The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread

[Wihtgar]

I can't see the point of registering through the BMFA, it just seems to be complicating everything and potentially increasing their operating costs if another online test is going to be devised.

Nige

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Nigel Heather on 24/10/2019 14:20:42:

So humour me. I’ll put my hands up, I didn’t read all the formal stuff, I got to hear about the registration from papers and news reports. They pretty much made it about security, about stopping things like the Gatwick incident - so that is what I took away.

So onto commercial operations - if it is already regulated why does it need another regulation scheme.

How does the registering of tens of thousands of people who mostly fly line of sight fixed wing from remote farm fields impact commercial operation?

Cheers,

Nigel

Dear Nigel, the BMFA News page provides some quite detailed information on this whole situation as well as having just published the first part of their guidance to members on how this legislation has been influenced for the better by the model flying organisations. I don't know if you can subscribe to the News page on the BMFA site if you are not a BMFA member but it is certainly worth doing so whether you are a member. That will avoid you just taking a easy route of "just humour me etc" and relying on others to tell you what you can find out yourself very easily. That way, you will get the info from the horses mouth - always a good idea.

Relying on the popular press for information on the law is a sure fire way of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick. I have yet to read anything in the popular press that impinges on model flying where the author does not make some, if not several, errors of fact.

Just saying

[Chris Berry]

Posted by Wihtgar on 24/10/2019 16:27:56:

I can't see the point of registering through the BMFA, it just seems to be complicating everything and potentially increasing their operating costs if another online test is going to be devised.

Nige

I think it makes perfect sense. The majority of flyers are members of an national association so why not do it? If the associations are happy to register us on our behalf then great. It’s less work for us to do, especially us membership Secretaries who have quite a lot to do at renewal time.

[Broken Prop]

I'll vote alongside Chris. To me it makes perfect sense to wrap the whole registration process up as part of my annual renewal of BMFA subs.

While I have some airtime, I would like to thank those hardworking BMFA members who have spent no doubt countless hours negotiating with civil servants in order to get us a reasonably sensible deal. I have personal experience of this process, which is a bit like punching a sponge. Well done guys!

[Richard Acland]

Having followed this legislation I think I have a rough grip on what is happening. I would imagine that most clubs will make it mandatory for their members to conform with the legislation, as I would imagine that the BMFA insurers would wish them to do this to comply with the law. All well and good, so as usual the responsible people will conform and do what is required. The irresponsible however will not. Anyone wishing to cause mayhem with a drone will hardly be likely to register and put an identification number in it so that it can be traced back to him or her.

Also most BMFA members will be aware of what is happening. There must be thousands of drone flyers out there that do not belong to any organisation and do not have any idea of the requirement to register. I have no doubt that this Christmas many drones will be bought as presents without retailers telling them that they need to register them with the CAA. So at the end of the day what is the point. To me this is a Case of " we must do something" but in the end it will achieve very little in solving the problem.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Good to see the the BMFA et al getting some positive feedback.

I would think that everyone of us agrees this won't stop the clowns, that's irrelevant to me, the rules were gonna change whatever we said/did, terms have gotten better for us, plus they're still talking.

[CARPERFECT]

So here`s a little conundrum for you all. Two BMFA members in my house. Me and my 24 year old son. WE. yes WE have 15 planes and we share them all. I have an A cert he has not. So come 1st Jan 2020 we will both pay the BMFA subs. I or him will register . Just the one £9 NOT TWO. He will have to pass his A cert or do the online (impossible to fail test). If either of us are ever questioned by the DRONE police.,We are covered. the models will have a reg number, and both will have passed the A test or the CAA test. DOES that all sound correct ?

[Chris Berry]

Posted by john stones 1 on 24/10/2019 20:01:36:

Good to see the the BMFA et al getting some positive feedback.

I would think that everyone of us agrees this won't stop the clowns, that's irrelevant to me, the rules were gonna change whatever we said/did, terms have gotten better for us, plus they're still talking.

Absolutely right John.

This shenanigans was first muted about 4 years ago. Back then i thought it would all go away and that would be that. Up until about 6 weeks ago I was quite concerned that the legislation would result in significant changes to the hobby but now, thanks to all those involved across the board the hobby can continue with no impact to the way we operate.

[Jason-I]

Have to agree with this guy....

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Chris Berry on 24/10/2019 20:21:52:

Posted by john stones 1 on 24/10/2019 20:01:36:

Good to see the the BMFA et al getting some positive feedback.

