Latest CAA Update

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Should [and I'm not saying this is necessarily a good policy] a club specify that its members must show proof of registration before operating a model at their site, it would be incumbent on the individual to provide such evidence?

I don't see why the great god of Data Protection [surely the most abused piece of legislation ever] should be invoked.

[Crossed with Steve's posting which offers an excellent solution.]

Edited By Martin Harris on 17/10/2019 12:27:54

[GONZO]

Posted by Steve J on 17/10/2019 12:19:33:

Anyway, there is an easy solution for the club. They simply make complying with the ANO a condition of membership.

Steve

May not be as easy as that. Just requiring compliance with the ANO for membership could raise the issue of 'due diligence' if an incident occurs and it is found that the 'member' has falsified his membership application. A club would be required to take reasonable steps to verify compliance with the ANO to avoid the accusation of not exercising due diligence in alloying membership to the club. Then there is the issue of those that join and only fly sub 250gm but sneak in occasional flights with larger models. Are we going to have committee members policing the field 24/7. I'm sure, with a little thought, other problematic situations can be envisioned. Making the club a pseudo policeman for the DRES opens a can of worms IMO. I believe this sort of issue is why the BMFA have very firmly stated that neither they or clubs are going to police the DRES.

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Steve J on 17/10/2019 12:19:33:

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 11:55:24:

Posted by Steve J on 17/10/2019 10:36:53:

All a club has to do is ask to see the operator number on all your 250+g models.

There can be no argument about this, the laws say they MUST have such permission to access such 'personal data' and the data protection people are extremely rigorous in chasing up those who don't have such explicit permission.

Does GDPR apply if the club are not processing the data i.e. if all they are doing is seeing that there is a number of the correct format on the model?

Anyway, there is an easy solution for the club. They simply make complying with the ANO a condition of membership.

Steve

Obviously the law can't stop them SEEING it, provided you have put it on the outside. But if they record it they must have previously submitted a data protection plan and had it approved.

As for your 'easy' comment, as I said the BMFA is not going to police it in any way, apparently not even at Buckminster. So why should any club want to? Are they going to check our driving licences too so they can make sure we have arrived legally? ANO? Who's ever read any of those? I suspect very few. Certainly not the average 'quad' operator, who are the people who have caused all this hassle.

It won't stop 'deliberately disrupting' flights as such people won't register. And even if they do, if they have half a brain they won't put the registration on or inside the plane.

It won't help 'catch' people as having not registered there will be nothing to connect the plane to the pilot or operator.

Only the most mindless 'jobsworth' can possibly think this registration nonsense is a 'good idea'. It's just a totally ineffective knee-jerk response to one completely unproven occurrence at Gatwick, designed to convince the general public that the authorities are 'doing something'.

It's just bureaucracy gone mad. And the BMFA is not encouraging it so neither should clubs, particularly BMFA affiliated ones.

[Don Fry]

Can anyone explain to me how the Data Protection Legistlation has any bearing on a club asking to see proof of registration. I have no memory of the legislations over the years which will stop a club asking, and refusing membership if information is not supplied.

I'm not getting into any argument whether it is or is not, a good idea. But I would like to see the assertion that a club can't do it backed up by a bit of a quote as to where the assertion is written in law.

[MattyB]

Posted by Don Fry on 17/10/2019 13:11:53:

Can anyone explain to me how the Data Protection Legistlation has any bearing on a club asking to see proof of registration. I have no memory of the legislations over the years which will stop a club asking, and refusing membership if information is not supplied.

I'm not getting into any argument whether it is or is not, a good idea. But I would like to see the assertion that a club can't do it backed up by a bit of a quote as to where the assertion is written in law.

If the club was to ask for and take a copy of the registration documentation I agree with previous posters that they would become a data controller. Once that happens as owners of that PI the member would then have all the statutory rights under GDPR. However, if the club were to request proof be provided transiently on (say) an annual basis and all that was recorded was a checkbox denoting a member of the committee had observed valid registration existed, then no PI has been transferred.

Don't take that as gospel though, despite working on all things GDPR for more than 4 years now it is still somewhat of a nightmare to understand!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Ah it's not the Romans to blame then, it's those yellow vested nazi club officials to blame ? Some of you need a hobby.

[Brian Stevenson 1]

You are correct. Our club, for example, checks your BMFA number for insurance reasons (if you are the BMFA, if not it asks for proof of insurance).

But it doesn't record any of it, except, as you say, the check was performed..

[PeterF]

But aren't all clubs data controllers now anyway, BMFA went through a big thing when GPDR came in and produced example privacy policy documents for clubs. If you have members and you keep their names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and possibly dates of birth as well, then GPDR already applies to you so collecting the DRES registration number would just be another item of personal information. This was why BMFA went through the whole thing of the new registration system to get a system that was GPDR compliant. If you are worried that seeing someones DRES registration number is the only thing making the club a data controller then I believe you are behind the times.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

We record stuff, not possible to function without doing so, we have had info and updates regarding data protection from the B....sorry can't share that data with you.

[Peter Christy]

I thought the GDPR only applied to data held on a computer. If you store it on an old-fashioned card index, it doesn't apply. Or have I misunderstood?

--

Pete

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by PeterF on 17/10/2019 13:36:25:

But aren't all clubs data controllers now anyway, BMFA went through a big thing when GPDR came in and produced example privacy policy documents for clubs. If you have members and you keep their names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and possibly dates of birth as well, then GPDR already applies to you so collecting the DRES registration number would just be another item of personal information. This was why BMFA went through the whole thing of the new registration system to get a system that was GPDR compliant. If you are worried that seeing someones DRES registration number is the only thing making the club a data controller then I believe you are behind the times.

