New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Dave Rose]

 

 

Posted by ChrisB on 02/06/2018 13:24:26:

As BEB says and as many people have been saying, the regs are aimed at the amazon and birthday brigade.

The CAA are still working through the details. Their focus is not aeromodelling its the new breed of ‘leisure users’. No need to panic. It’ll all be ok.

It does not matter at whom the regs are "aimed". What matters is what the law as written includes. If you read Article 94a it says any sua cannot fly above 400ft ( without CAA permission) anywhere - and that law comes in on 1 August this year.

That's it. Unless a change is brought in as a result of bmfa lobbying or anyone else's lobbying, or for whatever reason, then thermal glider fliers sending machines over 400 ft will be breaking the law. Forget whether or not they will be found out by plod or not. If an incident arises from such a flight ( e g bad accident with serious injury ), then the insurance company will not cover such a situation. Who then pays?, asks the injured party's solicitor?

Anyone who in law he thinks is responsible. Flier, and/or competition organiser, landowner where comp to place?

This is the possibility of flying after 31 July - as things stand at the moment.

It is not panicking- it is facing facts. One hopes to hear that someone has lobbied successfully by then to have proper and meaningful exemptions put into place. The BMFA to say we are talking is a step, but one would hope for a little more detail at this stage.

 

 

 

Edited By Dave Rose on 02/06/2018 16:32:10

[Keith Lomax]

A couple of points to clarify:

The CAA has a recognised communication route with "Model Flying Associations" (BMFA, SAA, LMA and FPVUK) who meet at least annually and more frequently if there is anything to discuss - and there have been several such meetings as a result of this proposed legislation - and also with the DfT and H&SE.

However, they only informed them BMFA CEO that this next stage was going to happen after 6pm the previous evening, and it just happened that the CEO was away from both the office and home that day but published the statement on the BMFA website as soon as he was able.

The legislation will be in place from July 2018 but comes into force from 1st October 2019 (registration and online test) and 30th November (restrictions on flying). The online test will relate to the legislation, so is comparable with the "mandatory questions" in the BMFA achievement schemes. Membership of any of the previously mentioned associations is likely to constitute registration (after all, the CAA don't have the resource or motivation to do it).

Discussions with the associations about the specifics of the restrictions (including gliders) are ongoing.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Keith Lomax on 02/06/2018 17:59:36:

A couple of points to clarify:

The CAA has a recognised communication route with "Model Flying Associations" (BMFA, SAA, LMA and FPVUK) who meet at least annually and more frequently if there is anything to discuss - and there have been several such meetings as a result of this proposed legislation - and also with the DfT and H&SE.

However, they only informed them BMFA CEO that this next stage was going to happen after 6pm the previous evening, and it just happened that the CEO was away from both the office and home that day but published the statement on the BMFA website as soon as he was able.

The legislation will be in place from July 2018 but comes into force from 1st October 2019 (registration and online test) and 30th November (restrictions on flying). The online test will relate to the legislation, so is comparable with the "mandatory questions" in the BMFA achievement schemes. Membership of any of the previously mentioned associations is likely to constitute registration (after all, the CAA don't have the resource or motivation to do it).

Discussions with the associations about the specifics of the restrictions (including gliders) are ongoing.

Exactly - that's what we keep saying! So let's save the doom and gloom for another day - I very much doubt its going to dawn in this one!!

BEB

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Mike T]

See attached pic, clipped from the official announcement and quoted in the 2nd post of this thread. I suggest the highlighted paragraph is what we should be cutting out and pasting on our aircraft.

Come to think of it, perhaps the BMFA reps should stick it on their foreheads when they go into their next meeting with the CAA!

I note the BMFA's own statement refers to discussions to ensure "minimal impact".  The above statement is unambiguous - "do not impact".  The BMFA should hold the CAA's feet to the fire! 

Edited By Mike T on 03/06/2018 13:33:50

Edited By Mike T on 03/06/2018 13:35:35

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[cymaz]

I suspect a Whitehall Civil servant will be the problem...not the CAA

[MattyB]

Posted by David Mellor on 03/06/2018 15:55:56:

The BMFA already has on file our Name, our BMFA Membership Number, our Affiliated Club Number and our Certification (A, B etc). That is more than adequate to comply with AN(A)O without each of us individually applying to the CAA. And that is exactly what AN(A)O 2018 P 94D-(3) anticipates.

In those (happy) circumstances the lone/rogue drone user "community" would fall into the "Certain SUA" category of AN(A)O P 94C and P 94E and would be required to individually register directly with the CAA or else fall foul of the ANO.

Hopefully the CAA and the BMFA (and similar associations) will reach happy accord........and all will be well for us aero-modellers and legitimate drone flyers.

