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

Member postings for MattyB

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
11/11/2019 01:37:28
Posted by cymaz on 10/11/2019 22:04:51:
Posted by will -0 on 10/11/2019 22:00:31:

OK,thanks

is this regardless of age? Is my 3 yo supposed to pass the test before I can let her waggle the sticks on a buddy lead?

It seems they do....however daft that may seem, as you have a 3 yr olddisgust

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... teeth 2

06/11/2019 16:28:58
Posted by Dickw on 06/11/2019 16:01:36:
Posted by MattyB on 06/11/2019 15:32:57:
..................................................................

....... 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.

The terms are confusing, but my understanding is that the pilot doesn't register - he needs to be competent. It is the Operator who registers.

Remote Pilot Competency exemption here.

Operator registration exemption here

Dick

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.

06/11/2019 15:32:57
Posted by Nigel Heather on 06/11/2019 14:35:46:
Posted by Nigel R on 06/11/2019 13:06:35:

Will the BMFA route result in us being registered as operator and pilot?

I assume so, but can't recall reading anything to confirm.

This came up in our clubs AGM last night along with a host of other confusion although by the end of the discussion, most members agreed they would prefer to pay the BMFA an extra £9 and go with the BMFA's multiple choice test if they did not have an A (or B).

So this is the question on my mind.

Why would you prefer to give £9.00 to the BMFA?

My understanding is that they are just acting as an unpaid middleman - we pay our registration fees to BMFA and they pass them onto to the CAA. It may sit in the BMFA's bank account for a while but interest rates are rubbish so that is hardly going to make them anything. They are just doing a load of admin on behalf of the CAA for free.

That is my understanding - or am I wrong - more than happy to be told that.

Do the BMFA take a cut or get paid by the CAA to provide this service. If so, then I'm more than happy to process my registration with the BMFA, but if not, it seems like I would be doing them a favour processing it directly with the CAA.

Cheers,

Nigel

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.

28/10/2019 12:40:34
Posted by Jeremy Wilkins on 28/10/2019 10:58:23:

Hi all.

Latest BMFA 'News Flash' (seems to be that the two posts dated 28 October 2019 on the BMFA website are identical). Link

Cheers,

Jeremy Wilkins

No doubt Bruce will be along within 48hrs to explain to them why they are wrong... wink (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
23/10/2019 14:09:35
Posted by Steve J on 23/10/2019 11:23:58:
Posted by Cuban8 on 23/10/2019 10:14:10:

I'm inclined to think that anyone having a 'taster session' would be treated in the same way as someone having one of those trial lessons that full size flying clubs offer ...

Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you are inclined to think. What matters is what is says in the ANO and any permissions/exceptions/authorisations that the CAA give the associations.

Have you read articles 94D, F & G?

Steve

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

23/10/2019 10:25:02
Posted by Peter Miller on 23/10/2019 08:17:19:

I was not aware that the CAA test was on line. Nor have I heard that A cert holders are exempt.

Clarify please

Full details here...

BMFA Update - CAA Drone and Model Aircraft Registration and Education Scheme (DRES)

"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.


For members of ARPAS-UK, British Model Flying Association (BMFA), Scottish Aeromodellers’ Association (SAA), Large Model Association (LMA) and FPV UK

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."

22/10/2019 19:45:28

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?
22/10/2019 19:42:09
Posted by Chris Berry on 22/10/2019 19:03:22:

Not sure a club needs to do anything?

members join BMFA for example and pay the £9 extra, job done, that’s the end of it.

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
21/10/2019 22:28:55
Posted by Steve J on 21/10/2019 20:21:06:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 21/10/2019 19:51:32:

I'm not quite sure what to make of the yearly fee when IIRC Mr Shapps asked them to look at reducing it below £5 was it?

I have seen it reported elsewhere that Mr Shapps told the CAA to get the fee below £10. I personally was hoping for £5.

Steve

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

21/10/2019 17:26:40

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".

21/10/2019 17:24:55
Posted by Steve J on 21/10/2019 15:46:28:

UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy

"The UK's new strategy for harnessing the economic and social benefits of unmanned aircraft, by reducing the risk posed by malicious or illegal use."

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

17/10/2019 17:13:32
Posted by GONZO on 17/10/2019 16:55:31:

So why start all this and do the check in the first place. Just do as the BMFA suggest and make it a PERSONAL responsibility, KISS.

