Sloper Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 Just now, SteveH said: I think we all owe a vote of thanks to the BMFA for their work behind the scenes for achieving this result. This exemption allows us all to carry on with our model flying as usual. Very well done BMFA! Yes a result, restoring my faith somewhat, lets hope they continue to achieve and protect, this is the first step. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarrans Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, EssexBOF said: Over 7 k models have had this restriction for years now. Not from the surface they haven't - it was from LAUNCH POINT. Perhaps you haven't appreciated the potential significance of the new CAA diagram? However, talking to other experienced flyers I think the general take is that as it is pretty much impossible to measure FROM THE SURFACE and therefore police it we should ignore it and continue to fly slope soarers restricted to 400ft from launch point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kikapu Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 34 minutes ago, martynk said: Indeed, it is very good news.. Like all here, I am delighted - not only that the exemption has been granted but also there is no (apart from proximity to aerodromes) location restrictions. Very well done to the BMFA and all those involved Tell them yourselves. Can't see any reason why you shouldn't email them to express your thanks. Dave Phipps' email address is: david@bmfa.org Peter Ley 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarrans Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 Quote Tell them yourselves. Can't see any reason why you shouldn't email them to express your thanks. Dave Phipps' email address is: david@bmfa.org I just emailed Dave and he replied immediately. He acknowledges the change for over 7kg models and suggested looking into an exemption for our slope sites (which he has done) so I'll look into it. I'm very impressed they managed to do this - I confess I had little hope!! Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynk Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Kikapu said: Tell them yourselves. Can't see any reason why you shouldn't email them to express your thanks. Dave Phipps' email address is: david@bmfa.org Peter Ley I have done that. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamJam 53 Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 Good news indeed. Having just ordered a Dreamflight a-hi and flight pack from t9. I can now look forward to getting back into this "Hobby" without having to hide away on some remote hillside. Well done to all involved. I still kept my bmfa membership up to date even though I haven't been out to play for a long while. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikura Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 1 hour ago, pete beadle said: Hi all When I read the BMFA press notice/bulletin it said "permission" rather than "exemption". Could that be important? Anyone know what the difference is? I don't want us all to be celebrating too quickly, do you? Regards Pete BARCS1702 You are probably reading too much into it Pete. The exemption has been granted and we should all be very happy. I know I am and will now get my head around building my 3mtr Horten XL Elektro. Happy days and blue skies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 'Cracking' news . Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 I have to admit I am amazed given the responses from the DfT in the run-up to this, but it is very good news - well done to all concerned. Interestingly though the small print shows this is not an exemption for all model types - that's right, multirotors (despite not being formally defined in the ANO previously) are explicitly excluded! That will not be popular with FPVUK members I'm sure, but I guess it's proof the CAA and DfT do differentiate between them and traditional fixed wing and rotary LOS models. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 Excellent news. Much better than I was expecting. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikura Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 Hi Pete, I'll see what I can dig out for you so give me a few days and I will send you a pm with my email address etc so we can communicate easier. David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett82 Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 Great result, well done BMFA and anyone involved. Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFreeman Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 I believe that all the moaners that have had a go at the BMFA over the last 6months on this forum should express there thanks to the BMFA for a job well done. They have worked extremely hard behind the scenes with no thanks for the guys on this site. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFreeman Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 1 minute ago, JFreeman said: I believe that all the moaners that have had a go at the BMFA over the last 6months on this forum should express there thanks to the BMFA for a job well done. They have worked extremely hard behind the scenes with no thanks from the guys on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted July 25, 2018 Share Posted July 25, 2018 5 hours ago, pete beadle said: When I read the BMFA press notice/bulletin it said "permission" rather than "exemption". Article 94A. Quote ... the remote pilot of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly it at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface, unless the permission of the CAA has been obtained. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamJam 53 Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 I thought that being a bmfa member was the permission?. Unless flying within 1km of an airfield, where permission would then have to be sought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 38 minutes ago, pete beadle said: Hi all BTW I've just received a reply to my question on the forum earlier, that satisfies me, as to how the BMFA/CAA referred to the models we fly, the reply was from a source who wishes to remain nameless, but who regularly reads this forum, and it is that "What we fly is/was agreed to be referred to as "conventional" R/C models not "traditional models", as per MattyB's post........thanks Matt, but the definition conventional R/C model aircraft is what I was after........ So, it's agreed - we fly conventional R/C model aircraft - not drones - I'm happy with that What they call non-multirotor LOS flown SUAs is tbh irrelevant - the key point is that the CAA and DfT clearly wanted to differentiate multirotors and leave them out of the exemption. Digging through the posts on the BMFA FB thread unearthed this explanation of the rationale... "The Government was concerned that those wishing to operate multi-rotor drones unlawfully would join the associations solely to benefit from our permission/exemption in order to evade the 400ft limit. There is a lot of data to support permissions for model flyers operating 'conventional' model aircraft (which is why we were able to negotiate the permission), but unfortunately there is also a lot of data showing significant numbers of unlawful multi-rotor drone flights, many of which are at much greater heights than 'conventional' model aircraft would operate (which is why the CAA would not include multi-rotors drones)." Predictably there are some very angry multirotor flying members of the BMFA posting abut how unfair this is. I can see their point tbh, but it's clear the MFAs were given a stark "take it or leave it" choice - leave out multirotors from the exemption or everyone has to abide by the 400ft limit. In that situation they chose the least worst option for the majority of their members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 2 hours ago, RamJam 53 said: I thought that being a bmfa member was the permission?. Unless flying within 1km of an airfield, where permission would then have to be sought. The permission is the exemption granted by the CAA to BMFA members, not the act of becoming a BMFA member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oipigface Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 1 hour ago, pete beadle said: Hi all BTW I've just received a reply to my question on the forum earlier, that satisfies me, as to how the BMFA/CAA referred to the models we fly, the reply was from a source who wishes to remain nameless, but who regularly reads this forum, and it is that "What we fly is/was agreed to be referred to as "conventional" R/C models not "traditional models", as per MattyB's post........thanks Matt, but the definition conventional R/C model aircraft is what I was after........ So, it's agreed - we fly conventional R/C model aircraft - not drones - I'm happy with that Regards Pete BARCS1702 MattyB's helpful post above says exactly what the 'permission' applies to. 'Model' is not in their vocabulary, but the 'small unmanned aircraft' that we fly must not weigh too much, musn't have any kind of autopilot other than a stabiliser of some sort, and musn't have more than one rotor. Furthermore flying near aerodromes and farther away than you can see are frowned on (as they always have been).. This long negotiation has thus ended with a sensible set of rules that some drone flyers may be unhappy with, but which enable the glider flyers who contribute to this forum almost as much freedom as we have had in the recent past. BMFA DONE GOOD! Is it time to change the name of this thread to 'This no longer looks worrying at all'? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynk Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 15 minutes ago, oipigface said: Is it time to change the name of this thread to 'This no longer looks worrying at all'? Without being alarmist, this amendment to the ANO deals with HMG change in legislation to allow commercial operation of drones. We still have got to get through the EASA hoop yet which was the subject of the original OP. However as the UK representative for commercial and private flight operations in the UK at EASA is the CAA, I don't think we have too much to worry about but the nagging worry is still there. But I always was a conscientious worrier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts