Latest CAA Update

[Jason-I]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 17:52:32:

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?

Like I said, it is not clearly defined in law, however, If landowners did not own any airspace, then they would not be able to build any structures on their own property whatsoever.

Legally, 'The landowner owns the airspace to the height which is reasonably acceptable and necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land'.

To what height that extends to is not defined. However, consider the landowner of the Shard building in London. He clearly owns 1000ft of airspace........

[Jason-I]

I guess if we erected a 400ft pole at each corner of our property, then we would suddenly own 400ft of airspace, and one could then argue that we do not need to register to fly in airspace that we own.

[Alan Gorham_]

You could try arguing that.....

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:49:39:

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, [B] be tempted to propose that all users of the site be registered,[/B] 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.

My bold.

That's been the problem. the committee/club has sometimes proposed things that the Forestry Commission would never have thought of, resulting in more and more rules. though they tend to be 'irritants' rather than notably restrictive. But who wants 'irritants' in a hobby?

As for 'laws' the Forestry Commission had only ever been interested in third party insurance, more to protect them than us. They have zero interest in whether we are breaking laws or not, least of all aviation ones, having previously had hassle with the CAA over hot air balloons and a couple of RAF Chinooks. If we introduce more complications they might well think we are too much hassle too.

Toeing the line is always simpler. But it doesn't always give the best result.

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 17/10/2019 17:48:05:

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).Which is what I have been saying all along. But some excessively 'authoritarian' clubs, even BMFA affiliated ones, will no doubt go against that BMFA recomendation

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 18:16:28:

I guess if we erected a 400ft pole at each corner of our property, then we would suddenly own 400ft of airspace, and one could then argue that we do not need to register to fly in airspace that we own.

That action would be subject to planning permission as would any extension to your house either horizontal or vertical. If there were an airport close by you might be required to place red warning lights on the top of the structure. You mention the Shard. There would certainly have been consultation with the government over the impact on airspace use. Something like the Burj Khalifa would may not get approval given the proximity to the approach path for LHR.

I think you may be confusing development rights with airspace. In your example above, if you were in a town, village or city, and you got planning permission to install 400 ft poles at each corner of your house so you could fly in "your airspace" I would doubt that your neighbours would sit back and let you do that. Even if they did, it would be quite clear that this is not an enclosed space in which you could fly a model aircraft. I'm sure your neighbours would object regarding their loss of privacy.

Building a house does not imply therefore that you own the airspace above your land. Just think of the difficulty in siting wind turbines!

So, I think your proposition there is no legal certainty on ownership of airspace is, I believe, incorrect.

[Gary Manuel]

I agree Brian.

I'm currently a committee member at our club. Whether I remain as a committee member after our AGM next month will depend on the approach our club decides to take.

Brian - just a tip about posting with a "quote".

Make sure that you move your cursor onto the next blank line below the vertical lines at the left hand side of the screen. This way, the text you type will appear on a blank line rather than being added to the end of the previous quote. No offence intended.

[Alan Gorham_]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 18:49:35:

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:49:39:

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, [B] be tempted to propose that all users of the site be registered,[/B] 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.

My bold.

That's been the problem. the committee/club has sometimes proposed things that the Forestry Commission would never have thought of, resulting in more and more rules. though they tend to be 'irritants' rather than notably restrictive. But who wants 'irritants' in a hobby?

As for 'laws' the Forestry Commission had only ever been interested in third party insurance, more to protect them than us. They have zero interest in whether we are breaking laws or not, least of all aviation ones, having previously had hassle with the CAA over hot air balloons and a couple of RAF Chinooks. If we introduce more complications they might well think we are too much hassle too.

Toeing the line is always simpler. But it doesn't always give the best result.

Except it will be the best result in this case because if you don't you'll be breaking the law. I dont think you are going to get a great deal of sympathy on this forum for your proposed stand against the legislation. Its here. Many of us objected to aspects of it. It seems that it wont be too onerous to comply with and some small concessions are being made to members of recognised model flying associations. Deal with it.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Being on a committee has always given me cause to fret a bit, some of the stuff I see grown men do could reduce you to a gibbering wreck.

