Jump to content

CAA price increase !!!


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Engine Doctor said:

Your correct in your assumption that I dont believe the CAA does anything to benefit our hobby and that's why I object to ANY increase in their fee. If they actively supported up and provided a service like the BMFA  then I would support any increase deemed necessary .

Oh sorry I forgot about the numbers they generate for us to put on our models if that can be counted as a service ?

 

So what is it that you are esposing we do then? March on Whitehall? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

On a different but related subject, I was interested to see the doc from the CAA lists out costs associated with an Article 16 Authorisation. This section is a bit confusing though as it's not clear whether it only applies to Article 16 authorisations for models over 25kg, or all Article 16 auths...

 

image.png.9dfaa92dd766cd5e0c8b8c28170170f5.png

 

@Andy Symons - BMFA, is this correct? Do the BMFA and other national associations have to pay for any renewals/changes to their authorisations if and when we request them, or is that only for clubs/private individuals going to the CAA direct for their own authorisation at a specific site? Or does this only apply for Art 16 authorisations for models over 25kg?

 

 

 

It's the associations that need to pay the Article 16 fees to the CAA, not individual members or clubs. An association Article 16 applies to all model aircraft flown by the members of that association. The fee depends on whether it's an initial application, unchanged annual renewal or a renewal with additional responsibilities / changes to what can be done.

 

The CAA has delegated site / display permissions to the BMFA & LMA, so clubs don't need to go tot he CAA direct any more.

 

Over 25kg models with their own specific authorisation are the only thing that an individual modeller needs to pay the CAA for, and they are the item above the Article 16 section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rob Buckley said:

 

It's the associations that need to pay the Article 16 fees to the CAA, not individual members or clubs. An association Article 16 applies to all model aircraft flown by the members of that association. The fee depends on whether it's an initial application, unchanged annual renewal or a renewal with additional responsibilities / changes to what can be done.

 

The CAA has delegated site / display permissions to the BMFA & LMA, so clubs don't need to go to the CAA direct any more.

 

I understand how the Article 16 autorisation covers national assocaition members, but naively had not realised there would be such significant costs associated with the creation and renewal of Article 16 Authorisations. When met centrally by the BMFA they represent good value (though not compared to the previous regulations wich had no ongoign costs as far as I am aware), but I doubt many members are aware of those costs - I don't remember seeing them on the 2021 SMAE statement of accounts, but I probably just missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Engine Doctor said:

Your correct in your assumption that I dont believe the CAA does anything to benefit our hobby and that's why I object to ANY increase in their fee. If they actively supported up and provided a service like the BMFA  then I would support any increase deemed necessary .

Oh sorry I forgot about the numbers they generate for us to put on our models if that can be counted as a service ?

So the fact that they built a registration system that issues OPID (and pilot ID but not needed for most of us) that allows us to comply with the law of the land, fly at over 400 ft (with no upper limit in controlled airspace provided we maintain line of sight for under 7.5 Kg models - probably 90% of users excl MRs) is not a service.

What does the DVLA do?  Without a driving licence you cannot legally drive your car but for the vast majority of qualified drivers what other service do they provide?  According to your logic they provide no service so we shouldn't bother to pay for them - which we all do via our taxation.

If you want to live in a country where anything goes - move to the USA!  Ah, yes, they have even  more stringent requirements imposed by the FAA in the "land of the free"!

Oh, what service does the Treasury provide us?  They take money off us - does that count as a service.  How about the Foreign Office?  I think the jury might be out about what service they provide to the British public!  

What about the MoD?  What service do they offer us model flyers?  Mostly, they no longer let us fly our models on their land e.g. no Nats this year.

Come on chaps, those of you who think the CAA are out to make our lives difficult are looking at the problem from the wrong direction.  

Come to think of it, there are loads of organisations that we pay for that don't appear to offer us a service but that comes with being a citizen of this country.  We could do a lot worse as current events show us.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2022 at 19:07, kevin b said:

Oh boy, another thread to pull out the grumpy old gits !

