Latest CAA Update

[GONZO]

You don't have to register if you only fly sub 250gm aircraft. On clubs checking registration; read para 2 in the summary from the BMFA news letter BMFA news letter

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by GONZO on 02/09/2019 18:05:45:

You don't have to register if you only fly sub 250gm aircraft. On clubs checking registration; read para 2 in the summary from the BMFA news letter BMFA news letter

Gonzo. It's para 4 in the same link that makes it tricky. Do clubs need to ensure that their members are properly insured? BMFA are still seeking clarity on this issue.

[Chris Berry]

Posted by GONZO on 02/09/2019 18:05:45:

You don't have to register if you only fly sub 250gm aircraft. On clubs checking registration; read para 2 in the summary from the BMFA news letter BMFA news letter

I completely agree. The pilot must satisfy himself that the flight can be made safely. That includes the aircraft systems and structure, the pilots fitness to fly etc etc. Clubs don't ask to see eye test certificates every 2 years, or check airframe integrity every time someone brings a plane to the field.

However, the challenge is if a club allows a member to fly without checking if they have registered and taken the test and an incident occurs, particularly one involving an inquest or investigation of any kind, who is liable?

It may be a simple exercise of including a self certification check box on a renewal/joining form to say they have passed the test and registered and to perhaps include their number, the same as you would with your BMFA number.

Ultimately it will be for the individual club to decide,

[GONZO]

These hypothetical incidents would be vanishingly rare to non existent as history shows. My club has several members who only fly FF rubber. How would they comply with a tick box, not tick it? A club insisting on someone registering when they don't fly above 250gm(something not required by legislation) would be on shaky ground IMO.

[Chris Berry]

Posted by GONZO on 02/09/2019 18:35:42:

These hypothetical incidents would be vanishingly rare to non existent as history shows. My club has several members who only fly FF rubber. How would they comply with a tick box, not tick it? A club insisting on someone registering when they don't fly above 250gm(something not required by legislation) would be on shaky ground IMO.

If you only fly less than 250gm then you wouldn't need to register. I'm talking purely about the majority, who do fly over 250gm.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Berry]

There isn't any future in unmanned activity. Certainly no mcdonalds, Uber, amazon or anything of that nature. The best there will be is pretty much what we have now, aerial surveying, SaR and agriculture.

Flying taxis, parcel deliveries, takeaway deliveries never happen!

HS2 is being questioned now. Many people want HS2 to progress because they are employed and are making a lot of money. They don't care if, in the long term, the project fails, as long as they make their money.

This bright idea of drones ruling the world is the same as flying cars in the 50's and hoverboards in back to the future.

It'll fizzle out in due course.

Edited By Chris Berry on 02/09/2019 19:33:03

[Jason-I]

Posted by Chris Berry on 02/09/2019 18:21:33:

 

However, the challenge is if a club allows a member to fly without checking if they have registered and taken the test and an incident occurs, particularly one involving an inquest or investigation of any kind, who is liable?

 

If a member has registered and is then involved in an incident, then it is the pilot (member) who is responsible.

If a member has NOT registered and is then involved in an incident, then it is the pilot (member) who is responsible.

It's alway the pilot who is responsible regardless of registration.

Edited By Jason-I on 02/09/2019 19:45:30

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

My you lads have been busy, felt like Autumn at field, bring back the Sun.

[Chris Berry]

Where does vicarious liability fit into this?

As a club instructor, if i give someone a check flight and then allow them to fly knowing they are not up to a standard such that they are unsafe and they cause an accident or worse and I am called as a witness to give evidence at an inquest, i'm sure questions would be asked as to why I allowed the member to fly knowing they were unsafe or not fit to fly. Yes the law says the pilot is responsible and and must satisfy himself the flight can be made safely but i'm sure there would be questions.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Chris Berry]

Posted by Steve J on 02/09/2019 20:12:23:

Posted by Chris Berry on 02/09/2019 19:32:25:

It'll fizzle out in due course.

