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

[Dai Fledermaus]

Posted by alex nicol on 21/12/2019 11:43:53:

Let say first of all I don't mean to offend and fully appreciate the time and effort our organisations have put into getting this to where it is but does anybody else feel this subject has been done to death and is becoming as tiresome as B@#%it

 

Never in the field of model flying has so much been written by so many about so little.

 

 

 

Edited By Dai Fledermaus on 03/01/2020 10:42:15

[Trevor]

Posted by Dai Fledermaus on 03/01/2020 10:41:21:
Never in the field of model flying has so much been written by so many about so little.

Oh I don’t know. Maybe it’s time for another Mode1 vs. mode 2 debate, or I.c. Vs. Electric, or BEC vs. Battery. . .

[Jason-I]

Has there been a definitive ruling on the validity of BMFA insurance with respect to not having registered as an operator yet? Just weighing up my membership renewal options.

Last advice I saw was that insurance may be invalid, but need to know for certain one way or the other.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Jason-I on 04/01/2020 12:00:54:

Has there been a definitive ruling on the validity of BMFA insurance with respect to not having registered as an operator yet? Just weighing up my membership renewal options.

Last advice I saw was that insurance may be invalid, but need to know for certain one way or the other.

This is the final BMFA wording from HERE:

Insurance cover can only be fully assured for ‘lawful activities’ and if you do not comply (if required by law) then you will be operating unlawfully, and your insurance cover could be in question in the event of a claim. It is also important to note that any legal costs and/or punitive financial sanctions incurred by an individual member under criminal law as a result of non-compliance will be outside the scope of cover.

The BMFA’s affiliated clubs will remain fully protected by the BMFA’s insurance in the event of a claim made against them, should individual members be found to be non-compliant.

[Martin_K]

Additionally, from the BMFA Insurance web page, 6th bullet point;

"the insurance provides cover worldwide for lawful recognised activity"

[i12fly]

So this means, if a non-registered flier in the club injures you badly during flight and you sue him for negligence say, the insurance will not cover him so you will probably not get compensated for any losses (unless he is fairly wealthy). But if you sue the club committee for not ensuring that he was registered, then the committee will be insured and supported through BMFA insurance. But as it is not a requirement for the committee to check people's registration you'll get nowhere.

I don't want to fly where there are people unwilling to register.

[GONZO]

Do you not drive? There are people who do not wish to insure/tax/have an MOT on their cars that drive on the roads. Are you not going to drive because of that. The probability of an uninsured accident whilst driving is very much higher than having an accident whilst flying, that's why model accident insurance is so low. Been at this since the mid 70's and have never seen or had an accident worthy of a claim.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Does a club committee have any duty to police CAA legislation? It's a condition of membership at my club to comply with any applicable legislation and I don't believe that under current data protection rules that we could ask the CAA to validate any registration numbers that they have issued - if I'm not mistaken, even the Police cannot routinely check such information.

[Philip Lewis 3]

No, the CAA would not be able to release that information to you under current data protection rules.

[Simon Chaddock]

All this does rather show that this legislation will take some time (with 'testing' & revisions) before it has anything more than a 'threat' effect.

[Brian Cooper]

Anybody reading through this thread needs a big bag of popcorn and a robust sense of humour.

But be careful not to choke on the popcorn when you start laughing.

B.C.

[GONZO]

The threat effect is what it was designed to do. That and the checking on other modellers by modellers and snitching on them or ostracising them, as demonstrated by the attitudes displayed in this thread. It's all in the best traditions of a totalitarian communist state of the cold war era where neighbours and even family members spied on each other and then denounced them to the state.

[GONZO]

Why are people so keen to check on their fellow fliers, acting as unofficial/un paid police and take on the responsibility of enforcement of this pointless legislation? Even to the extent of asking, no demanding that they prove their compliance! Do you check your neighbours car tires to make sure they are legal. Do you ask/demand he prove he is insured/taxed/ has a valid MOT when you see him getting in his car. I would suggest that the car situation is of a more important nature than this idiotic registration as thousands die on the roads each year when not even one dies from a modelling accident on the flying field.

[Martin_K]

Posted by Brian Cooper on 05/01/2020 08:53:25:

Anybody reading through this thread needs a big bag of popcorn and a robust sense of humour.

But be careful not to choke on the popcorn when you start laughing.

B.C.

Manufacturers of commercial drones are working in Europe and America to influence the regulations that governments are introducing to integrate semi-autonomous UAV's flying at low altitude into the Air Traffic Management used by manned aviation. Those manufactures, e.g. DJI, already have the technology to meet the proposed standards integrated into their Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

At the moment the BMFA are working to achieve some sort of exemption that they hope will deliver 'business as usual' for model aircraft.

I have no objection to those happy to wait to see what comes out of the negotiations. Others have engaged with the process and will discuss developments.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin_K]

From a first glance at the Singapore information I take two things;

250 grams seems to be the established norm for requiring registration.

Registration of, and payment for, every model seems to be a trend as well.

