British MR fliers UNITE

Macsgrafs

Macsgrafs

Active Member
OK if thats the way the CAA want to play things then fine. I for one will NOT be playing their rip off game. I would rather they took me to court & I don't mean a magistrates court, I'm talking a common law court...crown court & let them roll the dice. If they lose, then there is a good chance the ruling would change everything, BNUC would be out. Don't forget in this modern day finacial climate, the jury would be on the MR operators side more than the CAA.....I will think along these lines for a defense ;)

Let's try this another way.

EXAMPLE: Single guy flier/operator of a MR video ship. How can he fly safely & operate the camera at the same time whilst being observant to other full size aircraft?
Surely thats a big safety issue from word one....how do single op's get around this problem???

I fly my octo purely as an octo, the camera is operated by someone else, so the cam op is also a spotter.

Let's go one stage further. What is the difference between operating your camera for fun & operating for profit???? Could someone answer that one I wonder ;)

I still think we should do as has been suggested with the FPV brake away (Simon from http://www.fpvuk.org/forum/index.php ). He managed to get 1.8Kg max weight & FPV without buddy boxing & their own insurance which is far less than the current BMFA price!

I seriously think we need our OWN society, we operate in trusts & our own rules. To tie up with another group might well spell disaster for us if they ever mess up!

So what is the goal of our society??? "To be able to operate our MR aircraft with videos/still cams for commercial gain"....let's keep that as our objective & build from there.

I am more than willing to visit the CAA & get things rolling, so who is really on board is the question here? We must drop the defeatist attitude because I was always taught, "Where there's a will, there's a way".

Respectfully

Ross
 

Bowley

Bowley

Member
I read Dave's opening post as meaning we need a collective to set us apart from those who would bring negative attention to what we do.

The BNUC is actually not specific to Aerial work, Aerial work is one of the activities it is required for to obtain exemptions from ANO's and permissions. I tried to use this as loophole to use BMFA insurance to conduct a flight test, as it could technically be classed as non commercial activity.
Now I cant put my hand on heart and say that the CAA basic principles are all valid and up to date as sometimes they can lag behind the CAP's
But they are worth a read. http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90&pageid=11185

In the absence of any alternative, which I dont think would be too much cheaper anyway. It may be wise Ross, to get what you need done and suck it up before EASA end up involved. At the end of the day we would blow near a grand on a FC, to put things in perspective the commercial licence for MK Navi Ctrl is about the same price.
Having said that,,, Hats off to anyone who wants to set up an alternative training and certification organization and regarding approaching the CAA...go for it!!
 

Macsgrafs

Macsgrafs

Active Member
Bowley said:
I read Dave's opening post as meaning we need a collective to set us apart from those who would bring negative attention to what we do.

The BNUC is actually not specific to Aerial work, Aerial work is one of the activities it is required for to obtain exemptions from ANO's and permissions. I tried to use this as loophole to use BMFA insurance to conduct a flight test, as it could technically be classed as non commercial activity.
Now I cant put my hand on heart and say that the CAA basic principles are all valid and up to date as sometimes they can lag behind the CAP's
But they are worth a read. http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90&pageid=11185

In the absence of any alternative, which I dont think would be too much cheaper anyway. It may be wise Ross, to get what you need done and suck it up before EASA end up involved. At the end of the day we would blow near a grand on a FC, to put things in perspective the commercial licence for MK Navi Ctrl is about the same price.
Having said that,,, Hats off to anyone who wants to set up an alternative training and certification organization and regarding approaching the CAA...go for it!!
Click to expand...

Before the BNUC came into being, the CAA accepted the BMFA A test cert for helis....this was varified in a phone call to the CAA, so what has changed now??? Money or should I say backhanders from the BNUC to the CAA.
If I'm going to put over £4000 worth of kit in the air, I want safety first...safety that my money is going to be safe on this flight.

Let's put it another way. Why not offer aerial shots for free? you know the supermarket trick..BOGOF. That can equally work for us, therefore we dont need BNUC certs & being ripped off by these theiving B******S!

Having said that, I'm not opposed to a license as long as its fair for all & NOT above £300. I mean you can have £250,000 worth of car & use it for commercial use to make money...how much is the car license/test? Certainly NOT £1500.

