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

[alan p]

Sorry chaps we already register when taking BMFA membership and insurance . The system exists, data is available only those not bothered about consequences (rogue operators) won't bother to join.

As far as drones are concerned software can leave them dormant till registered with residence confirmation and activation code supplied.

As a previous contributor mentioned we are already governed by ANO the most draconian legislation on the books

[Erfolg]

Alan many drones are constructed from parts, not even kits. Not the type i have played with, the mass produced toy. It does seem that that the more capable from a lifting capability a drone is, the greater is the potential to self build. This potentially avoids any type of built in software to limit operation.

The nature of registration that most are alluding to is not of the type of being a member of the BMFA represents

Commercial drone operators are probably in favour of a registration type system. Potentially it reduces the competition for business in the UK.

I do recognise that there is a problem with drones, and it is multi faceted. The real issue for the traditional modeller is how to be swept up into the same category as both the irresponsible and the criminal operators. The challenge for the BMFA is recognise that there ambition to represent all model air sport (or hobby) needs to suppressed in the interests of their responsible members. Most of whom are fixed wing and helicopter modellers.

[Martin McIntosh]

I have not read all through this but I did suggest on another thread that it may be an idea if shops had to register the details of a purchaser of any size of `drone` much in the way that they have to forward details when you buy a TV set. It may put off some of the cowboys who are bringing our hobby into disrepute.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

BMFA seems to have spotted the need to separate us from the problem flyers, they only recently published a set of mandatory questions IF you take a test..and how did that go down with some ? (bear in mind these questions have always been there, and have been asked already)

Many people are saying and have said in other threads WE should take action to separate ourselves ?

I believe that's correct way to go

Others keep harping on about our past record and we should be left alone, too late for that, damage has been done, and like it or not it won't go away.

So if your answer is to object to whatever is proposed/done, where are we ?

I can live with a few minor changes to things myself, not much I can do anyway, others can bury their heads till it go's away.

John

[Dave Hopkin]

In the eyes of UK law and EU Regulations there is no difference between a multi rotor, a helo and a fixed wing model - they are all "drones" or more accurately "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" - so any attempt to build some sort of separation between Helo/Plank flyers and Multi-rotor flyers is a non-starter outside of the hobby - in any case a large number of traditional plank flyers also fly multirotors

Like it or not any legislation is going to impact ALL rc flying - there may be segregation in terms of Weight or some sort of risk band - but all will be classed as UAV

In any case why do so many people seem to shun multirotors? is it some sort of snobbery just because they have become so accessible? Didn't we have the same sort of attitudes with RTF/ARTF, yet now no-one bats an eyelid!!!!

The world spins, it moves on, technology develops a pace - embrace it, enjoy it.. you may as well because its not going to go away!!!!

[sean smith 1]

The only way you would be able to control the rouge element would be to license rc flyers etc. The BMFA, LMA etc could automatically license their members which then would have to be shown when buying modeling goods or the number checked when buying goods over the inter-net. Any one without a license number would not be able to buy any modeling goods, kits, drones etc.

I know this sounds over the top but i don't see how you could ever stop people just going out and buying a drone and flying it in their back garden in the middle of town?

Most people have no idea about the rules and regulations covering model flying and a lot of them wouldn't give a dam anyway after all its only a toy and they are just having a little fun.

[Erfolg]

John I can see that the BMFA strategy of being able to say "look, we ask and probe, "A" test applicants questions with respect to the ANO, we even go as far to test their attitude to compliance with a ANO regulations". Yet in essence this is PR, we all know and adhere to both the ANO and many other regulations. We are not the problem.

It is imperative that the BMFA does emphasis that we modellers have not historically been the problem.

It may seem that we have a common cause with commercial drone operators. Personally i am not sure that in all respects we are. It seems to me that we are in a similar position to Gas Safe, and the electrical hose hold installers. That position is that many commercial operators would see registration as good news. The reasoning being, it inhibits competition from those who think, yes i can do that. Just like Taxi drivers benefit from restrictions on those who hold a taxi drivers licence and deeply resent and want Uber band. many have a vested interest. I think that in many respects, our existence is annoying, in the present form.

Unfortunately problem fliers are a problem, there actions do not seem to be abating. I am sure that measures are necessary. Be it massive fines, eternity imprisonment or some other action.

Personally I am totally convinced that registration is not the answer to that problem. As irresponsible operation and criminal operations would continue unabated. The challenge of the BMFA and similar organisations is to convince the authorities of this. We need to have no sentimentality with respect to other groups, as i am certain they will look after their interests, even if it means sacrificing the hobby flier.

