Page 3 of 5


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:13 pm
by aardvark_admin
Sadly, it is very unusual for regulations to be relaxed -- more often they're tightened even further until the squealing gets too loud.

I'm also concerned when authorities introduce draconian regulation and then claim "but we won't be enforcing this unless..." because that generally means that the "discretion" becomes a perfect opportunity to engage in abuse of power by favouring some over others and using that power to "deal to" your opponents or critics -- as CAA have readily demonstrated their willingness to do in the past.

Cite: ... d-to-close


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:33 pm
by phill
i just like their statement that if you are not licensed you will have to apply to caa every time you wish to fly

you have all seen a weather bomb
i think a whether bomb might work the same
whether or not i will email / apply to caa for every single flight i think i might want to do
the rest the ones that have seen the seed of this idea will already know

ps just saw caa's moore on the news
what a horrible nasty hateful little man he comes off as


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:46 pm
by aardvark_admin
Yes, Mr Moore is the guy who asked MFNZ what was going on and they said that the problem was that I simply refused to rejoin their organisation.

I sent Mr Moore a link to this page showing clearly that MFNZ refuses to accept any application for membership from me. He accused me of trying to deceive CAA and said he would not discuss the matter further.

So you present them with very clear-cut evidence that proves MFNZ are liars -- and Mr Moore opts to believe their claims, in clear contradiction of the evidence.

Yes, you nailed Mr Moore's personality perfectly!


PostPosted: Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:50 pm
by Screw
Jammed between a very large rock and a very hard place Bruce. You're up against some very bloody-minded vindictive people so all you can do is bring it to a head. They aren't going to so the ball's in your court. How you go about that is up to you. It may mean a Court case where they will have to explain why they banned you and what the grounds that banning is based on. If that is the only option left to you then perhaps a Gofundme could help with the costs.

The problem with this crap is it takes up so much time and energy.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:39 pm
by aardvark_admin
Let me run this by those who hang out here and tell me what *you* think.

1. CAA has a responsibility to create and maintain safety in the airspace above our heads.

2. CAA has, by the very fact that it has rolled out some significant new regulations pertaining to "remotely piloted aircraft" or RPA (including RC models and drones) acknowledged that the ownership and use of these craft is growing very, very rapidly.

3. The national airspace is a public asset, effectively owned by all New Zealanders as a result of their citizenship or residency status.

4. CAA has made it very clear that it is extremely important to ensure that RPA do not pose a danger to other users of the airspace (namely piloted aircraft). It has done this by severely constraining the "when, what, how and by who" aspects of RPA operation through this new legislation.

5. Sadly, by engaging in a massive amount of regulatory over-reach, CAA has made it very difficult (if not impossible) for many people to enjoy a safe, family-oriented outdoor hobby without breaching at least some of these new regulations.

So here's my proposal to remedy the situation:

Right now, piloted aircraft (we'll call it "general aviation or GA) have all the rights when it comes to use of the public asset that is "the national airspace". This has traditionally been the case because GA has constituted the massive majority of airspace use and RPA were simply toys and hobby items.

Now however, industry and business are about to become increasingly reliant on RPA technology and the hobby of flying such craft for recreational purposes is exploding -- with the proliferation of store-bought "drones" etc.

Given that RPA operators (be they commercial or recreational) are taxpayers (just like GA pilots) and given that RPA use of the airspace is growing at such a rapid pace, surely it's time to bestow at least a few rights on these people and their craft -- given that they have a right to use a shared resource such as the airspace. Taxation without representation (or a right to use a public resource) -- not satisfactory.

I propose therefore, that in order to enhance the safety of our national airspace, CAA allows the creation of "no-fly zones" where GA craft are forbidden. These would be areas relatively small in size and number which were set aside solely for the purpose of RPA operations -- both commercial and recreational.

If a very clear and well-enforced separation of GA and RPA were created, the risks to both types of craft would be dramatically reduced -- thus safety would be hugely enhanced.

If you look closely at the current situation -- there is no reason why GA craft should be allowed to fly wherever they want, whenever they want simply because they have a full-sized aircraft and a pilot's license. When someone buys a car and gets a driver's licence, that does not give them the right to drive across parks, on people's lawns or on the footpath. I'm simply suggesting that we treat aircraft like cars by designating areas (such as footpaths) where they are not allowed to operate under any circumstances.

