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

The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Andy Symons - BMFA11/12/2019 21:31:15
617 forum posts
1 photos
Posted by Nigel Heather on 11/12/2019 19:06:55:
Posted by Martin Harris on 11/12/2019 18:59:30:

I took both tests in order to check them for future reference for students - uploaded both to my profile...next time I looked the standard version had been deleted so I would say the answer is yes - the camera equipped version appears to be seen as an "upgrade".

Presumably we will get Pilot IDs when the BMFA do the bulk upload at the end of January.

If you have uploaded both certificates then I assume the system would be sensible enough to just generate one Pilot ID.

Going to do the ‘camera fitted’ one now.

Cheers,

Nigel

UPDATE - just did it. Still only asked 10 questions. They were a mix of section 94 and section 95 questions.

Passed with 10 correct answers, as I did with the ‘no camera fitted’ test.

The two certificates are identical - both state just section 94F, neither mentions section 95. So it doesn’t seem to matter whether you select ‘no camera fitted’ or ‘camera fitted’ because the competency certificates are identical.

Edited By Nigel Heather on 11/12/2019 19:16:58

Article 94F is the article requiring you to have acknowledgement of competency from the CAA. Holding the RCC exempts you from this. See **LINK** for the ANO articles

Both RCC certificates carry the same weight which is why the certificates are identical.

Steve J11/12/2019 21:52:20
avatar
1907 forum posts
54 photos
Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 11/12/2019 21:26:23:

The CAA do not consider the person on the slave TX to be either the remote pilot or the operator, therefore they do not need to have a flyer ID, the aircraft will need a valid Operator ID though.

Do you have that in writing?

If the person on the slave transmitter owns the aircraft. Who is the operator?

Martin Harris11/12/2019 21:56:18
avatar
9343 forum posts
252 photos

Does it matter who owns the model as long as they are registered as an operator? If it's the pupil, they have designated the instructor as the pilot in charge...

Edited By Martin Harris on 11/12/2019 21:57:47

Andy Symons - BMFA11/12/2019 21:58:37
617 forum posts
1 photos
Posted by Steve J on 11/12/2019 21:52:20:
Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 11/12/2019 21:26:23:

The CAA do not consider the person on the slave TX to be either the remote pilot or the operator, therefore they do not need to have a flyer ID, the aircraft will need a valid Operator ID though.

Do you have that in writing?

If the person on the slave transmitter owns the aircraft. Who is the operator?

With respect, you appear to be looking for problems where there aren't any. It really is straight forward the person on the master is the remote pilot. It is obvious

Steve J11/12/2019 22:04:30
avatar
1907 forum posts
54 photos

The term 'person in charge' is no longer used in ANO articles 94* and 95. AN(A)O 2018 removed it.

PS This is a reply to MH.

Edited By Steve J on 11/12/2019 22:05:42

Martin Harris11/12/2019 22:22:38
avatar
9343 forum posts
252 photos

Probably why I didn't use it!

Chris Berry11/12/2019 22:28:34
259 forum posts
1 photos

Steve. I think you really are overthinking things and are getting wound up over nothing. No laws can ever cover every eventuality. All laws are open to interpretation and reasonableness, hence there are lots of court cases to interpret the law.

I emailed the CAA a few months ago asking about training and got an email from them saying the PIC is the instructor.

MattyB11/12/2019 22:48:04
avatar
2073 forum posts
32 photos

I agree with Steve that the wording in the ANO is pretty explicit regarding the person wiggling they sticks needing to be legally competent, but they probably wrote that without even thinking of the buddy box use case. Is there likely to be any enforcement action taken for that specific use case though? I personally doubt it.

Even so, if enforcement action were taken we should all remember it would not be done by the CAA. For this reason the BMFA’s position that this is “common sense” and that the CAA back that position may be reassuring, but it isn’t legally watertight. There would have to be a precedent case for us to truly know.

Edited By MattyB on 11/12/2019 22:48:59

Chris Berry11/12/2019 23:17:16
259 forum posts
1 photos

The response by the CAA to my question:

Twice a year I help the local air cadets have experience days using buddy boxes. What is the situation regarding students, those learning to fly or those flying only once on a buddy lead?

 

"Providing you as the ‘instructor' are able to maintain full control over the aircraft on the buddy box system, then your ‘student’ does not need to have a flyer ID/remote pilot competency certificate. The model aircraft still needs to display your operator ID number."

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/12/2019 23:38:02

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/12/2019 23:38:30

Edited By Chris Berry on 11/12/2019 23:38:50

Nigel Heather12/12/2019 07:20:26
242 forum posts
7 photos
Posted by Steve J on 11/12/2019 21:52:20:
Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 11/12/2019 21:26:23:

The CAA do not consider the person on the slave TX to be either the remote pilot or the operator, therefore they do not need to have a flyer ID, the aircraft will need a valid Operator ID though.

Do you have that in writing?

If the person on the slave transmitter owns the aircraft. Who is the operator?

Think we need an element of common sense here.

For example, I see two categories of buddy box fliers.

