The FAA demand registration from 21 December

[ChrisB]

I still think that the target audience is little Jonny at Christmas and it's a fad that will pass. Those that remain will be in clubs and established groups that operate safely.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Mowerman on 18/12/2015 17:16:48:

As most clubs already insist on insurance and many also stipulate BMFA membership I for one would be happy to see this becoming a legal requirement.

 

I really think that we need to be very careful and not forget the old adage "if it 'ain't broke, don't fix it". Model flying is a very safe pastime compared for instance to motor sports, mountaineering (and if you ask anyone in A&E) Sunday morning football or rugby.

35000 or so BMFA members usually manage to operate their models without any adverse effect on the environment (OK noise can be an issue, but it doesn't cause physical injury or damage ) and on the whole the public are unaware of our existence.

I've no idea of how many R/C flights are safely made in the UK annually, but it must easily run into many hundreds of thousands and only a handful result in damage or injury to third parties. The fact is that we usually shoot our selves in the foot by damaging each others cars with an errant model rather than by terrorizing the public or posing a risk to full size aviation, national security or people's privacy.

I do believe our CAA understand this and I hope that we'll ride out the coming storm being drummed up by certain parties, and be allowed to carry on as we are. I'm confident that the BMFA will do their best to make sure of it.

Edited By Cuban8 on 19/12/2015 22:46:46

[cymaz]

I'm hoping any bmfa will be reading this and taking note of comments made. I for one feel the CAA/LMA/BMFA have got the balance about right. There may be reports filed in to Chacksfield but how many go all the way to the top as serious life threatening events on a member of the public? Not many I would suggest.

I am surprised at the number of comments from my original posting on what is a purely US issue. We have strickter rules and restrictions which 99.99999% of flyers heed. And thankfully we have great display pilots so we avoid crowd incidences that we have all seen posted on YouTube.

Maybe the fact that we are a crowded little island means we have to be mindful of our neighbours ( wether they be sympathetic to rc flying or not). Despite all the vast space that the US has,  they ( the AMA and lobbyists) have managed to get themselves  into a very tight corner!

If we bang the drum too hard against quads/ drones we could end up in the same situation. As I see it the balance is about right. Get the drones etc into fun organised events, get them into the frame work of responsible flying rules which the BMFA is starting to do and leave the anarchists to face the CAA when they coming knocking on their doors.

I'll second Cuban8.....if it ain't broke.......I will leave the BMFA to quietly go about their business to keep the status quo.

 

 

 

 

Edited By cymaz on 19/12/2015 23:28:55

[GONZO]

Its got nothing or very little to do with how safe the activity is or terrorism. Its all about what other agenda may be planed. In a post by Steve J on the BARCS forum he states that a news article on the IAA webb site(not checked myself) says that the IAA want Ireland to be a centre for commercial unmanned aircraft. There's the true agenda - make it difficult for the aeromodellers so in a short time most, if not all, have given up so commercial interests can take over.

I'm surprised that so many take things at face value, given the type and nature of world we live in.

[cymaz]

 

 

Here is the order. It includes drones and model aircraft. Restrictions include don't fly within 5 km of an airfield, nearer than 30m from structers etc, 120m of 12 persons or more.

It seems the CAA can distinguish between drones and model aircraft, here

Edited By cymaz on 20/12/2015 07:22:37

Edited By cymaz on 20/12/2015 07:24:56

[Cabbage Man]

I appreciate we are hypothesising but rightly so. Were part of the EU and to a large extent would have to adopt any EU wide rules on air safety. We can't operate in isolation. The US is going to push to get the EU to adopt the same rules as they want and are now are close to having.

Although i have faith the CAA won't want to burden itself with daft rules and unlimited bureaucracy , its by no means guaranteed or going to remain there say.

I forsee registration will come to us through US led pressure on the EU and will probably be a good idea in general. The restrictions that come with it though could well curtail a lot of flying interests like gliding.

[cymaz]

From what I see the Irish have less distance restrictions than we do from the CAA.

If, in the end, the CAA have to come into line then we could we not register through the bmfa renewal each year? If that happens its hardly trampling all over our civil liberties. We have a flying number, some would have more than one number- LMA etc. Just stick your number in the plane.

Anyone with a Club card, Nectar card ...well any type of loyalty card will have all there information traded, bought and sold by lots of retail bodies. Automatic registration for model flying  may be something of  nothing.

If there is a registration scheme then so be it. And anyway large models in the EU need to be registered at over 25kg, we have 20kg!!

