Read and weep for aeromodelling
|Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator||19/07/2018 12:19:29|
15409 forum posts
Guys, its only the 19th, there are 12 days to the end of the month, and keep in mind the end of the month wasn't a promise - CAA/DfT simply said they "saw no reason why" it shouldn't be in place by then. Maybe they see a reason now!
Yes, it is very likely that we have a slight impasse due to te fact that CAA will not grant all of what BMFA et al all of want. But also consider this: the CAA does have one or two other matters to deal with, while I'm sure they have good will and want to see this sorted as soon as it can be, its vary, very, unlikely to be their number one priority, or even particularly high on their list of priorities. So if you have visions of BMFA and CAA locked in smoke filled rooms for days (weeks!) on end I think you need to think again. Its perfectly possible BMFA haven't even managed to get a face-to-face maeeting with CAA and DfT yet! From the point of view of the latter this should be able to be dealt with in a 1 hour meeting following some initial exchanges of correspondance to set the scene. Afterall "This is what we are perpared to agree to" does not take long to say!
So, what's the message? Its the same as it was yesterday and the day before; we can only be patient and wait.
|Martin Harris||19/07/2018 12:20:10|
7689 forum posts
I always thought there was a presumption of innocence in English law and guilt had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence presented by the prosecution. Any departure from this practice would surely be seized on by enterprising lawyers to launch an appeal against an unsafe conviction.
|Martin Harris||19/07/2018 12:46:31|
7689 forum posts
A flight picked at random with a "typical club model" (Extreme Flight 58" Extra) flown through (I have little doubt - I picked totally at random so have no particular recollection) a range of appropriate manoeuvres - a few others checked since are broadly similar. I don't think the average club flyer should have too many worries if they aren't silly but I would recommend getting suitably equipped clubmates to demonstrate what different models look like at heights approaching the limits should no resolution be in place at the end of the month.
Edited By Martin Harris on 19/07/2018 12:55:22
|David Mellor||19/07/2018 12:50:45|
757 forum posts
You are correct Martin.
The burden of proof and evidence is on the accuser/prosecutor and such proof as may be provided is put to tests by the court in any criminal case.
That the accused is innocent until proven otherwise is a human right enshrined I'm more than one set of Human Rights worldwide.
The situation is slightly different in civil courts (for several reasons) and both parties usually are required to present evidence that will be tested (or accepted on face value). Perhaps Erf was thinking of civil law when he made his comments.
But that is not relevant to so-called drone laws because cases involving ANO violations would be tried as criminal offences in which the CAA acts as prosecutor, as set out in "Conduct of Prosecutions by the CAA" document.
The significance for us (model flyers) is simple - a model flyer is not required in law to be able to prove that he/she was complying with the ANO (though that is clearly highly advantageous if he/she can), but instead it is for the CAA to put forward testable evidence as part and parcel of their prosecution that he/she was not complying. That is the "guts" of the issue. The burden of proof is on the CAA and testable evidence that they use in their prosecutions is essential to all prosecutions they may make in defence of the ANO.
This is plainly set out here:-
Edited By David Mellor on 19/07/2018 13:18:33
1806 forum posts
That is exactly the concern. If they are at an impasse and the end of the month passes then flying above 400ft will be illegal even for members of the MFAs. Organisers of slope and thermal comps and potentially power fly-ins etc may have to cancel events at that point because they will not be able to guarantee they can be conducted lawfully.
"Hi Matt thanks for your comment. The BMFA's CEO has spent 3 days negotiating with authorities this week, so the BMFA is continuing to press the matter as promised. As soon as we have a confirmed update we will post accordingly."
Edited By MattyB on 19/07/2018 15:46:40
|Gary Manuel||19/07/2018 16:23:43|
1705 forum posts
Good excuse to get yourselves off to Don Valley on 28th / 29th July.
It might be you last chance to legally fly high!
|Steve J||19/07/2018 18:36:15|
690 forum posts
If I was organising such an event in August, I would be downloading SRG1308, marking it up (the CAA haven't got around to updating it yet), filling it in and sending it to the CAA.
It's getting silly now. The DfT/CAA should have published an agreed exemption on the 30th May at the same time as they published AN(A)O 2018.
|john stones 1||19/07/2018 18:58:04|
9671 forum posts
Be glad when it's August, do you never stop ?
10929 forum posts
I do believe that the principal that every one is innocent to proven guilty is an accept concept. I personally see things a little differently, in that you are innocent until found guilty. Being found guilty or innocent is IMO not just dependent on being innocent or guilty. Reading the newspapers it appears that the guilty sometimes are found to be innocent. Recent cases have shown that the innocent have been found guilty. Yet there is no single clear cut reason why. In some cases it has been the police with holding evidence that does not support their case, other times just the mood of society and the jury. Even the ability to have the resources to fight your corner. In the contra cases, the arguments as to why can be disturbingly similar. Even the sentence for being found guilty is often questionable, ranging from making an example, through to a reformining liberal agenda.
