@Hercules , our risk assessment process factors in how likely something is to happen.
Unless you or someone proves it’s higher than “1” that someone gets hit, no one is ever pulling out of an event.
Not sure I buy into the scaremongering of court, either, if someone unaffiliated breaks the law at an event and has an accident, that’s my fault?
Beyond “everyone keep an eye on it just in case” there’s nothing that can be done (edit, “nothing” not quite correct here). The idea that packing up and leaving is safer is also flawed - my assessment would be that people are more exposed during a pack up, because they’re focused on other things, less able to disperse/move, and at some point their shelter no longer exists.
If you want to imagine court questions:
“So you believed there was a risk of the drone crashing into a cadet?”
“Yes”
“And therefore the best course of action was to remove the closest and easiest source of protection and leave everyone exposed?”
Overflying people directly is actually pretty rare, outside of specific situations - a staged scene for example. In that case the people won’t be members of the public and the risk assessments are pretty extensive. The operators will have the relevant permits AND be experienced in that task.
In most cases where a drone appears to be overhead it isn’t, it will be 50m or more away. Think a flight line vs crowd line at an air show, similar type of thing.
In cases of a direct overflight it is frankly more likely to be someone without authorisation and probably no insurance, training etc. So leaving the area isn’t really an overreaction.
TL:DR anyone flying directly over cadets is likely to be malicious or ignorant of the rules!
No they can’t, as they aren’t in that list of kit that oc 2FTS has given, although might be later.
The aspiration will be to increase the types of approved drones, over time; however, there are important security reasons why certain drones cannot be used on DE. Unless approval is given by 2 FTS, Third-party drones are not to be used for any RAFAC activity.
I may be new to RAFAC but I have spoken with and listened to others who are at the coal face, as it were. I have also led other national volunteer organisations, so I really do get it, but it can work this way. I’m not someone who just imposes stuff without listening or understanding the impact but safety is something that shouldn’t be willingly compromised in any organisation.
In aviation safety, and this is how RAFAC views this, data is key to framing how we move forward. This will take time, but it shows that we are taking an approach based on information rather than instinct.
I get people will then say, where is the data to support the restrictions then, if we are using that system. This is brand new for RAFAC and when starting something new, you look at the available data from others, and crucially our own appetite for risk and make a reasonable decision. The latter will be heavily weighted if you have none of your own data.
The external data we used is openly available from the CAA and we also have some restricted but comprehensive data from the NPCC Drone Team (Police) which details illegal and nefarious use of drones. What I am trying to say, is that this wasn’t done on a whim and we need data to help remove or ease restrictions to match the real world. If that makes sense.
At the end of the day, this is about recognition of a risk and empowering people (staff) to make appropriate decisions, owning that risk, and subsequently reporting these occurrences. It’s not about banning any activity or preventing it. It’s up to the person responsible to decide if it’s safe, or not.
I don’t work at HQ but I do understand the pressure that staff are under, especially the admin burden. I know the team have worked tirelessly to make drones a low burden and when this is rolled out, I hope people see that it is easily accessible and usable.
This IBN aid an iteration on the way towards a full roll out, not a final solution.
Honestly… you’d make a measured decision and move back or away from the car as this is a dynamic risk assessment. The IBN allows for exactly the same. Only additional element is that the event should be reported.
The problem I see is that the RAFAC appetite for risk these days is so restrictive as to make any reasonable decision impossible. I’m not saying this is from you, it’s something that’s come from the very top recently due to someone up there with an itchy sphincter, and a tendency to overreact to any minor incident.
Not being facetious but looking at the rules now compared to when I was a cadet in the 80’s makes me think that the survival rates for my 5 years was almost akin to a 30 op Bomber Command tour. I am surprised many of us made it through…
OK I am being facetious! And obviously no disrespect to Bomber Command crews intended
Sorry I think I haven’t been clear so you’ve misunderstood my intention.
You are approaching this from an idealogical mindset with a top down mindset. You are delivering & enabling something that you want to happen because you believe in the benefits & your standards (loosely summarised as “no death”) you are certain in as you believe it is your ethical & moral responsibility to ensure things are in place. This is commendable.
Your background is a military aviator. That like a surgeon requires a confidence & a self-sureness as well as a belief in an undeviating culture of following exactly the checklists & systems because the way to reduce risk is that you control the variables so things are predictable as possible.
If you didn’t have this culture ingrained in you, you wouldn’t have been a good pilot.
Volunteers on the other hand are chaotic & messy. Everyone has their own philosophy & interpretation and tend to be firm in that belief because they fervently believe that they are doing it for the right reasons & they are on the side of good. You are not so much dealing with a military organisation but more dealing with dedicated members of a religion almost to the level of a cult.
You are not going to change your core philosophy based on what you hear from the volunteers, or from what people inform you at the coal face.
The best way to get that understanding volunteer at a squadron. Go in as a Sqn officer & experience it.
It will provide you with the ex-telligence you need to tweak things so you will be more successful in delivering what you are intending.
Volunteers are grown not implanted or worked like puppets on a string.
All that will happen with the policy regarding other drones is that people will either do a Nelson & see no ships or reductio ad absurdum including reports on police helicopters or airbus A380s flying at 30000ft “because you can’t see the pilot so assumed it’s unmanned just in case”. Your data will be screwed & unreliable so any decisions made on it will be compromised.
2FTS is generally considered “not proper RAFAC” & is detached from the vast majority of day to day ATC activity. Its actual sphere of Influence is a lot less than its organisational influence would imply.
