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

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Probably why I didn't use it!

[Chris Berry]

Steve. I think you really are overthinking things and are getting wound up over nothing. No laws can ever cover every eventuality. All laws are open to interpretation and reasonableness, hence there are lots of court cases to interpret the law.

I emailed the CAA a few months ago asking about training and got an email from them saying the PIC is the instructor.

[MattyB]

I agree with Steve that the wording in the ANO is pretty explicit regarding the person wiggling they sticks needing to be legally competent, but they probably wrote that without even thinking of the buddy box use case. Is there likely to be any enforcement action taken for that specific use case though? I personally doubt it.

Even so, if enforcement action were taken we should all remember it would not be done by the CAA. For this reason the BMFA’s position that this is “common sense” and that the CAA back that position may be reassuring, but it isn’t legally watertight. There would have to be a precedent case for us to truly know.

Edited By MattyB on 11/12/2019 22:48:59

[Chris Berry]

The response by the CAA to my question:

Twice a year I help the local air cadets have experience days using buddy boxes. What is the situation regarding students, those learning to fly or those flying only once on a buddy lead?

 

"Providing you as the ‘instructor' are able to maintain full control over the aircraft on the buddy box system, then your ‘student’ does not need to have a flyer ID/remote pilot competency certificate. The model aircraft still needs to display your operator ID number."

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/12/2019 23:38:02

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/12/2019 23:38:30

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/12/2019 23:38:50

[Nigel Heather]

Posted by Steve J on 11/12/2019 21:52:20:

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 11/12/2019 21:26:23:

The CAA do not consider the person on the slave TX to be either the remote pilot or the operator, therefore they do not need to have a flyer ID, the aircraft will need a valid Operator ID though.

Do you have that in writing?

If the person on the slave transmitter owns the aircraft. Who is the operator?

Think we need an element of common sense here.

For example, I see two categories of buddy box fliers.

1. People having experience flights, like the Air Cadets mentioned, either as a bit of fun or as a taster to see if they want to get into the hobby. These flights are one offs, and it would seem nonsense for them to do the competency test and get a Pilot ID and nor does the law require them to
2. The learner who has joined the club, bought a plane and is learning to fly. This is not a one off, the guy is hoping to go solo at some point. So my view is that he should have an Operator ID, the plane must have a label, so whose Operator ID should be used if not his. While he is on the buddy box he doesn’t need a Pilot ID by law, but why not get one anyway because it is simple and free, and surely the intent is that maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe next month they will be going solo and will need one then.

Cheers,

Nigel

[Chris Berry]

Thsts exactly the approach I'm taking Nigel.

Those joining the club with a view to flying solo should register and get an ID, certainly once they have committed to the hobby such that they have bought equipment, joined the BMFA/club etc and had a few initial flights. Those like the air cadets don't need to do anything.

[Nigel Heather]

All done, test passed, BMFA subs paid, CAA registration paid (with BMFA) and I even bought the card (I’m not convinced that it will offer me anything I don’t get with reward schemes I already have, but it was only the price of a high-street coffee so thought I’d try it for the first year at least).

And I appreciate that I could have waited until the end of January, but to be honest I’d rather do it now than forget later on.

Cheers,

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 12/12/2019 10:38:21

[Don Fry]

Having had a read of the regulations, kindly helped by Steve J, I have to say I agree with him. The ANO of 2016, pilot in charge, has been replaced by remote pilot, a person defined in 94g of the amendment as, the person manually operating the controls. Plain and simple. Nothing about instructors, secondary controls, just in plain simple English, person manually operating the controls. Move a control, that is a remote pilot.

Argue that they didn't mean it, that's what it says, and there is a lot of case law where judges say, if that is what the lawmaker says, that's what they meant. They can change the law if that is not what they meant, judges just decide on what it says.

As the old phrase goes, the law is an ass, and this has all the makings of bad law, bodged and botched.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Nigel Heather on 12/12/2019 10:28:51:

And I appreciate that I could have waited until the end of January, but to be honest I’d rather do it now than forget later on.

Just a word or two of caution - unless I'm mistaken, you need to renew before the 1st of January or you will be flying uninsured...

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/12/2019 10:49:18

[Cuban8]

Posted by Don Fry on 12/12/2019 10:46:57:

As the old phrase goes, the law is an ass, and this has all the makings of bad law, bodged and botched.

Steady on Don, like me, you'll be accused of being boring and anti BMFA with such a negative attitude.