You mentioned earlier that the BMFA test was a flight test...you forgot to mention that you MUST know the BMFA guidelines on safety etc...how far from a car park you can fly & from people on the ground..there are many questions they can fire at you during your test.

If it ever went to court they have to prove 2 things.

1)Prove that acts/statutes apply to ME!!!!
2)Who has higher authority over me than me & if they make that claim show me the signed contract between myself & them...if they can't, then they have made you suffer a tort & will be prosecuted in the civil for £1,000's.

If you think I'm wrong on this, please enlighten me further ;)

If you know the deception, you can escape it lawfully.

Ross
 


Bowley

Bowley

Member
Indeed yes Ross they did accept the BMFA-A and there are many still operating under that on the grandfathering principle, ie CAA did not revoke their permissions.

Yes offering the Aerial shots for free, thats fine if you're a ground based photographer also but surely you want to see some return on what you've invested on Aerial equipment. Those that want to do inspection and survey work can't really do that. It doesnt look kosher to clients either, in this HSE obsessed world, they want to see you fully approved and insured

The BMFA guidelines essentially the ANO, are all covered, and more in the Pt 1, as I said it is not just a test, its a course also. Who is going to do all this for under £300 unless they are a non profitmaking or government funded. The BNUC also demonstrates to the CAA that the holder is is responsible, knowledgible, and able enough to operate outwith the regs, ie under exemption.

The whole thing can be done for just over £1200 and then you can be earning.

The freeman perspective kind of falls down for anyone not willing to make the jump, as most of us subscribe to statute law.

I have ended up taking a defensive stance on the BNUC. which was never my intention there is much I dont agree with and yes it is perhaps a little overpriced. But at the moment its all we've got, things could be a lot worse if it wasnt for the BNUC, look at the state of play in states.
 

Bowley

Bowley

Member
The airworthiness factor is dealt with in the ANO, in that its the responsibility of the pilot to ensure the flight can safely be conducted.
If airworthiness standards applied to sub 20kg, we would be further at the mercy of Euro USC. Its something we dont really want to bring attention to.
As a former aircraft tech, and PPL, I would hate to see airworthiness certification applied to all our A/C & components, it would drive the costs sky high.
 

ZAxis

ZAxis

Member
Just to put a perspective on things. This is what model flyers can do. Look at the size,speed and controllability especially the landings. It makes MRs look like butterflies in comparison. No one raises an eyebrow about this.
[video]www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=zYPag3LuKlA [/video]

If anyone watched TopGear last week and saw the 'Russian Arm' used for filming chase sequences it does not need anything other than a good risk assessment before it is used in ways very similar to a lot of aerial video production. For more static shots the MR is nothing more than an 'infinite jib' or slide rail. We are not flying we are merely moving a camera from one location to another. I wonder if these are some valid points to argue

Russian Arm show reel .... why do we bother with r/c and props and regs ... this is just as much fun !
There's a good bit of gimbal technology in there but that's another thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Macsgrafs

Macsgrafs

Active Member
Bowley said:
Indeed yes Ross they did accept the BMFA-A and there are many still operating under that on the grandfathering principle, ie CAA did not revoke their permissions.

Yes offering the Aerial shots for free, thats fine if you're a ground based photographer also but surely you want to see some return on what you've invested on Aerial equipment. Those that want to do inspection and survey work can't really do that. It doesnt look kosher to clients either, in this HSE obsessed world, they want to see you fully approved and insured

The BMFA guidelines essentially the ANO, are all covered, and more in the Pt 1, as I said it is not just a test, its a course also. Who is going to do all this for under £300 unless they are a non profitmaking or government funded. The BNUC also demonstrates to the CAA that the holder is is responsible, knowledgible, and able enough to operate outwith the regs, ie under exemption.

The whole thing can be done for just over £1200 and then you can be earning.

The freeman perspective kind of falls down for anyone not willing to make the jump, as most of us subscribe to statute law.

I have ended up taking a defensive stance on the BNUC. which was never my intention there is much I dont agree with and yes it is perhaps a little overpriced. But at the moment its all we've got, things could be a lot worse if it wasnt for the BNUC, look at the state of play in states.
Click to expand...

Bowley, before anyone thinks I'm on the attack, let me make it clear that I want what's best for us ALL. I'm a non violent human.
The reason I dont subscribe to statutes/acts as they are victimless crimes & giving away valuable money to an organisation for the hell of it is not why I was put on this planet, if others want to beleive that they have to pay their fees, then that's their choice. I woke up 2 years ago to the B/S that they have brainwashed so many with.

