RCMF Donations

Enjoy using RCMF? How about a wee donation to help us keep you in the style to which you've become accustomed?

Welcome to RCMF. Please login or sign up.

December 03, 2020, 22:38:37 pm

Login with username, password and session length

January 7th 2019 - Drone Law Changes

Started by Bad Raven, January 08, 2019, 06:55:34 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PDR

Nose-face-spite.

We used to have to pay for a Radio Control licence - I can't find the specifics by my memory suggests this was until 1975 and it cost about 50p/yr. Even with bog standard inflation that would be around £4/yr now, and I would expect it to be more because regulation costs for pretty well anything are much greater now due to data protection and privacy concerns.

If £9/yr creates clear blue water between us and the lunatic fringe of the drone fraternity then I'm happy to pay it. If it gives me something I can point to to say "My club aren't those loonies - we are sensible and responsible people" then its cheap at four times the price.

Grow up. Stop whining and go flying!

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

itsme

I miss the 'like' button. It means I have to type "I agree with PDR" which is much harder....

Big A

Quote from: lanicopter on October 22, 2019, 12:37:41 pmIt's a £9 tax. It's not like it gives you anything more, except to pay for the database of potential suspects for crimes not yet committed. And even that's a push because those who commit the crimes are hardly likely to register first.
Wrong, while it gives nothing more to what we currently have it does mean you can operate lawfully after 31st January 2020, its not a database of potential suspects because the Police don't have access to any list, all they can do once they have arrested a suspect is check they are registered or not.

Quote from: lanicopter on October 22, 2019, 12:37:41 pmSo before you claim it as a victory, think about what it is you're actually getting - because it isn't actually going to stop the activities that caused the laws to be changed in the first place nor is it going to ensure air safety.
Wrong again, it is a small victory, not a complete victory though. also the activities your refer to are not what has caused the laws to be changed, advancing technologies and the fact the airspace we use is only ever going to get busier and the need for all airspace users to integrate safely is the primary reason for the changes.

Quote from: lanicopter on October 22, 2019, 12:37:41 pmThe BMFA, in my view, are now simply tax collectors for the government. Instead of standing up for their members and saying "no, we won't pay your silly stealth tax because we have over 100 years of safe operation" you're now obliged to pay.
Also wrong, I suggest not believeing everything a certain kiwi says in his videos, the last one he made was almost entirely wrong, scaremongering and damaging to our sport. No BMFA member is obliged to register with the CAA via the BMFA, purely a matter for the individual who will have to give definte consent and opt in. Whether an individual registers or not is being left entirely up to the individual and is not a condition of membership.

Quote from: lanicopter on October 22, 2019, 12:37:41 pmIf people refuse to pay then they can no longer fly at a BMFA club.
Wrong, in fact I would go as far as to say very very wrong!

Quote from: lanicopter on October 22, 2019, 12:37:41 pmSo no - not a victory. Sure you can still fly - but that means you can do the same thing you've always done, only now it costs you the best part of a tenner.
Wrong again, Still a small victory but not total victory, £9 is better than £16.50, having achievements recognised and being able to register quickly and simply through whatever association you choose to be a member of is a small victory

Quote from: lanicopter on October 22, 2019, 12:37:41 pmSad.
We agree on something, its sad how its being implemented and sad the CAA wouldn't just accept membership of the BMFA/LMA as meeting registration requirements, its also sad that there are so many doommongers out there spreading negativity, so may people spreading misinformation and expressing opinin as fact too, they are doing more damage than any current or proposed regulation.

When all the dust settles I am confident we will be able to carry on pretty much as we always have been able to.

lanicopter

I am still waiting for an answer to the question of what my £9 gives me that I did not have before?

It seems the only beneficiary is the government who now have access to my data (and my money too).

I have never had a problem being part of a model flying association - I don't see why I need to be on a government list as well.

