Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 15, 2019, 11:54:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: BMFA to see Aviation Minister concerning proposed CAA regulations  (Read 5018 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #125 on: July 12, 2019, 03:46:41 AM »

The commercial drone business is clearly going to be eventually very big and beneficial and thus involve lots of money.  It will though be vulnerable from the point of view of terrorism down to a simple genuine accident. It would be irresponsible of authority if it did not prepare for things.  In the scheme of things flying model aircraft is very insignificant even if you embrace the “market”.  I don’t know where the numbers - 170000 etc come from but even that is not a lot.  Some model aircraft are big heavy and fast.  They need therefore competent pilots. 

To some extent “we” have demonstrated that we have things under control but there can of course be no complete guarantee. I can see some of the merits of what is proposed.  There is also the possibility some of us may be being a little bias.

You can control to a degree the use of vehicles etc by confining them to roads with other aids.  Not so easy in the airspace!
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #126 on: July 12, 2019, 07:11:59 AM »

Hi OZPAF/John and thanks for your further contribution. Smiley

I think that your summary is pretty much 'on the money' - although, strictly stated, Mr. Micheal Ellis MP is 'Department for Transport' (he is 'The Minister of State' at same, one below The Rt Hon Chris Grayling, who is 'Secretary of State' and one above Baroness Vere of Norbiton, who is 'Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State' - complicated innit? Smiley) not 'CAA'.  The CAA, in the UK, is 'a public corporation of the Department for Transport' (per the gov.uk website).

There has been some 'chatter' on other fora, about the cost of the database.  I am no computer 'buff' and have not researched the details personally - so cannot make any claims for their accuracy.  The suggestions were that the CAA had 'outsourced' the 'provision' (there seemed to be some debate as to whether the 'running' of the database was being carried out 'in-house' or also 'outsourced') and (from someone who claimed to have knowledge in such matters) had been vastly overcharged, for what was being 'provided' (and, maybe, 'run'). I recall that there was also some information provided by the poster concerned, regarding what was said to be a very similar database, set up not that long ago, for much less money.  I failed to bookmark the details at the time and can't find them again now ('doh) - but I've got a feeling it was something to do with shooting clubs and a figure of £300,000 is sticking in my head - I would not like to be quoted on either of these statements, though. Smiley  The CAA works on the basis of 'user' (I state that word advisedly) pays - so the cost gets divided amongst the expected 170,000 registrations - to get £16.50 annual charge (for now) per operator, from November 2019.

Yup, Mr Ellis is still towing 'the Department's line' - but maybe some cracks are beginning to appear in the dam wall?

The figures quoted by Mr. Loughton (600,000 model aircraft operated by 40,000 members of the four main UK model flying associations and 20,000 manned aircraft on the UK aircraft register) are the same as those in the BMFA's written evidence submission to the Select Committee - the 170,000 is the CAA's figure. The 40,000 and 20,000 are easy to check, the 600,000 is 15 models each, on average (I've not counted, but my guess is that I've got more than 15 Smiley) and I cannot recall ever seeing where the CAA got their 170,000 from.  Most aeromodellers here seem to think that this is a wild overestimate - with potentially quite large 'knock-on' effects for the annual registration charge, under the 'user pays' principle, once the actual number of registrations falls far below the predicted number.  (I think that the CAA did consult about the number, in terms of was 170,000 realistic and, if not, what should the number be?)

The Government's stance seems to be that the registration scheme will cope with the first two C's of Mr Sage's three and both of the two B's of Professor Dunn and the provisions of the forthcoming 'Drones Bill' (and subsequent Act) will cater for Mr Sage's third 'C'.Smiley  You may have doubts - I couldn't possibly comment. Grin

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins

         


Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #127 on: July 12, 2019, 07:51:52 AM »

Little of the subject perhaps and I could well stand accused of being petty but we wilvein a petty world.

On the back of the BMFA News (just arrived) is an advert. headed "WreaK Havoc".  It then tells about a model aeroplane called the Havoc capable of 140mph +.  There are reasons at the moment why perhaps this is not very sensible. Perhaps I am bias - I have never favoured promoting the idea that model aircraft can actually do that and more  for the same reasons I do not like the "chuck and duck" event at the Nationals.  Probably my age?

Jez - useful information but actually is it relevant?  The cost of the data base the scheme or what ever you like to call it is less than peanuts insofar as the Government are concerned and so all the challenging in the world on the cost is likely to be dismissed.  And if the number of potential registrations is not what they expected then the rate per head could be increased.  Don't forget to that it is possible it will be the flyer who will be registered - not the number of models. 