I would think that everyone of us agrees this won't stop the clowns, that's irrelevant to me, the rules were gonna change whatever we said/did, terms have gotten better for us, plus they're still talking.

Absolutely right John.

This shenanigans was first muted about 4 years ago. Back then i thought it would all go away and that would be that. Up until about 6 weeks ago I was quite concerned that the legislation would result in significant changes to the hobby but now, thanks to all those involved across the board the hobby can continue with no impact to the way we operate.

Only 4 years ago, seems like 20.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by CARPERFECT on 24/10/2019 20:19:00:

So here`s a little conundrum for you all. Two BMFA members in my house. Me and my 24 year old son. WE. yes WE have 15 planes and we share them all. I have an A cert he has not. So come 1st Jan 2020 we will both pay the BMFA subs. I or him will register . Just the one £9 NOT TWO. He will have to pass his A cert or do the online (impossible to fail test). If either of us are ever questioned by the DRONE police.,We are covered. the models will have a reg number, and both will have passed the A test or the CAA test. DOES that all sound correct ?

The short answer is NO it is not correct. The registration that the BMFA has agreed is for all its members whether they choose to do so via the BMFA or on their own. If you were stopped by the Police to check your registration how would you prove that you were he and he were you? I suspect they would take a dim view of your proposal. It is only £9 for which you could only buy a small prop!

You could try and set up as an operator with your son as a pilot for whose operations you are responsible. You would need to develop an operations manual etc. Easier to just both register I think.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by CARPERFECT on 24/10/2019 20:19:00:

So here`s a little conundrum for you all. Two BMFA members in my house. Me and my 24 year old son. WE. yes WE have 15 planes and we share them all. I have an A cert he has not. So come 1st Jan 2020 we will both pay the BMFA subs. I or him will register . Just the one £9 NOT TWO. He will have to pass his A cert or do the online (impossible to fail test). If either of us are ever questioned by the DRONE police.,We are covered. the models will have a reg number, and both will have passed the A test or the CAA test. DOES that all sound correct ?

Yes!

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Richard Acland on 24/10/2019 19:36:46:

Also most BMFA members will be aware of what is happening. There must be thousands of drone flyers out there that do not belong to any organisation and do not have any idea of the requirement to register. I have no doubt that this Christmas many drones will be bought as presents without retailers telling them that they need to register them with the CAA. So at the end of the day what is the point. To me this is a Case of " we must do something" but in the end it will achieve very little in solving the problem.

Richard, you are making the mistake of thinking that it is just model aircraft and small drones that are being targeted. This legislation also covers very large UAVs such as the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk that flies at 65,000 ft and has a flight duration of 30 hours as well as things like the armed Reaper UAVs that are being flown by the RAF in theatre but which they can only operate in military ranges in the UK. There are also the larger number of vehicles that will be used to monitor crop health, carry out pipeline inspections, conduct pollution monitoring and conduct TV filming for a variety of programmes that are available to TV today. So, don't focus on people buying drones for their kids at Christmas only. There is a very much bigger commercial opportunity than taking pictures of your house or something you should not be flying near.

[Jason-I]

Posted by CARPERFECT on 24/10/2019 20:19:00:

So here`s a little conundrum for you all. Two BMFA members in my house. Me and my 24 year old son. WE. yes WE have 15 planes and we share them all. I have an A cert he has not. So come 1st Jan 2020 we will both pay the BMFA subs. I or him will register . Just the one £9 NOT TWO. He will have to pass his A cert or do the online (impossible to fail test). If either of us are ever questioned by the DRONE police.,We are covered. the models will have a reg number, and both will have passed the A test or the CAA test. DOES that all sound correct ?

Absolutely correct. One registered operator with two registered pilots.

Edited By Jason-I on 24/10/2019 21:15:49

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Richard Acland on 24/10/2019 19:36:46:

Having followed this legislation I think I have a rough grip on what is happening. I would imagine that most clubs will make it mandatory for their members to conform with the legislation, as I would imagine that the BMFA insurers would wish them to do this to comply with the law.

See item 11 of BMFA advice quoted in the first post of this thread. Compliance is the responsibility of each member.

I am an instructor, safety officer and committee member of my club. I have no intention of inspecting every model that is brought to our field to ensure that it is labelled and that the member is registered.

Item 12 also states that the BMFA should clarify the insurance situation by the end of the week.

[John Bisset]

Peter,

I'd say you are being idealistic if you think that Global Hawks and the RAF's Reapers are constrained and operated only within military ranges here in the UK. The RAF MIGHT obey that restriction, but the USAF will do as they please. At the heights you quote there is no conflict with other traffic (yet).

