Jump to content

Article 16 Reporting Clarification


Gary Manuel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it is good that the Commercial Operators are reporting these things given they are responsible in part for us all having to have restrictions placed upon us as they require the airspace for commercial use. If it means manufactures and operators getting safer we should all applaud. After all you don't want your amazon best china dropping out the sky into the kids pram next door !

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, john stones 1 Moderator said:

Ensure others know the rules ? Nah, not my job, that's the individuals responsibility.

But surely it IS the job of the BMFA (including BMFA Club Secretaries) to know the rules and ensure that the members are made aware of them. It is the individuals responsibility to decide whether or not to follow them.

 

These are exactly the points of my initial query. If BMFA clubs do not do this, then what makes them deserve the Article 16 Authorisation benefits that the casual park flyer doesn't have?

 

You will note that so far I have not made any suggestion as to what I will do when I go flying if nothing changes. That is not the point of this thread. The point is to discuss what the LAW requires us to do. I'm still not saying. That is my decision to make.

 

@Zflyer There are more reportable incidents in CAP 722, including for example an engine failure (aka deadstick). See original post in this thread.

Edited by Gary Manuel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I'm aware of what the threads about, this club Secretary has provided links to all relevant details, as have the BMFA, we have been kept in the loop throughout. BMFA mag delivered to every member, therefore I consider my "Jobs" been done, If some bin their mags, and don't read links, that's their problem. What exactly is it you expect of club Secretarys ? Take responsibilty for yourselves.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MattyB said:

But what is an “Other occurence” that happens over 400ft or within 50m of an uninvolved person if I am operating in those areas perfectly in accordance with Article 16? If my soarer taps another whilst circling in a thermal over 400ft, is that reportable? If I land and a member of the public I could not see wanders over the lip of the hill within 50m, is that reportable?

 

As written it’s impossible to tell from Art 16, and as @Gary Manuel points out that lack of precision means no-one can know with any confidence what we should or should not be reporting. This really does need clearing up, and the AAIB in particular need to be challenged on whether their reporting criteria are really proportionate with the risk level posed by our operations.

 

12 hours ago, Cassandra said:

I would say yes because they want to know the number of events that wouldn't have happened without the authorisation.

 

Counting the number of reports made by National Association members operating under Article 16 does not give them that though. That logic overlooks that the average member is far more aware of the laws around UAS operations than the average non member, and is therefore far more likely to report a given incident (assuming they can decipher what it is they are supposed to report in the first place!). It also overlooks the fact there will be in the huge majority of these incidents there will be absolutely no data available - no altimeter readings, no radar traces, no black box recorder - just the word of a single individual. Interpreting  trends from the reporting volumes/incident types or comparing them with different operating groups is therefore little more than guesswork.

Edited by MattyB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Frank Skilbeck said:

Absolutely John, it is the responsibility of every flier to make sure they are complying with the rules.

 

But maybe next Wednesday morning the AAIB will be flooded with reports of deadsticks, models landing off runway, stuck in trees etc. ? 

It would be great if enough people did submit the amount of reports that are required by CAP722. I think we would soon see a change to the requirements. It won't happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the BMFA on Facebook on Facebook where I asked a question about this...

 

“Hi Matt, the AAIB were supposed to be 'thrashing it out' amongst themselves, before meeting with us in early March.  We've chased them this week, but nothing back! We'll try and get some guidance out in the interim by the start of next week.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this just continues .

What were we reporting before the reg. I consider little has changed. I recall the webinar the CAA chap was really on interested in the serious matters i.e. injury, damage, the other really need equating by risk of the above. With exception of 400 ft rule and flying within 50m of people.

Most of us fly in remote fields, some share with full sized, and fewer use public parks.

The majority of association members tend to be responsible and err on the side of safety and caution, the majority of accidents (incidents) I have seen or heard of relate to matters on the ground.

We can go on bemoaning. Clarification will come in due course. There will no doubt be an exception to something and possibly an issue settled in Court in the future. Until then carry on as normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

From the BMFA on Facebook on Facebook where I asked a question about this...

 

“Hi Matt, the AAIB were supposed to be 'thrashing it out' amongst themselves, before meeting with us in early March.  We've chased them this week, but nothing back! We'll try and get some guidance out in the interim by the start of next week.”

That's reassuring. The post was 22 hours ago, so it is early next week they are talking about - just in time for the lifting of Covid restrictions hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cassandra said:

 

Has anybody said that it isn't?

 

I have just had a read of Article 16 (April's BMFA News page 23). It requires certain things of the BMFA in return for the authorisation. The only way that I can see for the BMFA to meet these requirements is for them to have club officials enforce them.