[Chris Berry]

It seems to me that there are some who want to talk themselves out of the hobby.

Its plain and simple, the CAA are happy for those under tuition to not be registered or certified, as long as the pilot in command is. That's it, no more to say on the matter.

Feel free to Jack the hobby in, or turn away members because they haven't registered, that way it will be you who destroys the hobby, not the CAA.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Chris Berry on 12/12/2019 12:29:52:

It seems to me that there are some who want to talk themselves out of the hobby.

Its plain and simple, the CAA are happy for those under tuition to not be registered or certified, as long as the pilot in command is. That's it, no more to say on the matter.

Feel free to Jack the hobby in, or turn away members because they haven't registered, that way it will be you who destroys the hobby, not the CAA.

[Gary Manuel]

Well said Chris.

Hopefully your (written) response above from the CAA should be enough to put this question to bed ... but I doubt it.

[MattyB]

Posted by Don Fry on 12/12/2019 10:46:57:

Having had a read of the regulations, kindly helped by Steve J, I have to say I agree with him. The ANO of 2016, pilot in charge, has been replaced by remote pilot, a person defined in 94g of the amendment as, the person manually operating the controls. Plain and simple. Nothing about instructors, secondary controls, just in plain simple English, person manually operating the controls. Move a control, that is a remote pilot.

Argue that they didn't mean it, that's what it says, and there is a lot of case law where judges say, if that is what the lawmaker says, that's what they meant. They can change the law if that is not what they meant, judges just decide on what it says.

Exactly. It is pretty clear the buddy box use case was never considered when they revised the ANO, probably because the author did not know they were available and widely used. Those who are happy to take the CAAs assurances as gospel need to remember it is not the CAA that would be sitting in judgement on the other side of the courtroom in the event of an incident...

Edited By MattyB on 12/12/2019 13:22:42

[Gavin Mack]

Not sue if this has already been discussed but if your operator ID is on the outside, then anyone could take your operator ID and put it on their drone or plane, fly it and possibly crash it near an airport etc. You would have difficulty proving you weren't flying. Although more complicated each plane should have a unique number displayed on it, linked to an operator id which is kept private.

[Don Fry]

Posted by Cuban8 on 12/12/2019 10:54:56:

Posted by Don Fry on 12/12/2019 10:46:57:

As the old phrase goes, the law is an ass, and this has all the makings of bad law, bodged and botched.

Steady on Don, like me, you'll be accused of being boring and anti BMFA with such a negative attitude.

No, I have always liked the BFMA, always an organisation with a fine record of supporting all branches of toy plane flying, and leagues better tha their French equivalent. But working with terminal stupids like the current government, aided and abetted by the CAA, air traffic people, el al, must be hair pulling work.

Say what you like, the current minister only looks good because he is compared with Failing Grayling.

Now I think I will have one more word, then shut up. How much trust would you have in an organisation that tells you one thing over the table, then writes something else down in the contract. That is what the CAA have done.

[Chris Berry]

Posted by MattyB on 12/12/2019 13:20:58:

Posted by Don Fry on 12/12/2019 10:46:57:

Having had a read of the regulations, kindly helped by Steve J, I have to say I agree with him. The ANO of 2016, pilot in charge, has been replaced by remote pilot, a person defined in 94g of the amendment as, the person manually operating the controls. Plain and simple. Nothing about instructors, secondary controls, just in plain simple English, person manually operating the controls. Move a control, that is a remote pilot.

Argue that they didn't mean it, that's what it says, and there is a lot of case law where judges say, if that is what the lawmaker says, that's what they meant. They can change the law if that is not what they meant, judges just decide on what it says.

Exactly. It is pretty clear the buddy box use case was never considered when they revised the ANO, probably because the author did not know they were available and widely used. Those who are happy to take the CAAs assurances as gospel need to remember it is not the CAA that would be sitting in judgement on the other side of the courtroom in the event of an incident...

Edited By MattyB on 12/12/2019 13:22:42

As someone who writes policy for a living and is used to playing with legal speak I would happily sit in a courtroom and argue that case. Not that it would ever reach a courtroom of course.

[Chris Berry]

Posted by Gavin Mack on 12/12/2019 13:39:51:

Not sue if this has already been discussed but if your operator ID is on the outside, then anyone could take your operator ID and put it on their drone or plane, fly it and possibly crash it near an airport etc. You would have difficulty proving you weren't flying. Although more complicated each plane should have a unique number displayed on it, linked to an operator id which is kept private.

