CAA Review of UK UAS Regulations

[Steve J]

9 minutes ago, Andy-Symons said:

... Even if it was, you have completely missed the context in which it was written as it has nothing to do with any proposed regulation ....

You wrote that piece for November's BMFA News after people had disagreed with you over the CAA's Call for Input.

[mikef]

I read the whole of Andy's column and I understand the frustration behind the words.  I can also understand that the ‘small number of people’ in question would be upset by the sentiment expressed.

But I don't see why that would stop an individual who is interested in getting the best possible result for all model flyers from passing on the details of errors they have found in the BMFA's information.

The paid and unpaid people we have leading our Association do not want to be undermined by 5th columnists but they will certainly welcome helpful inputs if there are experts who can see problems.  However don't expect BMFA policy to match individual inputs exactly.

We want the snipers inside firing outwards.  Don't expect ‘the BMFA’ to take the fire from outside without its supporters sometimes firing back.

As Christmas approaches, we need the Fidos to find another bed - we going to need the manger.

 

Peace and goodwill to all especially in this thread.

[Andy-Symons]

9 minutes ago, Steve J said:

You wrote that piece for November's BMFA News after people had disagreed with you over the CAA's Call for Input.

No I didn't. Nothing at all to do with the CAA call for input. Entirely to do with the perception of a heavy regulatory burden, which we currently do not have, putting people off model flying. Its all in the piece, you do not need to try and read between the lines as there is nothing between the lines.

[Phil.Taylor]

1 hour ago, Andy-Symons said:

I happen to feel that for most model flying activity, including most soaring activity, whether slope or themal, we will see minimal impact.

Hi Andy

For the average club Joe down at the power patch - maybe true. BUT - We are not "most model flying" - we are a soaring community on this BARCS forum - and the CAA proposals will affect us.

Please read the SFTC paper & the concerns raised. Please listen to Jon Edison.

Regards, Phil.

[Steve J]

47 minutes ago, mikef said:

The paid and unpaid people we have leading our Association do not want to be undermined by 5th columnists but they will certainly welcome helpful inputs if there are experts who can see problems. 

It is pretty clear from @MattyB 's current topic on the RCM&E forum and many other previous topics that this not the case. The BMFA are not interested in input from the riff-raff. Symons' response to Matt, who is very knowledgeable on this subject, drawing parallels with the US (where they went though this a few years ago) was "we don't live in the US". The inaccuracy of the statement re Japanese RID in the BMFA/LMA response was raised 10 days ago. No engagement.

[Andy-Symons]

7 minutes ago, Phil.Taylor said:

Hi Andy

For the average club Joe down at the power patch - maybe true. BUT - We are not "most model flying" - we are a soaring community on this BARCS forum - and the CAA proposals will affect us.

Please read the SFTC paper & the concerns raised. Please listen to Jon Edison.

Regards, Phil.

Hi Phil

I very much appreciate that, as does the BMFA CEO, it is far from clear how the proposals will affect the soaring community, if at all, there is a long way to go with this.

I have read the SFTC paper too. I also will be speaking to Jon on my return from annual leave specifically about gathering flying site data for soaring sites.

Cheers.

Andy

[Andy-Symons]

6 minutes ago, Steve J said:

It is pretty clear from @MattyB 's current topic on the RCM&E forum and many other previous topics that this not the case. The BMFA are not interested in input from the riff-raff. 

Utter nonsense, if any member has any genuine concerns about the BMFA responses all they need to do is drop an email to the BMFA FAO of the CEO. I am amazed anyone wouldn't do so if they had concerns.

[satinet]

2 hours ago, Andy-Symons said:

No you haven't. It's not your place to correct my opinion.

Even if it was, you have completely missed the context in which it was written as it has nothing to do with any proposed regulation, but the perception that we currently have a massively overbearing regulatory fromework, when we simply do not. We can do just about everything we have always been able to do. However, sadly, that incorrect perception has put many off model flying. 

You are of course more than entitled to disagree with my opinion and to express your own. Just as I am entitled to form and express my own opinion and disagree with anyone elses.

I happen to feel that for most model flying activity, including most soaring activity, whether slope or themal, we will see minimal impact.

 

 

I struggle to see you how you think that as most slope sites probably aren't or won't be classed as official sites.

Aside from the cost and privacy implications I could hardly fit anything bigger than a postage stamp inside the fuselage of a moulded glider. Never mind an ID device and it's battery. No spare channels in the Rx. No space at all. 