Don't see this a insurmountable or much different myself, the talking about it is always worse.

But that's just my opinion, may be that we all quit taking responsibilities on, let clubs fold, and be "Free spirits" Long live the revolution comrades.

[Jason-I]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 19:30:58:

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 18:16:28:

I guess if we erected a 400ft pole at each corner of our property, then we would suddenly own 400ft of airspace, and one could then argue that we do not need to register to fly in airspace that we own.

That action would be subject to planning permission as would any extension to your house either horizontal or vertical. If there were an airport close by you might be required to place red warning lights on the top of the structure. You mention the Shard. There would certainly have been consultation with the government over the impact on airspace use. Something like the Burj Khalifa would may not get approval given the proximity to the approach path for LHR.

I think you may be confusing development rights with airspace. In your example above, if you were in a town, village or city, and you got planning permission to install 400 ft poles at each corner of your house so you could fly in "your airspace" I would doubt that your neighbours would sit back and let you do that. Even if they did, it would be quite clear that this is not an enclosed space in which you could fly a model aircraft. I'm sure your neighbours would object regarding their loss of privacy.

Building a house does not imply therefore that you own the airspace above your land. Just think of the difficulty in siting wind turbines!

So, I think your proposition there is no legal certainty on ownership of airspace is, I believe, incorrect.

I was clearly being facetious with that statement. You obviously would not be erecting 400ft poles in your suburbian garden, I was just making the point. (and when making the point I was thinking about flying fields, my facetious thoughts did not even consider doing it in your back garden!)

But could you do it at your flying fields? You could certainly plant 400ft tress all around - there is no law or planning permission required for that.

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

[Chris Berry]

As membership secretary of my club of 90, I've been giving the subject of members registration some thought.

One option is to add a field to the renewal form to which members sign to say they have registered with DRES.

The second option is to do the above and to ask that they write their DRES number on the form.

The Third option is to ask to see proof that they have completed the test and provide a copy of the certificate and number.

I don't ask for hearing or sight test certificates or check medical records to ensure the pilot is fit to fly, so why do I need to check their DRES number?

In terms of liability, that is down to the individual and not the club or committee. The pilot must satisfy himself that a flight can be made safely. That is the top and bottom of it. The legal liability is with the pilot/operator. There is no legal requirement to have insurance, to have tuition, or to have any kind of flight training.

One thing that I won't be doing is checking aircraft for registration numbers, the same as I don't check every aircraft for airworthiness.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by john stones 1 on 17/10/2019 19:43:18:

Being on a committee has always given me cause to fret a bit, some of the stuff I see grown men do could reduce you to a gibbering wreck.

Don't see this a insurmountable or much different myself, the talking about it is always worse.

But that's just my opinion, may be that we all quit taking responsibilities on, let clubs fold, and be "Free spirits" Long live the revolution comrades.

I agree John. Club hasn't made a final decision (as you know) on it's approach to registration yet - quite rightly as it's waiting for final word from BMFA.

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 17/10/2019 19:33:55:

I agree Brian.

I'm currently a committee member at our club. Whether I remain as a committee member after our AGM next month will depend on the approach our club decides to take.

Brian - just a tip about posting with a "quote".

Make sure that you move your cursor onto the next blank line below the vertical lines at the left hand side of the screen. This way, the text you type will appear on a blank line rather than being added to the end of the previous quote. No offence intended.

Yes. I expect to have a row with our chairman next time I see him. He will undoubtedly see the registration process as an opportunity to introduce another rule

Thanks for the tip - I just got told off by 'Peter Miller', who I understand is some kind of 'celebrity' for muddling up my quote of him. He seemed to think that was more important than my agreeing with him.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:53:20:

Posted by

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

Well, that's what I asked you to identify. Your statement, on its own, cannot be taken as definitive. What is the Act that provides this "ownership"?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 17/10/2019 19:55:51:

Posted by john stones 1 on 17/10/2019 19:43:18:

Being on a committee has always given me cause to fret a bit, some of the stuff I see grown men do could reduce you to a gibbering wreck.

Don't see this a insurmountable or much different myself, the talking about it is always worse.

But that's just my opinion, may be that we all quit taking responsibilities on, let clubs fold, and be "Free spirits" Long live the revolution comrades.

