UAV Expert Reveals Truth Behind Drone Safety 

I wouldn't have a clue sorry, any link to a video from XJet with the letter being talked about?

@@BrodieReed I have been trying to find it, it's now close to two years ago. Bruce attempted to 'incriminate himself" to show how stupid the rules were. The CAA investigated and said they found no issue/risk (or that it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter) then the Model Flying people sent Bruce a letter telling him that he was essentially portraying their members in a bad light (or that they didn't think his behaviour was becoming of their members etc). I'll try and find the clip, if I can't, I'll try to contact Bruce to get it for us. What I am trying to highlight here is that, from what was discussed in your interview, like the Model Flying NZ people are trying to do what the AMA did in the states - the "if you're with us, you're OK/Exempt etc". I am concerned with that approach because the AMA's about to be a world of hurt too, because there have been ZERO approved FRIAs in the states yet - and the 16th Sept date is approaching...

I want to stress here that I have no beef with your guest at all, he might not have had anything to do with the events a while back. Seems like a really good guy.

@@clifffield1 Yes, I challenged the CAA to prosecute me for flying a tinywhoop in my own garden (amongst the flowers) while using FPV without the legally mandated spotter. The flight was videoed, as was my confession that I was breaching the regs. The CAA did investigate and after three months of effort came back and said "it is not in the public interest to prosecute". On checking, I can find *no* mention of "public interest" as a factor in determining the application of the regulations in CAR101 so call me confused 🙂 More recently I did fly a whoop over my house and (again) BVLOS (far side of the house) without an FPV spotter to demonstrate that this type of operation is clearly over-regulated in NZ. Nobody and no property (other than my own) was endangered by the tiny quadcopter being used. I did receive a letter of censure from MFNZ who informed me that there were processes in place to allow that kind of flight. However, those processes (IMHO) are also a ridiculous over-reach, involving the use of signs, restricting access (to my own property) and making application for permission. I chose to not renew my MFNZ membership because I fully intend to continue these zero-risk operations and do not wish to bring MFNZ into disrepute by doing so as a member. I wasn't asked to resign or threatened with expulsion, I made the decision because I didn't want to jeopardise the work that Chris and others have done to get what they consider to be "reasonable access" (albeit I disagree with that description) to such freedoms. It is my goal to promote, support and protect the hobby, not to endanger the freedoms of others so obviously MFNZ membership would conflict with those goals right now. I'd love to remain a member of MFNZ because I think they do some really good work and are a fantastic asset to the hobby -- it's just that right now we're kind of at odds when it comes to accepting ridiculous levels of over-regulation.

@@xjet Cheers Bruce!

That’s great to see!