Andy Symons - BMFA

Clubs fulfil this role perfectly and there is still nearly 800 of them across the UK

Live auction at BMFA Buckminster, also streamed live for online bidding. See https://nationalcentre.bmfa.org/auction#!/

A record number of sellers already booked in for this.

Cameras are not necessarily set to 33mph, that is the discretion of the police force (most do) however I picked up a speeding ticket a few years ago at 32 mph in a 30.

Don't assume you get a 10% leeway in the UK, that is very much the discretion of the particular Police force and not all give it.

Indeed, however there will be many membership records associated with those out of date county names, mainly from long time members and if we remove them each record will need to be adjusted, will happen over time, but not an issue for this purpose, as for example, Humberside and East Yorkshire are still the same bit of land so for anything in those areas will be sent to both. What is important is that the county in your profile is one selected from the list and not either, blank or showing none etc.

No indication yet.

It was only sent to those where the county was either missing or not in the drop down list of counties which we will be using to target emails geographically.

That was from me too.

Thanks john

Admin, can we change the thread title please, perhaps add "False Alarm" in there?

This is not a scam!!! I have sent it this morning using the Just Go portal emailing system. The link displays as it does because it has been sent through SendGrid which is the bulk mailing feature the emailing system uses. It is perfectly safe.

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/rpas/call-for-input-review-of-uk-uas-regulations/consultation/intro/

Wow! Rich, there really is no reason to be so negative about the prospects for model flying. It really sounds like you have been got at by the mongers of doom. There are no signs that the CAA are trying to push us out of the skies just ensure we can share it safely. I fully believe that pragmatic solutions will be found that will have the minimum effect on our activities. Especially if we complete consultations in large numbers. Stop listening to the doom mongers who are doing more damage to our sport than anything the CAA can dream up.

The CAA announced the consultation on 9th August via Skywise notifications, the BMFA put a news article on the website the same day. https://bmfa.org/caa-call-for-input-review-of-uk-uas-regulations

Exactly this! Both the previous call to actions from the BMFA influenced the outcome. First the initial consultation on registration when they were proposing £16 for Operator Registration and the last pricing consultation when the CAA were proposing a 20% increas of £2.00 , reduced to just a 33p increase after the most responses ever to their annual consultation on fees. Not responding certainly doesn't work, responses in large numbers has shown itself to have an influence.

No idea to be honest, thats why I would suggest contacting them.

I would make contact with the experts, perhaps go along to a scale event and chat to the judges and competitors. https://scale.bmfa.org/committee

This bit is spot on! On indeed the basis of the BMFA position for many years with EASA and the CAA etc. In fact I recall back in the days when Graham Lynn was the technical representative for model aircraft flying in Europe he was asked by EASA to provide a definition of model aircraft flying. I think they were expecting a very long definition extending to a number of pages, when in reality it is very simple. "Model aircraft flying is the flying of any small unmanned aircraft, within visual line of sight of the remote pilot for the purposes of sport or recreation." That is still pretty much the position, doesn't matter how many rotors or propellers, whether it's home built or purchased pre built, flown FPV with a spotter or traditional line of sight, or whether on a club field or any other suitable location. If its flown within visual line of sight for sport or recreation it is model aircraft flying.

I really do not see any reason to be so pessimistic, model flying activity as we know it can be incorporated safely and relatively easily in to the shared airspace. The flights are all point A to point A, generally take place within 300m or so of the take off point and in full line of sight of the operator. In many respects while we are using airspace it is fixed airspace. Remote ID is simply not needed because it is generally obvious who the remote pilot of a model aircraft is because you can see them. When flown as model aircraft always have been see and avoid works.

It's how it has always been.

This is exactly why having the facility for an Article 16 authorisation is so valuable, it gives the facility for the CAA to not apply many of those solutions to what you do. Remote ID and Geo-awareness are not appropriate for what we do so we need to ensure we let the CAA know that and then there is every possibility they won't be included in our authorisation so the future can be pretty much carrying on as we always have.

I'm not the one playing silly games, of course we will only be exempt if the CAA put an exemption in our authorisation, that's not new to anyone, just like getting exemptions to certain aspects of the ANO isn't new, nor the fact that the CAA could have opted not to issue exemptions. However, due to the hard work the BMFA has put in over the years in Europe the facility remains for the CAA to continue to issue exemptions to us as the provision for Article 16 was carried into UK regulation from the EU regulation. That facility recognises that model aircraft flying as an activity is very different to drone flying and builds in to the regulation the option to exclude us from regulations that are simply not fit for purpose when it comes to model aircraft flying but could be fit for purpose for drone flying. I really cannot see why you think having Article 16 is not a good thing. We will still need to stay engaged with the CAA and respond to consultations in a realistic and constructive way and continue to operate safely, lawfully and with consideration, just as we always have. Regulations can change, this has always been the case, the BMFA will keep fighting to minimise their effects on our activities though, so far it has been with some success. You do seem determined to try and find a stick to beat the BMFA with, even trying to suggest the BMFA is supportive of remote ID for model aircraft flying when clearly they are not. So far your search for a stick hasn't even yielded a twig.