CAA registration consulation

[Levanter]

Posted by Martin Harris on 02/05/2019 10:01:56:

Perhaps the CAA might see the benefit of devolving the registration of the majority of active and committed model flyers to the BMFA differently if this was (or had have been) the case?

It's a good idea Martin as the duplication of systems already in place seems silly and a waste of time / resources. At the moment I suppose we are stuck because the government has tasked the CAA to deal with it . Honestly I doubt the powers to be at the CAA are running around with glee about this new milk cow. Maybe the CAA might yet have the ability to and be persuaded to partly devolve as you say so that anyone registered with one of the recognized associations is already covered. The choice could be that you either join one of the recognized associations or you have to go use the CAA process. If that option was part of the awareness campaign they will be embarking on, it could be a brilliant recruiting drive for the BMFA and all the others.

I also like the idea of putting the levy on air fares despite being a frequent flyer for business reasons. I expect however that it would raise a political stink of equal proportion to some other debates going on at the moment.

The silver lining - I have already taken a fresh look at the classifieds and look to snap up some bargains. Who knows, when the dust has settled some people may even want to buy them back, at a suitable price of course

Levanter

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

With all this talk about people refusing to register, what (if any) responsibility will clubs (and their committee members) have in permitting members to fly if they have failed to complete the competence test and pay their registration fees?

Before jumping in with comments about the individual being responsible for their own actions, consider that you can be prosecuted for permitting someone to drive an unroadworthy or uninsured vehicle that you are responsible for.

A comment from Andy Symons would be appreciated on this and on the position the insurers might take if someone who claims has not complied with the legal requirements.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

I think the "who is responsible" question has come up before, one of our esteemed ex-police members indicated the responsibility in law lies with the operator - not the club.

(I await correction).

Even so, it would be presumably be prudent for clubs to remind members to get up to date with their legal responsibilities, as appropriate.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Mr Simpson makes no sense to me, when did BMFA get to issue us an individual number, in place of the CAA ?

Not interested in games, confrontation, someone else registering for me, can't be doing with it.

[Dickw]

From CAP1763:-

"the “SUA operator”, in relation to a small unmanned aircraft, is the person
who has the management of the small unmanned aircraft.”

Not sure how that would be possible without the "operator" being present on site.

Dick

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Adrian Smith 1]

Apart from writing to my MP, I have now written to the CAA and the Aviation Minister at the DfT along the lines of the BMFA's suggestions. I expect there will be a deafening silence, but I hope I am wrong.

[GONZO]

Been interesting reading peoples thoughts on this. I am an infrequent flyer nowadays(maybe 5 times) so I've decided to adopt a 'wait and see' approach. There is no need for precipitous action. I would not wish to, nor do I, fly over the winter months. So the 1st November 2019 will come and go with no action on my part. Comes the start of April 2020, or thereabouts, I will review the situation and decide on a course of action. To those, like I, of advancing years and suffering from arthritis to whom cold damp weather is anathema I would commend this pragmatic approach.

Edited By GONZO on 02/05/2019 15:44:38

[Wingman]

Commended Gonzo!

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Martin Harris on 02/05/2019 13:26:47:

A comment from Andy Symons would be appreciated on this and on the position the insurers might take if someone who claims has not complied with the legal requirements.

It's too soon and probably counter-productive to be speculating, at the moment concentration should be on getting as many consultation responses and letters to the CAA/Aviation Minister/MPs so the CEO has as many bullets as possible to use. There are quite q few very high level meetings coming up in coming weeks and the more responses and letters the better.

[Nigel Heather]

Posted by Martin Harris on 02/05/2019 13:26:47:

With all this talk about people refusing to register, what (if any) responsibility will clubs (and their committee members) have in permitting members to fly if they have failed to complete the competence test and pay their registration fees?

Before jumping in with comments about the individual being responsible for their own actions, consider that you can be prosecuted for permitting someone to drive an unroadworthy or uninsured vehicle that you are responsible for.

A comment from Andy Symons would be appreciated on this and on the position the insurers might take if someone who claims has not complied with the legal requirements.

Yes indeed, I have already suggested that. I can easily imagine a situation where pressure is put on the BMFA and its registered clubs to make proof of CAA registration a pre-requisite of memberships.

Cheers,

Nigel

[GONZO]

Posted by Nigel Heather on 02/05/2019 20:40:49:

Yes indeed, I have already suggested that. I can easily imagine a situation where pressure is put on the BMFA and its registered clubs to make proof of CAA registration a pre-requisite of memberships.

Cheers,

Nigel

In my club many members fly control line and free flight(sub 250gm) so no need to register if this is all you fly.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 02/05/2019 14:55:22:

Posted by Dickw on 02/05/2019 14:46:20:

Not sure how that would be possible without the "operator" being present on site.