 

Fact.   Life is going to get more expensive.

Fact.   Complaining won't do anything to reverse the situation.

Fact.   In this country we have it a lot easier than most countries in the world (including America).

Fact.   It could be worse. You could be living in the Ukraine.

 

Let's temper this with a little reality, shall we ?

I doubt very much if anybody on this forum is concerned about where their next meal is going to come from, or even their next bottle of chateaux "whatever".

In fact, most of the members of this forum can probably remember a time when life was indeed a lot worse. I know I can and I wasn't born until the 1950's.

Does that make me one of "those young upstarts" ?   :classic_biggrin:

chateaux "whatever". ? Luxury. We used to get up before we went to bed.................

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2022 at 21:26, Andrew Calcutt said:

Just wondering if anyone puts the reg no. on models and has anyone ever been asked for it.

 

Yes, on all my models. And encourage all others to as well. Doesn't matter whether I think it's right or wrong - it's what we have to do, and it's no big deal. 

 

No, never been asked.  But I rarely see a police car, or policeman.

Edited by GrumpyGnome
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2022 at 21:26, Andrew Calcutt said:

Just wondering if anyone puts the reg no. on models and has anyone ever been asked for it.

Yep - every model over 250g has it's label. Usually printed on a Dymo label maker and preferably attached inside the battery bay. On a few models where that isn't possible it's on a clear label under the tailplane.

 

I destroyed my Dymo label maker last week. A label didn't print properly and on examination it looked like there was a piece of tape stuck in the mechanism. I took a pair of tweezers and eventually managed to get it out. It wasn't a piece of tape. It was the important piece of the transfer mechanism, The machine is now banjaxed.

 

So now it's self adhesive paper labels printed on the laser printer and stuck on.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2022 at 17:38, Engine Doctor said:

Oh what a suprise . The CAA has announced a price hike to £10pa  as from 1st of April as announced in the BMFA lataest mail shot.

It should be a an April fools joke as it just beaurocracy for the sake of it .

This come just as the Chancellor announced that he intends to cut wasteful practices in the government . He could start by cutting the job of the  petty minded , probably highly overpaid twonk who thought up the idea of taxing our hobby in the first place . 

Response  from the BMFA "One consolation is that the fee still has some way to go to reach the £16.50 proposed originally by the CAA back in 2019 which was strongly opposed by the BMFA and its members."

Sorry but thats not good enough as we gett absolutely nothing for our annual outlay to the CAA. 

So what else are you going to spend that massive £1 increase on? 1/5 of a pint? 1/3 of a terrible servo? Pop it in a charity box, maybe? Or put it in a savings account and be amazed at how little interest it accrues.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/03/2022 at 21:18, kevin b said:

The reason for my post on this thread is quite simple.

Since the revamp of the site I have noticed that there are fewer and fewer people posting on the forum.

There also seem to be far fewer people creating threads.

I have seen many familiar  names disappear from the forum, who were regular contributors.

Either they are dropping off the perch at an alarming rate, or like me are fed up with others constantly moaning and using the forum just to vent their frustrations.

In this particular case it is about something that we all knew was going to happen anyway. Anybody with half an ounce of common sense knew it was inevitable.

I'm afraid this is not specific to this forum as it appears to be the way of the world these days.

 

Don. A friend of mine once said that people went into politics because they were poor business people (He also thought Maggie Thatcher was a bit left wing !)

Alan. I wouldn't want to denigrate anybody. far from it. If there are people who want to be involved in our hobby who have financial restrictions, maybe we should be discussing how we can help them on the forum instead of topics like this one. I for one would be all in favour, particularly at a local level.

ED. No comparison. Just stating facts and reminding people of them.

I am well aware of the actions of working men and women in the 1950's. Some of them were better than others. 

I take it that you don't believe that the CAA carries out a service that is of benefit to aeromodellers ? They have their overheads increased as well.

