Politics in the New Zealand RC model community - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 04:25:13 am
content: This kind of politics is really quite pathetic:Fellow full time video blogger and forum member Bruce Simpson is being screwed over by the NZ RC model community

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 04:31:11 am
content: OK, so I have not watched the video yet, but maybe that's better than being screwed over by the New Zealand and US governments?I seem to recall someone tried to make a scale model cruise missile in NZ and the authorities came down on him like a ton of bricks.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 05:03:43 am
content: Quote from: IanB on May 06, 2013, 04:31:11 amThis is the same guy!He's written a book about it Rocket Man:http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/missilemanbook.shtml

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 05:13:36 am
content: I have been following Bruces channel for quite a while now. When i first saw this video i did a little research and found it a bit disturbing how quickly some members of the NZ RC community turned on Bruce in this situation.Regards

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 05:28:31 am
content: Quote from: PeterG on May 06, 2013, 05:13:36 amI thought most would have supported him?

author: smashedProton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 05:32:15 am
content: Bruce's videos are great! I was fascinated with his pulsejets before I got into electronics. I sent the nz government ab email. You guys should do that too. Lets get bruce on the air, and in the air!

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 06:06:41 am
content: For those who are interested, Bruce has an interesting website and forum for rc related stuff.http://www.rcmodelreviews.com/Regards

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 06:59:51 am
content: Thanks guys -- yes, politics is alive and well in every aspect of our lives, unfortunately.(Yep, I'm the one who built the cruise missile, back in the days when I had to design and build my own flight controller -- and I used a humble PIC 18F455 for the task. Yes, the PIC handled the job surprisingly well.

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 08:23:03 am
content: I support Bruce 110%, and poor Barry too? That's unbelieveable!

author: smashedProton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 02:28:49 pm
content: Maybe have a vote so that bruce can cite it if he is pulled into court?

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 02:57:47 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 06, 2013, 05:03:43 amHoly cow, that's scary! It reminded me (slightly off-topic) of the case of Dmitry Sklyarov in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._ElcomSoft_and_Sklyarov).

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 05:18:57 pm
content: What wasn't clear was why the 'wings' mattered - if he is flying within CAA and airfield regs, does it matter if he doesn't have the piece of paper?And if it does, to whom?If the CAA is effectively contracting out a license/permission system, then surely that must be backed up by legislation, and subject to scrutiny?Does NZ have auto-monopoly legislation?What about the society constitution? Can a vote of no confidence in the committee be moved?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 05:57:49 pm
content: MFNZ has a monopoly, but no oversight other than being the first to apply for the position. Basically the CAA has palmed off the responsibility, as they see it as being a lot of work for them doing the required applications and scrutiny, while it not generating enough income to cover the permanent personnel and space they will need, rather let somebody else do it, and for a lot less money to be budgeted for.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 06:03:34 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on May 06, 2013, 05:57:49 pmOn what exactly?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 06:07:54 pm
content: The right to give out those licenses, and from what I see,licensereally is the correct word. He can't legally fly on an airstrip without it.

author: mikes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 06:12:47 pm
content: There's two sides to every story. I'm in no way involved - RC isn't even a hobby of mine, and this is the first I've seen about this brouhaha in NZ.After watching much of the video, I figured I'd see what else is out there. It seems Bruce isn't being completely forthright -http://rctruth.com/index.php?topic=910.0Now that doesn't let me make any sort of decision on who's right/wrong, but it does make clear that there are two sides, and there's much more involved than was mentioned in the video.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 06:44:05 pm
content: I wrote a supportive message a moment ago, but have since removed it. As an RC flyer myself, I know how important safety and insurance is. Having read some of what is written on the internet regarding Bruce, I am no longer certain who is in the wrong here and so I will make no further comment, except to say, fly safe or not at all.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 07:03:20 pm
content: MFNZ president response to Bruce's video:http://modelflyingnz.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=118

