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

[MattyB]

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 23/10/2020 21:16:56:

Posted by MattyB on 23/10/2020 16:21:25:

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 22/10/2020 15:06:56:

While that may be true, personally I have to say I've spent a minimal amount of time and money complying with my end of the DMARES requirements and it has in no way detracted from my flying fun this year.

I don't doubt that, but the big question is whether that will be the case in the coming years when remote ID etc is likely to come into play. In the shorter term most of us will be reliant of the Article 16 exemption the BMFA are currently negotiating to be able to fly legally in 2021 at public or shared access sites. If that does not address the issues around distance from members of the public and buildings in the revised CAP 1789 then we will have some pretty big problems to face...

There were many voices on this forum warning of the sky falling in due to DMARES in this time last year. Didn't happen.

Problems can only be faced and overcome when it is known what the problems are...

The problems are already well known - the EASA regs passed into lay in summer 2019, and will be implemented from Dec 31st this year. As a result we have the revised CAP 1789 which sets out clearly what is required, including the distance regs which impact on every public flying site and private ones that are "...within 150m horizontally of any residential, commercial, industrial or recreational areas". What is not known is what the BMFA have been able to secure as an Article 16 exemption for their members. We have been historically reassured this would be relatively easy and that we should wait patiently until this is revealed, but the lack of news with only 2 months to go is worrying. If this were easy I have a feeling it would have been announced by now...

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 23/10/2020 21:57:46:

Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 23/10/2020 21:16:56:

I seem to remember that you had a similarly pessimistic view about the BMFA national centre a few years ago and yet it seems to have opened successfully, is holding its own and is an asset to the hobby,

The NFC may be 'an asset to the hobby', but it requires £40k/year in support. £30k in sponsorship from Integro and £10k from the BMFA (proposed budget for 2020-21).

Agreed. Unfortunately the original slide decks provided by the BMFA when they were seeking approval to proceed have disappeared from their website, and the copies I took have been eaten by the file janitor on my work PC. However I did do a search and found some of the outline figures for investment that I took fro their own decks at the time - the association will have spent ~£435k on the NFC by the end of year 4 (2020) on capital setup costs and the lease, £335k from the development fund. None of that is recoverable.

It may be considered an asset in terms of as a flying site for comps/events, though for me it falls a long way short of the national centre vision sold originally. However, with less income being generated than it costs to run and the capex unrecoverable it can't be considered a financial asset to the Association or it's members.

Edited By MattyB on 28/10/2020 17:21:56

[Richard Acland]

My main problem with the National Centre is that it is fine if you live within striking distance, but not so great if you live in Cornwall or the North of Scotland.I feel the money would have been better spent on helping clubs enhance their facilities throughout the country.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I'm curious Matty, In what way does it fall short of the vision we we're given ?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Some of the views are broadly similar to me own concerns. The first is that we lease the site, that suggests that many of the assets do belong to the owner of the land, in that we cannot take them with us, if we or they terminate the lease.

I also agree that for significant fraction of the UK, the site is not of easy reach. The most obvious the South West of the UK, Wales, The North West of England and much of the counties South of London.

In itself these issues do not mean necessarily that the site will or can be viable. It does suggest that any financial support of the whole of the BMFA membership could be contentious.

I am perhaps more concerned that some seem to suggest that there is a disconnect between EASA regulations and the transducer issue, there is or will be some linkage, if no today, then, some time in the future. It is an area that the BMFA does need to both monitor and influence to the best of the organisations ability.

As an organisation, the immediate future is one of shrinkage, hence the drive to rearrange the area grants. I can see the need for a strong focussed centre. Yet, if the area membership sees the centre as a fat cat, and the areas are not actively supported, discontent could rise.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[ken anderson.]

NFC.....I did think that the NFC was out of my reach,and couldn't see the point of it.it should be renamed the BMFA flying centre.i doubt it will be able to pay its way as such(hope i'm wrong).

I also think that a fair percentage of BMFA members join because of the 3rd party insurance.....no other reason and aren't even bothered about the NFC...and I don't think that the bmfa members who post on this forum represent the majority of opinion. I may be wrong but I think maybe the silent majority chug along flying their models and are quite happy...and couldn't care too much about the inside goings on.

*my thoughts on the matter*

ken anderson...ne...1..thoughts dept.

[Capt Kremen]

Most, if not all, sports including high level popular ones like Football, rely on significant investment in the form of sponsorship, TV rights, expensive souvenirs e.g. supporter shirts. Unfortunately model flying is not in that league if you'll pardon the expression!

I echo Ken's findings at club level, an increasingly elderly membership, many of which are inactive for a variety of reasons, those that are just want, (and are required to pay for), insurance. BMFA, bless them, continue to joust at their windmills. Most in my club are not fussed about NFC, comps, Area delegates et al. Sad I know because only members can affect a change by getting involved, fight punitive legislation etc.. Enjoy our flying while we are still physically able.

Edited By Capt Kremen on 28/10/2020 19:09:35

[i12fly]

Let's move on from NFC discussion, it has been done to death in the past with the same detractors raising the same issues again. No surprises it has not made a profit in 2020 with the Covid restrictions.(I've never been and probably never will but personally I think NFC is a good thing for our sport and hope it is a great success).

Thank goodness we've got BMFA arguing our corner with the relevant authorities, without them model flying as we know it would be at best, more heavily restricted or even non-existent. They need our support and I hope that their current negotiations are successful, there's not much time left.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

The Covid issue has had a significant impact on much of the economy. The plus side is that many of the areas will not have used all of there grant in support of their areas. I am sure that Areas will look at any request to support the centre favorably. Particularly to further the interaction with the various other parties, such as the legislators and the regulator.