 

This is my last post on this thread as I can see it ending up as the usual "slanging match"

However on a positive note I have read a comment that has piqued my interest and I will be starting a new thread on the subject, which I hope will have a more constructive response.

 

Mods. Please feel free to alter or delete this post.

I suspect that less people are posting comments or starting threads because the performative moaning across this site is deeply tiring. Why bother visiting for a few nuggets of useful info when you have to wade through the angry self regarding of a post-eager minority of increasingly irrelevant old men banging on about what they can't change to a willing audience of the same. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, yes...........I do get it. BMFA have done an excellent job in minimising potential very serious damage to our hobby and without those efforts goodness knows where we might be now. It's nothing to do with being grumpy or miserable, I'm actually quite a nice bloke, so my wife tells me ?

BTW, It now costs me £14 in Diesel to pay for a trip to my flying field so the money aspect of nine quid going to ten is irrelevant to me. However, may I ask a couple of simple questions? What tangible good is the registration scheme having to date and what specific benefits to BMFA members, those flyers outside of our organisation or simply the general public at large is it providing? Just saying "well, it's the law" isn't good enough in my book.

Quite frankly, the whole reason that any HM Government has to regularly face the opposition parties and therefore justify or in some cases change its direction, means that we should never just accept things that are dictated to us on the face of it,  but be prepared to query and push for change or modification if the situation sold to us is proved to be flawed.

 

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

On 21/03/2022 at 21:26, Andrew Calcutt said:

Just wondering if anyone puts the reg no. on models and has anyone ever been asked for it.

To me, this is a deeply concerning post.  I would hope this question was intended to read "Just wondering if anyone hasn't put the reg no. on models and has anyone ever been asked for it".

 

Whatever your thoughts on the relevance of the legislation, failure to comply with the law of the land can only bring the hobby into disrepute and while we have no policy of policing the requirement within our club, to the best of my knowledge, all our members have registered and have their registrations fixed to their models. 

 

While it is unlikely that a passing policeman would make a snap inspection, in the case of an incident the lack of an Op ID could prove costly to both the individual and to the credibility of the model flying community.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not the £1 increase that annoys me. Its not even the original £9 fee. Its the fact that we derive NO BENEFIT whatsoever from this charge. All it does is provide the thin end of the wedge for an ever increasing tax that does nothing except pay for a few more unnecessary bureaucrats.

 

As to what we can do about it, perhaps not much. But equally, I seem to recall that Grant Shapps was very vocal in the defence of model flying (and general aviation) before he became a minister. Perhaps (and I admit it is clutching at straws) a few thousand angry letters from BMFA members just might make him think a bit harder about this.

 

If we do nothing, we concede this charge increasing annually, for no good reason.

 

--

Pete

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We get nothing" ? Incorrect, law changed whether some like it or not, we get to continue flying IF we pay the fee and display the numbers. Outside that you're unlawful.

 

Numbers ? Do we display them ? Yes, had one or two at field saying it's daft, waste of time and they're ain't interested, fine, go elsewhere then, here we fly within the law.

 

Grass got cut by council yesterday, costs gone up more than £1 for EVERY cut not just a one off, Why we get nothing for it ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that even with the £1 rise, the taxpayer is still subsidising the costs of running the scheme.  I suspect that we may be lucky that we haven't been asked to pay all of it!

 

I think that all the talk of not receiving any benefits is pretty irrelevant...the government has decided, in its wisdom, that registration is required so the service we are receiving is facilitating our permission to fly. We are probably lucky if future rises are in the order of inflation - especially if electronic conspicuity is introduced!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in difficult times and the overall intention of this registration is benign and not a significant cost. I think it helps to increase the respectability of our hobby.

