Do you think some sort of registration system would protect the hobby from rogue flyers?

[Mowerman]

Part of the 'rogue flyers' problem is due to dealers selling models without adequate directions regarding correct and legal use. Many trade outlets are only interested in sales and may be un-aware of the legal aspect of flying the models.

If adequate information was included with the models much of the 'rogue' flying would be avoided.

Note - I am referring to 'models' not 'drones' as all types of models are capable of being flown in a rogue manner.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

With respect guys I believe you are missing the point of the question!

The question is not: "Will registration stop rogue flyers?" - we all know it won't.

The question is: "Would registration help to protect us, the legitimate, flyers, from further restrictions and reoutation damage by being branded alike with the irresponsible?"

Most of the answers given so far are to the first question - which wasn't asked!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2016 11:06:08

[Bob Cotsford]

As one who voted for using BMFA/SAA/LMA registrations as a basis for a national , I'd agree with David, we can't stop rogue flyers any more than the DVLA can stop all the rogue uninsured/untaxed vehicles on our roads. What we can do is to identify ourselves as legitimate and accountable flyers with insurance and as being registered with an existing authority. Whether this would affect the views of those members of the public outside the hobby is debatable and possibly a different question.

[Colin Carpenter]

No point in it at all. The authorities will do what they want regardless ! Were all doomed !!!!!!Colin

[Robin Colbourne]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2016 11:04:56:

With respect guys I believe you are missing the point of the question!

The question is not: "Will registration stop rogue flyers?" - we all know it won't.

The question is: "Would registration help to protect us, the legitimate, flyers, from further restrictions and reoutation damage by being branded alike with the irresponsible?"

Most of the answers given so far are to the first question - which wasn't asked!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2016 11:06:08

Good point BEB.

A very simple move the BMFA could introduce would be to supply a row of perhaps ten stickers next to one's BMFA card sticker. Each sticker would be attached to one's models, showing an email or phone number for the BMFA and the member's number. That way, if the model was found, it would allow traceablility. Probably not a scheme the BMFA office themselves would want to run, as I'm sure they are far too busy, but there might be a willing volunteer to whom this could be delegated.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Colin - I disagree - I think they are genuinely looking for a solution. Maybe if instead of just "spitting out our dummy" we continue to engage (as I understand the BMFA are) then we might get a solution that, while not entirely what we would have wanted, is at least acceptable and workable.

OK, I have posted so far to clarify the question, now for my personal opinion. I'll probably get strung-up for this, but this is what I think we should do.

1. I think all pilots of UAVs (that includes models) should be personally licenced. The scheme could be operated by the BMFA with the current A-cert being a basic class licence to fly aircraft upto 7Kg and the current B-cert being an endorsement on that licence that covers you to 20Kg.

2. All models/UAVs should carry the licence number of the pilot - basically that could be your BMFA number.

3. Operating a model aircraft/UAV without a licence, or if not under the supervision of a licence holder in the case of a learner, should be an offence.

I feel that if we offered this the powers that be would "take our arm off". Yes, I know, we'd much rather not have this. I am sympathic to those lone flyers that are not BMFA members etc as this will effect them the most. But, I believe the vast majority of us could cope with this, it would head off more ill-thought-out legislation that might really hurt us and it is perhaps the least damaging option.

OK, I'm now going to retire into my bomb proof shelter to ride out the storm of howls of protest!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2016 11:58:43

[Ian Jones]

I see your points BEB but how would this actually "protect the hobby from rogue flyers"? Under this system a rogue flyer today would be no different after such a scheme came into being, especially as has been said without enforcement.

Enforcement is the actual problem and we see it time and time again. Mobile phones have been mentioned so there's an example. The legislation already existed to deal with mobile phone use in cars (not in in proper control of a vehicle) but that wasn't being sufficiently enforced. Now we have a law specifically against using a mobile phone whilst driving and it's the same problem, it is not sufficiently enforced.

Introducing any registration/law with no provision and obligation for an authority to enforce it would be another wasted encumberance that is not needed.