I think Richard has it correct that we as model aircraft fliers are simply being swept up in a 'must be seen to be doing something' effort, following the supposed drone scare at Gatwick, The desire to regulate to allow easier commercial drone use is also a driver. 'Aspirational' rather than actual revenue there - though the authorities are making current commercial users pay fairly heftily.

The BMFA is our main voice, our main opportunity to get our points of view aired, so it is important they we are seen to support them. I suspect from comments made that the folk at the head of the BMFA recognise how silly much of this is, but they continue to do their best to get some knowledge into the heads of those who drive the show. Not easy, when so few politicians are technically minded.

I suspect the authorities have over estimated the market & likely revenues from low level commercial drone use for deliveries etc. There may well be a rapid retrenchment when they realise that if they permit all this, they may be held liable under HSE law when, not if, the beasts start to fall out of the sky. (As has already happened in Switzerland)

I worry a bit about more the next phase when some form of electronic conspicuity is being suggested. Almost certainly futile for our machines, given the power and line of sight range limitations but that may not stop the legal types demanding it. The BMFA may have its work cut out on that one, later on !

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Steve J on 24/10/2019 21:37:59:

Posted by CARPERFECT on 24/10/2019 20:19:00:

DOES that all sound correct ?

Can you come up with a plausible argument that either you or your son 'have management of' all 15 planes? Does one of you determine when, where and by whom the models are flown?

Why does he need to come up with a plausible argument?

He and his son just need to go fly and enjoy themselves, knowing that they have complied with the regulations.

[Chris Berry]

A lot of overthinking going on with this, although it’s a discussion forum so fill your boots.

Being able to prove you are responsible for a model is highly unlikely to ever happen if you’re flying in a safe, lawful and established location, as most do.

Ive read comments on other media along the lines that snatch squads of police are going to be knocking down doors and confiscating models and the mere hint of the word drone will send police response team leaping into action. We have a crime epidemic, knifes are used more than ever before, moped gangs, human trafficking, that’s the real crime that the police are not coping with now. Fear not fellow flyers it gonna be ok!

Edited By Chris Berry on 24/10/2019 21:50:37

[Gary Manuel]

Yes - wot he said.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 24/10/2019 21:52:44

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 24/10/2019 21:30:10:

Posted by Richard Acland on 24/10/2019 19:36:46:

Having followed this legislation I think I have a rough grip on what is happening. I would imagine that most clubs will make it mandatory for their members to conform with the legislation, as I would imagine that the BMFA insurers would wish them to do this to comply with the law.

See item 11 of BMFA advice quoted in the first post of this thread. Compliance is the responsibility of each member.

I am an instructor, safety officer and committee member of my club. I have no intention of inspecting every model that is brought to our field to ensure that it is labelled and that the member is registered.

Item 12 also states that the BMFA should clarify the insurance situation by the end of the week.

Not your place to Gary, an update on the rules look to be in order, and some communication to ensure we're all aware ?

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Steve J on 24/10/2019 21:40:03:

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 24/10/2019 21:10:43:

This legislation also covers very large UAVs such as the Northrop Grumman Global Hawk that flies at 65,000 ft and has a flight duration of 30 hours as well as things like the armed Reaper UAVs that are being flown by the RAF in theatre but which they can only operate in military ranges in the UK.

Nonsense.

Really? How do they take off, transit the airspace and land? The military are not yet able to fly UAVs in civil airspace without closing the airspace first since the issue of sense and avoid remains extant.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by john stones 1 on 24/10/2019 21:52:38:

Posted by Gary Manuel on 24/10/2019 21:30:10:

Posted by Richard Acland on 24/10/2019 19:36:46:

Having followed this legislation I think I have a rough grip on what is happening. I would imagine that most clubs will make it mandatory for their members to conform with the legislation, as I would imagine that the BMFA insurers would wish them to do this to comply with the law.

See item 11 of BMFA advice quoted in the first post of this thread. Compliance is the responsibility of each member.

I am an instructor, safety officer and committee member of my club. I have no intention of inspecting every model that is brought to our field to ensure that it is labelled and that the member is registered.

Item 12 also states that the BMFA should clarify the insurance situation by the end of the week.

Not your place to Gary, an update on the rules look to be in order, and some communication to ensure we're all aware ?

I know.

I was answering Richard who thought otherwise.

Wouldn't want word to get out that it's all the committees responsibility to police it.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Ah I see, committee already polices stuff, they enforce BMFA membership for one thing, and rightly so, can't see what Richard said wrong ?