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 07:12:02 pm
content: I do hope that Dave does not get sucked into this debate, and lead the EEVBlog into what is obviously a pretty nasty dispute that is looking more unsavoury with every Google search I make on the matter. Dave please consider 'standing-off' on this matter.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 07:21:00 pm
content: The more I see of this, the more slimy both sides of this are starting to look to me.QuoteIt's already been established that this only stops him from being able to fly on an airfield. He said that himself! What strikes me about that paragraph is "it cannot remain valid for a person who steps outside our organization, regards it as irrelevant, has contempt for it". You've been delegated by the government to manage these badges, so you've become an extension of the government. As such, you have no privilege to get your pants twisted because somebodydoesn't like you. They can think you deserve to burn in hell and all you have the moral right to do is sit there and smile, because you've become the only way for them to get this badge anywhere in their entire country.Still: "The owner of the airfield (SWDC) has published rules for flying models there. One is very clear: “MFNZ rules shall be followed.”" If that's true then a huge part of the premise for Mr Simpson's argument falls away.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 08:45:57 pm
content: Quote from: mikes on May 06, 2013, 06:12:47 pm>An Error Has Occurred!>Sorry Guest, you are banned from using this forum!>This ban is not set to expire.yes, this convinces me 100% ....

author: mikes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 08:57:34 pm
content: I read a bit more from various places, includinghere.It seems this thing started in May, 2012. In addition to Bruce Simpson (the guy in the video), the other involved parties are the MCNZ (Model Flying NZ), the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority, NZ's goverment aviation regulators), SWMAC (South Waikato Model Aero Club, the local club run by Bruce), and the SWDC (South Wairarapa District Council, the local government which owns or controls the airfield).From what I can tell, this is what's happened.The airfield is for real planes, but is infrequently used for that. Bruce and his SWMAC club have been using the airfield for years for RC flying, using insurance available through affiliation with the MCNZ. Someone saw what they considered unsafe behavior (buzzing motorcycles and go karts, smashing planes into the dilapidated control tower, then posting Youtube videos of it!), and complained to the CAA. The CAA asked the MCNZ about it. MCNZ wrote a letter, cc:CAA and SWDC, expressing concern the club wasn't following the rules which were required by the insurance carrier, asking them to promise to follow the rules, asking for copies of the current club rules, and asking them to formally register the airfield as a club site (which apparently hadn't been done).From what I can tell, Bruce's response wasn't much more, if any, than: "Our rules are 1. Don't be an idiot. 2. Have fun."Not a very professional response to an organization which was acting in response to a government inquiry, and copied to two government bodies. The SWDC closed the airfield to RC flying. Then Bruce started complaining that he was being persecuted for "having fun," started name calling and threatening, etc. Turns out SWMAC was never a formal club (no bylaws, rules, etc.).A new club was properly formed in July 2012, SWIM (South Waikato International Modellers, at the link at the top of this post), which followed the MCNZ rules, properly registered the airfield, got the SWDC to again allow RC flying, etc. Bruce quit the MCNZ, and said he wouldn't follow their rules, so they have now revoked his credentials (which allowed him to RC fly at approved airfields). He can still fly RC planes elsewhere, just not at airfields which are shared with regular aviation.Now he's crying foul. He didn't want to play by the rules, and his rejection of those rules has turned on him. It also seems that he makes a modest living by posting RC flying reviews and such to Youtube, which makes him a professional and not a hobbyist, and therefore subject to different government rules.(it sounds to me that MCNZ, the hobby's civilian regulating body, is much like the ARRL is to ham radio in the US - a private organization which helps to self police the hobby)So, it seems to me that he's just a guy who kept poking a dog with a stick, and is now complaining that the dog is mean because he got bit.

author: mikes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:12:13 pm
content: Quote from: Rasz on May 06, 2013, 08:45:57 pmOdd, I have no problem viewing that site. Anyone other than Rasz have a problem?Rasz, perhaps you've gotten an IP address formerly used by someone who had been banned on that site. In any case, Google "bruce simpson mfnz" to start.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:25:37 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on May 06, 2013, 07:21:00 pmI don't think it is about "he doesn't like us". As it looks, it is about concerns regarding safety on or nearby the operational airfield. Allegedly Mr. Simpsons should have expressed publicly that the MFNZ can stick their rules (which would also encompass safety regulations) where no light will ever shine (creatively paraphrased by me), which prompted MFNZ to invalidate his WB. This is one of the issues (misunderstandings?) Mr. Simpson tried to clarify in the video Dave posted.The affair is cooking for quite some time now, and surly neither side is innocent in the escalation of the conflict. But i don't know if it is just me, but it seems that (moral) support for Mr. Simpson comes rather from his YT viewership than from his local R/C flyer fellows...