--Quote from: lanicopter on October 22, 2019, 12:37:41 pm
If people refuse to pay then they can no longer fly at a BMFA club.
Wrong, in fact I would go as far as to say very very wrong!
--

Can you explain please how that is wrong? Surely you're not going to allow unregistered flyers to use BMFA club facilities? You used to insist on insurance even though it wasn't a lawful requirement. Registration IS a requirement ... so.... you see what I'm saying? If an unregistered pilot flew at a BMFA club wouldn't they be uninsured by default due to the illegal act of flying without registration?
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

itsme

A lot depends on the club. Some clubs dont even insist on insurance. A BMFA Affiliated club needs to have all members as bMFA members. The registration to the CAA is not a condition of that, although I can see a lot of clubs asking for proof of registration. Its not rocket science and £9 is not going to send me off to QuickQuid.

itsme

Oh- as to your question, look at Petes post. This gives us legality, and a separation from some idiot with a drone who wont register...

lanicopter

Well yes but you already had that anyway (especially as club members) and it still doesn't do anything to stop the idiot from doing whatever they like. They could quite literally buy a drone from Argos on the way to an airport 100 miles away, fly it and travel home - then all the police have is a rough location of where the offence happened (which is 100 miles from where the perpetrator actually lives) ... and a handy list of people nearby who own model aircraft (and we all know how that ended last time, poor buggers!).

As I keep saying, it's £9 for nowt as far as I can tell. It doesn't increase safety, it doesn't stop nefarious behaviour, it doesn't make it easier for the police to find the criminal (because they won't have registered) ... so what does it actually do?
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

firefox

The concessions we have got so far are good - thank you BMFA and all who wrote/emailed.

£9 is better than £16.50, but we get nothing for it! How much it will cost next year is anybodies guess.

If I go out with my motor para-glider, fire up the engine and take off that is fine and I do not have to pay the CAA a penny - why have we been singled out!

I too remember having to pay for a licence for RC aircraft, did it not last 10 years? But that was run by OFCOM who now licence me as a Radio Ham - cost for that nothing!

Go figure.
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool......

pooh

As another radio ham ( not active but still licensed) I remember the row over Citizens Band radio, we had to pay for our licence, they were (a) illegal operators of radio transmitters and (b) paid nothing to operate. That was all going to be controlled by tracking down the CB operators and fining them and confiscating their rigs.

The sheer numbers of CB operators, and the general raising of two digits in the usual salute meant that after a year or so nobody took any notice and the CB operation became quasi-legal as it was unenforceable.

Drone regulation will go the same way. There are already plenty of legal routes to prosecute dangerous drone operation, registration will have absolutely no effect on this, only the honest and careful will pay. This is just a knee-jerk reaction by politicians who want to be seen to be doing something even if it is totally ineffectual (whilst they aren't sorting Brexit...)
Confucious he say "more than one aircraft in the same airspace leads to structural failure"

THE BLACKBIRD

can we have a like button please Mr Boss man
The man that never made a mistake
Never made anything

jrman


FlyinBrian

Quote from: pooh on October 25, 2019, 15:12:52 pmThis is just a knee-jerk reaction by politicians who want to be seen to be doing something even if it is totally ineffectual (whilst they aren't sorting Brexit...)

Totally agree

LIKE
Basic Research is what I do - when I don't know what I'm doing!.

itsme

Whilst I in no way disagree with that sentiment, as the law came in to force last year (some of us objected strongly) it is too late to whinge about it now. We have a compromise, which gives us recognition as safe, law abiding model flyers. Be grateful, as I am, to the BMFA, LMA et al who have fought tirelessly.

THE BLACKBIRD

The man that never made a mistake
Never made anything

wunwinglow


pooh

Quote from: itsme on October 25, 2019, 18:38:38 pmWhilst I in no way disagree with that sentiment, as the law came in to force last year (some of us objected strongly) it is too late to whinge about it now. We have a compromise, which gives us recognition as safe, law abiding model flyers. Be grateful, as I am, to the BMFA, LMA et al who have fought tirelessly.

it's not a whinge, it's a statement of fact.

We were acknowledged safe and law-abiding before, based on many years of safe and law-abiding behaviour

It's good to see our politicians are very quick to pass a pointless law. I won't mention the B word...
Confucious he say "more than one aircraft in the same airspace leads to structural failure"

THE BLACKBIRD

The man that never made a mistake
Never made anything

PDR

Quote from: pooh on October 25, 2019, 19:36:56 pmit's not a whinge, it's a statement of fact.

We were acknowledged safe and law-abiding before, based on many years of safe and law-abiding behaviour

It's good to see our politicians are very quick to pass a pointless law. I won't mention the B word...