Sorry, but none of the things highlighted in bold prove the pilot has read and understood the revised ANO with it’s new requirements. There is no mandatory requirement to hold an A or B cert at present either (I have flown for ~35 years and don’t have one, as being primarily a glider pilot they have never been necessary), and they never expire or are validated. Finally you don’t need to be a member of a BMFA club to be a member of the BMFA itself, so I doubt they would consider country members as being in a position to receive the necessary guidance and become competent in the new requirements without a test.

If the CAA accept membership of the BMFA / LMA / FPVUK alone as the only requirement that would be a great outcome for us, but I can’t see that happening. Either they are going to require everyone to do a test online individually to prove our understanding of the new regs, or that same competence is going to have to be tested and signed off at a club level. Maybe both options will be offered, who knows, but I am certain “here’s my BMFA #, off we go” isn’t going to be deemed sufficient.

In summary I suspect those who fly solely in affiliated clubs at longstanding model flying sites will be largely unaffected, with perhaps a one time electronic competency test the only negative. For everyone else though it’s likely to be more onerous, especially once electronic conspicuity becomes a requirement as seems necessary for Uspace to work.

Edited By MattyB on 03/06/2018 22:54:34

[MattyB]

Posted by ChrisB on 02/06/2018 10:48:19:

If there ends up being a visibility system for each model aircraft the man from the ministries screen will be full with thousands of little dots.

That’ll soon become tiresome!

Uspace does not require a “man from the ministry” - the idea is that the airspace between 0-1000ft can be managed autonomously, with everything operating within it aware of everything else. It might sound a bit sci-fi but as a big data problem it is not that hard for modern tech, with global commercial full size movements per day around 100k. Even with all non-commercial manned, model flights plus a massive rise in commercial drones you would only be looking at 1 million flights/day.

The important bit will be building in sufficient resiliency and security, but it’s a trivial challenge from a computing power perspective.

Edited By MattyB on 03/06/2018 23:45:51

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by David Mellor on 04/06/2018 09:19:20:

Hi Matty,

You may well be right. Time will tell.

My point is that we still have some cause for optimism.... so far, at least.

My point is based on the notion that the AN(A)O anticipates the possibility of an intermediate system (such as a BMFA/LMA/etc and CAA agreement) to "blanket allocate" all the requirements for registration and competence. As I mentioned, there are a great many variations on this simple idea, but they all amount to what you could describe as being akin to a delegated authority from CAA to BMFA/etc - or as you put it yourself "signed off at club level" .

Such a system could in principle be a win-win for all organisations concerned because the overwhelming bulk of supporting data is already in place for most of us. Such a delegated system is much quicker, much cheaper, much better for the majority of "us aero-modellers" and - perhaps above all - much better for the CAA who don't need any more bureaucracy imposed upon them. In a nutshell, it puts the "aero-modelling problem" neatly to bed for the CAA because they simply hand it over to BMFA/LMA/etc.

Delegation might sound great in principle, but if the CAA delegates responsibility to the BMFA/LMA/FPVUK and they delegate it to clubs it is the local committee who are likely to be become responsible* for assuring members are trained in and comply with the regs.

That's an additional responsibility on committee members and it isn't a task many will relish. Would you want to tell fellow members who've flown safely for decades that they cannot fly/rejoin unless they sit a test online or in the club hut to prove they know the ANO? We all know a percentage will simply refuse that request if they think they can get away with it. If the committee then let them fly and there is an incident (unlikely, but far from impossible) it is not just going to be the individual getting pulled up in court, it is the committee who signed them off as competent. If that is the way the CAA and modelling associations choose to go I will be thinking very hard as to whether I want to take up any position on the committee of a club.

* - Case law would be needed to prove this absolutely of course, but it does not seem unreasonable.

PS - We know from the NFC voting discussions on this site that around 1/3 (12k) of the BMFAs members are now country members with no formal club affiliation. Obviously some are still members of BMFA clubs and just choose to join direct online, but it does show that a significant number of pilots don't formally operate within a club and therefore would not benefit from a local sign-off model.

Edited By MattyB on 04/06/2018 17:40:20

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

How would a committee member/safety officer/examiner/instructor stand at present Matty, safe flying and abiding by present laws comes under their remit, instructors pass people out to fly solo at clubs or examiners where a BMFA certificate is required, clubs appoint safety officers to oversee flying, is anything really changing significantly for them ?

[JOHN MOSLEY 2]

Remember the pilot in charge is held legally responsible. Blaming committee or the guy who took you achievement scheme test, is like blaming the guy who took your driving test with. It only say that on that day you flew and answered the questions correctly. What happens after that is it to the person in charge of the vehicle or aircraft.

[MattyB]

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/06/2018 17:54:01:

How would a committee member/safety officer/examiner/instructor stand at present Matty, safe flying and abiding by present laws comes under their remit, instructors pass people out to fly solo at clubs or examiners where a BMFA certificate is required, clubs appoint safety officers to oversee flying, is anything really changing significantly for them ?