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:32:47 pm
content: Politics and a personal hit, no win situation; unless this individual decides to zip-it and grovelotherwise, is their another non-CAA airfield ! or private site he can set-up for independent free thinking flyers... Jesus, it's meant to be a hobby ?.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:34:34 pm
content: Oh, I agree, that's not what the whole thing is about. That's what that one paragraph looked like to me, though, and like I said, it just seems slimy - that Mr Simpson is probably in the wrong w.r.t. the rules he has broken, but this guy having authority over people like him still makes me uneasy. He seems to take it way too seriously. I get the feeling that Barry Lennox knowsthatMr Simpson is wrong, but doesn't knowwhy. He just knows that Simpson was rude and he doesn't like him.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:37:46 pm
content: Quote from: vlf3 on May 06, 2013, 09:32:47 pmYes it is a hobby. But it is not comparable to, say, playing with your model railway in the attic.They play with their model airplanes on an airfield where real(!) aircrafts take off and land.And some of those model aircrafts are real jets that could burn down property in case of an accident, are hot and fast enough to seriously hurt people on impact.So, no, regarding the specific circumstances it isnot just a hobby.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:42:35 pm
content: Quote from: elgonzo on May 06, 2013, 09:37:46 pmPrecisely. I used to fly sailplanes (as in, real ones that you sit in), and those pilots usually consider it to be a hobby. You can't do nearly as much harm with a 600 pound glider as you can with a 747. Still, the safety implications are very real. Every once in a while we'd get somebody who didn't give a shit about rules as long as he had fun. All the grumpy old farts would promptly come down on him like a ton of bricks, andwith good reason.They'd always insist they follow the rules to the letter too.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:44:46 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on May 06, 2013, 09:34:34 pmYes, i agree with you. I don't know about the MFZN, but if wouldn't be the first organization full of "old men"having difficulties to understand new and personalized media. In the old days, such official statements wouldn't probably get much attention beyond their own club magazine and the local news outlet...

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 09:57:21 pm
content: What makes me uneasy is that this "organization full of old men" is pretty much a governing body, and they think it's appropriate to play politics games against people who are rude to them. If it was one club you could just go elsewhere, but this guy is a twit if he thinks losing the ability to use every airstrip in the country counts as "going elsewhere". If they have real reasons for this that's fine, but they shouldn't even consider listing "steps outside our organization, regards it as irrelevant, has contempt for it" anywhere near real reasons.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 10:13:37 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on May 06, 2013, 09:57:21 pmYes, it is exactlybecausethis organization is the governing body.Mr. S. did not just say that he hates the MFZN (which would not be a sufficient reason to revoke his WB).If Mr. S really expressed that he thinks this body is irrelevant and that he does not intend to follow the regulations imposed by them, then by all means he is not qualified by this body and according to their regulations.Unless the reports about what Mr. S. said are not false or obscenely exaggerated (well, who knows?), Mr. S. basically announced his likely willful and voluntary violation of the rules -- which makes the decision of MFNZ appropriate.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 10:22:15 pm
content: @ elgonzo... I take on-board your comments, and it's a reasonable point of view; but this argument will run due personal moral ideologies, and it seems is how this situation has come about... yes, it is a working airfield, but not in regular daily use; it's a drop-in as weather prevails airfield, thus the CAA control.It's unfortunate these flyers are using a CAA controlled airfield, my assumption for this situation, is maybe the lack of free land available; and my suggestion to find a site for private use.Here in Jersey C.I. a land area to the west of our 9 x 5 Mile island, is used for model flyers, one mile away from the commercial airport, who fly low in there approach and take-off; their is no problem with the CAA or our airport, with the local model aircraft members who all have personal insurance, and that's it !If push came to shove, the authority of this site is a paper/card control zone, without on-site checks to the activity of use; and looks like we know best, and don't challenge our authority from any card welding member... this chap has pushed the envelope, and got screwed.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 10:28:19 pm
content: Quote from: vlf3 on May 06, 2013, 10:22:15 pmAhh, good to know. Since Bruce mentioned in his video that each R/C flyer (or his second (wo)man) is required to have a radio to listen to a/c radio (air traffic?) when operating on the airfield, i assumed that the field is visited by real planes on a regular basis. Assumptions always bite one in the hindquarterEDIT: I watched now one of Bruce's other videos from the 2011 ANZAC meeting. They are using the actual runway of the airfield... i didn't known that. Now it is even obvious to me that this airfield is not in daily use by real planes.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 11:08:09 pm
content: Quote from: mikes on May 06, 2013, 09:12:13 pmI can't see it. Nothing shows up.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 11:12:29 pm
content: Quote from: elgonzo on May 06, 2013, 09:25:37 pmWhich I'd be willing to bet have benefited in a few ways from his videos too.