So all this could be a smoke screen and thus a diversion.  Yes, people like John make sound comments but that does not mean they will be allowed to get in the way of progress. And why notwithstanding the validity and good sense of some of the observations made on here, if it suits the authorities to ignore them then they will - simply because they can.  They have the last word. No reasons need be given.  Drone technology is here and growing.  Little will be allowed to get in the way.
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #128 on: July 12, 2019, 08:23:50 AM »

The commercial drone business is clearly going to be eventually very big and beneficial and thus involve lots of money.  It will though be vulnerable from the point of view of terrorism down to a simple genuine accident. It would be irresponsible of authority if it did not prepare for things.  In the scheme of things flying model aircraft is very insignificant even if you embrace the “market”.  I don’t know where the numbers - 170000 etc come from but even that is not a lot.  Some model aircraft are big heavy and fast.  They need therefore competent pilots. 

To some extent “we” have demonstrated that we have things under control but there can of course be no complete guarantee. I can see some of the merits of what is proposed.  There is also the possibility some of us may be being a little bias.

You can control to a degree the use of vehicles etc by confining them to roads with other aids.  Not so easy in the airspace!

Hi again DavidJP.

If you agree with PwC's figures - then yes, it will be.  I don't know where they got their figures from, or what they based them on - I have looked, to try to find out - without success (obviously doesn't mean that the answers are not out there somewhere, though) Smiley.  A prediction is, well, just a prediction - can be based on sound, logical, reasoning, intelligent extrapolation of currently known facts and figures -or can be based on few (or none) of these things.

To my mind, there is a big difference (in intent, if not in the actual outcome) between 'terrorism' and 'simple genuine accident' and the solutions to the two issues are definitely not the same.  One, you might be able to register/educate yourself out of - the other, you definitely won't be able to do so. Smiley  If you look at the numbers of aeromodellers/manned aircraft then we are more significant - although not so, in monetary terms, I would accept.

Yes, some model aircraft are 'big, heavy and fast' - and they do need 'competent pilots'.  But what part of the currently proposed registration scheme is going to stop me buying an ARTF 1/2 scale model of a Folland Gnat, a whacking great jet turbine and some radio gear, from a website on the internet, chucking it all together and then going down and flying it over the main runway at Heathrow airport? Precisely nothing at all stopping me, I would suggest - which is where the problem lies, I think.  True, I would probably get prosecuted and convicted and spend a long time (possibly, life) in the 'clink' - but I may just have been one of Andy Sage's first two C's - or Professor Dunn's two B's - not Andy Sage's third 'C'.               

For my view regarding the 170,000 figure from the CAA - see my reply to OZPAF/John, above.

There is, in life, no complete guarantee of anything - apart from death (and taxes) obviously. Smiley  I have stated previously that I have not seen elsewhere, much in the way of argument from R/C flyers that there shouldn't be a registration scheme (I repeat, I am not on Facebook - so have no knowledge of what has, or hasn't, been going, on there). But see my point, already made, two paragraphs above.  If there is bias, then it is coming from both sides, I would suggest and, if we don't 'blow our own trumpet', who else is going to do it for us?

Yes, the airspace is '3D' - so different considerations, obviously, apply, to those for '2D' road use.

You word process quicker than me, so will respond to your recent post, in another post, below. Smiley

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins         

         
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #129 on: July 12, 2019, 08:46:11 AM »

Little of the subject perhaps and I could well stand accused of being petty but we wilvein a petty world.

On the back of the BMFA News (just arrived) is an advert. headed "WreaK Havoc".  It then tells about a model aeroplane called the Havoc capable of 140mph +.  There are reasons at the moment why perhaps this is not very sensible. Perhaps I am bias - I have never favoured promoting the idea that model aircraft can actually do that and more  for the same reasons I do not like the "chuck and duck" event at the Nationals.  Probably my age?

Jez - useful information but actually is it relevant?  The cost of the data base the scheme or what ever you like to call it is less than peanuts insofar as the Government are concerned and so all the challenging in the world on the cost is likely to be dismissed.  And if the number of potential registrations is not what they expected then the rate per head could be increased.  Don't forget to that it is possible it will be the flyer who will be registered - not the number of models.  

So all this could be a smoke screen and thus a diversion.  Yes, people like John make sound comments but that does not mean they will be allowed to get in the way of progress. And why notwithstanding the validity and good sense of some of the observations made on here, if it suits the authorities to ignore them then they will - simply because they can.  They have the last word. No reasons need be given.  Drone technology is here and growing.  Little will be allowed to get in the way.

