By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Jason-I12/06/2019 19:53:41
330 forum posts
44 photos
Posted by Percy Verance on 12/06/2019 19:38:11:

I fear you may risk writer's cramp Jason........

I think you might be right!

Martin Harris12/06/2019 19:57:28
avatar
9411 forum posts
256 photos
Posted by Percy Verance on 12/06/2019 19:48:54:
About as much use as a concrete parachute........

You say that, but I have seen a concrete glider - actually a gliding bomb produced by the Germans in WW2 designed to fly up to 130 miles from the launch aircraft. Your parachute would need to use rather quick setting concrete though...

wink

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/06/2019 19:58:18

Former Member12/06/2019 19:57:32

[This posting has been removed]

Jason-I12/06/2019 20:02:03
330 forum posts
44 photos
Posted by Peter Christy on 12/06/2019 19:44:02:

As I've said repeatedly, I don't believe the CAA is responsible for this mess. They have been *instructed* to do this by the DfT, and have to do what the boss says. Even when the boss is an incompetent prat like Grayling!

The one thing Grayling is good at is getting others to take the blame for his failings (eg: the railway timetables cock-up). This time he has lined up *two* lines of defence: the CAA, and then Baroness Vere as a backup!

Perhaps he has learned something after the Brexit ferries scandal after all.......

--

Pete

The CAA might not be responsible for the scheme overall, however they have had a hand in the procurement of an overly expensive system from ripoffwebsites.com

They could at least answer the questions I have asked relating to the costs of the system.

MattyB12/06/2019 22:31:11
avatar
2103 forum posts
32 photos
Posted by Jason-I on 12/06/2019 20:02:03:

The CAA might not be responsible for the scheme overall, however they have had a hand in the procurement of an overly expensive system from ripoffwebsites.com

They could at least answer the questions I have asked relating to the costs of the system.

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.

Steve J13/06/2019 07:31:19
avatar
1983 forum posts
54 photos

Posted by MattyB on 12/06/2019 22:31:11:

The government have extensive policies around how IT services are procured; I highly doubt the CAA will have led the procurement of the system.

The contract appears to have been let by the CAA and went to a large software house.

CAP 1775 says that the government provided funding for initial development. The running costs look high to me, but I suspect that they may be covering more than just the registration system. The costs of maintaining the geo-fencing database are going to have to be covered somewhere.

Steve

Nigel R13/06/2019 09:58:52
avatar
3987 forum posts
721 photos

Rates in that contract would suggest around £1m for the first year of Alpha/Beta/Public Beta. Onboing running cost ought to be a lot less when completed and deployed.

The contract might be issued by CAA but as above posting may very well be done to gov rules.

The contract seems to suggest that this system is purely for registration, payment, and some third party access at an administrator level (e.g. CAA, police). I don't see any mention of services involving integration with automatic ATC for USpace or geofencing.

Without trying to sound disparaging, that contract suggests a database, a shop front, and an admin interface. Not exactly rocket science. Ongoing costs; some bug fixes, hosting, assorted tech support.

£2.8mil/year (do I have that right?) - the software place must be laughing their socks off.

Steve J13/06/2019 10:18:27
avatar
1983 forum posts
54 photos

The link that I posted says that Government Digital Services experience is essential. It is also asking for security clearances.

The £2.8M breaks down as £1.5M running, £1M further development and £0.3M public awareness campaign. As I read it, the CAA are running the system in house.

It seems on the high side, but I have never worked on government contracts. In my industry I know that jobs for some clients always end up being more expensive than for others because of the way they want things done.

Steve

ken anderson.02/07/2019 18:56:30
avatar
8713 forum posts
808 photos

this thread seem's to have died the death,any news on the front line?

my e-mail that I sent to my local MP came back with what looked like a standard reply referring to the various affairs getting prepared for the new legislation coming in...I felt it was a wasted effort on my behalf....

ken anderson...ne..1...what happening dept.

Steve J04/07/2019 11:37:43
avatar
1983 forum posts
54 photos

I had the standard DfT response from Baroness Vere via my MP at the beginning of June. I asked my MP to go back to the DfT and today he sent me a letter attaching what is effectively the same letter from the Baroness. My MP is quite sympathetic, but says that it appears unlikely that the DfT are going to change their position.

Steve

Steve J04/07/2019 12:14:05
avatar
1983 forum posts
54 photos

PS I've had another read of my latest letter from the Baroness and it has this in the last paragraph:

"I have encouraged Mr Phipps to continue to engage with the CAA to consider whether the BMFA could act as a gateway to the registration system by means of signposting to new members."

Steve

GONZO04/07/2019 13:40:34
avatar
1380 forum posts
14 photos

Steve J, so what does that mean?

During this hiatus I've done some re reading.

Article 16 Operations under the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations. This option has been firmly closed to us in this country by the powers that be. Yes/no?