I abide by the law whenever I drive. I am fully competent and I have never caused any third party any damage resulting from my driving at any time in the last 40 years. But I had to pay to get a license and I have to pay for insurance. I get no benefit from either but the law requires me to pay for them. Are you suggesting that I should stop renewing my license and insurance? I'm intrigued to see where this line of reasoning goes.

PDR


PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

lanicopter

October 25, 2019, 22:42:33 pm #98 Last Edit: October 25, 2019, 22:43:53 pm by lanicopter
Your insurance protects you against financial disaster if anything goes wrong. Much like the BMFA insurance that you used to have, and had for years with no issue. So the analogy works in this instance.

Now though, you're also required to pay an additional fee to have your information stored elsewhere. And it's illegal to fly if you don't, despite you being a competent, insured pilot with many years of safe operation and experience behind you.

So I ask again - why are you okay with this? It brings no benefit to you personally, serves no useful purpose except to allow you to become a suspect for a crime that you presumably wouldn't commit (with all of the hassle that goes along with that) and does nothing, I repeat, nothing, to detract someone from committing a crime.

I'm glad you're willing to just say "oh it's only 9 quid, I can forget about it and I'll be fine" .. that's not the point at all. The government have no right whatsoever to information concerning what aircraft you have purchased with your own money, nor do they actually need that information because you're not the criminal they should be concerned with.

And regarding the 9 quid - what if they were to raise it to £75? What price your privacy? Would that figure still not bother you?
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

PDR

Quote from: lanicopter on October 25, 2019, 22:42:33 pmSo I ask again - why are you okay with this?

I'm OK with it because I'm a normal, reasonable person rather than a ranting paranoid schizophrenic. Being a normal, reasonable person I recognise that there are times when there is a need to be seen to do something regardless of what the something is and whether it actually works - it's a political placebo and placebos can be effective. If the £9 placebo gets the ravening public off my case then it very much IS doing something for me. If you want to make a prat of yourself and bring the rest of us into disrepute with some silly disobedience campaign then frankly I'd want you drummed out of our hobby - we don't want you.

And all this "OMG I'm giving away my data" crap is just twaddle. If you really think think the information is not already available to the state then you're even dafter than we thought.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

lanicopter

October 26, 2019, 00:58:09 am #100 Last Edit: October 26, 2019, 00:59:39 am by lanicopter
So not being thrilled to pay a fee for something which isn't needed and never has been needed makes me a paranoid schizophrenic? Interesting. I think you need to dial back your rhetoric a little. Thank you.

When did I say I wanted to bring anyone into disrepute with some kind of disobedience campaign though? Questioning the logic of something that directly affects all modellers is precisely what needs to be done - rolling over like some kind of obedient dog just doesn't appeal, nor should it - that's how you lose your liberties. I'm already a fully paid up member of a modelling association - that ought to be good enough, and has been for many years.

Quote from: PDRAnd all this "OMG I'm giving away my data" crap is just twaddle. If you really think think the information is not already available to the state then you're even dafter than we thought.

I put it to you that if you think they already have access to my data then why do I still need to register and pay?

Whichever way you swing it, this registration makes no sense and you should be resisting it as much as possible otherwise you are complicit in the potential future destruction of a hobby that you claim to love.

Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

Steve J

Quote from: pooh on October 25, 2019, 15:12:52 pmThis is just a knee-jerk reaction by politicians who want to be seen to be doing something even if it is totally ineffectual

The level of ignorance of this subject shown by the average modeller never ceases to amaze me.

Registration is not a 'knee-jerk reaction'. It is part of a process that started four and half years ago with the Riga Declaration and still has a long way to go.

Steve

itsme

The law regarding this came into force in 2018. The time has long passed by to object to it. The BMFA and others have negotiated a better deal for members, it is the best compromise we could have, and I for one am grateful. If you are flying on a slope somewhere or in a public park (why you would do that I have no idea) and some irate warden or nosey parker member of the public accosts you, you can wave your CAA licence at them..

PDR

Quote from: lanicopter on October 26, 2019, 00:58:09 amSo not being thrilled to pay a fee for something which isn't needed and never has been needed makes me a paranoid schizophrenic? Interesting.

No, it's the repeated mantra about "giving them my data" that makes you a paranoid schizophrenic. Whining about a nominal (and desultory) fee just makes you appear childish.

