I am surprised at apparently no comment

[Peter Jenkins]

BEB

I take your point. However, let's look at the existing wording in EASA's proposal:

In some MSs (Member States), model aircraft operations are clearly defined and regulated by established model clubs and associations, in accordance with the regulatory framework of their NAA (CAA in the UK). These national regulations are mostly considered to be fit for purpose by both the remote pilots and their NAA.

And:

The main consequence of this issue is the barrier to the market. If model aircraft would be required to comply with the same requirements mandated for UAS, they could be even prohibited or at least a disproportionate burden could be imposed on them. For this reason, some special alleviations need to be identified for this aircraft category. (My emphasis)

EASA is clearly flagging up that they think that the current situation in some Member States is perfectly adequate. They go on to say that allowing a fragmented approach to legislation i.e. left to the Member States' NAAs, there might be some who would impose disproportionate burdens on the model flying world.

I'm with you if your point is that we, the model flying fraternity in the UK, and I hope across Europe, need to write in to EASA to say that we agree with their approach that the UK CAA's approach to regulating model flying is "fit for purpose". We should seek to have the issue of allowing new Clubs to be formed that would not be prohibited by legislation focused on "Grand father" rights. Not to do so would ossify the model flying fraternity in the state it is in at the point legislation is enacted. EASA in their document pays tribute to the impact of model flying on the greater good of the aviation industry and that is something that they see continuing.

The issue of the lone flyer is going to be difficult to deal with but we should look at ensuring this can be dealt with by allowing new "Clubs" to be formed and old ones to be dissolved as may sometimes be the case - for example when a flying site it lost because of noise or other considerations.

I think it behoves us all to take a positive approach and to go back to EASA with specific points that we wish to see identified as necessary and sufficient to enable model flying to continue along its existing course where we have many years of established operation and a good safety record.

We should recognise, however, that there is a limit to the freedom we all want with the need to ensure safety of full size aircraft and indeed of ourselves from operators who masquerade as model flyers while failing to live by the standards of the established model flying community. To fight against such "infringement" of our rights would not be helpful for 99% of model flyers.

I asked specifically what we should be drawing EASA's attention to and you have identified one. As regards one I can think of it is the potential height limitation of 120 mtrs. I fly F3A aerobatics where the top of the box is 260 mtrs. This is an international standard set out by the FAI and reading the story so far, this seems to have been taken on board by EASA. Clearly, thermal soarers will exceed this height quite handsomely so that is another point that needs to be flagged up although I can see that even today having a large model glider well into full size power flying territory can lead to problems although I've not heard of any to date. Full size gliders are notoriously difficult to see from other powered aircraft especially end on where they have a very low cross sectional area and are predominantly white - model gliders being significantly smaller will pose even greater problems. As ever, it requires us to exercise our judgement as to when to use our freedoms and when to defer to our full size brethren.

I am quite certain that the BMFA and Dave Phipps has made all of these points. Remember that Dave has also been helping to represent the FAI and Europe Air Sports. We also have the 500,000 modellers in the EU forming into a pan-European movement where Dave is also active.

I guess my point is that rather than just posting gloom and doom views which are not always based on what has actually been published and not insisting that EASA is staffed by a bunch of incompetents, it would be a better to think about specific issues and raise real points rather than vague comments along the lines of "we're all doomed". What precisely are the points that we need to make to EASA based on real issues. Condense those into concise arguments and send them to EASA.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Rob Buckley]

Posted by kc on 30/08/2017 17:29:50:

It was mentioned yesterday that clubs might get exemptions. Those people who are NOT in any club would probably lose out so surely the answer for them is to make sure you form yourselves into a club BEFORE the regulations apply. Even if you are a lone flier then form your own club! Just a name and a website with some stated flying site might be enough. Maybe co-opt a non flying family member along too to ensure it counts as a club. But the fact that the club exists before the regulation might be critical so make sure it's documented in some way. ( on this forum perhaps)

 

Having said that I still reckon flying with others in a club is so much more enjoyable than a lone flying session!

Where anything from EASA, DfT or the CAA says 'Club', read it as 'National club or association'. Operational permissions will be issued to national associations (or clubs) that have the resources, experience and experience to provide their members with the necessary information, have appropriate procedures in place for flying safely and can potentially keep a register of their members to prevent members having to register individually.

