Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA

[MattyB]

As with most topics around registration we have been over this Ltd company business before - it was Phillip who proposed it then. Unless you have legal qualifications (I don't) I would humbly suggest that it isn't worth thinking about too much at this point - you can be sure the BMFA and CAA will be looking at it (and probably the DfT looking at how to prevent it ), and we will find out their recommendation in due course.

If the BMFA and other national associations come forward and state that registration via clubs or new Ltd companies is the way forward it will be an interesting situation. Without a precedent case to rely on will committee members be prepared to sign up to that responsibility? Indeed will the BMFA leadership? It's undoubtedly a risk, one which is difficult to quantify and (if it goes wrong) could theoretically result in prison sentences and/or large fines for the registered operators. Personally I would not be prepared to take that risk; YMMV.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I think we're in danger of confusing ourselves over a very hypothetical proposal. Indeed Philip, in an earlier thread linked to by Matty you posted "I think the responsibility of the operator can only extend to ensuring the drone is airworthy" but now it seems that your opinion is that the pilot would be solely responsible. In addition, you stated that "you would only allow (being the company director it is your company) people you know and trust", which seems far from the concept of accepting mass pilots for "your" registered models now advocated.

[Peter Christy]

The Air Navigation Order makes it very clear that it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that the flight can be made safely. That would include checking the airworthiness of the vehicle. I don't see how this responsibility could be transferred to the operating company. If (God forbid) a BA 'plane crashes, the pilot - not BA's Board of Directors - is the one held responsible.

The aim of setting up a separate LLC is to avoid the situation of a club, or the BMFA, being somehow held responsible, though in view of the above, I don't see how they could be. However, I can understand club committees or the BMFA Council being reluctant to take the risk, however small. But a small LLC? Any financial penalty would be born by the company, not it's directors. And having few assets (maybe a laptop?) it probably would not be worth prosecuting. The only penalty the directors would be likely to face would be being banned from holding a directorship in future - not a problem for me, and I suspect, many others like me.

At the end of the day, if Amazon can get away with being the operator of hundreds of drones, I don't see why we can't follow suite!

--

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There's no argument that a pilot has legal responsibility for safe completion of a flight but does this necessarily absolve the aircraft operator of a duty of care?

Whilst it is true that directors of limited companies normally benefit from a limited liability status, there are circumstances where that protection can be removed and directors may become subject to personal claims against them - either following the insolvency of a company or arising from general breaches of their duties.

In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in prosecutions brought against directors and other senior managers by the enforcement agencies . There is also evidence to suggest that the rate at which individuals are being sentenced to prison for health and safety offences has increased since the sentencing guidelines were introduced in February 2016.

Health and safety sentencing rules have become stricter in the last couple of years. The total number of company directors prosecuted rose from 15 in 2015 to 46 in 2016.

A couple of exampes: in 2017, a waste disposal company director was investigated for several health and safety breaches. He was given a 3 month suspended sentence and a 12 month sentence for two separate incidents. Four managers of a furniture factory received suspended sentences and were disqualified from acting as company directors for 5 years in 2016. Inspections found they weren’t protecting staff from wood dust, glues, and high-risk machines.

Can you sayconfidently that as the legal operator of a model, should a pilot or other person authorised by you to operate it cause injury to themselves or others with it you have no responsibility to them or people affected by their actions?

[Peter Christy]

Those are good points, Martin, but I think they are solvable. In the cases you quote, it seems that the directors were playing fast and loose with their responsibilities. However, were the directors of our hypothetical company to insist that all applicants must hold a minimum of a BMFA "A" certificate - and provide evidence that they do - then I believe it could be argued that the director(s) had fulfilled their obligations. They had ensured the pilot was suitably qualified, and the flight itself is the pilot's responsibility.

Remember, the CAA themselves have stated that they consider a BMFA "A" certificate (or equivalent) a suitable qualification for a commercial drone pilot (yes, I know!). But who are we to argue with them?

As I have said, if Amazon, the BBC, ITN, etc can have their drone pilots operate under a single umbrella, I see no reason why we cannot pursue the same path.

I think this is a very useful discussion to have. There will be potential problems along the way, but it is better to air them here, and try and find solutions, rather than in court, later!

And frankly, I object to effectively subsidising a company rich enough to have its own private space programme!

--

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Colin Bernard]

And exactly the same answer was given to a question Lee Rowley submitted regarding the publicising of the new regs. In neither case was the actual question answered. Not surprised but makes me wonder why we bother paying their wages.

