Latest CAA Update

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Don Fry]

Posted by Kelly on 06/09/2019 16:00:45:

Why not refuse to take the test on mass.

Police cells are very comfy .

Until you know where they've been.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Don Fry]

And Steve, I wonder if the BMFA know. At at least get some feedback if this is an intended consequence, or a bit of oversight.

I used to train people to shoot. I could train people to shoot, and they did not possess a firearms licence. And they could not get that licence until they got club membership. And I was one of the people who had a veto on that membership. And we trusted the membership.

One change proposed, based on the historical name of the sport, Target Practice, was if we entered trainees in competitions, and we were a competitive sport, it ceased to be practice and became something else, and need a licence. What they could not get.

The draft was changed. You have to remember, the draft writers know nothing about the stuff he is writing about, just how to costuct legalese.

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Steve J on 06/09/2019 16:17:31:

Posted by Peter Christy on 06/09/2019 16:12:38:

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".

CAA submission to Commons enquiry.

Steve

And you could make exactly the same arguments about BBC and ITN cameramen (to pick a couple of examples), as they will no doubt have more than one drone and be personally responsible for its maintenance.

Indeed, I doubt if ANY commercial operation currently expects anyone other than the pilots to determine "when, where, and by whom the drones are flown". Just as with any commercial aircraft, the pilot can refuse to fly if he doesn't believe the flight can be conducted safely, so he, and not the "operator", is determining "when, where, etc..."

Sorry, doesn't hold water.

--

Pete

[Chris Berry]

Posted by Steve J on 06/09/2019 16:19:58:

Posted by Chris Berry on 06/09/2019 14:35:29:

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

It is pretty clear to me that the trainee has to pass the remote pilot test before they touch the sticks.

Steve

So a 10 year old who is in the scouts but has never seen a model plane before and has know idea what they are is expected to take the test and someone, be it their parents or me for example, is expected to register as an operator. Then he can come to the field maybe only once and have a flight or two on a buddy box as a trial flight experience, not long term flight training, just an experience day.

Clearly that will never happen and whilst i'm reluctantly accepting of registration and testing it's a bridge too far!

[Chris Berry]

Posted by Paul Vincent 8 on 06/09/2019 16:06:37:

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

Just had a listen.

A commercial drone training company are unhappy about London Oxford Airport charging £120 to process an application for a flight within their FRZ.

I wonder if London Belfast airport will do the same?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

There is a glaring inconsistency with respect to training/experience flights. In GA light aircraft you can go for a trial flight or start your training, progressing a significant way, without the requirement to pass any air law tests because you are not the pilot in command. The instructor is pilot in command even if you fly the plane all the time. Why a difference when it comes to toy planes?

[John Bisset]

Gonzo, that is a very good point !

There is an anomaly there well worth the BMFA's time to explore, I'd say.

[Chris Berry]

The fact the legislation is quiet on this matter probably means its not an issue, or more likely, it didn't even cross their mind.

[Don Fry]

Gonzo is right I think. There is an anomaly. Perhaps we could encourage a reply from the BMFA. I am sure they are on the ball. But just to make sure..

[CARPERFECT]

Question for someone who thinks they know.

If we ALL have to register and put a number on the planes/drone/ heli. what about the planes the club owns. Our club has 3. used for training, and anyone of 5 people could be using it for training. So who registers them?

 

Edited By CARPERFECT on 07/09/2019 07:52:39

[Erfolg]

With all the potential transponders registering on Radar (I assume), will there not be potential for information overload for the ATC?

If the below 400 foot traffic can be removed from the Radar, what use is a signal, to whom and under what circumstances.

I genuinely have no idea with respect to the subject.

[GONZO]

IMO it would be the club that registers as the 'operator' and gets a registration number, fixes the required label with the clubs registration number to all five planes. The club is an organisation that has responsibilities for managing UAV's. All/any of the instructors when instructing would then be the 'pilot'(having taken the test and passed) of the 'operators'(the club) aircraft/UAV's. As discussed earlier the instructor would be 'the pilot in command' and the student IMO would not have needed to take the 'on-line test' and to register with CAA as a 'pilot' or register as an 'operator'.

As an example, in GA flying: the flying club owns, manages and registers the Cessna. The instructor is the 'pilot in command'(would have passed all relevant test and have suitable licence). The student just has to turn up for his lesson(no passing of tests etc)

Edited By GONZO on 07/09/2019 10:21:46

[GONZO]

Erf,

I don't believe conventional radar works, at least reliably, down to these levels due to reflected signals, 'ground clutter'. This would be especially so in my part of the world with all the hills etc, North Wales.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

Erf,

The 'transponder' system works by transmitting data(height, speed, track, heading etc) from the 'drone' and this is displayed on a virtual radar screen(computer screen) simulating a radar track.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[GONZO]

Steve J,

This is at odds with the rest of aviation administered by the CAA. Do they not have an obligation to behave in a unified and even handed way. Can you provide specific link/para for this as para 7.2 is not specific to this particular situation?

[Erfolg]

Hmm, In a situation that all models and quads have a transponder, how is the signal used, to achieve what ?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Wingman]

Gonzo's post above refers to the "club" doing this and the "club" doing that in relation to club owned assets however, this brings the club, which is run by volunteers, within the reach of the law and you cannot expect volunteers to expose themselves to prosecution just for the benefit of club members. I am an office bearer in our club (just about the only one!) and I will not be exposing myself to any of these forthcoming regulation in respect of the club - all members will be personally and solely responsible for complying with the relevant laws, not the club.

[Gary Manuel]

How is it going to be safer to have say half a dozen models with transponders circling above a fixed field than it would be to have that field permanently defined as a no fly zone?

[GONZO]

Wingman, so who else other than the club? Not the instructor because, as explored earlier, he does not have ownership/responsibility of management of the 'club trainer' which would make him the 'operator', the club does.