Hi again David JP.

If you have an issue with the advertisement on the back of the 'News' then maybe you should contact the BMFA about it?  I would imagine the copy date for the magazine was quite a while ago and maybe the BMFA needs the advertising revenue?  Money does sometimes 'skew' people's (and countries') 'moral compasses' doesn't it? Smiley  It is in some people's nature to like speed - car/bike racing, for example - there is even an international control line class (F2A) entirely dedicated to the pursuit of just that - I do not see it is an an 'evil' thing per se - nor the 'free flight free for all' (as I prefer to call it - in an unbiased terminology).

I think that the cost of the registration scheme is relevant - to the people who are actually going to have to pay for it.  If you're the Government and you're passing on the full cost to the 'user', under the 'user pays' principle, then what does it matter to the Government how much it is - whether 'peanuts' or a 'king's ransom'? Edit, for further thought. It is indeed, 'peanuts' - in terms of overall 'public' expenditure.  Therefore, why not move the responsibility for administering the registration scheme, to somewhere (i.e. outside of the CAA, where the 'user pays' principle does not apply) and just 'absorb' the cost, within overall 'public' expenditure. Smiley  Please don't anybody try coming back at me with the 'there is no magic money tree argument'.  There is, always has been, and always will be, plenty enough money for 'Government' to spend, the political will as to where to spend it, is what has always mattered. Smiley             

The proposed fee is £16.50 per operator - so not dependent upon the number of models owned.

I would sooner go down 'fighting' than 'roll over and have my belly tickled' - whatever the ultimate outcome of all of this is. Smiley

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins      
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 09:32:57 AM by Jez Wilkins » Logged
Viperkite
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 61



Ignore
« Reply #130 on: July 12, 2019, 11:19:19 AM »

For what it's worth, I fly vintage rubber and my heaviest model (30 inch wingspan) weights 130 grams. So a 249 gram model could be a decent size. I am not a member of the BMFA, but actually a member of the FPVUK even though I don't fly drones (their insurance is a lot cheaper and covers freeflight as well).
Technically I am exempt, but I am under no illusions that before long they will lower the weight limit to ridiculous degrees and I worry for the future of the hobby.
Logged
Buster11
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 131



Ignore
« Reply #131 on: July 12, 2019, 12:39:48 PM »

I cannot recall ever seeing where the CAA got their 170,000 from. 

 Hi Jez. The 170K estimate came from looking at the number of drones (which term I think included normal model aircraft) in Ireland and in the USA (goodness knows how they got the figures), relating those figures to the populations and then extrapolating for the UK. Whether that has any relationship to the numbers actually taking part in our sport I cannot imagine.
 
Regarding the cost of the database the CAA placed a contract to run the registration scheme worth £87K with an IT company last November, even while still in discussion with the BMFA about the need for it.     



Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #132 on: July 12, 2019, 02:56:21 PM »

Hi Viperkite.

In the words of Montgomery “Scotty” Scott, Chief engineer of the Star Ship Enterprise “ye cannae change the laws of physics, Jim”. Smiley  Ages ago (22 June) on page 2 of this thread, Buster11 posted a link to CAP1789 and mentioned consideration ‘of the number of Joules transmitted in an impact with a human head as a measure of the potential risk.’ I'll put the link to CAP1789 in here again, to save going back http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1789%20EU%20UAS%20Regulations-Guidance.pdf

The first two references I found (there could be more, as I stopped looking then) were on page 8 (of 32) and were concerned with transfers of a kinetic energy of more than 80 joules, to a human in the event of a collision.  You have to bear in mind that CAP1789 is the CAA’s guidance, to the European regulations, and where the CAA state, at the top of page 12 ‘the current intent is that these regulations will apply to the operation of unmanned aircraft in the UK from 1 July 2020.’  There is also Article 16 of the European regulations  to consider, as previously mentioned, and our own regulation system comes in on 30 November 2019. So, maybe, unless human beings get more fragile, or they revise the opinion of how many joules of kinetic energy are required to damage us, then you should be OK (from 1 July 2020)? Unlikely that the 250 gram lower limit, is going to be lowered, between 1 December 2019 and 30 June 2020? 