Good question. The answer is that club officials obviously need to uphold the rules of their club, but none of those are currently items in law - the BMFA only publishes guidelines, and there is no legal requirement for anyone to hold an A, B or any other BMFA (or other modelling association) cert to fly. As such as long as the club rules state members should comply with the ANO at all times it is highly unlikely the committee will be held legally liable for the actions of one of their members.

Contrast that with a situation where every SUA pilot must legally have completed a competency test be registered, and those processes have been delegated down to the club level. In that situation the risk to committee members is much higher - they need to administer/validate the tests, complete the required paperwork, retain the records securely and (if the certifications run out after a time) redo them at the correct point. If Joe Bloggs completes his test but the paperwork never gets to the CAA, who is responsible? Or if his cert runs out and he is not reminded by the club to retake it? Who knows; the answer is probably whoever has the best lawyers, the individual or the club committee. Either way it is a whole new area of risk that did not exist before.

Yes I know the BMFA membership includes committee insurance for this very purpose, but frankly I would not want to be in the position of needing to test it. YMMV.

Edited By MattyB on 04/06/2018 18:22:43

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

ANO's are not guidelines, I don't see anything that concerns me too much, some corresponding with the members to come, and notices to print and put on websites, maybe a meeting to clear everyones heads once final outcomes known, all manageable and life will go on, hopefully there'll be good news for slope/thermal flyers to come.

[Adrian Smith 1]

Whilst I am happy not to speculate on what we are required to do until the full judgement is known and statements are issued by the requisite official representative flying bodies, I have one question that will need further addressing. What are all the BMFA country members who aren't club members going to do? After all the BMFA is happy to take our subscriptions, so I would be interested to see how we will be treated. Same goes for the LMA and others of course.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Adrian Smith 1 on 04/06/2018 19:42:11:

Whilst I am happy not to speculate on what we are required to do until the full judgement is known and statements are issued by the requisite official representative flying bodies, I have one question that will need further addressing. What are all the BMFA country members who aren't club members going to do? After all the BMFA is happy to take our subscriptions, so I would be interested to see how we will be treated. Same goes for the LMA and others of course.

Yep, I forgot about you folk outside clubs, hopefully there's a workable outcome.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[JOHN MOSLEY 2]

That's a good answer and being law abiding I guess we all need an altimeter feed back built into all receivers.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by JOHN MOSLEY 2 on 05/06/2018 08:32:56:

 

I guess we all need an altimeter feed back built into all receivers.

Is this a current requirement for models over 7 kg?

If not, what evidence do we have that enforcement will be any more precise for all models, than is currently the case for models over 7 kg?

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 05/06/2018 09:31:14

[Cuban8]

Posted by john stones 1 on 04/06/2018 17:54:01:

How would a committee member/safety officer/examiner/instructor stand at present Matty, safe flying and abiding by present laws comes under their remit, instructors pass people out to fly solo at clubs or examiners where a BMFA certificate is required, clubs appoint safety officers to oversee flying, is anything really changing significantly for them ?

Quickest way to get yourself hated........don your hi-viz and become a safety officer!

Neither of my two clubs (220 members) have such an individual in place, all members are their own 'safety officer' with any issues being usually sorted out at the time and on the field, rarely have I known a problem to be put before a club's committee for investigation. There's no excuse for not knowing the rules (with updates, naturally) that have worked perfectly well for decades, have given our hobby an excellent safety record and continues to do so.

Can you imagine the nightmare of organising on-line tests with possible re-sits every few years? What use would they serve other than to (literally) be a box ticking exercise. It won't address the drone problem anyway, so why lumber us with it? Compulsory altimeters in models? yeah right............if they're compulsory, then they'll need to be checked and calibrated every so often to remain 'approved'. By whom and at what cost?

See Bruce Simpson's take on all this **LINK**

A bit of a long rant as is Bruce's style, but I think he's on the right track.

What many of us here are forgetting IMHO, is the reaction of the vast majority of rank and file members who are not following this fiasco closely, are only faintly aware of what's going on and are not going to be happy to be made to jump through hoops to continue operating their models legally and safely if all this stuff is not deflected away from us somehow.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Turning your back on the reality of it ain't an option, ranting about it does no good, safety officers and the like ain't my cup of tea either, we did it to give a sensible member a final say if/when disputes break out at field (it very rarely happens now) Rank and file are same as me, I don't want to jump through hoops, nor tell others to. Hi viz jackets make you sweat, we occasionally wear them on open days so guests know who to approach if they need something. When the final outcomes known, our rank and file will know what it entails, not that big a deal to inform them. Committee meetings we've had one to choose dates for our events, club meetings are fish n chips n fly. Go fly n behave yourself.

[Andy Meade]

Thanks for the link Cuban8 - good video, and he talks a lot of sense

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]