Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Many clubs around the UK are based on public land. My own club is one such, we fly from a strip we lease from the local authority in a very large public park. Potentially the new EASA proposals (being discussed in general terms here) pose a problem for such clubs. As I understand it the proposals suggest that a mechanism be set up under Article 14 that would allow, say, the CAA to grant a club an "Operational Authorisation". This authorisation would permit certain exemptions from the provisions of the main rules - hopefully allowing model flying to continue more or less unmolested, whilst giving the authorities power to regulate commercial drone operators. That's the intention anyway! So, assuming this works in a similar way to the existing system of exemptions from the ANO that CAA operate (and that I am familiar with) then it goes something like this: 1. There is a default position at all rules apply unless explicitly stated otherwise. 2. You have to make a case as to why you can be safely granted an exemption to a certain rule. 3. CAA will then, hopefully, give you your exemption; usually for a fixed period. OK, so how might this be adapted? My guess would be: all the rules proposed in EASA's NPA apply, we then present a sort of "club operations manual" that describes how we run things alongside evidence of previous safe operation. Those operational procedures will content certain departures from the NPA's proposals and hopefully CAA will approve them. So what's the problem? Well basically what might CAA's starting position be? In other words what set of rules will they consider to be the "default" from which we are asking for exemptions? I am concerned that the logical starting point for CAA might be the rules as contained Category A3 of the Open group. If that is the case it contains a proposal that any flying under Category A3 must take place away from the public. As a club based in a public park we could not comply with that. Would we be granted an exemption from that? I don't know - I fear that, despite over 60 years of accident free operation, we may not, as it may be seen as issue over which they will not compromise. Anyway its a lottery - we might get it, we might not. Its a wobbly basis for a club! As I said at the beginning, we are not only club in this position by any means. Currently we are discussing internally how to phrase our feedback to the consultation process to try to defend our position. We'd be very interested to share this and hear the views of other clubs in a similar position. So if you are such a club, what are you planning to say/do? Have you thought about this yet? Please - this is not another thread about the EASA proposals in general, what we think about them, how we don't like the nasty people doing this to us! Its purely for members of any clubs in this position (and their friends!) to discuss this specific issue and share ideas. Thanks BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 My suggestion would be to base your response on comparing the established risk of model flying within your club (which I assume you can demonstrate with figures) to the activities that are allowed within the park but do no take place under the auspices of a carefully controlled environment - examples might include cycling, skateboarding, horse riding etc. A number of members of the public will undoubtedly have been injured by these activities over the years, so banning model flying if you have a good safety record then looks discriminatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Houghton 1 Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 As a committee member of the newly reformed South Wales Soaring Association, this is something we are going to have to look into, but we only reformed a few weeks ago and we've been too busy looking at other club matters. Flying RC gliders from slopes means that all of our flying is on public land or, land that is used, and enjoyed for other activities, by the public. This is mainly walkers/ramblers and motocross type bikers. We have permission, (and pay a substantial sum annually) for permission to fly one particular area, by the farmers who have grazing rights on Forestry Commission owned land, and there are national (BMFA) and international F3F competitions taking place here. The other slopes that we fly are all common land that can be used by all, but in many cases, because they are off the beaten track, we don't usually see anyone, only the occasional lost sheep. How these proposals will affect us, and other slope soaring clubs is anyone's guess. For instance, those who fly on the South Downs where there are thousands of walkers out on a warm, sunny Sunday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Similarly to the other EASA thread, the CAA will ultimately be responsible for aviation safety in the UK and in conjunction with the modelling associations will arrive at what they see as the best solution. The EASA regs set a framework from which the CAA can base their actions on. The whole reason for the inclusion of the clause about competent authorities is to give aeromodellers a 'get out'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 1, 2017 Author Share Posted June 1, 2017 But the point is Chris - it's an "open cheque". We just don't know what they are likely to agree to. We can be optimistic that, based on passed experience, CAA have (in the main) been reasonable and supportive. But the reality is we are being as to sign up to set a rules we don't know what they are going to be!! If the rules are applied as in Cat A3 then we are "dead in the water". If CAA accept our case, based on 60 years of safe operation, we are fine! But which will it be and how can we influance it? Having a consultation exercise about some new rules in which one side has the power to remove any rule, but isn't saying which ones they might do so, and hence the other side doesn't know what the rules are going to be, is a bit of a challenge to put it mildly! