Do you think some sort of registration system would protect the hobby from rogue flyers?

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 13/02/2016 16:09:51:

Those who suggest that co-operating with regulators, by adopting a policy of agreement to solve a non existent problem, on the basis of gaining Browny Points, and influence, have not dealt with regulators or know and discussed with inspectors how and why they operate.

I can assure Erf that I, and perhaps others of my persuasion for all I know, have extensive experience of first hand dealings with regulatory bodies; including, but no means exclusively, with the CAA. You'll have to try harder than that.

BEB

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/02/2016 15:35:52:

Actually Dave, I think you are "setting the bar too high".I don't believe that the legislator would require 100% sureity of cover - as long as the vast majority were covered and a clear route to complience existed I believe they would be satisfied.

BMFA may not be legally the governing body - but they are in practice - as recognised by the Royal Aero Club, the FAI and the Sports Council. It's a small step to close the loop.

There is no "earner" in this for the government. They know that pricing registration at even a "break-even" level would be prohibitive - that's one of their main problems. For comparison the "non-profit" cost for commercial UAV registration is £112 initially and then £56 per annum for renewal (or £224 if over 7Kg), the government know that the hobby market can't sustain that and even at that rate there is no real profit as such. Using the BMFA's existing mechanism effectively removes that problem which is why I believe it would be an attractive proposition from the authority's point of view.

Finally, while its true that neither the US or Irish authories went down this line, I think we'd all agree that neither of them are an example anyone (us or the government) would want to follow! MAybe had they gone down this route things may have worked out better for them?

BEB

Maybe I am setting the bar too high BEB, as for an it being an earner.....

How does it cost double to register a model over 7kg? - The act of registering it doesnt change depending on weight, so I would very skeptical over the "not for profit" monika THB

[Fun Flyer]

Posted by Dickw on 13/02/2016 14:43:24:

Posted by Fun Flyer on 13/02/2016 12:59:25:

Posted by Electric God on 11/02/2016 15:12:49:

This is very interesting as I understood that the push for registration was coming from EASA.. I've looked on the EASA site and can't find the reference. Do you have a link please?

I think this nis the document you want:-

http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/A-NPA%202015-10.pdf

Dick

Edited By Dickw on 13/02/2016 14:44:25

Thanks for the link. I had seen that doc but it doesn't rule out registration completely and I think that the authorities will see this as just too good a chance to miss and the requirement for registration in some form will become Europe, if not World, wide. None of this will however have any effect whatsoever on the criminal or ill informed flyers.

[Erfolg]

BEB That is a me to, there are many others of us with experience and know (in the past) inspectors at a personal level.

[Rich too]

I am not sure if its been mentioned before in thread, but since the whole problem stems from drones, why not limit legislation to them?

[Dickw]

Posted by Rich2 on 13/02/2016 17:25:34:

I am not sure if its been mentioned before in thread, but since the whole problem stems from drones, why not limit legislation to them?

EASA definition of a drone:-

‘Drone shall mean an aircraft without a human pilot on board, whose flight is controlled either autonomously or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle.’

Unfortunately that is the problem - that definition clearly covers traditional model aircraft i.e. you and me!

Dick

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 13/02/2016 17:11:18:

BEB That is a me to, there are many others of us with experience and know (in the past) inspectors at a personal level.

That may well be so Erf. But why try to discredit those with whom you don't agree by stating inequivically that they do not have such knowledge - when that is blantently untrue?

BEB

[Tony Harrison 2]

Posted by john stones 1 on 13/02/2016 15:24:37:

Present a united front and engage in vigorous political lobbying

Now who's the naïve romantic optimist Tony

john

Entirely right, if the UK experience is anything to go by. It's just that if one gives up on this, there is no other way to fight an essentially political battle. It can be done: the NRA of the US, in complete contrast to our own NRA, is very big, with very wide support, very well funded, and has in consequence serious political clout. It lobbies constantly.

If UK r/c flyers are not prepared to fight regulation politically they'll be shafted.

rgds Tony

[Erfolg]

I am not sure who you are referring to, certainly not anyone on this site. My comments are in respect to a very real individual who talked of earning Browny Points. Although not seeking feed back on the individual or even the subject, was provided with a view of some individuals, issues, and the world as seen from a regulators perspective. In the end the person/persons were withdrawn from any formal contact as a representatives.

Be absolutely sure, the regulator is almost certainly now under considerable pressure with respect to issue of drones, and safety. As an observer there will be both the Pilots representatives and the politicians, expecting that the issues will be managed by them.

Of course they are seeking a breathing space to be show and be seen to be doing something positive. The reality may be different, in that this is a tough issue.

