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

Latest CAA Update

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Cuban817/10/2019 20:04:23
2758 forum posts
13 photos

Aren't we jumping the gun a bit here? Unless I've missed something, advice is to do nothing at the moment whilst talks continue. Hopeless optimist I know, but I hold out hope for some sensible good news.

Jason-I17/10/2019 20:13:03
260 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 19:59:04:
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:53:20:
Posted by

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

Well, that's what I asked you to identify. Your statement, on its own, cannot be taken as definitive. What is the Act that provides this "ownership"?

Well, apart from the obvious fact that you mentioned yourself - you apply for planning permission from the council, you do not normally need to request permission from the CAA to build on your land.

There is however legal precedence in Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited [1978], which states the following:

the owner has rights to the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.

So, it depends what the normal use and enjoyment of the land is. If a flying site has been going for many years, you can argue that this is the normal use of the land, and therefore lay claim to 400ft or airspace above that land....

You are also allowed to erect temporary structures on your land without planning permission or permission from the CAA. I vote we all erect 400ft high tents and fly indoors....

Brian Stevenson 117/10/2019 20:31:43
45 forum posts
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 19:36:38:
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 18:49:35:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:49:39:
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 17:13:58:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 16:46:53:

No you didn't make that clear. It seems simpler and more beneficial for everyone to be a BMFA member. For example, the BMFA negotiated an exemption with the CAA to allow models under 7kg to fly over 400 feet. That means that some of the "flyers" at your site would be allowed legally to exceed 400 feet and some wouldn't. Can of worms...

It doesn't matter what it "seems" like, I was telling you how it is.

And yes, it could be a can of worms. but it won't be. The 'club', which as I said is called the 'committee' long ago negotiated a 1000 ft height limitation for ALL permit holders, BMFA members or not, with the CAA and the two local airfields, Hurn and Southampton. And the committee has been assured, in writing, that this will not change.

And as I am not a member (and have no desire to be) but a permit holder I have zero influence on how it works.

It's excellent that the committee of the club have negotiated this for all users of the flying site. Rather than stating as you did earlier that you are minded not to register and thus will be flying illegally (although perhaps still insured subject to clarification) it might repay the committees action if you were to register and make their lives easier?

You have already said the the land owners tend to nod things through at the committee's suggestion. I think if I were on that committee, [B] be tempted to propose that all users of the site be registered,[/B] proving their legal status as operators and their knowledge of the law as pilots by the nature of taking the online test.

Then if you didn't register, you would simply be making it impossible for you to fly there. What's the point in that?

Simpler to just toe the line.

My bold.

That's been the problem. the committee/club has sometimes proposed things that the Forestry Commission would never have thought of, resulting in more and more rules. though they tend to be 'irritants' rather than notably restrictive. But who wants 'irritants' in a hobby?

As for 'laws' the Forestry Commission had only ever been interested in third party insurance, more to protect them than us. They have zero interest in whether we are breaking laws or not, least of all aviation ones, having previously had hassle with the CAA over hot air balloons and a couple of RAF Chinooks. If we introduce more complications they might well think we are too much hassle too.

Toeing the line is always simpler. But it doesn't always give the best result.

Except it will be the best result in this case because if you don't you'll be breaking the law. I dont think you are going to get a great deal of sympathy on this forum for your proposed stand against the legislation. Its here. Many of us objected to aspects of it. It seems that it wont be too onerous to comply with and some small concessions are being made to members of recognised model flying associations. Deal with it.

Breaking the law - says the man who has NEVER exceeded the speed limit.

It depends mostly on what those those concessions are. And why just for them? Being a member of a recognised organisation doesn't make you a better flyer or a more 'responsible (whatever that is) human being.

Sympathy on this forum? There are vastly more model flyers NOT on this forum than there are on it. So being on this forum automatically makes us non-representative of model flyers as a whole.

Deal with it? The only problem I have is that I don't want to offend our chairman, who, despite being rather 'authoritarian', thus quite likely to insist on registration (against present BMFA guidelines) is a guy who I personally like (and greatly respect for his professional skills).

And we are NOT policemen nor police 'snitches' which is what I believe is the police's derogatory name for those who tell the police tales about the misdeeds of others.

Alan Gorham_17/10/2019 20:54:04
avatar
1023 forum posts
123 photos
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1

My 'tentative' personal actions:

I may not register at all. The law will anyway be ignored by those who are merely 'careless' and even more so by those who deliberately intend to create disturbance - IE: "I intend to disrupt my local airport but I think I should register as an operator or pilot first". It's a total nonsense.