Talking of Buster11, thanks for contributing to the overall 'knowledge base', contained in this thread. Smiley

Cheers

Jez Wilkins
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #133 on: July 12, 2019, 03:39:49 PM »

Hello Jez - yes take on board your points - hence my reference to the ad. being inappropriate at this time.  Yes i am sure the BMFA need the revenue from advertising;  but really my concern was with the ad. itself.  Pretty unoriginal.  Why "Wreak Havoc" - implying that with a 140mph model you can cause inconvenience to people.  I think it was a phrase used when describing the aftermath of a hurricane.  It is like the "madness and mayhem" as the "title" to the chuck and duck videos on the BMFA site.   

Quite probably the author did not think - but had heard the phrase "wreak havoc"  elsewhere (when it may even have been appropriate to describe something like the aftermath of a hurricane) and thought it sounded good! I might be at an advantage though on reflection - years ago for a little while one of the things i had to do was to proof read ads. before they were published..You learnt to become very aware of how things could be interpreted.  Today we live in a world where things are very odd so there is a need to be very sensitive.

So again I say some of the model aircraft flown today are big heavy noisy and fast.  Don't let us even remotely suggest that they might be intrusive or dangerous.  They are. Like so many things can be in the wrong hands. We have a very good safety record - don't let us mess it up.
Logged
Viperkite
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 0
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 61



Ignore
« Reply #134 on: July 12, 2019, 04:33:34 PM »

As regards a good safety record, it reminds me when a councillor wanted to ban powerkites on East Yorkshire beaches. When told that there had never been an incident involving the kites responded ' Good, then we can ban them before there is one'. He was serious, he had come up with a reason to ban literally anything.
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #135 on: July 12, 2019, 08:37:12 PM »

Hi again DavidJP.

I got my edition of the BMFA 'News' a few days ago.  I was much more interested in the 'UK Regulatory Developments' article by David Phipps - than I was in anything else in it.  No control line - but that's fine - sometimes there is, sometimes not.  The advert on the back page - I looked at it, thought "140+ MPH - that's fast" and that was it - put the magazine down and went to do something else.  It's on the back of a magazine that is only circulated to BMFA Members (other than at the Nats. - when I think that there may be some 'freebies' in the BMFA Marquee, for anybody to pick up).  Chances are, this aircraft will only be advertised in the aeromodelling magazines - which anybody can buy a copy of.  Likewise, their website - freely accessible, to anybody.

The 'Wreak Havoc' bit - if I was a student of English grammar, I would probably be able to tell you what the fancy name is, for this (and the other two examples of 'word association' that you cite) - but I'm not, so I can't. Smiley  I can honestly state that, until you mentioned it, I had not paid any attention to it, at all.  Given that you have now mentioned it, my first thought was 'Wreak Havoc with (or in) the air (or sky)' - not 'cause inconvenience to people'.  I cannot tell, from your post, whether you truly thought that 'cause inconvenience to people' was the real intention of the advertisement, or whether (with your 'proof reading head' on) you thought that it was capable of being interpreted by some people in that way and therefore, the advertiser was being unintentionally irresponsible?

The model is available in two forms - both costing either side of £450 (suggested retail price) plus other 'bits' (it's either plug'n'play, or 'BNF Basic' [the latter means nothing to me, at all]) so, not 'cheap' (by my standards, anyway).  Most people who read the mags. and who have knowledge - would know whether or not they have the skills and experience to fly such a model (I know, instantly, that I do not).  Somebody who had the cash and bought one off the internet and turned up at a BMFA recognised club field with it, as a 'first model' - what would be the response? They would be directed to a more suitable model 'a trainer', wouldn't they?  But nothing to stop them saying "to hell with this" and going and flying (and more likely than not, crashing) wherever they want to go - just won't be on a BMFA club field, is all.  The registration/competence test scheme, as currently envisaged, will not stop this. A 'tick box', multi-choice, online test is not going to educate anybody and, dependent upon the nature of the awareness campaign to be carried out by the CAA, people may still get to 30 November 2019 and beyond and not be aware that they are supposed to register and take a competence test.  And what will be the chances of the police catching them, if they do not?  Slim? Zero?

Thought that we'd already agreed that some of the model aircraft flown today are 'big, heavy, noisy and fast' - why the need to repeat it?  They are not intrinsically either 'intrusive or dangerous' but they can, obviously, be both, in the 'wrong hands' - so can lots of other things - I'm not sure what point your making with this, in relation to the proposed registration scheme?

We do have a good safety record and I am quite sure that nobody will want to deliberately 'mess it up', especially at the moment. Smiley  It should count for something - but David Phipps states, in his article, that the Baroness acknowledged this, at the meeting on 5 June, but dismissed it.  She seemed to me to take not quite as strong a tone as that, at the third oral evidence session of the Select Committee on 9 July.

