Martin Harris - Moderator Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 Hopefully this posting will be in order - David did say that "anyone can start a new thread in the light of new developments". I received what seems to be a generic reply but interestingly it does state that in addition to continuing talks with the organisations, the CAA are considering the possibility of "model aircraft associations or clubs as operators: model aircraft associations or clubs would have the option of registering as the operator with their members acting as remote pilots. In this scenario, the association or club would need to meet any legal requirements and take accountability and responsibility for the actions of their members, and members would need to abide by the remote pilot requirements." Quite how this would affect the funding model if 40,000 or more operators registered under the 4 major organisations is not mentioned but I think it suggests that the CAA are taking some notice of comments made to them and aren't necessarily the bad guys in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwain Dibley. Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 Thanks for posting that Martin, sounds promising. D.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Bastow Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 I received exactly the same message today Martin. Did you also notice that it stated this was not being done because of ESA regulations but was to Government request? It also stated that they would look at ESA regulations in 2020 when it becomes active. Cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 Another interesting point is that these proposals may not be set in stone and the situation may change in a year or so - whether for better or worse is not specified! The EASA regulation on drones, which contains some specific provisions for model aircraft associations, is expected to be published in final form shortly and will start to come into force sometime during 2020. Once that regulation is in force in the UK we would then expect to review and, where necessary, align the UK approach with that EASA regulation. At present, however, we are working towards a DRES system that aligns with UK law and policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 Posted by Cliff Bastow on 22/05/2019 21:02:04: Did you also notice that it stated this was not being done because of ESA regulations but was to Government request? It also stated that they would look at ESA regulations in 2020 when it becomes active. Yes...and in case anyone's confused, I was posting it while you were reminding me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno Racer Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 European Aviation Safety Agency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 I had the same email. I am correct in thinking the BMFA could be the association that registers on behalf of all its members? £16.50 divided by 30,000 ? I think even I could find that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 Is this not like the agreement that has been reached in Canada? Membership and only at 'approved' sites.. It does raise the issue that it would in effect be 'preferential' legislation suggesting any flying outside 'approved' sites would require individuals to meet the full registration requirements, and costs, whether or not they were organisation members. Not ideal but it is probably an attractive route to legislators and is along the lines of the role of the BGA and LAA Edited By Simon Chaddock on 23/05/2019 09:01:39 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 Do I read this right? You would still get to fly any sub 250g stuff, anywhere you wanted, of course, without any of the test or registration. It would be individual registration as operator for country members (and non-members, or clubs with individual insurance schemes) - but then, fly as before. Regular club members would get to carry on pretty much as is though, BMFA/LMA/etc would sort the paperwork required to register. Presumably, everyone would still need to do the competency test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 Posted by Martin Harris on 22/05/2019 20:50:38: Hopefully this posting will be in order - David did say that "anyone can start a new thread in the light of new developments". I received what seems to be a generic reply but interestingly it does state that in addition to continuing talks with the organisations, the CAA are considering the possibility of "model aircraft associations or clubs as operators: model aircraft associations or clubs would have the option of registering as the operator with their members acting as remote pilots. In this scenario, the association or club would need to meet any legal requirements and take accountability and responsibility for the actions of their members, and members would need to abide by the remote pilot requirements." Quite how this would affect the funding model if 40,000 or more operators registered under the 4 major organisations is not mentioned but I think it suggests that the CAA are taking some notice of comments made to them and aren't necessarily the bad guys in this situation. I think we might be making a little headway with this, although it's still going to be of little value in enforcing the law as we've banged on about enough times. I'd go with the scheme run by the BMFA, that way it'll be centralised and more efficient than relying on individual clubs, many of whom struggle to deal with keeping their own membership bumph in order. As memb sec for my club, it doesn't bother me either way from an administrative point of view, but the 'accountability and responsibilty' bit will need to be clarified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 I've had no response to any of my emails yet. I have just emailed them all again with the standard line "just checking you received my email as I don't appear to have received a response." I won't hold my breath - especially with my MP, who by all accounts is disinterested in his constituents and completely self serving. Lets hope he proves me wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 I've been researching our minister of aviation. It doesn't appear that she has any background in aviation whatsoever. It always amazes (shocks) me that ministers