We need to recognise that the demise of us, could increase the commercial options to the commercial operators.

Edited By Erfolg on 12/02/2016 22:45:21

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

No one thinks registration will solve the problem Erf, all we need to care about is making a move that sets us apart, PR or not we got caught up in this, lets hope we get out with as little change as possible.

And BMFA has been fighting our corner for a long while with CAA and the rest, and all this Drone stuff may well get worse for all we know ? I don't believe we can just ignore it and do nothing.

John

[Cabbage Man]

 

 

Erf,

No one has remotely suggested registration will stop the rogue element on its own. We all know that. There is however good reason to suggest that if we ( the good guys) register ourselves through whatever means, we are at least trying to show the CAA that we are not the problem.

Agreed it will serve no particular use than to provide contact details to enforcement staff etc if required and act as a conduit for news, training etc but how better can we show the police or a member of the public that we are not the scourge of the air than to waive our registration card at them? No registration card = seized drone/foam park model and words of advice. One visit to a BMFA club site and the police would leave you alone and focus on the others.

Your example with Gas Safe is a good one. Everyone should know you must be registered to touch a gas appliance and to ask for their card to prove so. No card= illegal.

Sure it will cost a few quid extra and may give the BMFA another thing to do but it gets a YES from me.

I know its tempting to read something into this idea and think its the start of a swiss style model flying environment but there isn't the case as far as i see it.  The CAA know that if you make the process too onerous, people leave and fly illegally. 

 

 

Edited By Electric God on 13/02/2016 09:06:19

[Dave Hopkin]

I am not sure why everyone keeps saying that the BMFA will be involved with the running of any registrations scheme - if one is implemented here I would very surprised if it was anything other than a CAA/Gov/Police website where registration took place.

[Cabbage Man]

Your correct Dave from a physical point of view but I'm guessing the process of registering may involve first asking if your already a BMFA member and if yes, just enter your number and thats it. Done.

If your not , you get a whole mass of questions and requirements inc proof of insurance, knowledge of law, details of flying sites etc.

By default the BMFA will help the CAA streamline the process. Just my thoughts!

[Dave Hopkin]

I am sure the BMFA will want to have their say - how much they will actually get is up to them

Having spent a great deal of my working life dealing with corporate data and its quality, if there is a mandatory registration scheme created, then I very much doubt if any BMFA data was incorporated into it at all - assuming the US model is copied, there is no legal requirement for insurance, and no legal requirement to belong to the BMFA - so why complicate the process ?

if I were designing the data model, I would not be potentially jeapordising data quality and adding complexity to the process by linking into the BMFA database at all - I would simply have a drop down box to allow selection of BMFA/LMA etc and an alphanumeric box to collect the menbership number BUT that would be all, In a mandatory registration database I would require each pilot to enter their full details in a fully stand-alone system

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Dave:

The idea that the BMFA coud be the registration body stems from three things:

1. As I understand it things work like that in other bodies - eg Gliding, so it may well prove acceptable to the "powers that be".

2. It is by far and away the cheapest option - always attractive to everyone - the information and mehanism is effectively already in place.

3. Of all the possible regulatory changes I think it is the one that is the least unpleasant and disruptive for us, at least in the majority of cases. Although I do agree it would be disruptive for some.

BEB

[Dave Hopkin]

BEB I agree the idea is attractive to us, but from a legislative perspective it probably isnt:

a) The legislator has no way of knowing what the accuracy or integrity of the existing BMFA data is like

b) There is no way to quantify or assess the accuracy against anything

c) Making the BMFA the guardian of registration would entail transforming their legal status into the governing body for the sport (which they currently are not at the moment) as the BGA is already

d) The government would be possibly missing out on a nice little earner

e) Neither the Irish or the US registration schemes have used the MACI or the AMA in the registration process

[Piers Bowlan]

I think that it is pie in the sky that the BMFA would be connected with a mandatory registration system. If it is a CAA/EASA/Government initiative there will be requirements for proof of identity and hefty charges etc. I think it is naive to think that the BMFA cosying up to the CAA is going to engender us with 'special privileges'. As far as EASA is concerned a drone is a drone (or UAV) and that includes us unfortunately. If you have time, do have a read of this. It does not mention registration in this document but it does include GPS ring fencing which means we better start saving up for new radio equipment. I think new restrictions won't end with registration, sadly - I hope I am wrong.