Hi again Viperkite.  Some people are just like that, I think - though goodness only knows why. Smiley

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins                           
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2019, 03:33:42 AM »

OK Jez - I think we are now getting into semantics. In short the ad. reads as though it is an invitation to wreak havoc with a model aeroplane!.

If everyone was responsible then this discussion would probably not be taking place - but they are not. I can counter all of your points - someone who goes and buys a 'plane like that might not join a club - nor have insurance and just go and try it somewhere where he reckons he can fly it.  But the discussion would be pointless.

As I see it the real world contains people who get a notion - like the Councillor in Yorkshire - and are then intent in implementing it because they can.  It looks to me as though the "authorities" have already decided that model aircraft as we know them are drones and vice versa and are not going to change their minds notwithstanding all the sensible arguments against.  It is a lot easier that way too. (For them).

Looking back over this topic a lot of good sense has been spoken - but where has it got us .  It has n't.  We have just aired views.
   
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 642



Ignore
« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2019, 05:38:49 AM »

I have followed this all with interest and watched the select committee hearings. David Phipps aquitted himself well and was dignified to boot. There were clearly vested interests at work and it looks as if much of their flakey data was discredited. The overall impression was one of poor analysis, lack of credible supporting data and all based on an unverified incident event ( Gatwick ) that resulted no charges or culprit being found. I wonder who was wispering in the ear of the Birmingham Uni professors ear as he seemed to have a real axe to grind. Is the Baroness a lawyer or does she have any specific technical skill?
The word risk was used freely with no supporting evidence as was suspect results of simulated collision test. I do wonder what the level of compliance will be as most police forces will be already overcommited on normal duties. Finally does the CAA have the required resource to manage the scheme?
The NZMFA web site has a letter written to our Transport Minister and the usual evasive reply. 
Well done on a well presented case.
Ricky
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #138 on: July 13, 2019, 06:30:53 AM »

OK Jez - I think we are now getting into semantics. In short the ad. reads as though it is an invitation to wreak havoc with a model aeroplane!.

If everyone was responsible then this discussion would probably not be taking place - but they are not. I can counter all of your points - someone who goes and buys a 'plane like that might not join a club - nor have insurance and just go and try it somewhere where he reckons he can fly it.  But the discussion would be pointless.

As I see it the real world contains people who get a notion - like the Councillor in Yorkshire - and are then intent in implementing it because they can.  It looks to me as though the "authorities" have already decided that model aircraft as we know them are drones and vice versa and are not going to change their minds notwithstanding all the sensible arguments against.  It is a lot easier that way too. (For them).

Looking back over this topic a lot of good sense has been spoken - but where has it got us .  It has n't.  We have just aired views.
   

Good morning to you, DavidJP.  Remember, it was you that first raised the 'Wreak Havoc' - not me. Smiley It just says 'Wreak Havoc' - the inference put on those words is down to the reader.  The inference I put on them was what I genuinely thought, the first time I gave it some thought.  No doubt, your interpretation was your first thought, also.

Would this registration scheme, etc., still be taking place, if everyone flying 'small unmanned aircraft' was responsible?  Yes, I think it probably would - an 'air grab' is taking place, for the 0' - 400' space that we have happily occupied for many years. Is there a distinction between the safety record of flyers who have BMFA (etc.) membership and fly with an associated club and those who do neither of those things? Yes, I think that there will be - better (for the former group) and worse (for the latter group).  Is membership of the BMFA and flying with an associated club an absolute guarantee that there will never be any problems? No, absolutely not.  (Doubtless, people with valid driving licences, valid insurance and an MOT'd vehicle, still commit 'vehicle crime' of various sorts, as do people who have none of these things. Smiley)  Should the 'good' (who are in a majority) be penalised for the misdeeds of the 'bad' (who are in a minority)? No I don't think they should.

I thought in interesting when, at the third oral evidence session of the Committee, the Baroness said that she preferred to use the phrase 'small unmanned aircraft', rather than the word 'drone'.  Led to some rather mixed use, by the Committee Members of  'small unmanned aircraft', 'drone' and 'model aircraft' (including some 'slippage' by the Baroness, into using the word 'drone') which I thought showed how you can get into difficulty, when you start to stray away from the phrase 'small unmanned aircraft' which is what is used in the Air Navigation Order and actually has a statutory definition.           

