The FAA demand registration from 21 December

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ChrisB]

Couldn't agree more Steve.

[GONZO]

If I understand the IAA regs correctly the registration of each model for 5Euro is not transferable or refundable. Thus, change a model(sell, crash and replace) = new additional fee.

Question; in both schemes who takes on the club trainer(s)?

[bouncebounce crunch]

Bureaucracy going mad again.

[John Allen]

Damn you IAA. A previous wording implied that any models being flown under existing legislation (ie. under the auspices of MACI) would not be required to register.

Now its every model over 1.5kg. I've 17 models, if that going to cost me 17*5€ a year? If it is it better damn well give me insurance cover, so I can dispense with my MACI cover/membership.

[Geoff S]

How are they going to identify the models, especially if they're own designed/built/modified etc etc? What's to stop you just having one registered and moving the registration from model to model?

Way back in the 60s and 70s when I was very heavily into motor cycles I had friends who had numerous Triumphs dating from the 1920s to the 1960s who would simply move number plates from bike to bike to bike to save the VED (we all had Norwich Union insurance which insured us to ride any bike we owned). Another friend who built and competed with Ariel trials sidecars had two very similar set ups with the same number plate! The same sort of thing would be far, far easier with models.

It's all nonsense and achieves nothing.

Geoff

[Mike Blandford]

I think that's 1Kg (1.5Kg is for rockets?). Their definition of an "aircraft" is quite general. I reckon they are including kites flown more that 15m high and even paper 'planes if you throw them out a window from more than 15m high!

Mike.

Nothing on the MACI site (Ireland's BMFA), but a minor reference on the Leinster model club site that the MACI are questioning the IAA.

 

Edited By Mike Blandford on 17/12/2015 21:55:48

Edited By Mike Blandford on 17/12/2015 21:56:07

[Fun Flyer]

The real problem is; they're missing the point. Drones are Remotely Controlled Flying Machines. We've been flying them without any problems since <insert name here I don't want to offend anyone> stood in a field with his finger on the button and watched his balsa and tissue drone fly a semi controlled circuit. What they seem to want to regulate, and I for one am not convinced that regulation is necessary for the hobbist, are multicopters. Unfortunately the regulations now state clearly that "model aircraft and drones are considered small unmanned aircraft and the same rules apply to their operation" Note also that just says so it covers everything from your FF glider to an F3A machine and beyond.
I'm afraid that this might have serious consequences for the hobby. You guys should bring this to the BMFA before the CAA can put something similar in place.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

BMFA already have their eye on the ball, so I don't think they need a nudge.

They recently posted a thread relating to a drone awareness event and listed who was taking part, and who they are contacting to promote it, very little comment/praise/support offered though.

John

[Erfolg]

Fun Flyer could well be correct in thinking that the plan is to charge the hobby flyer out of the air, both on the grounds of security and to reduce the distinction between the professional devices, filming, delivering parcels, monitoring power lines, where fees are paid to the authorities.

It just would not do for commercial operators making total payments of hundreds of pounds per annum and the public flying models/devices at no charge to operate similar devices.

Behind some aspects of what has happened elsewhere could be money and governments wanting to charge people to permit the operation of what we see as hobby devices and governments as cash cows.

[GONZO]

A post by simon_t on the BARCS site provided a couple of links to EU activities, 'JARUS' and 'SESAR' that may have a bearing on this **LINK**

[Frank Skilbeck]

Nothing at all on the Irish equivalent of the BMFA http://www.maci.ie/

[Cabbage Man]

I would have thought that if its just drones that are the scurge, you could licence only those craft that fly with the aid of GPS based electronic flight software. Other 'normal' flying models would be exempt.

The fact that model aircraft have been included makes me worry. As far as I know, they are and never have been a worry for the security services or full size aviation to warranty this action. Certainly Isis dont appear to have infiltrated my club.

Once we have licences, its very easy to modify the conditions attached to them , often without consulation or approval. Fees can change, height limits tweeked etc.

Maybe this is all about selling off our airspace?

[ken anderson.]

my opinion looking at what is going on oversea's and now nearer home is - its shortly going to be the end of model flying as we know it........ hopefully not the end of model flying as such... but very impractical for an ordinary hobbyist to afford/carry on..yes we(BMFA) members obey the rules and regs and try and keep within the ANO's.CAP reg's....... but is that enough from the authorities pont of view...i dont think so...and expecting every purchaser of a radio controlled flying whatever to behave...is we know never going to happen...so what can the authorities do to ensure nothing nasty is carried out using a one?.... strongly regulate them to get them grounded.......and the knock on effect is we will suffer -big style...cancel that new TX and expensive model...you wont be able to sell it/pass it on....

ken anderson...ne...1....... vision of the near future dept.

[ken anderson.]

also giving some thought to my post above...don't you think that technology has moved on that much that what was thought of as a radio controlled model/toy aircraft is now a very different incarnation altogether....in recent years we have all heard of the stories of various users putting together bits of kit .look around the mag's,internet and practically anyone who wants to retail bit's to sell build your electronic whizzer/droid......programming it to fly off on a mission and return.....up to now only recording photo's.video's...but what if?...so from the regulators'/authority's point...they must act accordingly and nip it in the bud...for they are responsible to the whole of society..so before happen's.... looking at the big picture...... i don't think the future is at all rosy for us...

ken anderson...my own opinion.. dept.