[GONZO]

Martin_K, AFAIK there is no 'Air traffic management used by maned aviation' unless it is in controlled airspace(commercial main airports, air lanes etc) and that would be by commercially qualified pilots flying suitably equipped aircraft. GA manned flying in open airspace is 'uncontrolled'. As an example from when I was flying planes out of a farm strip in East Anglia I rarely spoke to anyone on the radio and the plane did not have a transponder. I flew all over the East of England and frequently flew to the Isle of Wight for a day out. When I flew to Holland I took off and filled my flight plan over the radio, a requirement to file a flight plan as I was transiting international flight regions. But, I was not directed or controlled throughout my flight by any ground based controller. It seems to me that there is a push to impose a very much tighter control on UAV's than manned flight.

[Wingman]

Posted by Steve J on 05/01/2020 10:50:06:

Singapore (a fine country) has gone for individual registration at $S15 per unmanned aircraft.

**LINK**

I still don't understand this concept of registering per aircraft - we can only fly one at a time and surely they don't make it illegal to own models? I think I'd baulk at paying to register my hangar queens which I might only fly once or twice a year.

[cymaz]

I’m I being thick, obtuse, but I really can’t see any problem with the current system that the CAA and the bmfa have come up with.

The only thing that has changed are you have a

• £9 registration.
• If you don’t have an A then you show the authority you have a knowledge of rudimentary safety. Which, frankly, if you don’t ,you shouldn’t fly

And that’s it. Any ordinary A club flier that doesn’t go outside his patch has no real noticeable changes.

It seems to me we have a workable, fair, amicable system.

Who knows what will happen in the future? Let’s get out there, fly as much as we can, help our associates and leaders by showing a responsibility and a warm welcome to whoever comes along.

CAA registration is here to stay. Get over it.

 

And what has the BMFA ever given us. For aqueduct, wine, roads....read , help in securing flying sites under threat, a flying centre, a simulator trailer, insurance, fighting our corner over the last year. 

https://youtu.be/Qc7HmhrgTuQ

Rant over

 

Edited By cymaz on 05/01/2020 12:01:58

[Martin_K]

Gonzo, re. Air Traffic Management, it is the idea of identifying everything that flys that is coming down the track. How desirable or useful that is, and whether the drone industry will grow as forecast, are all open questions. Even if flawed, we will still be affected by new legislation.

Cymaz, re. "CAA registration is here to stay. Get over it." Correct. That is only the first part of the proposed changes however. We do have indications of what is proposed to happen in the future, both in Europe and America. Digesting the relevant documents takes many hours, so I am not surprised few make the attempt.

Time to make dinner!

[Tim Kearsley]

Posted by Brian Cooper on 05/01/2020 08:53:25:

Anybody reading through this thread needs a big bag of popcorn and a robust sense of humour.

But be careful not to choke on the popcorn when you start laughing.

B.C.

I would add, Brian, a strong tendency to masochism! I wonder how many more ways we can find to say the same thing, over and over and over and.....

Tim.

[Don Fry]

Tim.

We do model aircraft. Score to day, a cut, burnt fingers three times, hurt foot, and that's just cutting and application of 2 bits of film, and knocking the iron off the bench, onto my foot. Hot too. Par for course. If that's pleasure, mental prognostication ad nausea is a cinch.

[Gary Manuel]

I regularly see a group on unofficial fliers in our local park, on council maintained football pitches. They are not part of any formal club, but the council do know they are there. I've spoken to them on a number of occasions and even flown with them once or twice. I've deliberately avoided discussing DMARES with them as I didn't want to rock the apple cart.

I was passing yesterday and stopped to wish them Happy new year etc. One of them ASKED ME if I knew about the new regulations. They have all taken the test and have paid their £9, even though they don't pay BMFA or club fees.

It's a small price to pay to fly legally. I don't know why we are still discussing it.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 05/01/2020 13:43:54

[Gary Manuel]

May I just add one point before I sign off, that I don't think has been clarified - the REASON why we need to carry proof of competency, BMFA membership and the two exemptions. This may sound obvious but from some of the comments still being posted, it would appear that some people haven't grasped it yet.

IF you are ever visited by the local police, they will be expecting to see all your +250g models labelled with your operator ID. The only way you will be able to satisfy them that you are flying legally, will be to PROVE that you don't need the labels at this time. Once they have seen the exemptions and supporting documents, they will walk away happy.

[Peter Miller]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 05/01/2020 13:42:54:

May I just add one point before I sign off, that I don't think has been clarified - the REASON why we need to carry proof of competency, BMFA membership and the two exemptions. This may sound obvious but from some of the comments still being posted, it would appear that some people haven't grasped it yet.

IF you are ever visited by the local police, they will be expecting to see all your +250g models labelled with your operator ID. The only way you will be able to satisfy them that you are flying legally, will be to PROVE that you don't need the labels at this time. Once they have seen the exemptions and supporting documents, they will walk away happy.

Now we allknow that the police are fairly unlikely to come round asking to see our registrations etc.

BUT Consider this.

We all know that a lot of people object to model aircraft flying near them. These types of people will look for anything to cause trouble for modellers with the aim of getting them slung off a flying field.

Only total idiots will give any such objectors any ammunition to use against modellers.

Not obeying the current regulations is providing that ammunition. You now know my opinion of anyone deliberately not obeying the regulations