author: ivan747
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 06, 2013, 11:44:16 pm
content: Quote from: vlf3 on May 06, 2013, 09:32:47 pmMaybe he can start a crowd-funding project to buy some land in an interesting location? I don't know how good this idea is.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 12:40:14 am
content: Quote from: mikes on May 06, 2013, 06:12:47 pmTrust me, you can't believe the words of people who hide behind anonymity -- or they'd be prepared to put their name to their defamatory claims.I realised a long time ago that you can't please all the people all the time and, given that I have many, many thousands of people who support me, I'm happy with a tiny handful who, for whatever reason, feel the need to engage in this type of character assassination.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 12:53:34 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on May 06, 2013, 07:21:00 pmWhat I find most interesting is that MFNZ has been given the right to make rules and hand out "wings" but has no intention, nor any obligation to police those rules. Surely, one of the obligations for receiving such rights must be the obligation to ensure that the rules you create are followed by your members?QuoteThis is also ridiculous.My flying, and the videos I make of it, is how I earn my living. MFNZ rules are for hobby fliers who have a totally different set of objectives and requirements.For a business to have to follow the rules made by hobbyists is patently rather silly and introduces a mass of contradictions.Just one example: one set of rules say "no cars on the airfield" yet the lease I pay for the ground on which my workshop sits guarantees me vehicular access to that workshop. How can I run a business when my rights as a lease-holder will be contradicted by the constraints placed on hobby fliers?Another example -- ground lease paid by all hangar owners (including myself) covers use of the airfield for "aviation related activities" so there is no additional charge for using the runway for take-offs or landings. Yet under the hobby rules, I am required to pay an additional $2 per day -- again, a significant conflict with my rights as a business operator.The SWDC spent $250K developing the airfield area to attract new businesses to it. At the time, I was one of two businesses operating at the airfield, now three years later, I am the *only* business operating from the facility -- it is perhaps, in light of the silliness of this situation, it is easy to see why businesses are *leaving* rather than flocking to the airfield.In the meantime, three out-of-district flight schools (who employ no locals and bring nothing to the area except wear-and tear) are using the facility totally free of charge -- no landing fees, no leases.Don't get me started on idiotic bureaucrats in local government ;-)