Treat the RAFAC like a political party with its factions & its sects. Get out there, see the problems for yourself, see the heros and the idiots, make allies & connection, preach the good news regarding drone safety & you are more likely to be successful in developing the culture & acceptance you are wanting to implement.
I’m well aware of Mikes provenance as we have actually served together, many moons ago. But knowing about ‘aviation’ and the vagaries of the RPAS legislation and rules is something very different.
It was Mike’s words to say the rules were stupid. I merely stated that we were actually mostly aligned with the CAA and to claim otherwise is incorrect.
My background may have been as a military aviator but that was so long ago now, it’s a distant memory. My approach and values are somewhat different from that time and have evolved significantly as a result of my paid and voluntary roles since then.
My more recent experience comes from extensive corporate risk management in a commercial environment which I acknowledge is to an extent top down, but requires investment from everyone to make it safe. I agree the cultures are different but that doesn’t mean we should not try to get there. Why should we accept something we know isn’t right? Change should be bottom up guided and engagement here is part of that.
Written word is awful for communicating this type of information and will always be seen as imposition, something I hope to remedy very soon.
One thing that has surprised me in the entire organisation is how woefully inadequate engagement and communications are. There is zero excuse for this and as a volunteer organisation it is even more important to listen and explain ‘why’ rather than ‘you must’.
I have successfully led volunteer organisations that are larger than RAFAC as the senior volunteer, so whilst RAFAC may have its own vagaries, it is not unique in the challenges it faces, and I’m not naive to these. I have a squadron 100m from my house and many, many, friends in the organisation at all levels from RC to OC. I can’t change the organisation as whole but perhaps a little piece of it that I have an invested interest in. That may, or may not, bleed across to other areas.
Whilst off topic a little, I do think that from the snippets from here and what I hear from others in the organisation, that it’s time for a review, refresh, and reset, of the organisation. It does amazing things for the cadets but we can always improve and when was the last time there was any meaningful CFAV engagement at all levels to help shape the future? Change can be a good thing if it’s benefits are understood and valued.
Drones hopefully will be positive change and it’s my role to engage and help understanding both up and down the chain to make the resource valued by all, whilst not being a burden.
And this is what has been missing a lot from within the organisation.
A good manager of volunteers understands that no-one they’re working with has to be there. They work with volunteers, rather than dictating how things should be done.
Bringing a military “you do this now” approach to volunteer management is a fantastic way to reduce your number of volunteers. Enforcing really quite dumb and unclear rules is a great way to disillusion otherwise keen personnel.
Just within the last few messages on this thread, it’s not clear whether permitting the overflight of cadets by 3rd party operators is allowed or not. “Move the cadets away” isn’t feasible for many events - IIRC, there is drone footage from RIAT, does that mean RAFAC now shouldn’t attend so as to minimise the risk of a possible overflight by a professional, licenced drone operator?
Those ideas could only be generated by someone with insufficient experience in volunteer and youth leadership, who thinks they know better than the experts they’re attempting to dictate to.
From what I’ve seen there is a healthy exchange of ideas both ways. But that’s not relevant to RPAS as we are regulated by the CAA predominantly and we have to follow the approvals that they have given us. Incidentally we have some unusual exemptions which will be communicated in due course, which will make the accessibility or drone flying easier for a lot of people.
Please look at this from the other side for a moment and ask why have they produced these rules? I can assure you that it hasn’t been done just to annoy people. Do you think ignoring “stupid rules” is going to make the organisation more, or less, inclined to remove these limitations for everyone?
I am a volunteer too and I want to make this as painless as possible and fun for everyone involved.
As has been highlighted here many times in the thread, the chances of coming across direct overflight is extremely low. A professional operator will do everything they can to prevent deliberate overflight of any person or group. Indeed the legislation requires them to do so, unless it’s in very limited circumstances, eg a tiny drone, or specially authorised (requires a significant safety case to be approved by CAA).
The IBN covers the rare scenario, where it’s likely the operator is neither competent or insured, and you’ll have to make an assessment of the risk. A drone at the event doesn’t mean we can’t take part, especially if we capture that risk prior to the event. But direct overflight is deemed a high risk and something we should avoid. But as I’ve said, direct overflight by an approved operator is exceptionally rare anyway. This IBN hopefully makes us think about that risk and avoid exposing ourselves unnecessarily.
Please don’t take this as an attack in any way but it’s obviously worth remembering that if people are viewing the rules as stupid then there may be some weight to that - added with the fact that all CFAV want what’s best for the cadets so if it’s a case of ignoring the rule (run and hide - there’s an errant drone two miles away!) or crack on with cadets enjoying themselves then I know which one I’d do (bearing in mind that I left RAFAC more than 18 months ago so just me saying it isn’t adding to any risk as I’m a member of the public).
If you only believe the IBN says that, how can the average CFAV know for sure what the policy says in the very unlikely event they have to use it? It would take a relatively long time to look it up, and the drone would probably be gone by then.
As you rightly point out, comms in this organisation are poor and there are literally hundreds of documents that we are somehow expected to know and follow. Unless someone spends an unreasonably large amount of time reading them, they simply won’t know every rule for every situation.
Whoever is responsible for this policy should really consider how it’s communicated. Adding more rules to an ACTO/IBN/equally awkward document is not going to actually make things safer if CFAVs don’t know the rule and the ‘why’.
I own this risk. If you, or anyone else, makes a decision that is reasonable (using common sense and the rules as they are published) based on the information you have at the time, I will always back you. I can assure you of that. I don’t care what others may have done previously. This is how a ‘just culture’ functions and there will be more about that in the coming weeks.