Latest CAA Update

[Ron Gray]

Sorry but where does it say that disobeying the law invalidates insurance. The BMFA were going to clarify that point, maybe I’ve missed it?

[Martin Dilly 1]

In the Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones thread there were very explicit details by Jeremy Wilkins on 04/08/19 of how to submit written evidence to the Select Committee. This is how I submitted mine, which ended up as item 121 in the list of 175 submissions. Having speed-read the lot, there appear to be four others from model flyers and the Louth club, apart from the three from the national organisations.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Martin Dilly 1 on 11/10/2019 23:13:09:

In the Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones thread there were very explicit details by Jeremy Wilkins on 04/08/19 of how to submit written evidence to the Select Committee. This is how I submitted mine, which ended up as item 121 in the list of 175 submissions. Having speed-read the lot, there appear to be four others from model flyers and the Louth club, apart from the three from the national organisations.

I assume you're referring to Jeremy's post of the 3rd of August? It does indeed mention how to submit evidence within it and hopefully your response was material to the generally positive outcome of the report.

However, at that time the BMFA were in communication with the membership regarding the "call to action" and at no time suggested submitting "evidence" [whatever was meant by the term] to the Commons Enquiry - progress of which was regularly updated.

I think accusations of being apathetic on this subject are, quite frankly, insulting to the many people posting on this forum who have gone to great efforts to both contribute and encourage others to participate.

[Peter Jenkins]

i12fly - I think you may be being unnecessarily pessimistic. Article 16 of the EASA document deals specifically with Model Aircraft and is clearly of the view that National Bodies may provide exemption from much of the drone regs if they wish to so do. The BMFA, in the form of Dave Phipps, played a major role in getting this into the document. The clear intention is to allow model aircraft operations to continue much as they do now.

The CAP 1789, a guide to the EASA docs, picks up on Article 16 and states:

Another important article to take note of. Efforts to either define or exclude ‘model aircraft’ from the proposed regulations have proved to be troublesome to achieve in a simple and straightforward manner. This article is therefore intended to offer a sanctuary to the ‘traditional’ model aircraft enthusiasts and provide them with an avenue for continued operation, via the cover of their existing model clubs or associations. This is through the ‘umbrella’ of a separate ‘authorisation’ within the Specific category, which could essentially allow them to continue operating as they currently do (which is openly recognised as being safe), without being restricted by other requirements within the regulations which are clearly directed at the manufacture and use of the ‘drone’ type devices. The details of what will actually be contained within this authorisation will need to be discussed further.

Whilst under the previous Transport Secretary, it rather looked like this was being lost, the current Transport Secretary has apparently reversed that direction of travel. So, my understanding is that the issue in the last sentence in the quote from CAP 1789 is where we currently are with the DfT, CAA and the Model Aircraft Associations discussing how they implement the EU directive. The EU document clearly states that the aim of Article 16 is to avoid the implementation of the regulations contained in the directive to model aircraft. That includes electronic conspicuity I would imagine. The BMFA/SAA/LMA/FPV submission to the CAA and to the Select Committee presents the difference between so called drone operations and those of the traditional model flying community clearly and concisely.

I have some confidence that, with the guidance from the current Transport Secretary, the DfT will fall back into line with the original CAA plan of finding a way to allow "business as usual" for model flying conducted under the auspices of those 4 Model Aircraft Associations. Whether this will extend to lone flyers or those who are not members of one of those Associations remains to be seen. It may be that we end up with a situation where any model flying in the UK covered by the regulations must only be by members of one of these Associations.

While this will clearly grate with some, for the vast majority it will make no difference what so ever.

Much of the soul searching is based on the belief that we will not get a sensible solution from the UK Government and so what are the implications for us. That's quite different from taking the view that the full drone regs will be imposed on us without any relief.

I am confident that the 4 Model Associations have the wind in their sails under the new Transport Secretary and I believe we will shortly see the fruits of that work which may well be viewed as "business as usual".

Yes, I'm an optimist! You have to be if you fly model aircraft!

Edited By Peter Jenkins on 12/10/2019 00:06:35

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

Agree wholeheartedly with Peter's post 00:05:45. Many of us have voiced the opinion that roping in model aircraft was an absurd position to take, and thankfully, we might wind up with an acceptable compromise. Non-association members will be unhappy if some sort of exemption can be made to work for those of us in BMFA, but if it saves model flying as we understand it from extinction, then the relatively small additional cost of annual membership and its benefits (mainly insurance) to those currently not signed up will surely be worthwhile. Hopefully, politics and 'principles' can be put to one side for the greater good of the hobby.

If this new arrangement does come about, and I fully accept that it might not, but if it does and BMFA becomes effectively, the official major delegated controller of model flying in the UK, then a thorough review of its establishment will surely have to be made. We've had the present historical arrangement where clubs hold sway for some very good reasons in the past, I'm sure, but the status quo will be considered to be unacceptable by many, if individual membership becomes compulsory in order to remain a legal model flyer. We've had this out before about the power of clubs v the individual members, it still rankles with many people and might just surface again in time. An unintended side issue?