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 01:25:29 am
content: Quote from: mikes on May 06, 2013, 08:57:34 pmNot quite true.For the benefit of all, here is a brief history of events.Back in 2003, I moved to Tokoroa, rented a hangar on the airfield and formed the South Waikato Model Aero Club. At the time, it had just two members.Over the years that followed, the club grew fairly quickly and by 2010 had almost 40 members, some of whom regularly travelled an hour or more to fly with us because the atmosphere was fun and enjoyable. We were unique in that 10% of our membership was composed of female fliers.The Since about 2004, the club had been affiliated with MFNZ (then called "The NZ Model Aeronautical Association or NZMAA). Unlike most clubs, it had operated without the hassle of committees and the bureaucracy that often produces cliques, politicking and internal rifts. It was just a bunch of people who flew RC models together and had a good time doing so.RC Model flying was the primary use of the airfield. On an average day there were only one or two full-sized aircraft movements but (especially during the summer) it was not uncommon for people to be flying models there every day for several hours per day. In all this time, not a single incident between a full-sized aircraft and an RC model occurred.The "flying family" environment ensured that everyone took responsibility for their own safety as well as the safety of those who were flying alongside them. Rules were minimal because everyone took safety seriously and didn't want to see their friends (or anyone) get hurt.Yes we did have two rules which served the club *very* well for many years:1. Don't be an idiot2. Have fun.It is worth noting that there are *no* loopholes in these rules! Anything that might endanger persons or property is the act of an idiot and was therefore censured. Remember, the more rules you make, the more loopholes you create.Operating under this simple motto, there was no damage to third party property and no member injured any other member -- in a period of almost eight years. This is a better record than most clubs can claim.A few years ago, some new members joined the club who were a little more "radical" and a great deal less skilled than the rest. It was one of these guys who eventually provoked a local pilot to assault him -- after he flew his model directly in front of the pilot's aircraft. It's worth noting that this guy (who is now the President of SWIM) was prosecuted last year for careless/dangerous flying by CAA and convicted.His actions were largely responsible for MFNZ contacting CAA and the SWDC and complaining about the entire club's activities.As a result of demands by MFNZ and the SWDC, the existing club (SWMAC) was disbanded and a new club (SWIM) was formed as an incorporated society. I did not stand for presidency of this club but held a position on the committee, voted in by members.Shortly afterwards, the other members of the committee met without me and passed a resolution in which they asked for my resignation from that committee. It is worth noting that the balance of the committee was comprised of the "more recently joined". Not wishing to cause a fuss, I resigned from the committee as requested but also felt it prudent to resign from the club, because I could see that there was now an unsavoury element at the helm.In the months since then, I have been repeatedly contacted my many of the original members of the club and asked if I will be forming a new club because those original, family-oriented members have found the new regime to be rude, offensive and unwelcoming. Many of the originals have refused to rejoin the club because of this dramatic change.A year ago, anyone visiting the airfield on a fine Sunday morning would have found upwards of a dozen people enjoying the day by flying their RC models. Today, there are just two or three -- the rest having found other places to fly.As for the two rules -- yes, I did propose them to the SWDC because they had been working *perfectly* for nearly eight years. They delivered a 100% safety record and provided everyone with a welcoming, safe, enjoyable family atmosphere. They created a club where the emphasis was on enjoyment and sharing time with friends while in the pursuit of a hobby.Now SWIM has more rules than you can shake a stick at and, despite those rules, there have been two incidents in the past month alone -- one requiring hospital treatment (damaged tendons and nerves), the other involving someone being hit in the head with a model.As I have tried to get across to these people -- safety isn't about rules. Safety is about creating a culture and an environment where people care about each other and respect each other enough to make sure they behave in a way that prevents harm coming to anyone or their property. Clearly, that culture and environment has now been totally lost within the ranks of the new club.The SWMAC was the greatest (and most widely watched) club in the world just 12 short months ago. Now it is just three or four bitter and twisted people who seem hell-bent on self-destruction.So before the four protagonists at SWIM start levelling blame at me -- perhaps they ought to look more closely at their own actions.I have not been prosecuted and convicted by CAA for careless or dangerous flying.I have not driven away the vast majority of the membership through my rude, aggressive and offensive behaviourI have not turned a once-safe club into one where people are now being injured on a regular basis and the safety of other airfield users is being placed in jeopardy by simply creating a list of rules to please the bureaucrats then ignoring them with impunity.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 01:38:12 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on May 06, 2013, 09:34:34 pmThis is another thing that I found untenable....MFNZ alleged that there had been serious rule-breaking and breaches of CAA regulations by the club - yet they refused to give us a list of what those allegations were. On three occasions (once verbally and twice in writing) I requested details of the alleged rule/law breaking -- MFNZ refused to disclose this information.Now it seems to me that when *anyone* is accused of a crime, they have a right to know exactly what they're supposed to have done wrong, especially if the objective is to ensure that safety is preserved by ensuring that such violations never recur.Also, how can one defend or challenge the allegations if you don't know what the are -- what ever happened to the laws of natural justice?To this day, we still don't know the details of the complaints allegedly filed against us and what little information has come to hand has been "leaked", not officially disclosed by MFNZ.It is also worth noting that the "evidence" came