 

The caa is responsible for putting people off model flying by bringing in a registration scheme that has literally achieved nothing it was ostensibly set up for.  It's managed to fill its coffers and put people off flying - but then we are talking about the 'campaign against aviation' as full sized pilots call it.  So mission accomplished.  

As everyone realised at the time the registration scheme was the thin end of the wedge as the caa thinks up ever more fanciful schemes to get cash and restrict aviation.  

Edited December 19, 2023 by satinet

[Andy-Symons]

53 minutes ago, satinet said:

I struggle to see you how you think that as most slope sites probably aren't or won't be classed as official sites.

Why not? We have already gathered data for a sizeable number of slope sites and we are still in the first phase of data gathering.

[oipigface]

1 hour ago, Andy-Symons said:

Why not? We have already gathered data for a sizeable number of slope sites and we are still in the first phase of data gathering.

A long-standing principle of the laws of England is, I believe, that things that are not expressly forbidden are permitted, which is why I have always felt free, particularly on open-access land to try any slope that looks promising. If at some time it is decreed that only currently used sites may be used in the future this principle would be violated. Understanding new slopes is an integral part of the skill in slope soaring. 

[satinet]

1 hour ago, Andy-Symons said:

Why not? We have already gathered data for a sizeable number of slope sites and we are still in the first phase of data gathering.

It's gonna depend on how difficult it is for a site to become registered. I don't believe the intention is for large swathes of the country to be registered as flying sites, rather for a few sites to be on the official list.  This is the caa that called us all dangerous/criminal/incompetents, or words to that effect, in front of MPs not long ago.  

At the moment you can fly from the coast in many places with freedom.  You want to blame model flyers for the drop in participation.

When I started you could buy a model and fly it from any suitable hill with wonderful freedom. Now you need to register, pay a fee, pass a test, find an official site/install any pay for some id device etc etc. And it's the fault of the flyers and not the caa that participation has failed.  Pull the other one.  

Edited December 19, 2023 by satinet

[Steve J]

4 hours ago, Andy-Symons said:

... if any member has any genuine concerns about the BMFA responses all they need to do is drop an email to the BMFA FAO of the CEO ...

Thanks for confirming that there is no point engaging with you (and the LMA Secretary) on Internet forums. I have long though that this was case, but it nice of you to make it clear that you are 'output only'.

[Steve J]

1 hour ago, satinet said:

It's gonna depend on how difficult it is for a site to become registered.

The phrase in the consultation is "authorised by the CAA based on proximity to urban, sensitive or restricted sites".

[Andy-Symons]

5 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Thanks for confirming that there is no point engaging with you (and the LMA Secretary) on Internet forums. I have long though that this was case, but it nice of you to make it clear that you are 'output only'.

The problem with internet forums and social media in general is some 'contributors' are only interested in trying to score points to feed their own egos. Those with genuine concerns always make the effort through official channels through which feedback and commemt is always welcome.

[satinet]

57 minutes ago, Steve J said:

The phrase in the consultation is "authorised by the CAA based on proximity to urban, sensitive or restricted sites".

Maybe there will be another database to register them £££

[satinet]

1 hour ago, Andy-Symons said:

The problem with internet forums and social media in general is some 'contributors' are only interested in trying to score points to feed their own egos. Those with genuine concerns always make the effort through official channels through which feedback and commemt is always welcome.

That's not my experience as a committee member of a club.

I don't know what you're trying to achieve blaming flyers and social media for the unjust rules that are in place which have a strong, and entirely predictable, negative effect on participation in the sport. Bmfa numbers are now down to 27k and presumably falling year on year.

 

The new rules coming are a bigger disaster. Maybe it's incumbent on the bmfa to be at least honest, rather than pointing the finger at members. 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2023 by satinet

[Steve J]

9 minutes ago, satinet said:

Maybe there will be another database to register them £££

The CAA's usual rate is c. £290/hour. I wonder what they will charge to approve a site.

[Steve J]

1 hour ago, Andy-Symons said:

The problem with internet forums and social media in general is some 'contributors' are only interested in trying to score points to feed their own egos.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Andy-Symons]

24 minutes ago, satinet said:

I don't know what you're trying to achieve blaming flyers and social media for the unjust rules that are in place which have a strong, and entirely predictable, negative effect on participation in the sport. Bmfa numbers are now down to 27k and presumably falling year on year.

I don't think you will be able to find anywhere where I have blamed flyers or social media for any rules, whether sensible or unjust that are in place.

[Andy-Symons]

15 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Pot, meet kettle.

I am more than happy to leave that judgement to everyone else.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Andy-Symons