of which can be used on defence estate. It will also insure this activity centrally to reduce costs for all. However, despite everyone on this thread wanting it to happen quickly, there has been little interest in the national roles to increase the capacity to roll this out. No help, it will take longer.
I am not aware of any region getting to do any drone flying that hasn’t been authorised by 2FTS, and a few have had permission. Whilst the project manager is from LaSER, the project is a 2 FTS one and no favouritism has been shown to any area.
DJI products and others from states considered potentially hostile will be a challenge for some but some of the concessions that we have managed to get should allow most to operate these with some restrictions. Indeed, some of the regional drones will be DJI, with others being from approved manufacturers.
The reason there was a ban was due to a few incidents that had exposed cadets, staff, and the public to danger and staff members to significant risk of litigation or potentially prosecution. I am sure none of us want to see any of this happen to a colleague, so a pause was needed to reset.
It is proposed that the BMFA, and any other association, will not figure in the new ATCO 75 or drone operating manual. Fixed wing and multi-rotor will be entirely encompassed within one RAFAC document that has already been approved by the CAA (UK).
We have started from scratch with this and I share your frustration with the progress, but the outcome will be the ability to train in-house CAA trainers to deliver A2 and GVC qualifications at regional level and operate within the Specific Category for those suitably qualified.
With regard to the safety glasses, if you have ever seen a drone blade on a mini-drone hit an eyeball you will understand the need for eye protection.
I am happy to answer any questions on this subject and put any rumours to bed!!
4 Likes
Woooo communication!
Can you provide a similar update (perhaps for the weekly brief) so others (Non-ACC) have an idea of whats going on… and the COC can see what proper comms looks like.
Perhaps find someone to provide an update to flying acholarships too!
3 Likes
I will see what can be done in the next few weeks. I am hopeful of some good news ref funding in the next few weeks, so that would be a good time to update formally. Work is happening, just we haven’t got much to shout about…just yet.
1 Like
You say CCF don’t allow any Drone flying…what about the school who have the drones as part of their STEM and the CCF staff and Cadets are the main users…FACT! It’s not a Protector or a de-funcked Reaper, its a 200g toy that is the closest most will get to anything air related. How many Accident reports of cadets or staff being hit by a drone compared to fainting ot tripping over doing Drill? Do we ban that!?
2 Likes
Hi VirtualRealityTrooper.
I am new to the organisation, but I can assure you that the CCF do not authorise the use of drones as part of any cadet activities. This is a policy decision that has been extant for a number of years and I have this in writing from the CCF Head of Policy, whom I have worked with to get a new position on this. The only authorised drone use is by their own media team. CCF (RAF) will be able to operate under this approval once it is live.
If it is a school activity then that is fine, as I am led to understand, but if it is a cadet activity then it is not authorised by CCF or RAFAC at the moment unless done within the limits of the recent IBNs.
It is only a toy if you use it as such. When you use it as part of an organised cadet activity it then isn’t deemed a toy, but something used as an approved cadet activity; but I will acknowledge that it isn’t a Protector either. Some balance is needed and I am hoping we can strike that with all the stakeholders. I think we are 90% there, but have a few hurdles yet to cross.
People have been injured and we have had several near misses that could have been serious. But the fact that nobody has been seriously injured is not a reason to ignore it from a safety perspective and take prudent safety measures to make it as safe as practicable for everyone involved. The pilots and supervision will have a legal responsibility under the civil legislation in relation to the drone operation and we need to ensure that we do everything to manage any risk to them and third-parties.
There is also a requirement in some cases to insure this activity and as it was previously non-core, this was left to the individual squadrons or even individuals. The level of appreciation of risk, legal requirements, and security aspects was low, so a reset was needed and we are slowly coming out of that now.
I do not know the legacy discussions but can give you the facts as I have had sourced them over the past 12-months.
1 Like
That’s a policy that hasn’t been communicated down to units. We’ve done drone sessions with the TEST SNCO present and, albeit a few years back on a different unit, with Col Cadets from district. No one took issue with it
When you say CCF do you mean CCF as a whole Corps or do you mean as CCF(RAF) specifically?
I see no reason why CCF(RAF) cadets cannot use drones on school premises along side or under CCF(Army) of CCF(Navy) activity particularly as the head teacher is DDH for any activity on school premises. As long as it’s recorded & approved in Westminster I can’t see it being an issue.
@Hercules, in two posts you’ve managed to share more information than anyone has had in the past 2 years.
Half of (the relevant details of) what you said should have been provided at the start, and the other half alongside the IBN.
It’s interesting though, these security concerns, because I know of contractors (typically land/estate management/forestry/similar) that use DJI for their surveying, including on DE.
7 Likes
It is a slightly odd restriction when the majority of the chip fabs are all in china or surrounding areas. No such restrictions on phones/laptops etc.
Edit: Ignore me, I’m mistaken
Not quite true unless by “surrounding areas” you include the whole of East Asia. Is Taiwan Chinese Taipei to you?
Of the big boys, you’ve got TSMC and UMC, Texas Instruments, Global Foundries, Intel, Samsung, and plenty of smaller players around the world with semiconductor foundry. microprocessor, and other associated manufacturing capabilities. Infineon has a big presence in Europe.
At the highest end, China is still playing catch up big time. Depending on what the chip and processing requirements are, just because something is manufactured in China doesn’t mean that’s where the silicon comes from.
I think Qualcomm use TSMC and Samsung, AMD use TSMC and Global Foundries, Intel are Intel, Apple use their own designs (I think sourced then from TSMC)…
This may not apply to DJI who still mostly manufacture in Shenzhen I believe, but I don’t know necessarily where the components come from. DJI themselves are a Chinese company, so moot regarding them, but you can’t say the majority of chip fabs are in China.
2 Likes
Yeah ignore me, seems I was talking out my ■■■■ on that one.
Looks like I’d mixed a few places up in my head.
I believe it’s a CCF wide policy. Happy to point you to the policy maker if you PM me your email. Not my policy, just passing it on.
1 Like
Honestly, what others do with DJI products is not our/my concern. I’ve been given a ruleset that we have to adhere to and if we don’t, we can’t fly drones. It’s as simple as that. I don’t make the rules, sorry.
1 Like
Sometimes though, blind compliance to that ruleset where there are examples of it not being applied elsewhere hobbles us unnecessarily. Either the MOD apply this ruleset to their contractors and realise it really hampers their operations, thus changing the rules, or they apply it equally to all.
6 Likes
The same as the ACF, who should be under the same rules, have been allowed to carry on using drones whilst we’ve been banned for the last few years.
It’s all well and good saying these are the rules, but if there are multiple examples of those rules not applying elsewhere, then it would be silly not to at least push back and find out why they’re different.
4 Likes
They do but, even like people of here, individuals act first and then ask for forgiveness. People using non-authorised drones are reported, believe me.
2 Likes
And oddly chosen to do so on ACC rather than via official channels - perhaps for good reason that there is nothing to share officially and so the casual nature of a forum permits you to speak more freely?
if not then:
I second this - if there are updates then make them known for all
No one’s blaming you in this, the questions are aimed at where these rules have come from, whether we have been diligent enough in challenging and researching them, and then why we are different to anyone else.
“Because the MOD says so” has fallen apart as an argument several times in other areas too.
Yeah, this. I can understand why the MOD might not want certain drones being flown around the likes of Boscombe-Down. But that same rule shouldn’t need to apply to the likes of a bit of woodland training area. That’s what really needs challenging.
1 Like