Here is a list of all the postings GONZO has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
This is at odds with the rest of aviation administered by the CAA. Do they not have an obligation to behave in a unified and even handed way. Can you provide specific link/para for this as para 7.2 is not specific to this particular situation?
The 'transponder' system works by transmitting data(height, speed, track, heading etc) from the 'drone' and this is displayed on a virtual radar screen(computer screen) simulating a radar track.
I don't believe conventional radar works, at least reliably, down to these levels due to reflected signals, 'ground clutter'. This would be especially so in my part of the world with all the hills etc, North Wales.
IMO it would be the club that registers as the 'operator' and gets a registration number, fixes the required label with the clubs registration number to all five planes. The club is an organisation that has responsibilities for managing UAV's. All/any of the instructors when instructing would then be the 'pilot'(having taken the test and passed) of the 'operators'(the club) aircraft/UAV's. As discussed earlier the instructor would be 'the pilot in command' and the student IMO would not have needed to take the 'on-line test' and to register with CAA as a 'pilot' or register as an 'operator'.
As an example, in GA flying: the flying club owns, manages and registers the Cessna. The instructor is the 'pilot in command'(would have passed all relevant test and have suitable licence). The student just has to turn up for his lesson(no passing of tests etc)
Edited By GONZO on 07/09/2019 10:21:46
There is a glaring inconsistency with respect to training/experience flights. In GA light aircraft you can go for a trial flight or start your training, progressing a significant way, without the requirement to pass any air law tests because you are not the pilot in command. The instructor is pilot in command even if you fly the plane all the time. Why a difference when it comes to toy planes?
So, this talk of trainer/instructor rolls and responsibilities under the new regs. From what I read above people seem to consider that as the 'instructor' is the pilot in command/control then the trainee does not need to register as an operator or pilot whether the plane and equipment is his or the instructors or the clubs. Correct? If this is the case then a small group of friends have a way of circumventing the regulations. One of the group registers for both roles and 'acts' as the instructor for the group(not that any of them need training). Everyone brings their own planes to fly and as long as they are plugged up, physically or by RF, to a master Tx controlled(??) and held by the acting instructor the law is satisfied. The pilot under instruction(??) has effective control all the time and flys as if the instructor(??) is not there as he will be operating the training switch such that control is permanently transferred to the trainee(??). Obviously when he wants to fly everyone else takes a break and by way of compensation for his role all fees are paid by the others in the group. Obviously this has drawbacks and limited application. But, it is a thought, as if its OK for training then its OK for this situation as intent to circumvent the regulations would, I suggest, be difficult/impossible to prove.
I'm just popping down to the bunker whilst people give this some thought.
Nigel, I've read so many interlinked and dependant documents its a nightmare. I would agree with Phil G's assessment that even privately built models will have to comply, by 30th June 2022, with EC and geofencing. Any future newcomer, old or young, to this hobby will be put off by just reading and understanding the regulations.
Try CAP 1789
|Thread: The component shop|
I'll second that.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
I say again, read the BMFA news letter. Unless the BMFA change their position in the future the news letter is the current advice.
I would add that your clubs actions run counter to the advice contained in the BMFA news letter BMFA news 23/8.
There could be the possibility that the club, by instituting a checking regime for CAA registration, could be considered partially complicit if someone slips through the net and subsequently has an accident. The club could be included in any claims as it has failed to adequately enforce its procedures. Personally, I think the same way the BMFA does, its a matter for the individual. After all clubs don't check to confirm that members conform and comply to other legal requirements(like tax, insurance etc on motor vehicles driven onto the flying field) or that members eyesight is adequate etc.
These hypothetical incidents would be vanishingly rare to non existent as history shows. My club has several members who only fly FF rubber. How would they comply with a tick box, not tick it? A club insisting on someone registering when they don't fly above 250gm(something not required by legislation) would be on shaky ground IMO.
You don't have to register if you only fly sub 250gm aircraft. On clubs checking registration; read para 2 in the summary from the BMFA news letter BMFA news letter
There's a difference in flying illegally and flying unsafely. They could be concurrent or not, all depends. Flying in controlled airspace at the end of a runway, concurrent. Flying in a field in the middle of nowhere, just illegal. Some laws are important and inviolate, like murder. Others are bureaucratic hurdles to protect state/financial etc interests and are not important but nevertheless may carry stiff penalties. Some times these unimportant laws(my definition) carry more draconian punishments than the truly important laws.
Rules/laws(unimportant by my definition) are for the guidance of wise men and the observance of fools (if I may paraphrase an old saying.
It's not just the cost, it's how long it lasts for. $5 for three years in USA; 5 euro for three years in Ireland. Which makes our £16.5 for one year comparable to the German cost if it is also for three years.
Don't they require the supporting legislation like the new extended police powers etc to properly implement AN(A)O 2018.
I hate to throw a spanner in the works and upset all those straining at the leash to take the test, pay their money and get registered. But, due to proroguing of Parliament it would appear that this jolly little exercise may, at the least, be delayed. I think it unlikely that legislation on drones, not yet passed, will feature on MP's to do list this side of November 1st.
Steve J, yes, that's exactly what I understood from the summary. Of course this may change before the system comes into force.
I cant for the life of me understand this obsession with insurance. It's so cheap for us because we don't have many accidents. In many other walks of life that are much more prone to accidental damage and injury no one bothers. Cycle riding, much mentioned here, causes the death of many riders and pedestrians each year along with damage to vehicles. Does any one have dedicated cycle insurance? Just living as a person you can cause injury and damage to others. Who has insurance for that? An example. One Autumn evening in the dark I was in a hurry to get to a night class. Running along the pavement I glanced back down the road on my side to see if it was clear. I shot into the road from between parked cars to meet a cyclist who I knocked flying across the road to the other gutter. I hadn't seen him as he was in black and his light was low on the front forks thus obscured by the parked cars. I could have killed him if his head had hit the road. How do I insure against that. Things happen in life, some times bad things. You cant metaphorically wrap your life in cotton wool and insure against all eventualities. I've been flying RC models since the mid 70's and had a few third party accidents like a plane hitting me in the right hip(big painful bruise) and badly cut fingers whilst stopping another modellers unrestrained plane to name a few. But, I've not seen much other third party injury or damage to property. All the incidents I suffered I would not even think of claiming against any one. I suppose its my personal attitude, I take part in this activity with others and accept that there are risks involved.
Read the BMFA letter again, specifically the summary. I see no reason for any one in a club to check anything in the light of items 1/, 2/, and 3/.
As previously stated no club official checks to see if the motor car you drive onto the site is taxed, insured, has an MOT and that you are the holder of a driving licence(full or provisional). The national organisation and clubs are not going to act as unpaid police for DRES and the BMFA have stated so.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!