Page 6 of 10

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 02 Aug 2019, 11:21
by bluejets
The latest from CASA regarding all sorts of r/c aircraft.

https://www.casa.gov.au/droneflyer

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 02 Aug 2019, 16:12
by GarydNB
Not sure how the drone delivery idea can possibly work if you have to have line of sight....presumably drone racing is now a thing of the past as well...

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 02 Aug 2019, 18:31
by NeilMac
E-mails sent to the Minister and to my local MP, let's see what happens next.

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 02 Aug 2019, 19:33
by Spike S
It's not just modelflying! In UK, commercial airfields are in the process of making a 'Land Grab' of airspace that will affect all other airspace users and those on the covered surface area. Many gliding clubs and Sport aviation facilities are coming under severe pressure. TAG Aviation at Farnborough is squeezing Lasham Gliding Society and Southampton is intending to significantly expand its dedicated airspace, as is Exeter. No doubt other Airport Authorities are pursuing this Gold Rush.
I will accept that change is a permanent state of Human progress but it would appear that in UK, the CAA is unable, or has lost the will, to protect recreational flying in all its forms.
For now, it's still worth banging on the desks of our Parliamentary representatives and supporting the advocacy efforts of our National Association. Perhaps we need an aeronautical equivalent of "Right to Roam".

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 03 Aug 2019, 01:09
by bluejets
Many times like this, gov organisations over-react and go to extremes which is apparently what is happening in the UK.
Watching some videos from there on Painless360 site, I see he consults a bloke who pretty much specialises in deciphering the new regulations.

In Aus it appears registration and licencing will have a minimum age requirement of 16 years so I can only imagine the outcome of that would be, the parents would need to take the responsibility, which could be a good thing and maybe expanded to many other applications.

Especially since in this day and age, taking responsibility for ones actions seems to be a thing of the past in many instances.

Overall though, the rulings here seem to encourage "joining a recognised, CASA authorised club".
Just rejoined our local model flying club here after 20 years away doing other things and the first thing I noticed was the addition of rules we used to beg them to introduce for safety but no one seemed to care.

So in those days it was down to common sense and pier pressure and giving someone an earful.
Apparently these days, according to anyone from any workplace health and safety, common sense does not exist anymore, "no such thing as common sense" I hear. Sort of explains a lot these days.

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 14 Aug 2019, 03:44
by ozrs
The summary of CASA's Australian consultation:

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regula ... 1816us.pdf

I note that in the last paragraph on page 20, there is concern about low uptake causing the scheme to fail - lets hope so!

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 23 Aug 2019, 15:18
by jackdaw
Latest from the BMFA on 'Drone' registration:
https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/Article ... del-flyers

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 23 Aug 2019, 16:23
by NeilMac
Well that would seem to tie in with my experience, in that I have received a response from my local MP but nothing from Grant Shapps.

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 23 Aug 2019, 17:24
by Martin
It's good that the BMFA aren't denying membership to those who refuse to register on principle.

What's not good is the suggestion that the BMFA insurance scheme will probably not cover unregistered people who are attempting to make an insurance claim - the insurers will refuse the claim because, 'the flyer was unlicensed and therefore operating illegally.'

This takes away one of the major incentives for joining or remaining in the BMFA: many lone flyers only pay their BMFA subs in order to be insured; the only other tangible benefit to most of them is the BMFA magazine - and that's not good value for money.

Members of BMFA affiliated clubs will most likely continue to pay their BMFA subs so they can remain in their clubs - but they will be paying for insurance that's now worthless to them. There's a chance that their clubs will force them to register or leave the club because, "the club can't tolerate uninsured flyers."

So it's yet more counter-productive outcomes from introducing this mad scheme:
  • There will be more uninsured flyers than there were before.
  • Some people will drop out of clubs and the BMFA, because their club forces out any members who refuse to register.
  • Some of those drop-outs will give up the hobby: others will continue to fly, but uninsured and away from affiliated clubs.
  • BMFA membership will decline.
  • Club membership will decline.

Re: CAA registration 'consultation'

Posted: 23 Aug 2019, 21:38
by jackdaw
You don't have to register as a 'flyer' or an 'operator' if you only fly compliant sub 250gm models. My club has a number of FF and rubber powered model flyers. I'd be surprised if the club insisted on them having to register especially as the BMFA in the summary to their news letter stated that they or clubs would not be involved in checking for compliance with DRES.