by way of hearsay and the videos on my youtube channel. Bear in mind that with respect to the YT channel, 99% of the time, I'm the guy with the camera -- yet *I* have allegedly been blamed for the rule/law breaking. How does that work?I have also since discovered that several of the infringements for which I have been blamed were actually due to the actions of other people who were not even members of our club - but since MFNZ refused to enter into any correspondence or discussion on the matter, there was no way to make this point or present evidence in my/our defence.It also seems a little strange that, in the case of our old club, MFNZ were happy to rely on YT vids as evidence of wrongdoing yet, when I provided video evidence of far greater safety issues at the airfield, it was suggested by the MFNZ president that I probably faked the footage.As you can (hopefully) see, this has been far more about politics than safety or justice.QuoteThere has been a significant degree of that as well.MFNZ didn't attempt to discuss this issue with me before taking action even though they admitted they knew there would be significant fallout and considerable damage to the reputation of the Association and the hobby in NZ from the steps they took.Once action had been taken, MFNZ refused two separate attempts (including one by CAA) to enter mediation to resolve it.It was only due to the offer made by a single MFNZ council member that we've come close to sorting this mess out.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 01:42:30 am
content: Quote from: vlf3 on May 06, 2013, 10:22:15 pmUnfortunately, the lack of "wings" not only precludes flying from an airfield but also flying *anywhere* within a 4Km radius of an airfield.The local council bylaws also prohibit flying models from any park or public place and this is a timber-town which means that a great deal of the land around here is covered in pine forest. The remainder is dairy farm which means even if you can get permission to fly there (after driving 5Km+), you're not going to be able to mow a nice runway in all that lush green grass -- which puts the kybosh on me being able to continue my flying reviews of anything but small hand-launched foam models.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 02:12:29 am
content: Finally (yeah, I can hear the sighs of relief)...My argument isn't with the organisation that is MFNZ, it is with an executive who have done the following:1. ignored the laws of natural justice (allegations without evidence or detail)2. failed to protect the rights of its members (by acting against them rather than for them)3. has focused on minor infringements whilst ignoring major breaches of its rules and CAA regulations4. refused to consider the reputation of the organisation, its members and the hobby in general when acting5. has been woefully deficient in respect to its obligation to promote the hobby -- instead, sitting on the money it has collected for this task to the tune of over $200K from a membership of little more than 2,000.6. placing "politics" ahead of pragmatism\ when dealing with me.7. refusing to bring the organisation into the 21st century (when I suggested they stop wasting $30K a year on a shoddy printed magazine that only reaches the paid-up membership and instead, spending half that money on creating a website that is regularly updated with interesting, informative and enticing content that would also reach and attract new members I was told "can't do that, not all our members have the internet".What these people fail to comprehend is that promoting the hobby involves marketing. The next generation of RC fliers will be found online and if you have no presence there, you become far less relevant as an organisation.Already the average age of MFNZ members is increasing at about one year per year -- not at all good.After numerous attempts to get MFNZ to actually start promoting the hobby in an *effective* way to a new generation, I gave up and set out to do it myself. I am happy to say that I have been incredibly successful, having gotten over 2,000 people (almost the entire membership of MFNZ) into the hobby all over the world during the past two years.My online presence *is* reaching new generations of potential RC fliers and it *is* getting them into the hobby in a way that MFNZ has never done. I educate, excite, encourage and inform the people in this hobby and that's working wonderfully as a method of promotion. I've had everyone from groups of retired US veterans to individual school pupils email me and thank me for getting them into this wonderful hobby.Every week I get phone calls from around NZ from people who have bought RC gear and need a hand. These people don't even know that MFNZ exists -- because they're using the Net to get their information andMFNZ's presenceis all about rules, regulations, vintage flying (control-line and free-flight) with outdated reports from fly-ins and a total lack of "welcome to the hobby" stuff.Interestingly enough, since this whole thing blew up, I've been offered two full-time jobs as a promoter of the hobby by other organisations outside of NZ. Clearly someone values my efforts to pay me for them.Over the decades I've got a lot out of this hobby and I really want to make sure that others do as well. I'd much rather see a kid out in the fresh air with an RC model or learning about the technology involved -- instead of stuck indoors working on his Playstation tan and munching on a bag of potato chips.The fact that MFNZ prefers to invest huge resources persecuting me for doing what they ought to be doing is something worthy of my contempt (IMHO).They have said that I have stated I would not follow their rules -- which I have -- but that doesn't mean I don't follow rules. I have filed my own set of rules with the SWDC and I obey them religiously. My rules are far more stringent than MFNZ's rules in fact.Now for the situation as it stands.An MFNZ committee member has approached me with an offer, I have accepted that offer.He has given certain undertakings on behalf of MFNZ and I take him at his word. In return, I will rejoin the organisations via one of its clubs (not SWIM) and have done so.We will see how things pan out. I am cautiously optimistic and hope that this gentleman's efforts are not shot to hell by the remainder of the executive who may opt to place politics ahead of pragmatism yet again.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 03:00:45 am
content: I find RMCR's argument quite convincing and I don't really understand the other side's argument.Sounds very unfair to stop somebody from earning their livelihood, they need a kick in the arse.bit of a longshot but In Australia we have something called the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, you may have something similar in NZ.Quote

