Jump to content

Latest CAA Update


Chris Berry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 22:50:34:

Before you start typing, click in the editor box and try holding the down arrow key until it will go down no further. Then try typing. Does that work for you?

I simply click in the white space below the quote and type.

The forum software is fairly clunky but with 45 years experience it shouldn't be too testing for you to master if you keep an open mind...

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:56:51

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:59:33:

Gents, would you be kind enough to cease quoting a post I've deleted for a breach of the C of C, please?smile

I've PM'd the poster with advice on how to quote correctly - strangely enough in much the same terms as your advice!teeth 2

Back to the topic now...

Pete

You must not have deleted it when we quoted it - otherwise we would not have been able to quote it! wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If my club registers then I will comply for the sake of my club.

If I have to register as an individual then I will leave my club and free fly as I did for several years.

I am making a stand . This is a hobby with a very good safety record.

People who buy drones and fly them near airports, main roads, smuggling goods into prison and so on are not going to register so how do we who on the whole fly with safety in mind ,insurance and obey air laws be forced to register when so called drones have been around for 10 years or so without causing any loss of life due to an air strike etc.

The Police have a lot more to deal with than someone with a toy aircraft, although you can get arrested for raising your voice to your wife (ask me how I know).

So bring it on you sad little PC law makerscheekydisgustcrook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Kelly on 20/10/2019 21:08:14:

If my club registers then I will comply for the sake of my club.

If I have to register as an individual then I will leave my club and free fly as I did for several years.

I am making a stand . This is a hobby with a very good safety record.

People who buy drones and fly them near airports, main roads, smuggling goods into prison and so on are not going to register so how do we who on the whole fly with safety in mind ,insurance and obey air laws be forced to register when so called drones have been around for 10 years or so without causing any loss of life due to an air strike etc.

The Police have a lot more to deal with than someone with a toy aircraft, although you can get arrested for raising your voice to your wife (ask me how I know).

So bring it on you sad little PC law makerscheekydisgustcrook

 

Clubs don't register, only individuals do.

Which raises a couple of interesting points:

A) If the club has any 'club trainers' some individual, maybe a committee member, will have to 'own' them, pass the online test (which he might well have done already when this comes into effect), and register as an 'operator', paying the fee, maybe refunded to him out of club funds.

B) And someone, never having flown before, WILL FIRST HAVE TO PASS THE ONLINE TEST, probably having never even touched a plane, and register as either an operator or pilot.

And  that of course assumes that he knows such regulations exist - I don't see any effort to publicise it outside of model flying circles. And the shops, brick or online,  won't as they don't want to lose a sale by putting such obstacles in the buyers way.

Where we fly you don't need to have any 'skills' at all, just insurance. And there is no formal supervision of anyone, though the more public-spirited of us (assuming such a person is actually there) may offer some informal assistance (which a surprising number of total beginners, turning up with their purchased online foam Spitfire, resent). Most of us learnt by trial and error, probably not there. The concept of 'training' didn't exist when I started.

As for you leaving your club, if the club insists on everyone registering and 'polices' it (which is against BMFA guideless) you have a choice, register or leave the club.

But sensible clubs will obey the BMFA guidelines and not 'police' it at all. I don't see a majority of clubs approaching the BMFA saying "We WANT to police it, so alter the guidelines". Some may of course, but guidelines of course are just that, quidelines, they don't have to be obeyed.

Will the police themselves police it? Maybe at first they will, as it is much easier than catching burglars, but their enthusiasm will probably fade away after a short time as this registration does NOTHING to help catch any malevolent flyers. It is just a "look, we are doing something" exercise for public consumption.

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 20/10/2019 22:51:55

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 20/10/2019 22:53:42

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many questions and very few authoritative answers so rather than speculating, I'm happy to wait for advice from the BMFA once negotiations/discussions with the CAA and Government and the deadline is reached.

It seems logical that a registered pilot in command with a buddy box system should be able to hand control to a beginner in the same way that an instructor supervises a student pilot, learner driver etc. who does not possess their own full licence - I think I'm right that the theory test is not a pre-requisite to taking practical driving lessons and PPL students certainly take written tests well into their training programme. Hopefully some pragmatic thinking will get this clarified as details of the application of the legislation progresses.

In the case of the club trainer, any registered operator can affix their number and allow other members to pilot the model. In the case of general unwillingness to take that responsibility then all it should take is a stick on label with the current instructor's own number to be affixed during operation.

I do wonder if there seems to be a lack of uptake, whether the CAA might conduct spot checks - probably at clubs or popular flying sites - in order to produce some high profile prosecutions to encourage compliance!