For me, I think, on here, that there has been more than 'talking'.  Hopefully there is more knowledge about the whole business than there was before.  I have explained what else I have done, in addition to emails to DfT, CAA - explained that I had emailed a Member of the Select Committee - 'flagged up' the possibility of submitting written evidence to the Committee (and more besides - by 'thinking outside of the box' about the problem) some of which may come out of the woodwork, later on down the line - and some of which may not. Whether anybody else took up any, all, or none of these suggestions who can tell - they have not posted on here, to state they have and they may have good reasons (like me) for not doing so. Smiley

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins             
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #139 on: July 13, 2019, 08:29:14 AM »

Hi Ricky/DHnut and thanks for your continued input and interest.

Regarding the Baroness - if you have a look at these three 'links' I would say 'no'.

https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/baroness-vere-of-norbiton/4580

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Vere,_Baroness_Vere_of_Norbiton

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/baroness-vere-of-norbiton

This 'link' gives details of her appointment https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/david-cameron/news/77905/david-camerons-lords.

I am sure that I read , somewhere, (cannot find the link now) that she had stood (at least once, maybe twice) for election as a House of Commons Member of Parliament - but had been defeated - before being awarded a ('life', as opposed to 'hereditary') peerage.  She only took up office on 23 April 2019, apparently - two days before the CAA's 25 April publication of CAP 1775. She replaced Baroness Sugg, who was in post when the DfT published their 'Taking Flight' document, in January 2019.  So, she has been rather thrown in at the 'deep-end' hasn't she?

The scheme is supposed to be 'self-financing' as I understand it - the CAA operates on a 'user' (word used advisedly) pays principle.

I have had a read of the letter and reply - your Mr Shorer is to be congratulated on a well written, well reasoned letter.  I didn't read the reply quite as negatively as you viewed it - he did, at least, seem to react positively to the suggestion for a symposium and there was an undertaking for contact from your Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation Authority. Smiley

I had to search a bit on the website to find the correspondence. Links, for anybody that is interested.
https://www.modelflyingnz.org/docs/general/MFNZ%20and%20Drone%20Safety.pdf
https://www.modelflyingnz.org/docs/general/Twyford%20reply.pdf

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins
Logged
Buster11
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 131



Ignore
« Reply #140 on: July 13, 2019, 09:20:15 AM »

A bit more digging on the Baroness's activities reveals this speech: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-future-aerospace-engineer

I hear the sardonic laughter already; maybe she should have Janus, he of two faces, as a title.
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 45
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,873




Ignore
« Reply #141 on: July 13, 2019, 11:19:12 AM »

Yes.  I wonder sometimes of there is a standard speech that is used with slight tweaks to suit the audience.  Why harp on about lady pilots etc.  We have had them for ages and there is no reason why a woman should not become a pilot. If they want to.  Why make them feel they should - it is their choice.  Too many control freaks about today!

I am not sure the pedigree of Vere suggests she has the qualities for anything involving aviation or engineering. Probably it was thought she could do less damage there than say Treasury or Home Office etc. So she makes up the numbers.  Never met her so accept am not fully in a position to judge.

Yes Mr Shorer has written well on this but in fairness the “opposition” is not exactly showing great scholarship or merit. And he has facts to back him up.

Maybe we will learn the truth about Gatwick.one day.

Yes lots of good information still emerging but what we need is the appearance of someone who will grasp the nettle and sort the wheat from the chaff, who will have an understanding of what we do and give a fair hearing.  But honestly is that likely to happen.  No reason why it should at all.  

PS what is so unusual, today particularly, about politicians having two or more faces.  Some seem to have one for every day of the week.
Logged
Squirrelnet
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 33
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 594




Ignore
« Reply #142 on: July 13, 2019, 02:44:52 PM »

I thought it worth posting on here.

It seems they are not all against us, we do have at least one positive ally in parliament

This is from the BARCS website sent via my local club the Ivinghoe Soaring Association

It seems that model flying as we know it has at least one positive ally in Parliament, namely Tim Loughton MP for East Worthing & Shoreham. If you read or listen to and watch via the links below there also seem to be a few more MP's supporting us.

You can read the Hansard transcript here:


https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-07-10/debates/FBB5D051-6552-4C5A-AA8B-7A5A3046104B/DroneUsersRegistration

or listen and watch the session here.

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/c2c405f4-1a70-474b-9552-55b7a72c37f2

He seems to grasp our concerns well  Smiley

Thanks to Pete Beadle who posted on the BARCS Forum on their website and Jim Wright for fowarding it on.
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #143 on: July 13, 2019, 07:30:16 PM »

Hi Squirrelnet.

Thanks for the link to the video - brings out the nuances of the debate much better than just reading the transcript, I think.  The Minister seemed to get a bit unsure of himself, didn't he - right at the end, when he was speaking about the annual charge?