Quote from: undefinedI'm already a fully paid up member of a modelling association - that ought to be good enough, and has been for many years.

Again, no it hasn't. It's not enough because (as it stands) there is no external auditing to assure the accuracy of the modelling association's records. While they were solely for our own purposes that was acceptable, but as a single source of truth for a national licensing scheme it falls short. Hence the need to have this only as a data collector for the central register. I have no doubt it will be monitored and audited, and our ability to maintain this exemption will be subject to those audits finding that the data remain accurate.

Quote from: undefinedI put it to you that if you think they already have access to my data then why do I still need to register and pay?

Because they already have access to all the individual data items which you paranoid schizophrenics throw your tantrums about - whatr they don't have is the associations that connect those ten (or whatever) data items identify someone who is an assessed and responsible RC model flyer. It's the associations that turn data into information.

Quote from: undefinedotherwise you are complicit in the potential future destruction of a hobby that you claim to love.

One of the dafter statements (in a particularly rich and hotly contested field) - please explain how registering to show we are responsible adults would destroy our hobby while refusing to do so would not? Seriously - have you skipped your meds or something? Maybe you should just go climb on a train or something.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

itsme

As for Government data, I received a letter from Work & Pensions addressed to me with my NI number clearly written at the top of the page. First two questions: what is your current address? and what is your NI number? So dont worry, the Government have no idea what to do with data.

lanicopter

October 26, 2019, 09:42:19 am #105 Last Edit: October 26, 2019, 09:46:56 am by lanicopter
Quote from: PDR on October 26, 2019, 09:26:16 amNo, it's the repeated mantra about "giving them my data" that makes you a paranoid schizophrenic. Whining about a nominal (and desultory) fee just makes you appear childish.

It's not about the fee, it's about the insistence of it being paid in order to fly legally. It is simply a tax in the guise of improving air safety (which it does not in any demonstrable measure).

Quote from: PDR on October 26, 2019, 09:26:16 amAgain, no it hasn't. It's not enough because (as it stands) there is no external auditing to assure the accuracy of the modelling association's records. While they were solely for our own purposes that was acceptable, but as a single source of truth for a national licensing scheme it falls short. Hence the need to have this only as a data collector for the central register. I have no doubt it will be monitored and audited, and our ability to maintain this exemption will be subject to those audits finding that the data remain accurate.

Do you read what you type? The data coming to the CAA will be the exact same data stored by the BMFA/FPVUK/LMA (unless of course you decide to take the manual route via the CAA system). So now not only do you still have a singular data store for each association on one hand, you also potentially have a contradicting source for each of them on the other. How is that better? How exactly would it be audited without someone physically visiting the modellers to count their aircraft?

Quote from: PDR on October 26, 2019, 09:26:16 amBecause they already have access to all the individual data items which you paranoid schizophrenics throw your tantrums about - whatr they don't have is the associations that connect those ten (or whatever) data items identify someone who is an assessed and responsible RC model flyer. It's the associations that turn data into information.

Interesting - I'm not sure they do. Unless they have a crystal ball and know that I've turned countless individual circuit board purchases, motors, etc into various model aircraft I fail to see how they know what I have in my hangar and would could potentially be used in the airspace.

Quote from: PDR on October 26, 2019, 09:26:16 amOne of the dafter statements (in a particularly rich and hotly contested field) - please explain how registering to show we are responsible adults would destroy our hobby while refusing to do so would not?

Given that the registration was NOT a requirement, and now it IS, that is a prime example of the erosion of modellers right to a peaceful pastime, one which has been enjoyed for decades beforehand with no government interference.

If there was a legitimate reason for this additional registration then I could maybe try to get behind it. But I've yet to see a compelling one which benefits a modeller, and you resorting to being a petulant little child in every comment towards me makes me think that you know this and just don't like someone pointing out the obvious to you.

Quote from: PDR on October 26, 2019, 09:26:16 amSeriously - have you skipped your meds or something? Maybe you should just go climb on a train or something.
I've reported your posts because I think you're going overboard with your pathetic insults. I think someone needs to bring you down a peg or two. Whether or not it happens is in the hands of the mods.

