CAA BMFA

[Gary Manuel]

double post

 

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 13:00:07

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 12:50:55:

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/11/2019 12:19:26:

Posted by Nigel R on 08/11/2019 12:00:14:

"That said, I think all clubs need to make it crystal clear that obedience to the law is a personal and individual obligation, and that in no way can the club be implicated in or liable for non-compliance by any member or visitor to the Club."

Insurance / personal liability are another consideration.

BMFA still to clear that one up I understand.

Depends what you mean by that, as a club all members must be insured, as a club all must follow conditions of our lease and fly legally, so as club guardians/committee, you have a responsibility to protect the club.

This is what BMFA have to say about that in their bulletin dated 23rd October:

11.Compliance with the Registration/Competency requirements is largely a matter for individual members and as such we would not expect Clubs to automatically assume responsibility for policing it, though of course some may choose to do so (perhaps to assist those members wishing to comply who do not have access to the internet or in order to comply with local operating requirements such as FRZ permissions for example).

I doubt very much whether the land lease says anything about registration, but you are quite right that it needs to be studied to read the fine print. With regard to the insurance, the BMFA are still in discussion with the insurers.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 13:02:06

I'm certain the lease has no mention of registration, why would it, it didn't exist then.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/11/2019 13:04:34:

Posted by Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 12:50:55:

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/11/2019 12:19:26:

Posted by Nigel R on 08/11/2019 12:00:14:

"That said, I think all clubs need to make it crystal clear that obedience to the law is a personal and individual obligation, and that in no way can the club be implicated in or liable for non-compliance by any member or visitor to the Club."

Insurance / personal liability are another consideration.

BMFA still to clear that one up I understand.

 

Depends what you mean by that, as a club all members must be insured, as a club all must follow conditions of our lease and fly legally, so as club guardians/committee, you have a responsibility to protect the club.

This is what BMFA have to say about that in their bulletin dated 23rd October:

11.Compliance with the Registration/Competency requirements is largely a matter for individual members and as such we would not expect Clubs to automatically assume responsibility for policing it, though of course some may choose to do so (perhaps to assist those members wishing to comply who do not have access to the internet or in order to comply with local operating requirements such as FRZ permissions for example).

I doubt very much whether the land lease says anything about registration, but you are quite right that it needs to be studied to read the fine print. With regard to the insurance, the BMFA are still in discussion with the insurers.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 13:02:06

I'm certain the lease has no mention of registration, why would it, it didn't exist then.

Ah, we agree.

Whoever has the club lease just needs to study it to see whether there is anything in it requiring anything more than notifying members of the new laws and their responsibility to uphold them.

edit - Why would a club take responsibility for what their members do? That's like an employer taking responsibility for speeding tickets and parking fines of it's employees. The employers cover themselves by making sure the employees know that they are personally responsible if they break the law. That is the approach that clubs should take with their members surely?

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 13:15:50

[J D 8]

Well said Wilco, and no one will be able to answer most of your questions.

The authorities have already said it is not to prevent Gatwick type incidents.

It is as Simon says to make it easer to make a prosecution stick.

And gain more control over the lower airspace.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 13:07:50:

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/11/2019 13:04:34:

Posted by Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 12:50:55:

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/11/2019 12:19:26:

Posted by Nigel R on 08/11/2019 12:00:14:

"That said, I think all clubs need to make it crystal clear that obedience to the law is a personal and individual obligation, and that in no way can the club be implicated in or liable for non-compliance by any member or visitor to the Club."

Insurance / personal liability are another consideration.

BMFA still to clear that one up I understand.

Depends what you mean by that, as a club all members must be insured, as a club all must follow conditions of our lease and fly legally, so as club guardians/committee, you have a responsibility to protect the club.

This is what BMFA have to say about that in their bulletin dated 23rd October:

11.Compliance with the Registration/Competency requirements is largely a matter for individual members and as such we would not expect Clubs to automatically assume responsibility for policing it, though of course some may choose to do so (perhaps to assist those members wishing to comply who do not have access to the internet or in order to comply with local operating requirements such as FRZ permissions for example).

I doubt very much whether the land lease says anything about registration, but you are quite right that it needs to be studied to read the fine print. With regard to the insurance, the BMFA are still in discussion with the insurers.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 13:02:06

I'm certain the lease has no mention of registration, why would it, it didn't exist then.

Ah, we agree.

Whoever has the club lease just needs to study it to see whether there is anything in it requiring anything more than notifying members of the new laws and their responsibility to uphold them.

edit - Why would a club take responsibility for what their members do? That's like an employer taking responsibility for speeding tickets and parking fines of it's employees. The employers cover themselves by making sure the employees know that they are personally responsible if they break the law. That is the approach that clubs should take with their members surely?

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 13:15:50

Meetings to come, why does your club insist all have insurance, why does it insist no one flys till passed out, why don't we just inform them of the standard required ? I don't care about covering myself nor some extra work, I care about protecting the club against someone who can't be bothered, or thinks rules don't apply to them, sadly those have/do exist, hence my caution. Last post for me.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by john stones 1 on 08/11/2019 13:24:41:

Meetings to come, why does your club insist all have insurance, why does it insist no one flys till passed out, why don't we just inform them of the standard required ? I don't care about covering myself nor some extra work, I care about protecting the club against someone who can't be bothered, or thinks rules don't apply to them, sadly those have/do exist, hence my caution. Last post for me.

