Exactly this.
Interestingly… direct overflight of crowds is a complex matter for the operator and anecdotally many do this without using the correct drone or permission. It involves complex physics calculations to ensure the drone failure won’t result in a death.
RAFAC just doesn’t need to, or wish to, expose our cadets or staff to that risk.
What are the statistics on drone failure causing injury? What is the actual likelihood?
I think that’s what we have to do. And give unhappy parents the Commandant’s email address for complaints.
Looking forward to the stories in the press of “RAF forced to flee from drone attack at local fete”.
I’m all for taking steps to reduce risk, but this organisation is getting so ridiculous these days.
The chances are that if it’s a CAA approved operator they are unlikely at this type of event to overfly anyone to take these photos. If there is no direct overflight then you don’t have to take any action.
Direct overflight of people is approved either with small drones (likely 250g or less) or in complex cases a special approval is given (such as where drones have an emergency parachute fitted).
Here’s the CAA rules on this. Which includes specifically your fete or fair. Overflight isn’t permitted.
I think you’re presenting a perfect paper based scenario with no thought to practicality for real world CFAVs. There’s no way I’d leave an event because someone is arsing about with a drone and anyone in our HQ who thinks otherwise has never had the pressure or experience of running a volunteer event.
This 100%. I agree there is a risk to a drone flying over a dense crowd. But there is very little risk to a drone flying over some cadets standing next to an advertising tent at such an events. Or a drone overflying us whilst out walking in the hills, or paddling on a lake.
Having to evacuate our staff and cadets every time a drone appears is frankly silly. The risks involved with a panicked egress of an event are substantially higher from my pov.
And wrt the rules about overflying crowds, @Hercules are you saying any overflight requires leaving, or only if the cadets are in a crowd?
Stupid, stupid, STUPID.
There doesn’t seem to be enough cotton wool in the world for some of the ridiculous “risk” considerations.
This is far & way beyond using CAA drone rules with a “light” RAFAC / MAA input.
We do a annual large sport event, where the cadets support the start as flag marshalls and route lining. (Amongst other duties over the weekend).
There is a drone up to capture the start, and goes up and down the start/finish line…
Do we need to add that to the risk assessment, can no longer support anything on the start/finish line or main arenas, or drop out of supporting that event? Potentially stopping the squadron earning circa £500?
If they are doing this…this is exactly why you should remove the cadets from the area. A responsible operator will not be mucking about with a drone.
This is all about making a sound judgement that is safe for cadets and staff. If you deem it to be safe, then you need to own that, by filing a report to RAFAC. That data helps us inform future policy and what can be deemed safe, with mitigations. It’s an iterative process.
I ask again because you refer to data… what are the statistics on drone failure during flight causing injury? Clearly this is related to the crowd density, hence the CAA rules - but what actual likelihoods are we talking here?
Erm….sorry the organisation doesn’t work that way & wont due to its volunteer nature.
You say you are new to RAFAC?
Can I suggest in addition to your HQ role that you also go supernumerary at a Sqn? Wear Fg Off tabs and help out as a Sqn officer particularly at recruitment stands & fetes to get an understanding of how it actually works at event in public.
What would you define as a crowd ? The CAA defines it as not being able to move away quickly and could be as little as 5-6 people standing at a stand or display. Personally I think that’s a little different to my definition, but this opens the point that it’s not as black and white as many may think.
What I believe the IBN says is that if you cannot mitigate the risks, then you must remove the people from that area (paraphrasing). In either case it needs reporting. Each scenario is different and the IBN is specifically worded to allow the person ‘on scene’ to make a judgement and then report their rationale. Reporting is really key here. It allows a picture of this to be built up and future policy may possibly be driven by these actions.
I always ask myself, what will this look like in court to someone who is looking at in the cold light of day. And this is where you may find yourself if anyone is injured. Yes, the drone operator may be beside you, but you will be responsible for the safety of your cadets and staff. I know only too well the litigious world we live in and taking reasonable precautions to protect our team, isn’t something we should scoff at.
So, I’m a passenger in a vehicle taking staff / cadets to an event.
I see a car that is being driven slightly erratically, but not badly enough to call the Police. I do an internet search for the car tax / MOT / insurance.
One of the items is not valid. On the comparison with drone “risk,” I should stop our vehicle & wait until the “at risk” vehicle is well clear.
Guess what……?
Actually it isn’t. Perhaps educate yourself to the CAA rules before you comment and make yourself look stupid.
In most cases over flight of people is banned. The small areas where it is not, the risk to RAFAC is unacceptable at the moment.
There is nothing in the IBN that would stop you doing this. You’d include it in your risk assessment and take appropriate steps to mitigate any potential risks or harm. Done.
The IBN is primarily there to cover the scenario where there is previously unknown and uncaptured risks. A decision then has to made, is it safe or not? If the answer isn’t unequivocally yes, then something needs to be done to protect staff and cadets. That may be some mitigation, it may be removing the personnel from that area, that’s up to the senior RAFAC person leading the event.
Ahahahahahahaha.
Mike’s probably the guy with the most aviation knowledge in all of RAFAC. I don’t think anyone would ever accuse him of being stupid!
In the course of this conversation we’ve gone from overflight not being allowed at all, to now we can decide ourselves if it’s safe, which is it?
The sharepoint bit says:
For example, direct overflight of RAFAC personnel should never be permitted
My bold, but now you’re saying we can just dynamically RA it, which is a much better way of looking at it.
But then how much weight would 2FTS give to the voice of real world flying instructors/training captains/CAA employees across policy and training… nothing new there.
Stupid rules are made to be ignored.
Just carry a baseball bat with us so we can bat away any rougue drones, simples
/s
Thank you. 
There is the real world & a very different RAFAC world……
