CAA registration consulation

[John Privett]

The BBC have picked up the story now. See here.

They start off commenting about the high fee and comparing it to the French, Irish and US schemes. Several people and organisations ( though not the BMFA) get a mention in the article.

One interesting quote towards the end of the article states;

"Four of the largest drone associations, which represent 40,000 users between them, are understood to be exploring whether they are able to act as the registered operator for all of their members' drones and model aircraft."

Might mean the £16.50 fee might have to go up a little if only 4 'operators' register!

[Wasaforumite]

I've not been able to read all 18 odd pages of this thread so I might Have missed earlier comments about under 18's not being able to register. How is that going to work?

[Philip Lewis 3]

Well as it happens I own the company I work for, it’s a Ltd company so a totally separate legal entity to me, guess which legal entity now owns the planes that I fly?

On the insurance being invalid if an illegal act issue that's wrong, do you think you are uninsured if you are speeding or uninsured if you haven't paid your road tax?

You would not be uninsured whilst breaking a civil not criminal law unless they put a clause in the contract saying so, in which case let’s hope they don't!

Edited By Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:29:18

Edited By Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:31:48

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Isn't breaking the ANO a criminal offence? In your example, you must have passed a driving test and are not disqualified in order for your insurance to be valid - this proviso is on every insurance certificate I have ever been issued.

The BMFA insurers have stated unequivocally that their insurance policy is invalid if you are acting illegally. If the law states that you must be registered and tested before flying then it seems clear to me that the act of flying that model is an illegal act. Therefore any claim made would be declined - something that would also affect any insurance premiums you might pay for such as car and home insurance.  £16.50 - although a totally unreasonable amount in my opinion - pales into insignificance when you're then liable for 4 figure car insurance premiums, for example.

Edited By Martin Harris on 30/04/2019 21:52:33

[Cuban8]

Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:28:33:

Well as it happens I own the company I work for, it’s a Ltd company so a totally separate legal entity to me, guess which legal entity now owns the planes that I fly?

On the insurance being invalid if an illegal act issue that's wrong, do you think you are uninsured if you are speeding or uninsured if you haven't paid your road tax?

You would not be uninsured whilst breaking a civil not criminal law unless they put a clause in the contract saying so, in which case let’s hope they don't!

Edited By Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:29:18

Edited By Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:31:48

Hope you're right Phillip. However, the opening paragraphs re insurance in the BMFA handbook says that "It covers the normal and lawful pursuits of the Association and its registered members". Flying whilst not  being registered or qualified would be unlawful and punishable by a hefty fine. Significant?

Edited By Cuban8 on 30/04/2019 21:52:43

[Philip Lewis 3]

Posted by Martin Harris on 30/04/2019 21:45:48:

Isn't breaking the ANO a criminal offence? In your example, you must have passed a driving test and are not disqualified in order for your insurance to be valid - this proviso is on every insurance certificate I have ever been issued.

Speeding is also a criminal offence. If the policy covers you to fly you are covered unless you are breaking a clause in the contract, the law has nothing to do with it.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

See my edit and Cuban8's post.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:51:32:

Posted by Martin Harris on 30/04/2019 21:45:48:

Isn't breaking the ANO a criminal offence? In your example, you must have passed a driving test and are not disqualified in order for your insurance to be valid - this proviso is on every insurance certificate I have ever been issued.

Speeding is also a criminal offence. If the policy covers you to fly you are covered unless you are breaking a clause in the contract, the law has nothing to do with it.

Hmmm....that opening paragraph re being lawful sounds very much like a clause to me.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Still going then.

Giz a nudge before the asteroid hits, don't want my models broke.

[Martin McIntosh]

Regarding the above 40,000 `drone` users, this infers that the BBC appear to think that this is the current number of quadcopter operators currently in this country. How can we put them right on this? It would mean that nearly all BMFA members own one!

[Philip Lewis 3]

Posted by Cuban8 on 30/04/2019 21:55:30:

Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:51:32:

Posted by Martin Harris on 30/04/2019 21:45:48:

Isn't breaking the ANO a criminal offence? In your example, you must have passed a driving test and are not disqualified in order for your insurance to be valid - this proviso is on every insurance certificate I have ever been issued.

