Gary Manuel Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Posted by Peter Christy on 13/06/2020 15:37:59: I think what it is referring to is the current system, where the BMFA collects the registration fees on behalf of the CAA, and then periodically uploads the details of those who have paid and their qualifications to the CAA. Basically, it means that the BMFA has become a "one stop shop" for membership + CAA. Of course, you can still register separately if you choose to do so. -- Pete ..... in which case, there would be no need for the exemption, so it can't mean that. edit - ah, I see what you mean. It's to cover any delay between paying BMFA and receiving OP number back from CAA. Edited By Gary Manuel on 13/06/2020 15:48:36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Posted by Steve J on 13/06/2020 15:52:46: Posted by Gary Manuel on 13/06/2020 15:26:50: Posted by Dickw on 13/06/2020 15:17:46: However, I do believe the BMFA offered to the CAA to investigate the use of its membership system as a cheaper way of managing registration rather than the CAA building its own system. That's what I had in mind when I posted the earlier query about the bold text. It reads like CAA are acknowledging the possibility. IMHO you are reading far too much into a badly phrased description. Probably - but fingers crossed eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Isn't that what the BMFA has just done for those of its members who wished to register through them? They would also report that their members had passed one of the qualifying tests i.e. BMFA RCC or an A test or higher, together wtih an email address and the £9 fee. This is a service to their membership, as is that offered by the other Model Associations. In that respect, they are already collecting the fee and passing it to the Government. That's what shops do with VAT as well so I don't see this as being something new. The 4 Model Associations are, like shops, acting as "unpaid tax collectors" for the Government. We don't quibble about it for VAT so why quibble about this for the Model Associations? Edited By Peter Jenkins on 13/06/2020 16:08:46 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin b Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 And there I was, thinking they were doing it to make things easier for their members ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Clark 2 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Posted by Dickw on 13/06/2020 15:17:46: Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 13/06/2020 12:34:25: Posted by Dickw on 13/06/2020 10:47:08: I am not aware of any plans for the BMFA to take over registration, and the bit you highlighted is just a simplified description and not part of the exemption. The exemption is valid until the end of June (unless it gets changed again!) provided you are a current member of the BMFA. After that you will either (a) have already registered with the CAA via the BMFA, or will (b) have to register direct with the CAA yourself. I suspect the bit you highlighted refers to option (a), As you are already registered best just to go and enjoy the flying. Dick That won't happen .................................... if you are referring to the suggestion that the BMFA (or the other three organisations) might take over registration then I agree. Your reasons why the BMFA would (could) never be responsible for registration are valid. However, I do believe the BMFA offered to the CAA to investigate the use of its membership system as a cheaper way of managing registration rather than the CAA building its own system. Everyone has to make their own choice of whether to obey the law, or not and run the risk of prosecution. Whatever your reasons you seem to be, like me, on the right side of the law, so no problems for us there. Dick Yeah. While I am unlikely to starve because of paying the nine quid toy plane tax my only reason for paying it was that the 'committee' who runs our site (it's not a club and I am a BMFA 'country' member) was that I didn't want hassle with that sometimes rather officious committee as its secretary is a friend of mine, though not a close one. I put my number on a couple of 'token' planes as I fly them often but have not bothered putting it on the rest. The registration process was just a 'knee-jerk' "We must be seen to be doing something" reaction to an unproven event at Gatwick. And as I said, it isn't working as a "seen to be doing something" reaction doesn't need to actually work. As for the BMFA scheme I didn't use it as I didn't see the point. I just took the silly test and paid via credit card on the first day the CAA registration web site was available and left it at that. Arthur C Clarke said all this idiotic modern bureaucracy we have to put up with is due to the over-refined food we mostly eat lowering human intelligence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 More repeats than the BBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Clark 2 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Posted by Steve J on 13/06/2020 21:49:18: Posted by Richard Clark 2 on 13/06/2020 20:52:07: The registration process was just a 'knee-jerk' "We must be seen to be doing something" reaction to an unproven event at Gatwick. You have got to hand it to the DfT. They managed to amend the ANO to add registration and testing in a knee jerk reaction to the December '18 Gatwick incident six months before the incident. Truly impressive. Sadly thought, not quite in the same league as EASA. They managed to get a notice of proposed amendment on the regulation of drones out three years before Gatwick. Bully for both. the DfT and EASA. Not that either should be involved. Toy planes are not 'transport' and we have been told we are free from the chains of the EU, which my toy planes are unlikely to overfly.. The assorted official mouths, plus MPs, Police, etc. saying "We must regulate these things" immediately after Gatwick, and their following speedy implementation must have been pure coincidence. Result? We've now got a set of unenforceable rules and more regulations about playing with toys. And all because the majority, sheepies to the last man, meekly accept this nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 fat better that the BMFA,LMA and all were at least consulted and involved..and their views sort?....fact of life that all our daily lives are governed by rules and regs...and like it or not when some waster decides to fly a drone near a full size aircraft...someone has to do something to stop it before there is an accident....to describe everyone as "sheepies" is a bit of a statement and a half.....I do agree that we fly toy model aircraft...but todays toy model aircraft are very sophisticated in what the can do and be used for.....so 3 cheers for the people who represented our interests...and did the best they could on our behalf....also I agree that its hard to enforce the rules...but they are are there to be used..my view.... ken anderson...ne..1...rules dept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Baaah I'm a Sheep. To repeat myself, what are you keyboard warriors gonna do ? Talk a lot and Insult others ? Yep, you're full of bluster with no substance. Make a stand, band together, lead the way ? Nah you haven't the backbone, Rebels without the Claws. Sheep in Wolves clothing, Baaah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Posted by john stones 1 on 13/06/2020 22:45:11: More repeats than the BBC. Now that is really saying something after the last few months! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 I've actually found the repeats on BBC4 more entertaining than the main channel! Same goes for ITV-3! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Got rid of the licence and don't watch any of the propaganda trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Clark 2 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Posted by ken anderson. on 14/06/2020 09:31:47: fat better that the BMFA,LMA and all were at least consulted and involved..and their views sort?....fact of life that all our daily lives are governed by rules and regs...and like it or not when some waster decides to fly a drone near a full size aircraft...someone has to do something to stop it before there is an accident....to describe everyone as "sheepies" is a bit of a statement and a half.....I do agree that we fly toy model aircraft...but todays toy model aircraft are very sophisticated in what the can do and be used for.....so 3 cheers for the people who represented our interests...and did the best they could on our behalf....also I agree that its hard to enforce the rules...but they are are there to be used..my view.... ken anderson...ne..1...rules dept. I've nothing against the SMAE/BMFA and have in fact been a member ever since the late 50's - early 60's. And I didn't describe 'everyone' as sheepies. But I have been on protests, though not toy plane ones. Though a personal effort of mine was to write directly to the Duke of Edinburgh, then patron of the SMAE (now BMFA) many years ago, taking care to check and use the correct 'protocols' to successfully and single-handedly save our flying site from closure by the Forestry Commission But people don't seem to realise how we let these gradual imposition of 'rules' and costs creep up on us. Our site is in the New Forest. and the vehicle track from the road also leads to a barbecue area and the start of a long cycling path. Now it's all closed. Not because of the 'virus' (though that was the initial reason) but now because of 'ground nesting birds' which is a recently imposed restriction - four months out of every year. How the birds managed fine from 1066 (William the Conqueror) up till now we shall never know. And we have flown there since about 1958 when the field was handed back to the 'public' by the military. But from some years ago each of us has to buy a 'permit' at 5 quid (now 10 quid) a year and 'competitions' are no longer allowed without 'special permission'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Richard Clark 2, agree with you. Our current situation with the 'toy plane' rules is just symptomatic of our current society. Anyone taking a wider view of society will see 'we' are all being slowly, incrementally hedged in by rules/laws and nudged this way and that by staged events to an eventual destination that would not have been acceptable if imposed in one go. In the absence of any organised 'refusal to pay' I have personally not paid the 'toy tax', nor will I. If I can't fly my planes so be it., the end of 60+ years. People have given up more for less. People have given their lives for the right to say what they think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Stephenson Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 From the Daily Mail this morning... Couple who were wrongly arrested over Gatwick drone that sparked three day of Christmas flight chaos in 2018 receive £200,000 in compensation Rush to judgement much? A. Edited By Andy Stephenson on 14/06/2020 13:47:14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Christy Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Richard: Whilst I agree that we all tend to back down a bit too easily when presented with "orders from above", in this instance, I have a feeling that it will go the way of the RC transmitting license. This was finally dropped 1) because by charging for a license, there was an implication that the "powers that be" were then obliged to properly police the CB situation, and 2) it became uneconomic to collect it. I can see the same situation arising here. If every model flying site were to appear on NOTAMs and aviation charts, and every site complain whenever an incursion occurred, be it a commercial drone or anything else, the authorities would soon have to either take (possibly expensive) action, or concede that they were unable to police their own regulations. I predict that within 10 years this registration nonsense will have died a natural death! -- Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONZO Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Peter, it's highly unlikely I'll live that long. But even if I did, long before then model flying would not be a physical possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Clark 2 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Posted by Andy Stephenson on 14/06/2020 13:46:20: From the Daily Mail this morning... Couple who were wrongly arrested over Gatwick drone that sparked three day of Christmas flight chaos in 2018 receive £200,000 in compensation Rush to judgement much? A. Edited By Andy Stephenson on 14/06/2020 13:47:14 Being compensated AFTERWARDS is no use whatsoever. They should never have been arrested in the first place. Least of of all merely because a couple of neighbours said he flies toy planes, which is not 'evidence' at all. (and which is probably why the compensation is high). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Hello Gonzo...you've served your apprentice/ship......keep flying... ken Anderson...ne..1..keep Gonzo flying dept. Edited By ken anderson. on 14/06/2020 16:44:48 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.