BMFA membership converted to registration, no problem but I IMHO pointless.

There's my view of it, any space in your shelter BEB?

Ian

Edited By Ian Jones on 11/02/2016 12:14:54

[Colin Carpenter]

Sorry BEB. We will have to agree to disagree. I fly my toy planes in a club field normally on my own. No A . This sort of offer to the authorities would mean no more flying for me. Doesn't get my vote i'm afraid.The idiots will still do what they want regardless of law. And like mobiles only bad luck will mean a nick !! Colin

[Don Fry]

BEB, fine but the current certificates are not weight related, nothing in the B makes you a better heavy model flyer. How then do they become relevant to weight. And I would be a bit peeved if I had to do an A test to fly a chuck glider. We are going to change. Change will be imposed, but don't start the process by concession. That then is the starting position for our enemies to start their negotiations from.

And don't tell me again that a chuck glider resulted in an accident. The presence of insurance made that expensive, and famous.

[Ronaldo]

I don't really know what the answer to the problem is. My first thought would be "No" because the rogue flyers would not be daft enough to register and put ID on their models or even be insured anyway for fear of being caught flying illegally.

But then again if everyone had to register as we have seen happening in the states, [ don't kid yourselves, this could easily happen here in the UK, which I hope it doesn't by the way ! ], anyone seen flying in an area or in manner that raises suspicion, then the authorities would have the right to check them out and ask for proof of registration. Then if unable to produce any proof, ID, or insurance, they can deal with them as necessary, and/or confiscate their gear, but that's assuming they have enough manpower to do this which obviously they don't. Similar to police doing a spot check on a motor vehicle, if a driver can't produce documents and is not in the 'system' then they impound the vehicle and fine the driver.

Then of course we would be heading evermore further into being a 'Nanny State' which could put off any genuine newcomers, or even those who have already been flying for years, and so will not help the future of our great hobby.

Difficult times ahead me thinks .....

Edited By Ronaldo on 11/02/2016 12:55:45

Edited By Ronaldo on 11/02/2016 12:58:37

[Kevin Wilson]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2016 11:04:56:

With respect guys I believe you are missing the point of the question!

The question is not: "Will registration stop rogue flyers?" - we all know it won't.

The question is: "Would registration help to protect us, the legitimate, flyers, from further restrictions and reoutation damage by being branded alike with the irresponsible?"

Most of the answers given so far are to the first question - which wasn't asked!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2016 11:06:08

I am answering the question at the top of the page

"Q: Do you think some sort of registration system would protect the hobby from rogue flyers?"

To which I answered "None", which appears to broadly agree with the majority of others.

I am not sure where you are getting your question from BEB, is that your interpretation of what appears at the top of the page.

[Jon H]

I do not think that we need to go quite as far as BEB has suggested as limiting models over 7kg to B cert holders only etc is not ideal i dont think.

And if we can move away from the 'we are all doomed so whats the point' idea for a moment, i do agree with BEB in that i think most of the current problems are caused by people not knowing what they are doing is wrong. If they register, or gain membership or whatever it is at or before the point of sale, and then receive valuable and accurate information we stand a far better chance than with the current setup.

Some will still ignore the rules, we know this, but just because a % will dose not mean we cannot see some improvement in the situation.

[Piers Bowlan]

Are accidents with model aircraft common? No.

Have they become more common recently? No.

Will registration make model aircraft safer? No.

Will registration stop rogue pilots from flying in breach of the ANO? No.

Will registration stop terrorists from attempting to use model aircraft as weapons? No.

Will the general public view of model flyers be any different if they are registered. No.

Is the public view relevent? No. They think model flyers are just a bunch of old farts playing with their toy planes.

Will the BMFA be able to persuade EASA to drop proposals to register model aircraft/pilots. No. It is law in the US and Ireland and I have no doubt that EASA will push it through regardless of the CAA position, so it will become law in Europe (we are part of Europe in case anyone has any doubt!).

Will it be enforceable in the real world? No.

Sorry to be so negative chaps but that is just the way I see it.