The other concerning aspect in the document that contains 'article 16' seems to suggest that all model kits and ARTF kits sold in EASA countries will have to be CE tested and fully comply thus adding significantly to the costs, that is if manufacturers don't just abandon the market. Section reproduced below. What is the opinion of people on this.

A key element of the Open category is that any unmanned aircraft that are sold for use within this category will also be subject to a set of product standards, similar to the ‘CE’ marking scheme"
"The full details of the product standards for each class are set out in the Annex to the Delegated Regulation and include a requirement to include an EASA published information leaflet in the packaging which simply describes the applicable limitations and obligations under EU law in the form of a ‘do’ and don’t’ list. Remember, these standards only apply to unmanned aircraft that are intended to be sold in the EU market, either fully assembled or in kit form.

Steve J04/07/2019 13:50:18
avatar
1983 forum posts
54 photos
Posted by GONZO on 04/07/2019 13:40:34:

so what does that mean?

I haven't got a clue.

The way that I read it, CE marking only applies to RTF models ("single ready-to-assemble kit" ). There is a big hole for privately built. See UAS.OPEN.040 (4)(a).

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 04/07/2019 13:50:33

Nigel R04/07/2019 14:41:48
avatar
3987 forum posts
721 photos

I don't think it's nearly that bad, Gonzo.

A bit of a dig into the delegated regulation document here

**LINK**

suggests that "everything we fly" (wings, no camera, no automation, etc etc) will be class C4. There's not much technology going on with a class C4 airframe.

Add automation, for the "non toy drone" classes and it all becomes a lot more onerous. As you would hope, as all this stuff is really meant to stop the determined idiot from asking a computer to fly a drone somewhere silly.

It seems - my initial take only - that the manufacturer's obligations are not that bad for class C4. Some tech design docs on the airframe, which must be retained for 10 years after manufacture. Manfuacturer has to notify EASA or delegated body of the tech docs, and the design, and make a specimen available for examination.

My take, I just can't see EASA or CAA doing an awful lot about investigating The John Smith Garage Based Airplane Company's 4 foot span laser cut Fokker Eindekker kit. For that sort of thing, the technical documents called for would just about be completely covered by a hand drawn plan the likes of which Sarik will sell you.

On the face of it, the manufacturing obligations on each individual kit seem to be limited "put this EASA info leaflet in the box", and, a few items that need including in a "manual of operation" - most of which look like common sense anyway.

I stand ready to be corrected.

Edited By Nigel R on 04/07/2019 14:43:47

GONZO04/07/2019 19:25:34
avatar
1380 forum posts
14 photos

I hear what you both say. But, a little while back we were all lead to believe, and most did so, that we would be operating under 'Article 16'. That was stopped and we now find ourselves being used as a revenue stream. I just don't trust them!

Edited By GONZO on 04/07/2019 19:25:53

Jason-I05/07/2019 10:25:05
330 forum posts
44 photos

Just had an email from the CAA complaints dept. I was gobsmacked, and not in a good way.

All of the complaints we have raised with the CAA have been in vain. They are not going to consider them, and they will not even appear on their statistics!

See email below for explanation (this was in response to my most recent complaint)....

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email of 4 July 2019, regarding your correspondence in relation to the UK’s drone registration and education scheme (DRES) and the response that your MP, Mr Esterson, received.

The correct platform by which members of the model flying and drone community were able to make their opinions and views known was through the consultation. I note that you have done this. All comments are being considered collectively rather than responding to individual points. For this reason, we will not be handling comments outside of this process and, given we treat as a complaint any expression of dissatisfaction with our service which calls for a response, and a consultation does not constitute a service, we do not intend to refer you into the formal complaints process.

Once the outcome of the consultation has been established, a dedicated campaign will be conducted to update members of the model flying community and the BMFA.

Kind regards,

Jason-I05/07/2019 10:45:15
330 forum posts
44 photos

Have just raised another complaint with the CAA - complaining about 2 members of CAA staff who fail to supply requested information. Lets see how the respond to that!

Steve J05/07/2019 10:49:47
avatar
1983 forum posts
54 photos
Posted by GONZO on 04/07/2019 19:25:34:

a little while back we were all lead to believe, and most did so, that we would be operating under 'Article 16'.

Article 16 requires members of model clubs and associations to be registered.

Steve

GONZO05/07/2019 11:00:24
avatar
1380 forum posts
14 photos

Steve J, yes but registration was understood to be via membership of the national organisation and the use of their data base. Not an additional process that required the payment of an additional fee. IIRC the phrase bandied about was 'things will be much the same as they are now and we will not notice any changes', or words to that effect.

Former Member06/07/2019 07:47:39

[This posting has been removed]

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
CML
Slec
Sussex Model Centre
electricwingman 2017
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E!