You have also reminded me that it was the BARCS Forum where the reference to the other database, that I mentioned in an earlier post, had come from.  Stated on that forum, on 20 June 2019, that back in the 2000's, the Post Office ran a similar database to that for the proposed drone users registration scheme.  The database was for 50,000 game shooters, who at the time had to register with the Post Office for a licence to shoot certain bird species. The database was run by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), on behalf of the Post Office.  A recent Freedom of Information Act request had revealed that the annual cost of running the database had been £300,000. It was stated that the database had been scrapped in 2007 and that, applying inflation to the £300,000, equated to around £488,000, at today's values.  Another poster, in the same thread, (with knowledge of his work's in-house database system) thought that even these numbers were 'beyond ridiculous'.

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins  

    
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 642



Ignore
« Reply #144 on: July 14, 2019, 12:33:17 AM »

Jez,
     Your last post captures the essence of the flaws in the whole proposal. As ususal the devil is in the detail and there is a clear lack of any real research or recognition of existing systems that work. Baroness Vere seemed to be out of her depth and appeared nervous througout the session probably because of the level of opposition from BMFA that had been unexpected and raised issues that still remain unanswered. The fact there had been a debate in the House and there had been a good level of understanding by a number of Members show some traction. Enough modellers in a marginal seat could result in a lost seat. Not impossible. What is interesting is that CAA are conspicious by their absence or would that also embarrass the DfT. How does the select committee report back to the House?
Ricky
Logged
OZPAF
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 180
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5,131



Ignore
« Reply #145 on: July 14, 2019, 03:44:25 AM »

Thanks for that post Chris - it was very informative and also indicated that there may be some politicians with a reasonable understanding of the issue and it's lack of consideration and in fact stupidity - as shown by Jez's post re the game shooters.

I am of the opinion that modellers cannot know too much about the issue as this will lead to a greater number with knowledge and knowledge  is a threat to politicians in this era of lack of transparency. I also agree that it is better to go down fighting.

I appreciate the information being presented as it is an insight to what I think will be repeated here in Australia as well as the UK, NZ and else where.

This problem has probably been bubbling away for quite some time as around 2007-8, a UAV programme I was associated with was used to provide a vehicle for  part of an International (associated with ICAO)investigation known as Smart Skies. The theme was that of sharing the airspace between manned and unmanned aircraft.

I never found out what the results were.

John
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #146 on: July 14, 2019, 05:18:46 AM »

A bit more digging on the Baroness's activities reveals this speech: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-future-aerospace-engineer

I hear the sardonic laughter already; maybe she should have Janus, he of two faces, as a title.

Nice find, Buster11, and thanks for posting the link. Smiley

Jez,
How does the select committee report back to the House?
Ricky

Thanks for your continued interest and support. Smiley This link is for publications of the (House of Commons) Science and Technology Select Committee. https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/publications/.

Edit:  If you scroll down the page, you will also see the [Government's] 'Responses to Reports'.

This link is concerned with Select Committees, in general.  If you scroll down the page, to the heading 'Government Responses' I think that you will find another part of the answer to your question. Smiley https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/select/


I am of the opinion that modellers cannot know too much about the issue as this will lead to a greater number with knowledge and knowledge  is a threat to politicians in this era of lack of transparency. I also agree that it is better to go down fighting.

I appreciate the information being presented as it is an insight to what I think will be repeated here in Australia as well as the UK, NZ and else where.

John

Hi again OZPAF/John.

If we in the UK are being 'trailblazers' for you and NZ - maybe a 'consultancy fee' is in order?  How does £2.8 million (per annum) sound?  Please make your cheque/money order payable to 'BMFA'.  Bank transfer is also fine - we will ask Dave Phipps to send you the details. Grin

Being serious, if what's being posted in here helps aeromodellers (wherever they may be in the world) get a better understanding of what is going on - then I have absolutely no problem with that. Smiley  Can't see any reason why anybody should have a problem with it, either, really. Smiley    

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins



      
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 07:19:16 AM by Jez Wilkins » Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #147 on: July 14, 2019, 09:20:28 AM »

Hi all.

Just a bit of further information about the Post Office/Defra register.  It occurred to me (after posting the details) that, whilst I had no reason to doubt the accuracy of what had been posted onto the BARCS forum, I had not 'fact-checked' them, to confirm that they were correct - and I wasn't sure that I had made this clear enough, in my post.  I did a bit of searching and all I came up with, was this https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/06/19/uk_drone_database_crazy_cost/.  A lot of the wording on the BARCS forum post, seems to have been taken directly from this article.  I'm not stating that the article or the Forum post are 'fake news' - just that I haven't managed to find the 'facts' that would confirm the story (and that obviously does not mean that somebody else couldn't).

