Latest CAA Update

[Engine Doctor]

Posted by Peter Christy on 09/10/2019 08:35:59:

Posted by Steve J on 08/10/2019 21:47:52:

Posted by Martin_K on 08/10/2019 21:33:13:

Dave Phipps does not make reference to the specific category, Matty does.

If you go back to Opinion 01-2018, the draft article that became article 16 explicitly referred to the specific category, for some reason it no longer does, but article 3 makes it clear.

"(b) UAS operations in the ‘specific’ category shall require an operational authorisation issued by the competent authority pursuant to Article 12 or an authorisation received in accordance with Article 16, or, under circumstances defined in Article 5(5), a declaration to be made by a UAS operator;"

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 08/10/2019 22:07:14

And presumably only when there's an "R" in the name of the month!

Who writes this guff? Where's the Campaign for Plain English when you need them?

--

Pete

" Yes Minister "

[Cuban8]

For those that don't monitor Xjet's channel - worth listening to this........**LINK**

[Rob Blacknell 1]

Posted by Chris Berry on 23/08/2019 13:37:24:

I've just seen the latest update on the BMFA website. It seems registration is inevitable.

I see there is an option to do the test in hard copy, posted out and then returned in hard copy. Although it delays the process in terms of knowing if you've passed and are successful in registering, maybe a hard copy is i the best way for all of us to do it?

We are being law abiding and following the rules. It just means the powers that be have to issue the best part of 40'000 hard copies and process them all upon their return and then notify every individual if they have passed or not It would be good if we all did the hard copy, but sadly, I think most will do it via "the mobile", as it seems too much effort to put pen to paper these days.

[PeterF]

Posted by Chris Berry on 23/08/2019 13:37:24:

We are being law abiding and following the rules. It just means the powers that be have to issue the best part of 40'000 hard copies and process them all upon their return and then notify every individual if they have passed or not It would be good if we all did the hard copy, but sadly, I think most will do it via "the mobile", as it seems too much effort to put pen to paper these days.

Therefore increasing the cost of administering the registration system, and on the current basis of the users of the system must fund the service, the registration fee will increase, thus making things even worse. Law of unintended consequences.

[GONZO]

Law of diminishing returns. As the cost goes up less people sign up. Both figures grow at an exponential rate until the scheme collapses.

[Martin_K]

Keep your hair on, let me have another go at checking I understand.

The still to be confirmed fee for registering as a drone operator is the least of our worries.

For future operation of model aircraft (self builds, not RTF drones) there are two scenarios;

* The EU wide Open Category in which subcategory A3 is the best fit for Privately Built models, but the requirement to prevent 'uninvolved persons' from entering 'the area of flight' effectively makes this impossible on public land, i.e. where people roam. So only clubs with private fields are left standing.

* Alternatively at the national (not EU) level, operation authorised in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations. We are pinning our hopes on the BMFA getting some sort of collective exemption granted by the CAA under the Specific Category.

Worst case for me if the BMFA do not deliver;
All the places I fly, including those requiring club membership, are public land so I am limited to Privately Built models as defined in subcategory A1 for models of less than 250g, but hey, I don't have to pay the registration fee!

[GONZO]

Martin_K Or take the test. But, it's worse than you think in your first * paragraph. Because of the site limitations most private clubs would have difficulty/not be able to comply. See my site diagram for the Delyn club which is a large site.

[Martin_K]

Gonzo, I get your point that to comply a club's private field would itself need to be inside a substantial private 'buffer zone'.

I am still being thick however. Which test are you referring to?

Gonzo, hold fire! The penny just dropped!

Edited By Martin_K on 10/10/2019 15:55:37

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

No. I was referring to the free on line test, the foundation test. If you only fly sub 250gm privately built, in sub category A-1, then according to the chart on page 42 of CAP 1789 the on line test is not required.

[Peter Jenkins]

The BMFA has today (11 Oct) published a note in their News website to flag up the latest EU document outlining their Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) in support of the EU regulations for unmanned aircraft. It is worth reading as are the relevant parts of the EU and CAA documents flagged up.

It seems to me from my reading of these 2 documents that the statements in this thread relating to operating areas, age qualifications and so forth are actually answered in the texts from both the EASA/EU and the CAA. It would appear that the new S of S, Grant Shapps, has reoriented the DfT view and told them and the CAA to come back with a way forward agreed with the Model Aircraft Associations.

We already have a dispensation from the CAA to fly above 400 ft for aircraft with a MTOW not exceeding 7 Kg. This will cover the requirements for soaring and flying competition aerobatics where the height reached can, and often does, exceed 1,000 ft.

On that basis, much of what has been discussed above, may be irrelevant given the direction from both the EU and the new S of S so that we get the hoped for change in the way that model aircraft operation is to be treated in the UK.

Perhaps the mantra ought to be “Keep calm and carry on flying your model aircraft” while we wait for the formal direction from the DfT/CAA?

[Dave Cunnington]

"Perhaps the mantra ought to be “Keep calm and carry on flying your model aircraft” while we wait for the formal direction from the DfT/CAA?"

Wow, do I detect a note of common sense amongst all the hysteria ?

[Cuban8]

Page 19, Article 16 in the document seems to echo what we've been banging on for, in the hope that someone will listen. Appears that they perhaps have realised that to conflate 'drone type devices' (their description) with aeromodelling is a basic mistake. We richly deserve a better deal.

[Erfolg]

Perhaps we can also stop being silly in conflating the name Grant Shapps with additional attachments.

