CAA Proposes 8.3% increase in Operator Registration Fee from April 2024

[Peter Jenkins]

35 minutes ago, FlyinFlynn said:

We are already out of it, or at least quite a large part of it (remind me, what is the maximum height we are allowed to fly at and what did that height used to be 10 years ago?) As sure as night follows day there will be further restrictions because money talks and, as a tiny cohort, aeromodellers don't have enough of it to fight those influential organisations with designs on the rest of the airspace. Cold, hard facts trump head-burying every time.

10 years ago, for aircraft below 7 kg excluding fuel (but including batteries) the height limit was - must remain in unaided visibility.

 

Today, for aircraft below 7.5 kg AUW the height limit is - must remain in unaided visibility.  OK, yoy also have to be a member of one of 4 institutions mentioned in Article 16.

 

I'm struggling to see the point you are trying to make as the vast majority of model aircraft fall into the under 7.5 kg weight limit.  OK, above 7.5 kg you need an exemption but you can apply for that and you are not limited to 1,500 ft - can't think of many reasons why you would want to go higher although large thermsl soarers might wish to do that.

[Cuban8]

Not everyone's out to get us...............https://www.nats.aero/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/WhitePaper_South_of_the_clouds_March23.pdf

Page 16, third paragraph from bottom. The rest of the article is also well worth a read.

I doubt that much of what is discussed in the document is presently anywhere near becoming a major part of everyday life, but clearly needs to be thought about and consideration of how the future might look in the coming years.

A timescale is still guesswork IMHO, but I think getting large fleets of unmanned flying vehicles to operate safely among themselves and not be a danger to the public, buildings and full size aviation, will give them quite enough to think about, rather than wasting their time hatching a dastardly plot to destroy our hobby which in any case poses next to no risk, or at worst a pinprick of danger to such operations, even if we carry on as we do now.

[Erfolg]

Cuban, I am far from convinced that any one is out to get us. At the same time I do believe that on occasion that unintended consequences occur.

 

I look at the membership of the BMFA, probably circa 27,000-28,000 at present from about 33,000 some years back. We are all aware of the significant changes in all of the retail trade, what is on the high street, especially Model shop numbers. The liquidation of Ripmax, and the reduction in model aircraft publications, tells a story with respect to the value of the model  trade.

 

Lets say there are actually circa 100,000 modelers, the numbers are still low, out of +62 million population. Over the years i have seen many attempts to bring fresh blood into the hobby. At best the increases and success being transient. In short many will see us as irrelevant. The BMFA is now more relevant than ever, no longer just being the preferred provider of insurance. Financially we are limited in our resources.

 

If we look at the commercial drone business, it is most probably seen in Whitehall and all of the political parties as potentially having a positive provision to the economy, with emphasis on the future. All the obstacles that many foresaw as game stoppers, seem to step, by step, disappear.  Commercial Inspections of infrastructure seem to be routine, logistic deliveries of medicines and post between remote sites, are no longer fanciful. The resources available to the sector dwarf our own, political access is an area where these businesses are well versed.

 

Where does this picture leave us? I would argue exposed to the vagaries of the future. Commercial operators in general will be well placed to absorb the CAA cost, in addition being tax deductible, in the sense that it is an operating cost in their accounts.

 

Im am always weary of the suggestion that this increase has little affect on us. This one has little impact on myself, may not be true for others. Going forward thre is a limit to how much I would or maybe could pay.

 

I am totally dependant on the BMFA fighting our corner, there are conflicts of interest with commercial operators. 

 

As a group we operate from and restrict ourselves to club sites in general. We do not place the public in jeopardy operating from remote or seclude locations. There are many more differentiator from us hobbyists from the commercial scene.

 

Yes, i was one who expected/predicted price increases, probably more and about this time period. I did not and do not see myself as a doomster, more a realist.

 

 

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

3 hours ago, FlyinFlynn said:

(remind me, what is the maximum height we are allowed to fly at and what did that height used to be 10 years ago?) 

As a BMFA member with an aircraft below 7.5kg there is no stated maximum height other than maintaining visual line of sight. For over 7.5kg it's either 400ft, or higher if the site has a BMFA Permit to fly over 7.5kg aircarft above 400ft.