Speeding is also a criminal offence. If the policy covers you to fly you are covered unless you are breaking a clause in the contract, the law has nothing to do with it.

Hmmm....that opening paragraph re being lawful sounds very much like a clause to me.

My original post was really related to earlier posts that said you can't be insured if breaking the law because you can, (as I have made clear), as I said latter it would need a clause to be in the contract, I haven't read the policy (I just don't have that much time) but if a clause exists then the clause would be operative, also depends who you are insured with and what the wording of the particular policy is, obviously.

It's a murky subject and wide open to interpretation, it would be difficult in a court of law for an insurer to bring in to play a clause rendering the insurance invalid if the event broken was not a contributing factor to the claim, in other words the non payment of the fee had nothing to do with the event claimed upon which of course it never would, different subject altogether if breaking another law which if obeyed would have avoided or could have avoided the incident.

Used to be covered under the unfair contract terms act but now covered under a different act I believe.  

 

Edited By Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 22:18:59

[kevin b]

Posted by john stones 1 on 30/04/2019 22:04:03:

Still going then.

Giz a nudge before the asteroid hits, don't want my models broke.

Yup. It's a good one this.

I wonder how many doctors are giving out blood pressure tablets this week !

It's all our own fault as well.

If we hadn't persuaded the government to do away with the licence to operate RC equipment all those years ago, we would have already had a registration system in place. Not only that, we probably wouldn't have had the "drone" problem in the first place !

I hope the energy that has gone into this forum thread continues in reporting Illegal fliers to the authority and making sure they are appropriately fined. Sadly I doubt very much that it will.

Okay, where's the next hornet's nest that needs a stir ?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 30/04/2019 22:07:49:

Regarding the above 40,000 `drone` users, this infers that the BBC appear to think that this is the current number of quadcopter operators currently in this country. How can we put them right on this? It would mean that nearly all BMFA members own one!

Well we do, don't we? All flying objects are drones, according to EASA and the CAA...except in the CAA publications where they often differentiate between drones and models. They seem to be as confused as we are! Fills me with confidence...

Edited By Martin Harris on 30/04/2019 22:50:10

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by kevin b on 30/04/2019 22:41:54:

If we hadn't persuaded the government to do away with the licence to operate RC equipment all those years ago, we would have already had a registration system in place. Not only that, we probably wouldn't have had the "drone" problem in the first place !

I thought the abolition of the radio transmitting licence was a "cop out" by the authority in response to demands to do something to control illegal CB activity on 27 MHz - our main allocated frequency at the time.

[Philip Lewis 3]

I hope the energy that has gone into this forum thread continues in reporting Illegal fliers to the authority and making sure they are appropriately fined. Sadly I doubt very much that it will.

This is a good point, and who do we report them to anyway? The CAA or the Police?

Then let us see exactly what action they take and how they enforce it, I doubt that they will pursue it with the same vigour of a reported drink driver though!

[Cuban8]

Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 22:09:19:

Posted by Cuban8 on 30/04/2019 21:55:30:

Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 21:51:32:

Posted by Martin Harris on 30/04/2019 21:45:48:

Isn't breaking the ANO a criminal offence? In your example, you must have passed a driving test and are not disqualified in order for your insurance to be valid - this proviso is on every insurance certificate I have ever been issued.

Speeding is also a criminal offence. If the policy covers you to fly you are covered unless you are breaking a clause in the contract, the law has nothing to do with it.

Hmmm....that opening paragraph re being lawful sounds very much like a clause to me.

My original post was really related to earlier posts that said you can't be insured if breaking the law because you can, (as I have made clear), as I said latter it would need a clause to be in the contract, I haven't read the policy (I just don't have that much time) but if a clause exists then the clause would be operative, also depends who you are insured with and what the wording of the particular policy is, obviously.