You are entitled to your opinion. But it's not your opinion or my opinion that matters. It's what the government thinks that matters and they think there are jobs and taxes in commercial unmanned aircraft.

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 02/09/2019 20:13:41

Correct Steve, but things will change, that is for sure!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 02/09/2019 17:20:02:

My objection to the paid for registration process isn't just about cost, although I do believe that the cost will grow at a silly rate in future years. I am mainly concerned about the effect that Drone Registration will have on Club and Association membership. I think there is a significant risk that some people will see this as a hurdle too far and will just give up flying. If clubs do the responsible thing and ensure that their members are all legally registered, there is massive scope for falling out and loss of membership. If clubs don't do the responsible thing, the club itself is put at risk in the event of a visit by the police. Members who do not wish to register as operators might just leave the club and take the risk of flying in their local park.

What we need is a way of making registration into a positive thing rather than a negative thing as far as the club is concerned. Having a scheme where the club (or just a group of like minded people maybe) register as one operator rather than as individuals would achieve this by taking the hassle and cost of registration away from the individual member. The obstacle to this approach appears to be about liability in the event of illegal flying or incidents. I think that this can be overcome by simply delegating the responsibility to the remote pilot (as it is today).

Any scheme to allow multiple remote pilots to share operator registration details must be:

1. Legal.
2. Simple.
3. Of benefit to the individual.
4. Of benefit to the club / group.

I see that this could work by the club issuing a certificate with the Operator Registration number to members who wish to take advantage of the group registration. The certificate should include wording to the effect that it is issued subject to the following conditions (wording needs a bit more thought):

The Remote Pilot:

• Is delegated responsibility for Maintenance, Safe Keeping, Labelling and Legal Use of all drones bearing the included Drone Operator Registration Number.
• Must register as a Remote Drone Pilot and pass the required test.
• Must ensure that his own name or BMFA number is included on the label in addition to those stipulated by legislation (to allow owner of lost models or those involved in an incident to be traced).
• Understands that he / she is solely responsible for his actions and that the club takes no responsibility whatsoever.

The certificate could be signed on behalf of the Registered Operator and the Remote Pilot. It could have an expiry date (which could be the club membership renewal date).

A scheme like this would make club membership beneficial and would allow the club to ensure that it is compliant with registration.

Thoughts please ......

Edited By Gary Manuel on 02/09/2019 17:27:31

I'm open to listen to anyones ideas, for me, we shouldn't be making a big deal of this, governments stuck it to us, everyone can see that, those I've spoken to about it don't seem worked up, offer help where it's needed PC access, print some simple guides up to unpick the jargon, then move on. KISS does it for me.

[Jason-I]

Posted by john stones 1 on 02/09/2019 11:42:39:

 

For the record again I believe the BMFA did their best and very much doubt anyone else would've done better.

From my perspective, I don’t see that the BMFA is doing enough to fight for our rights. In fact I really am struggling to find any good reason to renew my membership this year.

Aero modelling is under attack. We are facing ever increasing pressures and restrictions on the hobby/sport. Council bylaws and National trust laws already severely restrict where we can fly. For the most part, we can only fly above private land in the middle of nowhere – and now even that is being regulated and under threat. I see no evidence of the BMFA doing anything to legally challenge any of the restrictions being imposed on us.

In my opinion, the BMFA should be mounting several separate legal cases:

1) Aircraft Registration

The legality of the principal user pay should be challenged, as the user gets no benefit from the scheme and has no input into the cost of the system. How is it fair to expect somebody to pay for something that they don’t want, get no benefit from and have no control over the cost?

 

2) Airspace Ownership

Freeholders do legally own some of the airspace above their property, but to what height is not currently defined in law, other than “to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it”. The BMFA should be campaigning to get this height precisely defined in law and should be pushing for a height of at least 400ft outside of FRZ.

Consider that we are allowed to drive cars on private land without a license, without road tax, without an MOT and without insurance.

We should also be allowed to fly above private land up to the height owned by the freeholder without the need for registration and tax. If this height was legally defined, then there would be no need for registration when flying on private land within your own airspace.

