Former Member Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 I see Gary's point, it may be that the 'operator group' would have to have a named member registered as The Operator. I would imagine it will be quite common for the named operator to delegate maintenance and day to day control of UAVs to underlings, how else could corporations operate? That named operator will still be the one answering questions if there were to be a mishap or legal infringement though. It may be that registered companies will be valid as operators, in which case the CEO would probably be the one carrying the can for rogue operations. Until the detailed regulations and implementation process are published it's all a guessing game. Talking of which, I must check whether my lottery tickets are still valid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Gary, I would be very wary about artificial devices to defeat legislation. The law has tests where judges ask themselves, i.e. Is this an artificial arrangement to circumvent the law, is the principal purpose to circumvent the law. If the answer is yes, that argument is thrown out. You could ask a barrister at £500 quid an hour to be told " no idea squire", or cough up. Edited By Don Fry on 31/08/2019 16:01:36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Posted by Don Fry on 31/08/2019 16:00:22: Gary, I would be very wary about artificial devices to defeat legislation. T Edited By Don Fry on 31/08/2019 16:01:36 Exactly what legislation would be defeated? Everybody is legally registered as a pilot, and 1 operator is legally registered so that should an incident occur, then the responsible party can be tracked down. No law has been 'defeated' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Jason's right, it may be a construct to avoid paying reduce the numbers paying fees but it's not a legislative loophole. It satisfies modern thinking in that there is a named person to take responsibility for any untoward events. Edited By Bob Cotsford on 31/08/2019 16:12:26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 In any event, it is *always* the pilot that is legally responsible for the safe flight of the aircraft. The operator *may* be liable for ensuring proper maintenance, but even then it is still the pilot's responsibility to make sure the aircraft is airworthy prior to taking off. I really can't see the difference between Amazon (or the BBC, or ITN) being the "operator" or the BMFA (or a local club). Indeed, I suspect that the powers-that-be have overlooked this as well, as they are quoted as saying that it would be "inappropriate" - not illegal - for an association to register as the operator. And if they changed the law to preclude this, it would drop Amazon, et al, in the same boat - something they seem desperate to avoid! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Lads, I gave you an opinion on how the law works, in practice. As ever, your career choice, as the wonderful advert goes. You will be aware, I am a supporter in your woes, but live in France. But if your various arguments are needed in anger, you will be talking to professionals. Not my problem, until such time I may decide to move back to the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Berry Posted August 31, 2019 Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 It seems to me that the aim of the operator status is to do with commercial operations and therefore over 18s. In reality we are all pilots. It would have made more sense to have said if you are a commercial operator (likely to already to be registered) goes through the whole process and is as hobby flyers just register as pilots, as by default we will own the aircraft. The madness is that the government who deem a 17 year old responsible enough to drive a car is not able to own a drone. That said, the whole age category system in this country is mad and completely out of date. 16 to leave school and go solo in a light aircraft 17 to drive a car 18 to vote, buy alcohol and fight on the front line 21 to drive a truck and bus and be a member of parliament. A 17 year old in full time employment with 2 children and married can drive themselves to the flying field in the car they own with money they have earned themselves but can’t fly without a responsible adult under the child protection regulations. Its insane! Edited By Chris Berry on 31/08/2019 17:26:12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Posted by Jason-I on 31/08/2019 15:35:46: Posted by Cuban8 on 30/08/2019 21:16:14: How about a poll on guessing registration take-up figures on the first week (let's be generous and give the punters a week). Fewer than 100? 500? 1000? Edited By Cuban8 on 30/08/2019 21:17:02 Tens of thousands - Based on the numbers of people on this site who seem to be chomping at the bit to register...... Must be reading a different forum to me then, maybe the numbers will match those marching on Downing street, demanding freedom from tyranny. We shall never surrender and I blame the BMFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 I do believe that you need to see the world through the regulators and the Governments eyes, or consider what actually drives them. 1) They expect the system to generate the money needed to at least operate it. If a way is found that inhibits this, then the criteria will be changed with regard who makes a payment. 2) As MatyB has pointed out, the test is about making successful prosecution as easy as is possible. How ever you want to see it, the education aspect is part of ensuring that you know what the constraints are, if you then breach them, well the potential prosecution will be easier to obtain. At the end of the day, what has changed for us, are additional constraints and some ones hand in our pockets. With these changes politicians can be seen to have acted, provided the tools for the regulator to do their job. That is if and when the next incident occurs. I will admit to being skeptical at the number of large drones encountered at a few thousand feet. Given the cost of these devices, are the operators so reckless and many? Fighting back is now futile, as we will not win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 If it's "The principle not the money" can someone explain the block registering to me ? block registering seems fraught with consequences to me, why should I bare any responsibility for others flying, you got a legal position to guarantee I wouldn't be at risk ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Vincent 8 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 As a fully qualified PFCO drone pilot I was gob smacked while I was at work for a large company and a Model Plane flyer had the nerve to tell me the laws of CAA Drone flying. And how I was not allowed to fly above 400ft, Fact with CAA permission I can fly as high as I want I think the whole issue is a massive money maker and people really need to know the CAA rules before shouting the odds at others who may know better. Aircraft and drones are two very very different machines. Dont even get me started on what I saw on the news yesterday about people going to fly toy drones near a airport as and cause problems. Having read some of the comments here I can say right now the new laws are not going to make it vey clear what people can and can not do as I have already been told as