are appointed to roles for which they have no prior knowledge, experience or understanding. Perhaps we need to invite her to a flying event...... Edited By Jason Inskip on 23/05/2019 12:20:33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 Have just received a reply from the CAA which I found "basically", already decided but a change may be forthcoming in the future when the EASA thing is finally settled. jam or NOT who knows!! The reply from my MP was very encouraging in so much as he is going to contact the CAA Chief Executive for an explanation on how this would control the people who we call rogue flyers and what course of action were they planning to control that, plus other questions that come to mind and get back to me when he has a reply, but of course he still states the government line regarding it in general. Bob the Bobble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 Nigel R As far as I can tell all the relevant documents state they apply to UAVs "over 250g". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickw Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 Posted by Nigel R on 23/05/2019 09:35:55: Do I read this right? You would still get to fly any sub 250g stuff, anywhere you wanted, of course, without any of the test or registration. ................................... From CAP 1763:- "You must not fly a small unmanned aircraft within the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome without first ensuring that you have permission to do so. The volume of airspace that comprises a ‘flight restriction zone’ is outlined in a table at paragraph (7) of article 94A. The flight restriction zone is active at all times and applies to all small unmanned aircraft of any mass (even very small ‘toys' )" . So no, you can't fly sub 250gm stuff anywhere you want. Dick Edited By Dickw on 23/05/2019 14:46:56 Edited By Dickw on 23/05/2019 14:48:00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel R Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 You're quite right Dick. I phrased that sentence rather badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason-I Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 From CAP 1763:- "You must not fly a small unmanned aircraft within the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome without first ensuring that you have permission to do so. The volume of airspace that comprises a ‘flight restriction zone’ is outlined in a table at paragraph (7) of article 94A. The flight restriction zone is active at all times and applies to all small unmanned aircraft of any mass (even very small ‘toys' )" . So no, you can't fly sub 250gm stuff anywhere you want. The absurdity of this law staggers me. I live just within the 5km boundary of a flight restriction zone. The airfield in question does not operate after dark. During daylight hours, there might be one or two light aircraft movements per day. I am not really a drone flyer (fixed wing is where I'm at), but my wife did buy me a nano qx a few years ago - so that I had something I could fly in the back garden whilst recovering from a cancer operation. The nano qx has a flying weight of 15 grammes. Due to this new regulation, I cannot fly this tiny little thing in my back garden at any height at any time of day whatsoever without breaking the law - unless I obtain permission from ATC. Can you just imagine that conversation: Me: Hello, is that ATC? ATC: Yes ME: I am requesting permission to fly my nano qx in my back garden. I am 4.9km away from you. My nano QX is about the size and weight of a large butterfly. I will be unlikely to exceed 15ft altitude as I cannot see it beyond that. ATC: What is a nano QX? Me: It's a quadcopter ATC: Is that one of those drone things? Me: Yes ATC: Permission denied. Drones are a danger to aircraft. Me: But... ATC: bzzzz (hung up)... Edited By Jason Inskip on 23/05/2019 23:45:38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 Posted by Jason Inskip on 23/05/2019 23:45:13: From CAP 1763:- "You must not fly a small unmanned aircraft within the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome without first ensuring that you have permission to do so. The volume of airspace that comprises a ‘flight restriction zone’ is outlined in a table at paragraph (7) of article 94A. The flight restriction zone is active at all times and applies to all small unmanned aircraft of any mass (even very small ‘toys' )" . So no, you can't fly sub 250gm stuff anywhere you want. The absurdity of this law staggers me. I live just within the 5km boundary of a flight restriction zone. The airfield in question does not operate after dark. During daylight hours, there might be one or two light aircraft movements per day. I am not really a drone flyer (fixed wing is where I'm at), but my wife did buy me a nano qx a few years ago - so that I had something I could fly in the back garden whilst recovering from a cancer operation. The nano qx has a flying weight of 15 grammes. Due to this new regulation, I cannot fly this tiny little thing in my back garden at any height at any time of day whatsoever without breaking the law - unless I obtain permission from ATC. Can you just imagine that conversation: Me: Hello, is that ATC? ATC: Yes ME: I am requesting permission to fly my nano qx in my back garden. I am 4.9km away from you. My nano QX is about the size and weight of a large butterfly. I will be unlikely to exceed 15ft altitude as I cannot see it beyond that. ATC: What is a nano QX? Me: It's a quadcopter ATC: Is that one of those drone things? Me: Yes ATC: Permission denied. Drones are a danger to aircraft. Me: But... ATC: bzzzz (hung up)... Edited By Jason Inskip on 23/05/2019 23:45:38 If you just hover about below the height of your garden's trees, bushes etc or even lower than the chimney pots of your house...........surely that can't be a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuban8 Posted May 24, 2019 Share Posted May 24, 2019 This is absurd beyond belief. So.......if you had a garden party and had one of those small hired marquees erected and a drone or whatever was flown inside said structure, would that be OK? How about just tethering the device with a bit of string? Still be able to hover it about a bit. Are kids' bubbles included? Edited By Cuban8 on 24/05/2019 08:09:08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.