[Mowerman]

We are all dooooomed

[Cabbage Man]

Found this on the CAA site and when read carefully makes it clear that the CAA do understand the difference between a drone and a model aircraft. Im guessing the BMFA have been busy. Compare this to the IAA , who appear to have blindly grouped all non manned craft into one category, it gives me hope. Hope that the CAA do grasp the fact we normal modellers are not an affiliate of ISIS and are not going to bring the state down

The use of various types of unmanned aircraft, popularly known as drones, has increased rapidly in recent years - both for private leisure use, and for commercial‘aerial work’. Unmanned aircraft are generally fitted with cameras, unlike traditional remote controlled model aircraft which have been used by enthusiasts for many years. As such drones are likely to be operated in a way that may pose a greater risk to the general public and other aircraft. Unlike manned or model aircraft there are no established operating guidelines so operators may not be aware of the potential dangers or indeed the responsibility they have towards avoiding collisions. Anyone flying a drone either recreationally or commercially has to take responsibility for doing so safely.

• Small unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS), sometimes also known as remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), are now being widely used commercially in the UK. Permission to operate a SUAS for 'aerial work' is required from the CAA. If you are unsure if your business needs such permission, then guidance contained on this page should help. Full details of how to apply are also listed here. If you are in any doubt please email us.

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by Electric God on 18/12/2015 10:03:53:

I would have thought that if its just drones that are the scurge, you could licence only those craft that fly with the aid of GPS based electronic flight software. Other 'normal' flying models would be exempt.

The fact that model aircraft have been included makes me worry. As far as I know, they are and never have been a worry for the security services or full size aviation to warranty this action. Certainly Isis dont appear to have infiltrated my club.

Once we have licences, its very easy to modify the conditions attached to them , often without consulation or approval. Fees can change, height limits tweeked etc.

Maybe this is all about selling off our airspace?

The real problem is how to differentiate between what we think of as drones and our carefully crafted model aircraft.

All are remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles, which makes them all the same in law. Limit just those using GPS or FPV? There are plenty of genuine hobbyists who would be affected by that too. The only form of regulation possible is to treat them all the same.

The public are facing problems from RC aircraft of whatever type and format, they just want to see some sort of action. The security services see a possible threat, they just want to take action before anything bad happens. These are genuine causes for concern, so I'm sorry, we ARE the minority here and will have to take the hit.

I don't like it, but then I don't like having to tax my motorbike and make it conform to DOT regulations, or ride it according to often arbitrary speed limits either, however if I want to ride, that's what I have to do. It's the world we live in. Conspiracy theories won't change that.

[Erfolg]

In many respects motor vehicles do give some indication as how governments do behave, it is not a conspiracy theory, to anticipate that the basis for action is not necessarily the same as why they do act. It can be called "managing expectations" or some other phrase, which indicates, this is a picture/vision i want you to have, not necessarily reality.

With respect to road vehicles, you have to pay what was called a "road fund". Taxing for the purpose of maintaining roads did not last long, it has become another tax, to spend as the flavour of the month dictates.

Assuming that we are required to pay a fee/tax, it is discriminatory, in that there is no tax on playing Golf, Football, beyond vat etc. Which are typical taxes that we in aeromodelling pay.

Far more importantly how would requiring us to register each model improve national security or even general aviation security.

More to the point, those who are terrorists, may or may not register, yet they will try to carry out there actions irrespectively. This is also a similar position with some irresponsible sections of the community. Will they be bothered by fines, I think by and large they will not.

The very small numbers of us modellers is vanishingly small compared with just the Geese populations in the NW of England, never mind the UK. As I have written earlier, there are many large birds that routinely can be seen at or above 400 feet. Are they to be grounded, a far more numerous and unpredictable set of aviators that the 40,000 or so UK modellers, who perhaps have a at the extreme 1,000 models in the air. Probably more commonly a couple of hundred to non at all.

Edited By Erfolg on 18/12/2015 11:32:20

[kc]

Instead of discussing this here we should all be e-mailing the BMFA insisting they discuss this with the government NOW and putting the responsible aeromodellers point of view to the government BEFORE any new regulations are made. Either the BMFA do this or they are useless!

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by kc on 18/12/2015 11:55:00:

Instead of discussing this here we should all be e-mailing the BMFA insisting they discuss this with the government NOW and putting the responsible aeromodellers point of view to the government BEFORE any new regulations are made. Either the BMFA do this or they are useless!

If you've read the current club bulletin from the BMFA which has their agenda for the next council meeting you'll see they have a CAA team, which I guess represents us at CAA level. But if you think it's best that we go round the CAA and talk directly with the politicians then you should petition the BMFA to do this. You could ask your club representative to raise this at the next area meeting, or go along yourself.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Steve

The details of these incidents, would add credibility to the statement that fixed wing etc. The detail avoids the suggestion that theses incidents are not what they seem.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cabbage Man]

I wouldnt regard 2 incidents as insufficient evidence to warrant national licencing. Thats kneejerk. I wouldnt regard 20 incidents as enough either given the massive number of flights conducted a year.

As per my CAA quoted web comment at 10.36 above, its clear the CAA agree and dont want to penalise recreational traditional model aircraft as they arent a significant risk.