I agree John. Club hasn't made a final decision (as you know) on it's approach to registration yet - quite rightly as it's waiting for final word from BMFA.

I reckon you'll give it some thought, agree a sensible position, then get on with life.

[Cuban8]

Aren't we jumping the gun a bit here? Unless I've missed something, advice is to do nothing at the moment whilst talks continue. Hopeless optimist I know, but I hold out hope for some sensible good news.

[Jason-I]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 19:59:04:

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:53:20:

Posted by

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

Well, that's what I asked you to identify. Your statement, on its own, cannot be taken as definitive. What is the Act that provides this "ownership"?

Well, apart from the obvious fact that you mentioned yourself - you apply for planning permission from the council, you do not normally need to request permission from the CAA to build on your land.

There is however legal precedence in Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited [1978], which states the following:

the owner has rights to the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.

So, it depends what the normal use and enjoyment of the land is. If a flying site has been going for many years, you can argue that this is the normal use of the land, and therefore lay claim to 400ft or airspace above that land....

You are also allowed to erect temporary structures on your land without planning permission or permission from the CAA. I vote we all erect 400ft high tents and fly indoors....

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 19:36:38:

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 18:49:35:

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:49:39:

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, [B] be tempted to propose that all users of the site be registered,[/B] 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.

My bold.

That's been the problem. the committee/club has sometimes proposed things that the Forestry Commission would never have thought of, resulting in more and more rules. though they tend to be 'irritants' rather than notably restrictive. But who wants 'irritants' in a hobby?

As for 'laws' the Forestry Commission had only ever been interested in third party insurance, more to protect them than us. They have zero interest in whether we are breaking laws or not, least of all aviation ones, having previously had hassle with the CAA over hot air balloons and a couple of RAF Chinooks. If we introduce more complications they might well think we are too much hassle too.

Toeing the line is always simpler. But it doesn't always give the best result.

Except it will be the best result in this case because if you don't you'll be breaking the law. I dont think you are going to get a great deal of sympathy on this forum for your proposed stand against the legislation. Its here. Many of us objected to aspects of it. It seems that it wont be too onerous to comply with and some small concessions are being made to members of recognised model flying associations. Deal with it.

Breaking the law - says the man who has NEVER exceeded the speed limit.

It depends mostly on what those those concessions are. And why just for them? Being a member of a recognised organisation doesn't make you a better flyer or a more 'responsible (whatever that is) human being.

Sympathy on this forum? There are vastly more model flyers NOT on this forum than there are on it. So being on this forum automatically makes us non-representative of model flyers as a whole.

Deal with it? The only problem I have is that I don't want to offend our chairman, who, despite being rather 'authoritarian', thus quite likely to insist on registration (against present BMFA guidelines) is a guy who I personally like (and greatly respect for his professional skills).

And we are NOT policemen nor police 'snitches' which is what I believe is the police's derogatory name for those who tell the police tales about the misdeeds of others.

[Alan Gorham_]

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1

My 'tentative' personal actions:

I may not register at all. The law will anyway be ignored by those who are merely 'careless' and even more so by those who deliberately intend to create disturbance - IE: "I intend to disrupt my local airport but I think I should register as an operator or pilot first". It's a total nonsense.

Brian

You have never met me and are making assumptions that I am both a lawmaker by speeding when i drive and also slightly contradictory a police snitch.

You are suggesting that you may not comply with the need to register in the text I quoted. As I said you would be putting your "club" that you aren't a member of in a difficult situation I think.

You have also had a lot to say about how the registration scheme is nonsense, how you've never read the applicable parts of the ANO. I'm a passionate lifelong aeromodeller and it just seems we are being asked to do something trivial. I would not want my lifetime hobby damaged by frankly selfish and futile law breaking just to prove some kind of point.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 20:13:03:

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 19:59:04:

Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:53:20:

Posted by

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

Well, that's what I asked you to identify. Your statement, on its own, cannot be taken as definitive. What is the Act that provides this "ownership"?

Well, apart from the obvious fact that you mentioned yourself - you apply for planning permission from the council, you do not normally need to request permission from the CAA to build on your land.