Brian

You have never met me and are making assumptions that I am both a lawmaker by speeding when i drive and also slightly contradictory a police snitch.

You are suggesting that you may not comply with the need to register in the text I quoted. As I said you would be putting your "club" that you aren't a member of in a difficult situation I think.

You have also had a lot to say about how the registration scheme is nonsense, how you've never read the applicable parts of the ANO. I'm a passionate lifelong aeromodeller and it just seems we are being asked to do something trivial. I would not want my lifetime hobby damaged by frankly selfish and futile law breaking just to prove some kind of point.

Peter Jenkins17/10/2019 21:20:32
1281 forum posts
132 photos
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 20:13:03:
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 19:59:04:
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:53:20:
Posted by

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

Well, that's what I asked you to identify. Your statement, on its own, cannot be taken as definitive. What is the Act that provides this "ownership"?

Well, apart from the obvious fact that you mentioned yourself - you apply for planning permission from the council, you do not normally need to request permission from the CAA to build on your land.

There is however legal precedence in Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited [1978], which states the following:

the owner has rights to the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.

So, it depends what the normal use and enjoyment of the land is. If a flying site has been going for many years, you can argue that this is the normal use of the land, and therefore lay claim to 400ft or airspace above that land....

You are also allowed to erect temporary structures on your land without planning permission or permission from the CAA. I vote we all erect 400ft high tents and fly indoors....

Jason

If you think there is a precedent for flying up to 400 ft over the land you own (not lease or rent) go ahead and test it on the precedent you quoted. I doubt you'd be successful. It would be of little use to those of us who fly precision aerobatics as we go up to around 1,000 ft with 2 mtr class models weighing up to 5 kg. I will still put my faith in the BMFA getting us to a position where we continue as we are (including the exemption to fly aboveb400 ft with aircraft not above 7 kg) than pursue a dubious legal precedent you quote to give us the right to fly in the national airspace. If the BMFA's advice is to register then that's what I'd do.

Jason-I17/10/2019 21:41:14
260 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 21:20:32:
 

Jason

If you think there is a precedent for flying up to 400 ft over the land you own (not lease or rent) go ahead and test it on the precedent you quoted. I doubt you'd be successful. It would be of little use to those of us who fly precision aerobatics as we go up to around 1,000 ft with 2 mtr class models weighing up to 5 kg. I will still put my faith in the BMFA getting us to a position where we continue as we are (including the exemption to fly aboveb400 ft with aircraft not above 7 kg) than pursue a dubious legal precedent you quote to give us the right to fly in the national airspace. If the BMFA's advice is to register then that's what I'd do.

Jeez, I'm just throwing things out there. I'm not seriously suggesting you follow them.

Anyway, I'm with nitro. Lets take to arms. I for one wont be registering as an operator. I don't need no stinkin operator number......

 

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 21:46:03

Brian Stevenson 117/10/2019 21:52:36
45 forum posts
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 20:54:04:
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1

My 'tentative' personal actions:

I may not register at all. The law will anyway be ignored by those who are merely 'careless' and even more so by those who deliberately intend to create disturbance - IE: "I intend to disrupt my local airport but I think I should register as an operator or pilot first". It's a total nonsense.

Brian

You have never met me and are making assumptions that I am both a lawmaker by speeding when i drive and also slightly contradictory a police snitch.

You are suggesting that you may not comply with the need to register in the text I quoted. As I said you would be putting your "club" that you aren't a member of in a difficult situation I think.

You have also had a lot to say about how the registration scheme is nonsense, how you've never read the applicable parts of the ANO. I'm a passionate lifelong aeromodeller and it just seems we are being asked to do something trivial. I would not want my lifetime hobby damaged by frankly selfish and futile law breaking just to prove some kind of point.

I assume you mean "lawbreaker" rather then lawmaker. And show me someone who has never broken the speed limit and you are showing me a saint. The law is not 'pick 90 out of 100 that you will obey', it's break ANY law and you are a lawbreaker. And it ill behooves anyone who has chosen one set of laws to ignore to criticise someone who has chosen a different set.

And of course the law is nonsense. In my long life (74 and aeromodelling since about 9 years old) I have NEVER seen a law that so much regulates the innocent and 'responsible' while having zero effect on the guilty and 'irresponsible', who are certainly NOT going to register, as this one.

The 'police' point was in answer to you but not personally directed at you. I just reinforced the BMFA guideline that clubs should not act as policemen. And that is what ANY club will be doing if they insist on our registering. If 'our' chairman wishes to ignore this BMFA guideline he can expect some flak, and not just from me. Particularly so as he is extremely hot on obeying all other BMFA guidelines.