From our perspective, getting into a discussion on the issue is just a waste of time.
What matters to most clubs is have the happy days ended. Are we going to be constrained to such an extent, that the hobby looses may of the present practitioners, will there be new blood attracted to the hobby in the future.
505 forum posts
Well Erfolg, I sort of agree, nowadays it seems truth is not important, what matters is who can win their argument -whether guilty or innocent is unimportant to the players, its just a job after all. I just hope that 400 ft and other restrictions coming our way can be softened. We have to trust BMFA, it is their interest too to fight our corner, D Phipps isn't treating it as a jolly time. The art of negotiation is keep your powder dry, play your cards close to your chest, never give anything for free hoping to receive something back, form alliances. He appears to be doing the right thing. Hope so. I think he could teach Parliament a few things. However we're all anxious for news as it means so much to us. We need to remain patient.
|Rich too||20/07/2018 04:18:24|
2726 forum posts
|stu knowles||20/07/2018 09:05:34|
|492 forum posts|
The organsations that represent our interests, BMFA, LMA, FPVUK have been told that there will be an exemption for all their members from any imposed height limit beyond what exists under current law.
How is that not clear? Some of the contributions to this thread are absolute drivel.
|Alan Gorham_||20/07/2018 09:14:38|
506 forum posts
Stu - I think the main issue for many is that the statement released expected the exemption to be in place by the end of this month, but there's been no visible progress on this.
Even if the progress was: "not going to be in place by end of July, but will be in place by end of August".
It seems that some are worried that the outcome may end up being: "sorry, we've looked at a blanket exemption and you're not getting one".
|1212 forum posts|
You can’t issue an amendment to a statue that itself hasn’t been invoked. So wait until the 30th
|Martin Harris||20/07/2018 12:44:09|
7689 forum posts
The worry is what form any exemption is going to take and how universally it will be available. The press release simply stated that the CAA didn't see any reason why "an exemption" couldn't be issued but we are awaiting any news of what such an exemption will permit - and where.
My own club operates at the edge of the CTR of a major airport 3 miles from the extended centre line of the runway but in an area rarely overflown. We have an exemption, renewed annually, to allow 7 - 20kg models (and FPV) to operate to 400' AGL within a defined boundary - which we have been permitted to extend to 1000' on a couple of occasions. By my interpretation of existing legislation (and confirmed in a letter from the airport in 1982 when the club acquired its field) there is no legal control (other than that pertaining to endangerment and the requirement to maintain visual contact) to model flying at any height in controlled airspace.
While the 400' limit is sufficient for normal club flying, I doubt, for example, that we will be given an exemption for any models to operate above 400' which means the end for any meaningful thermal gliding at the site.
While I am obviously very interested in the outcome of negotiations, the fact that the BMFA haven't been able to issue an update is more likely to be that they see no point in speculating until there is an agreed outcome and I see nothing sinister in the lack of information. There will surely be a statement by the end of the month, even if no agreement has been reached and I am happy to await that.
Edited By Martin Harris on 20/07/2018 12:45:34
1806 forum posts
I would love to believe that, but when the Baroness Sugg (the Minister for Aviation from the DfT) is stating explicitly that an exception of the type the BMFA have promised is undesirable then it is not unreasonable to express doubts:
I sincerely hope to be proved wrong, but I just cannot see MFA members being granted a blanket exemption to 1k feet at this point.
Edited By MattyB on 20/07/2018 15:57:06
|Gary Manuel||20/07/2018 16:10:37|
1705 forum posts
Are you sure that you've attached the correct letter extract?
Nowhere in that letter does it say that an exemption would be undesirable.
In fact it says that an exemption could be granted by the CAA, which is exactly what the BMFA etc are pursuing on our behalf.
I would suggest being patient and wait to see what happens.
10929 forum posts
A response from Baroness Sugg has previously been pasted within a posting on this thread, which did state that an exemption would be undesirable.
Even if a rabbit is pulled out of the hat at the 12 hour, there are enough changes as to how we operate, specified in concept, to suggest that the BMFA needs to get out a definitive explanation of how we will need to operate and organise ourselves in the future, with respect to such changes as an online test etc. Not some time latter, or as piece meal information circular, that will leave some unaware of some aspect of how we will be required to operate.
All of this is a big set of jobs, that goes a long way beyond just negotiating.
|Gary Manuel||20/07/2018 21:01:06|
1705 forum posts
OK but I would still suggest being patient and wait to see what happens
|Gary Manuel||20/07/2018 21:34:31|
1705 forum posts
I must have missed this. What page is it on?
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!