As much as I disagree with you on certain things, I thought you were at least above that level.
Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

PDR

Quote from: itsme on October 26, 2019, 09:25:19 amIf you are flying on a slope somewhere or in a public park (why you would do that I have no idea) and some irate warden or nosey parker member of the public accosts you, you can wave your CAA licence at them..

That this is an area where Bob and I seem to be in complete agreement is indeed remarkable(!), but yes - absolutely that. We can make this work for us if we approach it in the right way. Back in the late 70s when I flew on Chobham Common we used to make a point of talking to the warden. We gave him our phone numbers so he could get in touch if there were any issues. In the rainy season (between September and August) the tracks/paths through the heather would get muddy and soft, and the warden would put up signs closing some of them to avoid erosion. We would ALWAYS comply, and would also monitor the state of the other paths so we could let him know if any of the others were beginning to suffer.

The common was also used by horse riders, but they felt "entitled" and tended to ignore the signs. I remember one Sunday lunchtime when we returned to the car park I saw a couple of the horse riders berating the warden because a horse had become entangled in a bungee that was laid across one of the closed paths - they were loudly demanding that we flyers be banned. He quietly pointed out that those paths were "closed", which these women brushed off with a "we're entitled to ride where we wish - you can't tell us not to!".

I've never forgotten what followed. He went to his land rover and came back with a camera, and took photos of the women and their horses. He then quietly explained that he very much DID have the authority to close paths, and that he now had their identities and this was their only warning - if he saw them again on closed paths the horses would be confiscated and the riders would face prosecution. I'd never seen him so angry. He then turned and pointed at us and said "These guys use the common for their hobby as well - but they talk to me. If I close off an area they avoid it. If they do any damage to trees they tell me. They are insured, and they control the behaviour of visitors. Last year when we had the drought they came out and helped me cut fire breaks. So if there's a conflict between you and them then there's no contest - the horses get banned. Are you telling me there's a conflict?".

If we have documentary evidence that we are sensible, responsible adults then we have an edge. It's you loony extremists spouting about your rights rather than waking up and smelling the coffee who threaten the hobby, not us.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

lanicopter

Interestingly us "loony extremists" have a membership card to wave at a nosy parkers as well. We get that without needing to register with the CAA because it's provided by our modelling association, much like the one you used to get from the BMFA (remember, the blue credit card sized one that you could keep in your wallet?)

It shows competency via an endorsement (A-test), and it also shows that I am insured. I also have a certificate of insurance laminated in my flight box to prove my insurance is valid, as well as my address details if a police officer asks.

Again - what benefit does registering for a second time with the CAA bring me? The CAA already recognise BMFA/FPVUK etc for what they are.

Current fuel status: "Master Caution"

leccyflyer

Quote from: PDR on October 22, 2019, 15:43:48 pmIndeed. Those who don't wish to join the BMFA can complete the training and test, and then register directlky with the CAA.

The only effective change here is that BMFA members who hold A-license (presumably "or above") are being given a waiver as their qualifications are being accepted as read. WHich is precisely what we asked for.

I'm not clear on the requirement to put registration numbers on things - is that still there or are we exempt from that as well? I don't care which it is, I just want to know!

Also what is the situation for people who are under training? They would probably be club members and thus BMFA members, but before they pass their A-licence do they need to have a seperate CAA registration/test? Again, I have no strong views one way or the other - I just want to know.

There is a "stealth change" in that it probably introduces a requirement for all BMFA clubs to use the A-Licence as a solo-certification. Many/most(?) clubs already do this, but there are those who have refused on some sort of principle.  I suppose those people would need to do the CAA test and register as if they weren't BMFA members?

These are all just details that we need to tie down to ensure we're in compliance. Overall I thiunk the BMFA have done an excellent job in talking the DfT and CAA out of Dromeageddon and into the reasonable position we'd been seeking.

Well done - a superb, professional job. Many, many thanks for all the hard work!

PDR

Indeed - excellent job by the BMFA in making the very best out of what looked like a miserable situation.

From what I've read you will need to put your registration number on your models, but not necessarily on the outside, so could be in the battery compartment or inside the fuselage somewhere and needs to be readable from a foot away or thereabouts. I'll be replacing all the address labels inside my models with a new label and getting back into the habit of fitting those.