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 BED as a professional multi-rotor UAV operator and AOC holder as well as your revered status within your university department, perhaps you should approach the CAA directly and see if you can make contact with someone 'in the know'. Clearly they are not going to say definitively what their policy will be but you may be able to find out which way the wind is blowing for us modellers. Specifically, the A3 category and flying within your public park and the long standing safety record of your club. It might be useful to get an insight into how the EASA regulations might affect us, as much rests on how much discretion the CAA will have to vary the rules. In my few dealings with the CAA I have found them to be pragmatic and helpful to those who are respectful and strive to comply with the law. These regulations may have unintended consequences (like losing your flying site) so discussing them with the powers that be before they are ratified is preferable to the 'wait and see' philosophy that some advocate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 1, 2017 Author Share Posted June 1, 2017 Hi Piers, yes I agree with your assessment of the CAA - I too have always found them helpful and very professional. I really wish I did have such influance with them and I'm very flattered that you think I might have! But unfortunately I do not. It could be that BMFA could get some information, indeed it's possible that some recent and fairly upbeat comments from that quarter to the effect that "it will all be right on the night" might well stem from informal (and private) comments between CAA and BMFA - who knows? It would be nice to think so. But equally I do think its important that we get this issue in front of people now - we don't want any nasty surprises! As I say, at present we simply don't know what the position will be, and so we have to argue strongly for the status quo. Basically, as far as sucessful operating clubs in this position are concerned; "it ain't broke so we don't need to fix it" BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bisset Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 ‘BEB’ - and probably ‘Steve Houghton 1’. You might like to think about working up a Risk Assessment. It is very probable the CAA would want to see that given that in each case you are talking about common land with routine public access. If properly done there should be scope within that to mention the years of accident/incident free time, although of course that of itself is no assurance of safe operation! It may be useful to back up your assessment of risk levels and/or mitigations suggested or in use. No doubt there will be groans at the thought of doing an RA – understandably since they are rather oversold at times – but they can be useful if done sensibly and simply and I expect would be of help when dealing with the CAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Buckley Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Where the EASA NPA says 'club' that is not being read by the CAA as a local model flying club, they see an established national association, such as the LMA, BMFA, SAA etc. with an established record of safe operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 1, 2017 Author Share Posted June 1, 2017 Posted by Rob Buckley on 01/06/2017 19:59:50: Where the EASA NPA says 'club' that is not being read by the CAA as a local model flying club, they see an established national association, such as the LMA, BMFA, SAA etc. with an established record of safe operation. How do we know that Rob? I've not read any statement from CAA to that effect? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Your description of how your club is operated, at first sight seems specific to a particular set of circumstances. Yet in realty, it is probably quite standard in one particular aspect. That aspect is that there is public access, or are potentially present, due to public rights of way. Both of the clubs i am a member of, have a public right of way, running along one edge of the field. There will not be many flying fields that do not have some aspect of public access as an issue, be it within a 100 meters. I am interested what the BMFA response to this and other similar issues is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted June 1, 2017 Share Posted June 1, 2017 Bear in mind BEB that the NPA is a high level strategic document that has, in part, to be applied across European airspace, therefore the terminology has to be as generic as possible to cater for everyone, hence the ability to delegate to 'competent bodies'. If the CAA are interpreting the term Club, as a national association, then the inference is that as long as you are in the BMFA, LMA, SAA, RAFMAA etc, then you are probably ok, as A. you're insured (barring acting as an idiot) B. You're details are registered. If you think about it, the CAA knows how good or bad we all are. Incidents are reported to them, facts and figures are communicated to them and there are meetings each year with the BMFA and LMA and the CAA send a rep, on spec, to various airshows to ensure all is well and sensible. Therefore, if the CAA are to be the competent authority and have 'delegated powers' then why should anything change, as the CAA are far better placed than EASA to know our UK situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 1, 2017 Author Share Posted June 1, 2017 I don't disagree with any of that Chris - but I feel it's "hopes" - not "known definites"! Difficult to base the entire future of your club on a hope! Also difficult to make an informed response to consultation on that basis as well. BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Buckley Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 01/06/2017 21:08:02: Posted by Rob Buckley on 01/06/2017 19:59:50: Where the EASA NPA says 'club' that is not being read by the CAA as a local model flying club, they see an established national association, such as the LMA, BMFA, SAA etc. with an established record of safe operation. How do we know that Rob? I've not read any statement from CAA to that effect? BEB I know that because I have spoken to the CAA about it, as I also put here **LINK** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 That's interesting Rob. Of course even if it is as you say, and I have no reason to doubt that, its still only CAA's interpretation of EASA's statement! But hey, that they should know, you would think! But the real question here is; does that solve the main issue here - ie clubs (which are afliated) flying in publc spaces? I can't see it does? