CAA registration consulation

[David Davis]

SUA? Sports Utility Aircraft?

Interestingly enough, here in France each model has a seperate number, and I thought that the weight limit was 800 grammes but old age, seventy-one, plays tricks with the memory! All of my models are well over 800 grammes anyway.

I assume that if you sell a model to another person you have to remove the number and he has to register it again.

Picture of my foamy electric trainer's number below.

 

Edited By David Davis on 29/04/2019 07:22:04

[trebor]

Please don’t give the idiots over here any more ways to take money out of our pockets, they will start charging for each individual plane next. We might even have to buy the stick on numbers from them

[Cuban8]

I grow increasingly frustrated at how this situation has developed, and as it appears, is being made up on the hoof. The script writers of 'Yes, Minister' may well have rejected the current scenario for a plotline as way beyond the pale.

If you haven't seen Bruce Simpson's latest You Tube missive on the subject, I urge you to watch it . I know he has his moments, but I don't find much to disagree with this time.

Goodness knows where this is all going to end up. What more can any of us do?

[Piers Bowlan]

David, I hope the CAA don't eventually decide to issue a unique number to each model aircraft here, as Paul Marsh has 500!

[trebor]

They will make a small charge to cover the cost of the sticker and admin fees. There goes another £10

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[trebor]

I knew I should have emigrated when they dumped a pile of bricks in the Tate and then banned playing conkers from school playgrounds.

[Peter Miller]

Stop the world!!! I want to get off!!

In the next life all politicians and civil servants will be in a much warmer place with demons sticking pitchforks into their nether regions

[Keith Lomax]

Posted by Steve J on 28/04/2019 19:26:11:

Posted by Gary Manuel on 28/04/2019 19:23:25:

what the hell is the £2.8 million being spent on?

See CAP 1775 section 3.9.

Steve

£1 million of it is to the outsourced (private) company who developed and will run the system. I can assure you that the BMFA will not be spending even 5% of this amount on the new membership system that has much more functionality.

[will -0]

Posted by Keith Lomax on 29/04/2019 08:48:58:

£1 million of it is to the outsourced (private) company who developed and will run the system. I can assure you that the BMFA will not be spending even 5% of this amount on the new membership system that has much more functionality.

Maybe the BMFA should bid to run the system then.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Steve J on 29/04/2019 08:02:30:

Posted by Cuban8 on 29/04/2019 07:33:25:

I grow increasingly frustrated at how this situation has developed, and as it appears, is being made up on the hoof.

It is hardly being 'made up on the hoof'. Everything that is happening was announced years ago.

Steve

Announced years ago it may well have been, but figures are being banded about regarding how many people will be affected (a guess in other words) the cost appears to be another figure conjured from thin air.........and crucially, no one seems to be clear as what is going to be achieved by it, if anything. It's a rotten idea that needs to be quashed.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin McIntosh]

When I heard about this latest fiasco via my club yesterday I duly filled out the consultation form.

They obviously do indeed know the difference between a model aircraft and a `drone` because it asks if you own one. I answered `no` because although I have some racers I am very unlikely to fly one again since our farmer banned them for some reason best known only to him.

I pointed out that the proportion of remote controlled `drones` versus model aircraft must be very small indeed.

I also queried the figure of 170,000 expected to sign up. Where did they get that from, worldwide numbers maybe?

Say for the sake of argument that there are 50 clubs registered with the BMFA, each having 100 members who would be forced to sign up or give up then 5000 registration fees would not generate the capital they wish for.

Other flyers would most likely not bother even if they knew about registration.

Come on BMFA, show them that you have teeth.

[Bob Cotsford]

I've not trawled all through this extensive thread so I may well be repeating what others have already said. Whatever.

I thought that the BMFA membership was around 35,000-ish, double that for LMA etc and lone flyers and I'd have thought that 70,000 would have been a better ball-park figure. Maybe they estimated numbers from sales/import figures on the basis of one drone one flyer?

As for £1M to develop a system, I can well believe that. Government and high end commercial software IS expensive owing to the extensive (excessive?) beurocracy involved in planning, specifying, reviewing and multi-stage approval needed before a single line of code is written, not to mention the extensive security layers that will need to be built around it.

Anyone remember the licences needed in the '60s? What was it, a quid or so? What does that equate to today?

XJet equates this proposed registration to the cost of a driving licence, that's not quite right is it? As I read the document pilot registration was free, only operator registration will incur the annual cost. This makes it a closer equivalent to owning a vehicle with the required registration, annual VED and DOT test charges. Better still, RC models only need one blanket registration regardless of the number of models, vehicle owners need one set of payments for each vehicle owned.  Now £16.50 isn't quite so daft, and it's still only the price of a 1/2 bottle of decent booze or about 3 or 4 pints of beer afaik. Two packets of fags?

Edited By Bob Cotsford on 29/04/2019 10:12:46

[David Gilder]

Just spent 15 minutes writing one heck of a response on the consultation and the damn CAA page dumped me off!

I'd only completed the first part also!

Arghh!!!

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

It's faintly ridiculous like many government schemes, and seems like it will largely benefit the company on the receiving end of that £1m. The main reasons for that expense, that being (a) the general incompetence and ignorance of the customer and (b) that customer is a different person and/or changes their mind every five years, were left out of Bob's post!

However it's not a huge heap of beans from our end of things and if it shuts up the government's drone panic department, perhaps worth it from our point of view.

[trebor]

It's not going to shut up the " Drone panic dept " for long because it's not going to work.

[Brian Cooper]

Okay, it will cost £16.50 to be an "Operator", which means being the owner of a drone or model aircraft, but the "Pilot" pays nothing.

I know that the issues go wayyyyyy beyond being about the cost but just for a giggle, how about ALL models in the UK being owned by just ONE person, and that person has 30,000 pilots to fly them.

That should give them something to think about..

[Martin Dance 1]

Whilst I think the CAA having a register of model aircraft, drone, and whatever remotely controlled recreational UAV's is really unnecessary and is largely a duplication of effort because the various national bodies already have databases of their members which I know they will share with the CAA.

I think it is important to look at the issue from the other side. We have a very weak government at the moment which can't stand up to the braying of commercial interests or the red top press. So to be seen to do 'something' the CAA have been instructed to register all UAV's ASAP.

Move on to the year's end with registration in place. The next red top headline is 'UNREGISTERED Drone seen near Gatwick airport' So that compounds the crime in the eyes of the press and public. Of course there will be no actual evidence of the presence of a drone or whether it is registered or not. But hey why spoil a good story with facts?

I have responded to the consultation and will further support the efforts of the BMFA to stop this nonsense.

[gangster]

213 aeromodellers bothered to respond to the December '16 DfT consultation which had a big section on registration

i am glad this one was not as long or complex.

[alan p]

Gatwick declares drone alert, outside their zone. Day after consultation launch( Am I cynical)

Its probably the same aircrew who landed in Edinborough when they should have been in Dusseldorf!!!, should have gone to spec savers

[GONZO]

Tsk, tsk alan p, naughty boy! What a suspicious person you are. Next thing you'll be suggesting the original 'Gatwick fiasco' was a 'staged' job to justify registration.

[GONZO]

For those of a conspiratorial nature How to Engineer a Crisis  12 mins in for domestic crisis.

Edited By GONZO on 29/04/2019 11:47:54