Drone and model aircraft registration - latest.

[ched]

*********************************************************************************************

    I still dont think you are getting it are you..?...The BMFA would have been quite within their rights to not agree with ANY of these proposals at all...For a start, Drones or small UAVs, they ALL now have to be registered, in the same manner using the same system.
  Radio Controlled Models have been operated by BMFA members for years and years, responsibly, Insured, on official sites etc, even Flying competency tests...but suddenly they are all "Small UAVs" and need a test a fee and paid licence is applied?

  Collecting funds (Tax) on behalf of Members is NOT something the BMFA should be involved in at all....Its the thin end of the wedge..The people who run the BMFA should know better.
  Ask yourself this question, if the Government fail to collect the funding they anticipate by getting EVERY BMFA member to register, What do you think will happen to that £9 annual fee..?

                                                                                          :vulture:
                                                                                           

I think the CAA system will not fix any issues with safety or people doing illegal things with any SUAV. The problem is that the politicians think it will or at least it will reassure the public it will make things safer.
The politicians made the changes to UK law.
The BMFA don't have ANY rights to disagree with a law. They can lobby politicians and get their member to do likewise but that's about all they can do.  As far as I am aware they tried to exempt  model aircrafts but failed.

As for collecting the fee, you are quite right BMFA didn't need to assist the gov in collecting the tax. I would even go as far as saying it will actually cost the BMFA to collect the tax (credit card charges, bank transfer charges, not to mention IT system changes). So I can only imagine they did it for maybe 2 reasons. 1 to make it easier for it's members and or 2 to give them a bit more bargaining come July 2020.

Remember the BMFA, FPVUK and others did manage to get the TAX reduced to £9 even though the CAA predictions suggested they 'needed' £16 per registration to run the system at a cost neutral state.

Overall I think it's a stupid system that wont change anything other than cost us law abiding citizens!!!! Especially as the EU system will come in in June 2020 and that is a nasty system!!!!

PS I'm not a member of BMFA. The above is only my opinion.

[big a]

*********************************************************************************************

    I still dont think you are getting it are you..?...The BMFA would have been quite within their rights to not agree with ANY of these proposals at all...For a start, Drones or small UAVs, they ALL now have to be registered, in the same manner using the same system.
  Radio Controlled Models have been operated by BMFA members for years and years, responsibly, Insured, on official sites etc, even Flying competency tests...but suddenly they are all "Small UAVs" and need a test a fee and paid licence is applied?

  Collecting funds (Tax) on behalf of Members is NOT something the BMFA should be involved in at all....Its the thin end of the wedge..The people who run the BMFA should know better.
  Ask yourself this question, if the Government fail to collect the funding they anticipate by getting EVERY BMFA member to register, What do you think will happen to that £9 annual fee..?
                                                                                       

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you and I gave reasons why too.

June next year the EASA regulations will be implemented, they make specific provision for arrangements for model aircraft flying to be arranged on a National level (with the exception of registration which is the only thing definitely mandated) so it is important to have a constructive workable relationship with the CAA. Walking away from the table and having nothing to do with DMARES would pretty much be the definition of cutting your nose of to spite your face.

Also they are not getting every BMFA member to register, many don't have to, the rest it is a matter for the individual to opt in if they want.

[BigT]

Without any fanfare (or even notification through their usual channels) the CAA have now published CAP1804, their response to CAP1775 (the consultation on the charging proposal for the 'Drone Registration and Education System - DRES)'.  You can read the response here: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1804_DRES_consultation_%20response.pdf

Specifically states that the current regulations are only a stop gap until July 2020. Also a climb down on charges and reg numbers going forward

[FPVSteve]

Does anyone actually know what the hell is going on?

Regulations, stop gaps, climb downs, exemptions - it's nothing short of a complete farce at this point.

[electrotor]

Without any fanfare (or even notification through their usual channels) the CAA have now published CAP1804, their response to CAP1775 (the consultation on the charging proposal for the 'Drone Registration and Education System - DRES)'.

