john stones 1 - Moderator Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 All go sub 250g ? meh. Free flight ? against our lease, our free flight lads have lost most of the venues they used. Owt else ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 John, we all know your position. You will pay the fee and be a good order follower. That's your choice. Others here are of a different mind and I have been trying to make suggestions, like others, of ways to circumvent and not break the rules/laws at least initially. I know you think it is a meaningless gesture to not pay but if they don't get the income for the first couple of years then they will have to reconsider. Doc, absolutely. In any conflict it's the good guys who are the first to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:13:46: Posted by john stones 1 on 06/06/2019 11:17:06: If we withhold payement, we can't fly, if we can't fly, we get no members, what happens to our club ? who pays for the grass cuts, and maintenance. Show me "The plan". Register as a pilot (free): Check Take the stupid test (free) to 'prove' you are safe: Check Put your contact details on all your models so plod can track you down: Check Insurance through BMFA: Check Fly at a permitted location: Check Then go fly. You are registered and you can be tracked down by the details on your model. That's compliant enough with the law for me. Anything else is just an unfair tax that should not be entertained. Edited By Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:14:02 Sounds like a plan to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 and if the insurance has a clause added that the model must be carrying a valid registration? It's probably already covered somewhere in a clause stating that the model must be flown in a legal manner. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 06/06/2019 13:14:19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Bob Cotsford on 06/06/2019 13:13:11: and if the insurance has a clause added that the model must be carrying a valid registration? It's probably already covered somewhere in a clause stating that the model must be flown in a legal manner. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 06/06/2019 13:14:19 You don't have to own (be an operator of) a car to be insured to drive it. It should not be any different for a model plane. Your registered as a pilot and passed the test, so that should be enough for insurance purposes. However, currently, there is no requirement for any competence test whatsoever to get insured to fly. If the insurance had a clause demanding you be registered as an operator, then this would exclude anybody under 18 and also any pilot who fly's somebody else's plane. If an insurance company made that stipulation, then we would have to take our money elsewhere anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Heather Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Bob Cotsford on 06/06/2019 13:13:11: and if the insurance has a clause added that the model must be carrying a valid registration? It's probably already covered somewhere in a clause stating that the model must be flown in a legal manner. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 06/06/2019 13:14:19 And will have. What insurance company in the world won't jump at the opportunity to wriggle out of a claim. I doubt they will even have a clause, because flying legally can be considered an inherent requirement. The same legal requirement could be laid on clubs. As for flying sub 250 FPV Quads - many of us don't and don't want to. Besides let's spend hundreds of pounds to fly something I am not interested in just to avoid £16.50 doesn't make sense. Out of interest, what rights to search will the police have. Will they be able to pitch up to a site where everyone is flying within regulation and demand to see your registration. Or will they only be able to do that if they believe something is wrong. In other words are they going to have a stop and search policy, the sort that gets blocked for other uses. Cheers, Nigel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Bob Cotsford on 06/06/2019 13:13:11: and if the insurance has a clause added that the model must be carrying a valid registration? Edited By Bob Cotsford on 06/06/2019 13:14:19 Also note that it is not the model that is registered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted June 6, 2019 Author Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Doc Marten on 06/06/2019 12:26:19: Still willing to play along and show what a decent bunch of chaps we are? Not panning out so well is it! While you may be right to gloat at your dire predictions seeming to come true, what's not right is to abandon the fight ad even worse, advocate non compliance. Although the latest news is not good, the BMFA have a great track record of negotiation with the CAA and we need to show that we are responsible operators for both negotiating with them and the government in order to support any case for selective exemptions, "real" user pays or block registration. I'm sure they have not simply given up in the face of this rebuttal - give them support and don't undermine them. Anyway, I'm off flying this afternoon while I still can! Edited By Martin Harris on 06/06/2019 13:45:52 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrman Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 BBC article. You beat me to it Steve. **LINK** Edited By jrman on 06/06/2019 13:49:44 Edited By jrman on 06/06/2019 13:50:24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 P80? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levanter Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Martin Harris on 06/06/2019 13:44:31: Posted by Doc Marten on 06/06/2019 12:26:19: Still willing to play along and show what a decent bunch of chaps we are? Not panning out so well is it! While you may be right to gloat at your dire predictions seeming to come true, what's not right is to abandon the fight ad even worse, advocate non compliance. Although the latest news is not good, the BMFA have a great track record of negotiation with the CAA and we need to show that we are responsible operators for both negotiating with them and the government in order to support any case for selective exemptions, "real" user pays or block registration. I'm sure they have not simply given up in the face of this rebuttal - give them support and don't undermine them. Anyway, I'm off flying this afternoon while I still can! Edited By Martin Harris on 06/06/2019 13:45:52 I don't know if it has occurred to those who advocate non-compliance, that they are more likely to damage their own cause than help it. As David Ashby said in the other thread of (of which this is fast becoming an echo) The majority will comply with what ever is needed in order to continue to enjoy their hobby. Some will drop out and that is their choice too. The minority who choose to be militant will not get the traction to make a difference and will be joining the rogue element that will get no sympathy from the general public. I can see the headlines already. If ever there was a case for becoming a member of the BMFA or equivalent organization, now is the time and channel the effort into those who are most likely to be able to make the difference as well following their recommendation to continue to lobby MPs. Great to see lot's of >250g building and enjoying going on in other threads. Maturity and level heads needed more than ever I think. Levanter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J D 8 Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 And if more than a minority stand and say they are against this