Someone mentioned as does the CAA that its BNUC or Equivalent...can we not be that equivalent????? Surely now is a time for show of hands as to if people want to pay £1200 for BNUC or lets say £300 for OUR equivalent?

Yes we all want to see a return on our investment, but surely being a ground based photographer is what we all are? Here's how the big companies get around things.
BOGOF = Buy 1 Get 1 Free. So if you offer internal & external shots + FREE aerial (the costs of the aerial are hidden within the ground shots). OK that gets around that nicely as long as we dont admit to having charged for aerial..which they have to prove in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt! So if we have taken some aerial shots of a great landscape, we cant sell them or we would be breaking an ORDER (ANO) & dont forget for every order there is a bill. You go into a restaurant, place an order & they give you a bill, the same applies to a judge giving you an order...give him a bill. Going back to the aerial landscape shots...you can FREELY give them to an appointed agent without any copyright attached...whats stopping your agent from selling the photos for money ;)

Yes my way is a bit hidden so to speak, on that I agree, but if it works.....

£1200 we can be earning. So what happens if you fail the test? Is it the full amount again?

As for the state of play in the states...guess who is getting UAV in the next for years...yep the states. Their government has agreed to allow UAV's from what I have been seeing & reading.

As you say "At the moment the BNUC is all we have"...but surely that was the point of a meeting, to get away from this rip off culture....maybe I had the meeting wrong & it was a club for those who want to pay BNUC? If that's the case then I want no part of that, I will start my own society & Im sure many will join just for the fact that they don't want to be ripped off for £1500 or £1200.

Remember my MR is a sky tripod, the camera has its own camera operator, leaving me to fully concentrate on safely flying my MR. Yes I have to pay my cam op as well :( but that's life I suppose. What I'm trying to say here is.."Does the BNUC allow single operators without camera operators"? If so then that is against safety...how can 1 person/human fly a MR aircraft safely as well as operate a camera???? It's a joke in my book & no offence meant to anyone who has already paid for BNUC to operate as a singlular entity, its a contradiction against the ANO surely?

Ross

I think if we put up a poll asking people do they want BNUC at £1200 or our own at £300...which do you think they will chose? ;)
 

Macsgrafs

Macsgrafs

Active Member
ZAxis said:
Just to put a perspective on things. This is what model flyers can do. Look at the size,speed and controllability especially the landings. It makes MRs look like butterflies in comparison. No one raises an eyebrow about this.
[video]www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=zYPag3LuKlA [/video]
Click to expand...

Zaxis, they are flying at a display where they have to be certified to fly in front of the public, we call it the BMFA B test.

Ross
 

Droider

Droider

Drone Enthusiast
BH.. we are getting going on this.. I have to admit time is not my friend. I see i have stirred up some emotions on here and Ross I here you BUT I have to take a 4 week process with in the next two months and pay over 3K in fees = the loss of earnings just to stay a competent person..This I have to do every 5 years.. I cant get away with not doing it just because I disagrees with the process.. If I killed someone or caused serious injury and I am classed as a competent person and I was not totally negligent I would not go to prison.. If I was totally negligent I would.. I dont want to get in to all sorts of mither and discussion on this as I just dont have enough time to really commit to it.. this is after reading the posts and researching into possibilities.

Amongst out midsts is a MORE than competent person who I am sure would be more than qualified to be an examiner and would have the FULL respect of the likes of the BMFA and undoubtedly EuroUSE.. But I think we may be flogging a dead horse here.. Sure lets form a UK MR association with guidelines of do's and donts and code of practice that we all sign up to.. I am all for it, especially when you see the plonkers that flew the AR drone over the guardsmen..

Bowley I totally agree with you.. you aint banging anyones drum but seeing it in the grim light of day..

Ross again I aint taking sides here I totally respect you views and I wish there was some higher authority that could see sense but there aint..

I have been on the wrong end of standing up for my self legally.. against a totally unsubstantiated claim.. I could not beat the system, morally I was right.. I just did not have the funds to fight it and had to bow down which will stick in my throat for the rest of my life.. money... unfortunately makes the blamin world go round..

Thanks everyone for jumping in here its heartening to know we have a fantastic diversity of minds on here..

