I take it back, just been playing. You can have an anonymous form that you have to login to access.
When set to record the name of the person who completed it:
When set to not record the name:
That line is missing from the question submission form so your details wont be recorded.
But it’ll still store the account name (your 100 account email)
It doesn’t, I’ve setup one and tested it:
It will be there somewhere in the backend but it’s not available in the data to the form owners
We’ve been using these a lot at work lately; if it’s set to be an anonymous, the admin can’t see who submitted the response at all. Much to my frustration as an admin.
Absolutely over-kill. Autocracy at its highest. All a sqn needs to do is to have is an “accountable manager” then run sqn drone flying as per CAA guidelines & associated legislation.
There’s the easy way, the hard way, & the very, VERY hard RAFAC way. 
IBN just released, don’t get excited.
Makes the situation sound more dire than before if I’m honest…
Well, it’s something. We ask for comms and updates, transparency, etc, and should welcome these things whether they seem good or bad.
I think because of how strong the wording is, it sounds worse than it may be. We already knew we shouldn’t be running drones on DTE and DE from before this “pause” was even a thing. The reality for most is likely to be that we would operate on some EUF or TOPL land anyway.
For the fancier outdoor stuff, I can see the relevance of the traceability from a security aspect (not that Vlad or Whinnie need to parse Tb of harvested data when they could just send someone to visit a local cathedral); but are we going to get ourselves caught up in this for a 20 quid palm-sized indoor drone consisting of a 3p PCB and a few motors?
From the way that IBN is written, I would say it looks like the answer is yes. In fact, it would imply something like that would fall under ‘Type A’.
Dear Santa,
Please send me some faraday bags. Just for, you know, reasons.
Ta muchly.
Batfink
That’s my reading too, which for those on Volunteer Estate isn’t a problem (from my understanding), but not everyone is.
BUT, indoor drone flying was never stopped. These restrictions cannot be only coming to light now (and it is stated in this IBN that “the security restrictions below” apply).
One thing I will say is a glimmer of hope: talk of finding funding. Does that mean RAFAC is going to be purchasing Type Bs for distribution around the org?
It feels a lot like an MVP-style policy could have been put in place a long time ago, but instead we’re waiting for this syllabus work to complete and releasing all at once. Could we not have introduced an “RPAS Experience” interim policy which met these security needs, and then launched an official training syllabus later? This syllabus better come with something tangible to a decent level of qualification* (i.e. beyond operator license), because it has a lot to answer for…
(*That this is being developed with the CAA suggests that perhaps it does and we are becoming a training org for their licensing levels).
FTFY. Whatever the required approval is?
In stock at Cadet Direct.
But even those of us on private land/‘volunteer estate’ we still need to send in all the serial numbers etc to HQ so they can ‘classify’ our drones/aircraft/rockets.
And if it’s a kit, they want origin countries for each individual component part…
Just shortcut it.
Motors: unidentified
Rotors: unidentified
PCB: unidentified
What’s that? It’s Type A? Well colour me surprised!
You’re never going to get that info for every component, and the chances of something not coming from [a country they didn’t name that we can all guess] is practically zero.
Another application of “MAA assurance” coupled with “Security sensitivities” being applied to a Commercial Off the Shelf product which I just want to fly on my school playing field… LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE UK.
Meanwhilst, at the 2FTS, MAA and Security meeting…
This organisation is intent on suicide
I know it is something small but the annoucement indicating
Clarification of whether the Drone has a CE marking or similar;
shows how 2FTS don’t have their finger on the pulse.
it should read UKCA marking - we’re post brexit now and should be looking for UKCA markings not CE markings.
I know it says “or similiar” but if this document is to ensure all the necessary elements are completed to the nth degree at least have the decency to ensure we are conforming to the latest expectations
UKCA came into effect in 2021 - and i know the document is suggesting “…some retroactive work…” is required but are we likely to have kit that is more than 2 years old…taking into effect that 2020 was mainly lockdown?
Can someone summarise for us without access to it at the moment?