Superb result for the hobby and, as you say, if ot establishes clear blue water between the reasonable, responsible modellers from those who don't see the need to comply than that is fine by me. There's no place in our hobby for such renegades.
Nicht mal ein Spitfire kann zur gleichen Zeit im Süden und im Norden sein.

itsme

It would be nice to return to a time BD (before drones) when model fliers engaged in their hobby with little interference from the CAA etc, but the drone morons (not the law abiding ones, that is) have stirred it all up. This legislation would probably have come anyway, with the skies being so crowded, but they have certainly accelerated the process. So this is a problem which has arisen, and as far as I can see, we have been given an answer to it. I shall look forward to my CAA certificate and keep it with my BMFA and my B cert and LMA Proficiency in my Tx case, there to show I am a responsible model flyer.

PDR

Quote from: lanicopter on October 26, 2019, 09:42:19 amDo you read what you type? The data coming to the CAA will be the exact same data stored by the BMFA/FPVUK/LMA

The CAA have agreed (thanks to the stirling efforts of the BMFA/LMA/FPVUK negotiators) to accept the model association data as input for registration rather than demanding we enter it ourselves. These data will go into the CAA-hosted database which is the one that authorities (police etc) will be able to access to verify claimed registration or identify the person whose registration numbers have been found on a model. The CAA will be responsible for owning and protecting that data - ensuring that it is only accessible to legitimate enquiries. That whole GDPR-compliance piece is made very expensive when you provide external access portals. If we held out for the police being given access to BMFA/LMA/FPVUK membership databases then those databases and the platforms they run on would need to be massively upgraded. At present they have lower GDPR compliance costs because they have very limited accessibility - that would be woefully insufficient for the CAA access needs.

The auditing would simply be verifying names and addresses as being real, to show that these organisations can be trusted to supply accurate and timely information. No one (outside your strange mind) is suggesting that you'd need to register every model and every component used in a model. That's just the typical sort of project fear B/S you get from paranoids with warped minds and axes to grind.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

PDR

Quote from: lanicopter on October 26, 2019, 10:45:54 amInterestingly us "loony extremists" have a membership card to wave at a nosy parkers as well. We get that without needing to register with the CAA because it's provided by our modelling association, much like the one you used to get from the BMFA (remember, the blue credit card sized one that you could keep in your wallet?)

It shows competency via an endorsement (A-test), and it also shows that I am insured. I also have a certificate of insurance laminated in my flight box to prove my insurance is valid, as well as my address details if a police officer asks.

Again - what benefit does registering for a second time with the CAA bring me? The CAA already recognise BMFA/FPVUK etc for what they are.

A model association membership card on its own means precisely nothing - I could run them up on a home printer and laminate them so they looked really official. Like most other identity instruments the effectiveness comes from the fact that it has identity numbers which the police can check against a master record (like the Motor Insurance Database or the DVA driver database).

So AFAICS what we will have is exactly that - our BMFA numbers will now be able to be checked against a master database which the police (etc) will be able to access with just a simple radio/phone call to their control rooms. That's what the £9 pays for - the missing bit that turns our model association membership numbers into a verifiable identity.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

PDR

Quote from: itsme on October 26, 2019, 14:34:48 pmIt would be nice to return to a time BD (before drones) when model fliers engaged in their hobby with little interference from the CAA etc, but the drone morons (not the law abiding ones, that is) have stirred it all up. This legislation would probably have come anyway, with the skies being so crowded, but they have certainly accelerated the process. So this is a problem which has arisen, and as far as I can see, we have been given an answer to it. I shall look forward to my CAA certificate and keep it with my BMFA and my B cert and LMA Proficiency in my Tx case, there to show I am a responsible model flyer.

I don't think it's a "Before Drones" thing - I think it's a "Before ARTFs" thing. If you think back to before the drone explosion were were already discussing how we were at risk because of people doing silly things with models (flying them through road tunnels and out under bridges & stuff, all filmed and posted on youtube). When we raised concerns we were labelled the "fun police" and jeered at. The main reason these dicks were able to do it was that they didn't have to build the models - that would have needed some skills and an attention span of more than a few seconds.

So my personal theory is that it was the ARTF revolution which kicked this whole thing off.