So, maybe exercise a degree of caution with this - unless/until somebody is able to 'prove' it - rather than promoting it as 'true' and then not being able to back up the story, if somebody should challenge the accuracy?

Cheers,

Jez wilkins
Logged
DHnut
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 14
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 642



Ignore
« Reply #148 on: July 15, 2019, 05:49:35 PM »

Jez,
      We now hope there is no knock on effect over the current proposals. The part 101 gives recognition to model aircraft as line of sight and allows free flight but we are vunerable to the happenings in other countries. We were fortunate in having a modeller employed at NZCAA who was actively involved in the rules process but he has now retired. The likely areas of development in UAV operation will be in primary industry and utilities inspections, and will not be line of sight. That said the low population density is still on our side, and with longer distances UAV delivery is not as attractive. Given the inefficiency of vertical flight I do wonder about the economics. Also the whole of the certification process has not been mentioned.
Ricky
Logged
Jez Wilkins
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 2
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 135



Ignore
« Reply #149 on: July 16, 2019, 07:29:32 AM »

Hi again Ricky/DHnut.

Thanks very much for your update. Having someone in your CAA who had a good perspective from the 'modelling side' of matters was obviously a very good thing (wish we had the same) and it must have been quite a blow when he retired.  As you state, maybe your low population density works in your favour.  Let's hope that your 'certification process' does not turn into the 'can of worms', that it is here. Smiley

Four other 'snippets' of information.  A 'transcript' of the evidence given, at the third oral evidence session of the Committee, on 9 July 2019, is now available, here https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/commercial-recreational-drone-uk-17-19/publications/ - first 'link' under the box headed 'Oral evidence' - available in 'Word'(?) and '.pdf' versions.  There are also links, within the document,  to the written evidence by the DfT (which I cannot remember seeing/reading previously) and that by the University of Birmingham (which rings a vague bell).

The issue, recorded in the transcript at Q504 and Q505.  A quick bit of searching revealed these two 'links' and (there could, obviously, be a lot more, if you were minded to 'dig' a bit further). Smiley report from 'The London Economic' website  https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/travel/man-flew-model-aircraft-near-runway-at-heathrow-airport-three-days-after-scare-at-gatwick-grounded-over-1000-flights/23/01/. 'General notice.', on model flying club home page http://www.lhmfc.co.uk/Home.html.  Would a 'mandatory' registration scheme have prevented this?  Would a 'mandatory' education scheme have prevented this?

BBC News report - 'British Grand Prix: Drones flown near Silverstone' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-48980040 .  Only a brief report - but (if it is accurate) the 'drones' were flown from a campsite near the racetrack, the 'drones' and pilots were detected using detection software and the devices were seized and the pilots were spoken to.  Seen it argued on another forum website that the registration scheme is not needed - the perpetrators were caught without it and the police's detection software is working fine.  Would education make any difference? Smiley  Apparently, there was a 'Restriction of Flying Regulations' in place, for the Grand Prix.  Presumably, the fact that these 'small unmanned aircraft' [SUA] were being flown from a campsite means that they were vertical take off, first person view (or 'live downlink') camera fitted devices, (maybe with 'out of visual line of site' capability?) 'quadcopter type' SUA, rather than 'traditional model aircraft'?  Not that it actually makes much difference in the current climate, where the DfT lumps everything together in the same category, anyway. Sad

Lastly, when visiting a well known, free plan site, the following 'link' keeps 'popping up', in the 'ad' boxes, at the foot of the page.  https://wingtra.com/mapping-drone-wingtraone/?utm_medium=ppc&utm_term=&utm_campaign=2019+//+Display+Remarketing&utm_source=adwords&hsa_ad=333183930158&hsa_src=d&hsa_mt=&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_kw=&hsa_acc=4317485621&hsa_tgt=aud-724111485293&hsa_grp=63768438701&hsa_ver=3&hsa_cam=1712890012&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxsSdtaW54wIVxdTeCh2htwUDEAEYAyAAEgKzPPD_BwE .  Cute little thing - VTO take-off and landing capability, apparently - 'transitions into a forward cruise flight'.  Autonomous flight - but also capable of immediate switching, into 'manual mode' according to the website.

Cheers,

Jez Wilkins                         



               
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!