Yep, what happened to the usual channels? It all seems a bit chaotic and ill thought out, but we kind of realised that some time ago.

[ched]

OK so this may be a long shot but with parliament (illegally) suspended and then suspended for general election did the drone bill actually get passed and receive Royal Accent?

If not then there would be no legal reason to register???

Is this the bill? https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/droneregulationno2.html
It does say No2 (2017-2019)?
Looks like the first version https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/droneregulation.html
didn't progress through parliament either!!!

Anyone know any difference?

[urbanfpv]

As per other forum, this is the Bill:
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-20/airtrafficmanagementandunmannedaircraft.html

It has not progress through the house of lord and is therefore not law.

Hence it will not be illegal to fly without being registered on 30th Nov.

[big a]

As per other forum, this is the Bill:
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-20/airtrafficmanagementandunmannedaircraft.html

It has not progress through the house of lord and is therefore not law.

Hence it will not be illegal to fly without being registered on 30th Nov.

It is law. Was  ANO (amendment) 2018. Things like fixed penalties havent been passed but that just .means a potential day in court and potentially bigger fines if you are unlucky.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[urbanfpv]

Actually, it is the police ability to enforce it which has not been passed as law. If you're  not registered, there's  nothing they can currently do.

[big a]

Actually, it is the police ability to enforce it which has not been passed as law. If you're  not registered, there's  nothing they can currently do.

I disagree with you.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[FPVSteve]

Well that's that settled then :+

[FPVSteve]

Not to mention you don't need to register until January if you're a member of the association.

[urbanfpv]

I disagree with you.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

:yarn: Of course you do.

So lets be specific shall we.  From the Bill:
Schedule 8:

• Power of constable to require an unmanned aircraft to be grounded - They don't have the power
• Power of constable to stop and search persons or vehicles - They don't have the power
• Power to enter and search premises under warrant - They don't have the power

etc... until the end of schedule 8
Same with powers relating to schedule 9 "REGISTRATIONAS SUA OPERATOR AND COMPETENCY OF REMOTEPILOT"
and Schedule 10: FIXED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES RELATING TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

[/list]

Having read through this bill, the powers they want to grant appear to be grossly disproportionate and are very likely to be abused by the police force.  It should be noted the use of the word "constable" in relation of the powers. PCSOs are not constables or though they like to con the public into thinking they have powers they don't have.

[big a]

Air Navigation Order Articles 94D and E exist now, they are current and relate to registration and competency.

Breach of the majority of the provisions ANO are an offence for which the offender is currently liable to a fine of up to £2,500 in the Magistrates' Court.  However, breach of the requirement not to endanger a person or property is treated differently and can be dealt with at the Magistrates' or Crown Courts. For this offence, conviction at the Magistrates' Court will result in a fine, whereas in the Crown Court the punishment is higher, potentially a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years  or both.

It is incorrect, misleading and very irresponsible to suggest that there is no legal requirement to register that can be enforced, any breach of an ANO article can currently be prosecuted.

You are correct that thr Drone Bill is ridiculous and over the top though.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[urbanfpv]

Air Navigation Order Articles 94D and E exist now, they are current and relate to registration and competency.

Breach of the majority of the provisions ANO are an offence for which the offender is currently liable to a fine of up to £2,500 in the Magistrates' Court.  However, breach of the requirement not to endanger a person or property is treated differently and can be dealt with at the Magistrates' or Crown Courts. For this offence, conviction at the Magistrates' Court will result in a fine, whereas in the Crown Court the punishment is higher, potentially a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years  or both.

It is incorrect, misleading and very irresponsible to suggest that there is no legal requirement to register that can be enforced, any breach of an ANO article can currently be prosecuted.

You are correct that thr Drone Bill is ridiculous and over the top though.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

You've completely mis-interpreted what I have said.  I have said the police have no powers to enforce the drone bill.  It is quite clear.  Please read the bill here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2019-2020/0017/20017.pdf, before commenting further.  It has not reached royal assent therefore it is not law.  Note this is the enforcement powers bill - not the drone bill.  They are two (or more) seperate bills.