I have believed for a long time that these latest directives and regulations were not to be taken lightly. However implemented, for us, the changes will be significant. It is the child, perhaps with father, in the park, being unable or dissuaded from flying a model that has concerned me. They are the hobbies future, be it immediately or possibly 20 years hence.

It does seem that world wide that the initial thrust of the guiding principles is being re-assessed, due to the attempt to be all encompassing. Particularly the lack of will to distinguish between fixed wing and rotor craft, and to a less extent between the hobbyists and the professional operators. You can easily understand why, loop holes, an easy life and easier convictions.

I now wait with bated breath, as the saga continues.

Edited By Erfolg on 11/10/2019 13:35:30

[Martin Dilly 1]

What I do find surprising and rather indicative of the apathy of model flyers when it comes to actually doing something useful, rather than posting on forums like this, is the almost total lack of written evidence from model flyers among the 175 submissions at the end of the S&TC report here: **LINK**

There are well over 150 submissions from drone users but scarcely any from us; were we not interested enough to put words together that might preserve our own sport in the face of massive inputs from the very activity that may be threatening it? Leaving it all the the BMFA and the other associations is all very well but some written support would surely have been worthwhile.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Interesting that you should post this. I thought (although as I have responded to many sources so I could be mistaken) that I had made a submission but my name is not on the list.

Edit: Having examined the content/consultation, I'm not sure that I was ever aware of this particular consultation.  It does not appear to have been included in the call to action which many of the concerned contributors to this forum made the effort to respond to.  Your post does seem to smack of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted - perhaps a member of the BMFA executive might have alerted the membership to this consultation before the event?

Edited By Martin Harris on 11/10/2019 15:04:15

[Cuban8]

In response to Martin's comments.......... I think that many rank and file model flyers have been instrumental in shifting the opinions of the powers that be and have been very supportive of BMFA's official efforts. Those of us that take time out to post here, I suspect, will have written to their MP (twice in my case) and participated in the other earlier call to action by our national body. We are indeed very fortunate to have this forum to kick around various ideas and opinions and clearly, senior members at BMFA do look in to gauge those opinions. All credit to them for doing that - I don't know how the BMFA would otherwise have its finger on the pulse of its members, given that its own forum was closed down many years ago and BMFA area meetings all struggle to attract attendees from their clubs.

A couple of years back I attended one of the BMFA's presentations regarding the then new membership portal. Afterwards, other subjects were discussed and it was thought that regular meetings of a more general type open to club committee members and others in order to get some extra dialogue going between clubs and officials would be useful and could be arranged. Nothing so far.

 

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 11/10/2019 16:17:48

[John Bisset]

Like Martin I must have failed to see this one - I did respond to the CAA and wrote to the DfT(?) and my MP etc. Fair do - when there are several groups looking into much the same thing it's easy to get confused.

It seems the earlier consultation effort has filtered through, as Cuban8 implies.

[Chris Berry]

I have responded to all the EASA and CAA consultations but I wasn’t aware of the Select Committee request for submissions, otherwise I’d have added my thoughts, although they were eloquently put by the Louth club and the BMFA.

[Denis Watkins]

The Select Committee are buried with the trials and tribulations of the Thomas Cook affair presently

So there may not be much time for the model flyers at the moment

[Chris Berry]

I doubt they’ll have much to do with Thomas Cook.

[Peter Jenkins]

Why would a Committee named Science & Technology get involved with a business issue?

[Erfolg]

I think Martins comments were meant to set us all off.

The reality, as I suspect he possibly has guessed, is that most of us has responded to the consultations that we were aware of, in addition to bending the ear of our MPs. My previous MP, listened, and appeared to be supportive, my present MP also appeared to be sympathetic. As for one politician who did not get elected and was more interested in, lets say other social matters, had no interest what so ever, other than telling me about social justice.

There is nothing at all wrong in supporting and encouraging the BMFA in representing the Modeling movement. It is a good news story at least, and demonstrates that the BMFA is more than insurance.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I agree, Martin's comment seemed somewhat vitriolic - I suspect that most regular forum members posting here are likely to have been amongst the more enthusiastic contributors to the calls for action.

[i12fly]

To sum up my take on this:

Registration and on-line testing will happen, but so what -it is easy to do and will not stop us flying. (Disobeying the law will invalidate your insurance so very silly to risk your house and belongings if you have an accident).

Electronic conspicuity will be required retrospectively for our drones/ planes within 2 years, but there is no current practical gizmo to this for our homebuilts, but the experts say it can be done and so will be almost certainly be included by legislation. One bright spark said that as drones can be operated from your phone so this could be the answer (he obviously has limited experience. The possibility of registering our flying sites was not reported so will not be considered.

But the worst is “be conducted at a safe horizontal distance of at least 150m from residential, commercial, industrial or recreational areas”. This is from the edge of where you fly, not the take off point! I see this as killing off many of our club sites. This is printed on the CAA Drone Code so is presumably current from the end of November(?). I hope that BMFA can comment on this (Andy?). I feel this will kill off our hobby to the majority without some relaxation of the rule, but no action seems forthcoming.

It seems to me from reading the docs that EASA have taking a pragmatic view for model associations but our Government and their advisors ‘know better’ and ignore our responses. So the BMFA news seems somewhat optimistic.

BMFA seem to be a lone voice, shouted down by people who are only interested in multirotor drones. Good luck BMFA, I appreciate you are doing your best.

I must say that I’ve read so many documents tonight with 100’s of pages that perhaps I’ve missed something positive for the critical issues, but I’m sure someone here will put me right