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 Posted by Rob Buckley on 02/06/2017 10:13:53: Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 01/06/2017 21:08:02: Posted by Rob Buckley on 01/06/2017 19:59:50: Where the EASA NPA says 'club' that is not being read by the CAA as a local model flying club, they see an established national association, such as the LMA, BMFA, SAA etc. with an established record of safe operation. How do we know that Rob? I've not read any statement from CAA to that effect? BEB I know that because I have spoken to the CAA about it, as I also put here **LINK** OK - that is new and very significant news to most of us (especially those not in the LMA); that intention has not been shared by the BMFA. If allowed to stand (I expect the commercial interests to oppose it) it does seem to offer a much brighter future for both clubs and lone fliers who operate from public spaces. I still can't see how it would link in with the U-space proposals though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 The only way I could see that working Matty woukld be that every club is afilliated to an "association" of some sort, (BMFA for example). That body then maintains a definitive database of club locations and that feeds U-Space data. Now the BMFA already do collect club location data, but,... 1. It is not mandatory 2. Its only approximate in reality and doesn't deliniate flying zones. Both of those could be changed of course. The real issue I'd see with this is a potential contradiction - it would amount (in reality) to CAA delegating the role of "competant body" to these associations - maybe not on paper, but in actuality.While I can see that might be attractive to CAA (and how!) I can't see it sitting easily with EASA. Also, if this really is officially the case then: 1. Why haven't CAA clearly and publically stated this to avoid confusion? 2. Why haven't EASA made that meaning clear in the NPA? The natural and obvious reading of article 14and other sections dealing this is that "club or association" means what it says "club" - not national representive body? BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 As this question of what exactly do EASA mean by "club or association" is clearly of pivotal importance I have decided to seek a definiive answer. I have written to Theresa Griffin MEP, who represents the NW and sits on the Industry, research and Energy Committee (and a substitute on the Transport Committee). I have requested that she officially ask EASA, on my behalf, for a clarifaication of what they intend "club or association" to mean. They are far more likely to answer her rather than me! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 As you say Steve that could mean either - but again we only have speculation about what the intended meaning actually is. could afgue that BMFA do not "conduct sport or leisure activities" at my flying field - my club however do! If I get an answer I'll obviously post it. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/06/2017 15:29:57 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piers Bowlan Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 I wouldn't hold your breath BEB. I strongly suspect that anything you get from EASA will be obtuse and as clear as mud (if you get a reply, that is). I still think you stand a better chance of getting clarification from the CAA as I would put money on it that they have a pretty good idea of what they plan to do already and are working closely with EASA. I can't see the CAA being spectators waiting for EASA to make up their mind. I suggest you just send them one of your eloquent missives, on Uni headed paper preferably, and I suspect the good ol CAA might fill in some of the blanks that is causing all this uncertainty regarding NPA and the A3 category. What is the worst that can happen? Like you have said, how can one comment on the NPA if none of us know whether under the proposed rules we will be able to continue our hobby without breaking the law? More clarification is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 Oh Piers I am under no illusions about the likely clarity of any reply - but I feel we have to try because, despite what I am happy to accept are the honest good will and good intentions of CAA, the plain fac t is that the only people who can give a definative answer to a question relating to a document written by EASA is,....EASA! Whether they will of course is another question, we can but try. BEB PS If the MEP does ask the question then EASA will answer. They won't ignore an MEP. But whether that answer has any value to us - well that's another question! Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/06/2017 15:37:20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 I wouldn't worry about U Space chaps. Its only going to affect urban areas if at all and not the rural areas we generally fly in. There will never be a situation where swarms of drones are flying around our skies like birds. Now...where did I leave shergar and his flying pig friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted June 2, 2017 Author Share Posted June 2, 2017 My club is in a urban area Chris! As are a fair number around the country. I think what you say is true of soaring sites - but less true of powered flight sites. As you have said quite correctly yourself on the other thread, distance from congested areas (as invoked in A3 for example) is not defined in any way. You could argue that hardly anywhere in England is really that far from congested areas. It maybe true in Scotland and parts of Wales, but here in the North West of England it feels quite congested almost everywhere! I know the working definitions of "congested" as they apply to the ANO and have used them in planning commefcial flights - but again it would only be an assumption on my part to believe they would apply unchanged to the proposals in the NPA. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/06/2017 15:51:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 2, 2017 Share Posted June 2, 2017 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.