
|
|
South Cotswold Soaring Association:
|

Photo: Phoenix 1600 on Minch
Hi,
I do not normally write letters of complaint, but I feel that in
this case I have to express my disappointment and disgust at the
CAA’s consultation document (CAP1775) re. the registration
scheme for model aircraft fliers in the UK.
I, like many other responsible people in the UK, have been
flying radio controlled model aircraft for over 40 years,
without any problems or safety concerns. However due to the
alleged recent actions of a few irresponsible drone operators,
we are being “tarred with the same brush” and are being forced
into a registration scheme, even though we have caused no
problems. I think this is grossly unfair.
The EASA Basic Regulation (EU) 2018/1139 states model aircraft
operators must be registered. However it also acknowledges that
model aircraft have had a good safety record, especially for the
members of model aircraft associations who have developed codes
of conduct for safe and responsible flying. In the UK this
association is the BMFA (British Model Flying Association), of
which I have been a member for many years.
The BMFA has been negotiating on behalf of all its members with
the CAA to agree on a sensible, practical and reasonable
solution to the EASA regulations. However recently the DfT/CAA
have issued their “consultation” (CAP1775) and have imposed a
registration scheme which will be charged at £16.50 per annum.
This is grossly unfair for a number of reasons.
1. EASA regulations permit the BMFA to register its members on
the registration scheme, without having those individual members
having to register themselves. The CAA consultation does not
permit this, despite the EASA saying this is acceptable.
2. The CAA consultation has imposed key policy decisions (such
as age limits & competency requirements) without either
consultation or discussions with the BMFA. This is inconsistent
with the EASA regulations for flying model associations
3. In France, the equivalent registration scheme is free and
valid for 5 years. Why should we as an EU country be treated
differently?
4. The CAA state they “drive to be a transparent, fair and
effective regulator”, however they have imposed these
regulations without consulting the relevant association (BMFA).
Imposing the registration scheme without consultation goes
against their own aims.
In addition the CAA operates within the governments Better
Regulation Framework and its regulator code, to which all UK
regulators must comply. In this case the CAA failed to comply
with government regulations for the following reasons~:
Proportionality – regulators should only intervene when
necessary, remedies should be appropriate and cost minimised.
EASA and CAA have long recognised that model flying has always
had a very good safety record, even for the majority of drone
operators. However recent alleged “rogue drone operators” have
led to the CAA imposing draconian regulations on all model
aircraft operators. This is disproportionate to the real
problem, especially as it’s hasn’t actually been proved that
drones were actually use in the Gatwick incident.
Consistency – Government rules & standards should be applied
fairly.
The proposed regulations are not consistent with the rules
applied to other forms of aviation in the UK, even those with
far worse safety records. No other recreational aviation
activity requires the pilot to register annually or repeat
theory tests every 3 years. This is inconsistent and unfair to
model aircraft pilots
Transparency – regulators should be open and keep regulations
simple and user friendly.
The CAA has not been open with the BMFA with the development of
these regulations. In CAP1123 (response to the “red tape
challenge”) the CAA say emphasised the “values that we place on
an open and meaningful dialogue with the aviation community”.
However in this case, they have imposed registrations fees and
changed flight restriction zones, without consultation. This
goes against their own values.
In order to keep the registration scheme simple, it would be a
lot easier to allow the BMFA to register its members on their
behalf, rather than individuals having to do it themselves.
Targeting – regulation should be focussed on the problem and
minimise side effects
The proposal is not targeting the problem. The “problem” is
acknowledged to be with “rogue” multi-rotor drones, not with the
long established model flying community. The CAA proposal
targets all model fliers, despite the EASA concessions granted
to model fliers and ignoring the widely recognised good safety
record of traditional model fliers.
Accountability – regulators should be able to justify decisions
and be open to public scrutiny
As the CAA has not consulted with the BMFA on this proposal,
they cannot justified their decision to impose a regulation,
which is inconsistent, disproportionate and incorrectly
targeted.
|
|

|