Edited By cymaz on 20/12/2015 08:46:44

Edited By cymaz on 20/12/2015 08:48:42

Edited By cymaz on 20/12/2015 08:51:42

[Frank Skilbeck]

We also keep forgetting that the FAA don't have jurisdiction over model aircraft in the US (it's why they can't prosecute reckless flying), registration is their attempt to get it back, i.e.. once you have registered with the FAA then you have effectively agreed to be regulated by them.

In the UK it is different, the CAA do regulate model aircraft already, if you break the ANO (CAP 658) then claiming you were flying a model and the CAA don't regulate those just doesn't fly in court, hence the CAA can, and have, prosecuted reckless flying.

But the more people who put up videos of them flying above the clouds, in cities, over football grounds etc will lead to heavier restrictions. But maybe what is required is a fixed penalty fine if you are not following the rules laid down in CAP 658.

Edited By Frank Skilbeck on 20/12/2015 09:00:30

[cymaz]

And there's the problem Frank. Any responsible flier wouldn't dream of doing that. Some berk with a new quad from Argos will be showing off, not registered, will run off if it all goes wrong.

The CAA has prosecuted the wrong doers where it can not put more regulation on the law abiding fliers...I hope this continues.

It seems the US fliers is resistant to any type of regulation.

[John F]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 20/12/2015 08:58:18:

We also keep forgetting that the FAA don't have jurisdiction over model aircraft in the US (it's why they can't prosecute reckless flying),

Edited By Frank Skilbeck on 20/12/2015 09:00:30

It would appear that they do : **LINK**

and

**LINK**%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fuas%2Fregulations_policies%2Fmedia%2FFAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGoPFZm7Cgk19hSCwA9RwCeV_DmoA&sig2=XXH7pTR-TF1-GtUnzO37kA

"Section 336(b) of the Act, however, makes clear that the FAA has the authority under its existing regulations to pursue legal enforcement action against persons operating Model Aircraft when the operations endanger the safety of the NAS"

[Erfolg]

If you make an assumption that there is a requirement to register in the UK, the requirement will not be on the basis of safety. In all probability it would be on the basis of finance and income for the CAA. As the traditional aeromodelling activities have an admirable safety record.

Diverting existing resources to monitor quads/drones, which appear to be the principle issue within the UK, has implications to the CAA with respect to their principle roll with respect both commercial and civil manned aircraft. In the current era, government is not inclined to just dish out additional funds to increase staff levels. However self financing schemes, based on the user pays, may get an airing from the government.

It is in our interests that the stupid acts by particularly quad operators are stopped. Education could have a massive impact on behaviour. Although now it may be to late, to alter the direction of travel of both the regulators and government.

In my opinion, the BMFA would be better served in concentrating its main efforts in these areas and put the concept of a NFC on the back burner. Registration could well be a Pandora's box, that threatens aeromodelling more than any other issues at present.

Edited By Erfolg on 20/12/2015 10:38:09

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by John F on 20/12/2015 09:12:39:

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 20/12/2015 08:58:18:

We also keep forgetting that the FAA don't have jurisdiction over model aircraft in the US (it's why they can't prosecute reckless flying),

Edited By Frank Skilbeck on 20/12/2015 09:00:30

It would appear that they do : **LINK**

and

**LINK**%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fuas%2Fregulations_policies%2Fmedia%2FFAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGoPFZm7Cgk19hSCwA9RwCeV_DmoA&sig2=XXH7pTR-TF1-GtUnzO37kA

"Section 336(b) of the Act, however, makes clear that the FAA has the authority under its existing regulations to pursue legal enforcement action against persons operating Model Aircraft when the operations endanger the safety of the NAS"

But the judge here, interpreted it somewhat differently

[John Privett]

Posted by cymaz on 20/12/2015 08:42:45:

From what I see the Irish have less distance restrictions than we do from the CAA.

I'm not so sure about that.

For model aircraft up to 7kg that are not "equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition" there are no stated distance or height limits in ANO 166 or 167 for the UK.

By contrast, the Irish regulations apply height and distance limits on everything. Under 1kg you don't need to register, but are then limitied to FIFTEEN metres (ie. less than 50 feet - a height easily exceeded with a control-line model doing a wingover.) With registration the height limit of 120m applies to everything - not just over 7kg as we have here for the 400 foot limit. The distances from persons, vessels, vehicles etc. again in Ireland apply to everything, compared to only unmanned surveillance aircaft here.

I would say the Irish regulations are a lot more restrictive than anything we have here - it's not just about registration as the American scheme seems to be.

[GONZO]

As I've pointed out before. A news article on the IAA webb site says that "the IAA want Ireland to be a centre for commercial unmanned aircraft". Therefore more restictions on free recreational flying. From my reading of the rules it would induce people to move to the 1kg to 4kg band(registration but no compulsory training at IAA approved schools with max 400ft high and max of 1000ft distance limits).