  1. People having experience flights, like the Air Cadets mentioned, either as a bit of fun or as a taster to see if they want to get into the hobby. These flights are one offs, and it would seem nonsense for them to do the competency test and get a Pilot ID and nor does the law require them to
  2. The learner who has joined the club, bought a plane and is learning to fly. This is not a one off, the guy is hoping to go solo at some point. So my view is that he should have an Operator ID, the plane must have a label, so whose Operator ID should be used if not his. While he is on the buddy box he doesn’t need a Pilot ID by law, but why not get one anyway because it is simple and free, and surely the intent is that maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, maybe next month they will be going solo and will need one then.

Cheers,

Nigel

Chris Berry12/12/2019 07:38:01
259 forum posts
1 photos

Thsts exactly the approach I'm taking Nigel.

Those joining the club with a view to flying solo should register and get an ID, certainly once they have committed to the hobby such that they have bought equipment, joined the BMFA/club etc and had a few initial flights. Those like the air cadets don't need to do anything.

Nigel Heather12/12/2019 10:28:51
242 forum posts
7 photos

All done, test passed, BMFA subs paid, CAA registration paid (with BMFA) and I even bought the card (I’m not convinced that it will offer me anything I don’t get with reward schemes I already have, but it was only the price of a high-street coffee so thought I’d try it for the first year at least).

And I appreciate that I could have waited until the end of January, but to be honest I’d rather do it now than forget later on.

Cheers,

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 12/12/2019 10:38:21

Don Fry12/12/2019 10:46:57
avatar
4557 forum posts
54 photos

Having had a read of the regulations, kindly helped by Steve J, I have to say I agree with him. The ANO of 2016, pilot in charge, has been replaced by remote pilot, a person defined in 94g of the amendment as, the person manually operating the controls. Plain and simple. Nothing about instructors, secondary controls, just in plain simple English, person manually operating the controls. Move a control, that is a remote pilot.

Argue that they didn't mean it, that's what it says, and there is a lot of case law where judges say, if that is what the lawmaker says, that's what they meant. They can change the law if that is not what they meant, judges just decide on what it says.

As the old phrase goes, the law is an ass, and this has all the makings of bad law, bodged and botched.

Martin Harris12/12/2019 10:47:48
avatar
9343 forum posts
252 photos
Posted by Nigel Heather on 12/12/2019 10:28:51:

And I appreciate that I could have waited until the end of January, but to be honest I’d rather do it now than forget later on.

Just a word or two of caution - unless I'm mistaken, you need to renew before the 1st of January or you will be flying uninsured...

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/12/2019 10:49:18

Cuban812/12/2019 10:54:56
2959 forum posts
1 photos
Posted by Don Fry on 12/12/2019 10:46:57:

As the old phrase goes, the law is an ass, and this has all the makings of bad law, bodged and botched.

Steady on Don, like me, you'll be accused of being boring and anti BMFA with such a negative attitude. laugh

Chris Berry12/12/2019 12:29:52
259 forum posts
1 photos

It seems to me that there are some who want to talk themselves out of the hobby.

Its plain and simple, the CAA are happy for those under tuition to not be registered or certified, as long as the pilot in command is. That's it, no more to say on the matter.

Feel free to Jack the hobby in, or turn away members because they haven't registered, that way it will be you who destroys the hobby, not the CAA.

Andy Symons - BMFA12/12/2019 12:50:12
617 forum posts
1 photos
Posted by Chris Berry on 12/12/2019 12:29:52:

It seems to me that there are some who want to talk themselves out of the hobby.

Its plain and simple, the CAA are happy for those under tuition to not be registered or certified, as long as the pilot in command is. That's it, no more to say on the matter.

Feel free to Jack the hobby in, or turn away members because they haven't registered, that way it will be you who destroys the hobby, not the CAA.

yes

Gary Manuel12/12/2019 12:50:28
avatar
2274 forum posts
1552 photos

Well said Chris.

Hopefully your (written) response above from the CAA should be enough to put this question to bed ... but I doubt it.

MattyB12/12/2019 13:20:58
avatar
2073 forum posts
32 photos
Posted by Don Fry on 12/12/2019 10:46:57:

Having had a read of the regulations, kindly helped by Steve J, I have to say I agree with him. The ANO of 2016, pilot in charge, has been replaced by remote pilot, a person defined in 94g of the amendment as, the person manually operating the controls. Plain and simple. Nothing about instructors, secondary controls, just in plain simple English, person manually operating the controls. Move a control, that is a remote pilot.

Argue that they didn't mean it, that's what it says, and there is a lot of case law where judges say, if that is what the lawmaker says, that's what they meant. They can change the law if that is not what they meant, judges just decide on what it says.

Exactly. It is pretty clear the buddy box use case was never considered when they revised the ANO, probably because the author did not know they were available and widely used. Those who are happy to take the CAAs assurances as gospel need to remember it is not the CAA that would be sitting in judgement on the other side of the courtroom in the event of an incident...

Edited By MattyB on 12/12/2019 13:22:42

Gavin Mack12/12/2019 13:39:51
88 forum posts
20 photos

Not sue if this has already been discussed but if your operator ID is on the outside, then anyone could take your operator ID and put it on their drone or plane, fly it and possibly crash it near an airport etc. You would have difficulty proving you weren't flying. Although more complicated each plane should have a unique number displayed on it, linked to an operator id which is kept private.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Slec
Sussex Model Centre
CML
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!