 

BTW, the registration process with the FAA in America is not more onerous - it is more or less identical. (As I predicted, we have more or less copied the American process, with a lag of a few years. This not surprising: most rules around aviation are pretty similar in the whole western world.) One difference: registration was adopted by modellers there with very little fuss, although there was a lot of discussion and angst before it came into law, because at one time it looked as though the constraints on aeromodelling were going to be much greater. Overall, the US government is rather in favour of aeromodelling, because they see it as a potential recruitment vehicle for the aviation industry and the Air Force. (Remember, the likes of Neil Armstrong, and Rutan started as aeromodellers.).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

"We get nothing" ? Incorrect, law changed whether some like it or not, we get to continue flying IF we pay the fee and display the numbers. Outside that you're unlawful.

 

Numbers ? Do we display them ? Yes, had one or two at field saying it's daft, waste of time and they're ain't interested, fine, go elsewhere then, here we fly within the law.

 

Grass got cut by council yesterday, costs gone up more than £1 for EVERY cut not just a one off, Why we get nothing for it ?

John, if the CAA in its wisdom insisted that all model flyers etc had to wear bright red tunics with 'UAV operator' written on them and had the law changed to enforce the regulation when flying their machines, would you have nothing to say except "OK where do I buy my approved tunic so as to remain lawful"? Perhaps the CAA's legally required flying dress code might eventually include a dayglow top hat? How would you feel about remaining legal then?

Absurd (I hope, but you never know) situations, so please forgive the flippant tone,  but then how absurd would  a legally binding and cost based to the user  offical registration scheme of so far, doubtful effectiveness or benefit have been only a few years ago?

After a number of years of being in operation, we'd  like to see a few statistics covering the number of incidents where the registration scheme has come into action and not just as an OTT ledger of who has paid their dues. Typically since its introduction,  the number of prosecutions for flying illegally, and occasions where a lost machine has been traced to its source via its number, might prove interesting one way or the other. I suppose the cost in £s per action could be shown and some sort judgement as to the worth of the whole thing looked into. Isn't this is what the Freedom of information act is used for?

As for remaining legal, I do agree that as responsible people we need to grit our teeth for the time being and go with the flow, as unpallatable as it is to many of us.

 

Edited by Cuban8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, John Stainforth said:

BTW, the registration process with the FAA in America is not more onerous - it is more or less identical. (As I predicted, we have more or less copied the American process, with a lag of a few years. This not surprising: most rules around aviation are pretty similar in the whole western world.) One difference: registration was adopted by modellers there with very little fuss, although there was a lot of discussion and angst before it came into law, because at one time it looked as though the constraints on aeromodelling were going to be much greater. 

 

Registration may be straightforward, but don't forget Remote ID is now enshrined in US law with implementation looming in the medium term - dates and further details are on the FAA site...

  • September 16, 2022:
    • Drone manufacturers must comply with the final rule's requirements for them.
  • September 16, 2023:
    • All drone pilots must meet the operating requirements of part 89. For most operators this will mean flying a Standard Remote ID Drone, equipping with a broadcast module, or flying at a FRIA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Cuban8 said:

John, if the CAA in its wisdom insisted that all model flyers etc had to wear bright red tunics with 'UAV operator' written on them and had the law changed to enforce the regulation when flying their machines, would you have nothing to say except "OK where do I buy my approved tunic so as to remain lawful"? Perhaps the CAA's legally required flying dress code might eventually include a dayglow top hat? How would you feel about remaining legal then?

Absurd (I hope, but you never know) situations, so please forgive the flippant tone,  but then how absurd would  a legally binding and cost based to the user  offical registration scheme of so far, doubtful effectiveness or benefit have been only a few years ago?

After a number of years of being in operation, we'd  like to see a few statistics covering the number of incidents where the registration scheme has come into action and not just as an OTT ledger of who has paid their dues. Typically since its introduction,  the number of prosecutions for flying illegally, and occasions where a lost machine has been traced to its source via its number, might prove interesting one way or the other. I suppose the cost in £s per action could be shown and some sort judgement as to the worth of the whole thing looked into. Isn't this is what the Freedom of information act is used for?

As for remaining legal, I do agree that as responsible people we need to grit our teeth for the time being and go with the flow, as unpallatable as it is to many of us.

 

 

I had something to say C8, I said it, and backed my association in every move they made, now I've accepted the deal they got us I'm getting on with my life.

