Latest CAA Update

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by MattyB on 17/10/2019 14:39:52:

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.

You make some perfectly valid points but I, for one, don't intend to cooperate as I think the whole thing is a nonsense..

Our 'club' is different from most. It's not an actual club (though it is BMFA affiliated), but a few non-elected guys willing to do the administration.. 'Non elected' not because it is undemocratic but because they were the only ones willing to do it so they were all unopposed. The rest of us are all BMFA 'country members' or have non-BMFA insurance - many household policies cover model planes.

The rest of us are not 'members' but just the couple of hundred people who buy purely nominal cost 'permits' from them. The 'permits' are mainly to ensure we don't get any kind of 'squatters rights' due to the long time we have flown there.The landlord is the Forestry Commission, who obviously can't negotiate with all 200 (approx) of us so that's what the 'club' does.

It is quite probable that the FC is totally unaware of the new regulations as it is far busier running its 200 square miles of tourist infested 'forest' and 'national park' than it is with us few people on one square mile of old WW2 airfield. (There's rarely more than about ten flyers on any one day, even at weekends.)

Unfortunately some members of the 'club' seem to be rule obsessed.. They dream up new rules which the FC, knowing nothing about model planes, just 'nod through'. We've already got a pointless 'pilots box' which everyone ignores when a 'club' person is not there. This replaced the 'safe' line that everyone, including the FC, was perfectly happy with. And turbines were banned merely because some idiot told the FC that they might catch fire (let's hope the FC is not told about lithium batteries). Though to be fair it was not the present 'club' members who told them about turbines.

But with their history of unnecessary 'rule making' they are BOUND to tell the FC about the new registration process.

[Alan Gorham_]

My understanding on affiliation is that your club cannot be BMFA affiliated unless all the club members are BMFA members also.

I hope your committee members aren't relying on the BMFA committee members insurance as they might find it to be invalid.

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 15:09:31:

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?

Maybe. But what percentage of 'drone' flyer are in the BMFA or have even heard of it? I suspect the percentage is very low. Most of them are quickly discarded 'toys' - taking blurred and shaky videos to bore your friends with is probably not a lifelong interest.

As for the 'model related' ANOs I have been in the SMAE and later the BMFA since the 1960's and have never read any of them, though I have read any 'summaries' the BMFA produces. This despite I have been a 'full-size' commercial pilot since 1977 and have held an instructors rating since 1985. All without even a scratch on me or the planes

I'm genuinely not being a 'devils advocate'. I just feel strongly that this has all been inflicted on we 'regular model plane flyers', who have an extremely good safety record, by the actions of a number of 'quad' flyers who are not in the least bit interested in aviation as such and are using what is basically a camera and video platform. And sales are apparently already going down, no doubt to be replaced by the next short term fad. But unfortunately the rules and restrictions will remain.

[Alan Gorham_]

Brian - how can you know what has possibly been "inflicted"? Concessions are currently being negotiated for BMFA members due to their previous proven safety record.

At worst it seems like a small fee and an online test.

I don't know how you can claim safe operation over so many years while also claiming ignorance of the ANOs though...

Perhaps the online test will be a good idea to help you brush up!

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 15:44:18:

My understanding on affiliation is that your club cannot be BMFA affiliated unless all the club members are BMFA members also.

I hope your committee members aren't relying on the BMFA committee members insurance as they might find it to be invalid.

I hoped I had made it clear. The 'club' (which is called 'The XXX Committee' rather than 'The XXX Club' only has about five members and ALL of them are on its committee and all are BMFA members. Therefore it can be, and is, BMFA affiliated.

The rest of us (approx 200) are not members of this club. We are holders of 'permits' that the 'club' issues, in effect on behalf of the Forestry Commission. Thus many of us are 'country' members of the BMFA while others have their own insurance - EG Direct Line house insurance specifically EXCLUDES operation of models from their list of exclusions..

[Brian Stevenson 1]

P: sorry about the emoji. It was accidental.

[Alan Gorham_]

No you didn't make that clear. It seems simpler and more beneficial for everyone to be a BMFA member. For example, the BMFA negotiated an exemption with the CAA to allow models under 7kg to fly over 400 feet. That means that some of the "flyers" at your site would be allowed legally to exceed 400 feet and some wouldn't. Can of worms...

[MattyB]

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.