It was not long ago when the Mersey side police were operating a drone illegally. I am absolutely certain that this was not done in defiance of the law, it will have been out of ignorance. Yet with extensive publicity, it still seems that some members of the public are actually operating in defiance of the regulations.

To me it is obvious that the operation of drones in the landing and take off corridors from airfields and airports should be no fly zones. Although even taking existing principles to a Draconian level may not solve the problem. It is hard to believe that drone reported recently within 40 feet of an aircraft landing a MIA was unaware of what they potentially were doing.

I do want a solution that is proportionate to solve the problem of rogue operators. The problem for me is I do not know a solution, that is reasonable. I know that registration is not it.

The use of drones for crime is apparently another rising problem. Again not an easy issue to solve.

The only outlandish solution I have is that aircraft put out a massive electronic wave of interference on approach to landing that will shoot down any drone within 100 or so metres of the aircraft.

Edited By Erfolg on 13/02/2016 18:23:45

[Rich too]

Posted by Dickw on 13/02/2016 17:29:04:

Posted by Rich2 on 13/02/2016 17:25:34:

I am not sure if its been mentioned before in thread, but since the whole problem stems from drones, why not limit legislation to them?

EASA definition of a drone:-

‘Drone shall mean an aircraft without a human pilot on board, whose flight is controlled either autonomously or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle.’

Unfortunately that is the problem - that definition clearly covers traditional model aircraft i.e. you and me!

Dick

Ah, well, they need to get the definition sorted then! because "drones" are clearly not traditional model aircraft. what is wrong with these people? its always the same rubbish with regulation, blanket cover, effecting people it was never meant for - one size fits all.

[Glyn44]

No, they are rogues.

[Erfolg]

Rich2 , I am at one with you in principle. On that basis I have been urging that the BMFA negotiates on this basis. Even if this needs a change in the definition of a drone.

Yet the problem is almost certainly not one of BMFA drone operators.

The problem groups almost certainly will not be bothered or change their behaviour, due to a change in regulation and there by lies the problem

Edited By Erfolg on 13/02/2016 18:37:31

[Dave Hopkin]

They wont change the definitions all RC Models will be classed as "Unmanned Arial Vehicles" whether Fixed Wing, Helo or MR - dont forget that controlling R/C Flying occupies a tint percentage of what EASA and the CAA are responsible for, it is desperately important to us, but very low on the priority list for them

The other driver for changing the legal framework in which we operate is the growing demand for commerical delivery drones - it may not happen any time soon, but the pressure from the likes of Amazon is there and EASE will be looking to get their ducks in a row so they dont have to revisit the framework again for a few years

[Erfolg]

Dave, I do expect that there will be a change in many definitions of unmanned aerial vehichles, simply as a consequence of the commercial oppurtunities and interests.

Although i had a chuckle at the idea of Amazon delivering items by posts, I was taken aback to read that criminals were already doing it.

I think you are correct, in that there are at least two basis for changes in regulations, that is the commercial use of drones at all scales, some potentially being very large, to the minute. Then there is the issue of, lets call it illegal operation, and finally us, the hobby flier.

Yes change is coming.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Rich2 on 13/02/2016 17:25:34:

I am not sure if its been mentioned before in thread, but since the whole problem stems from drones, why not limit legislation to them?

I can see what you mean Rich, and in terms of the hoo-ha the media stir up it might seem that way. But the reality is different. The sums:

All problems="drones"

"dornes"=all problems

just doesn't stack up. Not all "drone" flyers are a problem - and not all problem flyers are operating "drones" - as this gentleman demonrates perfectly.

BEB:

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 13/02/2016 23:53:45

[Dave Hopkin]

Indeed one of the very early prosecutions was made against a FPV Fixed Wing pilot that flew at very low altitude across a busy road bridge then later crashed into a nuclear submarine shipyard

[Piers Bowlan]

Would the sort of person who does this type of thing register his model? No.

If he did, would it stop him doing it (and then posting it on u-Tube)? No.

He is already in breach of the ANO, so would registering his model make it any more likely that he were prosecuted? Not unless a police officer witnessed it.

Would geofencing stop him flying in a car park? No, not unless the car park was in an ATZ.

Only well publicised heavy fines and custodial sentences in some instances, will improve public awareness and act as a deterrent to this kind of behaviour in my view.

[Dave Hopkin]

I totally agree, education is the key, backed up with enforcement and proportionate (and well publicised) punishments

I have noticed an increasing number of posts by the CAA on youtube vids pointing out the illegalities of the flight

and when in Steve Webbs a couple of weeks ago I noticed on the counter a pile of flyers informing people of how to fly legally - is this now in all LMS?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Dave Hopkin]

The problem is always going to be enforcement, the CAA dont have the staff or statutory powers to enforce the law and the Police who should be enforcing the regulations have far far better things to do.