It's a murky subject and wide open to interpretation, it would be difficult in a court of law for an insurer to bring in to play a clause rendering the insurance invalid if the event broken was not a contributing factor to the claim, in other words the non payment of the fee had nothing to do with the event claimed upon which of course it never would, different subject altogether if breaking another law which if obeyed would have avoided or could have avoided the incident.

Used to be covered under the unfair contract terms act but now covered under a different act I believe.

Edited By Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 22:18:59

What do you reckon? **LINK**

Page 7, section 5.1, paragraph 'Activities'.

I'm sure all will be made clear in due course.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by kevin b on 30/04/2019 22:41:54:

Posted by john stones 1 on 30/04/2019 22:04:03:

Still going then.

Giz a nudge before the asteroid hits, don't want my models broke.

Yup. It's a good one this.

I wonder how many doctors are giving out blood pressure tablets this week !

It's all our own fault as well.

If we hadn't persuaded the government to do away with the licence to operate RC equipment all those years ago, we would have already had a registration system in place. Not only that, we probably wouldn't have had the "drone" problem in the first place !

I hope the energy that has gone into this forum thread continues in reporting Illegal fliers to the authority and making sure they are appropriately fined. Sadly I doubt very much that it will.

Okay, where's the next hornet's nest that needs a stir ?

Be no illegal flyers at our place, I've a yellow vest.

[Philip Lewis 3]

What do you reckon? **LINK**

Page 7, section 5.1, paragraph 'Activities'.

I'm sure all will be made clear in due course.

That is the BMFA's interpretation of the policy wording but the actual wording of the policy will prevail if the interpretation is wrong.

Bear in mind all of these quotes were written prior to this latest issue so do not take it into account, they can of course be changed!

 

Edited By Philip Lewis 3 on 30/04/2019 23:19:56

[John Privett]

Posted by Martin McIntosh on 30/04/2019 22:07:49:

Regarding the above 40,000 `drone` users, this infers that the BBC appear to think that this is the current number of quadcopter operators currently in this country. How can we put them right on this? It would mean that nearly all BMFA members own one!

I read it to mean "drone" operators in the widest sense of the word, and the 4 organisations would be the BMFA, SAA, LMA and FPV UK.

That would make something around 40,000 users wouldn't it? Maybe a few more, maybe a few less if you discount duplicates between the organisations?

[Doug Campbell]

To register a full size aircraft with the CAA costs £73 - a one off payment. Over 5 years this equals £14.60 per annum but could be far less for long term ownership. How can they justify a higher cost for our toy aeroplanes? They obviously have a working register for full size, sure model aircraft could be added on to that at minimal cost to the CAA and those that register

[trebor]

Good point Doug, just had a thought what would happen if you paid the registration fee then failed the on line question for the flying number. Would they give you a refund ? Do you get another go ? Would you have to pay again for another attempt ? probably have to pay again knowing this lot of money grabbers.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[trebor]

I bet the site crashes with all the eager beavers trying to get on and answer all the questions

[Cuban8]

Posted by Doug Campbell on 01/05/2019 07:21:28:

To register a full size aircraft with the CAA costs £73 - a one off payment. Over 5 years this equals £14.60 per annum but could be far less for long term ownership. How can they justify a higher cost for our toy aeroplanes? They obviously have a working register for full size, sure model aircraft could be added on to that at minimal cost to the CAA and those that register

The cost is neither here nor there IMHO.

IF......there had been a long term problem caused by reckless and illegal aeromodellers and some sort of extra controls were shown to be justified and effective on potential hazard and safety grounds to other air users (and indeed to protect our reputation,) then I think very few of us would have a problem.

HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SHOUT THAT "AEROMODELLERS REPRESENT A MINISCULE HAZARD TO OTHER AIR USERS"...........always have done and will continue to do so now and in the future. What is so hard to get that across?

[Stuphedd]

Its all been said before , but my feelings

It is an affront to our hobby , Big Brother and all that !

The cash is not that important BUT when you think of it , The £16.50 is a lot more than my weekly wage when I first flew RC.

so thats my perspective .

cheers