By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Jason-I

Here is a list of all the postings Jason-I has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: Latest CAA Update
05/09/2019 06:33:13
Posted by Old Geezer on 05/09/2019 00:29:11:

Club AGM tonight ( Central MFC ) -- it was decided that if/when registration becomes a legal obligation - that along with the obligatory BMFA membership and associated insurance, the member will be registered and his airframes will have to be appropriately 'labelled'. The registration will be the responsibility of the individual member.

The point was made, and accepted by the members present, that once the legislation has been enacted members will need to be 'CAA registered' and the airframe correctly labelled - as failure to comply with the law as enacted would in all probabuliy invalidate their insurance as well, as flying a model without 'registration' would be a criminal offence. (In certain circumstances I understand that a criminal act committed whilst driving your car can invalidate your motor insurance.)

I think that's quite sad that the club has chosen to be the de facto unpaid policeman for DfT's unfair and unjust scheme and charging structure - without even waiting to see it it will invalidate the insurance.

04/09/2019 20:17:39

Anybody got any idea as to size weight and cost of a transponder for an r/c aircraft?

More importantly, will they even work at low altitude?

04/09/2019 20:15:48
Posted by Chris Berry on 04/09/2019 20:13:08:
Posted by Phil Green on 04/09/2019 20:10:53:
Posted by Chris Berry on 04/09/2019 18:41:27:

Funny how its only been in the last few weeks that people are mentioning a fighting fund, which is absurd in my view, as its futile and only 16 quid.

Just a personal view, I believe that the £16 fee has been an unfortunate distraction, the short-sighted majority have been banging on about this inconsequential estimate whilst ignoring the far, far greater consequences coming our way.

It won't be as bad as you think.

No. It will be much worse....

04/09/2019 06:45:06
Posted by Simon Chaddock on 04/09/2019 00:11:21:

I think this video says it all

Conventional model plane flying will be changed forever and become significantly more expensive.

It could be argued that the restrictions to RC model planes is simply 'collateral damage' from the desire to control the use of multi copters.

Exactly. If we all lie down and do nothing, potentially costs and regulation will spiral out of control until we are no more (which is probably what the aviation minister wants).

If we had some clarity in law about what is privately owned airspace above private land, then, providing we are flying within that airspace on private land, we could argue that 'we don't need no stinking registration'

we don't need no badges

03/09/2019 21:56:15
Posted by john stones 1 on 03/09/2019 21:51:14:

Eh ?

Think you should read who said what.

Thought I had. What have I missed?

03/09/2019 21:51:09
Posted by Jason-I on 03/09/2019 21:14:53:
Posted by Chris Berry on 03/09/2019 12:04:43:

I'm surprised when people say they will leave the hobby.

When your car tax goes up by £5 a year, or fuel prices increase, do people stop driving? In general they don't.

£16.50 is the price of a lipo, a prop or some fuel, all disposable items. A packet of fags is £10, a pint is £3-£5.

£16.50 this year, but how much will it be in 5 years?

Lets also not forget the costs that are coming when we are all required to fit transponders to our models.....

03/09/2019 21:46:19
Posted by john stones 1 on 03/09/2019 21:39:18:

Dunno about the P or B word that must not be mentioned, something I agree with by the way.

Gina Miller went to court with a legal case, not an I don't like it case, the Court found in her favour, you may or may not like that, I'll leave it be ta.

So you think that aeromodelling being unfairly targeted, unfairly penalised and being regulated out of existence is just a 'I don't like it' case?

You think clarifying, in law, the airspace ownership rights of landowners is just an 'I don't like it' case?

03/09/2019 21:14:53
Posted by Chris Berry on 03/09/2019 12:04:43:

I'm surprised when people say they will leave the hobby.

When your car tax goes up by £5 a year, or fuel prices increase, do people stop driving? In general they don't.

£16.50 is the price of a lipo, a prop or some fuel, all disposable items. A packet of fags is £10, a pint is £3-£5.

£16.50 this year, but how much will it be in 5 years?

03/09/2019 21:13:44
Posted by Chris Berry on 03/09/2019 11:56:53:

In order to mount a legal challenge you have to have a robust case that focuses on facts and the way in which the legislation has been drafted, the process of consultation and enacting.