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/10/2019 23:38:23

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Martin Harris on 20/10/2019 23:35:25:

There are many questions and very few authoritative answers so rather than speculating, I'm happy to wait for advice from the BMFA once negotiations/discussions with the CAA and Government and the deadline is reached.

It seems logical that a registered pilot in command with a buddy box system should be able to hand control to a beginner in the same way that an instructor supervises a student pilot, learner driver etc. who does not possess their own full licence - I think I'm right that the theory test is not a pre-requisite to taking practical driving lessons and PPL students certainly take written tests well into their training programme. Hopefully some pragmatic thinking will get this clarified as details of the application of the legislation progresses.

In the case of the club trainer, any registered operator can affix their number and allow other members to pilot the model. In the case of general unwillingness to take that responsibility then all it should take is a stick on label with the current instructor's own number to be affixed during operation.

I do wonder if there seems to be a lack of uptake, whether the CAA might conduct spot checks - probably at clubs or popular flying sites - in order to produce some high profile prosecutions to encourage compliance!

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/10/2019 23:38:23

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the BMFA. While you are probably in it, and I certainly am, I suspect there are far more flyers NOT in the BMFA then there are in it.

As many home insurance policies cover model flying and also cover everyone who lives in the house, not just a 'named' owner or even just family members, many flyers have no reason to join the BMFA except for the competitions the BMFS provides. . And there are far more non-competitive flyers than competitive ones.

OTOH if the BMFA can negotiate genuinely worthwhile concessions there may well be a surge in BMFA membership.

I think comparisons with driving and pilots licences are a little 'over the top' just to fly a toy plane. This is a  problem with 'officialdom', not you or me personally.

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 00:32:30

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 00:33:08

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 00:25:47:

I think comparisons with driving and pilots licences are a little 'over the top' just to fly a toy plane. This is a problem with 'officialdom', not you or me personally.

Exactly. If pre-qualification is not required for them, why [if it was ever the intention] would there be any sense in requiring it for little Johnny who wants to have a go on the buddy box. This is the sort of thing that I confidently expect the BMFA [who contrary to opinion in some quarters, I believe to have already demonstrated their effectiveness] to clarify and resolve with the CAA etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Martin Harris on 21/10/2019 01:49:55:
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 00:25:47:

I think comparisons with driving and pilots licences are a little 'over the top' just to fly a toy plane. This is a problem with 'officialdom', not you or me personally.

Exactly. If pre-qualification is not required for them, why [if it was ever the intention] would there be any sense in requiring it for little Johnny who wants to have a go on the buddy box. This is the sort of thing that I confidently expect the BMFA [who contrary to opinion in some quarters, I believe to have already demonstrated their effectiveness] to clarify and resolve with the CAA etc.

The intention is probably to discourage any kind of 'hobby' flying' ('They' have been doing that in the full-size flying world for longer than I can remember.)

There we were, the CAA and ourselves Both perfectly happy and rarely interacting with each other except for the minor nuisance (to the CAA) of some self-styled 'governing body'' of a small proportion of toy plane flyers sometimes asking them questions to which they had to think up polite answers in the hope they would go away, which they mostly did.

Then along came 'drones'. Devices requiring zero or very little skill (thus likely a short-term interest) with which people with what are now called 'learning difficulties', bored with their yo-yo's (to give an historical example) skateboards and rubik cubes, can take blurred and shaky videos of places in which few people, often including the operators themselves, have any interest.

These things are intrusive, make an irritating noise, often in highly populated areas, and are a minor danger to aviation. Hopefully for everyone except their operators, tey will turn out to be a 'fad' and will mostly disappear of their own account. but nevertheless the government 'how can we be seen to be doing something? process comes into action.

And we toy plane flyers are caught up in it.

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 08:20:19

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 08:21:27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Steve J on 21/10/2019 08:26:41:

Brian,

All the points that you raise have be discussed before. I suggest that you read this topic and the commons committee one.

Steve

I know they have. But like any 'controversial' subject with limited options they keep getting 'refreshed' with new people commenting.

Whatever we post won't make any difference. The authorities won't pay any attention to this forum and nor will most model flyers, the vast majority of whom don't subscribe to this forum and have probably never looked at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying hard to follow this (and other) discussions on the proposed regulations. I've read that something was going to be implemented by the beginning of October 2019, then 14th October 2019, and now I think I've read that it is 'unlikely to be before the beginning of November', or words to that effect. The last BMFA updates I saw were dated 30th September, in which they urged members not to rush into registering or taking the tests for the moment, and 11th October in which they updated us about documents published by EASA, and a report by the Science and Technology Parliamentary Select Committee.