[John Mccullagh]

the authorities are not interested in stopping people who break the rules ,their only interest is blaming everyone else when some one gets caught . The mobile phone use in cars is a farce as is the drone use by irresponsible flyers,but i think most of them do know that there are rules any way ,most of the videos posted are breaking the rule s but they are still posted.with no comment s about the legality of them .banning people from flying large untested models will not stop people doing that either.rant over .

[John Mccullagh]

Piers post says it all really but he types faster than me .

[Kevin Wilson]

To pick up on a couple of views here regarding information.

It has been suggested that retailers need to be engaged in any change of current regulation.

In the first instance would it be possible to require retailers to include an information sheet in with any flying model.

This would be less onerous both to the Authorities (no database or ongoing enforcement) the retailer (no feedback process, just distribution of information) and existing flyers.

I am a country BMFA member and prominently display my BMFA number in the fashion of full size CAA registration. I also have my A cert. so I am pretty much complying already with the majority of suggestions.

I just feel that laws only affect the law abiding. The headline question was regarding rogue flyers, whom I am sure would neither register nor care.

[Basa]

I have recently lost my flying field of some 18 years , this was a council run large field mainly used for foot ball, we all ways had official permission to fly there when foot ball was not on . The rules were to fly from the north east end and in spite off all of us flying small to med sized electric A/C and insured , we were aware that one resident living out side off the boundary at the southern end of the field was always trying to stop us using the field, then one day a novice pilot let his model fly away and crashed in to her garden she made a complaint which lost all of us the use of this facility.

My question is how will registration help in this example and who is going to police it ?

[Olly P]

I used to take part in a hobby which was hit very hard by legislation, hidden within another act.

We had warning it was coming via some of our friends who also took part, and we managed to create a legal defence. This required a formal 'registration' to allow us to purchase equipment.

I set up the first version of the scheme and then handed it onto others.

It has only made it more difficult for those who follow the law, not those who would break it or be unaware of it anyway, while there is a significant impact on the retailers for that hobby, as they have to check for registration before sale, and thus anyone above board will be guided down the right track, it has not stopped those it aimed to prevent. If anything it has made some of the problem worse with market stall/car boot dealers etc.

I think a BMFA led awareness scheme, with support from responsible retailers - and I don't mean traditional modelling outlets, is likely to achieve more.

Staples even sell RTF ROV quadcopters (not drones) now, this is the type of sale that will go to those who don't know the rules.

[Cuban8]

Can't speak for other countries, but if UK model flyers (no matter what it is they're operating) are saddled with new legislation and regulations along the lines that we've seen elsewhere in the world, then it'll be a massive over reaction by our regulatory authorities to what are really very tiny risks to life and limb.

What will a registration system achieve other than additional expense and bureaucracy? The bad guys will still operate as though nothing has happened and we'll still see the occasional sensationalist headline about drones and near misses near airports etc.

The good guys (i.e us) are doing our bit - clubs are making their members aware of their legal responsibilities by redrafting rule books etc and the BMFA are including questions about relevant air law within the achievement scheme questions. We're all insured, and the majority of us fly within what is already a regulated environment i.e a club. Those that are not flying within a club environment but are BMFA members are also hardly likely to be a problem by virtue of the good sense demonstrated by joining the national body in the first place!

Will registration protect us from the bad guys? of course it won't - we can only hope that our actions to date will convince others of our concerns and that we take our responsibilities seriously. Catching rogue operators and prosecuting them will be down to others.

[Paul Jefferies]

I agree that there will always be "rogues" who ignore the law and enforcement is always a problem. Though we may not agree with it, until they cause a problem they are not really a problem......... However if they DO cause a problem, you need something to hit them with and the very fact that they are flying without registration would be grounds for prosecution. So, if you see someone behaving irresponsibly you can report it (which you can do already) but if they do not have the required registration that alone would be grounds for prosecution. It may well be that many of the idiots who have caused this problem in the first place were simply not aware of the stupidity or danger of their actions and a registration scheme and possibly an information sheet at point of purchase would at least increase general awareness of the responsibility that goes with flying a model aircraft of any type.