You can't mount a legal challenge based on "I don't like it, its not fair, stamp feet" There has to be a legal basis, in law. As far as I can see , he Government (who know a bit about law making), have followed the correct procedures.

Gina Miller successfully single handedly took the might of the government to court on a whim and won. (that was a true case of 'I don't like it)

On the other hand, we have legitimate concerns that have not been addressed.....

03/09/2019 21:08:47
Posted by Martin Dilly 1 on 03/09/2019 11:24:46:

Jason, do you have any idea of the cost to the BMFA of "..mounting several separate legal cases"?......

......Let me try to help you get a grip on reality.........

.....How much more would you be happy to pay as a BMFA member so we can mount all those legal cases....

 

I have no idea of the cost, but let me also give you a grip on reality. If we all lie down, play dead and pay our £16.50 registration fee, then after just 3 years BMFA members alone will of handed over 1.8 MILLION pounds to the DfT. That would buy an awful lot of legal representation.

I think if we all handed over an additional £16.50 to the BMFA instead of registering as operators, then this would go a long way to pay for the legal expenses.

Personally, I would happily make an immediate £100 payment to the BMFA to fight this registration fee - after just 6 years, this would be cheaper than paying for registration (assuming the costs of registration do not spiral year on year).

Edited By Jason-I on 03/09/2019 21:16:19

02/09/2019 20:57:49
Posted by john stones 1 on 02/09/2019 11:42:39:

 

For the record again I believe the BMFA did their best and very much doubt anyone else would've done better.

From my perspective, I don’t see that the BMFA is doing enough to fight for our rights. In fact I really am struggling to find any good reason to renew my membership this year.

Aero modelling is under attack. We are facing ever increasing pressures and restrictions on the hobby/sport. Council bylaws and National trust laws already severely restrict where we can fly. For the most part, we can only fly above private land in the middle of nowhere – and now even that is being regulated and under threat. I see no evidence of the BMFA doing anything to legally challenge any of the restrictions being imposed on us.

In my opinion, the BMFA should be mounting several separate legal cases:

1) Aircraft Registration

The legality of the principal user pay should be challenged, as the user gets no benefit from the scheme and has no input into the cost of the system. How is it fair to expect somebody to pay for something that they don’t want, get no benefit from and have no control over the cost?

 

2) Airspace Ownership

Freeholders do legally own some of the airspace above their property, but to what height is not currently defined in law, other than “to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it”. The BMFA should be campaigning to get this height precisely defined in law and should be pushing for a height of at least 400ft outside of FRZ.

Consider that we are allowed to drive cars on private land without a license, without road tax, without an MOT and without insurance.

We should also be allowed to fly above private land up to the height owned by the freeholder without the need for registration and tax. If this height was legally defined, then there would be no need for registration when flying on private land within your own airspace.

As we predominantly fly on private land, it is an absolute nonsense that we should be required to register (and pay the model tax) when flying within the airspace already owned by the freeholder of that land.

Having the height legally defined would also give landowners protection in law from rouge drone flyers from buzzing over their land at low level.

 

3) Council / National Trust bylaws

The BMFA should be lobbying councils and the National trust to reduce the blanket bans placed on flying. Some public spaces should permit the official sport of model aircraft flying (registration would understandably be required if flying in a public space).

There is an excess of quiet public land in my council area, yet there is absolutely no public land whatsoever where I am permitted to fly a model aircraft (due entirely to council and National trust bylaws). As an official sport, we should at least be granted a little bit if public land to use.

 

 

I could be wrong (and often am), but I see no evidence of any of the model associations pursuing any such actions in the courts? It would be nice if the BMFA could comment so we can see how our membership money is being used to protect our rights. As I have stated, I am not opposed to paying increased fees to cover legal action (better to try and fail than not try), but I am not happy to carry on paying membership when it seems to have no benefit whatsoever (and when even my insurance becomes invalid when I don't register as an operator).

02/09/2019 19:44:58
Posted by Chris Berry on 02/09/2019 18:21:33:
 

However, the challenge is if a club allows a member to fly without checking if they have registered and taken the test and an incident occurs, particularly one involving an inquest or investigation of any kind, who is liable?

 

If a member has registered and is then involved in an incident, then it is the pilot (member) who is responsible.

If a member has NOT registered and is then involved in an incident, then it is the pilot (member) who is responsible.