Gary Manuel17/10/2019 22:07:00
avatar
1951 forum posts
1514 photos

Brian - you are still typing within the previous persons quote. It makes your posts awfully difficult to read. Again, no offence intended.

Pete B - Moderator17/10/2019 22:26:12
avatar
Moderator
7586 forum posts
732 photos

Gents, the thread is becoming confused and impossible to follow with all the posts within posts. If you're going to quote someone, consider selecting just a line or two from their post and cut out anything unnecessary.

If you cannot do that confidently, it might be better to go over to the Sandbox, where you can practice to your heart's content....thanks

Pete

Jason-I17/10/2019 22:50:34
260 forum posts
37 photos

Before you start typing, click in the editor box and try holding the down arrow key until it will go down no further. Then try typing. Does that work for you?

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:55:58

Martin Harris17/10/2019 22:55:45
avatar
8872 forum posts
221 photos
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 22:50:34:

Before you start typing, click in the editor box and try holding the down arrow key until it will go down no further. Then try typing. Does that work for you?

I simply click in the white space below the quote and type.

The forum software is fairly clunky but with 45 years experience it shouldn't be too testing for you to master if you keep an open mind...

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:56:51

Pete B - Moderator17/10/2019 22:59:33
avatar
Moderator
7586 forum posts
732 photos

Gents, would you be kind enough to cease quoting a post I've deleted for a breach of the C of C, please?smile

I've PM'd the poster with advice on how to quote correctly - strangely enough in much the same terms as your advice!teeth 2

Back to the topic now...

Pete

john stones 117/10/2019 23:03:32
avatar
10704 forum posts
1480 photos

What was the topic ? Gonna be a long Winter methinks.

Jason-I17/10/2019 23:13:49
260 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:59:33:

Gents, would you be kind enough to cease quoting a post I've deleted for a breach of the C of C, please?smile

I've PM'd the poster with advice on how to quote correctly - strangely enough in much the same terms as your advice!teeth 2

Back to the topic now...

Pete

You must not have deleted it when we quoted it - otherwise we would not have been able to quote it! wink

Brian Stevenson 117/10/2019 23:28:42
45 forum posts
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 23:13:49:
You must not have deleted it when we quoted it - otherwise we would not have been able to quote it! wink

Whose a clever clogs then? smiley

You will note, however, that this one is done properly.

Kelly20/10/2019 21:08:14
avatar
1240 forum posts
191 photos

If my club registers then I will comply for the sake of my club.

If I have to register as an individual then I will leave my club and free fly as I did for several years.

I am making a stand . This is a hobby with a very good safety record.

People who buy drones and fly them near airports, main roads, smuggling goods into prison and so on are not going to register so how do we who on the whole fly with safety in mind ,insurance and obey air laws be forced to register when so called drones have been around for 10 years or so without causing any loss of life due to an air strike etc.

The Police have a lot more to deal with than someone with a toy aircraft, although you can get arrested for raising your voice to your wife (ask me how I know).

So bring it on you sad little PC law makerscheekydisgustcrook

Brian Stevenson 120/10/2019 22:44:40
45 forum posts
Posted by Kelly on 20/10/2019 21:08:14:

If my club registers then I will comply for the sake of my club.

If I have to register as an individual then I will leave my club and free fly as I did for several years.

I am making a stand . This is a hobby with a very good safety record.

People who buy drones and fly them near airports, main roads, smuggling goods into prison and so on are not going to register so how do we who on the whole fly with safety in mind ,insurance and obey air laws be forced to register when so called drones have been around for 10 years or so without causing any loss of life due to an air strike etc.

The Police have a lot more to deal with than someone with a toy aircraft, although you can get arrested for raising your voice to your wife (ask me how I know).

So bring it on you sad little PC law makerscheekydisgustcrook

 

Clubs don't register, only individuals do.

Which raises a couple of interesting points:

A) If the club has any 'club trainers' some individual, maybe a committee member, will have to 'own' them, pass the online test (which he might well have done already when this comes into effect), and register as an 'operator', paying the fee, maybe refunded to him out of club funds.

B) And someone, never having flown before, WILL FIRST HAVE TO PASS THE ONLINE TEST, probably having never even touched a plane, and register as either an operator or pilot.

And  that of course assumes that he knows such regulations exist - I don't see any effort to publicise it outside of model flying circles. And the shops, brick or online,  won't as they don't want to lose a sale by putting such obstacles in the buyers way.

