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  
Alan Gorham_18/02/2020 11:13:17
avatar
1174 forum posts
135 photos

Yes and no Richard. You now legally don't have to display the Operator ID on your models until the exemption expires at the end of June.

Some of us are still waiting for Operator IDs and I guess the new exemption gives the CAA more time to get all the IDs issued.

Geoff Copping18/02/2020 11:29:53
13 forum posts
2 photos

The exemption is from the date it was signed, 17th Feb, unless previously revoked, which it had been until 23rd Feb so therefore I did not need to pay the £9.

I received my numbers yesterday which I have just applied to my aircraft.

I hope now that I will either be refunded my £9 or it will, at least, be effective for 12 months from June 30th?

john stones 118/02/2020 11:57:49
avatar
11143 forum posts
1503 photos

HS2 how late, how much over budget, £9 and some teething problems ? Meh, go fly or build if weathers stopping you, not had mine yet.

Erfolg18/02/2020 12:06:25
avatar
11646 forum posts
1297 photos

With reference to the Baroness, I have been back through the many posts and a similar thread, to date I have not positively identified the person. I do seem to remember that it was Baroness Sugg. The important aspect was that many forumites were very very pleased with her replacement (I think as an undersecretary by Grant Shapps), as many took the view she had an apparent disregard to cogent argument and facts.

What was apparent that the then agenda was not only the prevention of reckless and regulation flights by drones, it was primarily the creation of an environment for the future broader usage of drones in a commercial environment.

So we had moved from a scenario of no changes to us, to one where there would be change.

From a political perspective you can see that it was necessary to be seen to undertake measures that were designed to reduce the chances of another set of incidents that bedeviled many London airports, one of which being significant.

Looking back through the posts, I saw that I suggested that the present situation with regard to the issue of unique identifiers was predicted, whilst some poohed the suggestion. Not that I have any clairvoyance abilities, just that it is par for the course.

One of my current concerns, is with respect to our first Baroness's vision. That is creating a commercial viable set of regulations, environment and controls for drones. Assuming this remains part of the Dft driver, creating, and managing such a system comes at a price. Any system that makes use of transponders in real time I imagine comes with a price tag. Creating a data base of transponder identifiers is just the beginning. Making use of real time data, I would expect to be quite costly.

Possibly the best we can hope for is a exemption from the system if operating from designated sites. Even the site have a collective transponder/marker, could require a contribution to the system.

At present one of our difficulties, is not understanding what the long term Dft goals are. The CAA is in a similar position to us, being told what to do.

I wonder what the EASA regulations state or indicate what the minimum expectation is to be compliant with their current regulations? Are they as far reaching as the development of UK regs appear to be heading?

Edited By Erfolg on 18/02/2020 12:07:07

Steve J18/02/2020 12:31:03
avatar
1773 forum posts
51 photos
Posted by Erfolg on 18/02/2020 12:06:25:

I do seem to remember that it was Baroness Sugg. The important aspect was that many forumites were very very pleased with her replacement (I think as an undersecretary by Grant Shapps), as many took the view she had an apparent disregard to cogent argument and facts.

Baroness Sugg was an Undersecretary at the DfT / Aviation Minister from October '17 to April '19 when she was moved to International Development. She was replaced at the DfT by Baroness Vere. Vere lost the Aviation Minister title in the reshuffle after Mr. Johnson became PM but stay with the DfT. I don't know who the Aviation Minister is after last week's reshuffle. We may find out when the bill gets to the Commons.

The other Baroness of note is Randerson who is a Lib Dem peer and has been pushing for more regulation of UA.

john stones 118/02/2020 12:52:14
avatar
11143 forum posts
1503 photos

I believe it's still Mr Shapps, he's also the new Minister for revitalising the Northern Powerhouse. wink

Steve J18/02/2020 13:00:34
avatar
1773 forum posts
51 photos

Grant Shapps is the Secretary of State and definitely has a strong interest in aviation. There are five Ministers/Undersecretaries in the DfT in addition to him. Sugg and Vere had the Aviation Minister title in addition to being Undersecretaries. IIRC Paul Maynard MP had the title until he was dumped last week.

Erfolg18/02/2020 13:40:53
avatar
11646 forum posts
1297 photos

I see the way I reference Grant Shapps, it gives the impression I thought he was the replacement Under Secretary. What I was trying to convey, was that when Grant Shapps became the secretary, he replaced the undersecretary.

Seems I need to try harder.blush

In an not critical of any one on (what I call) our side. Although from where we started we have failed. That is there would be no substantive changes to how we pursue our hobby. It is a task (negotiating), where success, is failure, in that there has been change. All you can argue is that the change has been limited, with respect to a worse case scenario. Which may or may not be true, as the "Messenger" you stand a good chance of being shot.

I am expecting that our representatives, will be or are back trying to limit the threats to the hobby. By now I am sure that the repeated pressures of dealing with the constant changes that the Dft makes, as it is pushing its agenda, will lead many to be jaded, A solution (one of many I imagine) is to bring some of the other BMFA officers into the battle, whilst they take a rest, perhaps developing a strategy for the negotiators, or for the team when they return to the fray.

Unlike many, I have and remain, a believer that these developments are currently the greatest threat to our part of the hobby.

Martin Harris18/02/2020 13:53:06
avatar
9159 forum posts
229 photos

I'd hesitate to destroy the obviously good relationships that have been built between the BMFA negotiators and the CAA, who seem refreshingly willing to act as a buffer between the excesses of some politicians and our interests.

In terms of the current situation, little has changed...I need to carry some scraps of paper or my smartphone in the car while I'm flying and seem to have paid £9 unnecessarily to the CAA via the BMFA. Much of the forthcoming legislation is out of the UK government's hands.

