Honestly, no idea. If they don’t meet the security requirements of the IBN then they shouldn’t be on MoD property.
I’m not aware of this, but surely they can be utilised elsewhere?
There are other places on the Defence Estate that are allowed to use DJI, and don’t have any requirement to store them in a faraday cage (why on earth would we need to? remove the power source then your golden).
I appreciate that you’ve already stated youre not worried by what other orgs are doing etc but when we’re all hold to “One MoD Policy” then you benefit from awareness of other areas of MoD.
Sounds like you need a little fact finding mission (or email) to Wittering 
The MoD wide security policy is that DJI is not to be used on DE. I’m aware of a small number of specialist units that are authorised, but we would never get this exemption.
We have been given very clear security guidance on this and an exemption or two ourselves. It seems that people may think we make this stuff up, sadly not.
Removing the power source doesn’t necessarily protect against the threats that we are being asked to mitigate. Hence the requirement for faraday protection on DE.
Accept that the drone team have pushed back, lobbied and worked to find ways to achieve as much as possible within the rules.
Deliberately ignoring the IBN security requirements would be ill advised as these aren’t devised by RAFAC and could result in service police action.
2 Likes
Holy poop batman…
We had better take all the baterries out of lenovo laptops and Hwaiwai phones…
Then put them in a cage…
What about chinese cars? Other white goods, or anything marked ‘made in china’.
Rediculous.
2 Likes
Ah now come one, really 
we didn’t float up the Lagan in bubble now
Majority of cadet units are not situated on MoD land being often schools or council owned sites with RFCA administrating. Service police have very little (close to zero) authority influence and indeed interest with cadet forces & cadet adult volunteers.
Reasons why we should be complying with IBN is harmony of the syllabus & to be covered by the MoD indemnity under SSoT & approved activities.
The threat of Action that (unless on a RAF station) wouldn’t actually be enforceable by service police or probably even legal wouldn’t be one of them.
MoD police may have a little more authority but primarily it would be civil police & unless someone was injured I can’t see them getting too involved.
2 Likes
I’d be interrupted to know what the perceived “threat” actually is.
But also some common sense needs to be applied. I understand need for security on stations and camps not wanting videos to be shared or even data captured from gps etc.
However, let’s say we are on leek training area which is just open fields. What the risk there?
EDIT: just to add, I’m not saying there isn’t a possible threat from them. Would just be interesting to know what it is and might help with understanding the restrictions.
Especially when there’s no similar restrictions on mobile phones etc.
I would suggest that for 99.99% of RAFSAC drone activities, they could be actioned under CAA rules / guidelines / regulations.
As to security, on a main military base, it would be the same limitation as per normal photography - only when advised / permitted.
I remember the advertised roles - great for a major commercial company operation regularly using larger drones for specified task (surveying, etc), but for RAFAC? Total overkill - this is seen by many as empire building, with little practical consideration for cadet drone activities. This could easily have been devolved to Regiion / Wg Aviation Officers as a small add-on to their TORs.
The fact that nothing has ben published some 3(?) yrs since the IBN is very telling. Overload on the SME(s) due to the constraining policies?
I suggested (in my chat with AOC 22 Gp / Cmdt RAFAC / OC2FTS) that they should use drones to drop pyros during fieldcraft / major leadership trg. One person smiled, 2 didn’t - guess which ones? 
1 Like
I wonder……
I was also thinking along the Fieldcraft lines but using mainly for a survey/recon tasking.
That would work - a tasking exercise - followed up by a recce tasking by cadets to investigate the drone information. Get a small IR camera = night option too.
3 Likes
Since they took our commissions away there isn’t much they can really do to us.
1 Like
Exactly…… except you know, can’t use them in defence estates.
1 Like
As I’ve said, not my rules. Just the messenger. Remember not to shoot me.
Don’t worry we wouldn’t be able to get the paperwork through 
1 Like
Well maybe for an air rifle
3 Likes
If we’re not on DE then the rules we are talking about do not apply. Service police can take administrative action against any member of RAFAC who doesn’t follow the DE restrictions.
1 Like
This is exactly the kind of thing that our operations will allow (no pyros obviously) 
The eventual plan is to see each region with a few highly capable units that have IR and other capabilities that can be used by units. These are also usable on DE. Parrot Anafi USA is likely the preferred and approved drone for this.
1 Like
I’ve seen a video of the Parrot being used by Another Cadet Force (and the regulars had them on display at an event).
Looks like a sensible option.
We have had more than one drone incursion on our site (I won’t go into any detail here) and there was nothing the civil police could do. Even if they could find the operator it would be no more than a stern word apparently.
1 Like
So if the rules only apply on defence estates ( now known as Defence Infrastructure Organisation) & the vast majority of Sqns are not DIO Land why do we need to follow the more restrictive rules.
Can’t we have one set of strict rules DIO land & then a set of more simpler rules for sqns not on DIO land similar the air scouts. Appreciate CAA regs would still kick in but a civilian qual not a military one.
Really do appreciate everything you are trying to do & for coming on here to explain & update but if we don’t work through the issues here then it will be ten times worse with the rest of the volunteers in the ATC (who are struggling with organising 5-a-side football comps rather than the complexities of the CAA regs).
Appreciate you are new to the organisation so please remember that a lot of what is standard practice in the regular RAF just doesn’t apply or exist to the Air Training Corps. If what you are trying to do wouldn’t work with a school or a scout group then it probably won’t work with us.
2 Likes
Article and Anafi video from 2 Yorks who have been trialling:
3 Likes
Mike,
I agree, 100% of RAFAC drone flying outdoors will fall under the auspices of the CAA rules and qualifications framework. The governance that lies behind that will necessarily be a blend of CAA and military. This is not going to adversely impact on the use of the drone day-to-day.
The CAA base their governance and requirements on the perceived risk of the operation (not whether it’s commercial or not) and our requirements mean we fit into the Specific Category (highest risk) for some flying, so we need to ensure that we have the correct SMEs in place for that, albeit it may only initially be a small portion of our operations.
For example, a unit in a small town that flies their DJI Air2 drone in the car park, or football pitch, surrounded by houses, where others have unrestricted access, may actually be in the mid to higher risk from a CAA perspective and requires a formal qualification. These are the CAA rules.
For interest the BMFA approval for model flying is also derived from the Specific Category in terms of holistic risk. So it will be familiar to some across RAFAC.
The work to get to the current point has been hugely onerous and challenging. That is because the aspirations of the organisation are bold and needed to be done properly. The cost of the entire project, to roll it out nationally, is significant and has also taken a long time to secure.
Please don’t assume that hearing nothing means that nothing is happening.
2 Likes