Sorry, I only fly a UK0, so regularly forget that there are actual big ones as well!
The OC Wing has commented how fantastic it is to see 
3 Likes
Please contact The LaSER RPAS Lead with any information or context you have. Thank you
You are talking to each other on Bader . . . Right?
You know who @Hercules is?
12 Likes
This is hugely unhelpful. Please consider removing it.
There are laws which apply to this activity as well as RAFAC policy, a complaint cannot be ignored.
However, we operate a ‘just culture’… it’s worth reading about it in our operations manual and ACTO75.
From a cursory glance it seems in line with CAA regulations and looks like another case of RAFAC being a lot more risk averse than needed. Here’s my litmus test, can I legally go and do the thing as a civilian - if yes but RAFAC says no then it would seem the fun police are in full force.
Unless you can point out the specific law this seems to be breaking…?
1 Like
I have no idea who Hercules is! Should I? If so please enlighten me.
National RPAS lead
I am sorry but there is no way from a cursory glance that you can tell what type of drone was used and what qualifications the pilot has. Whilst I do not wish to get into a debate about this specific flight on here, it is being looked into.
What I can say is that 692 Sqn are NOT the drone or fun police. We all want cadets and adults to fly drones as much as possible. But this has to be lawful, safe, and in line with our approval (Operations Manual) which is agreed by the CAA. We are not a single person flying a drone, where the liability for its operation lies with the pilot. We are a ‘State Operator’ who has a coporate responsibility to operate within the bounds set on us by the CAA. These may be more restrictive than the rules for an individual, but where it is, there is likley good reasons for this. the 2 FTS RPAS Operating Manual is our CAA approved way of flying any drone that is used outdoors during RAFAC activity. This in itself is what the CAA will judge us against, as well as the law. So if the policy is breached, then it may be that we have operated outside our legal opertaing approvals.
On top of this we have the military security and data elements which are not CAA driven but we have to comply with. The latter being driven by the Data Protection Act.
It may seem that this is harsh but the CAA and RAF/RAFAC do not see these as toys, they are aircraft and are regulated as such. Any drone used during RAFAC activity needs to follow the guidance in ACTO75 and the processes in the 2 FTS RPAS Operating Manual. If this is not broadly understood then I need to get some more targetted comms out there to make this clear.
At the moment, the only flying outdoors that is authorised is that supervised by a 692 Sqn trained pilot. Each Region has many of these and RAFAC owned drones, get in contact with your regional RPAS lead to get access to these.
We are certainly not risk averse, but we need to ensure risk is undertsood and managed.
Sorry, but what’s 692?
The 2FTS RPAS sqn
1 Like
Now that is a hell of a statement.
3 Likes
So you are the drone police or not..?
Even so, I’d hope this has a positive outcome as if it was conducted in a safe manner then this is exactly the sort of flag that RAFAC should be flying.
Maybe I’m just too cynical but it seems that it’s easier to punish than praise (“it’s being investigated” - or - “thanks for bringing this to our attention, just need to check it’s all in line with guidance and if not then some good learning points”). Tone matters!
5 Likes
I am happy to make it, and stand by it. If anyone wants me to demonstrate how we manage risk and try not to restrict use within the bounds we are given, I am happy to give dozens of examples where we push back.
You keep saying ‘we’.
Given your role, I read We has HQAC/2FTS. Who are, notoriously, very risk averse.
5 Likes
I couldnt agree more. This is the foundation of a just culture. Education not enforcement.
However, if there is deliberate or reckless rule or law breaking then there must be accounatbility. Neither you or I can determine any of this from a single social media post. This isn’t about ‘policing’, but we do have to conform to a ruleset and laws in this area for the safety of everyone involved.
I am not going to comment further until the matter is concluded.
We are regulated by the CAA and our risk management for our operation is detailed in our Operatons Manual. This is on our SharePoint and anyone can read it. It states very clearly what we can and what we cannot do. It is not influenced by HQAC as they have no RPAS SMEs.
I have never seen risk aversion in 2 FTS, indeed, I woudl say they manage risk to a ALARP level, which is where all aviation should be.
1 Like
Shall we start with ACTO35 - cadets flying in non-Service aircraft. Not permitted.
Absolutely no option of using RAFAC bursaries with CAA ATOs (or BGA Youth centres) to cover the gaps in provision of ACPS.
No CFMO & no alternative provision, so cadets who need F6424 action can’t fly (& haven’t been able to for a year).
8 Likes
well presented Mike
2 Likes