It is not intended that permissions would be issued to individual model flying clubs, as they wouldn't be able to meet the experience requirements, and the CAA have no stated wish to be dealing with lots and lots of clubs.

The intent is that model flying under an operational permission won't be tied to specific flying sites, and anywhere that models can legally be flown to day would also be appropriate for flying under an operational permission.

 

 

 

Edited By Rob Buckley on 30/08/2017 21:01:40

[Erfolg]

It does seem we all recognise that there are to be changes as a consequence of the EASA.

We do have differences in accessing as to how far ranging they potentially will be. In my case, my opinion is that the very vagueness of the various communications suggests that these changes could signal in the medium to long term demise of our hobby, if not challenged, constructively.

In the light of my fears, I really do encourage both individuals and the BMFA to lobby, as BEB suggests. If it changes nothing, well, we have done our best both individually and as a group.

I read Peters post, and no surprise to me I spotted weasel words, an example is the use of "mostly". This is pretty indicative of modifying, in a negative manner, what at first reading appears to be positive sentence or paragraph. Although at first sight, we believe that our arguments are both heard and recognised, it then coming as a surprise when we are informed, you did not read the text properly.

I know I will be accused of being anti BMFA, yet I will suggest, the BMFA should provide us with a pro-former to guide us all in the production of an effective response as part of  the consultation process. Principally to demonstrate that we all exist and believe that we collectively are responsible and wish to continue our hobby in a light touch regulatory environment. Not the bureaucratic ideal of the EU mind set.

It may not be recognised by the BMFA, who may prefer a low key approach, that we are here and want to help ourselves collectively, even if not BMFA members to enabling our hobby, in all its forms, and ways of operating,  to have a future

 

Edited By Erfolg on 30/08/2017 21:38:10

[Rob Buckley]

Don't forget, it's not just the BMFA doing the lobbying.

[ChrisB]

Keep calm, carry on and don't panic Mr Mainwaring. This is nothing new to what has gone before, just an update.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Rob Buckley on 30/08/2017 21:37:18:

Don't forget, it's not just the BMFA doing the lobbying.

True, but it's usually the BMFA, the largest of the model flying groups, that get's the blame for not doing this or that. Incidentally, the BMFA is the largest of the Air Sports groups in the Royal Aero Club. The next largest is the para gliding movement I believe with some 7,000 members vs the 36,000 in the BMFA.

It will not surprise you, Erfolg, that I disagree with your view that this initiative by EASA will sound the death of model flying in the medium to long term. I think there is a far higher likelihood that the demographic make up of our hobby is likely to be a much greater threat.

There are 3 salaried employees in the BMFA who could reasonably be expected to carry out Erfolg's suggestion that the BMFA should provide us with a pro-former to guide us all in the production of an effective response as part of the consultation process. The rest are volunteers some of whom are still involved in full time employment. So, be like BEB and look in the mirror and stop expecting someone else to do what you could, with a little bit of effort, do yourself. BEB has given us the location to visit to send in our views. Don't keep expecting someone else to do what you cannot be bothered to do.

Edited By Peter Jenkins on 30/08/2017 23:01:58

[ChrisB]

I agree Peter. I submitted a personal response and a response obo my club. The document covers many different aspects and topics and some individuals and clubs will be more interested in more than others.

Having read all the documents several times (and i'm in full time employment) I picked out the key issues that I considered relevant and wrote a response. I don't see why it should be down to anyone other than the individual to do it. The national associations have made us all aware of the consultation, so its up to use to decide if we wish to add to their good work behind the scenes.

[Erfolg]

I thought that the BMFA had recently recruited a paid PRO?

From experience I am aware, in the past, a number of commercial organisations, in cases where they thought that both the interests of the organisation and its employees to be threatened, to organise a petition which employees were free to sign or not.

I also believe that the issue affects others outside of the umbrella of representation of the BMFA.

It may only be my opinion, that I see these proposed changes to regulations as the biggest and most important issue facing our hobby. Far more important than a NFC.

If yo were to ask have I made a representation. The answer is yes, both written and a verbal discussion with my ex MP (I now live in a different area, although this does not stop you discussing a topic with an MP). I will admit to missing an oppurtunity to raise the issue with my present MP. I was distracted by other issues, where I sought his position,

Edited By Erfolg on 31/08/2017 09:38:37