GONZO

Why are people so keen to check on their fellow fliers, acting as unofficial/un paid police and take on the responsibility of enforcement of this pointless legislation? Even to the extent of asking, no demanding that they prove their compliance! Do you check your neighbours car tires to make sure they are legal. Do you ask/demand he prove he is insured/taxed/ has a valid MOT when you see him getting in his car. I would suggest that the car situation is of a more important nature than this idiotic registration as thousands die on the roads each year when not even one dies from a modelling accident on the flying field.

The threat effect is what it was designed to do. That and the checking on other modellers by modellers and snitching on them or ostracising them, as demonstrated by the attitudes displayed in this thread. It's all in the best traditions of a totalitarian communist state of the cold war era where neighbours and even family members spied on each other and then denounced them to the state.

Do you not drive? There are people who do not wish to insure/tax/have an MOT on their cars that drive on the roads. Are you not going to drive because of that. The probability of an uninsured accident whilst driving is very much higher than having an accident whilst flying, that's why model accident insurance is so low. Been at this since the mid 70's and have never seen or had an accident worthy of a claim.

Decided it was worth a punt so ordered one. I've also been looking at the ZOHD Kopilot from Banggood ZOHD Kopilot Looks to be similar but without the D8R Rx compatible integrated in the main package. Both items are dedicated fixed wing items which I think may prove useful in stabilising sub 250g planes.Tempted to get the ZOHD Dart FPV ZOHD Dart The FPV version comes with everything except Rx and batteries. No registration required until 1/7/20 then to stay legal would have to remove FPV camera. I've done a search on here but no threads on the ZOHD Kopilot but 'Painless360' on YouTube has done some videos on it 5 videos.

Hobby Porter The FR810 is an 8ch flight controller with GPS and a built in FrSky D8R compatible Rx. Rx + GPS 18.8gm total weight. Looks interesting as its designed for fixed wing. Could be useful for sub 250gm 400ft distance limit with its 'geo-fencing', 'return to home' and 'loiter' capability?? Anyone have any experience or info on it? Edited By GONZO on 02/01/2020 16:32:43

Steve J, thanks for the link. I'm sure I remember some larger organisation that dealt with the rules and regulations for all forms of aviation, jet passenger down to light aviation, internationally/world wide.

Posted by Gary Manuel on 29/12/2019 17:41:41: Posted by Steve J on 29/12/2019 09:09:39: Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 28/12/2019 23:33:16: Is this not a solution? Listing long standing sites in section ENR 5.5 of the Aeronautical Information Publication would make more sense to me (they do this in a few neighbouring countries). The 13 sites with permission for 7+kg over 400ft are already listed in the AIP. Absolutely agree. Let each model flying site be registered as a no fly zone for all other aircraft. We fly inside the zone and others keep well away from it. This would by the way also make model / flyer registration even more pointless. Their not going to do that, they want your money. I would suggest more, much more than at the moment. Site assessment fees, site registration fees(annual), operator fees(still wanted and increasing),possible test fees, I'm sure people can think of more.

Steve J, you'll probably be the best person, although others may know, to answer this question. I know our and Europe's regulations have been generated by EASA and this came from a declaration(Riga?). But, as there is a world wide similar/coordinated drive to regulate and control 'drones' did this movement start from some international body possibly linked to the UN by any chance?

Nothing useful to say, best say nothing.

Bruce Simpsons rant on this

Posted by Steve J on 28/12/2019 11:32:34: Posted by GONZO on 28/12/2019 11:08:34: Posted by Steve J on 28/12/2019 09:18:03: The US Remote ID proposal is significantly worse than what is in the EU regulations. Steve J, are you that optimistic that you believe, given the past history of DfT/CAA, that comes 'remote identification' here it will not be at least as bad. Yes. Mainly because, based on a quick scan though the document, I don't think that the FAA proposal is viable. But your next post would seem to indicate that it has been made workable in two countries(France and Ireland) and therefore could be made workable in the USA and also here.

Posted by Steve J on 28/12/2019 09:18:03: Posted by GONZO on 28/12/2019 08:43:49: USA $5(less than £4) for 3 years; UK was to be £16.50(just under $21.50) dropped to £9(just under $12) but for only 1 year. The current US system is $5 per person. The system being proposed by the FAA is $5/UAS. The US Remote ID proposal is significantly worse than what is in the EU regulations. Steve J, are you that optimistic that you believe, given the past history of DfT/CAA, that comes 'remote identification' here it will not be at least as bad. I regretfully do not share that optimism if that is the case.

