Latest CAA Update

[Don Fry]

Posted by Jason-I on 05/09/2019 19:43:21:

Posted by Martin Harris on 04/09/2019 09:53:29:

Posted by Jason-I on 03/09/2019 21:46:19:

.... clarifying, in law, the airspace ownership rights of landowners....

Careful what you wish for...that can work both ways and certainly in the case of our club would destroy our ability to fly anything larger than park flyers, 3D models or (ironically) drones if our neighbouring land owner were to restrict overflight.

I take your point if you are overflying somebody else's land, however, if landowners airspace rights are not clearly defined in law, what is stopping the government from dividing the sub 400ft airspace up and selling its usage rights off to the highest bidder?

£16.50.

[Jason-I]

Posted by Don Fry on 05/09/2019 19:55:33:

Posted by Jason-I on 05/09/2019 19:43:21:

I take your point if you are overflying somebody else's land, however, if landowners airspace rights are not clearly defined in law, what is stopping the government from dividing the sub 400ft airspace up and selling its usage rights off to the highest bidder?

£16.50.

That could well be peanuts compared to what industry may be willing to pay for the airspace....

[Don Fry]

Jason, the industry as you call it is;

farmers inspecting crops, conservators looking at buildings, film, journalism, power line inspections.......

a bit of search and rescue work, military work,

surveying.

None of the above are gadillion bidders.

aaaaaaaaar, Amazon. I have noted, a conspiracy theory in this thread and others, that they are the evil force behind the government doing the costing system. Have a look at their efforts, and have a think about Vere's easily and ignorantly tripped off words about out of sight flying and work out the consequences and cost, and difficulties of making such a system safe to people on the ground not associated with the flight (who have a right to the very highest adverse risk protection).

Or just accept that Failing Grayling as left a legacy dogs dodah on our doormat.

Edited By Don Fry on 06/09/2019 06:37:36

Edited By Don Fry on 06/09/2019 06:38:42

[Bob Cotsford]

Posted by Don Fry on 06/09/2019 06:36:39:

....

Or just accept that Failing Grayling as left a legacy dogs dodah on our doormat.

Wouldn't be like him, would it? Nah, must be some sort of conspiracy.

[Nigel R]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Grayling is adequately explained, I think.

[John Stainforth]

Posted by KELL on 05/09/2019 19:01:36:

I’ve decided to sign up, take the test, pay my fee and enjoy 2020 at my local patch. Worrying about things that may or may not happen is just wasting time. I’ve personally known 6 people who were worrying about the the rights and wrongs of Brexit in 2016. Sadly they are no longer with us. What’s the point in worrying. Enjoy today !!!!

I worry for future generations.

[fly boy3]

John, I totally agree with you, but I think the test will prove nothing. The responsible fliers who will sign up and take the test will I have no doubt have had safety as a priority for many years. What's to stop any one just having a list of answers and just ticking off the boxes. This will prove nothing then. Cheers. ps or is it the case of th CAA just covering thier backs ?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Fly Boy, that will be my approach, a list. At this point there is nothing that we can sensibly do, other than take the test. I take the view that those who have taken the A test have a very good working knowledge of the ANO more importantly have shown common sense.

The new battle seems to be transponders.

I disagree in that there will not be business and enterprises that will pay substantial sums to operate quads Out of the Line of Sight or autonomously. Immediately you think of the National Grid companies surveying overhead lines etc, the rail network. Massively cheaper than using helicopters or walking inspections.

I found it very disturbing that apparently Local Authorities in Southern England appear to be using quads over private properties in contravention of the 50m rule. Presumably a blind eye is presently been turned with respect to them. I guess they would be interested.

Farmers are another group.

I am personally very concerned that extra cost and bureaucracy will further limit those who have an inkling to enter our hobby. This should be a concern to us all, as the focus of the BMFA would have to change, to probably support only those with large wallets that will open, to survive.

You would put me in the group of those who do not need to worry, as my group has a limited shelf live.

 

Edited By Erfolg on 06/09/2019 12:21:58

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Would local authorities not have applied for exemptions Erf ?

[Don Fry]

Lads, I've taken one of these tests which are sweeping the continent. It asked difficult questions. Can you overfly a nuclear power plant? What do you do if you find the wind is too strong to fly? The only slightly difficult, for me, related to privacy and camera carrying aircraft, as I don't do that. So I needed to apply common sense.I was right.

It is not going to be any day soon accepted by the BMFA as a substitute for the A test, let alone the B.

One point I think should be explored for change, is I think at the moment, the system wants, pass your test and then learn to fly, i.e. Touch the sticks.

We need a small relaxation, to permit fight under supervision. Or we will lose any ability to hook little kids. Or casual droppers in at a club. As I reckon, a seed sowed a a child might germinate at any time before they die.

happy to be told I am wrong. In France we allow supervised flight. It might not be difficult. Just need to point out to the powers that be that it is a daft restriction that does no good.

[Erfolg]

John

I have no idea at all if or they have not obtained an excemption. I did not know that excemptions are permitted under the ANO etc?

