Poll for who intends to register.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 18/05/2019 09:33:57:

Posted by Martin Harris on 17/05/2019 23:50:20:

Threatening to flout the law could be interpreted as being much the same as the irresponsible faction that have brought about the excuse for this legislation. The commercial interests driving the process would love to see us painted in the same light.

Nail hit firmly on the head there.

Agreed - that's exactly the sort of ammunition that those much more powerful interests than aeromodellers can muster would be delighted with.

[GONZO]

I've just got to say this because of the repeated comments here and in the previous thread. Get over yourselves guys, give it a rest with the 'Hollier than thou' stance about not breaking any laws etc. It sounds disingenuous and somewhat hypercritical to say the least. If your registering because you believe in it then say so. But, if your registering for some other reason don't cover it up with the 'not breaking the law' excuse, have the strength of your convictions and say so. Or, perhaps your just one of the 'sheeple' of this world. I'm no saint, to be sure, and I would bet my life neither are any other contributors to these forums regardless of any protestations to the contrary. Are people really claiming they've never ever exceeded the speed limit, driven to fast for the conditions, used their phone whilst driving, had a tyre/lights/wipers/number plate that didn't fully comply, maybe too much to drink etc. That's just a few on driving, there are loads more. There are many many other areas of life where people can and do regularly break laws. In my 70+ years of life I have never, I mean never ever, met a 'saint'! Although, I have met many who claim to act in certain 'saintly' ways to cover up their true reason for their actions. Make a 'proper' case for signing, or not, without claiming the 'goody two shoes' points to justify your actions.

You can now give me as much stick as you like, protesting your innocence, because I know what I say is correct and generally those who complain the most are the most guilty.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[BrianB]

I have read all of the above with interest and agree with much of what has been stated,although some of the comments made are,in my opinion,rubbish.I am not happy with the proposals as they stand but I see little option other than complying if they become law.The reason in one word is:INSURANCE.Fly without registering and you break the law,have an accident and your insurance will almost certainly be void as you are flying illegally.I really cannot imagine our insurers with the BMFA saying `don`t worry lads you will still be covered`

[GONZO]

DM, its a bad law that seeks to exploit a section of society that has no power other than non payment with possible non compliance. Bad laws should always be opposed. Its up to the individual to asses how far that opposition goes balanced against the level of consequences they are prepared to accept, assuming they know the full level of consequences.

As I've previously stated, no action this 1/11/2019 then review the situation April 2020. My strong inclination at this time is not to register even then unless there is significant change.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

BrianB, I watched a 'paramotor' (foot launched powered para glider) take off from the beach in front of my house at 08:00 this morning. No registration, competency test or insurance required. Go check out the requirements for 'foot launched' aircraft. Then check out whether third party insurance is required for light aircraft(never was when I was flying). Another aspect of this bad law is the age limitation of the so called operator, 18 year minimum. Today I read that the vote is definitely gong to be given to 16y olds! You can get married, join the armed forces and get a car licence at 17. What nonsense this law is when to fly a small plane weighing more than 250gm is more tightly controlled than what I have already mentioned.

[J D 8]

We are here [mostly] all ready registered with our BMFA and have taken tests to prove our competence as remote control flyers. [ tests far more meaningful than the proposed online one ] We also pay insurance cover.

It is just wrong that we should have to do any more.

I would also say any future action we may or may not have to take should not be called a "strike" because it is a somewhat inflammatory word and not correct. Non compliance is better.

Now is the time to hold our horses and see if our letters/emails trigger any response from the DfT and get them talking with our BMFA again.

[kevin b]

Unfortunately Doc, this is currently the way of the world. At least the Internet and Media world.

I agree with your sentiment though.

Maybe we should have a pole to see if members want to segregate "political threads" from the useful ones.

With regards to this thread, my opinion is that it was devised for this very purpose. You might as well ask to create a pole to find out who is going to go out stealing !

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[trebor]

Thats funny you should mention council charges for waste as mine charge £40 a year unless you go to the waste center. Most of the garden waste I sweep up is leaves from the trees on the land the council are responsible for but they never clean up. They never clean drains, sweep leaves, the only thing they do is massacre bushes with those motorized shears on a tractor.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Steve Balaam]

I've been fed up with the way the hobbies going for a number of years now. This is the final nail in the coffin. I'm

packing the hobby in.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no issue with those intending not to register until they wish to fly as a (probably meaningless) protest and I will do all I can to back the BMFA in its campaign against this unreasonable (and as things stand, potentially extortionate) proposed charge.

I still stand by the assertion that advocating law breaking is counter-productive to this process. We should explore all legitimate avenues before throwing our toys out of the pram, going boating or taking up knitting...

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Great tactics, publicly undermine your own associations whilst they're fighting your corner. Quit flying ? great way to weaken us, put pressure on clubs to pay the bills, bring about the very demise some love to predict. We should all stop flying for the Winter ? Yep "They" will be banging on our doors, begging us to come back.

Get a grip folks.

[Dwain Dibley.]

Posted by Martin Harris on 18/05/2019 13:18:28:

or taking up knitting...

Keeping it light....

D.D.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

CARPERFECT that's where you gain. You only need to register once for ALL your fifty planes. It is set up for commercial enterprises.

I still don't see why a MFC can't do the same with adequate paperwork to cover both the club committee member, who would be the 'operator', and the club member, who would be the 'flyer'. If the question of ownership is a problem then a system of 'notional' transfer of ownership could resolve this point (lease members planes to the club for a nominal fee that would have been included in membership fee, nil cost. The club returns planes to member for custody at club membership renewal). This is all just a paper exercise, no planes are actually passed back and forth' and could probably achieved with just a separate 'pro forma' sheet to sign.

[CARPERFECT]

Thanks Steve J for answering my question . And if that will stand up in law that`s great. All clubs after do is is put the club name down as the operator and pay £16.50 . And all club members take test and fly . no cost to them. Anyone out there care to say otherwise ?

 

Edited By CARPERFECT on 18/05/2019 14:48:14

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

Steve J it would be no more onerous than an employee of a company doing the same thing. Given that any ownership issues are resolved and there is adequate paperwork cover as per my previous post. It can't be beyond suitable qualified and experienced people, perhaps in the BMFA, to devise such a scheme.

[Michael Barclay]

Posted by GONZO on 18/05/2019 14:32:04:

CARPERFECT that's where you gain. You only need to register once for ALL your fifty planes. It is set up for commercial enterprises.

I still don't see why a MFC can't do the same with adequate paperwork to cover both the club committee member, who would be the 'operator', and the club member, who would be the 'flyer'. If the question of ownership is a problem then a system of 'notional' transfer of ownership could resolve this point (lease members planes to the club for a nominal fee that would have been included in membership fee, nil cost. The club returns planes to member for custody at club membership renewal). This is all just a paper exercise, no planes are actually passed back and forth' and could probably achieved with just a separate 'pro forma' sheet to sign.

A good barister employed to draw up a contract by the BMFA to be circulated to all clubs wanting to use this scheme should cover all the loose ends. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[GONZO]

Further point. A club will have to do something like this if it has a club trainer. My club has two.

[CARPERFECT]

We have about 15 aircraft in our house, most are mine, but 4 belong to my son (age 24) He has not flown for two years , busy with Uni and new job, But i fly his when i want to, So would he have to register and pay ? for me to use them ?