There is however legal precedence in Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited [1978], which states the following:

the owner has rights to the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.

So, it depends what the normal use and enjoyment of the land is. If a flying site has been going for many years, you can argue that this is the normal use of the land, and therefore lay claim to 400ft or airspace above that land....

You are also allowed to erect temporary structures on your land without planning permission or permission from the CAA. I vote we all erect 400ft high tents and fly indoors....

Jason

If you think there is a precedent for flying up to 400 ft over the land you own (not lease or rent) go ahead and test it on the precedent you quoted. I doubt you'd be successful. It would be of little use to those of us who fly precision aerobatics as we go up to around 1,000 ft with 2 mtr class models weighing up to 5 kg. I will still put my faith in the BMFA getting us to a position where we continue as we are (including the exemption to fly aboveb400 ft with aircraft not above 7 kg) than pursue a dubious legal precedent you quote to give us the right to fly in the national airspace. If the BMFA's advice is to register then that's what I'd do.

[Jason-I]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 21:20:32:

 

Jason

If you think there is a precedent for flying up to 400 ft over the land you own (not lease or rent) go ahead and test it on the precedent you quoted. I doubt you'd be successful. It would be of little use to those of us who fly precision aerobatics as we go up to around 1,000 ft with 2 mtr class models weighing up to 5 kg. I will still put my faith in the BMFA getting us to a position where we continue as we are (including the exemption to fly aboveb400 ft with aircraft not above 7 kg) than pursue a dubious legal precedent you quote to give us the right to fly in the national airspace. If the BMFA's advice is to register then that's what I'd do.

Jeez, I'm just throwing things out there. I'm not seriously suggesting you follow them.

Anyway, I'm with nitro. Lets take to arms. I for one wont be registering as an operator. I don't need no stinkin operator number......

 

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 21:46:03

[Brian Stevenson 1]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 20:54:04:

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1

My 'tentative' personal actions:

I may not register at all. The law will anyway be ignored by those who are merely 'careless' and even more so by those who deliberately intend to create disturbance - IE: "I intend to disrupt my local airport but I think I should register as an operator or pilot first". It's a total nonsense.

Brian

You have never met me and are making assumptions that I am both a lawmaker by speeding when i drive and also slightly contradictory a police snitch.

You are suggesting that you may not comply with the need to register in the text I quoted. As I said you would be putting your "club" that you aren't a member of in a difficult situation I think.

You have also had a lot to say about how the registration scheme is nonsense, how you've never read the applicable parts of the ANO. I'm a passionate lifelong aeromodeller and it just seems we are being asked to do something trivial. I would not want my lifetime hobby damaged by frankly selfish and futile law breaking just to prove some kind of point.

I assume you mean "lawbreaker" rather then lawmaker. And show me someone who has never broken the speed limit and you are showing me a saint. The law is not 'pick 90 out of 100 that you will obey', it's break ANY law and you are a lawbreaker. And it ill behooves anyone who has chosen one set of laws to ignore to criticise someone who has chosen a different set.

And of course the law is nonsense. In my long life (74 and aeromodelling since about 9 years old) I have NEVER seen a law that so much regulates the innocent and 'responsible' while having zero effect on the guilty and 'irresponsible', who are certainly NOT going to register, as this one.

The 'police' point was in answer to you but not personally directed at you. I just reinforced the BMFA guideline that clubs should not act as policemen. And that is what ANY club will be doing if they insist on our registering. If 'our' chairman wishes to ignore this BMFA guideline he can expect some flak, and not just from me. Particularly so as he is extremely hot on obeying all other BMFA guidelines.

[Gary Manuel]

Brian - you are still typing within the previous persons quote. It makes your posts awfully difficult to read. Again, no offence intended.

[Pete B]

Gents, the thread is becoming confused and impossible to follow with all the posts within posts. If you're going to quote someone, consider selecting just a line or two from their post and cut out anything unnecessary.

If you cannot do that confidently, it might be better to go over to the Sandbox, where you can practice to your heart's content....thanks

Pete

[Jason-I]

Before you start typing, click in the editor box and try holding the down arrow key until it will go down no further. Then try typing. Does that work for you?

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:55:58