Here is a list of all the postings MattyB has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread|
It would certainly be interesting to see them attempt to prosecute an under 18 under these new requirements. Going after a 4 year who represented the "Drone menace" would probably still be popular with Daily Fail readers though...
It doesn't matter how you brand it - if I am giving them my personal information (name, address, DOB, email etc) and telling them I fly drones and model aircraft that is still registration. That there is also a competency test attached doesn't change that.
We are being asked to register twice (and I do understand why, though many will question the need); once for free as a pilot, the other for £9 as an operator. The two are entirely separable and unrelated - you can have one, t'other or both.
That is my analysis too. I have registered as a Remote Pilot via the CAA (it is still a little unclear from the BMFA releases whether they have got an exemption for remote pilot registration til Jan, so I thought it better to go that route). I will wait and see as to whether they can tie up with the CAA to do the Operator registration scheme in time, but I will probably do that direct too, at least this first year - it's one less data transfer for there to be a security issue with.
No doubt Bruce will be along within 48hrs to explain to them why they are wrong... (having said that it looks like he has rather rowed back on his previous video on the topic).
Ultimately we can rant and rave about the BMFA and other national associations if we like, but it won't make any difference - they were essentially negotiating with a wall until Mr Shapps came along at the eleventh hour, so it is no wonder the concessions gained have been very limited. We are a small sport in terms of participation, far too small to be electorally significant, so the government were always going to do pretty much whatever they wanted to go after the £s and jobs they believe are available from commercial use of the low level airspace.
|Thread: New Legislation And Trainee Requirements|
Steve, your knowledge of the text is probably better than anyone else here, but I think we still need to remain pragmatic...
I accept if you do a line by line review of the ANO there is no clear statement about the categorisation of the trainee on a buddy system. That would imply that legally the trainee must take one of the defined roles, most likely the remote pilot, and therefore would have to take the test. However, if an incident where a contravention of the law was proved to have occurred, who are they actually going to go after in court? The instructor (at minimum a remote pilot and in 99% of cases the operator too) who has formally demonstrating their understanding of the law and can take control of the aircraft at any point? Or the trainee who has turned up, has no previous experience/knowledge of the requirements and wants to experience flying for the first time?
IMO it is far easier and more likely they will prosecute the instructor as if they were a solo pilot being prosecuted for the same misdemeanour - they understood and accepted the legal responsibility, they were in primary control of the aircraft and still the contravention occurred. It's far harder to prove the trainee was responsible - unless you have Tx logging who do we know was in control when the transgression occurred?
Putting all that aside, ultimately it will be the decision of the instructors as to whether they take the advice of the BMFA or decide they will only instruct those who have done the competency test. Personally I think the risk is so miniscule I will continue to instruct on a buddy system; I am quite comfortable in that situation it is me who is 100% responsible for the safety of the flight, and if a transgression occurred that would be my fault, not the trainees.
Key addition - The above all assumes the trainee is on a remote buddy system. I accept the use case where there is only one Tx being handed between the trainee and instructor is much greyer; and in that instance I agree it would be sensible for the trainee to have passed the test before flying.
Edited By MattyB on 23/10/2019 14:13:36
Full details here...
"For holders of current CAA permissions or exemptions for drone operations (e.g. such as the permission related to commercial operations as required in ANO article 94(5)) and model flyers holding an achievement certificate issued by a UK model aircraft association with a CAA reviewed achievement scheme:
Remote pilots flying in accordance with a permission, exemption or operational authorisation (e.g. such as the permission related to commercial operations as required in ANO article 94(5)) that has been issued to a named UAS operator by the CAA will be exempt from having to undertake the online education training and test.
Similarly, where a UK model aircraft association already has an established and CAA reviewed ‘competency scheme’, members who hold an appropriate achievement certificate or award (such as the BMFA ‘A’ certificate) will also be exempt from having to undertake the online education training and test.
Any operators who are not covered under the conditions of a permission/exemption or do not hold a recognised association competency will need to complete the free online course.