[Don Fry]

Erf, why fly out of sight. And why on earth would they want to pay gazillions for looking at their lines when the can do it for nothing. And going back, if it goes wrong and hits a uninvolved person, that is serious. The CAA already have a list of risk protection, and the uninvolved are top of the list for protection.

or are you suggesting, that the government REALY wants to clear the lower airspace, and then sell it off to whoever will give them a few bob. Note a few bob. There is no evidence anyone can be identified who will pay much. And if they wanted to do that, why not just get on with it, rather than mess about with the Grayling legacy.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jonathan W]

Posted by Steve J on 06/09/2019 13:45:01:

Posted by Erfolg on 06/09/2019 12:19:31:

I found it very disturbing that apparently Local Authorities in Southern England appear to be using quads over private properties in contravention of the 50m rule. Presumably a blind eye is presently been turned with respect to them.

This will be being done by people with PfCO and will be subject to risk assessments etc.

Steve

Aye, but how do the people getting annoyed about being over-flown know about the PFCO or risk assessment? Even if the drone in future had EC, are the people underneath supposed to look it up on a smart phone "App" and then realise that they are not entitled to be annoyed?

Edited By Jonathan W on 06/09/2019 14:03:58

[Erfolg]

I am shocked that a Pfco excepts the operator from the 50m requirement without the permission of the property owner

[Chris Berry]

Posted by Don Fry on 06/09/2019 13:26:47:

Lads, I've taken one of these tests which are sweeping the continent. It asked difficult questions. Can you overfly a nuclear power plant? What do you do if you find the wind is too strong to fly? The only slightly difficult, for me, related to privacy and camera carrying aircraft, as I don't do that. So I needed to apply common sense.I was right.

It is not going to be any day soon accepted by the BMFA as a substitute for the A test, let alone the B.

One point I think should be explored for change, is I think at the moment, the system wants, pass your test and then learn to fly, i.e. Touch the sticks.

We need a small relaxation, to permit fight under supervision. Or we will lose any ability to hook little kids. Or casual droppers in at a club. As I reckon, a seed sowed a a child might germinate at any time before they die.

happy to be told I am wrong. In France we allow supervised flight. It might not be difficult. Just need to point out to the powers that be that it is a daft restriction that does no good.

That has crossed my mind about training/trial flights. I don’t see it as an issue though.

The pilot in charge is the instructor and therefore has control at all times. Therefore they will be registered under the new scheme as the operator and pilot.

Its certainly not something I’m going to worry about. It is one thing I shall carry on with regardless!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 06/09/2019 14:13:43:

I am shocked that a Pfco excepts the operator from the 50m requirement without the permission of the property owner

Try a strong cuppa tea Erf.

[Don Fry]

Chris, I think the current draft is a person controlling the aircraft. No mention of pilot in charge. But while I would not for a moment think your actions are in the wrong, it's a daft law puts you in a grey area, when you are right.

[Kelly]

Why not refuse to take the test on mass.

Police cells are very comfy .

[GONZO]

So, this talk of trainer/instructor rolls and responsibilities under the new regs. From what I read above people seem to consider that as the 'instructor' is the pilot in command/control then the trainee does not need to register as an operator or pilot whether the plane and equipment is his or the instructors or the clubs. Correct? If this is the case then a small group of friends have a way of circumventing the regulations. One of the group registers for both roles and 'acts' as the instructor for the group(not that any of them need training). Everyone brings their own planes to fly and as long as they are plugged up, physically or by RF, to a master Tx controlled(??) and held by the acting instructor the law is satisfied. The pilot under instruction(??) has effective control all the time and flys as if the instructor(??) is not there as he will be operating the training switch such that control is permanently transferred to the trainee(??). Obviously when he wants to fly everyone else takes a break and by way of compensation for his role all fees are paid by the others in the group. Obviously this has drawbacks and limited application. But, it is a thought, as if its OK for training then its OK for this situation as intent to circumvent the regulations would, I suggest, be difficult/impossible to prove.

I'm just popping down to the bunker whilst people give this some thought.

[Paul Vincent 8]

May be worth having BBC radio oxford live between 4.30-5pm Today as its going to be about drones and with any luck about the CAA Laws that are coming

[Peter Christy]

I still stand by my original thesis that the law cannot allow one association - be it the BBC, Amazon or whoever - to act as the "operator" for one group of pilots, but not another association, be it the BMFA or a club.

The big difference is in the operator liability should anything go wrong. Public companies will have liability insurance, and limited liability for their directors - that's what a limited company is. However, some model clubs are already limited companies - they had to be to get a mortgage to purchase their own land - and should therefore have no problem registering as the "operator".

And as I've already pointed out, the current rage for LLPs (Limited Liability Partnerships) - which seem to be primarily money laundering operations - mean that such companies can be bought "off the shelf", and should provide the protection needed.

Neither the CAA nor the DfT have come out and branded such a scheme illegal, as far as I'm aware, limiting themselves to saying the it would not be "appropriate".

That tells me that they recognise a loophole when they see one!

--

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]