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: Droning on at the F1...|
We all know that, but that won't be how it is spun by the likes of Baroness Vere and the Daily Fail; they will use it as more "evidence" that greater regulation is required. After all, we already know from her evidence at the committee hearing last week that the DfT are seeking to go beyond the proposed EASA requirements on electronic conspicuity (either that or she is chronically misinformed of what those proposals require - you decide...!).
Our friendly air minister must be rubbing her hands together with glee...
Edited By MattyB on 14/07/2019 23:04:00
|Thread: D****s - again!|
Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones
"In the wake of the Gatwick drone crisis, high-risk specialist Aldo Kane investigates the threat drones pose to UK skies and tests the new technology we can use to keep ourselves safe."
Edited By MattyB on 01/07/2019 15:19:42
|Thread: Is it now time for cyclists to wear an identifier and pay a tax?|
The good Doc seems awfully keen to hear/stir up others opinions on this topic, but strangely reticent about providing his own. Isn’t there is a word for that?
Edited By MattyB on 21/06/2019 20:03:12
What is your rationale for suggesting this? "If RC modellers are having to undergo an ineffectual and expensive registration system, so should cyclists"? As someone who actively participates in both these activities I am confident to say that two wrongs don't make a right - what is being proposed in aeromodelling won't work, and neither would it in cycling.
The difference is in the lobbying power available - cycling is a big participant sport with plenty of big name, connected participants, and encouraging participation is key to the government achieving it's targets for decarbonisation. Do you really think they are going to criminalise cyclists at exactly the point they want to increase it's uptake and invest in new cycle infrastructure? Doesn't sound very likely to me...
|Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA|
The government have extensive policies around how IT services are procured; I highly doubt the CAA will have led the procurement of the system. It's much more liklely to be a systemic issue rather than a one time procurement gaffe.
Yep, just the same old canned responses. It is indicative of the mess our parliamentary process is currently in that ministers can seemingly refuse to answer the question posed (be it from a member of the public or one of their peers), instead regurgiitating a stock answer unrelated to the question asked. Embarassing.
No. 1 - I agree it's not about the money in the short term (i.e. 2020), but given the ridiculaous assumption that ~170k people will register I think we can be confident it can only go one way. The question is really how far and how fast. I personally think that (given the "greying" trending of traditional aeromodelling anyway) the imposition of a test and (say) £50 registration fee would be be enough to put off a pretty decent percentage of the existing members of the BMFA and SAA.
No. 2 - Agreed. I don't think we will see anything announced like that until the negotiations with the CAA have gone their full course, and even then it's pretty unlikely.
No. 3 - I agree suspending flying could have significant negative impct on clubs, and it probably isn't likely mass dissent would happen anyway based on only 6k of BMFA remembers responding to the consultation. Anyone who failed to register and continued flying with BMFA membership would certainly be a test case for the insurance company and courts should an accident occur.
No. 4 - Let's hope so, though I imagine it will be very difficult to win a case against the government based on the EASA proposals not being law yet and our comparatively meagre resources. We may all need to dip into our pockets to help if that's the case, but what effect might that itself have on BMFA membership? I do have sympathy for the national associations here, it is looking increasingly like they are negotiating with parties who have already decided what the outcome will be.
Online petitions like that are a complete waste of time, especially when written as a badly worded rant like that. The gov.uk petitions system is designed to give the perception of listening to the public, whilst in fact the politicians forge ahead with whatever they have decided anyway. Pointless!
Just got a personal response to the email I sent to my MP just under 2 weeks ago; it was quite balanced and he has promised to write to the DfT, though I'm sure their reposne will be the standard stonewall we've seen many times...
Good point! The vast majority of drone owners are responsible, peaceful drone operators.
When technology reaches the market before adequate regulation for use, there are often urgent, sub-optimal policies put in place to ensure the public are guarded from unscrupulous or malignant operators and that users have guidelines to set the parameters for behaviour.
As much as I agree with you completely that a tax and unenforceable registration is not going to prevent premeditated malicious use, I imagine (though I am not sure) the CAA were attempting to introduce this as a code of conduct, serving as a safety mechanism. I will write to the Department to request a full response for you as they will be able to address the specifics of the registration and fee requirements.