To allow operators to demonstrate competence if challenged (for example by the police) the CAA will be issuing a formal exemption that can be used alongside existing permissions / achievements and any other relevant documents. This exemption will be in place until 30 June 2020, when new regulations are expected. We will be working with stakeholders in 2020 to put these into place.
Members will not need to register as an operator with the CAA system if they are a current member of these associations. With permission [of individual members], the associations will collect the registration fee from members directly and supply their data to the CAA. This will take place initially by 31 January 2020 and an exemption from the need to register will be put in place by 30 November to cover association members until then.
The associations will issue further detailed guidance to their members in due course. Please see www.arpas.co.uk, www.bmfa.org, www.fpvuk.org, www.largemodelassociation.com or www.saaweb.uk for further details."
Even for an experienced pilot it will be more effort in absolute terms to pass an A than do the online test, so I sincerely doubt there will be any queues forming in front of the club examiners anytime soon.
|Thread: Clubs as Operators?|
This club (I am a member of it too) is not BMFA affiliated and not all members are in the BMFA, so it is not that simple. We also have to think about the distance and uninvolved people clauses under category A3, but without an understanding of the final exception the BMFA may secure it is difficult for us to know what best to do at this point for the members and committee alike.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
So in short the DfT have pulled that classic manoeuvre beloved of governments worldwide... Offer something extreme, get the us all outraged then water it down to what they intended all along whilst the public accept it as a “success” even though significant rights have been given up. Yes it could have been worse, but this remains a pretty average deal that does not even comply with the recommendations of their own select committee.
I don’t disagree that the BMFA have done as well as they could with what was essentially a busted flush, but mostly we are lucky Mr Shapps came along when he did or it could have been much worse. Now we wait to see if a CAA exemption will be forthcoming to the min distances and uninvolved person rules in category A3, otherwise this success becomes completely academic given ~95% of our sites won’t comply as it stands
More from page 24...
"The drone industry
...Many commercially-available drones already include geo-fencing capabilities – software that can restrict a drone from flying in certain areas, such as airports. The government is engaging directly with drone manufacturers and industry on how these capabilities can be improved. We are working with airspace managers and regulators to understand how best robust data on permanent and temporary airspace restrictions, such as those around airports and other critical national infrastructure sites, can be made available in a format that manufacturers and technology developers can easily use, in order to improve safety and help drone users fly in accordance with the rules.
The government will consider what further product standards or restrictions within the drone sector could reduce risks associated with the misuse of drones without disproportionately affecting legitimate users, setting new international standards with likeminded partners such as Five-Eyes nations and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency."
A quick search of the document shows they have not used the term "conspicuity" or "electronically conspicuous". Based on the bold statement above it certainly seems to remain firmly on the table, though at least they have softened it with "without disproportionately affecting legitimate users".
Interesting stuff - from pg 23/24:
"Make it easier to identify illegal drone use earlier
Capitalising on safe-use initiatives
...From 30 November 2019, we will place a legal requirement on all drone operators13 to register with the CAA and receive a validated drone operator registration number which they must affix to their drone before it is flown. We will also require all remote pilots of drones to pass an online competency test and receive an acknowledgement of competency from the CAA before flying a drone. As we update the online systems that enable this we will ensure the needs of the police, drone operators and remote pilots are reflected to facilitate effective, real-time enforcement.
The government is developing its concepts for the future implementation of an unmanned traffic management (UTM) system. UTM will provide a means of preventing collisions between unmanned aircraft and other aircraft, manned or unmanned. While UTM will not be delivered in the lifetime of this strategy, we will ensure that security concerns are appropriately incorporated in early planning."
So it looks like we have at least one more month before we will be required to register.
Edited By MattyB on 21/10/2019 17:26:20
As far as I am aware the BMFA have not released their recommendation as to how clubs should proceed based on Legal advice and consultation with the insurers. This is the last piece of news I could find from the BMFA on their approach to validation of registration - see the sentences highlighted in bold...
"The situation can be summarised as follows:
...Following our most recent meeting on the 19th August, we are awaiting written advice from the CAA which we expect in the next few days. We are also working with insurers to clarify any insurance implications. Once in receipt of this information, we will then issue our assessment of the options available for the members of the UK model flying Associations and affiliated clubs.".