 

Red Tunics ? No way am I wearing Liverpool/Man Utd colours, I'll be pressing the BMFA to get dispensation to wear Spurs colours.

The numbers and nitty gritty of the scheme I can't get enthused about C8, but as our club has added two to the number sadly, my efforts will be going into prevention of that being repeated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cuban8 said:

John, if the CAA in its wisdom insisted that all model flyers etc had to wear bright red tunics with 'UAV operator' written on them and had the law changed to enforce the regulation when flying their machines, would you have nothing to say except "OK where do I buy my approved tunic so as to remain lawful"? Perhaps the CAA's legally required flying dress code might eventually include a dayglow top hat? How would you feel about remaining legal then?

Absurd (I hope, but you never know) situations, so please forgive the flippant tone,  but then how absurd would a legally binding and cost based to the user official registration scheme of so far, doubtful effectiveness or benefit have been only a few years ago?

 

If the bright red tunics were brought forward as a proposed law then yes, I'd fully support that being actively questioned by individual modellers and the national associations because it would be a new and additional requirement. What would be crazy is mounting a campaign for the removal of registration as a whole on the basis that the cost went up by £1.

 

Pilot registration is here - we fought it for ~3-4 years and lost, and almost every country in the world is currently or has already implemented it as a foundational control for the integration of SUAS for commercial and recreational use into the low level airspace. Why is it seen as foundational? Because for remote ID to work you first need a system in place that allows pilots to register and creates unique IDs whcih can be broadcast from the model.

 

Whether we agree or disgree with that and whether the widespread use of BVLOS commercial drones is likely in the near future or not is irrelevant at this point. The debate has been had and overwhelmingly won by governments and aviation authorities across the world, so registration is here to stay. The very fact that this is pretty ubiquitous globally makes it especially unlikely that the governement will about face, as they'd then have to explain why toother countries that we trade with / are engaged in trade negotiations with. The national associations know this very well, which is why they are not asking members to start a letter writing campaign against the price rise or registration in general. The only thing I hope that they are doing behind the scenes is working with the CAA/government to ensure there is a binding agreement in place that prevents registration fees rising beyond the rate of inflation.

 

1 hour ago, Cuban8 said:

After a number of years of being in operation, we'd  like to see a few statistics covering the number of incidents where the registration scheme has come into action and not just as an OTT ledger of who has paid their dues. Typically since its introduction,  the number of prosecutions for flying illegally, and occasions where a lost machine has been traced to its source via its number, might prove interesting one way or the other. I suppose the cost in £s per action could be shown and some sort judgement as to the worth of the whole thing looked into. Isn't this is what the Freedom of information act is used for?

 

Request away if you wish, but I wouldn't expect to get much useful back...

  1. Registration alone is only seen as an underpinning foundation. As a result I'm not aware that either the CAA or governement made any commitments to it delivering meaningful reductions in transgressions of the law or improvements in prosecution rates in the short term. For that you'd need remote ID on top and all the officers trained up and with the kit to ID SUAS from the ground, and that isn't in place yet (thankfully).
  2. There is a "get out of jail free" option on FoI requests that allows authorites to avoid giving a comprehensive answer if they don't already have the data and/or if it's too costly/complex to complete the request. Here is an example of that on this very topic from 2019
Edited by MattyB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had thought the "Drone" threads were a thing of the past, 3-4 years of the same stuff written daily.

Here's what Irks me the most. Revisiting with the same old gripes and the same cackhanded insults at our fellow modelers, surrender monkeys, rolled over, just take it, do nothing ? Nonsense.

 

And then we have the BMFA et al, the ones who actually took the lead (With the help of their members contributing) and fought our case, the constant prodding of them, they should do this, they should do that ? THEY got us a better deal than most of us expected and I've no doubts they will continue to fight in our interest, when there's a fight to fight, the renewed moaning implies they failed us, they did NOT.

 

Myself and others have asked "What's your plan" No replies ?

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...