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:

  1. At the present time, the UK Associations will have no direct involvement in the registration of their individual members into the DRES as operators or confirmation of their competency as remote pilots.
  2. Compliance with the requirements of the DRES will therefore be entirely a matter for individual members to decide upon.
  3. Whilst the UK Associations would obviously encourage members to participate in the DRES, we will have no direct involvement with it and cannot monitor or enforce compliance (coupled with the fact that only those members flying aircraft weighing more than 250g outdoors are required to register). Compliance will therefore be advisory rather than a condition of membership.
  4. However, it is important to note that the insurance cover provided to members covers ‘lawful and recognised activities’ and as such cover could only be assured for those operating lawfully (which includes participation in the DRES where required from the 30th November) which members should consider when deciding how to proceed. We are still working with insurers to clarify the final position in terms of members and clubs.

...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

17/10/2019 17:00:19

Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 16:39:58:

I hoped I had made it clear. The 'club' (which is called 'The XXX Committee' rather than 'The XXX Club' ) only has about five members and ALL of them are on its committee and all are BMFA members. Therefore it can be, and is, BMFA affiliated.

The rest of us (approx 200) are not members of this club. We are holders of 'permits' that the 'club' issues, in effect on behalf of the Forestry Commission. Thus many of us are 'country' members of the BMFA while others have their own insurance - EG Direct Line house insurance specifically EXCLUDES operation of models from their list of exclusions..

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

17/10/2019 16:48:05
Posted by GONZO on 17/10/2019 14:53:33:

MattyB As I said earlier. Its all well and good at annual membership renewals but what about day to day at the field. My club has members who are FF/CL flyers and thus don't have to register. But, lets say one decides to have a flight with a larger RC plane. To be covered the club would need to police the field/site otherwise the membership check is pointless.

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...

17/10/2019 14:39:52
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 13:53:32:
As I said, with a few exceptions such as if your site is leased and the landowner insists on it (not that he is likely to be aware of it unless the club is fool enough to tell him) I can't see any reason why a club should WANT to act as a policeman, when the BMFA says it isn't going to. Maybe such people are traffic wardens by trade

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.

17/10/2019 14:32:20
Posted by PeterF on 17/10/2019 13:36:25:

But aren't all clubs data controllers now anyway, BMFA went through a big thing when GPDR came in and produced example privacy policy documents for clubs. If you have members and you keep their names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and possibly dates of birth as well, then GPDR already applies to you so collecting the DRES registration number would just be another item of personal information.

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

17/10/2019 13:30:12
Posted by Don Fry on 17/10/2019 13:11:53:

Can anyone explain to me how the Data Protection Legistlation has any bearing on a club asking to see proof of registration. I have no memory of the legislations over the years which will stop a club asking, and refusing membership if information is not supplied.

I'm not getting into any argument whether it is or is not, a good idea. But I would like to see the assertion that a club can't do it backed up by a bit of a quote as to where the assertion is written in law.

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.
13/10/2019 14:44:14
Posted by john stones 1 on 13/10/2019 14:24:05:

England won something. face 1

Now that's something that really oat to be celebrated... wink

Thread: Latest CAA Update
13/10/2019 14:40:41
Posted by Jason-I on 12/10/2019 15:34:33:

...I hope the BMFA are also campaigning for lone flyers / country members as much as they are club members.

As the 2020 regs stand, I will likely lose my flying site, and with it, all hope if continuing in this hobby.

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

12/10/2019 23:24:29
Posted by Martin Harris on 11/10/2019 23:54:59:
Posted by Martin Dilly 1 on 11/10/2019 23:13:09:

In the Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones thread there were very explicit details by Jeremy Wilkins on 04/08/19 of how to submit written evidence to the Select Committee. This is how I submitted mine, which ended up as item 121 in the list of 175 submissions. Having speed-read the lot, there appear to be four others from model flyers and the Louth club, apart from the three from the national organisations.

I assume you're referring to Jeremy's post of the 3rd of August? It does indeed mention how to submit evidence within it and hopefully your response was material to the generally positive outcome of the report.

However, at that time the BMFA were in communication with the membership regarding the "call to action" and at no time suggested submitting "evidence" [whatever was meant by the term] to the Commons Enquiry - progress of which was regularly updated.

I think accusations of being apathetic on this subject are, quite frankly, insulting to the many people posting on this forum who have gone to great efforts to both contribute and encourage others to participate.

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??

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E! 

Support Our Partners
Pepe Aircraft
Wings & Wheels 2019
Gliders Distribution
Slec
electricwingman 2017
Cambridge Gliding Club
CML
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Do you use a throttle kill switch?
Q: This refers to electric-powered models but do you use a throttle kill switch?

 Yes
 No
 Sometimes
 Rarely

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us