That's exactly how I read it @Cassandra . That's why I made the point about BMFA's responsibilities above.

 

44 minutes ago, Zflyer said:

I see this just continues .

What were we reporting before the reg. I consider little has changed. I recall the webinar the CAA chap was really on interested in the serious matters i.e. injury, damage, the other really need equating by risk of the above. With exception of 400 ft rule and flying within 50m of people.

Most of us fly in remote fields, some share with full sized, and fewer use public parks.

The majority of association members tend to be responsible and err on the side of safety and caution, the majority of accidents (incidents) I have seen or heard of relate to matters on the ground.

We can go on bemoaning. Clarification will come in due course. There will no doubt be an exception to something and possibly an issue settled in Court in the future. Until then carry on as normal.

Nobody is bemoaning @Zflyer. We are just seaking clarification and hopefully it will come (and be what we hope for).

You say that nothing has changed with regard to reporting, but it has. Read the OP in this thread again. Read the BMFA Art 16 Authorisation and especially Note 1. Read what rediculous occurances need reporting according to CAP 722. If the reference to Note 1 was removed, all would be well, but if it remains, things will have very much changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it ticked the box, claiming they understood the new regs ?

Was it club officials doing it for you ? Did they MAKE yous do it ?

We just spent the last 40 years moaning about the new regs, claims aplenty that we are paragons of virtue and need no regulating, now you want club officials ENFORCING stuff on you, make yer minds up eh.

 

Mountains out of molehills methinks, should the worse happen and you get 10 years for a broken lacky band, can I have yer models ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, john stones 1 Moderator said:

Who was it ticked the box, claiming they understood the new regs ?

Was it club officials doing it for you ? Did they MAKE yous do it ?

We just spent the last 40 years moaning about the new regs, claims aplenty that we are paragons of virtue and need no regulating, now you want club officials ENFORCING stuff on you, make yer minds up eh.

 

Mountains out of molehills methinks, should the worse happen and you get 10 years for a broken lacky band, can I have yer models ?

I ticked the box. That's why I'm seeking clarification. I see an unworkable clause, so I'm trying to get it altered. 

I agree 100% that this is potentially making a mountain out of a molehill. Let's get the molehill flattened before it grows.

I don't want to enforse this on anyone. I'm pointing out that the new regulations are enforcing it. I'm not disagreeing with you John. We are on the same side here, but you don't appear to be seeing that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gary Manuel said:

............................ Read the BMFA Art 16 Authorisation and especially Note 1. Read what rediculous occurances need reporting according to CAP 722. If the reference to Note 1 was removed, all would be well, but if it remains, things will have very much changed.

 

I have read both the Article 16 Authorisation and CAP 722, and my take was that "Note 1" just means for guidance on the meaning of the terms in the A16A. Having looked at those definitions in CAP 722 I can see nothing in particular to worry about.

 

Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickw said:

I have read both the Article 16 Authorisation and CAP 722, and my take was that "Note 1" just means for guidance on the meaning of the terms in the A16A. Having looked at those definitions in CAP 722 I can see nothing in particular to worry about.

 

Dick

Good point. In which case the CAA will clarify that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Club officials are all volunteers so they would be absolutely mad to accept any liability for the enforcement of any government legislation - I certainly don't - all my club members have to sign a disclaimer that they are personally responsible for any legal transgressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wingman said:

Club officials are all volunteers so they would be absolutely mad to accept any liability for the enforcement of any government legislation - I certainly don't - all my club members have to sign a disclaimer that they are personally responsible for any legal transgressions.

I agree @Wingman. The responsibility for following the rules lies with the individual. The BMFA does however have the responsibility of informing the individuals of the conditions and limits of the authorisation. That's why we all had to sign to say that we understood it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, john stones 1 Moderator said:

Here's where I am Gary, our team at the BMFA are aware and on the case, let them be to do their job. In the meantime go enjoy life as best as we can.

That's where I am too John. 

I'm only responding to people who appear to be unaware of the issue or determined to ignore it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was right nice. Thick chips, crisp and soft. The tarragon, on the back of the parsley, was really good. 
The Sancarre was exquisite. My wine cupboard, is normally blocked by the wing of a Fokker D7. Can’t remember it’s purchase, but I reckon it cost me.
It had an outing today, hence the wine transferred to the fridge. Result.

One destroyed aircraft. One compensation consumed.

Game of blood this hobby.

Back to tread?

 

the d7, a venerable hanger companion, was not the casualty.

 

Edited by Don Fry
D 7 didn’t die.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...