New Drone Laws from 30/5/2018

[Erfolg]

John

You are correct, in that those who are principally engaged with work within the BMFA, generally have a link to competition of some type. In these areas many work tirelessly.

At the same time the area is approached by clubs to support them in some endeavor which engages with the BMFA collective membership and the local community. I am extremely pleased that the area I am in has recently been successful in these areas of general membership support. One local club, directly supporting local charities.

We as an area are constantly asked what is happening with the ANO etc. No one in this area has raised the NFC, members are concerned with their flying and their flying sites.

I think part of the issue of lethargy with respect to the BMFA, is that unlike most clubs and their committees, the BMFA centre does not appear to be interested in clubs. Yet I also recognise that it is the committees of clubs that make everything happen, although some more than others manage to engage at the working level with the membership.

To get greater involvement, the movement as a whole needs to focus much more on ordinary members. Recognising that every club has one or two who are only interested in their type of competition, often these are highly respected and regarded members. Yet it is the collective membership that provides the bedrock of a club, not the odd competitor, however much we love them.

Matty illustrates why we can become dissolutioned with the centre, quoting back verbatim the reassuring utterances. Which is just one of a general thread.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Talked about it many times Erf, Northern Area has some new people at the helm ( no disrespect to previous intended). I've been meetings, spent the day with em at workshops, talked with them. They're keen to get more to meetings, keen to get more people involved, keen for the clubs to have their say rather than the few at meetings deciding what's done, they do listen, they help when asked. Mobilise the masses, they would be with you all the way. Good luck with it.

[stu knowles]

I want to say something...……………. but I won't

Carry on.

Edited By stu knowles on 09/07/2018 20:36:41

[i12fly]

I keep looking at this thread because there may be some new information coming through which is important. There isn't -can we end it and start afresh when there is news?

[BackinBlack]

I too have watched this thread with interest and at times a sense of irritation, 27 pages of supposition, surmising and speculation and little fact.

The Summer issue of the LMA journal has a most informative 2 page report by Rob Buckley regarding the discussions to date and the implications of the most recent changes to the ANO. A similar summary from the BMFA would have been helpful in dispelling the doom and gloom foreseen by some here.

Based on his informed report I am confident that we that fly in a responsible manner as a Member of one of the established Model Flying Clubs/Associations will be able to continue to do so, eventually without height restrictions for SUAs below the 7Kg limit, much as at present. It is possible that a test of competence based on theory may be required, perhaps similar to the A cert theory, to demonstrate knowledge of the Laws and Regulations applicable to model flight.

There will be further regulations and restrictions aimed specifically at the irresponsible use of Drones, how these are to be enforced remains to be seen.

[Alan Gorham_]

BMFA released their statement slightly before the LMA on both their website and in the BMFA news. In fact it is linked more than once in this very thread!

Can we just agree once again that the changes to the ANO are NOT to deal with "irresponsible use of Drones" but with clearing of airspace to allow commercial activity in a dedicated air corridor.

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 10/07/2018 12:20:33

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 10/07/2018 12:20:22:

Can we just agree once again that the changes to the ANO are NOT to deal with "irresponsible use of Drones" but with clearing of airspace to allow commercial activity in a dedicated air corridor.

To clear the airspace, they have to stop irresponsible drone users from flying into it. An unnecessary distinction from our viewpoint, really!

[ChrisB]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 10/07/2018 12:20:22:

BMFA released their statement slightly before the LMA on both their website and in the BMFA news. In fact it is linked more than once in this very thread!

Can we just agree once again that the changes to the ANO are NOT to deal with "irresponsible use of Drones" but with clearing of airspace to allow commercial activity in a dedicated air corridor.

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 10/07/2018 12:20:33

There are no changes to the ANO. The ANO remains exactly the same as it is now. The only limitation will be on those who are not in one of the four recognised national associations.

[Alan Gorham_]

Chris, I refer you to the BMFA statement which is quoted on this very page by MattyB:

The most urgent matter to address was the recent change to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) which introduced (in Article 94A) a 400ft height limit on the operation of all Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) which will come into effect on the 30th July 2018. Whilst the changes to the ANO are primarily aimed at regulating 'drones', the 400ft restriction will also apply to model aircraft below 7Kg.

So there is a change to the ANO that requires the model flying associations to apply for an exemption.

[Capt Kremen]

The local BBC radio in our area featured a phone on the topic of Drones this morning. Most general public callers/texts etc. made to the station were clammering for tough regulations on their use.

One caller related how a drone flown near her child's beloved horse resulted in it ultimately having to be destroyed. So regardless of modellers and professional drone pilots behaving and obeying laws present or to come, a general public education/awareness seems obviously required.

[MattyB]

Asked a question about progress on the BMFA FB page - response below...

"Hi Matt thanks for your comment. The BMFA's CEO has spent 3 days negotiating with authorities this week, so the BMFA is continuing to press the matter as promised. As soon as we have a confirmed update we will post accordingly."

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Let's all hope they can find a form of words that will do what we want and that CAA can accept. In the meantime I feel we need to be patient and let the Associations do their job.

BEB

[ChrisB]

Posted by MattyB on 10/07/2018 22:13:13:

Asked a question about progress on the BMFA FB page - response below...

"Hi Matt thanks for your comment. The BMFA's CEO has spent 3 days negotiating with authorities this week, so the BMFA is continuing to press the matter as promised. As soon as we have a confirmed update we will post accordingly."

MattyB if you read the entire statement (linked below) and copied below its made quite clear. No change in real terms for us.

