New Legislation And Trainee Requirements

[Gary Manuel]

What does this mean for BMFA members?

In simple terms, if you operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 250g outdoors after the 30^th November then it will become a legal requirement to be registered as an Operator with the CAA and be able to provide evidence that you are competent (essentially to confirm that you are aware of the applicable laws). Those who only operate control line aircraft will be exempted from the requirements.

The CAA have agreed to recognise our members’ Achievements as an alternative to their online test and allow us to administer registration of Operators as part of our membership process. A few key points to note are that:

1. The fee for Operator registration will be £9/year. Where members choose to register through the BMFA, we will collect the fee and pass it on to the CAA. The BMFA does not profit from this in any way. The CAA has to make a charge to users in order to cover the cost of the scheme which is not subsidised by the Government (unlike in some other countries).
2. Members will be exempted from registering as Operators on the 30^th November and can register instead as part of the BMFA’s membership renewal process (ideally by the end of January 2020).
3. Registering as an Operator through the BMFA will be a specific ‘opt-in’ for members and the CAA will only receive information for those members who have given consent by ‘opting in’ and paid the CAA fee.
4. The BMFA has never and will never share members’ data with any third parties without consent.
5. We are still clarifying arrangements for junior members in terms of Operator registration, but there are no age restrictions for ‘Remote Pilots’.
6. Members who ‘opt in’ will receive an email from the CAA with their ‘Flyer ID’ once their data is uploaded. (Should a member be asked to provide proof of registration before receiving their Flyer ID the BMFA office will provide evidence of compliance.)
7. There will be no requirement to place any registration numbers on the exterior of model aircraft, but they must be carried in an easily accessible location (within a battery hatch for example).
8. For members with an existing Achievement, all that they will need to do to remain lawful will be to simply ‘opt in’ when they renew their membership and pay the additional CAA fee.
9. We will shortly introduce a Member’s Competency Certificate (a simple knowledge test which will be available online/hardcopy and/or via our clubs and examiners) as an alternative to the CAA system for those without an existing Achievement. Members without an existing Achievement will either have to complete a Member’s Competency Certificate or the CAA’s own test before we can register them as an Operator.
10. Registration and/or evidence of competency will not be conditions of BMFA membership but failure to be able to produce evidence of both if challenged by the Police could result in a fixed penalty notice or prosecution.
11. Compliance with the Registration/Competency requirements is largely a matter for individual members and as such we would not expect Clubs to automatically assume responsibility for policing it, though of course some may choose to do so (perhaps to assist those members wishing to comply who do not have access to the internet or in order to comply with local operating requirements such as FRZ permissions for example).
12. We are still working with insurers to resolve any potential insurance implications and hope to be able to clarify the situation by the end of this week.
13. Members will continue to benefit from the existing permissions/exemptions already granted to the CAA recognised UK Associations (such as the permission to operate above 400ft with aircraft of less than 7Kg, operate control line aircraft within an FRZ and operate FPV aircraft with a competent observer).

We appreciate that there are still likely to be many questions arising from this, but there remains a lot of detail to resolve with the CAA (and our insurers) before we can issue definitive guidance. However, please be assured that we will provide further information and guidance as soon as it becomes available.

Kind Regards

David Phipps, CEO.

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 23/10/2019 11:23:58:

Posted by Cuban8 on 23/10/2019 10:14:10:

I'm inclined to think that anyone having a 'taster session' would be treated in the same way as someone having one of those trial lessons that full size flying clubs offer ...

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you are inclined to think. What matters is what is says in the ANO and any permissions/exceptions/authorisations that the CAA give the associations.

Have you read articles 94D, F & G?

Steve

Steve, your knowledge of the text is probably better than anyone else here, but I think we still need to remain pragmatic...

I accept if you do a line by line review of the ANO there is no clear statement about the categorisation of the trainee on a buddy system. That would imply that legally the trainee must take one of the defined roles, most likely the remote pilot, and therefore would have to take the test. However, if an incident where a contravention of the law was proved to have occurred, who are they actually going to go after in court? The instructor (at minimum a remote pilot and in 99% of cases the operator too) who has formally demonstrating their understanding of the law and can take control of the aircraft at any point? Or the trainee who has turned up, has no previous experience/knowledge of the requirements and wants to experience flying for the first time?

IMO it is far easier and more likely they will prosecute the instructor as if they were a solo pilot being prosecuted for the same misdemeanour - they understood and accepted the legal responsibility, they were in primary control of the aircraft and still the contravention occurred. It's far harder to prove the trainee was responsible - unless you have Tx logging who do we know was in control when the transgression occurred?

Putting all that aside, ultimately it will be the decision of the instructors as to whether they take the advice of the BMFA or decide they will only instruct those who have done the competency test. Personally I think the risk is so miniscule I will continue to instruct on a buddy system; I am quite comfortable in that situation it is me who is 100% responsible for the safety of the flight, and if a transgression occurred that would be my fault, not the trainees.

Key addition - The above all assumes the trainee is on a remote buddy system. I accept the use case where there is only one Tx being handed between the trainee and instructor is much greyer; and in that instance I agree it would be sensible for the trainee to have passed the test before flying.

Edited By MattyB on 23/10/2019 14:13:36

[Gary Manuel]

This reminds me of a discussion I had with a mate a few years (quite a few actually), where I was admiring his handywork after he had rewired, replumbed and redecorated his house.

The conversation went something like:

Me - "Why is your electric shower mounted so high?"

Him - "Regulations state that it must be mounted in such a position that the trailing water pipe cannot reach the water in the bath, thus causing a risk of dirty bath water being syphoned back into the water mains"

Me - "But you can hardy reach the controls"

Him - "Yes but it's the law".

