I think it is great to have more detailed info on this. And the direction we’re taking seems sensible.
The one part I would question is lumping together basic R/C model aircraft flying (a minority interest to be sure but something some units have done for years) with a wider UAV policy.
Simple completely analogue model aircraft with no sensors could surely be exempt, and a similar light touch policy could be applied for very small quadcopters again using analogue controls, not smart phones and data links.
Well just because it’s a unified document doesn’t mean it’s a shared policy and Hercules hasn’t explicitly suggested that. It makes sense to have a single “remote controlled flying” document.
Even as a singly applied policy, there are inherent differences purely from the viewpoint of manufacturer restrictions and aircraft capabilities (camera/GPS/connectivity etc).
Why does the RAF Cadet Website say we use Drones. I know of at least 4 Sqns in a Wing that fly them as part of regular evening activities, even the Wing Commander had a go and a X post was re-tweated by a VERY senior RAF officer.
As one of the people legally responsible, I will comply and try to get alleviations where and when I can. I honestly don’t’ t care what others are doing, because when it inevitably unravels, they will have to bear the consequences. Not us.
We have challenged and pushed back very hard on the security aspects in particular. This has taken months of staff work by RAFAC security and the drones team. Believe me when I say we share the frustrations, but I would rather do things correctly and gain permission prior to doing things.
I don’t think many of us are suggesting that we break the rules (as long as we’re told about them - I’ve told my contingent commander to seek clarification on CCF using drones on school property). But there does need to be better Comms about why the rules are there and why we can’t deviate from those set out for the parent service. I know that lots of us on here really do appreciate your posts and giving us more information than we’ve had through the CoC for years.
This is a defence policy that applies to everyone. We already have an alleviation to this for volunteer estate which is likely as far as we can go. Whether we think the rules are prudent, or not, we are a small organisation in terms of defence and honestly they have bigger things to do.
No conspiracy here, this is just a faster way to engage and get facts out there. We will be communicating through official channels in the coming weeks, perhaps even a Teams call to discuss some of the work done and direction we are going.
There were calls in the weekly media brief (Nov and Feb I think). The role descriptions certainly had a lot of qualifications required and it looks like they’re looking for someone who is a full-time professional drone operator/drone operations manager. Having read through the adverts and TORs, these sound like full time, nation-wide roles, and not very feasible for a volunteer.
When i spoke with OC2FTS about this last year, he thought that the RAFAC route would be primarily CAA rules / regulations, with a “light” touch" relating to RAFAC aspects. Maybe not…
I noted the TORs for the full-time positions = more or less the same for a company flying drones on a commercial basis. Way over the top for cadet flying.
There are a myriad of rules we have had to take into consideration as we move towards a single solution for this activity. CAA (UK) and some exemptions to allow supervised flight, MAA (although this is light touch we have the Duty Holder System to take account of), Defence Security (there are DINs that apply to this that are MoD wide), to name but a few areas.
We have managed to blend all of this and push back where we can see real opportunity of success and value for the organisation. Some of that is already filtering down in the alleviations for volunteer estate and you will see more in the coming months as we reintroduce outside flying.
I am not one who just accepts the norm, especially if I can see it is ludicrous for RAFAC to be able to comply. We have and will continue to challenge where it is appropriate and we have a likelihood of getting some traction.
They are both supported by full-time equivalents and aren’t going to be any more onerous that any other national role. That said, it couldn’t be combined with any other role as some focus is needed on the project. The training role needed training experience and the safety role, some safety experience in the context of drones or another safety critical industry.
What the Comdt has alluded too, is certainly the way we have worked to structure the rule set and policy. However, there are some military elements, being part of the MoD, that we cannot just ignore or pay lip service to. That said, it is generally light touch in the regulatory space with a slightly heavier hand for security.
The CAA rules are based on risk and haven’t been based on commercial or non-commercial operations for some years. Our policy, which is approved by the CAA, will take a graduated approach to the need for regulation and training based on the generic risk of the activity. This will allow us to operate in every environment lawfully, with correctly trained pilots.
I am working to get generic risk templates for indoor and outdoor flying in the A3 category that will also reduce the paperwork burden. But this is a work in progress.
In my view being as safe as we can be is never “way over the top” and is something we should aspire to from the outset.
I certainly appreciate your coming on here and communicating where we are at. And if we can deliver a commercially accepted drone qual to cadets that will be amazing!
That’s dictated by the CAA who accredit the qualifications. It’s likely that some military instructor courses will suffice but not all. This is a work in progress still as we attempt to benchmark.
Anyone with a Level 3 training qualification such as the AET (old PTLLLS) or higher, may be acceptable.
The trainer for CAA qualifications must also hold a GVC qualification as a minimum.
Is it true there is a huge stack of drones at the Wittering cadet centre that;
a) Can’t be used.
b) Aren’t in a faraday cage because there isn’t one big enough to get them all in.