I think you're overreacting somewhat and suggesting something that makes your life harder, I don't get it???

 If someone wanted to crash a drone near an airport I don't think they would bother messing with numbers. You say anyone. Who do you mean? Your club mates or a member of your family, as presumably you don't leave your model in view of the public or sitting on your drive?

It is against the law to smoke in your place of work, be that a truck, bus, car, office, taxi or building site or if children are in a car. How many arrests and prosecutions have there been for those offences? I suspect very few if any. How many of you worrying about these new regulations have smoked in your place of work since 2007? How many of you have travelled in excess of the speed limit?

The Drone regulations are very similar to the smoking ban. The police wont enforce unless there are complaints.

 

Anyway, I said enough on this topic, I've got a life to lead and a hobby to enjoy.

Edited By Chris Berry on 12/12/2019 14:10:55

Edited By Chris Berry on 12/12/2019 14:11:57

[ken anderson.]

bearing in mind that we are getting promised that we will be getting 20K more police officers,i don't...even in my wildest dreams or imagination think that I will be requested by an officer of the law to show him my right to fly bits of paper etc for my model aircraft or whatever on our club site.

as for the on line test,dont you think that if they do nab someone for doing something they shouldn't,the authorities will use the fact that you have answered all the reqd questions ...so you cant claim to be ignorant of the fact of what you are doing.

as for the buddy box/trainer bit,(me personally)in the real world - would say..."have a quick go" and that's it...then put my halo back on...…. come on be honest in your thoughts when reading this...and once again 3 cheer's for the BMFA.....I'm no more than an ordinary member,same as you all...

 

ken anderson...ne..1...Halo dept.

Edited By ken anderson. on 12/12/2019 15:32:18

[Engine Doctor]

Posted by Gavin Mack on 12/12/2019 13:39:51:

Not sue if this has already been discussed but if your operator ID is on the outside, then anyone could take your operator ID and put it on their drone or plane, fly it and possibly crash it near an airport etc. You would have difficulty proving you weren't flying. Although more complicated each plane should have a unique number displayed on it, linked to an operator id which is kept private.

Be careful what you wish for ! The powers that be make a pigs ear out of the present set . Imagine what it would be like if we had to register each model ?

Anyway the number doesn't have to be visible it clearly states your number has to be IN or ON a model . Mine will all be IN the model

[Don Fry]

Ken,Glad there is someone else who would do a risk assessment, and carry on.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Easy enough to prove it isn't one of my models if someone should find some reason to clone my operator's number - every model I build contains my DNA - usually coloured red for easy identification!

In all seriousness, the fact that "my" number was to appear on a misbehaving model - however unlikely unless someone had a serious grudge with me - wouldn't constitute any proof that I was either operating it or had authorised its use. I won't lose many nights sleep over the possibility of a visit from Special Branch...

[Tim Flyer]

I would also like to say a big Thank You to all the BMFA team and their helpers ( some of whom are on this thread) for all their hard work with the change in regulations . They have made what could be a dreadful situation quite manageable and their hard work to protect our hobby is very much appreciated 👍

[Nigel Heather]

I have done the test and registered.

But two observations

1. walking around Christmas shopping I still see lots of drones being sold in the likes of Currys, MenKind, Tesco etc. and not one of them is giving any advice, leaflets or signage about the requirements of the registration scheme. Outside places like this, where we we already fully aware, I don’t think it has been well publicised. There have been occasional short articles in the papers and news programmes but even if they were seen I don’t think they described the requirements very well. I’m not sure how the general public buying drones are supposed to know what they must do.
2. I don’t fly what the public think of as drones, but I do keep an eye on the technology and frequent several technology forums where they are discussed and I read that there is an increasing movement towards drones that avoid legislation by weighing in at 249g

Cheers,

Nigel

[Peter Miller]

Posted by Gavin Mack on 12/12/2019 13:39:51:

Not sue if this has already been discussed but if your operator ID is on the outside, then anyone could take your operator ID and put it on their drone or plane, fly it and possibly crash it near an airport etc. You would have difficulty proving you weren't flying. Although more complicated each plane should have a unique number displayed on it, linked to an operator id which is kept private.

Maybe the authorities will realise this problem and insist that all our models also feature a photo of the owner.

I just thought I might add to the paranoia and insanity of some of the things on this thread