Latest CAA Update

[Martin_K]

Posted by Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 11:03:42:

Posted by Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 10:18:14:

Can anyone give me an answer to this.......

What good in terms of aviation safety, compared to now, will be forthcoming by having 35000 BMFA members registered in the new scheme?

Anything? Anyone?

Happy to be educated....................

I am not supporting the registration scheme, just attempting to answer your question.

To join the BMFA you pay the membership fee. Once a member you become exposed to material promoting good practices but membership alone does not require any knowledge of 'drone' laws.

I joined the BMFA before joining a club. I started flying before joining the BMFA. Yes, not the ideal way of doing things but my starting point was buying a kit to make a balsa glider. Thinking about where to fly, insurance, etc. came later. To change this the government advertising scheme needs to be massive. I doubt it will be.

[Martin_K]

Posted by Erfolg on 04/09/2019 11:03:47:

We need to remind ourselves, that we see our model aircraft as being different to drones, yet the legislation and regulations do not seem to make any distinction or recognise this aspect.

On this basis we could be lulled into false optimism to think we would be excluded from changes to future requirements in this area, such as carrying transponders etc.

Many here are fixated on making a distinction between 'model aircraft' and 'drones'. A foam park flyer with stabilisation, auto-levelling, holding pattern, return to home, looks very much like a 'drone' to me. Government does have a genuine problem writing legislation in this area.

(I have never had a multi-rotor only fixed wing. All my RX's are receive only, no flight control).

[Martin_K]

Re. Baronees Vere above.

Again, I am not supporting the Baroness, but the broader picture is about access to airspace. Not what type of UAV is entering that airspace.

 

Edited By Martin_K on 04/09/2019 11:26:01

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Posted by Martin_K on 04/09/2019 11:24:42:

Re. Baronees Vere above.

Again, I am not supporting the Baroness, but the broader picture is about access to airspace. Not what type of UAV is entering that airspace.

 

Edited By Martin_K on 04/09/2019 11:26:01

And that is the very important crux of the matter and one that IMHO we need to fight tooth and nail. Specifically, whether one flys a drone or fixed wing or some other aerodyne from a BMFA club site (register its location if you must, although why that should be of much use as things stand now, I know not) then for crying out loud, how is my Acrowot (other models are available) that is always flown within several hundred feet of it launch point and hence always within line of sight, ever going to have an effect on this so called 'airspace' that requires such Draconian over regulation.

Access to airspace is all very well as a concept, and as we already have existing robust regulations that cover our flying in airspace above our fields that might include full size aviation, is the fragrant Baroness beguiled by our old friend the fantasy 'drone delivery service' and us getting in its way?

No answers to my previous question, and not surprisingly, I suggest that the answer should be NONE.

Same effect as being required to sing the National Anthem before every flight, word perfect and all the verses...... also to be charged for the privilege. - completely pointless.

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 12:57:20

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

When will one of you be launching a fighting fund for all this talk of action ?

Been numerous posts about it, and suggestions of how it should have been handled. Moneys not easy for me, but I'll match the £16.50 to your campaign, I'll even go £38 to match my BMFA fee if that helps more.

I still believe the BMFA et al did their best, just that sometimes Goliath wins and not David, but on principal if you folks are gonna give it a go, I'll back you.

In the meantime I'll stick with the BMFA and obey the new laws.

[Chris Berry]

This battle has been lost but overall the war will be won.

[Phil Green]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 04/09/2019 10:20:06:

I spent last weekend at the LAA Sywell Rally and took the opportunity to have a chat with Jonathan Nicholson (Assistant head of communications, CAA). ....

I asked him about model aircraft being required to carry some form of transponder in the future, for remote identification. He felt that models aircraft would not be affected as he agreed that they were not the problem.

"he felt that..." is key here. His feelings are irrelevant. Baroness Vere is the Minister for Aviation and she repeatedly and clearly states that we (drones+model aircraft) will all conform to a common set of rules.

Also, perhaps the transponder requirement is utterly impractical - but - if/when the law dictates, you either comply, or you dont fly - 'impracticality' carries no weight.

 

Edited By Phil Green on 04/09/2019 17:17:09

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Phil Green]

Absolutely Steve, I should have said she was MfA at the time of the parliamentary video we were discussing

[Cuban8]

Posted by Phil Green on 04/09/2019 17:08:52:

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 04/09/2019 10:20:06:

I spent last weekend at the LAA Sywell Rally and took the opportunity to have a chat with Jonathan Nicholson (Assistant head of communications, CAA). ....

I asked him about model aircraft being required to carry some form of transponder in the future, for remote identification. He felt that models aircraft would not be affected as he agreed that they were not the problem.

"he felt that..." is key here. His feelings are irrelevant. Baroness Vere is the Minister for Aviation and she repeatedly and clearly states that we (drones+model aircraft) will all conform to a common set of rules.

Also, perhaps the transponder requirement is utterly impractical - but - if/when the law dictates, you either comply, or you dont fly - 'impracticality' carries no weight.

Edited By Phil Green on 04/09/2019 17:17:09

"he felt that..." is key here. His feelings are irrelevant. Baroness Vere is the Minister for Aviation and she repeatedly and clearly states that we (drones+model aircraft) will all conform to a common set of rules.

So what in particular gives her the wisdom of Solomon to make such statements and then not have them go unchallenged and scrutinised? Talk about riding roughshod over people.