above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Berry Posted August 31, 2019 Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 The issue comes back to definitions and locational requirements. Had a suitable definition been found and/or had there been a requirement that drones can only be flown at designated or ‘approved’ locations, (clubs being one of them), then it would have been a lot easier. As it stands nothing will change and there won’t be any reduction in the instances of rogue or ignorant incursions. And as Paul says above, the ignorance of existing Aeromodellers is unbelievable. its all written down in black and white and for example the number of people who say “we can’t fly over 400ft anymore” or “can’t fly in an FRZ, clubs finished” baffles me. Edited By Chris Berry on 31/08/2019 19:02:39 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 You had better get a tin hat on mate. What the hell is a PFCO pilot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Posted by Peter Christy on 31/08/2019 16:59:36: .... I really can't see the difference between Amazon (or the BBC, or ITN) being the "operator" or the BMFA (or a local club). Indeed, I suspect that the powers-that-be have overlooked this as well, as they are quoted as saying that it would be "inappropriate" - not illegal - for an association to register as the operator. And if they changed the law to preclude this, it would drop Amazon, et al, in the same boat - something they seem desperate to avoid! -- Pete Peter, the difference is that Amazon own and therefore control the maintenance and use of the drones that will be registered to them, the BMFA don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Posted by Bob Cotsford on 31/08/2019 19:15:15: Peter, the difference is that Amazon own and therefore control the maintenance and use of the drones that will be registered to them, the BMFA don't. The other difference is that Amazon will be getting their 'operators' license fee for their fleet of drones subsidised by by law abiding aero modellers who are the innocent victims in all this. Hence the reason I won't be registering as an operator - it is completely unfair. Edited By Jason-I on 31/08/2019 19:28:25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Do you know, and God forbid I am ever accused to being a supporter, or defender of Amazon. But do you think that Amazon gives a monkeys, if they pay a few quid a year per unit, or not. A more valid explanation is an incompetent civil service, amply backed by incompetent polititions, making a dog's dinner of a job, Panicking to bring something to the table by the furor of some holiday makers in Gatwick, with a cohort of shouters on, the Wail, Balfa, the air traffic controllers. Last I heard, Amazons drone is 55 lbs, range 14 miles, 5 lb package. Now, I reckon a Majestic Major can do that, so I am well impressed. Not great technology. Now, delivery van drops a box on wheels off, off it trundles, delivering its load of 20 parcels to the doorstep, at a nice safe 4 mph. That I believe is possible. Why is a drone a possible, to do the job, when a box on wheels is difficult. Wheels are an easy fix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 31/08/2019 11:56:05: You missed the last sentence of that section from the government response to the 2018 consultation: "A blanket exemption from registration and competency tests, as suggested in many of the consultation responses submitted by model fliers, will not meet these criteria." Steve And quite deliberately, Steve. The DfT are simply living in another world with 'their criteria'. Their words and position are all that count, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "la la la la la ". Their position as regards association members needs to be tested legally, I honestly believe that natural justice would demonstrate how arrogantly they are behaving towards us and our representatives - they would be made to look foolish rather like 'flat earthers'. A fuss needs to made - a loud fuss - showing how dictatorial the DfT are behaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 See things from the politician perspective, then what the Dft have been told to do. The politician wants to be seen as having ensured that the safety of aircraft and that passengers of aircraft are not inconvienaced. What ever or when ever something happens The Dft has been told to develop an environment that enables drone to contribute to the UK economy and also that the legislation ensures that the politician have responded to a threat to safety Now ask the question who do we matter to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 But the 'drone dividend' is a fantasy and will remain so for years to come - why are the government getting so wound up over something that as it stands now is completely nebulous. Please don't say "Amazon Drone Deliveries", however, they might have some credibility if they were going to train flying pigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Posted by Jason-I on 31/08/2019 15:27:00: Plus, the only reason they would be knocking on the operators door would be if the pilot fled the scene. Not if the legislation follows motoring law practice. I spent a morning at Aylesbury Magistrates Court some years ago acting as an "expert" witness when a friend's girlfriend was summonsed for using a borrowed caravan with defective brakes after the police attended the scene of a damage only accident where she lost control and rolled the caravan. Standard stuff so far but I was also helping another friend fight a separate charge of allowing her to use said caravan with defective brakes. The no doubt highly qualified traffic policeman who attended the scene was apparently unable to appreciate that a bent A frame would alter the geometry of the over-run brake's cable and when he tried applying the parking brake while examining the wreckage found the cable still slack with it fully operated. Having considerable experience with towing trailers and having used the over-run brake while helping hitch the caravan, I was able to explain the reasons why the charge was spurious. I hope it was incompetence rather than an opportunity to boost his ticket count with two hits for one accident but whatever, while the JPs retired for a quick sherry while deliberating the duty prosecuting officer (not the officer involved at the scene who wasn't in court) turned to us and told us not to worry as they had no case! The ironic thing is that had she been prosecuted for driving without due care or similar, I believe she would have accepted being at fault! The upshot was that had there not been a robust defence, both the driver and owner of the caravan would have been fined and given penalty points and I would imagine similar responsibilities being applied to the operator of a UAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 Cuban, your opinion is the same as a number of experts, there is no immediate and possibly not a great dividend from drones in the urban, UK environment. Then again, governmental departments and sponsored developments have pretty much the same dismal outcome. Martin again being a little cynical, I agree with Maty, much of the test and some of the new regs is about providing a framework and environment that makes it a little easier to obtain convictions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.