OK, I am probably going to get shot down for cynicism here but here goes...

This is not about club committees having to police the regulations to ensure absolute compliance with the law. It's really about them ensuring committee members and the club overall cannot be found legally liable in the event of an incident involving an unregistered pilot who is a club member.

If the club has a documented policy that states everyone flying models over 250g must register and show proof of that at annual renewal they are demonstrating they have understood the requirements and are taking reasonable steps to ensure they are followed by their members. If a flyer who has not registered then decides to fly something without being registered or taking the test and something happens the club can fairly point at the individual and say they did not comply with the rules of the club, so it is their responsibility as an individual.

Look at it this way - these are brand new regulations, and there are no precedent cases at this point. If you were a committee member who could potentially be held liable in the event of an incident, what would you implement at your club? Are you happy to do nothing and hope that in the event of an incident involving an unregistered club member the BMFA's committee liability insurance would cover you? That is the question committee members should be weighing up once the fog lifts and the exemption and registration processes are revealed...

[GONZO]

So why start all this and do the check in the first place. Just do as the BMFA suggest and make it a PERSONAL responsibility, KISS.

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 16:23:38:

Brian - how can you know what has possibly been "inflicted"? Concessions are currently being negotiated for BMFA members due to their previous proven safety record.

At worst it seems like a small fee and an online test.

I don't know how you can claim safe operation over so many years while also claiming ignorance of the ANOs though...

Perhaps the online test will be a good idea to help you brush up!

We don't need to know what the restrictions will be, but there will be some, obviously. And we are expected to actually PAY for restrictions to be placed upon us. It's ridiculous. Like lambs paying for their own slaughter (there is a much worse historical record of something similar but I'm not going to detail it here).

As for the test there is no need to brush up. Using split screen you can have the test on one side and the answers on the other

As for my safety record, I haven't hit any person or object (other than the airfield surface ) in about 60 years of model flying. Not hitting anything is all that is required.

[Alan Gorham_]

No Brian you are paying to register as a user of the airspace and we have a government who believes in making the user pay.

[MattyB]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 16:39:58:

I hoped I had made it clear. The 'club' (which is called 'The XXX Committee' rather than 'The XXX Club' ) only has about five members and ALL of them are on its committee and all are BMFA members. Therefore it can be, and is, BMFA affiliated.

The rest of us (approx 200) are not members of this club. We are holders of 'permits' that the 'club' issues, in effect on behalf of the Forestry Commission. Thus many of us are 'country' members of the BMFA while others have their own insurance - EG Direct Line house insurance specifically EXCLUDES operation of models from their list of exclusions..

Interesting. Is this that Beaulieu MFC? I happened across that site once, it's very nice. I have to be honest though, based on how you have described it operates that is not a committee I would be happy to sit on once these changes go through. At minimum I would want to know everyone was a member of a National Association and therefore benefited from the exemption(s) in place.

Edited By MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:14:25

[Alan Gorham_]

I think it's Beaulieu too. Sounds like a storm of something unpronounceable.

[J D 8]

So Alan, Will I have to pay to use my own airspace ? Is it mine ? The highest point on my land is 700ft and I fly from a spot at 300ft.

I recon anything in 12 gauge range is mine anyway.

[MattyB]

Posted by GONZO on 17/10/2019 16:55:31:

So why start all this and do the check in the first place. Just do as the BMFA suggest and make it a PERSONAL responsibility, KISS.

As far as I am aware the BMFA have not released their recommendation as to how clubs should proceed based on Legal advice and consultation with the insurers. This is the last piece of news I could find from the BMFA on their approach to validation of registration - see the sentences highlighted in bold...

"The situation can be summarised as follows:

1. At the present time, the UK Associations will have no direct involvement in the registration of their individual members into the DRES as operators or confirmation of their competency as remote pilots.
2. Compliance with the requirements of the DRES will therefore be entirely a matter for individual members to decide upon.
3. Whilst the UK Associations would obviously encourage members to participate in the DRES, we will have no direct involvement with it and cannot monitor or enforce compliance (coupled with the fact that only those members flying aircraft weighing more than 250g outdoors are required to register). Compliance will therefore be advisory rather than a condition of membership.
4. However, it is important to note that the insurance cover provided to members covers ‘lawful and recognised activities’ and as such cover could only be assured for those operating lawfully (which includes participation in the DRES where required from the 30^th November) which members should consider when deciding how to proceed. We are still working with insurers to clarify the final position in terms of members and clubs.