As to transfer of funds and BMFA employees to support the Flying Centre, well that could be another matter. It could well be that the BMFA office should or could decamp to Buckminster and close the Leicester office. Although this may not fit well with many of the staff who make the BMFA work at the engine room level. I suspect some are on furlough, or working from home, which could be a way of making such an arrangement work. This would be similar to the USA model, of the NFC being a administrative centre.

Above all the influencing of future regulations and controls is the most pressing issue.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

I hope everyone has taken the time to complete the Survey, it closes at Midnight Saturday, a way to put your opinions across direct to the BMFA and of course the more responses the better.

**LINK**

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

I hope everyone has taken the time to complete the Survey, it closes at Midnight Saturday, a way to put your opinions across direct to the BMFA and of course the more responses the better.

**LINK**

[MattyB]

Posted by john stones 1 on 28/10/2020 18:02:33:

I'm curious Matty, In what way does it fall short of the vision we we're given ?

I wrote a reply to this earlier, but then got logged out before I pressed send. In summary:

• No real current reason for non-members to visit (no museum, cafe etc), thus limiting additional revenues needed to support the centre.
• No major fund raising push for the Phase 2 facilities; this is pretty surprising given we are in year 4.
• Only basic camping facilities (though I understand this is next on the list; probably linked to point above)
• Does not seem to have realised any of the promised benefits in terms of additional credibility when negotiating with the authorities (I never understood why that was stated in the first place; renting a site and renovating doesn’t seem very influential when compared to the authorities who seem desperate to open up the airspace below 1k feet for commercial use)
• Limited impact on the downward trend in membership (as per the original proposals this was a cornerstone). Of course there have been educational events held, but these could have still happened without the NFC and across a much wider area if a very small proportion of the £400k+ invested was diverted in that direction.

[Stuart C]

Its all been done before at Eton Bray. That did not end too well. Hopefully, this will be a different story. See onthewire.co.uk/bray3.htm

[MattyB]

Posted by Steve J on 28/10/2020 18:06:37:

Posted by Barrie Lever on 28/10/2020 17:58:10:

Posted by MattyB on 28/10/2020 17:11:04:

However, with less income being generated than it costs to run and the capex unrecoverable it can't be considered a financial asset to the Association or it's members.

Only time will tell if the NFC will be a success, I hope that it will, as I see no harm to the hobby in having this asset and it is an asset.

The problem that I have with the NFC is that the BMFA are paying £30k/year to rent an ex-equestrian centre. If they were paying that (or even slightly more than that) on a mortgage I would be supportive, but they aren't and there isn't a fix for the decision to rent rather than buy.

TBF the BMFA looked at that for the first site (Laws Lawn), and though they got permission to go ahead at the EGM it failed the gating requirements and they did not proceed. The cost of that would have been dramatically more though - If seem to remember phase 1 was in the £3m range,with the full cost rumoured at £5-6m based on the presentations giveN at clubs that received them prior to the EGM.

Thank goodness that occurred - it could have financially killed the BMFA, though tbh I always thought it unlikely they would actually be able to secure a mortgage for the amounts they were talking about. Given that site was deemed unsuitable and almost certainly out of budget their only option for an NFC was to rent; I still think investing that same £400k in a series of clubs that owned their own sites amen could have acted as regional centreS would have been far more effective though.

[MattyB]

Anyway, I will shut up about the NFC now, it’s OT in this thread and what’s done is done. What really matters at this point is what concessions the BMFA and other national associations can secure from the CAA against the revised CAP 1789. I am crossing all my fingers and toes that good news will be forthcoming...

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by MattyB on 29/10/2020 20:43:48:

Anyway, I will shut up about the NFC now, it’s OT in this thread and what’s done is done. What really matters at this point is what concessions the BMFA and other national associations can secure from the CAA against the revised CAP 1789. I am crossing all my fingers and toes that good news will be forthcoming...

[Erfolg]

Why are is a specific exemption a the CAA regs, being issued , then extended on a temporary basis?

Will the process go on indefinitely, if so for what purpose?

I cannot but notice, that from time to time, I read in the news that further trial operations are taking place using commercial drones, carrying significant payloads. Do these activities indicate that a significant increase in commercial operations could happen in the very near future? If so what could this mean to us model operators?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

Steve, non of the aspects you indicate, reassures me that our hobby will be attractive to those who are at present non model fliers. If any of the suggestions comes to pass, for some present members and modellers. it could be the straw that "breaks the Camels back". We certainly do not want to see even a small decline in model fliers. Just because we think the hobby is great. Both the Retail trade and BMFA need numbers to be viable to operate as we do at present.

It is easy for me to to be blase with respect to the present immediate future, as i am old.

For the BMFA as we know it, it is" die in a ditch scenario", if it is to have any long term future. That is beyond the region of five or so years. I suspect that many of the additional requirements that I might tolerate, will be game stoppers for many. I am thinking of those who always fancied a go at model flying, or even those who once flew and now have time on their hands. The BMFA needs to continue the fight, probably with as much vigor as possible.

Covid restrictions will not have helped. In that it is hard to many positives to flying. There may have been a mini building boom, of models, although it is possibly over stated. There will have been a significant financial loss to the model retail trade, rather than a boost. With respect to the NFC, the hit however described will have been significant. The big question will be, does the BMFA total membership pay for any financial short fall? IMO nothing should be done that falls on the general membership.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

The more I read the less I know/understand.

BMFA could have some extra from me if required, see no reason to punish them for things beyond their control,

Pretty much what our Country is going through at present is it not ? Many paying a price to protect others.

Will I be in a position to help BMFA, who knows, mind how you go folks.