CAA Compliance Queries

[MDev]

Terry W sent a note round last night from the National Trust saying no one can fly over their properties with ‘drones’ unless with the permission from the CAA and then only when authorised by NT, the mistrust is spreading?

Probably needs to be dealt with at national level

Can we take the test without paying since our subs need to go to LMA/BMFA?

M

[Paul_Williams]

I think the last question raises an important point - many lone slopers belong to the BMFA but do not have an A, B or C.
Presumably we have to take a test - but can that be delayed until our BMFA subs are due ?
If not, do we have to register with the CAA to take the test ?
If so, how does that affect our future registration via the BMFA ?
Paul

[mick a]

Also bmfa are bringing out a test if you haven’t got A, B, C . so you can take theirs, and the CAA will recognise it apparently .
i suppose it’s going to be the same as CAA test anyway .

[MDev]

I’ve just done the test, it took five minutes, I am now registered.

Will LMA and BMFA accept a forwarded email as proof? Will police accept the same as proof or come to that will anyone such as landowners etc accept an email. In these days of a ‘paper free world’ there isn’t much choice but to accept an electronic version?

Will our associations have a database or access to one to check our details against? It will certainly add to the workload of running the association unless it can be done automatically.

No doubt it will all come out in the wash and be as clear as mud!

[B Sharp]

Mark, from the information that has been passed on to me, I am told that by doing the test and registering with the CAA in person (rather that doing so through the BMFA, SAA, LMA etc), you have effectively signed up to permanently restricting your maximum altitude to 400ft. Are you sure that you really wanted to do that?
If I am wrong in this statement can anyone in authority correct me?
Brian.

[MDev]

Well if all else fails I’ll do it again via the LMA. There are no buttons to press or navigate with our membership details to bypass the payment to allow the cash to be paid via the national associations, seems rather daft to copy the test onto our association websites and then pass it to the CAA? Interesting to take the test though, seems to be aimed at drones use and is not aimed at those with more knowledge, questions are mainly about where to fly rather than how. I read the drones use pages and got full marks first time. This test is not about knowledge but justifying a governments stance and policies (otherwise called an arsecovering exercise).

My concern is that sooner or later there will be many more limitations imposed.

M

P.S. I have contacted the CAA and may have an answer to the query above soon?

[Steve J]

Terry W sent a note round last night from the National Trust saying no one can fly over their properties with ‘drones’ unless with the permission from the CAA and then only when authorised by NT, the mistrust is spreading?

The National Trust website FAQ has included a statement about not allowing drones for at least three years.

[Barry_Cole]

Whist they may be able to stop you flying from their land, as far as I know, they cannot stop you flying over their land. As long as you do it within the law.

We do not own the airspace over our land.



BC

[Paul_Williams]

I earlier raised the question about where those without an A,B,C now stand.
Yes I realised that we would probably have to take the CAA test but I really wanted to know the implications.
Brian Sharp has been informed that by taking the CAA test you permanently sign away the right to fly above 400ft and obviously that's serious.
Of course that information has not yet been confirmed officially but until it has, I suggest those affected should wait.
Remember this is clumsy legislation written by people who don't know and don't care - so don't bet on being able to change your registration later.

In terms of being able to fly over land without permission, its all well and good until something goes wrong.
Your insurance will probably cover you if didn't have permission but where flying is expressly forbidden, I cannot see you have a leg to stand on.
As far as I know the point hasn't been tested in law - who wants to be the first ?

In terms of walking to a launch point along a public footpath (as a former rights of way professional) there is no case law as to whether a model is a 'usual acompanyment' i.e. something any member of the public could reasonably expect to take with them on a footpath. However you wouldn't stand a hope in hell arguing the point in court.

Paul

[terry white]

Sorry Barry,
but we do all own a certain amount of the air space above and the earth below our owned land. Many many years ago this was reckoned to be as far as he heavens above and below as far as the center of the earth. However in more modern times the law said it to be As high above and low below as to enable the property owner to work and play unhindered by others,(more or less) and there are a number of court cases to make a precedent to that. It is somewhat agreed that there is no fixed figure of ownership height, and it does seem to differ depending in which area you live in, but 500ft is often mentioned as being reasonable.
Therefor if one is proposing to launch from a footpath and then fly over adjoining 'no go' property one could be taken to court by the land owner.