Being able to use things like this:
Should really be okay. Indoors and fairly safe. Especially if you add in some decent control measures like wearing safety glassess etc. I don’t really understand that restriction here. As I understand it, the only thing we can use indoors now is the CoDrone EDU?
The type of thing I’ve used before for a STEM activity (not in cadets) are the SYMA small helicopters (not quads). We also had someone bring a little Revell branded quad down, which was great fun.
Flying time was short (10 minutes) but they are cheap. And no cameras, which was also part of the spec. We had safety goggles and a height limit of 1.5m.
This is what the RAFAC brings out for Cosford, RIAT, Muster etc.
@Hercules is assuring us that they will eventually make their way onto the list.
From what I understand of the policy, assuming they hired a reputable company that would know better than to overfly crowds, this shouldn’t be a problem.
Correct. It’s one of many on the list.
Absolutely correct. The presence of a drone isn’t necessarily an issue.
Will there no longer be drones at Wing competition day this year then? We did have drone competition in West Mercian 2023
I’m not aware of any request to use drones at any event…we do try to approve stuff but need a bit of lead time.
Posting her as I think it’s most relevant but mods feel free to move if not.
I’ve had the advice from three PMEs recently plus a mass email re armed forces day & had the following mentioned
Event staff and police deployed at the events to be briefed on reporting and response procedures should such an aircraft be seen. (UAS/Drones)
Now whilst I appreciate @Hercules will probably want to sit back, sip his tea & go “See….told you so…it’s not just me 
” has anyone else noticed this in PME responses?
It seems the police are getting “twitchy”…
I think the police are just getting a better understanding of what is and what is not allowed.
Is going to vary based on where you are.
and that response is what in the PME?
Run, Hide, tell (@Hercules) - or keep calm and carry on?
I was recently at a well known theme park with my family, and there was a drone in the sky, by the look of the operators on the ground it looked all official and no doubt part of some promotional footage.
Last weekend I was at a country park, again out with my family enjoying the trails through the woods. At the kids adventure playground, there was a drone in the sky - one of the “supervising” Dads had got his drone up.
in both cases, i kept calm, pointed out the drone to the family with interest and carried on. it seems odd to me that this need any more consideration than that, and if I attended these places with my CFAV hat on I would need to consider a full evaluation of the situation and consider the potential for evacuating the area… 
(i am not dismissing the risk, I accept that there is a risk, but see the likelihood as small, risk limited, and potential injury minimal - perhaps I am ignorant, but I see a greater risk standing on the side of a football pitch and getting struck by a “clearance” kick or being bowled over by a winger barged off the pitch than I do from a drone flying overhead)
Morning everyone.
Steve, nobody ever said you had to do anything other than risk assess the situation and if there is an element of doubt… then take action to protect your staff and cadets from harm.
Whilst both scenarios you outline seem reasonable, it may not always be the case. As I’ve intimated there is a potential risk from nefarious use that cannot be dismissed.
At a PME, there will need to be a plan to deal with that risk if it emerges, seems fair. I would suggest something may have driven this inclusion, rather than it just being added to just complicate issues. Not the forum for that speculation though.
my point being, i am 99% certain I will have no doubt in my mind anyone is at risk.
ok fine, I won’t dismiss it - but it won’t change my reaction until someone tells me otherwise.
the security state of the nation tells us all how vigilant we need to be. if there is intelligence that “nefarious use” is likely to be used by a drone operator, that isn’t for me to look into - if the people who are employed to determine those risks don’t share them, then I am not going to be any the wiser.
else we might as well assume everyone is out to get us and never leave the house for fear of someone bad doing something bad
my plan - keep calm and carry on.
if and when something goes wrong i shall react.
if i go to an airshow and see low flying aircraft (displaying) I am not going to take evasive action until the aircraft hit the deck (see RIAT 2002 - i was there, on the crowd line, we took appropriate action) or clearly look “wrong”.
if a drone looks “wrong” there is much the same reaction - get out of the way.
I am delighted you feel that i took a appropriate action - i shared those examples as I wouldn’t do anything differently had I been there with a CFAV hat on.
This popped up in my newsfeed, while not a drone it shows what can happen when things fall from the sky
Fire at Devon beauty spot caused by model aircraft - fire service - BBC News.
Steve,
It would be naive to say risks don’t exist and being reactionary isn’t really how proper risk management works. Even in the scenarios you gave, you were being proactive in your assessment of the risks.
All the PME stuff and our own is doing is asking you to think ahead and have a plan. Having a plan means we aren’t making it up on the hoof, which means it’s more likely to be rationale. This is obviously what is thought prudent in the circumstances to manage risks that perhaps we are unsighted on. This is how safety management works. We don’t wait until someone falls off a cliff before attaching the safety rope.
It’s pretty obvious who I am so if you want to email me on my RAFAC account, I’ll happily discuss this with you.
Is common sense lacking? Or is it we are not authorised by the hierarchy to use it :slight_smile 