BEB, you have made references to gliding and how the CAA have a 'light touch' in the way it is regulated via the BGA. The LAA is another example. As I understand it certification of (full sized) gliders is regulated by EASA now and the annual cost of renewal has quadrupled as a result. Licencing and pilot medicals is under the control of the BGA at present as the CAA has opted out of the European regulations but only until April 2018 when the EASA regulations become mandatory. Perhaps if there is a BGA member on the forum they could confirm or deny this. My objection to registration is that once the bureaucracy and associated fees start it will grow like Topsy.

[Simon Chaddock]

In theory there is nothing to stop a member of the public buying and flying his own full size glider or ultra-light aircraft from his own land. It would be against the 'rules' but the risk to his life and cost make it rather unlikely to happen so regulation by a non government body is acceptable.

These physical limitations do not exist for models. Provided the actual numbers of models (ie popularity of the sport) remains relatively small the risk to others in the air remains insignificant and can be administratively ignored.

Does the popularity of cheap multi copters still allow this to remain an acceptable level of risk?

I am not sure even the presence of an 'Model Association' makes any difference or for that matter how low the risk has shown to be in past.

It will simply come down to what the legislator of the National air space perceives the level of risk to be and what the government then decides to do about it.

I am sure from a politicians point of view the preferred solution would be to reduce the popularity of model flying so it fell 'below the radar' again as the problem then simply goes away!

[Erfolg]

So it does seem that registration achieves nothing, beyond an increase bureaucracy. We just get pain.

Some have a bee in their bonnet about modellers being insured. I see it as a non problem. I have insurance, as do the vast majority of model fliers. From a public perspective, it is a non issue, as most, if not all incidents involve us, insured modellers. Not being insured has financial implications, potentially to those foolish enough to have no cover.

I fear i could not afford BMFA membership if BEBs vision were to come to pass. All without any benefit, to any one it appears. It would seem the BMFA would cease to be the BMFA as we know it, it becomes a potential QUANGO

The only people who defiantly need registration or a licence are commercial operators. To ensure that they are properly trained, be it a fire fighter, at the scene of a fire, the police supporting an active investigation, or a film crew taking a shot of a cathedral, or a action film. All of these people will often be operating in a populated area, full of hazards. Doing very necessary or cost effective work. Yet there does appear a system in place. All of which is unlike us who shun built up and populated areas. Much preferring empty spaces.

[Fun Flyer]

Posted by Electric God on 11/02/2016 15:12:49:

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 .

This is very interesting as I understood that the push for registration was coming from EASA.. I've looked on the EASA site and can't find the reference. Do you have a link please?

[Tony Harrison 2]

Re suggestions that the world of r/c flying needs to be seen to be co-operative and that this will gain us kudos, respectability, a degree of influence, I disagree. To refer again to the shooting world, of which I have considerable experience, and firearms legislation, in which I've taken an interest for many years. Just as in this interesting discussion here, the shooting world has always been divided radically between different interest groups; without going into tedious detail, some groups were always ready to sell other groups down the river. The more conservative, established bodies such as the (UK) NRA always fell over themselves to urge co-operation with government and the police even when ever more restrictive legislation was proposed: they thought this would show how helpful they were, and stave off further regulation. They were consistently very mistaken. In the end, firearms legislation tends to happen on the spur of the moment, in a kneejerk fashion, and is usually irrelevant, oppressive, and/or counter productive. Groups such as the NRA have never received any significant consideration, and carry on shooting essentially on sufferance, under ever more onerous regulation.

If some in the r/c world think that urging the introduction of regulation or certification of some sort will show the authorities that we're the good guys and fend off worse regulation, they are naive romantic optimists. Is the BMFA capable of administering a certication (or something) scheme? I don't know enough about it. I suspect strongly that, much as the police always resisted vigorously any suggestion that firearms certification be handled by an independent body (even though police forces vary drastically in their approach & efficiency in this respect), government and/or the CAA or whoever would not want r/c flying to be regulated by an r/c body...

If there is a genuine concern that r/c flying is liable to be regulated, the only thing to do is to present a united front and engage in very vigorous political lobbying. It's the only way. Holding up our hands and asking to have our BMFA numbers tattooed on our foreheads, or whatever, is a waste of time.

rgds Tony

[Bernard Koussoulos]

Mr hopkins ,I am not a roge flyer i respect safty and common sence in rc flying i don't see how you can say i am a roge flyer because i hav'nt read the rules and regs tell me were i can get them to read and i will .but please get off that high horse you are on.One of the reasons i don.t belong to a club is becousr of the attitude you have just shown .any way thanks for you'r interest in my welfare .