So the same as 10 years for under 7.5kg, same as 10 years ago for over 7.5kg without a permit, but higher if a BMFA site permit is issued, in effect we have more freedoms now than 10 years ago.

[steve too]

4 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

10 years ago, for aircraft below 7 kg excluding fuel (but including batteries) the height limit was - must remain in unaided visibility.

 

Today, for aircraft below 7.5 kg AUW the height limit is - must remain in unaided visibility.  OK, you also have to be a member of one of 4 institutions mentioned in Article 16.

 

The BMFA's failure to resist the change to altitude rule back in 2016/17 (?) was an eye-opener for me.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Well I read through new posts, still think you're moaners. 😉

[GaryW]

11 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:

Well I read through new posts, still think you're moaners. 😉

 

What did I start with this thread........ 

[Nigel Dell]

6 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

10 years ago, for aircraft below 7 kg excluding fuel (but including batteries) the height limit was - must remain in unaided visibility.

 

Today, for aircraft below 7.5 kg AUW the height limit is - must remain in unaided visibility.  OK, yoy also have to be a member of one of 4 institutions mentioned in Article 16.

 

I'm struggling to see the point you are trying to make as the vast majority of model aircraft fall into the under 7.5 kg weight limit.  OK, above 7.5 kg you need an exemption but you can apply for that and you are not limited to 1,500 ft - can't think of many reasons why you would want to go higher although large thermsl soarers might wish to do that.

I know my memory isn’t what it used to be but I seem to remember having to apply to the CAA for an exemption for my first 30cc 14lb model back in the early 80’s. I know this was upped over time and with larger and heavier models now around you would expect that exemptions would be required but we have always had some sort of regulation for what we do, and we have always moved with the times with as in my personal case a minimum of change, with current regulation we have no real choice but to make the best of it.

Can I fly what I did 20 - 40 years ago? Yes I can, as Andy says we can pretty much do what we did with the help of article 16, I appreciate some maybe affected as I would, had I still lived in Shropshire and 20 acres to fly from, I was a member of clubs as well, but the more that this stressed about the less I would enjoy my life long hobby.

I could take up models trains but they don’t get high enough 😂

[Peter Jenkins]

2 hours ago, steve too said:

 

The BMFA's failure to resist the change to altitude rule back in 2016/17 (?) was an eye-opener for me.

Which altitude rule was that?

 

It is quite extraordinary to see such rubbish written after all the efforts of the BMFA that has led the way for not only UK model flyers but also those on the European Mainland.  Incidentally, who is "the BMFA"?  There are 3 paid staff who do this type of work.  The rest of the BMFA committee members are all volunteers who give their time for free.  What do you do to contribute to this effort?  You are in a very small minority of people who will gripe about anything given the slightest chance.  Can I ask if when you were first asked by the BMFA:

 

• Did you write to your MP?
• Did you respond to the CAA's information gathering request?
• Did you go and see the Secretary of State to explain why you were seeking a way to carry on as before given the need for the Government to control the use of multi-rotor drones?

For you to now write such an utter distortion of the truth is beyond belief.  If you don't like what the BMFA has done then you are in a very small minority of malcontents.  

 

Perhaps it's time you took up another hobby and spared us this continuous whining when for the sake of a £10 "tax" we can continue to fly as we have always done.  The next challenge is clearly going to be beyond you so you can take it that the rest of us will take up the banner to try and prevent a blanket ban of being able to fly out of the field at the back of your house.  It is already clear that the CAA is thinking of using "notified" model flying sites to be exempt from RID.  

Edited December 4, 2023 by Peter Jenkins

[ken anderson.]

Well said Peter....and 3 cheers for the BMFA...they do a magnificent job on behalf of me and the other members......

 

Ken Anderson...ne....1 ...flying dept.

[Graham Bowers]

Just popped in to see if it'd got more positive. Seemingly not. It's easy to criticise.

 

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the BMFA do a good job for us.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

4 hours ago, steve too said:

 

The BMFA's failure to resist the change to altitude rule back in 2016/17 (?) was an eye-opener for me.

It is rare to read something so far removed from reality. We actually have more freedoms now when it comes to heights we can fly at than we did before.

i suppose sometimes the blinkers just won't come off. Oh well.

[Graham Bowers]

57 minutes ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

It is rare to read something so far removed from reality. We actually have more freedoms now when it comes to heights we can fly at than we did before.

i suppose sometimes the blinkers just won't come off. Oh well.