...Following our most recent meeting on the 19^th August, we are awaiting written advice from the CAA which we expect in the next few days.  We are also working with insurers to clarify any insurance implications.  Once in receipt of this information, we will then issue our assessment of the options available for the members of the UK model flying Associations and affiliated clubs.".

Obviously this was all before Mr Shapps was appointed and there was an upturn in our fortunes though. Happy to be corrected if you have a more recent update on the topic.

Edited By MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:22:50

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 16:46:53:

No you didn't make that clear. It seems simpler and more beneficial for everyone to be a BMFA member. For example, the BMFA negotiated an exemption with the CAA to allow models under 7kg to fly over 400 feet. That means that some of the "flyers" at your site would be allowed legally to exceed 400 feet and some wouldn't. Can of worms...

It doesn't matter what it "seems" like, I was telling you how it is.

And yes, it could be a can of worms. but it won't be. The 'club', which as I said is called the 'committee' long ago negotiated a 1000 ft height limitation for ALL permit holders, BMFA members or not, with the CAA and the two local airfields, Hurn and Southampton. And the committee has been assured, in writing, that this will not change.

And as I am not a member (and have no desire to be) but a permit holder I have zero influence on how it works.

[Alan Gorham_]

If you endanger an aircraft you are breaking the ANO, so shoot away.

You don't own the airspace!

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:31:01

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:13:32:

Posted by GONZO on 17/10/2019 16:55:31:

So why start all this and do the check in the first place. Just do as the BMFA suggest and make it a PERSONAL responsibility, KISS.

As far as I am aware the BMFA have not released their recommendation as to how clubs should proceed based on Legal advice and consultation with the insurers. This is the last piece of news I could find from the BMFA on their approach to validation of registration - see the final sentence highlighted in bold...

"The situation can be summarised as follows:

1. At the present time, the UK Associations will have no direct involvement in the registration of their individual members into the DRES as operators or confirmation of their competency as remote pilots.
2. Compliance with the requirements of the DRES will therefore be entirely a matter for individual members to decide upon.
3. Whilst the UK Associations would obviously encourage members to participate in the DRES, we will have no direct involvement with it and cannot monitor or enforce compliance (coupled with the fact that only those members flying aircraft weighing more than 250g outdoors are required to register). Compliance will therefore be advisory rather than a condition of membership.
4. However, it is important to note that the insurance cover provided to members covers ‘lawful and recognised activities’ and as such cover could only be assured for those operating lawfully (which includes participation in the DRES where required from the 30^th November) which members should consider when deciding how to proceed. We are still working with insurers to clarify the final position in terms of members and clubs."

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong though.

Interesting. Point 4 is the only one that really matters and it definitely needs a clarification. In most insurance policies (including my household and car ones), compliance with the law is NOT a requirement. Though non compliance is likely to greatly increase the price at renewal if an 'incident' occurs.

It's always a problem with group insurance such as the BMFA has. The insurance company has no way to tell how many of the potential beneficiaries are 'good' and 'evil' or in the case of group medical insurance, fit and unfit (= pre existing conditions) so it is difficult to set the group premium. .

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:14:01:

If you endanger an aircraft you are breaking the ANO, so shoot away.

You don't own the airspace!

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:31:01

I don't see how either of your points is in any way relevant to what I posted.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 17:38:37:

Posted by MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:13:32:

Posted by GONZO on 17/10/2019 16:55:31:

So why start all this and do the check in the first place. Just do as the BMFA suggest and make it a PERSONAL responsibility, KISS.

As far as I am aware the BMFA have not released their recommendation as to how clubs should proceed based on Legal advice and consultation with the insurers. This is the last piece of news I could find from the BMFA on their approach to validation of registration - see the final sentence highlighted in bold...

"The situation can be summarised as follows:

1. At the present time, the UK Associations will have no direct involvement in the registration of their individual members into the DRES as operators or confirmation of their competency as remote pilots.
2. Compliance with the requirements of the DRES will therefore be entirely a matter for individual members to decide upon.
3. Whilst the UK Associations would obviously encourage members to participate in the DRES, we will have no direct involvement with it and cannot monitor or enforce compliance (coupled with the fact that only those members flying aircraft weighing more than 250g outdoors are required to register). Compliance will therefore be advisory rather than a condition of membership.
4. However, it is important to note that the insurance cover provided to members covers ‘lawful and recognised activities’ and as such cover could only be assured for those operating lawfully (which includes participation in the DRES where required from the 30^th November) which members should consider when deciding how to proceed. We are still working with insurers to clarify the final position in terms of members and clubs."