Edited By Bernard Koussoulos on 13/02/2016 14:01:34

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by Bernard Koussoulos on 13/02/2016 14:00:34:

Mr hopkins ,I am not a roge flyer i respect safty and common sence in rc flying i don't see how you can say i am a roge flyer because i hav'nt read the rules and regs tell me were i can get them to read and i will .but please get off that high horse you are on.One of the reasons i don.t belong to a club is becousr of the attitude you have just shown .any way thanks for you'r interest in my welfare .

Edited By Bernard Koussoulos on 13/02/2016 14:01:34

The "rules and regulations" are all clearly written up in simplified form in the BMFA Handbook **LINK**

The info in the handbook is drawn from the CAA Document CAP658 **LINK**

Questions on the "rules and regulations" have been in the A Test for ever - more detailed questions have very recently been announced (in the BMFA News) which delve deeper into CAP658

And frankly as you clearly state you have not read these documents then that would class you in the group of flyers who are placing the hobbies freedom at risk therefore, in my view flying irresponsibly

[Dickw]

Posted by Fun Flyer on 13/02/2016 12:59:25:

Posted by Electric God on 11/02/2016 15:12:49:

This is very interesting as I understood that the push for registration was coming from EASA.. I've looked on the EASA site and can't find the reference. Do you have a link please?

 

I think this nis the document you want:-

http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/A-NPA%202015-10.pdf

Dick

Edited By Dickw on 13/02/2016 14:44:25

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Present a united front and engage in vigorous political lobbying

Now who's the naïve romantic optimist Tony

john

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 13/02/2016 09:48:04:

BEB I agree the idea is attractive to us, but from a legislative perspective it probably isnt:

a) The legislator has no way of knowing what the accuracy or integrity of the existing BMFA data is like

b) There is no way to quantify or assess the accuracy against anything

c) Making the BMFA the guardian of registration would entail transforming their legal status into the governing body for the sport (which they currently are not at the moment) as the BGA is already

d) The government would be possibly missing out on a nice little earner

e) Neither the Irish or the US registration schemes have used the MACI or the AMA in the registration process

Actually Dave, I think you are "setting the bar too high". I don't believe that the legislator would require 100% sureity of cover - as long as the vast majority were covered and a clear route to complience existed I believe they would be satisfied.

BMFA may not be legally the governing body - but they are in practice - as recognised by the Royal Aero Club, the FAI and the Sports Council. It's a small step to close the loop.

There is no "earner" in this for the government. They know that pricing registration at even a "break-even" level would be prohibitive - that's one of their main problems. For comparison the "non-profit" cost for commercial UAV registration is £112 initially and then £56 per annum for renewal (or £224 if over 7Kg), the government know that the hobby market can't sustain that and even at that rate there is no real profit as such. Using the BMFA's existing mechanism effectively removes that problem which is why I believe it would be an attractive proposition from the authority's point of view.

Finally, while its true that neither the US or Irish authories went down this line, I think we'd all agree that neither of them are an example anyone (us or the government) would want to follow! MAybe had they gone down this route things may have worked out better for them?

BEB

[Erfolg]

Those who suggest that co-operating with regulators, by adopting a policy of agreement to solve a non existent problem, on the basis of gaining Browny Points, and influence, have not dealt with regulators or know and discussed with inspectors how and why they operate.

Such a policy will have the individuals negotiating for a body or company being seen as a soft touch. A must go to, as they can be signed up, putting pressure on other groups to acquiesce. Neither the negotiator or the group will be respected, by such a policy. The Browney Points you think you have earned are worth absolutely nothing.

You get more Browny Points by presenting a coherent and consistent argument that represents your case. Whilst constructively working to an agreement that addresses the issue is seen as helpful. True Browney Points

Just saying NO! does not work.

There is a problem, with rogue fliers and apparent criminal usage. It does not seem to be in our power to solve, other than educate the public. Which will deal with those who wish to be responsible and had not recognised all the issues. However those who are anti-social and the criminals will not respond in a positive manner.

I am sure that the authorities recognise this with respect to the drone problem and are as keen or even keener to solve the very real issues. Registration at best is a good "news release", that temporarily takes the public pressure off, until the next time. When the search for a working solution restarts.

I feel strongly that we must resist registration, as it achieves nothing, other than a temporary delay in the search for a good workable solution, to a real problem. In which I am sure we all want to see achieved, and facilitate if possible by our cooperation or help via the BMFA.