I come across intransigence from time to time in my voluntary work. I've concluded that for some people, the sound of their own voice complaining is music to their ears.

[steve too]

13 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Which altitude rule was that?

 

Prior to Air Navigation (Amendment) Order 2018 anybody could fly < 7kg over 400ft without permission or authorisation from the CAA. Currently I need to be a member of an association with an article 16 authorisation to do so. This change was in the consultation that the DfT published late in 2016. I emailed the BMFA at the time asking why they weren't making a fuss about the change and they replied that they agreed with it.

 

13 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

For you to now write such an utter distortion of the truth is beyond belief.

 

ROTFLMAO

 

13 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

 It is already clear that the CAA is thinking of using "notified" model flying sites to be exempt from RID.  

 

The word that they use is authorised.

[Ron Gray]

10 minutes ago, steve too said:

Currently I need to be a member of an association with an article 16 authorisation to do so.

So are you moaning about the fact that you need to be a member of an association?

[GaryW]

I somehow think some may have not read the Title to this thread......

 

"" CAA Proposes 8.3% increase in Operator Registration Fee from April 2024 ""

Your thoughts on the subject in the title are more than welcome and anticipated...

 

Not the ins & outs of what you disagree with related to the BMFA, BMFA Finances,  Being a member of another association or what laws & legal requirement you disagree with .... So a personal request that we get back to the subject of the thread as titled

 

Kind regards

[Erfolg]

I understand where Steve and others are coming from, I also agree the changes have been implemented that have increased constraint, in addition to cost.

 

In my case, I can no longer go to the beach within a few hundred yards of my home, and fly a model aircraft. The reason I am just within two 5 mile circles of airfields.

 

I have always been exasperated at the suggestion that there will be no material impact on flying model aircraft, in reality that is what has happened, in constraints and money.

 

Being pragmatic what we now have is probably pretty much the best, that could be obtained at the time.

 

I was one who did have a chat with my then MP Graham. I did my best to describe what we do, outline the risks and potential benefits of the hobby. No promises were made by him, he politely pointed at the various issues relating to alleged drone flights at that time.

 

I personally do want to be told that nothing has or will have  changed, when it is clear to see that it has. I do also recognise that things will change. In our case probably requiring more constraints and costs, due to the requirements and desires that the commercial drone industry will press for. I need to be told that the BMFA is putting forward a strong, robust, counter case etc.

 

Our position is one where it would be desirable to have people in Whitehall, listening, talking, lobbying on our behalf with respect to what the Commercial operators want. Also discussing with the appropriate MPs pertinent matters. To establish and maintain a working professional relationship with the CAA. The reality is with the financial and staff that is available to the BMFA with the necessary skills sets, it is all but a dream, not remotely possible.

 

On the other side commercial drone operators will most probably want us to shoulder the costs of CAA drone administration, we may also be seen as a nuisance to their projected operations. Often they will have a dedicated teams of Pr and lobbyists in all the relevant locations to further the development of their business interests.

 

In essence this price increase is trivial, particularly taking into consideration recent  inflation rates, the constant (in some cases understandable) pressures to increase salaries of Governmental employees.

 

I am far more interested in our future, as modellers, and supporting the BMA. Particularly given what realistically achievable by the BMFA. Perhaps those who can should step up to the plate, and walk the talk (I have just resigned from a minor roll, no longer being competent, to reliably, usefully help).

 

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Split off topic posts into a new thread  so let’s return to discussing the proposed CAA increase. 

Edited December 9, 2023 by Martin Harris - Moderator

[GaryW]

10 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Split off topic posts into a new thread  so let’s return to discussing the CAA increase. 

 

Thankyou Martin

[Nigel Heather]

Bit disappointed to see that the money we pay is all for nothing.

 

Watching Vigil on BBC and there was an activisit flying a drone over a military base whilst there was a live flying exercise in progress.  Said he was a bird watcher, saying he used his drone to spot birds and there was no law stopping him from doing that.  And the Police acted like he was right.

 

I'm joking of course, it's just a drama, but did irritate a bit knowing that the hobby is highly regulated but the BBC presents it as a 'you can do what you want'.  The drama even made quips like "this is not a drone, this is an RPAS, drones are what you fly down at the park".