CAA registration consulation

[Martin McIntosh]

That seems pretty clear then, so why are we being hounded?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[trebor]

Percy, hows the boat building coming along ?

[Kevin 216]

Posted by Percy Verance on 17/05/2019 06:37:17:

We're being hounded/targeted because it's coming from the D of T rather than the CAA. Some deskbound bright spark - whom seems to think there are 170'000 of us - has spotted a nice little earner.........

Of course we'll have to await the outcome of the meetings between the powers that be and the BMFA, LMA etc. I'd like to be optimistic but I'm not hopeful of many positives coming out of it. No, I think this one is down to us, plain and simple.

Don't pay. Lie down and you'll be walked all over, it's that simple. £16.50 now, £100+ in 3 or 4 years time......... Start paying now and you're giving them the green light to switch on the gravy train.

.

Percy quite agree with your comments I have no intention of paying up in October, and will therefore not fly in the winter months. Perhaps if enough of us fail to stump up the £16.50 on the launch date the idea will implode.

P.S. My boat kit is being delivered today.

[Cuban8]

Not registering is perfectly legal, however one would have to take a break from flying outdoors for a while. Similar to SORNing your car in some respects.

Couldn't have come at a more opportune time of year - bad weather and a good time to get your building and maintenance done. A bit of indoor flying perhaps? A few months of inconvenience for the 'hard bitten, fly in anything' among us, but the wider picture needs to be taken into account..

[Peter Christy]

Exactly right, C8! I shall be taking a break this winter and will see what happens when the "170,000" figure fails to materialise.

--

Pete

[PeterF]

Posted by Peter Christy on 17/05/2019 08:35:34:

Exactly right, C8! I shall be taking a break this winter and will see what happens when the "170,000" figure fails to materialise.

Pete

The 170,000 figure, right or wrong is their estimate for the number of registrations in the first 18 months stated clearly in the consultation document, not the initial sign up, so a Winter break may be pointless in trying to show them that the number is wrong.

Edited By PeterF on 17/05/2019 09:12:02

[PeterF]

Posted by cymaz on 16/05/2019 22:26:41:

It seems the CAA know the difference between a multi rotor “ drone” and a model aircraft / helicopter

here

The CAA could tell many months ago before the recent updates on that page when they gave model aeroplanes and helicopters below 7kg the >400ft exemption but not "drones".

[PeterF]

Posted by PeterF on 17/05/2019 09:07:10:

The 170,000 figure, right or wrong is their estimate for the number of registrations in the first 18 months.....

Edited By PeterF on 17/05/2019 09:12:02

This is what I have replied about these numbers in consultation and letters. As has been stated elsewhere, in terms of what we spend as modellers it is a small number, so I will pay, I have made my displeasure known but I will not be taking an enforced break, flying without registering etc.

I have a serious concern of the method used to arrive at the 170,000 registrations over the initial period. This was calculated as a per capita average of registration take up in the USA and Ireland, two countries that are culturally different to each other. Ireland being closer to the UK should have been used as the basis giving 128,000 registrations. This would increase the £16.50 charge closer to £22.00. The charge ($5 for 3 years) on an annual basis in the USA is just over £1/annum and in Ireland (€5 for2 years) it is just over £2/annum. The fact that the CAA is proposing a charge 10 to 20 times higher than the countries that Tthey based your statistics on means that the charge will actually be a disincentive to registering and will act to reduce the per capita registration in the UK. This means that the purpose of the scheme to ensure education of drone users is not met.

[Cuban8]

Posted by PeterF on 17/05/2019 09:07:10:

Posted by Peter Christy on 17/05/2019 08:35:34:

Exactly right, C8! I shall be taking a break this winter and will see what happens when the "170,000" figure fails to materialise.

Pete

The 170,000 figure, right or wrong is their estimate for the number of registrations in the first 18 months stated clearly in the consultation document, not the initial sign up, so a Winter break may be pointless in trying to show them that the number is wrong.

Edited By PeterF on 17/05/2019 09:12:02

The 170,000 figure is a wild guess pulled out of the ether. Nobody really knows the what the true figure is, so if anything is pointless, then publishing an estimate based on guesswork for such an important change, I'd say was truly pointless.

However, with a delay in our registrations to until the end of March 2020, figures could be extrapolated from what we can expect will be a paucity in uptake from others. When only a tiny fraction of the expected numbers materialise based on four months worth of registrations, and the knowledge that another 40,000+ are keeping their powder dry for the moment. I'd say that was a clear enough message to think again.

[David Ashby - Moderator]

Folks, we need constructive comments. Many are just reacting to the thread rather than the text of the proposals. The more extreme comments here are just a reflection of frustration and anger than anything else and do nothing for the hobby. Let's hope the emails to MPs etc. are more measured in their tone.

Anyway, I'll lock the thread for now. Anyone can start a new thread in the light of new developments.

David.

 

 

Edited By David Ashby - Moderator on 17/05/2019 10:12:03