I see no reason for optimism when it comes to the way we'll be treated in the UK, in fact quit the opposite. Amongst many other incidents that displays the attitude towards modellers take the registration(tax) situation. USA $5(less than £4) for 3 years; UK was to be £16.50(just under $21.50) dropped to £9(just under $12) but for only 1 year. Even with the reduced fee(tax) it still means we pay 7X the USA rate. IMO the attitude will continue with remote identification for UK models. Edited By GONZO on 28/12/2019 08:54:16

Mr MPW You only have to view a few of this chaps(school operator and owner) videos to see that all this system of rules and regulations is orientated towards multi rotors and commercial/business operations. IMO he seems to be almost salivating at the thought of extra cash flow.

NOT a SUAV This is not a remote control model. Rather it is a sub 70kg foot launched aircraft with the flight controls operated via a RC Tx. Of course if he took it off his back and flew it 3rd person LOS then it would fall under the requirements of DRES. But, as shown and if flown in this country no licence, no registration, no test, etc . Just buy/make and fly.

Fit these drones with LIDAR(already been done in other countries) and you can monitor the UK and its inhabitants in ALL manner of ways.

Posted by Martin_K on 20/12/2019 13:38:46: I am not avoiding legislation, I am complying with it as I see fit, i.e. until the exact implementation of the EASA rules are known I will hedge my bets. Exactly, plus I thought I'd give CL a try as I've never done it. 1st July and the 'flavour' of discussions .should give an idea of the way things may be going

Posted by Nigel R on 20/12/2019 12:14:29: what if we don't have a passport? (mine's simply due for renewal, before you ask) "there is an increasing movement towards drones that avoid legislation by weighing in at 249g" And they have FPV capability. If they have any information gathering device 'fitted'(doesn't have to be used) like a camera/microphone then you will have to register and pay the model tax.

Steve J well a quick scan of that document confirms, at least to me, that the majority of us are just required for now to help with the set up costs. In a few years most of us will be squeezed out, seen as an inconvenience, by increased regulation and cost unless some special provisions are made. I know my view does not find favour with most on here but then this has been my view from the start when everyone believed nothing was going to change. I hope time proves me wrong and others right.

Competent is generally used to define ones ability/skill as a pilot and should not be conflated with the CAA 's 'high jacking' of the term to describe their test. Lets expand this theoretical incident to include a situation less 'black and white' where a member, who you know did not register as an operator, is flying a plane you suspect is 1/ slightly over the 250gm limit(small foamy) and 2/ could in your visual assessment be about 500gm(open structure vintage'ish). What do you do? Do you have some scales with you? Are you going to photograph the plane and club member then start a full inquiry with the club committee? Are you going to push the committee to start a process of weighing planes and keeping records? These possible situations are fraught with problems. From causing bad feeling when the accusation is wrong to possible physical confrontation.

My word, I've got to put my stick in the hornets nest and give it a good poke. Give people an opportunity to don their 'jobsworth' hats and become little official inspectors and their off. The BMFA made it perfectly clear in one of their news letters: (I'll para phrase slightly) NO POLICING BY THE BMFA, NO POLICING BY THE CLUBS, ITS PERSONAL RESPOSABILITY. Why make more work/potential trouble for ourselves? Bee hornet keepers outfit on, it's made from titanium.

Posted by Martin_K on 27/11/2019 11:32:56: If you have upset your neighbour, and the neighbour follows CAA advice, they will make a non-emergency call to the police. Have you ever used that? I have and you generally wait at least 4hr for a response, generally its the next day if at all. Most times now the police don't even respond to a burglary 999 call, they just give you a crime number. Sub 250gm site/airspace/distance requirements are contained in the table on page 32 of CAP 1789 (with no agreed concessions it starts 1/7/2020)

BMFA advised against this in a previous news letter. They also said that they, the BMFA, would not participate in any 'policing' of the DRES

Posted by Steve J on 21/11/2019 17:00:10: Posted by Martin_K on 21/11/2019 16:57:39: As has been said umpteen times in these threads, pilots with a Flyer ID will no longer be able to claim ignorance of the law. Whereas people with a twenty year old BMFA 'A' will . My A cert will be 40 years old comes April 2020

Alan, I'm not saying you should not comply with DRES if your personal balance of desire against principle so decrees. It's just the eagerness that has been displayed, contrary to the BMFA advice. Its the, and this will upset some but it gets the point over, attitude of when officialdom say 'jump' some shout "me first sir, me first sir, how high how high" when there is no legal reason to do anything until January as advised by our national body the BMFA. I have the attitude of when officialdom says 'jump' I question why, when and what purpose does my jumping serve. Then I consider whether I will or I will not jump. I've known from an early age that my personality is problematic in certain situations that require one to just 'do', like the armed forces or the police etc. John, thanks for your concern.