Jef Ott Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 5 hours ago, Austin said: I can't see any reason why not. It fits well with '"UK RC Soaring" BMFA affiliated club.' It would need to be agreed by Committee. Good, I hope the Committee agree. It could get very confusing and disjointed with two Associations representing RC Soaring in Britain. "Are you the Judean People's Front?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_t Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 I had the opportunity to chat with a few BARCS committee members today, and brought this thread to their attention, so I'm sure they will be thinking about a position on this matter. From a practical viewpoint though, the BMFA with approaching 40,000 members has much more weight with any authorities than BARCS. BARCS has a close relationship with BMFA, and I'm sure would feed in any silent flight related aspects into BMFA (including site registration if it becomes a requirement). Simon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 I can't see anything about site registration in the government's Benefits of drones to the UK Economy consultation document. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett82 Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Totally agree Pete Only thing that worries me is if you look at the latest BMFA magazine you get a sense of how much focus they have on soaring. May be wrong, but that's just me... First choice would be model flying is exempt and not applicable to drone laws. If not, then the BMFA should step in to fight our corner so model flying does not face too much disruption as it said somewhere in the God knows how many ammendments or guidelines that are out there (which has probably been removed in another ammendment). The reason I suggested support from BARCS is so we have a strong voice to make sure the BMFA includes our needs in their discussions, or to even be there to represent us side by side with the BMFA. And if BARCS can hold all the information on flying sites, it then makes their voice even louder, so too speak. Brett 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted December 31, 2016 Author Share Posted December 31, 2016 On 20/12/2016 at 21:47, Jef said: Surely we already have the National Soaring Club in place. It's called BARCS. On 21/12/2016 at 07:53, Brett82 said: That's exactly what I was wondering, same as when there was talk of the magazine. Most soarers in the UK know about this forum or are registered so it would make the perfect platform. Maybe Austin would care to comment if BARCS could potentially be a platform if it was deemed we needed to set something up. Those are big if's though, no one can say for sure if it's required but nothing wrong with knowing what options are available early on. Brett On 21/12/2016 at 11:36, Austin said: I can't see any reason why not. It fits well with '"UK RC Soaring" BMFA affiliated club.' It would need to be agreed by Committee. On 21/12/2016 at 15:28, Brett82 said: Thanks for the quick reply Austin. Well there we go, if needed we can request support from BARCS if the committee agrees. I just worry we do nothing and get caught off guard, better to be proactive. Brett On 21/12/2016 at 17:22, Jef said: Good, I hope the Committee agree. It could get very confusing and disjointed with two Associations representing RC Soaring in Britain. "Are you the Judean People's Front?" On 21/12/2016 at 18:02, simon_t said: I had the opportunity to chat with a few BARCS committee members today, and brought this thread to their attention, so I'm sure they will be thinking about a position on this matter. From a practical viewpoint though, the BMFA with approaching 40,000 members has much more weight with any authorities than BARCS. BARCS has a close relationship with BMFA, and I'm sure would feed in any silent flight related aspects into BMFA (including site registration if it becomes a requirement). Simon Sorry, I checked out of this thread for a while over the holidays. Some comments on the above conversation... I would actively welcome the engagement of BARCS in the creation and running of any new association/club dedicated to preserving access to public soaring sites, and would back all BARCS members becoming members of the new association by default at no cost. This may give the new association additional credibility with the authorities too. However I would not want to see BARCS membership being mandatory in order to join the UKRCGA or whatever we may call it - nothing against BARCS, I just believe we are best making this as inclusive and low cost as possible (the more members this club has the better we are to demonstrate it's effectiveness in managing operations at public sites safely). Another reflection... When I was reading the proposed EASA regs and thought of this I never considered this new org should have any role in the overall governance of model flying in the UK or would represent RC soarers in general to the authorities. After all we already have the BMFA and to a lesser extent BARCS for that! In my head this was just another model flying club, pure and simple. It would be run only to "own" (and help preserve access to) public access soaring sites that do not currently have a tenant club, ensuring we can demonstrate a record of safe operation at these sites to authorities such as the UK Government and EASA. Essentially it would just be another club in the BMFA's list, another Ivinghoe Soaring Association or Leek and Moorland MGA (all be it with a much larger roster of flying sites). In essence it would look to achieve two things only - create and maintain a register of actively used public soaring sites, and put in place a very general set of rules around how operations were conducted at sites registered by the UKRCGA. The register would probably only consist of a location, some key parameters about the site (flyable wind directions, launch point coordinates etc.) and a site contact who actively uses that site (in most cases the site registrant) - as has been pointed out here there are several existing online databases that could provide a starting point for this. The rules of operation would be minimal and as general as possible - stuff like all members must be BMFA or LMA members (or accompanied guests thereof), must comply with the ANO at all times and must abide by any local rules and regs in place ("...contact registrant/click here for details of local rules"). Finally fees (if any are needed) would be set only at the level needed to cover the costs of administering the register and membership of the association - this should mean membership fees of no more than a £1 are required. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted January 5, 2017 Author Share Posted January 5, 2017 Quick update - I have emailed the BMFA on this topic to see whether they think this is an idea worth progressing at this time; let's see what they think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted January 23, 2017 Author Share Posted January 23, 2017 Hi all, OK, a few weeks ago I did receive a response from Dave Phipps of the BMFA - this was very positive, and indicates that a new UK soaring association is not required at this stage. We may want to revisit the idea though when the next iteration of EASA proposals emerge in May 2017. Here's a brief summary (extracts from my original email in italics, Dave's responses in blue)... Based on the proposed EASA regulations there appears to be a possibility (though by no means certain) that model flying may only be possible from registered sites tenanted by a club under the wing of a competent authority (such as the BMFA, LMA etc). This is not the current line of thinking. The hope is that you would need to belong to a recognised organisation and would fly under a blanket authorisation issued to them by the National CAA. At the present time there is no formal plan to restrict flying only to registered sites (the UK CAA does not want to become involved in any more admin than it is at present!). If that were to occur slope and thermal soarers who fly from publically accessible sites not tenanted by a club would be breaking the law and would not be insured. EASA also recognises that they have to find a way to accommodate this type of activity, so our hope is that the situation will not arise. I therefore suggested a new BMFA affiliated club might be formed to register and “own” all the currently used public access slope and thermal sites that do not have a tenant club at present... Obviously the requirement to create such an organisation is based mostly on supposition and guesswork at this point; no-one outside the BMFA team really knows how the negotiations are going or whether this is likely to be required... My question is (based on your insight as to how the negotiations with EASA are proceeding) should the soaring community setup such an organisation at this time, and if so would the BMFA want to get involved? At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that the above course of action would be required. The next draft of the EASA rules will probably be launched for consultation towards the end of May, but at the present time they still don’t have the formal competence to produce any actual rules. It seems that the earliest that any rules would be rolled out will be 2018 and then they will take three years to implement taking us to 2021. On this basis, there is no need for urgent action. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted February 14, 2018 Author Share Posted February 14, 2018 Latest update from the BMFA related to this topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now