It's alway the pilot who is responsible regardless of registration.

Edited By Jason-I on 02/09/2019 19:45:30

01/09/2019 07:41:11
Posted by Don Fry on 01/09/2019 06:38:03:

Paul, the BMFA have common qualification requirements at their events. A, B, LMA eqivilents, European equivalents. You need to get your professional body to persuade the BMFA your training is sufficient in the required procedures. It's not the job of the BMFA to find out for you.

An alternative is to join the BMFA, and take a B test.

Edited By Don Fry on 01/09/2019 06:40:49

Can you take your 'B' test with a drone?

01/09/2019 07:40:20
Posted by Jeremy Wilkins on 01/09/2019 01:35:02:

in terms of my money and my time. I thought that it was a really useful exercise - got the points across that I wanted to, got some answers (maybe not complete clarity, but better than before, I think).

Cheers,

Jeremy Wilkins

 

Well done Jeremy! yes

 

Edited By Jason-I on 01/09/2019 07:42:52

31/08/2019 19:28:03
Posted by Bob Cotsford on 31/08/2019 19:15:15:

Peter, the difference is that Amazon own and therefore control the maintenance and use of the drones that will be registered to them, the BMFA don't.

The other difference is that Amazon will be getting their 'operators' license fee for their fleet of drones subsidised by by law abiding aero modellers who are the innocent victims in all this. Hence the reason I won't be registering as an operator - it is completely unfair.

Edited By Jason-I on 31/08/2019 19:28:25

31/08/2019 16:05:28
Posted by Don Fry on 31/08/2019 16:00:22:

Gary, I would be very wary about artificial devices to defeat legislation. T

Edited By Don Fry on 31/08/2019 16:01:36

Exactly what legislation would be defeated?

Everybody is legally registered as a pilot, and 1 operator is legally registered so that should an incident occur, then the responsible party can be tracked down.

No law has been 'defeated'

31/08/2019 15:35:46
Posted by Cuban8 on 30/08/2019 21:16:14:

How about a poll on guessing registration take-up figures on the first week (let's be generous and give the punters a week). Fewer than 100? 500? 1000? laugh

Edited By Cuban8 on 30/08/2019 21:17:02

Tens of thousands - Based on the numbers of people on this site who seem to be chomping at the bit to register......

31/08/2019 15:27:00
Posted by JOHN MOSLEY 2 on 31/08/2019 15:17:18:

Easy answer he crashes his model with your number on and kills somebody, they knock on your door.

 

That's just scaremongering. So what if they do knock on your door? In the extremely unlikely event that your friend (the pilot) kills someone, providing he was operating correctly, then you as the operator have nothing to worry about. Plus, the pilot's insurance will cover any liability, not you.

I see nothing wrong with a group of responsible like minded friends joining together as one operator. Nothing in the regs prevent this either.

Plus, the only reason they would be knocking on the operators door would be if the pilot fled the scene. 

Edited By Jason-I on 31/08/2019 15:28:42

29/08/2019 20:49:42
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 29/08/2019 20:27:32:

This old trope. You don't need to be a member of a club to take an A test. You just contact the BMFA and get the details of your local Area Acheivement Scheme co-ordinator and they will arrange for an examiner to either visit your site or you visit their site to take the test. If you were in a club that had an examiner you'd still have to contact the examiner and arrange a test and if your club didn't have an examiner you'd have to contact the scheme coordinator anyway.

The point is, I have no desire to take the test, yet some take it as a requirement to fly rather that just a personal achievement.....

29/08/2019 18:47:48
Posted by Martin_K on 29/08/2019 13:16:21:

Demonstrating basic competence to a club, face to face on site, is not the barrier. Being told you cannot fly without the 'A' is the barrier. I will not say where, I still hope to get in one day.

I am having fun.

I have an issue with the A test too. I am a country member of the BMFA and not part of a club and consequently have never taken the A test. Recently I was hoping to attend and fly at the RCM&E fly in. However, despite flying model aircraft safely on and off for over 30 years and being a member of the BMFA and a subscriber to RCM&E, I would have been unable to fly at the event as only A cert holders were permitted. Therefore I didn't bother attending.

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Sussex Model Centre
Slec
CML
electricwingman 2017
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E!