OK, now I take cover but as BEB has pointed out, this is about protecting responsible flyers and preventing the imposition of completely unworkable and even more draconian regulation. Sorry folks but whether we like or not, regulation is coming and we need to get in on the ground floor and try to steer it in a direction we can work with.

[Cabbage Man]

 

Maybe if you read the EASA consultation document you will see they have already commented on the concept of a registration scheme and dismissed it as a waste of time and counter productive . It ain't gonna happen .

 

The CAA are also fully aware it won't achieve any measurable benefit at all in dealing with rogue pilots of drones .

Those that think it's necessary might bulk of the cost of such a scheme is passed onto us .

Edited By Electric God on 11/02/2016 15:37:39

[Kevin Wilson]

Registration only catches the registered.

Take a unregistered motor vehicle. Clearly identifiable. Definitively on an established database. Imposible to trace the operator.

I worked with a chap with a clear disregard for the law and a collection of unregistered vehicles. Saved him a fortune in insurance and road fund. He carried no identification and if one got crushed, well! it was cheaper than paying for insurance.

An unregistered model crashes into your neghbours greenhouse. No markings so no chance of tracing the pilot.
But hang on... a quick look at the database shows there is a chap next door that is registered....... Prove it wasnt you!

OK, open fire on me for an unlikely scenario. But how would registration help that situation.

[Stuphedd]

there are a lot of us on here who remember when we had to have licences for out Radio Gear , and a nominated station from which it would be operated .

Mine was in the middle of a field midway between home and the flying field , and there was a range restriction .

did it do any good at all ???

I dont think so

cheers

[Cabbage Man]

Taken from the EASA document :

The classic assumption is that only the traditional certification and licensing processes would mitigate such hazards and keep the aviation system safe. Even if certification and licensing conditions were kept as ‘light’ as possible, the traditional manned aviation approach is likely to produce a too heavy approach to drones, especially to the small-drone market. The level of rigour applied to safety management in manned aviation (involving strict controls of aircraft design, production and maintenance; pilots; operations with (in most cases) ex ante licensing and continuous monitoring) is disproportionate to the risk posed by many drone operations. Overburdening low-risk operations lead to a climate of indifference or to illegal operations adversely affecting safety.

In the drone sector a typical operator does not have an aviation background, even commercial operators don’t consider themselves as aircraft operators and they want to use a tool which is in many cases much safer than, e.g., climbing on oil rigs for inspections.

[John F]

As others have stated unless registration is mandatory prior to purchasing, and you have a transfer scheme for stuff you sell that is also mandatory, any registration scheme is pointless. A voluntary scheme even more so.

Don't forget though that you can purchase anything, legalities of imports etc aside, from any corner of the world. Unless it is mandatory worldwide there really is no point whatsoever in any registration scheme as only those willing to register on it, and therefore remain "genuine" would have any involvement or have to pay.

It's like those voluntary dog registration schemes - pointless apart from the genuine keepers. It doesn't stop the guy down the road from keeping his malnourished, angry dog.

The other aspect is that the registration scheme is only worth anything if the offending aircraft is recovered. Any registered person could fly around, break the law, film anywhere they like, drop mobile phones or drugs into prisons etc but unless the aircraft is recovered no-one will have any clue who did it.

What is the registration scheme for? Some say it might help so the registered fliers branded as irresponsible. It is so I can sit and wave a card that "proves" that I am a "responsible flier"? That's not really going to placate the person with the big tar brush is it?

"You're an irresponsible flier"

"No I'm not, I've got a registration card that says I'm not" Hardly an effective aim of a registration scheme.

The other side is parts. We can all build a perfectly good aircraft from parts, scraps or bits left over or bought in job lots from fleabay. If anyone wishes to avoid the radar then making a model from bits would be one avenue that you cannot shut down or regulate.

Imagine if they did regulate parts?

The talk in the pub would be "Psst, mate, wanna buy some 1/4 inch ply?"

"Keep your voice down. No mate I'm good, but I am looking for two 7 x 6 props" it.