Peter Christy Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 04/08/2019 09:04:58: Posted by Peter Christy on 04/08/2019 08:01:54: I recall reading somewhere that control-line flyers will also be required to register under the proposed legislation. Control line models are tethered unmanned aircraft. I have no doubt that the BMFA are working feverishly behind the scenes on our behalf. I am taking the silence coming from there as "no news is good news" at the moment, as it implies that delicate negotiations are ongoing. Other viewpoints are available. Steve Re: Control-line: But am I right in recalling that they too are required to register? Re: BMFA: I have no inside knowledge of what is going on, but seeing as how David Phipps took the lead in the negotiations with EASA - and managed to get a better deal than many had anticipated - I believe he will be working very hard on our behalf to modify the DfT's refusal to follow those EASA recommendations. When you are in delicate negotiations, it doesn't help to tell the other side what you are planning! Ask Theresa May! Time will tell if I'm right or not! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 I've been following this issue of CL registration on the BARTON forum and it is considered that CL planes will have to register unless a concession is granted. The current concession, that people misinterpret, is for flying CL in the newly declared 'zones' around airports/airfields. [CL planes are tethered like kites(which do not have to register) but are remotely controlled by the pilot. It seems it is a 'grey' area.] The DfT are following the EU EASA regs but are not taking up the option of making a concession for model flying as allowed in the regs. They are being, IMO and I would suggest the majority of aero modellers, un necessarily harsh in their interpretation/implementation of the EU regs. Edited By GONZO on 04/08/2019 10:54:27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Yes, I've read all that again but according to the document and chart on page 32 of CAP 1789 plus some more recent information we still have to register, pay, take free on line foundation test of competency followed by a paid for test at a test center to gain a Certificate of Competency. Additionally, the site/airspace requirements of A3 which the majority of our models(C4 classification) will be required to operate in still applies and will mean many clubs ceasing operations. What/how does your interpretation differ? Thanks for listing the various documents that confirm that as at present CL is lumped in with the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 04/08/2019 10:40:40: In what way are the DfT and CAA not following the EU regulations? Steve I didn't say they were not following EASA regulations. I said the weren't following EASA recommendations - a subtle, but important difference. The recommendations were that (broadly speaking) members of model flying associations should be allowed to continue pretty much unhindered. This is NOT what the DfT are proposing. Gonzo: Where has this "paid for test of competency" come from? Have I missed something? -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Steve J: Well exactly, but you ignore the recommendations of the governing body at your peril. After all, they may well firm up those recommendations in the future. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but I still regard the path that the DfT has chosen as a dubious one. Anyway, we shall see what develops. But I still believe that the BMFA are doing their best, behind the scenes, to get a more rational approach from the DfT. -- Pete Edited By Peter Christy on 04/08/2019 18:09:06 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 4, 2019 Author Share Posted August 4, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted August 4, 2019 Share Posted August 4, 2019 Yes, that's probably it Steve, and like you, I have trouble deciphering its precise meaning. However, it seems quite clear to me that the DfT proposals most certainly do NOT provide a "seamless transition", nor do they allow "clubs and associations to continue to operate as they do today". And as Jeremy has pointed out, the words "should" and "shall" appear to have a very specific legal meaning, which implies that the current proposals could well be subject to a realistic challenge in court. Frankly, I'd be quite happy to contribute £16.50 to a fighting fund to challenge the DfT proposals in court, instead of subsidising Amazon! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Posted by Peter Christy on 04/08/2019 22:47:26: Yes, that's probably it Steve, and like you, I have trouble deciphering its precise meaning. However, it seems quite clear to me that the DfT proposals most certainly do NOT provide a "seamless transition", nor do they allow "clubs and associations to continue to operate as they do today". And as Jeremy has pointed out, the words "should" and "shall" appear to have a very specific legal meaning, which implies that the current proposals could well be subject to a realistic challenge in court. Frankly, I'd be quite happy to contribute £16.50 to a fighting fund to challenge the DfT proposals in court, instead of subsidising Amazon! -- Pete It has been pretty obvious for some time that the “consultation” we have all participated in has been anything but; the DfTs conclusion on the payment for registration and the method that will be carried out (I.e. individually, not with any involvement of the national associations) was always known from the outset. Worse than that is the fact the registration model as structured is guaranteed to fail in covering its own overblown costs, meaning the annual charge per operator will have to rise significantly in the years after registration is implemented. With this in mind I believe a carefully targeted legal challenge from the national associations is now the best (or perhaps least worst?) option available. It will be expensive and not without risk, but what is the alternative? Fail to act now and it will be much harder to do so once the fees inevitably escalate to levels that force people out of our sport. As has been pointed out there are a number of areas that a legal challenge could target the DfT to force them reconsider their payment model (registration itself is now far beyond the point of a legal challenge, let’s not flog that dead horse) based on the way they have gone against recommendations from EASA and their own previous reports and implemented in a far less sustainable way than in other EU countries. The question now is whether the leaders of the national associations will take this view and go to members to seek to fund such a challenge, or whether they believe that itself would negatively impact participation (and therefore their own membership numbers) in the long term. To this point they have understandably preferred to negotiate a deal that works for all and delivers minimal impact to model flyers. However, faced with the evidence the DfT have no intention of doing such a deal it may now be time to change tack and fight back legally. They probably feel damned if they do and damned if they don’t, but given it will get harder to challenge legally the longer we wait and the more established the registration system becomes I believe the time is right to change approach and go the the courts. Unfortunately we can only ever know retrospectively whether that will prove to be the right move. Edited By MattyB on 05/08/2019 03:15:26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Well said, MattyB! That pretty well sums up my views, as well. Actually, I have no problems with registration - I'm old enough to remember when we had to have a transmitting license, and to notify the Postmaster-General if we wanted to fly anywhere other than the location noted on the license (not that anyone ever did!)! My objection is to the unnecessarily complex, intrusive and expensive method promoted by the DfT. Baroness Vere keeps banging on about the principal of "the user pays", but if I pay, I expect something in return. Under these proposals, I get nothing in return - other than the knowledge that I am effectively subsidising commercial operators, one of whom pays little or no tax in this country and is already rich enough to have its own space program! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Many of us did fear that this was going to get very involved and might well mean a measure of litigation on the part of our national associations. I think that we all hoped that common sense would prevail and overturn a clearly absurd and ineffective set of silly regulations. Perhaps as a final throw of the dice, the recent silence from BMFA negotiators is a precursor to something positive going on in the background - lets hope so. I still think we need to publicise our plight much more widely and find a well known media figure who is sympathetic to the hobby (sorry....sport) and will draw the public's attention to the foolishness of those who have seen fit to draw us into their sphere of influence. Would make a good story at least for a while.....a David v Goliath battle between blind beaurocracy and harmless blokes in their sheds building models and trying to mind their own business. Any suggestions? What stands to be lost, if eventually we're regulated out of existence? What sort of money does aeromodelling generate for British business? How many are employed in the industry? Other less tangible social benefits? Small beer I suspect compared to professional sport, entertainment, gaming and so on, but might be surprising and still significant in the scheme of things, so well worth fighting for as part of our economy and culture. I'm happy to contribute to a fighting fund if it becomes neccessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 5, 2019 Author Share Posted August 5, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan W Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 I think the counter point is that the model flyers are being asked to "pick up" for the commercial users' nationwide airspace management system when all we do is fly in small circles around pre-defined locations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Go right back to basics and ask a simple question of the legislators.........................."why have aeromodellers, who bare either no, or at worst, an infinitesimally small risk of interfering with manned aviation, been ensnaired in the new regulations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 5, 2019 Author Share Posted August 5, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 All could have, and as far as I know, have been firmly dealt with under existing legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 05/08/2019 11:34:12: G-OPFA vs Valenta Ray X While flying in uncontrolled airspace and in good visibility a remotely piloted model glider and a light aircraft collided at a height of approximately 630 ft. The glider sustained serious damage before crashing into a field. The aircraft sustained minor damage and landed uneventfully. There were no injuries. F-GSBM vs Wildthing A Robin DR400 (F-GSBM) was descending on base leg to land on Runway 20 at Shoreham when its right wing struck a radio-controlled model glider. The Robin suffered minor damage and landed safely. The guy who got fined for flying in Heathrow's FRZ in January. Idiot who deserved the penalties imposed on him. Existing legislation did not prevent it and failure to comply with registration proposals would not either. All traditional models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Posted by Cuban8 on 05/08/2019 11:12:51: Go right back to basics and ask a simple question of the legislators.........................."why have aeromodellers, who bare either no, or at worst, an infinitesimally small risk of interfering with manned aviation, been ensnaired in the new regulations?" Because it's not really about safety - if you want to clear the airspace below 1000ft for commercial use every user that operates in that space has to be in scope. Yes I know you do not believe that widespread commercial use will ever happen, but as far as the DfT are concerned they need the legal frameworks to be ready for as and when the tech catches up; they want the jobs and tax £££ that go with that usage. Modellers are just a tiny group that fall within the category of collateral damage. Edited By MattyB on 05/08/2019 14:32:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 5, 2019 Author Share Posted August 5, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted August 5, 2019 Share Posted August 5, 2019 Posted by MattyB on 05/08/2019 14:29:59: .....they want the jobs and tax £££ that go with that usage. Edited By MattyB on 05/08/2019 14:32:14 Bearing in mind how good Amazon, et al, are at dodging their tax obligations, I think they stand as much chance of wringing any tax out of them as they do getting 170,000 registrations! -- Pete 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.