But I was surprised last summer, when I had a visit from Plod (no I was a witness not a suspect!) they saw a model on the table and were interested in it, they asked did I fly it in the local park and seemed genuinely surprised when I told them that would be illegal and that there were law governing the use of RC flying models - So I was left wondering how much the average police officer was being briefed about what is legal and what is not

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 14/02/2016 09:06:35:

Would the sort of person who does this type of thing register his model? No.

No I am sure he wouldn't Piers - 99.999999% sure. And that's the point!

He wouldn't register but the chance of a well trained registered pilot doing such a stupid thing would be very, very much less.

So - that's what differentiates us!

I keep saying:

The point is NOT that registration stops the idiots. The point is that registration differentiates, and hence distances, them from us! And that protects us. Which is the topic of the thread!

So far everyone who has challenged this view does so from the angle that it wouldn't stop the rogues which is not my point. No one has, as yet, given me a good argument that counters my actual point!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 14/02/2016 12:02:32

[Tony Harrison 2]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 14/02/2016 12:01:43:

The point is NOT that registration stops the idiots. The point is that registration differentiates, and hence distances, them from us! And that protects us. Which is the topic of the thread!

So far everyone who has challenged this view does so from the angle that it wouldn't stop the rogues which is not my point. No one has, as yet, given me a good argument that counters my actual point!

I tried to do so but perhaps it was a bit circuitous. Firearms legislation most assuredly does not stop the rogues, in fact it bears almost no relation to the criminal misuse of firearms - which has increased over the decades, alongside ever more strict legislation...

But in terms of protecting "us" - that is, legitimate licenced users of firearms - it really has never done that at all, quite the contrary. Lobbying (and IIRC there are somewhere getting on for half a million owners of guns of some sort) has never achieved anything worth mentioning in terms of protecting "us", our interests, our recreation, our liberty: we are sidelined, safely ignored as a minor nuisance with minimal political clout.

I tried to suggest that it would be exactly the same thing with regulated/certificated r/c flying: a small minority of apparent eccentrics, mostly oldish blokes playing with toy aeroplanes, would be regarded by authority as completely insignificant.

rgds Tony

Edited By Tony Harrison 2 on 14/02/2016 12:21:23

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

But isn't that the desired result? I'd be quite happy for the government and the media to view us a tiny minority of eccentrics of no significance and therefore leave us alone and not seek to interfere in what they don't understand. Its when they think we are danger and a problem because they lump us with the irresponsible and criminal that we are in jeopardy. In my view registration puts us in a "no problem with them so we don't have to be interested in them" box, and leaves the bad boys outside in the cold, the focus of everyone's undesired attention - just as they are with firearms. I'd call that "a result" from our perspective!

BEB

[John Privett]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 14/02/2016 09:13:15:

I have noticed an increasing number of posts by the CAA on youtube vids pointing out the illegalities of the flight

I hadn't seen that (yet), but that's excellent if the comments are seen as coming from the CAA. Too often up until now any "ordinary" modeller leaving comments pointing out the laws that are being broken in the video would just be ignored, ridiculed or subject to a stream of abuse.

[Erfolg]

Although we have mainly been concerned with the idea of registration doing something positive or not. Then debating how registration will protect or not make a jot of difference to increased legislation and regulation. I think that changes are now almost inevitable.

My believe is based on the increasing commercial and military activities of unmanned aerial vehicles of considerable size. I know from television reports that drones are being operated by BAE out of a nearby airfield. I can envisage that this is just one aspect of the development of such devices. Will they be permitted to operate in the same airspace as conventional commercial aircraft. Or separated into specific corridors and heights. I do not know and could not make a guess.

What i suspect that the present unlimited altitude that our aircraft are permitted, could well be limited in the same way as the larger model aircraft. Not because we have done anything, or have or have not have a register, but a consequence of the commercial developments and capabilities of drones.

As for the idea the registering models will separate us from those who are irresponsible or criminal intent, I just do not see it. The first time that there is an incident, there will inevitably be a cry, registration does not stop these people ignoring regulations. If one were to be found after incident, then the claim could be modellers are just avoiding being identified.

I remain a long way from being convinced that registration achieving anything useful. At the same time I am coming to the view that regulatory change is coming, just to accommodate the large commercial drones, which could be autonomous for much of their flight. I can see that in the minds of politician, that this sector will increasingly contribute to the UK economy and its well being.

I see registration as almost a side show, a bit of a red herring, that will not stop changes to the regulations in either the short or longer term. Particularly for us, the hobby flier.