[Peter Jenkins]

Cuban 8, beware "the tyranny of the majority"! One member one vote is great when members take the time to understand the issue, have the opportunity to debate the issue, consider opposing views and then make an informed decision.

There are 3 full time staff in the BMFA whose role is to deal with the day to day issues as well as engaging with a round 35 volunteers who form upour Boad of Directors - Council. How many of these volunteers will continue to give of their time freely if the membership votes.against their recommendations? OK, change the constitution. Well the BMFA is a Company Limited by Guarantee and subject to operating under Company Law. Have more paid staff = rise in subscriptions to pay for them.

It is easy to criticise the status quo - not so easy to propose a different and well thought through alternative. One just has to look at what is happening kn a larger scale.

We should all be thankful that the efforts of a small number of people in the BMFA, whose call to action many of us followed,has resulted in the potential for "business as normal" becoming a definite possibility.

[Cuban8]

Pete, I've no axe to grind over how the BMFA is run - rightly or wrongly, most members couldn't give a flying fish one way or the other. It simply occurred to me that there might be a case to answer in future, based on some later change in the associations wider MO brought about by external matters. Not losing sleep over it.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Allan Bennett]

Posted by Ron Gray on 11/10/2019 23:02:48:

Sorry but where does it say that disobeying the law invalidates insurance. The BMFA were going to clarify that point, maybe I’ve missed it?

I don't believe that any insurance will cover you carrying out unlawful (or should that be 'illegal'?) activities.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Steve J on 12/10/2019 11:14:51:

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 12/10/2019 10:47:51:

We should all be thankful that the efforts of a small number of people in the BMFA, whose call to action many of us followed,has resulted in the potential for "business as normal" becoming a definite possibility.

Or to spin it a different way. The DfT and CAA decided that the BMFA had nothing useful to say. The BMFA went crying to the membership. The membership got them back into the room with the DfT and CAA. The BMFA had a meeting with the then Aviation Minister who they managed to irritate. It is only when Grant Shapps got involved that things changed for the better.

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 12/10/2019 11:17:01

When you say the BMFA had nothing useful to say, just consider who the FAI asked to represent the views of the model flying community to EASA. To whom did EASA listen the most and carve out a space for model aircraft. Also, the BMFA are the clubs and their members. When you say the BMFA should do this or that try looking in the mirror. Same issue as in Clubs - no one wants to be on the Committee other than the usual few hard working members but a lot complain.

As for upsetting Failing Grayling - join a long line of others of whom he took no notice. Be glad that Shapps has replaced Grayling.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Ron Gray]

Posted by Allan Bennett on 12/10/2019 11:55:29

I don't believe that any insurance will cover you carrying out unlawful (or should that be 'illegal'?) activities.

As has been pointed out in this thread before, if you go over the speed limit in your car you are breaking the law, however, your insurance is not invalidated.

The BMFA have said that they will be looking into the insurance angle and will be getting advice. I will await the outcome of that rather than accepting your opinion (which you are entitled to!) as fact. 😉

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Steve J on 12/10/2019 08:38:11:

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 12/10/2019 00:05:45:

It may be that we end up with a situation where any model flying in the UK covered by the regulations must only be by members of one of these Associations.

A cynic would argue that one of the BMFA's objectives over the last three years or so has been to make sure that there is a significant gap between what association members and non-association members can do in order to increase their membership. We already have a situation where, to all intents and purposes, you have to be an association member to fly thermal soarers.

Steve

Or just looking after their members interests in conjunction with FPVUK, SAA and LMA, would be hard to go and lobby the CAA/DFT and demonstrate that you are effectively promoting safe flying to your non-members. How many non-members of the BMFA/SAA/FPVUK/LMA lobbied their MP.

[Jason-I]

I am a BMFA member, but not a club member. Due to work and family commitments, I only ever get a spare hour here and there a couple of times a month for flying. Therefore, when I do get an hour free, I like to pop to my local flying spot, have a couple of flights and come home. Part of the enjoyment of the flight is that I am on my own and get a little bit of piece and quiet out in the fresh air on a little used beach. The only people I see is the occasional dog walker (who all now know me well and say a cherrie hello as they go past). I only ever take off and land when the beach is completely clear of people, and if sombody walks past whilst I am airborne, then I keep my plane over the sea until they are gone. I have been flying here on and off for over 30 years. I have given many intersted passers by a quick flight on the buddy box over the years. I have always flown safely in this location, and there has never been any problems. The (few) locals that come along all seem happy enough to see me there, often asking 'what plane are you flying today'. It's been a great flying site for all these years, however, with the new regulations coming in, I fear I will no longer be in compliance and will lose my flying site forever.

I doubt club flying would suit my busy lifestyle. I very much doubt I could just turn up at the club every other weekend and immediately get 2 or 3 flights in and then leave, without having to wait my turn.

I hope the BMFA are also campaigning for lone flyers / country members as much as they are club members.