Where we fly you don't need to have any 'skills' at all, just insurance. And there is no formal supervision of anyone, though the more public-spirited of us (assuming such a person is actually there) may offer some informal assistance (which a surprising number of total beginners, turning up with their purchased online foam Spitfire, resent). Most of us learnt by trial and error, probably not there. The concept of 'training' didn't exist when I started.

As for you leaving your club, if the club insists on everyone registering and 'polices' it (which is against BMFA guideless) you have a choice, register or leave the club.

But sensible clubs will obey the BMFA guidelines and not 'police' it at all. I don't see a majority of clubs approaching the BMFA saying "We WANT to police it, so alter the guidelines". Some may of course, but guidelines of course are just that, quidelines, they don't have to be obeyed.

Will the police themselves police it? Maybe at first they will, as it is much easier than catching burglars, but their enthusiasm will probably fade away after a short time as this registration does NOTHING to help catch any malevolent flyers. It is just a "look, we are doing something" exercise for public consumption.

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 20/10/2019 22:51:55

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 20/10/2019 22:53:42

Martin Harris20/10/2019 23:35:25
avatar
8872 forum posts
221 photos

There are many questions and very few authoritative answers so rather than speculating, I'm happy to wait for advice from the BMFA once negotiations/discussions with the CAA and Government and the deadline is reached.

It seems logical that a registered pilot in command with a buddy box system should be able to hand control to a beginner in the same way that an instructor supervises a student pilot, learner driver etc. who does not possess their own full licence - I think I'm right that the theory test is not a pre-requisite to taking practical driving lessons and PPL students certainly take written tests well into their training programme. Hopefully some pragmatic thinking will get this clarified as details of the application of the legislation progresses.

In the case of the club trainer, any registered operator can affix their number and allow other members to pilot the model. In the case of general unwillingness to take that responsibility then all it should take is a stick on label with the current instructor's own number to be affixed during operation.

I do wonder if there seems to be a lack of uptake, whether the CAA might conduct spot checks - probably at clubs or popular flying sites - in order to produce some high profile prosecutions to encourage compliance!

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/10/2019 23:38:23

Brian Stevenson 121/10/2019 00:25:47
45 forum posts
Posted by Martin Harris on 20/10/2019 23:35:25:

There are many questions and very few authoritative answers so rather than speculating, I'm happy to wait for advice from the BMFA once negotiations/discussions with the CAA and Government and the deadline is reached.

It seems logical that a registered pilot in command with a buddy box system should be able to hand control to a beginner in the same way that an instructor supervises a student pilot, learner driver etc. who does not possess their own full licence - I think I'm right that the theory test is not a pre-requisite to taking practical driving lessons and PPL students certainly take written tests well into their training programme. Hopefully some pragmatic thinking will get this clarified as details of the application of the legislation progresses.

In the case of the club trainer, any registered operator can affix their number and allow other members to pilot the model. In the case of general unwillingness to take that responsibility then all it should take is a stick on label with the current instructor's own number to be affixed during operation.

I do wonder if there seems to be a lack of uptake, whether the CAA might conduct spot checks - probably at clubs or popular flying sites - in order to produce some high profile prosecutions to encourage compliance!

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 20/10/2019 23:38:23

I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the BMFA. While you are probably in it, and I certainly am, I suspect there are far more flyers NOT in the BMFA then there are in it.

As many home insurance policies cover model flying and also cover everyone who lives in the house, not just a 'named' owner or even just family members, many flyers have no reason to join the BMFA except for the competitions the BMFS provides. . And there are far more non-competitive flyers than competitive ones.

OTOH if the BMFA can negotiate genuinely worthwhile concessions there may well be a surge in BMFA membership.

I think comparisons with driving and pilots licences are a little 'over the top' just to fly a toy plane. This is a  problem with 'officialdom', not you or me personally.

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 00:32:30

Edited By Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 00:33:08

Martin Harris21/10/2019 01:49:55
avatar
8872 forum posts
221 photos
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 21/10/2019 00:25:47:

I think comparisons with driving and pilots licences are a little 'over the top' just to fly a toy plane. This is a problem with 'officialdom', not you or me personally.

Exactly. If pre-qualification is not required for them, why [if it was ever the intention] would there be any sense in requiring it for little Johnny who wants to have a go on the buddy box. This is the sort of thing that I confidently expect the BMFA [who contrary to opinion in some quarters, I believe to have already demonstrated their effectiveness] to clarify and resolve with the CAA etc.

All Topics | Latest Posts

This thread is closed.

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Wings & Wheels 2019
electricwingman 2017
Pepe Aircraft
Slec
CML
Gliders Distribution
Cambridge Gliding Club
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