Am I missing some important announcement, or is it fair to say that things are still in a state of flux, with scope of the regulations and BMFA exemptions still not finalised, and implementation date still not fixed (apart from the 400ft rule)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct with one exception. The CAA gave an exemption to members of 4 model aircraft organisations (BMFA/SAA/LMA/FPV UK) that allows them to operate above 400 ft provided the aircraft AUW does not exceed 7 Kg and they are not multi rotors. Single rotor helis up to 7 Kg can operate above 400 ft. Or, as the BMFA CEO said, with the exceptikn of MRs it is "business as usual".

The DfT/CAA will have to make a final decision shortly if their proposed timetable for registering is to be finalised. I believe the BMFA/SAA/LMA/FPV UK will then put out a note to their members giving guidance on how to proceed. The DfT/CAA were directed to get together with the 4 model organisations to thrash out a way forward that reduced to a minimum the impact of the Drone Legislation. Subscribing to the News Page on the BMFA website will keep you bang up-to-date.

It is worth remembering that the changes to air law are to enable a way in which EU member states can exploit the market for unmanned air vehicles. The current focus on model aircraft size multi rotors is merely the result of some high profile use of such craft. It cannot have escaped your attention the hugely increased use of drone borne high definition camera shots in an increasing number of TV programmes. There are also agricultural uses (inspection of crop health), pipeline inspection, structural surveys, pollution monitoring, to name but a few, where using unmanned airborne sensors becomes economically viable in lieu of using a manned aircraft to carry the sensor. The military are already using unmanned aircraft for both surveillance and strike and would no doubt wish to use the UK for training their personnel in the use of this equipment outside the current limitation of operation only in a military range.

With the greatly increased use of such unmanned vehicles our already relatively crowded airspace becomes even busier and the risk of conflicting flight paths rises sharply. From a public safety stand point it is inevitable for there to be some impact on our activity. I'm encouraged to think that the impact on the vast majority of us who fly from existing club sites will be minimal. I might be wrong but we have demonstrated to the DfT that we have the ability to influence political leaders to make sure we don't get purely arbitrary decisions made by civil servants who have little knowledge of our hobby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allan,

You haven't missed any recent announcement. As it stands registration of operators of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles of 250 grams and above is still mandatory from 30 November, although no registration scheme has yet been launched.

More concerning, we do not know what exemptions, if any, model aircraft operators will get from the rules described in Annex C to CAP1789 - Diagrammatic portrayal of the Open category and subcategories A1, A2 and A3, that are supposed to be applicable in the UK from 1 July 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Steve J on 21/10/2019 15:46:28:

UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy

"The UK's new strategy for harnessing the economic and social benefits of unmanned aircraft, by reducing the risk posed by malicious or illegal use."

Ohh whoopie, we are all soon going to be using drones as personal transport according to the minister. At least the £16.50 registration fee will be cheaper than road tax....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted by Steve J on 21/10/2019 15:46:28:

UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy

"The UK's new strategy for harnessing the economic and social benefits of unmanned aircraft, by reducing the risk posed by malicious or illegal use."

Interesting stuff - from pg 23/24:

"Make it easier to identify illegal drone use earlier

Capitalising on safe-use initiatives

...From 30 November 2019, we will place a legal requirement on all drone operators13 to register with the CAA and receive a validated drone operator registration number which they must affix to their drone before it is flown. We will also require all remote pilots of drones to pass an online competency test and receive an acknowledgement of competency from the CAA before flying a drone. As we update the online systems that enable this we will ensure the needs of the police, drone operators and remote pilots are reflected to facilitate effective, real-time enforcement.

The government is developing its concepts for the future implementation of an unmanned traffic management (UTM) system. UTM will provide a means of preventing collisions between unmanned aircraft and other aircraft, manned or unmanned. While UTM will not be delivered in the lifetime of this strategy, we will ensure that security concerns are appropriately incorporated in early planning."

So it looks like we have at least one more month before we will be required to register.

Edited By MattyB on 21/10/2019 17:26:20

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from page 24...

"The drone industry

...Many commercially-available drones already include geo-fencing capabilities – software that can restrict a drone from flying in certain areas, such as airports. The government is engaging directly with drone manufacturers and industry on how these capabilities can be improved. We are working with airspace managers and regulators to understand how best robust data on permanent and temporary airspace restrictions, such as those around airports and other critical national infrastructure sites, can be made available in a format that manufacturers and technology developers can easily use, in order to improve safety and help drone users fly in accordance with the rules.

The government will consider what further product standards or restrictions within the drone sector could reduce risks associated with the misuse of drones without disproportionately affecting legitimate users, setting new international standards with likeminded partners such as Five-Eyes nations and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency."

A quick search of the document shows they have not used the term "conspicuity" or "electronically conspicuous". Based on the bold statement above it certainly seems to remain firmly on the table, though at least they have softened it with "without disproportionately affecting legitimate users".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...