As the 2020 regs stand, I will likely lose my flying site, and with it, all hope if continuing in this hobby.

Edited By Jason-I on 12/10/2019 15:55:46

[John Bisset]

Posted by Ron Gray on 12/10/2019 13:20:51:

Posted by Allan Bennett on 12/10/2019 11:55:29

I don't believe that any insurance will cover you carrying out unlawful (or should that be 'illegal'?) activities.

As has been pointed out in this thread before, if you go over the speed limit in your car you are breaking the law, however, your insurance is not invalidated.

The BMFA have said that they will be looking into the insurance angle and will be getting advice. I will await the outcome of that rather than accepting your opinion (which you are entitled to!) as fact. 😉

That would be something you would need to clarify beforehand by carefully reading your insurance terms - not sure asking the insurer directly would help much since they presumably must not be seen to be condoming deliberate law breaking. In the example you quite your insurance may not be invalidated but I believe a claim might be moderated downwards in extreme cases for damage to your own vehicle at least. Grey areas!

[Piers Bowlan]

I don't think that 'carefully reading your insurance terms' will necessarily give one clarity. At the end of the day it is down to what your insurance underwriters will, or will not, cover. At the moment while the regulations are still in the melting pot, not even they know.

I suspect that in the fullness of time provided one is a member of the BMFA etc. are registered, passed the CAA's competency test and flying from a remote site (deserted beach or clifftop) one will continue to be able to fly as a lone flyer. This assumes the deserted beach or clifftop is outside restricted airspace, danger areas, or land where by-laws apply.

This is speculation of course but then a great deal of what is written in this thread is not cast in stone and subject to change. Apart from write to our MP and support the good work of the BMFA, there is not a lot we can do about it.

[leccyflyer]

It's really not about insurance. When passed it will be the law of the land in whatever form that takes. The insurance implications are a red herring, in that they would only be relevant in the event of an incident in which the pilot in charge was negligent. The regulations that will apply will apply to every flight, irrespective of whether the flight goes perfectly or not.

The recent updates give some grounds for cautious optimism that aeromodellers will be accomodated somewhat , as a result of our excellent safety record, the efforts of the BMFA and other organisations, the lobbying of hobbyists, their representatives and a change of the Secretary of State. That may result in a more sensible, workable outcome for model flyers.

[MattyB]

Posted by Martin Harris on 11/10/2019 23:54:59:

Posted by Martin Dilly 1 on 11/10/2019 23:13:09:

In the Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones thread there were very explicit details by Jeremy Wilkins on 04/08/19 of how to submit written evidence to the Select Committee. This is how I submitted mine, which ended up as item 121 in the list of 175 submissions. Having speed-read the lot, there appear to be four others from model flyers and the Louth club, apart from the three from the national organisations.

I assume you're referring to Jeremy's post of the 3rd of August? It does indeed mention how to submit evidence within it and hopefully your response was material to the generally positive outcome of the report.

However, at that time the BMFA were in communication with the membership regarding the "call to action" and at no time suggested submitting "evidence" [whatever was meant by the term] to the Commons Enquiry - progress of which was regularly updated.

I think accusations of being apathetic on this subject are, quite frankly, insulting to the many people posting on this forum who have gone to great efforts to both contribute and encourage others to participate.

Agreed. It’s not the first time Mr Dilly has told members of this forum that they are “wasting their time” posting on this topic; a strange view given those in these threads are amongst the most informed and passionate about these issues, and almost all are members of his own association who followed the call to action. Scolding your own membership for alleged inactivity hardly seems an effective way to create goodwill given this still has a long way to run. Anyway, if it’s such a waste of time why is he posting himself??

[Chris Berry]

JasonI

You mention not being able to turn up and fly at a club without having to wait for your turn. I’m not sure if you’ve ever been in a club or maybe you’ve had negative experiences but in our club of 90 members, with regulars of 35-40, we only ever get about 12 at a time and even then, only a few are flying at any one point. I believe many clubs are the same, so I wouldn’t worry too much.

Edited By Chris Berry on 13/10/2019 09:33:49

[MattyB]

Posted by Jason-I on 12/10/2019 15:34:33:

...I hope the BMFA are also campaigning for lone flyers / country members as much as they are club members.

As the 2020 regs stand, I will likely lose my flying site, and with it, all hope if continuing in this hobby.

I don't think there is any doubt that the BMFA are campaigning for the rights of all their members to be preserved whether they have joined via an affiliated club or as country members. In some ways doing so is in the interests of the authorities too, as giving exceptions to club members but not country ones would make enforcement even more complex. If the BMFA succeed there is no reason you will have to change the way you operate, but I agree at this stage that is a significant "if" - lets hope the authorities consider being under the umbrella of a national association as applying equally to club and country members.

PS - I agree with the Chris Berry above; the chances of you having to queue for a peg like in the old days is almost zero now given reduced participation and the number of "sleeping" members the average club has.

 

Edited By MattyB on 13/10/2019 14:42:24

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]