Edited By Colin Bernard on 06/08/2019 16:55:22

[Jason-I]

Been thinking about this whole registration melarchary and wondering if we have a legitimate argument against it as we predominantly fly over private land.

For example, you do not need a drivers license or road tax or insurance to drive on private land.

According to the high court, at common law 'the right of a landowner to the airspace above their land is to such a height as necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of their land and the structures upon it.'

If the ordinary use of the land is to fly model aircraft, and we are below the CAA imposed limit of 400ft, how would we be breaking the law by not registering our aircraft? We would be exclusively using our own airspace.

[Jason-I]

Also, how would commercial drone deliveries EVER be legal within the current restrictions of minimum separation between people and buildings?

[Peter Christy]

That's very interesting, Jason! I was under the impression that ownership of land didn't extend to the airspace above it! Do you have references for that?

All the sites that I fly from are private land - mostly farmer's fields - but one is pretty much exclusively for model flying. That would certainly give me some wriggle room, and I suspect others as well!

--

Pete

[J D 8]

Some farmers around here have some very high wind turbines on their land, so is everything below that private airspace?

[Jason-I]

Landowners in England and Wales are not entitled to all the airspace above their land, the position is well summed up by Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited [1978] 1QB

The problem is to balance the rights of an owner to enjoy the use of his land against the rights of the general public to take advantage of all that science now offers in the use of air space. This balance is in my judgment best struck in our present society by restricting the rights of an owner in the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.

So, if our normal use and enjoyment of the land is flying model aircraft to 400ft, then surely we can claim this as our airspace.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jason-I]

Posted by Steve J on 06/08/2019 18:51:03:

We don't have to register our aircraft. We have to register ourselves. We have to register ourselves because the ANO says so. The ANO can say so because of the Civil Aviation Act.

Steve

You know what I meant!

We don't have to register ourselves to drive on private land

We don't need to register ourselves to fly indoors (that's our airspace!)

Why do we need to register ourselves to use the private airspace we legitimately own above our land?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jason-I]

Posted by Jeremy Wilkins on 06/08/2019 19:04:29:

Jason-I

You have a private message.

Cheers,

Jeremy Wilkins

Replied

[Michael Barclay]

On BBC News this morning. (I wonder who else will be seeking rule changes shortly. Amazon et all)

The UK's Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) is seeking to use drones to aid emergency rescue operations and carry out surveillance of ships off the south-west coast of England.

The agency has invited specialists to bid for a £990,000 contract before a deadline of 19 August.

It says unmanned aircraft could help it cut costs and become more efficient.

But it acknowledges that rules would need to be eased for regular flights beyond an operator's line-of-sight.

[Nigel Heather]

I don't see why everyone is so worried about drones. There have been very few (maybe none) verified drone reports that have caused near misses or airport shutdowns.

And yet over the last few months failures in the NATS and airport IT systems have caused numerous disruptions and flight cancellations.

Maybe the CAA would be better off spending the money earmarked for this silly registration systems to make the ATC systems more robust.

You don't need drones to bring an airport or flights to a halt, NATS or BA are more than capable of managing that unaided.

Cheers,

Nigel

[cymaz]

Or even a baggage handlers strike....

[John Bisset]

Posted by Jason-I on 06/08/2019 18:50:25:

So, if our normal use and enjoyment of the land is flying model aircraft to 400ft, then surely we can claim this as our airspace.

That is a most interesting thought, Jason. I fly almost exclusively on private land, by arrangement with the owners. It is very specifically not open to the general public for other reasons, so that argument may be useful.

John B

[Don Fry]

Not a barrister, but normal use is wot normal people use it for. That's a ball flying through the air. Our use would be an unusual use, however much it is normal to us.

[Peter Christy]

A question for Jeremy: All my control-line experience is on models of 3.5cc or less, using a maximum of 50ft lines. What is the current maximum line length in current use? (I assume it would be for aerobatics?)

--

Pete

[Peter Robinson 9]

Hi

Just a quick question it states The CAA will be launching an awareness-raising campaign to ensure that new and existing operators and remote pilots of small unmanned aircraft (SUAs) are aware of the requirement to register and take a competency test by 30 November 2019."

what happens to new people who want to take up flying from december onwards, why is there a cut-off date. I would of thought registering would be open all the time. Have I got this wrong?

Peter

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Robinson 9]

Hi Jeremy

ok thanks, just seems stupid to have a cut-off date. One more question, if you just build models for the pleasure and do not fly them do you still need to register, I am sure there will be a few modellers who do not fly but love building.

Peter