proposal then it may well push a change of mind by the DoT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Doc Marten on 06/06/2019 16:46:18: Well I don't know if it's occured to those like yourself that making it public that the majority will comply with what ever is needed in order to continue to enjoy their hobby gives you also, no traction at all, a bit like going into negotiations where the other side knows that you will accept a bad deal having revealled that no deal is not an option (see the parallels?). What David actually said before closing the thread was that he suspects that those announcing that they will not pay the proposed fee will quietly do so......not true I'm afraid and that needs to be made public to show the strength of feeling against this, reality is that there is no public support for us on this, Joe simply does not care, he has more important things to deal with in life rather than a bunch of old men playing with model planes and if it means his holiday or daily life won't be disrupted (in his eyes) or that he will get his Amazon order delivered quicker then the more, the better. This is our fight, nobody else's and it's up to us to make a stand, you feel that playing along is the way to win, sorry but I don't. Exactly. Sometimes you just have to stand up for what you believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by J D 8 on 06/06/2019 16:49:52: And if more than a minority stand and say they are against this proposal then it may well push a change of mind by the DoT. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Heather Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 16:58:18: Posted by J D 8 on 06/06/2019 16:49:52: And if more than a minority stand and say they are against this proposal then it may well push a change of mind by the DoT. +1 Unfortunately, ultimately they will just make it the BMFA's problem. What is most annoying about this scheme is that it won't address the real problem - the phantom rogue drone pilots. They won't register and will never be caught - let's face it the combined might of the police, DfT, CAA, army and airport authority couldn't even get a photo of the drone that closed Gatwick let alone apprehend the pilot. Those that fly individually, not part of a club or association possibly won't register and won't be caught. Those that legitimately fly under 250g don't have to register. So the ones that will register or can be coerced into registering are those in associations like the BMFA and affiliated clubs. The DfT/BMFA won't enforce anything in the first year, but if the number of registrants is low, lower than the association membership I reckon they will lean on the associations and their clubs to check for registration before renewing association and club membership. And we all know that BMFA members are law-abiding - sure we might hold off over winter but at the end of the day I don't think many of us will fly without registration. Which means that it will be the likes of the BMFA members left footing the bill. Cheers, Nigel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Gary Manuel on 06/06/2019 13:03:41: Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:13:46: Posted by john stones 1 on 06/06/2019 11:17:06: If we withhold payement, we can't fly, if we can't fly, we get no members, what happens to our club ? who pays for the grass cuts, and maintenance. Show me "The plan". Register as a pilot (free): Check Take the stupid test (free) to 'prove' you are safe: Check Put your contact details on all your models so plod can track you down: Check Insurance through BMFA: Check Fly at a permitted location: Check Then go fly. You are registered and you can be tracked down by the details on your model. That's compliant enough with the law for me. Anything else is just an unfair tax that should not be entertained. Edited By Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:14:02 Sounds like a plan to me. Is there a risk of me getting my collar felt, for not stumping up the money ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by Nigel Heather on 06/06/2019 17:22:53: Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 16:58:18: Posted by J D 8 on 06/06/2019 16:49:52: And if more than a minority stand and say they are against this proposal then it may well push a change of mind by the DoT. +1 Unfortunately, ultimately they will just make it the BMFA's problem. What is most annoying about this scheme is that it won't address the real problem - the phantom rogue drone pilots. They won't register and will never be caught - let's face it the combined might of the police, DfT, CAA, army and airport authority couldn't even get a photo of the drone that closed Gatwick let alone apprehend the pilot. Those that fly individually, not part of a club or association possibly won't register and won't be caught. Those that legitimately fly under 250g don't have to register. So the ones that will register or can be coerced into registering are those in associations like the BMFA and affiliated clubs. The DfT/BMFA won't enforce anything in the first year, but if the number of registrants is low, lower than the association membership I reckon they will lean on the associations and their clubs to check for registration before renewing association and club membership. And we all know that BMFA members are law-abiding - sure we might hold off over winter but at the end of the day I don't think many of us will fly without registration. Which means that it will be the likes of the BMFA members left footing the bill. Cheers, Nigel The DfT CANNOT mandate that the BMFA enforce the registration. The BMFA is a private club, and nobody has the right to dictate who they sign up as members! Besides, if everybody just signs up as a pilot, how would they know that these people are are not operators? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 John S: I would have thought the chances vanishingly small! They haven't had any luck with the Gatwick drone - if there ever was one! -- Pete Edited By Peter Christy on 06/06/2019 17:53:04 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 What is most annoying about this scheme is that it won't address the real problem - the phantom rogue drone pilots. Sorry Nigel, they are just an excuse and to garner public support. The real problem is US! They don't want us in the lower airspace. They'll tolerate us initially whilst we pay to set up the system. After that they'll squeeze us out by increasing cost and regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted June 6, 2019 Share Posted June 6, 2019 Posted by john stones 1 on 06/06/2019 17:40:59: Posted by Gary Manuel on 06/06/2019 13:03:41: Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:13:46: Posted by john stones 1 on 06/06/2019 11:17:06: If we withhold payement, we can't fly, if we can't fly, we get no members, what happens to our club ? who pays for the grass cuts, and maintenance. Show me "The plan". Register as a pilot (free): Check Take the stupid test (free) to 'prove' you are safe: Check Put your contact details on all your models so plod can track you down: Check Insurance through BMFA: Check Fly at a permitted location: Check Then go fly. You are registered and you can be tracked down by the details on your model. That's compliant enough with the law for me. Anything else is just an unfair tax that should not be entertained. Edited By Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:14:02 Sounds like a plan to me. Is there a risk of me getting my collar felt, for not stumping up the money ? Flying a UAV not carrying the marking of a valid, registered operator? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.