Me - "OK"

He had to reposition it some weeks later, when his girlfriend moved in with him and couldn't reach.

Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools

[Chris Berry]

In terms of registration numbers I’d suggest the following could have been an option. Those who register through an association use their association number with a prefix BMFA, LMA etc.

The CAA then use that number with prefix and anyone who registers independently has a CAA prefix number. That way the same numbers are used and the CAA and DFT can see who is an association member and who is not. That will help in the future with audits of the success of the system.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jason-I]

Posted by Steve J on 23/10/2019 17:27:53:

 

it is very clear that the remote pilot is expected to do the online test before touching the sticks

If I was instructing at the moment, the first bit of homework that I would give a trainee would be to do the CAA test.

Steve

At which point little Johnny would go home disappointed never to return. 

I fly in a public space. It's rare that members of the public pass by, but when they do, and if they show an interest, I'll gladly let them have a go on the buddy box (I always carry a spare basic cheap tx, and most of my models have an eagletree guardian fitted, so I can switch to wing levelling mode for them). They are always most appreciative of this, and I think it is really good for the hobby.

Next time Joe public passes by and expresses real interest am I to say: "I'd love to give you a go, but you need to go home, study the rules, pass a test and register as a pilot before I can even let you near to the sticks", then send them away thinking I'm a mean spirited stuck up jobsworth, OR, am I to break the rules, let them have a go and send them away with a smile on their face?

I know which option I'll be choosing. 

 

Edited By Jason-I on 23/10/2019 17:47:27

[Jon H]

Did everyone ignore my post?

Sorry Steve but the BMFA are saying that a student under instruction is not an operator so does not have to take the test. So if a random person walks in off the street they are allowed to fly right from the off. Their argument is the same as most of us have presented here. Full size aircraft and driving instruction is commenced when a student has no qualifications at all and model flying will be the same. The only real difference is that slightly closer attention needs to be paid to the qualifications of the instructor.

Its a total non issue

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Jason-I]

Posted by Jon - Laser Engines on 23/10/2019 18:19:31:

Did everyone ignore my post?

Sorry Steve but the BMFA are saying that a student under instruction is not an operator so does not have to take the test. So if a random person walks in off the street they are allowed to fly right from the off. Their argument is the same as most of us have presented here. Full size aircraft and driving instruction is commenced when a student has no qualifications at all and model flying will be the same. The only real difference is that slightly closer attention needs to be paid to the qualifications of the instructor.

Its a total non issue

Good enough for me.

[Don Fry]

I'm confused. Going to shut up until it's sorted out. I hope the BFMA is right.

[Bob Cotsford]

Damn but it gets confusing when posters refer to the person on the sticks as being the operator, while the CAA seem to use 'operator' to mean the person responsible for the maintainance and use of the UAV and the term 'competent person' or similar for the stick twiddler. It's a great pity they couldn't have stuck to nice clear terms like 'Operator or Keeper' (henceforth known as OOK) for the owner and ,say, 'Pilot On Sticks' (hka POS) so we could more easily diferentiate.

[Martin_K]

Anyone confused can look at the The Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2018

Scroll down to 94G (a) (i)

then up to 94F (2)

It is unequivocal.

[Jason-I]

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 23/10/2019 19:34:57:

Damn but it gets confusing when posters refer to the person on the sticks as being the operator, while the CAA seem to use 'operator' to mean the person responsible for the maintainance and use of the UAV and the term 'competent person' or similar for the stick twiddler. It's a great pity they couldn't have stuck to nice clear terms like 'Operator or Keeper' (henceforth known as OOK) for the owner and ,say, 'Pilot On Sticks' (hka POS) so we could more easily diferentiate.

They need to just do away with the whole pilot and operator thing and just have a pilot, who registers, takes the test and pays the fee. The whole operator thing makes the system biased towards big companies who could run potentially thousands of drones and pilots all for just a single £9 fee. (Whilst us mugs subsidise the registration system for them). The whole registration system is setup with future commercial use in mind which is why it's so expensive - and yet it is us expected to foot the bill for this.

This is just one of my fundamental objections about the whole rotten scheme and is why I will continue campaigning government about it.

[Paul C.]

I have tried to follow all of the threads and comments on this subject but I have to admit that I am getting more confused as time goes by, all of the posers are I am sure are giving their best interpretation of what's happening and giving a heads up on any possible future pitfalls. The BMFA have clearly been working hard to get the best possible results and have done a grand job, I am confident that they will continue to do the best for us all.

To maintain my sanity I think that I will wait for my BMFA email updates on how to proceed and get on the SLEC web site to order some more balsa and adjourn to the workshop for a winter build project. Best get some more gas for the heater it's getting a little chilly out there.

Paul.

[Paul C.]

Err that's posters not posers 😯😯😯😯 bloomin predictive text and me not reading it , sorry 😱

[Jason-I]

Posted by Paul C. on 23/10/2019 20:07:27:

Err that's posters not posers 😯😯😯😯 bloomin predictive text and me not reading it , sorry 😱

I've been called worse!

[Paul C.]

Posted by Jason-I on 23/10/2019 20:11:52:

Posted by Paul C. on 23/10/2019 20:07:27:

Err that's posters not posers 😯😯😯😯 bloomin predictive text and me not reading it , sorry 😱

I've been called worse!

If nothing else some folks have had a laugh at my faux pas, time for a G & T I think 😂

[Jason-I]

Posted by Paul C. on 23/10/2019 20:33:01:

If nothing else some folks have had a laugh at my faux pas, time for a G & T I think 😂

Save one for me.

[Chris Berry]

The mole is trying to climb the mountain!!