However, we are pleased to report that agreement was reached that the Model Flying Associations will collectively apply for an exemption from Article 94A to allow their members to continue operating model aircraft below 7Kg above 400ft as they do under the current ANO. The DfT and CAA were supportive of this course of action and did not foresee any reason why the exemption would not be in place in time for the 30th July.

**LINK**

For those who aren't aware of the weight vs height limits. Uncontrolled airspace models over 7kg limited to 400ft, In controlled airspace permission from ATC required.

 

Edited By ChrisB on 10/07/2018 23:48:24

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Erfolg on 09/07/2018 18:18:21:

At the same time the area is approached by clubs to support them in some endeavor which engages with the BMFA collective membership and the local community. I am extremely pleased that the area I am in has recently been successful in these areas of general membership support. One local club, directly supporting local charities.

We as an area are constantly asked what is happening with the ANO etc. No one in this area has raised the NFC, members are concerned with their flying and their flying sites.

I think part of the issue of lethargy with respect to the BMFA, is that unlike most clubs and their committees, the BMFA centre does not appear to be interested in clubs. Yet I also recognise that it is the committees of clubs that make everything happen, although some more than others manage to engage at the working level with the membership.

To get greater involvement, the movement as a whole needs to focus much more on ordinary members. Recognising that every club has one or two who are only interested in their type of competition, often these are highly respected and regarded members. Yet it is the collective membership that provides the bedrock of a club, not the odd competitor, however much we love them.

Matty illustrates why we can become dissolutioned with the centre, quoting back verbatim the reassuring utterances. Which is just one of a general thread.

Erf, I take it you attend your Area Committee meetings regularly and report back to your Club all the information that is imparted at them concerning issues such as the impact of the Drone legislation. I know that in our Area that happens but the problem is to get Clubs to attend these meetings. They are all circulated with minutes, reports and meeting Agendas but roughly 10% choose to attend. Much of the information is contained in the BMFA News but sadly many people choose not to read it and every BMFA member gets a copy.

The rest of your post is a generalisation that is wrong in most cases.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by ChrisB on 10/07/2018 23:45:14:

Posted by MattyB on 10/07/2018 22:13:13:

Asked a question about progress on the BMFA FB page - response below...

"Hi Matt thanks for your comment. The BMFA's CEO has spent 3 days negotiating with authorities this week, so the BMFA is continuing to press the matter as promised. As soon as we have a confirmed update we will post accordingly."

MattyB if you read the entire statement (linked below) and copied below its made quite clear. No change in real terms for us.

However, we are pleased to report that agreement was reached that the Model Flying Associations will collectively apply for an exemption from Article 94A to allow their members to continue operating model aircraft below 7Kg above 400ft as they do under the current ANO. The DfT and CAA were supportive of this course of action and did not foresee any reason why the exemption would not be in place in time for the 30th July.

**LINK**

All the statement from the BMFA says is that the 400ft limit for all SUAs (not just those over 7kg) that will come into force on Aug 1st will require an exemption for members of the various UK MFAs, and that the parties involved are going to work to put one in place. It does not say an exemption is in place now, nor does it give a guarantee that one will occur - it merely says they "...did not foresee any reason why the exemption would not be in place in time for the 30th July", future tense.

If this were as straightforward as you suggest it seems strange that the BMFA would have needed 3 solid days to negotiate the exemption (a process which is not yet complete as per their response to me on Facebook). When the BMFA statement first came out mid June many of us who have followed this process and read the various EASA and DfT docs in detail thought that "pay £34 and fly to 1000ft wherever you like" was a surprising outcome. I suspect that having agreed that in principle the CAA and DfT are now being lobbied by the commercial drone companies to row back on the grounds it will make their operations much harder. Time will tell...

Edited By MattyB on 11/07/2018 10:44:13

[Ron Gray]

Why jump to conclusions - 'I suspect that having agreed that in principle the CAA and DfT are now being lobbied by the commercial drone companies to row back on the grounds it will make their operations much harder.' why not wait and see what the outcome is?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Ron Gray on 11/07/2018 10:48:45:

Why jump to conclusions - 'I suspect that having agreed that in principle the CAA and DfT are now being lobbied by the commercial drone companies to row back on the grounds it will make their operations much harder.' why not wait and see what the outcome is?

That is not jumping to conclusions, it is merely a theory as to why the exemption may be taking longer to negotiate than planned. In reality we have no option but to wait and hope - there is nothing more we can do at this point (though I would still encourage you to write to your local MP if you can to express your concerns).

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Interesting. This sentence from page 5 is particularly so at present:

"Additional work is underway with UK aeromodelling associations to permit certain ‘model aircraft’
operations to continue above 400 ft when being flown within an appropriate club or association
environment."

It all swings on what they interpret as being "within an appropriate club or association environment". Literally within a club, or more generally simply a member of an association? I fear it might well be the former.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 17/07/2018 10:34:37

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 17/07/2018 10:33:59:

It all swings on what they interpret as being "within an appropriate club or association environment". Literally within a club, or more generally simply a member of an association? I fear it might well be the former.

The former would allow club locations to be marked as a no fly zone on aviation route planning maps in the future, in a similar way to airports etc. It would not be so easy (or possible) to avoid conflict for those flying outside of defined club locations.

 

Edited By Gary Manuel on 17/07/2018 10:52:33

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Exactly Gary - that will appeal to CAA.

BEB

[Martyn K]

Posted by Steve J on 11/07/2018 11:14:42:

I suspect that the DfT/CAA realised that giving a blanket exemption to 35,000+ people would make the 400ft limit completely pointless.

I don't think the plan was to grant an exemption to 35,000 people. My understanding was the location would get the exemption..

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]