Happy to be corrected if I am wrong though.

Interesting. Point 4 is the only one that really matters and it definitely needs a clarification. In most insurance policies (including my household and car ones), compliance with the law is NOT a requirement. Though non compliance is likely to greatly increase the price at renewal if an 'incident' occurs.

It's always a problem with group insurance such as the BMFA has. The insurance company has no way to tell how many of the potential beneficiaries are 'good' and 'evil' or in the case of group medical insurance, fit and unfit (= pre existing conditions) so it is difficult to set the group premium. .

Point 2 is also very relevant to what's been said here in terms of club responsibility for ensuring that their members are registered.

Point 2 clearly says that it's up to individual members (NOT individual clubs).

[Alan Gorham_]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 17:13:58:

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 16:46:53:

No you didn't make that clear. It seems simpler and more beneficial for everyone to be a BMFA member. For example, the BMFA negotiated an exemption with the CAA to allow models under 7kg to fly over 400 feet. That means that some of the "flyers" at your site would be allowed legally to exceed 400 feet and some wouldn't. Can of worms...

It doesn't matter what it "seems" like, I was telling you how it is.

And yes, it could be a can of worms. but it won't be. The 'club', which as I said is called the 'committee' long ago negotiated a 1000 ft height limitation for ALL permit holders, BMFA members or not, with the CAA and the two local airfields, Hurn and Southampton. And the committee has been assured, in writing, that this will not change.

And as I am not a member (and have no desire to be) but a permit holder I have zero influence on how it works.

It's excellent that the committee of the club have negotiated this for all users of the flying site. Rather than stating as you did earlier that you are minded not to register and thus will be flying illegally (although perhaps still insured subject to clarification) it might repay the committees action if you were to register and make their lives easier?

You have already said the the land owners tend to nod things through at the committee's suggestion. I think if I were on that committee, I'd be tempted to propose that all users of the site be registered, thus proving their legal status as operators and their knowledge of the law as pilots by the nature of taking the online test.

Then if you didn't register, you would simply be making it impossible for you to fly there. What's the point in that?

Simpler to just toe the line.

[Jason-I]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:14:01:

You don't own the airspace!

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:31:01

That's not entirely true. You do own some of the airspace, however the amount is not clearly defined in law.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 17:51:19:

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:14:01:

You don't own the airspace!

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:31:01

That's not entirely true. You do own some of the airspace, however the amount is not clearly defined in law.

Please explain what airspace can be owned?

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:00:19:

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 16:39:58:

I hoped I had made it clear. The 'club' (which is called 'The XXX Committee' rather than 'The XXX Club' ) only has about five members and ALL of them are on its committee and all are BMFA members. Therefore it can be, and is, BMFA affiliated.

The rest of us (approx 200) are not members of this club. We are holders of 'permits' that the 'club' issues, in effect on behalf of the Forestry Commission. Thus many of us are 'country' members of the BMFA while others have their own insurance - EG Direct Line house insurance specifically EXCLUDES operation of models from their list of exclusions..

Interesting. Is this that Beaulieu MFC? I happened across that site once, it's very nice. I have to be honest though, based on how you have described it operates that is not a committee I would be happy to sit on once these changes go through. At minimum I would want to know everyone was a member of a National Association and therefore benefited from the exemption(s) in place.

Edited By MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:14:25

Sure it's Beaulieu. And I wouldn't want to be a member of the club/committee either. Note that it doesn't have any 'ordinary members', it's just a group of (I think) five who volunteered to be the necessary negotiating team to negotiate with the Forestry Commission and other interested parties, such as the two local 'controlled airspace' airfields and, if necessary, the CAA.

And as all of them happened to be members of the BMFA they became a BMFA affiliated club. The rest of us are just the eqiuvalent of 'season ticket holders' to the operation they run.

It works quite well on this public site open to everyone who can show third party insurance. It costs next to nothing for a permit and if a member is there (which is most of the time) permit issue is instant. It has run that way for 'donkey's years'.