Basically true but you can't just randomly add things on later, such as the DRES registration number. You have to get the DPA people's approval.

As I said, with a few exceptions such as if your site is leased and the landowner insists on it (not that he is likely to be aware of it unless the club is fool enough to tell him) I can't see any reason why a club should WANT to act as a policeman, when the BMFA says it isn't going to. Maybe such people are traffic wardens by trade

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Peter Christy on 17/10/2019 13:51:34:

I thought the GDPR only applied to data held on a computer. If you store it on an old-fashioned card index, it doesn't apply. Or have I misunderstood?

--

Pete

No, it's not just computers, it's everything. And you have to be VERY careful about security or the DPA people won't approve it.

[Peter Christy]

Thanks for clarifying!

--

Pete

[MattyB]

Posted by PeterF on 17/10/2019 13:36:25:

But aren't all clubs data controllers now anyway, BMFA went through a big thing when GPDR came in and produced example privacy policy documents for clubs. If you have members and you keep their names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and possibly dates of birth as well, then GPDR already applies to you so collecting the DRES registration number would just be another item of personal information.

Yes, you are quite right. My point is that in those items all have to be recorded and protected by the club in order for it to operate effectively, whereas the club does not NEED to record the DRES number or any items of personal information to validate whether registration has occurred.

All they need to do is tick a checkbox that validation has occurred, with a date alongside it and maybe the committee members signature. Neither the checkbox nor the date are PI (personal information), so the data subject does not need to worry about how that information is handled and protected over its lifecycle.

Edited By MattyB on 17/10/2019 14:40:19

[MattyB]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 13:53:32:

As I said, with a few exceptions such as if your site is leased and the landowner insists on it (not that he is likely to be aware of it unless the club is fool enough to tell him) I can't see any reason why a club should WANT to act as a policeman, when the BMFA says it isn't going to. Maybe such people are traffic wardens by trade

I suspect it is because some Club Committee members may be uncomfortable they could end up liable if a club member operating at their site had an accident and it was subsequently found the pilot was not registered. When/if the final exemption is published it will be important for the National Associations to clarify to clubs whether their committee member liability insurance would over them in this instance. If that s not clearly communicated I suspect you will see some committee members stepping down and/or attempting to validate the registration of their members quite rigorously.

[Erfolg]

I understood that clubs, and the various BMFA members who operate on the BMFAs behalf, could hold data that is relevant to BMFA membership. Members when they join as members do so on the basis that they agree to these terms and requirements.

If I am correct, the BMFA could make it mandatory that any member who flies a model is required to register etc.

[Alan Gorham_]

Posted by Erfolg on 17/10/2019 14:50:51:

I understood that clubs, and the various BMFA members who operate on the BMFAs behalf, could hold data that is relevant to BMFA membership. Members when they join as members do so on the basis that they agree to these terms and requirements.

If I am correct, the BMFA could make it mandatory that any member who flies a model is required to register etc.

The BMFA have stated in their open releases that they will not be responsible for enforcing registration. It is a matter between the individual and the CAA.

[GONZO]

MattyB As I said earlier. Its all well and good at annual membership renewals but what about day to day at the field. My club has members who are FF/CL flyers and thus don't have to register. But, lets say one decides to have a flight with a larger RC plane. To be covered the club would need to police the field/site otherwise the membership check is pointless.

[Alan Gorham_]

Posted by GONZO on 17/10/2019 14:53:33:

MattyB As I said earlier. Its all well and good at annual membership renewals but what about day to day at the field. My club has members who are FF/CL flyers and thus don't have to register. But, lets say one decides to have a flight with a larger RC plane. To be covered the club would need to police the field/site otherwise the membership check is pointless.

Why don't Free flight flyers have to register if their models are over 250g? I thought only Control Line was getting an exemption.

[GONZO]

As a general observation I'm getting the impression that there is a subtle attitude being expressed that clubs should be policing the DRES. Or, am I mistaken?

[GONZO]

Alan, yes of course but there are rubber FF flyers whose models weigh less than 250gm.

ps the power not the modellers are rubber

Edited By GONZO on 17/10/2019 15:00:20

[Alan Gorham_]

As I said a few minutes ago, the BMFA are taking the stance that registration is a matter between the individual and the CAA. It would be an entirely private matter if an entire club voted to check their members registration status.

How do club committee members ensure that every flight made by every member at their clubs does not breach either the ANO or other local flying rules (FRZs etc)? They can't possibly.

[Martin_K]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 13:01:39:

..... Certainly not the average 'quad' operator, who are the people who have caused all this hassle.

..... It's just a totally ineffective knee-jerk response to one completely unproven occurrence at Gatwick, designed to convince the general public that the authorities are 'doing something'.

Brian,

We are not in this predicament because of quad operators or a knee-jerk response to one incident. Internationally governments have introduced legislation to encourage what they believe is the growth industry of Small Unmanned Aircraft. As aeromodellers we find ourselves in conflict with rules intended to regulate safe use of low level airspace and integration with commercial operations. Registration of operators is a common element of much larger programmes.

[Alan Gorham_]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 13:01:39:

ANO? Who's ever read any of those? I suspect very few. Certainly not the average 'quad' operator, who are the people who have caused all this hassle.

I would hope all BMFA members have read the articles of the ANO that apply to model flying. they are highlighted in the BMFA Members Handbook and surely it is at least good practise to know the law?