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

itsme

Yes, thinking about it, the first moronic youtube vids were of normal fixed wing models. Its a natural progression from RTF to drones.
As to the access of data, this is something folk dont realise, you have to have a specific reason to do that. A friend does a lot of specialised data crunching for the NHS, the lengths they have to go to to ensure the data is not accessible by just anyone is incredible, something to do with computer selected random numbers assigned to each patient etc. The cost of all this is huge, not something we, as a society, could finance. Lets just be grateful this is not the original system and we have good, clever people on our side. It could have been much worse.

leccyflyer

Quote from: PDR on October 26, 2019, 14:58:50 pmI don't think it's a "Before Drones" thing - I think it's a "Before ARTFs" thing. If you think back to before the drone explosion were were already discussing how we were at risk because of people doing silly things with models (flying them through road tunnels and out under bridges & stuff, all filmed and posted on youtube). When we raised concerns we were labelled the "fun police" and jeered at. The main reason these dicks were able to do it was that they didn't have to build the models - that would have needed some skills and an attention span of more than a few seconds.

So my personal theory is that it was the ARTF revolution which kicked this whole thing off.

PDR

Actually it would have been a before the video camera & You tube easy access to video posting thing. There would have been no point for the exhibitionist tossers to fly through tunnels and under bridges if the posting of the videos to be cheered on by their dozy followers wouldn't have been there. ARTFS have been around since the 60's and in large numbers since the 90's but it was only with the advent of the likes of You Tube that it became an issue.

Back in the day when it took quite a lot of effort to post a short video online, and an airborne video even more effort, you tended not to see such antics. Once that became commonplace, the plug-n-play cretins came out of the woodwork.

You are correct in recalling that those who disagreed with such antics and warned of the consequences down the line were indeed labelled as the "fun police" and the whinging of clueless noobies who delighted in posting the videos of their antics was almost a constant on this and other fora.
Nicht mal ein Spitfire kann zur gleichen Zeit im Süden und im Norden sein.

Steve J

Quote from: PDR on October 26, 2019, 14:48:07 pmThe CAA have agreed (thanks to the stirling efforts of the BMFA/LMA/FPVUK negotiators) to accept the model association data as input for registration rather than demanding we enter it ourselves.

The associations got lucky. If Chris Grayling hadn't been replaced by Grant Shapps we would still be looking at £16.50/year and registering directly with the CAA.

Given what I am hearing about what the interface between the BMFA and CAA systems is going to be, I will probably choose to register directly with the CAA anyway, so the improvement amounts to £7.50/year.

Steve

itsme

Quote from: Steve J on October 26, 2019, 16:17:07 pmGiven what I am hearing
maybe you would like to enlighten us on that one? Is it genuine or gossip?

Michael_Rolls

Quote from: PDR on October 25, 2019, 09:15:14 amNose-face-spite.

Grow up. Stop whining and go flying!

PDR
I can see where you are coming from - however, try and look at it from my point of view. I am 82. My only remaining site is a round trip of 50 miles. Since the beginning of last year my wife, my brother, my sister and my dog have all died, so I am not exactly full of the joys of spring. I have only flown once since Veronica died and coming home to a house empty other than for the dog - who has never evidenced any interest in my flying stories - made the experience pretty naff. To have to cope with all this bloody rubbish as a result of a few clowns and their drones is just the last straw
Mike
Properly trained, a man can be a dog's best friend

PDR

The thing is, Mike - there is not really an "rubbish" that needs coping with. It will cost you another £9 a year, but that's going to disappear in the noise in a few months, and the only other thing you'll need to do is mark a number somewhere on your models (like inside a battery hatch) with a sharpie or similar.

That's not really a massive workload, even for a finance guy...

:ev

In my racing days I got iunto the habit of putting my BMFA number and FAI License number on all my models - I now feel they look naked without them!

PDR
There are no shortcuts on the long, hard road to success. But if your dad's rich there could a limo service...

itsme

Mike- dont let a small bit of bumpf get in between you and model flying. You really need to make as many friends and acquaintances as you can right now. One of our guys 80 years old, his wife died after a long illness, his dog he bought for her died around the same time. His only son is taking him for a mug and he knows it, he has stated to me that, but for our friendship and that of others in the club who give him a lot of banter and abuse he would not be around now. Cough up the £9 (I take it you have an A) and put numbers inside your models. Job done. Go out and make a nuisance of yourself with other like minded people.