[Erfolg]

John

If the BMFA wants to launch a fighting fund, I will have no problem with that.

Although I think a number of issues needs to recognised by our organisation, that potentially that the indicated additional requirements, will almost certainly see the end of RC and probably FF model flying, if implemented. Which would suggest that the BMFA probably has a limited life span.

On that basis all the existing finance that is being spent on non essential activities, will be allocated to the forth coming issues related to compliance with the ANO .

I personally would want the BMFA to identify what they see as an acceptable environment for all members to operate within. Not a small number of locations or the one.

At that point I would get on board in contributing to and assist in raising funds to the cause.

 

Edited By Erfolg on 04/09/2019 18:28:18

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Berry]

If people wanted a fighting fund then we could have easily got the cash together over the last 18 months, which is when this was first mentioned by the DfT.

Funny how its only been in the last few weeks that people are mentioning a fighting fund, which is absurd in my view, as its futile and only 16 quid.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I have no reason to doubt you'd chip in and do your bit if the BMFA called for help Erf.

The question is for those who feel they have an answer, some move others have missed, more fighting spirit ?

All I've seen so far is an offer to withhold monies during the Winter, because some don't fly in it ? not much of a sacrifice as heroic acts go. One or two have already mentioned chipping in, so I've joined in with an offer. So what's our plan ?

[Erfolg]

John

I believe it is our representatives who are and have been involved with the negotians or representations who are best placed to sit down and identify where the threats are

The next obvious action probably would be to identify how to influence the process etc.

I am sure that given the opportunity the existing team would build very quickly a comprehensive plan of what and how to implement a programme of work. As work is what it is.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Well done L&DMAC Bang on the money!

Amazon? Do me a favour................

BMFA perhaps not enough emphasis on aeromodelling and clubs as in L&DMAC. It's a start though.

Edited By Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 19:18:33

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 04/09/2019 19:03:21:

John

I believe it is our representatives who are and have been involved with the negotians or representations who are best placed to sit down and identify where the threats are

The next obvious action probably would be to identify how to influence the process etc.

I am sure that given the opportunity the existing team would build very quickly a comprehensive plan of what and how to implement a programme of work. As work is what it is.

I agree.

[Cuban8]

Posted by Steve J on 04/09/2019 19:17:28:

From the new CAA submission:

"Under the relevant UK legislation, the Air Navigation Order 2016, an ‘operator’ is defined as the person who has management of the drone or model aircraft being flown. In practice, the majority of model aircraft association members own, maintain and control (i.e. determine when, where and by whom the model aircraft is flown) one or more model aircraft. This means that members of model aircraft associations are demonstrating operator responsibilities, and they would therefore be required to register individually."

Steve

Nicely countered by L&DMAC.

 BTW, My response to the last sentence above is ......Why? Only possible answer.......Because?

Clubs such as our own operate from a BMFA registered flying site situated on private land, we monitor all members to ensure they are also ‘paid up’ members of the BMFA and are fully insured. We operate unmanned aircraft within Visual Line Of Sight (VLOS) in a defined zone a few hundred metres from our Flight Line. Our model aircraft have no camera’s or automated flight modes, pilot’s are supervised until proven competent and all operations are closely monitored by a committee. Please see the attached copy of our Club Rules to demonstrate that we currently exceed the educational and safety requirements proposed in the Drone Regs. Where’s the benefit in registering pilots who only fly at BMFA registered Clubs and pose no threat to infrastructure or uninvolved persons? However we do concede that any club members who wish to fly in other airspace should register as the Consultation proposes.

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 19:25:17

[Chris Berry]

Posted by Steve J on 04/09/2019 19:17:28:

From the new CAA submission:

"Under the relevant UK legislation, the Air Navigation Order 2016, an ‘operator’ is defined as the person who has management of the drone or model aircraft being flown. In practice, the majority of model aircraft association members own, maintain and control (i.e. determine when, where and by whom the model aircraft is flown) one or more model aircraft. This means that members of model aircraft associations are demonstrating operator responsibilities, and they would therefore be required to register individually."

Steve

The submission from the CAA says it all. They distinguish between drone and model aircraft. They accept that aeromodellers own and fly aircraft as opposed to being the MD of a corporation. The CAA have their hands tied behind their backs by the DfT

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[KELL]

One question I’d like to ask, has there ever been reports of model aircraft flying around Gatwick or Heathrow or any other large operating airports.

[Chris Berry]

From DFT aka Baroness Condescending of Norbiton

Electronic conspicuity

Electronic conspicuity standards for small unmanned aircraft (SUA) are laid out in the European Union Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA’s) Delegated Act. The Delegated Act entered into force on 1 July 2019 and now forms part of UK domestic law. All the standards in this Act, including those relating to electronic conspicuity, will become mandatory for new unmanned aircraft three years later, in 2022. Under this Act legacy unmanned aircraft will be allowed to continue flying without being electronically conspicuous.

However, further to EASA’s work in this area, my Department has also sought views on mandatory identification of all aircraft in UK airspace through the recent Aviation 2050 consultation. We are working closely with the CAA, which has recently completed a consultation on implementing full adoption of an electronic conspicuity solution in targeted blocks of airspace to enhance situation awareness, improve safety and increase security. Our intention is to set out in the Aviation 2050 White Paper later this year how best to achieve this, alongside the implementation of the EASA requirements.