Maybe a spring MR Meet may be a place for further discussion..

Thought on this would be welcomed in the thread

http://www.multirotorforums.com/showthread.php?1814-UK-European-Spring-Meet-2012

Dave
 








Macsgrafs

Macsgrafs

Active Member
Droider said:
BH.. we are getting going on this.. I have to admit time is not my friend. I see i have stirred up some emotions on here and Ross I here you BUT I have to take a 4 week process with in the next two months and pay over 3K in fees = the loss of earnings just to stay a competent person..This I have to do every 5 years.. I cant get away with not doing it just because I disagrees with the process.. If I killed someone or caused serious injury and I am classed as a competent person and I was not totally negligent I would not go to prison.. If I was totally negligent I would.. I dont want to get in to all sorts of mither and discussion on this as I just dont have enough time to really commit to it.. this is after reading the posts and researching into possibilities.

Amongst out midsts is a MORE than competent person who I am sure would be more than qualified to be an examiner and would have the FULL respect of the likes of the BMFA and undoubtedly EuroUSE.. But I think we may be flogging a dead horse here.. Sure lets form a UK MR association with guidelines of do's and donts and code of practice that we all sign up to.. I am all for it, especially when you see the plonkers that flew the AR drone over the guardsmen..

Bowley I totally agree with you.. you aint banging anyones drum but seeing it in the grim light of day..

Ross again I aint taking sides here I totally respect you views and I wish there was some higher authority that could see sense but there aint..

I have been on the wrong end of standing up for my self legally.. against a totally unsubstantiated claim.. I could not beat the system, morally I was right.. I just did not have the funds to fight it and had to bow down which will stick in my throat for the rest of my life.. money... unfortunately makes the blamin world go round..

Thanks everyone for jumping in here its heartening to know we have a fantastic diversity of minds on here..

Maybe a spring MR Meet may be a place for further discussion..

Thought on this would be welcomed in the thread

http://www.multirotorforums.com/showthread.php?1814-UK-European-Spring-Meet-2012

Dave
Click to expand...

Sounds like you know how I'm feeling then Dave, but after all that has been posted on here..then what is the point of a club/society or asociation? Because all those guidlines you would already have to know to have done your BNUC-s...thus making paying for a club that you are already qualified in quite obsolete?

As you rightfully said Dave, it's all about the money, especially since reading that PDF document..they clearly ask about fiancial statuts/shareholders etc etc, so yep I agree, it is all about the money.

Now onto this well qualified guy on here...is he willing & able to do tests for us guys on here? I dont mind helping with printing, designing etc & any other way to help our cause. I'm sure there are many on here from all walks of life who could contribute to getting a test station as such setup...because they would be doing it for themselves!
Put it another way, if I have to pay £1200, I would rather it went to US, rather than some other body.

If I come across as passionate, it's because I am. Photography is not just my line of work, but its my passion...my passion to be able to create. My camera is my paint brush, my view finder my blank canvas & therefore its only natural that I combine my love of flight with my love of creation. I'm sure there are many on here who are like myself, photographers first, rc modellers 2nd & to be able to capture & create a thing of beauty from an unusual angle is a big high for us. But there will also be those that see it as a means to making a buck here & there, a means to an end. Both are equally valid points of view to the use of an MR aircraft.

So are we ALL still going to make our own group & fight this or are we going to just pay the £1200-£1500 & leave things as they are? Anyone?????

Respectfully
Ross
 

D

DennyR

Active Member
ZAxis said:
Just to put a perspective on things. This is what model flyers can do. Look at the size,speed and controllability especially the landings. It makes MRs look like butterflies in comparison. No one raises an eyebrow about this.
[video]www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=zYPag3LuKlA [/video]

If anyone watched TopGear last week and saw the 'Russian Arm' used for filming chase sequences it does not need anything other than a good risk assessment before it is used in ways very similar to a lot of aerial video production. For more static shots the MR is nothing more than an 'infinite jib' or slide rail. We are not flying we are merely moving a camera from one location to another. I wonder if these are some valid points to argue

Russian Arm show reel .... why do we bother with r/c and props and regs ... this is just as much fun !
There's a good bit of gimbal technology in there but that's another thread.
Click to expand...

For that sort of money you can buy a Cineflex which is far better, This thing cant cope with more than 150mm lens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


You must log in or register to reply here.
Top