CAA Registration Petition

General discussion on any topic which doesn't have a natural home on any of the other boards.
Post Reply
User avatar
Cliff Evans
Posts: 1635
Joined: 13 Mar 2015, 10:32
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: CAA Registration Petition

Post by Cliff Evans » 30 Jun 2019, 17:40

A must watch tomorrow night!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006h ... qy12M5Jqh0

Email written to the Executive Producer:

How about reporting how this Rouge drone activity is affecting the thousands of legitimate safe model flyers in this country, or are we not good enough news for you?

And finally, his email address: dan@dankendall.co.uk
Go for it folks.

User avatar
Cliff Evans
Posts: 1635
Joined: 13 Mar 2015, 10:32
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: CAA Registration Petition

Post by Cliff Evans » 03 Jul 2019, 08:44

For you info I am copying this letter to the BBC about their programme transmitted last Monday evening.
This was not written by me, my letter will be different but along the same lines.

  
BBC Complaints
PO Box 1922
Darlington
DL3 0UR


Britain's Next Air Disaster? Drones
I wish to make a strong complaint about your recently broadcast programme “Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones” I found it to be heavily biased, poorly researched, factually incorrect and unnecessarily alarmist. I will go through my objections step by step.


Title – “Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones”
The title poses a question then immediately presents an answer as a statement. If “Drones” have been followed by a question mark, this may have indicated that it was a possible answer, but unfortunately, before the programme even began it was without doubt showing the bias and conclusion before the presentation had been made. It very clearly set the tone for what was an unbalanced production.


Crash testing
Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge of aerodynamics will tell you that aircraft lifting surfaces require airflow over them to function. In the case of the tailplane used, a typical airflow would be around 100 to 300 knots or more. This airflow has an effect on that which passes above and below the lifting surface and how that reacts. An object fired at a stationary lifting surface does not replicate what would happen in reality. This can only be attempted properly in a wind tunnel with a typical airflow over the surface. Therefore the test was not truly representative of what would happen in the real world.
The presenter described the motors as solid metal as if describing a bullet or mortar shell. They are not. They are machined from solid metal to form rings and plates and will crack, bend or indeed shatter. He then went on to dismantle the drone by using a hammer commenting that it was robust. Might I suggest a more scientific approach would have been to use a small hacksaw which would have easily cut through the plastic shell with ease if all he was trying to do was reduce the drone to smaller pieces. And finally, black rods were introduced to the collection of pieces. They were not part of the drone and the effect they may have had was not taken into account.


Gatwick Incident
This was presented as fact when, in fact, no credible evidence has been produced from any source to verify that the incident involved drones. Even your own Panorama programme stated that. In this day and age of every insignificant cough, sneeze or stumble being captured on video, many in the model flying community find it incredible that, despite days of disruption, thousands of potential witnesses and the presence of trained professionals, nothing has yet emerged to prove the existence of drones. This of course has left a vacuum which has been filled with everything from drones to alien UFOs or a government conspiracy. Yet you chose to present the alleged sightings as fact with no questioning or substantiation.


Airprox Reports
These were publicly discredited weeks before the programme was broadcast by the Airprox Board themselves. Responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request from Airprox Reality Check, they said they had no proof a drone has ever flown close to an aircraft in UK skies. They also revealed to the group, which was formed as a response to the misrecording of drone airproxes in the UK, that there is no confirmation that a drone has ever been involved in any of the drone airprox reports published to date.
Might I suggest that your programme chose to ignore this because it did not fit with the agenda of a heavily biased presentation.


Theatrical effect
Was there any justification to use repeated shots of a dark hooded figure, not quite sharply focused to represent the illegal drone user?
Weaponising
The presenter latched on to this with an eagerness which betrayed an agenda to seriously scaremonger uninformed viewers. I lost count of the number of time he used the word.


Beneficial uses of drones
This was given scant coverage. It demonstrated, should any doubt have remained that the programme set out to demonise drones.  Surprising really as the BBC use drones themselves!


Drone racers
They demonstrated the skills necessary to conduct this activity. These skills are not learned overnight and require a great deal of practice. Yet this was presented in the context of off the shelf availability and precision targeting. I hope the two flyers involved now realise how you hijacked their contribution to use against drone users.


Balanced reporting
Would I be correct in thinking that the BBC aims to present balanced and unbiased reporting? If so I would like to know when to expect a future programme which redresses the balance.


I would appreciate a detailed response.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

User avatar
Cliff Evans
Posts: 1635
Joined: 13 Mar 2015, 10:32
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: CAA Registration Petition

Post by Cliff Evans » 05 Jul 2019, 08:12

Drones could be the last of our worries!

Https://www.facebook.com/groups/1662687 ... 545666441/

Post Reply