author: kizzap
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 05:06:42 am
content: Isn't it also true that if you have information about a crime, or witness a crime, and dont say/do anything about it, then you are also partially liable?Both sides are in the wrong I feel.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 08:36:25 am
content: QuotePrecludes how exactly?What law or regulation makes this so?Is the society specifically named in any byelaw or statute ?

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 09:25:48 am
content: But what about Barry?! What about Barrys wings?!I like Barry

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 09:41:54 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 07, 2013, 08:36:25 amIt's the CAA I gather. The Civil Aviation Authority. A government department that legislates almost everything that flies.In this case it's an airfield that is the issue, some he needs to access to in order to fly any decent size plane.I gather that Bruce is free to fly anywhere away (>4km) from an airport he likes, subject to local council and/or national park laws like he mentioned.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 03:54:40 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 07, 2013, 09:41:54 amDo the CAA actually make laws (or even have jurisdiction over someone flying on private property withinh 4km of an airfield?)What I was getting at was that if someone was flying without a license, and some legal action ensued as a result of not having a license, it would be an interesting opportunity to raise questions as part of the defence about the legalities of the CAA sub-contracting licensing without sufficent accountability, and of the competence of the subcontractor.

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 04:20:17 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 07, 2013, 03:54:40 pmIf i understand it correctly, CAA regulates NZ civil aviation, based on legislation from the Ministry of Transport.They have jurisdiction but are not law makers.While an incident such as you theorized could put some spot light on the other issue you like to expose more, you run also the high risk that it either derails your debate, or, even worse completely sucks attention away from the argument you try to make (which is known in German as the "vampire effect").

author: elgonzo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 04:27:02 pm
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 07, 2013, 02:12:29 amGlad to hear that there is communication between MFNZ and you, and that you guys are working on an amenable solution.Wish you much luck!

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 10:13:09 pm
content: Hmmm... it seems that MFNZ may now seek to change the terms and conditions of their offer *after* my acceptance and after the consideration was paid.They have reneged on at least one aspect of the offer already (that my wings would automatically be reinstated) and are now suggesting a whole lot of new caveats and conditions.Bad form on their part, but not unexpected

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 11:26:48 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 07, 2013, 03:54:40 pmWithin 4km of an airport, yes, definitely.On private property, yes also, if it's above a certain height.You don't own the sky above your property.That's how it is in Oz, and I'm sure is the same in NZ as well.QuoteThat's possible of course.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 07, 2013, 11:28:52 pm
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 07, 2013, 10:13:09 pmYes, that was obviously going to happen.They want you to publicly shut up, and still keep you under their control, so they will push every boundary possible to do both.