I disagree. Have a look at the examples in the consultation response that was published in January.

Steve

I just refreshed my memory on that one - interesting stuff...

”Operator: person or organisation who has management of the small drone but may not be directly controlling the flight. There is no requirement for the operator to be present during the small drone flight but their responsibilities are listed here:

• The operator must not permit their small drone to be flown at a height of more than 400ft above the surface, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained;
• The operator must not permit their small drone to be flown within 1km of a protected aerodrome unless the required permissions have been obtained;
• As of 30th November 2019, the small drone operator must not permit their small drone to be flown unless the remote pilot of the aircraft has been issued with an acknowledgement of competency which is valid for that flight. To obtain the acknowledgement of competency, remote pilots will have to pass an online test;
• As of 30th November 2019, the operator of a drone between 250g-20kg in mass will be required to register themselves before permitting any of their small drones to be flown.”

So yes, technically the operator does not need to be present. However I would argue that does not make it a wise decision for clubs to have one individual sign up as the single registrant taking responsibility for every model owned and flown by club members anywhere in the UK. If one of them does something stupid/loans it to someone who has not passed the test I would not personally want to be called to give evidence or (worst case) prosecuted alongside them for failure to supervise the remote pilot in question. 

Edited By MattyB on 02/05/2019 23:07:26

[Philip Lewis 3]

Matty,

it would cost me about £50.00 to set up a new Ltd company, being a Ltd company that never traded it would have no assets and no income so the only assets would be the planes it owns for which of course there is no market anymore, there would also be no liability on me personally.

[MattyB]

Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 02/05/2019 23:10:02:

Matty,

it would cost me about £50.00 to set up a new Ltd company, being a Ltd company that never traded it would have no assets and no income so the only assets would be the planes it owns for which of course there is no market anymore, there would also be no liability on me personally.

Maybe so, but are you seriously proposing that is what the majority of modellers/clubs would actually do? It sometimes takes an hour of debate to set the subs at the AGM; I severely doubt the members of most clubs would agree to do such a thing in reality.

[Philip Lewis 3]

Matty,

I seriously doubt it will come to this but I never mentioned anything about involving any club (I know what you mean about AGM's, avoid like a plague), no if you were to do this you would only allow (being the company director it is your company) people you know and trust and could be from numerous different clubs.

The club they fly from has nothing to do with it.

[cymaz]

I’m not against registering my models. Give the job to the people who know the sport best....BMFA, LMA, SMA etc. They already have all the details. Far cheaper and easier to administer . Hopefully cheaper to !

 

I fear that if model flyers refuse to pay it will be extremely bad PR for the sport. The press will hang us out to dry, shouting “ See , told our readers that drone flyers were an irresponsible minority just waiting to ruin your holiday flight”

Edited By cymaz on 03/05/2019 06:35:46

Edited By cymaz on 03/05/2019 06:36:21

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Don Fry]

Ooooo, I do love a good conspiracy theory, much more interesting that plain incompetence, indifference and stupidity.

[GONZO]

Well Percy just look around you and list the properties that could accept a 'drone delivery' with security and protection from the weather of the delivery with no one there to accept it. Not many, if any, I bet. I've long discounted the claim of a delivery service for individual people/properties. So, what's the hidden agenda behind the public agenda?

[trebor]

If Amazon drones want to buy my back garden airspace they can but if one of those drones fly into it, it won't be flying out in one piece.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Levanter]

Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 02/05/2019 23:10:02:

Matty,

it would cost me about £50.00 to set up a new Ltd company, being a Ltd company that never traded it would have no assets and no income so the only assets would be the planes it owns for which of course there is no market anymore, there would also be no liability on me personally.

The company would have to have at least one director and that would be you. Setting up a Ltd company used to provide a high degree of protection but not any more. If you act illegally, negligently or even immorally you are out there on the parapet and you could be hung out to dry just the same as anyone else.

Seems to me there are quite a few people who are advocating this kind of behavior. As had been said before, rogue elements in the modelling community will cause just as many problems as the rogue elements are alleged to have caused this situation.

Levanter

[KELL]

It’s not airport safety, it’s not another tax, it’s not even a knee jerk reaction to rouge multi rotors that seem to appear and disappear whenever a passenger plane suffers a technical clitch. I believe it’s paving the way for free airspace for Amazon deliveries, Uber eats, deliveroo and even MacDonalds looking into drone deliveries. Even Sky news reported yesterday that a kidney needed for transplantation was delivered 3 miles for the first time ever, (ok that’s a very important use of drones). Now these big corporations don’t want “their airspace” interrupted by recreational flyers do they ?????