Obviously this was all before Mr Shapps was appointed and there was an upturn in our fortunes though. Happy to be corrected if you have a more recent update on the topic.
Edited By MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:22:50
Interesting. Is this that Beaulieu MFC? I happened across that site once, it's very nice. I have to be honest though, based on how you have described it operates that is not a committee I would be happy to sit on once these changes go through. At minimum I would want to know everyone was a member of a National Association and therefore benefited from the exemption(s) in place.
Edited By MattyB on 17/10/2019 17:14:25
OK, I am probably going to get shot down for cynicism here but here goes...
This is not about club committees having to police the regulations to ensure absolute compliance with the law. It's really about them ensuring committee members and the club overall cannot be found legally liable in the event of an incident involving an unregistered pilot who is a club member.
If the club has a documented policy that states everyone flying models over 250g must register and show proof of that at annual renewal they are demonstrating they have understood the requirements and are taking reasonable steps to ensure they are followed by their members. If a flyer who has not registered then decides to fly something without being registered or taking the test and something happens the club can fairly point at the individual and say they did not comply with the rules of the club, so it is their responsibility as an individual.
Look at it this way - these are brand new regulations, and there are no precedent cases at this point. If you were a committee member who could potentially be held liable in the event of an incident, what would you implement at your club? Are you happy to do nothing and hope that in the event of an incident involving an unregistered club member the BMFA's committee liability insurance would cover you? That is the question committee members should be weighing up once the fog lifts and the exemption and registration processes are revealed...
I suspect it is because some Club Committee members may be uncomfortable they could end up liable if a club member operating at their site had an accident and it was subsequently found the pilot was not registered. When/if the final exemption is published it will be important for the National Associations to clarify to clubs whether their committee member liability insurance would over them in this instance. If that s not clearly communicated I suspect you will see some committee members stepping down and/or attempting to validate the registration of their members quite rigorously.
Yes, you are quite right. My point is that in those items all have to be recorded and protected by the club in order for it to operate effectively, whereas the club does not NEED to record the DRES number or any items of personal information to validate whether registration has occurred.
All they need to do is tick a checkbox that validation has occurred, with a date alongside it and maybe the committee members signature. Neither the checkbox nor the date are PI (personal information), so the data subject does not need to worry about how that information is handled and protected over its lifecycle.
Edited By MattyB on 17/10/2019 14:40:19
If the club was to ask for and take a copy of the registration documentation I agree with previous posters that they would become a data controller. Once that happens as owners of that PI the member would then have all the statutory rights under GDPR. However, if the club were to request proof be provided transiently on (say) an annual basis and all that was recorded was a checkbox denoting a member of the committee had observed valid registration existed, then no PI has been transferred.
Don't take that as gospel though, despite working on all things GDPR for more than 4 years now it is still somewhat of a nightmare to understand!
|Thread: Rugby World Cup 2019.|
Now that's something that really oat to be celebrated...
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
I don't think there is any doubt that the BMFA are campaigning for the rights of all their members to be preserved whether they have joined via an affiliated club or as country members. In some ways doing so is in the interests of the authorities too, as giving exceptions to club members but not country ones would make enforcement even more complex. If the BMFA succeed there is no reason you will have to change the way you operate, but I agree at this stage that is a significant "if" - lets hope the authorities consider being under the umbrella of a national association as applying equally to club and country members.
PS - I agree with the Chris Berry above; the chances of you having to queue for a peg like in the old days is almost zero now given reduced participation and the number of "sleeping" members the average club has.
Edited By MattyB on 13/10/2019 14:42:24
Agreed. It’s not the first time Mr Dilly has told members of this forum that they are “wasting their time” posting on this topic; a strange view given those in these threads are amongst the most informed and passionate about these issues, and almost all are members of his own association who followed the call to action. Scolding your own membership for alleged inactivity hardly seems an effective way to create goodwill given this still has a long way to run. Anyway, if it’s such a waste of time why is he posting himself??
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!