I think that far from being described as jaded, our representatives should be thanked for their effective handling of a difficult situation and asked to carry on the good work!

Cuban818/02/2020 14:47:52
2866 forum posts
1 photos

One of our three older members without computers, had their OP ID sent through to our club's email account today. Nothing for the remaining two as yet or my own.

Seems to have started..............crying

Trevor Crook18/02/2020 15:46:03
923 forum posts
67 photos

As (ironically) I got my operator number email on the same day as the revised exemption, I'll make up some labels and stick numbers inside battery bays anyway.

Nigel Heather19/02/2020 11:22:00
239 forum posts
7 photos

Be interesting to keep hearing who has received their operator IDs.

I was hoping (especially given how much they are paying for the purchase and running of the system) that it would be simply a case of

  • Upload batch file provided by the BMFA
  • Automatically create registration accounts with the data provided
  • Automatically generate emails and send them

All done and dusted in a few hours.

But given the drip feed of emails I suspect it is more like this

  • Print out the batch file provided by the BMFA
  • Split the printout into small batches and hand out to data entry people
  • The information is read from the print out and keyed into the CAA system manually
  • eMails are created and sent out as each registration is completed

Will take weeks or more

Cheers,

Nigel

Megawatt19/02/2020 13:21:12
20 forum posts

Might be worth mentioning that as the previous operator ID exemption has now been revoked we presumably need to print out the new one to put on the club wall / carry with us.

Martin Harris19/02/2020 13:22:39
avatar
9159 forum posts
229 photos

It's rather depressing to see the BBC publishing footage like this without any apparent compliance with the legislation - I suppose it's just possible that the farmer had a CAA exemption to fly beyond line of sight but it seems to me that the message is only getting through to those of us that already operate safely and with direct visual contact.

My first thought was "does it really matter over his own fields" - but then I saw the proximity of what looked like a busy road to his flightpath...

Peter Miller19/02/2020 13:36:56
avatar
10742 forum posts
1259 photos
10 articles

Have you ever noiced the drone shots on Salvage HUnters (Quest) Over flying roads, villages etc.

Ah well, it is for aTV program. Then you look at the drone accident reports .I read two of them. olice drones crashing on top of buildings when a motor or ESC fails.

J D 819/02/2020 13:53:41
avatar
1386 forum posts
79 photos

Do not see any problem with that video except perhaps the craft may have been out of sight behind a tree for a mo for any one following direct.

Flying at low level over his own land/lakesad not over or near the road no problem.

Nigel Heather19/02/2020 13:58:56
239 forum posts
7 photos

Not saying that they have done this, but there is nothing in the regs that precludes getting permission to fly anywhere.

So I would not be surprised to see drones flying like this on TV programmes.

As for the farmer, you can see a lot worse on YouTube posted after the introduction of the regs. And I think you will continue to see it. Plod are not going to be interested in what the farmer is doing. For the most part he is on his own land and within regs. I think the only time anyone with ever look into the regs is if someone is seen flying very recklessly. Doubt plod will even be interested by kids flying in the park if they are being sensible. They certainly not going to roll up to a desolate hill and arrest a drone flier using FPV without a spotter.

Cheers,

Nigel

ken anderson.19/02/2020 14:51:02
avatar
8553 forum posts
776 photos

i reckon the drone shots we see on the tv progs will be governed by the the same if not stricter rules than we have to abide by......taken in to consideration they will be overflying private property and 3rd parties etc...we live in a country that is run by rules and regs…….

ken anderson...ne..1..rules and regs dept.

Martin Harris19/02/2020 15:00:16
avatar
9159 forum posts
229 photos
Posted by J D 8 on 19/02/2020 13:53:41:

Do not see any problem with that video except perhaps the craft may have been out of sight behind a tree for a mo for any one following direct.

Flying at low level over his own land/lakesad not over or near the road no problem.

That's precisely the point - there were several hedges between the drone and the presumed operator's position. At 3 feet AGL I don't think anyone except Steve Austin with his bionic eye would have been able to monitor the flight sufficiently to avoid a collision with someone or something on the ground - what if the video feed had failed while the drone was flying towards the road - and ground conditions were certainly not favourable for GHz frequency performance.

Nigel Heather19/02/2020 15:40:57
239 forum posts
7 photos
Posted by Martin Harris on 19/02/2020 15:00:16:
Posted by J D 8 on 19/02/2020 13:53:41:

Do not see any problem with that video except perhaps the craft may have been out of sight behind a tree for a mo for any one following direct.

Flying at low level over his own land/lakesad not over or near the road no problem.

That's precisely the point - there were several hedges between the drone and the presumed operator's position. At 3 feet AGL I don't think anyone except Steve Austin with his bionic eye would have been able to monitor the flight sufficiently to avoid a collision with someone or something on the ground - what if the video feed had failed while the drone was flying towards the road - and ground conditions were certainly not favourable for GHz frequency performance.

He is most likely flying FPV. I know that the regs don't like FPV and seems to think that a spotter with line of sight is more effective but I'm not convinced. I don't fly FPV but I have watched guys at the club field flying fast small quads and I struggled to track them. But I have also worn a pair of slaved goggles while they are flying and it was totally different - I knew exactly where the quad was at all times - much more so than when I was trying to follow it line of sight.

 

And after all, real full-size planes are flown FPV without a line of sight spotter.

 

Cheers,

 

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 19/02/2020 15:42:34

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

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
CML
Slec
Cambridge Gliding Club
electricwingman 2017
Sussex Model Centre
Wings & Wheels 2019
CADMA
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