As we predominantly fly on private land, it is an absolute nonsense that we should be required to register (and pay the model tax) when flying within the airspace already owned by the freeholder of that land.

Having the height legally defined would also give landowners protection in law from rouge drone flyers from buzzing over their land at low level.

 

3) Council / National Trust bylaws

The BMFA should be lobbying councils and the National trust to reduce the blanket bans placed on flying. Some public spaces should permit the official sport of model aircraft flying (registration would understandably be required if flying in a public space).

There is an excess of quiet public land in my council area, yet there is absolutely no public land whatsoever where I am permitted to fly a model aircraft (due entirely to council and National trust bylaws). As an official sport, we should at least be granted a little bit if public land to use.

 

 

I could be wrong (and often am), but I see no evidence of any of the model associations pursuing any such actions in the courts? It would be nice if the BMFA could comment so we can see how our membership money is being used to protect our rights. As I have stated, I am not opposed to paying increased fees to cover legal action (better to try and fail than not try), but I am not happy to carry on paying membership when it seems to have no benefit whatsoever (and when even my insurance becomes invalid when I don't register as an operator).

• Quote

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Choice is yours Jason.

[Don Fry]

Chris, you reckon the subject is unsafe. Answer, no fly, or fly under some supervision.

you reckon they have issues, their issues, rather than basic skills. You tell them.

A club instructor is no more liable than the bloke who passed the murderous cretin after a driving test is passed.

In good faith.

[Chris Berry]

Re. Public land use. This comes down to the popularity of the sport/hobby. If it were football then the council would provide a pitch. Why? Because it is a so called national game apparently with mass market appeal. I live near the Ricoh Arena. It will seat all Aeromodellers in the UK in one go.

Every Saturday apparently there are dozens of similar stadia all filled with like minded followers of the so called beautiful game, many hundreds of thousands.

My point being, society accepts 22 millionaires kicking a bag of wind around a field because it is ingrained in society, it is on every TV and radio station. Sadly our beautiful hobby isn’t and that’s why it’s given short shrift by agencies, organisations and government.

[Erfolg]

A very obvious set of questions that others have touched on, which will become the next issues.

It seems that the reports of near misses with aircraft will continue into the future, be they real or imagined. What will be the Governments and regulators reaction be? It is a political issue, in many respects.

Then there are the very deliberate acts such as Extinction Rebellion have threatened, although it is just as likely to be any other group or individual.

The issue of funding will not go away now. Historically it has been with us from time immemorial, under the various systems, in various guises, from Monarchy to Capitalists. It is payment to be allowed to do something. Be it build and hold a market, windmill, to drive a car etc. Assuming there is a mismatch of income, that is negative, particularly in the short term or government seeks additional income at the margins,

All of these things can be reasonably anticipated, it is best to think of the various permutations and our best reaction well in advance of events  occuring

Edited By Erfolg on 03/09/2019 10:21:26

Edited By Erfolg on 03/09/2019 10:22:41

[Martin Dilly 1]

Jason, do you have any idea of the cost to the BMFA of "..mounting several separate legal cases"? Have you ever considered how much work the BMFA, and recently its CEO, Dave Phipps, in particular has put in on behalf not only of its members but of the whole model flying community, some of whom can't even be bothered to join?

Let me try to help you get a grip on reality Years ago, around 1977, a prominent TV personality objected to model flying in his local park, the local council proposed byelaws banning it and the BMFA (or SMAE as it was then known) decided to fight this at a public enquiry. I was heavily involved in this myself, we briefed a barrister and the enquiry ran for three days. The barrister's fee alone then was well over £3,000, which today would be around £19,000.

BMFA fees are only £38, allowing the Association to just about break even annually, yet some people grudge this while happily paying more for a doll to stick in the cockpit of their expensive scale RC model. How much more would you be happy to pay as a BMFA member so we can mount all those legal cases, or even one?