One only has to look how much the separation of motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic contributes to ensuring safety to realise that separating GA and RPA by creating what is the equivalent of a "footpath for unmanned aircraft" is both sensible and actually essential.

We already stratify the airspace based on altitude but CAA believe that the 100 feet of vertical separation which exists between the maximum altitude for an RPA and the minimum altitude for a GA is insufficient protection against conflict. Introduce some horizontal separation in designated areas however, and I think things would be far safer.

Right now, CAA has taken away the rights of RC model fliers and not replaced them with anything. If you're going to destroy traditional flying areas then you must offer something to replace them -- and designated GA-no-fly areas would seem to be the most sensible solution.

If CAA are genuinely interested in creating and preserving a safe environment for both GA and RPA craft to operate, they now have a responsibility to encourage the creation of these GA-no-fly zones by land-owners and approve them when such approvals would not unreasonably compromise the flow of full-sized air traffic. This means they would likely be outside controlled airspace, well away from airfields and in areas that traditionally saw very low levels of GA flying activity anyway.

What possible objections could a regulator with a true focus on safety have with this proposal?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:27 pm
by aardvark_admin
I have had nearly 20 emails and phone calls today from RC model fliers who have just woken up to the effects of these new regulations.

These are people who have, in order to comply with the regulations, contacted the owner of properties they have been flying over (in some cases for many years) without any problems, incidents or issues. Without exception, they have been denied permission and the reason seems to be that the public now draw no distinction between "drones" and RC models flown by genuine hobbyists.

I was told that some of the people asked were quite rude -- alleging that these drones are used to spy on them and that they will eventually cause passenger jets to crash from the sky "and we don't want that happening on our farm".

Another guy approached the Waikato Council for permission to fly in a reserve. He gave them his business card (he's a photographer) and they said that if *he* wanted to fly, he'd have to fill out an arm-full of forms, pay $200 (non-refundable) and give 2-months notice of the non-transferable date on which he wised to use the reserve for flying his "drone".

Now, as if to make a total mockery of these regulations, CAA has announced that they won't be policing their brand new regulations.

WTF? If you're not going to police them, why even bother creating them?

Oh, of course, I forgot. It's so that if someone criticises you or pisses you off in some way you can then choose to hit them for any, ever-so-minor infringement as and when you choose.

Shocking -- but not unexpected.

It seems to be almost formalising my observations that as far as CAA are concerned -- if you know the right people you can break the regulations with impunity but if you're not part of the "in-crowd" then look out!


PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:01 am
by lesterpk
12 min interview with CAA's Steve Moore ... fault.aspx


PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:36 pm
by aardvark_admin
Wow... all this talk of drones nearly hitting commercial passenger jets -- so who's to blame?

Well it seems that perhaps the passenger jets are the problems because I've never seen a headline "drone nearly hits drone" but I did read this today: British jets in nearest miss yet.

So it seems that they better start imposing harsher regulations on these passenger jets before one of them crashes into another passenger jet and causes a tragedy.

Oh... hang on... I forgot. It's only (all) recreational *drones* that pose a threat to full-sized aircraft :-/


PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:16 pm
by phill
i love the language
a loss of separation between the two aircraft.
but they dont do english meanings well
any 2 objects closing distance at any range can be termed loss of separation
or more literally correct
2 objects attempt to occupy the same area of space and time

and this is a simple fix
change from 1,000 vertical feet and 3 miles to 500 feet and 1 mile .. as will have to happen in the future when airspace becomes even more crowded
and this is likely to have changed from a larger separation deemed minimal caa regulational separation requirements in the past

or to put it in context
" what ... we can drive at over 4 mph now " !!


PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:29 am
by aardvark_admin
Quote of the day from Allen Lawrence -- long time MFNZ member and one of the jet fliers who frequent the Tokoroa Airfield when asked about the new CAA regulations that have got the majority of RC model fliers in this country up in arms:

"We already have an area, with permission to fly, so it's not really an issue for us."

Spoken like a true old man of MFNZ. What a sorry bunch the executive of MFNZ is. "We're okay, bugger the rest of you" should become the organisation's motto.

From this story in Stuff:
Permission policy on the way for drones