I've also seen mention on the internet of similar moves regards regulations in the Czech republic and Germany. Also, a European wide directive on harmonisation of air regs that would superseed the ANO. The Irish have jumped the gun probably in the hope of gaining a financial lead over others.

If people in this country, or anywhere for that matter, believe that decades of being good boys, playing by the rules and an exemplary safety record will count for anything when up against the establishment in the form of big buisiness and polical will (driven by commercial/financial pressures) then IMO they are deluded. I imagine that our activity/past time, all its institutions and organisations along with decades of history are seen as a non entity to those who have the power to control. Also, all of us who are involved in this hobby, from the bottom to the very top, are probably classed as nobodies by those same powerful people. I have a slight understanding of this attitude having spent time with and at the home of a school friend of Dyson(of the suck machines) along with others of a similar background. I realise that many will take offence at what I say but I'm not intending to insult anyone. Just take a reality check, step back and think about where we stand in the big picture. I'm not saying for one moment that we could stand against any changes just be aware and don't take the head in the sand approach. Lets all hope that whatever comes to pass aeromodelling in some form can continue.

[John F]

Posted by Frank Skilbeck on 20/12/2015 13:14:20:

But the judge here, interpreted it somewhat differently

I think the interpretation is done here rather than what the link states. The decision was over a commercial drone flight, stating that current regulations did not go far enough. The links I quoted was issued afterwards to clarify the FAA's postion and governance.

More info here: **LINK**

[Colin Carpenter]

Gonzo - I think you are correct. Our carefree days are numbered . Being in a field in the middle of nowhere will count for nothing. This morning ,an awful day really, saw 3 light aircraft over my field all reasonably low , say 250 feet, in less than an hour. I only had 2 flights and was on the ground and heard them coming. Imagine commercial quads arriving unheard ! Money will talk above model flying. I watch this space with interest !!!!!!

Colin

[GONZO]

Draft European document on the harmonisation of air regs EASA A-NPA 2015-10 **LINK**

Enjoy

[Frank Skilbeck]

From the above document when discussing the "open category"

"This approach affects mostly model aircraft practitioners and the ‘open’ category drones. Model aircraft flying has been practised for decades with a good safety record because it is a well-structured activity. The intention is to develop rules for the ‘open’ category that will not affect model aircraft flying. "

So hopefully the intent is to distinguish between model aircraft flying and airborne camera platforms where the operator has no aviation interest.

Also glad it's an EU document in some ways as this will have to have German input and who flies and builds the most very large gliders, with several German manufacturers and a much larger model organisation than the BMFA. 

Edited By Frank Skilbeck on 20/12/2015 19:04:06

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[cymaz]

Will you all read the top of page 13 please

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[cymaz]

Oops, spent more time reading through the legal stuff and not finished the thread

 

So what's the BMFAs stand on all this.....could we have a reply or statement somewhere?

Edited By cymaz on 20/12/2015 20:09:05

[ChrisB]

Posted by Colin Carpenter on 20/12/2015 18:17:25:

Gonzo - I think you are correct. Our carefree days are numbered . Being in a field in the middle of nowhere will count for nothing. This morning ,an awful day really, saw 3 light aircraft over my field all reasonably low , say 250 feet, in less than an hour. I only had 2 flights and was on the ground and heard them coming. Imagine commercial quads arriving unheard ! Money will talk above model flying. I watch this space with interest !!!!!!

Colin

My club of 80 members with 40 regular flyers have been flying off a small microlight strip located in uncontrolled airspace for the last 10 years. We've never had any problems with full size aircraft, we work well with the micro-lighters and have established practices that mean we're all safe. Because we are in uncontrolled airspace about 20 miles between two international airports we get a lot of GA and some military aircraft passing through at varying heights, again we never have any issues mainly down to our rules and practices.

One thing we do every week is check the NOTAMS Map website (google maps with NOTAMS on it). The map shows and notes any NOTAMS that apply in the area and on occasions we've had airspace closures due to Red Arrows displays at nearby fetes and also transit routings across the area.

Of course little Jonny flying near Heathrow is going to be a problem, but established and responsible clubs shouldn't worry.

 

 

 

 

Edited By ChrisB on 20/12/2015 20:34:51

[Erfolg]

Cymaz

Page 13 of what?

My own observations and experiences suggest that I expect the BMFA to be actively engaged, using and focusing most of the resources on this issue. The aim is to steer, guide and preempt proposals, being an active participant,not reactive.

It is to late once documents come up for public scrutiny, for small groups such as ours.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]