[Bob Cotsford]

40k or so model flyers are unlikely to sway the authorities, how many were inconvenienced in the Gatwick fiasco and now blame 'drone' flyers and want Government action? Someone (Chris?) commented that we would all fit in the Ricoh stadium, we really are a tiny minority with little effective power. Do I consider it will affect me personally? No, even on my state pension the costs will be negligable compared to, eg, council tax.

I do feel sorry for those outside the club scene, the lone slope and thermal soarers whose activities may be height restricted. For the rest of us we face a simple 20 question test with the answers readily available (rumour has it ) and a small fee. We face bigger issues in the next two or three years outside of modelling, storms and teacups come to mind.

The BMFA have done all they can, if you think otherwise then you should have got involved and taken up a role within the BMFA higher echelons were you could make your voice heard and drive for a civil prosecution. Then when the annual fees shot up and membership shrank you could pat yourself on the back and feel you did what you could.

Honestly, this is getting worse than a Brexit debate!

[Bob Cotsford]

[Brian Cooper]

Reading the posts in this thread can be fairly "heavy going" at times.

I consider myself fortunate that my childhood years were served in an era when children seemed to have a lot more freedom than modern kids have nowadays. . At the age of 8, I could ride my bike five miles to the flying field, without any parental supervision, and nobody thought it was odd. . I had the freedom to play with my models all day long, and generally teach myself how to trim them and fly them. . Additionally, the grown-ups at the field were never afraid to talk to a child. . Mobile phones didn't exist but Common Sense ruled the day, and we all had a lot of carefree fun.

When I look at the way our superb hobby has evolved, with increasing PC, and the need for pay heed to various "child protection" policies, and now the requirements to become registered and tested, not to mention that children under the age of 18 will not be allowed to own a model aeroplane, I wonder what the future holds for the hobby, and, importantly, how we are going to attract juniors into it.

Okay, I am in this hobby for the long haul, BUT if all this overwhelming nonsense had been around when I was a kid, I am fairly sure I would have been put-off from the word go and would have found something else to do.

If it was ever the intention of the CAA (and all) to destroy our hobby with their nitty rules and regulations, they are making a damn good start. . . . Let's face it, there are people who are already declaring they will leave the hobby; and that is very sad.

B.C.

[Chris Berry]

In order to mount a legal challenge you have to have a robust case that focuses on facts and the way in which the legislation has been drafted, the process of consultation and enacting.

You can't mount a legal challenge based on "I don't like it, its not fair, stamp feet" There has to be a legal basis, in law. As far as I can see , he Government (who know a bit about law making), have followed the correct procedures.

Also, the law re. registration has been the law for the best part of a year and therefore it is likely the challenge period to mount a legal action, or certainly a judicial review has passed.

Edited By Chris Berry on 03/09/2019 11:58:27

Edited By Chris Berry on 03/09/2019 11:59:02

[Chris Berry]

I'm surprised when people say they will leave the hobby.

When your car tax goes up by £5 a year, or fuel prices increase, do people stop driving? In general they don't.

£16.50 is the price of a lipo, a prop or some fuel, all disposable items. A packet of fags is £10, a pint is £3-£5.

If people are worried about answering 20 questions, questions very similar to those asked as part of an A or B certificate, answers which can be found on the internet and indeed, the CAA will give you the answers themselves, then what is there to put people off continuing the hobby they love? Perhaps, they are aren't really aeromodellers, just past-time flyers who only fly when they have nothing better to do like mow the lawn or visit the garden centre, perhaps these are the people who will leave the hobby?

[Alan Gorham_]

Attracting young people under 18 to model flying is probably not the right target audience now to grow or maintain the hobby.

How do most of you get to your flying club? I assume by driving because unlike yesteryear the club field isn't in a local public park?

So you need a car and be at least 17 years old...

Most clubs have the child protection policy where the club will not undertake any responsibility for children, so you need a parent or guardian to accompany you.

I would suggest that building, flying and maintaining the average R/C model is not a pocket money hobby.

So perhaps the target "market" for new entrants to model flying should be 30-somethings onwards who maybe have the means and the interest to take up the hobby.

My experience over the last 20 years of flying in clubs is that new members fitted that profile.