Bim Afolami MP"
Edited By MattyB on 10/06/2019 12:55:15
Your suggestion may indeed become the "least worst" one available to us come November, but based on my reading of the ANO I don't think the statement in bold italics holds water; it is pretty clear that it is the Operator who takes legal responsibility for the safe and lawful execution of the flight (read more about this in CAP 1763). Are the associations prepared to take that risk and potentially be prosecuted in a court of law alongside a member operating as a remote pilot who has broken the law?
Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2019 12:09:44
Ken, I dont necessarily disagree - if I were the Associations I would be reluctant to take some of these measures too. However, if the negotiations fail to deliver any meaningful change to the DfT/CAA proposals then these will be the only options left, plus the one I forgot from Nigel et al where the asociations register as the operators. However I sincerely doubt that their lawyers or insurers will recommend they go that route based on the legal requirements that are required of that role - I would certainly not sit on any club committee that wanted to take on the role for it's members so I doubt the BMFA, FPVUK etc will want to do that for the thousands of their members either.
Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2019 12:05:40
What a sorry state of affairs. Based on the summary of the conversation with Baroness Vere I cannot now see a way forward in the negotiations that will deliver a result that the memberships of the national associations are happy with. That leaves only the following options really...
So, in summary....
Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2019 10:51:59
Nope, all I've had are stock responses, other than my MP who has not yet responded (wll no beyond his "I've got it" auto reply message).
Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:39:58
Indeed; it really is looking pretty gloomy at this point. The biggest problem is that (IMO) we are pretty much powerless to take action that will have a meaningful effect. Unfortunately there aren't enough of us to be an electoral concern to the authorities. Even boycotting is not that effective; sure they would "lose" the ~£2.8m if the 170k people (where did that number come from?) refuse to pay, what would it actually do? That kind of money gets lost through government inefficiency and failed initiatives on a daily basis anyway, and in the act of boycotting we'd have reduced recreational usage which I've long suspected is a goal they are trying to achieve.
In recent years I have found my involvement in cycling increasing significantly and my RC flying dropping off year by year. It looks that is only going to continue in future. I didn't choose well though; cycling seems to be significantly more expensive than RC!
Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:42:25
So in other words "Thanks for responding but we're only having this consultation so we can say we've had it; the solution already proposed will be delivered as planned, and you'll be paying for it even though there is no value proposition to you". Sound about right?
Edited By MattyB on 29/05/2019 17:37:54
|Thread: CAA registration consulation|
Read more carefully - this has all been discussed before in this thread, you would have to be mad to take responsibility for all the models owned by your fellow club members...
Posted by MattyB on 02/05/2019 23:03:11:
I just refreshed my memory on that one - interesting stuff...
”Operator: person or organisation who has management of the small drone but may not be directly controlling the flight. There is no requirement for the operator to be present during the small drone flight but their responsibilities are listed here:
• The operator must not permit their small drone to be flown at a height of more than 400ft above the surface, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained;
So yes, technically the operator does not need to be present. However I would argue that does not make it a wise decision for clubs to have one individual sign up as the single registrant taking responsibility for every model owned and flown by club members anywhere in the UK. If one of them does something stupid/loans it to someone who has not passed the test I would not personally want to be called to give evidence or (worst case) prosecuted alongside them for failure to supervise the remote pilot in question.
Edited By MattyB on 13/05/2019 18:10:00
Yep, not quite sure why that navigated the paywall successfully but that worked for me too...
...but doesn’t seem to work direct! Hey ho. Just google it!
Edited By MattyB on 06/05/2019 19:29:01
We are all well aware of what the BMFA has asked it's members to do, Martin, but it is the choice of every individual whether they choose to do so. Pithy comments suggesting posters here should not be engaging on this forum until they have written their letters are unlikely to endear those deciding whether they feel it is worth their effort to respond.
Edited By MattyB on 03/05/2019 16:41:57
Agreed, though based on the way this has been done (with no direct engagement of our national bodies to shape the solution) I find it hard to be optimisitc that such a pragmatic soluiton will be arrived at.
PS - Another good source of information on the government's long term goals can be found in their 2017 consultation "Unlocking the UK's High Tech Economy: Consultation on the Safe Use of Drones in the UK" - there was lots about the drive to deliver economc benefits from drones in that consultation.
Edited By MattyB on 03/05/2019 14:30:40
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!