Well that's one way of looking at it, but it goes against BMFA advice, standard industrial practice and common sense from my perspective.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Nigel R]

Steve, I will, going by my clubs AGM, offer the following:

Many, if not most, fliers, have their pants in a twist about the test. It is confusing and unknown.

BMFA are trying, as is their remit, to make the hobby easier to participate, in this case for those who fear the test.

Choose, scary new CAA test, or friendly familiar BMFA who can take your A cert instead.

If you don't meet the A standard, BMFA will provide you with a BMFA approved tick box test.

The recent straw poll of my club says almost all fliers will choose BMFA.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[leccyflyer]

No, they're not. The BMFA are, admirably, attempting to establish some clear blue water between drone operators and the BMFA members who fly model aircraft and have decades of safe operation and co-operation to evidence their participation in the hobby. They have secured important concessions for BMFA members in their ability to operate legally under the new regulations, with the minimum of fuss.

Edited By leccyflyer on 08/11/2019 15:49:42

[Jason-I]

I see no concessions for us country members. I'm still supposed to register as an operator and pay the fee, and I'm still supposed to pass the test. The only real difference is that that we are now saving a couple of quid. BMFA members or not, we are all still part of 'the problem'.

ie using what they hope will be valuable airspace.

[leccyflyer]

If you are a BMFA Country Member with an A, B or C certificate you will be able to register through the BMFA when you renew your membership and will not need to take a competence test. That's a substantial concession and does not depend on you being a member of a single BMFA affiliated club.

[Jason-I]

And if you haven't, you still need to take the test. No change for me....

[leccyflyer]

Aaah, right, when you said no concessions to Country Members you just meant no concessions to your own particular case. Understood.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Alan Gorham_]

Posted by Jason-I on 08/11/2019 16:15:00:

And if you haven't, you still need to take the test. No change for me....

Do you mean exactly the same as a club member who doesn't have any BMFA certs then?

[Simon Chaddock]

My biggest grumble about the test is that a majority of the questions relate to situations for drones rather than model planes but having said that I read the associated online guide (easy to read, takes 5 minutes) and then took the test and scored 19/20. It also shows you what you got wrong.

And there is nothing stopping you having the guide 'open' at the same time as you are taking the test as long as you keep within the 20 minute time limit.

But I still don't like having to pay £9 for the 'operators' number just to keep within the law.

All dead easy to do but I fear this is just the thin end of the wedge.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by Steve J on 08/11/2019 16:39:29:

I would also like to point out that the competency exemption only lasts until 30th June and the CAA test will get harder (or at least longer) at some point before 1st July.

Good spot Steve. THIS raises an issue that I hadn't twigged.

This means that EVERYONE will need to take the CAA test and obtain a remote pilots licence before the end of June, regardless of any existing competency (unless an extension is granted). A remote pilot licence is valid for 3 years, but anyone taking advantage of the "BMFA A cert" exemption will never have held a remote pilots licence and will therefore need to get one. If the test is going to get harder as suggested, it may as well be taken straight away. What's the point of the exemption then?

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 17:22:18

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Gary Manuel]

On what basis Steve?

Have you taken the CAA test?

Edit - ignore this question. Your edit already answers it.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 17:40:59

[Frank Skilbeck]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 17:20:58:

Posted by Steve J on 08/11/2019 16:39:29:

I would also like to point out that the competency exemption only lasts until 30th June and the CAA test will get harder (or at least longer) at some point before 1st July.

Good spot Steve. THIS raises an issue that I hadn't twigged.

This means that EVERYONE will need to take the CAA test and obtain a remote pilots licence before the end of June, regardless of any existing competency (unless an extension is granted). A remote pilot licence is valid for 3 years, but anyone taking advantage of the "BMFA A cert" exemption will never have held a remote pilots licence and will therefore need to get one. If the test is going to get harder as suggested, it may as well be taken straight away. What's the point of the exemption then?

Edited By Gary Manuel on 08/11/2019 17:22:18

Or the rules are revised to include BMFA/LMA/SAA etc tests instead of their own online test, I'm sure this will be clarified by the BMFA/LMA etc in due course, no point jumping to conclusions at the moment.

[Gary Manuel]

The BMFA wording does clarify this - sort of

9. We will shortly introduce a Member’s Competency Certificate (a simple knowledge test which will be available online/hardcopy and/or via our clubs and examiners) as an alternative to the CAA system for those without an existing Achievement. Members without an existing Achievement will either have to complete a Member’s Competency Certificate or the CAA’s own test before we can register them as an Operator.

This implies that the A cert will be valid as an alternative to the CAA test (and therefore be valid for 3 years). The exemption expiry date of 30th June then becomes the deadline for passing the A test and gaining entitlement to the exemption.

No need to panic Mr Wainwaring.

[Ron Gray]

I don’t think that that is correct Gary, in fact we do not yet know what is going to happen next June. All we currently know is that exemption from the CAA test only lasts to June, so it is conceivable that those with the exemption will have to take a CAA test next June.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm tempted to say, "So what?" In the unlikely case that the CAA rescind your pilot validity, issued as an Achievement Scheme certificate holder, just take the test!

[Ron Gray]

I agree but don’t forget that they will now have your name as you opted in via the BMFA! Best to do the CAA test now!