author: mikes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 12:05:31 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 07, 2013, 10:13:09 pmBut, you only accepted a written offer which clearly spelled everything out, right? Somehow, I think there's another side not being represented.

author: 4to20Milliamps
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 12:35:51 am
content: Surely there is more than just one model aircraft association that is approved by the CAA director, and if not then why not?How difficult is it to set up an association and do your own certification?

author: TheEPROM9
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 01:25:09 am
content: This is yet moor proof that the government and associated organizations cannot be trusted and are nothing more than corrupt and despicable, they do nothing more thanand try to destroy free speech for their own benefits.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 01:31:12 am
content: From the earlier MFNZ letter I looked at it seems a major issue (if not the major issue) was about the validity of public liability insurance carried by MFNZ and extended to members if the stipulations of the insurance cover are not followed.It would seem that if RCMR is operating as a business, then he could, and should, obtain his own liability insurance to cover his business activities. This would seem to address one of the major concerns from MFNZ?

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 12:07:46 pm
content: NZ Microlights (what in AU would be Ultralight, in America would be closer to a combination of Ultralight and Light Sport) and their pilots are also managed by a delegated organisation (a "Part 149" organisation). They oversee the annual inspection of aircraft (but not the initial registration, that's CAA), and the issuance of pilot certificates, type ratings, passenger ratings, medicals, and of course instructors.Many years ago now, there were some people who were not satisfied with how the incumbent organisation was running things, so you know what, they set up their own 149, they got approval from the CAA, and then NZ had two separate organisations (RAANZ, and SAC) which both do all of the above for microlights, you can choose whichever you like.But that wasn't enough! The Royal New Zealand Aero Club (RNZAC, now called "FlyingNZ" to be all marketing like) decided that they also wanted to be a 149 who can do all the above for Microlights, specifically for their members who were getting older and wanted to transition "within the system", and the CAA said, yup, that sounds good and they were also granted the appropriate status. So now we have 3 issuers of microlight certificates.Gliding NZ, Hang Glider and Paragliding Association, whatever the ballooning association is, Warbirds NZ.... as you can see the CAA here likes to delegate the day-to-day management of recreational flying.Anyway, my point is, if Bruce and others feel THAT strongly about this, then go to the CAA, tell them you want to set yourselves up as an alternative to the incumbent. It's a lot of work I imagine, sure, but there is nothing to say that the CAA can not or will not authorise a new national body for you, just like they have on a number of occasions for microlights.

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 12:19:50 pm
content: But what about Barry? Did the NZ jet modelers assoc decide not to take his wings away, or reinstate them?

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 08:23:18 pm
content: Quote from: mikes on May 08, 2013, 12:05:31 amYes it was a written offer.I asked for clarification on several key points and received that clarification (also in writing).One key point, which I asked them to confirm was that my "wings" would automatically be reinstated on payment of the sum ($72) specified -- to which they said "yes".Now it seems, they're saying that my wings are *not* automatically reinstated, even though I paid the money last weekend and receipt of the money has been acknowledged.They have told CAA that my wings have not been reinstated and they are now "considering" things.What's to consider?The agreement was that if I paid, I automatically got my wings back -- now they appear to be backtracking on that.Breach of contract?Bad faith?

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 08:30:34 pm
content: Quote from: 4to20Milliamps on May 08, 2013, 12:35:51 amWhen I was speaking to the CAA official responsible for overseeing RC model flying (who is also a good friend and former work-colleague of the president of MFNZ, both having served many years serving together in the RNZAF apparently), he told me that I would be wasting my time attempting to get another model-flying body "recognised" by CAA and that the authority would only recognise MFNZ.This guy also told me that although this is how I earn my living, my activities were not deemed to be "commercial" -- even though they consider anyone else who earns money from video involving the flying of RC models to be a "commercial operator".Of course I would never suggest any impropriety is involved here.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 08:31:34 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on May 08, 2013, 01:31:12 amI have had my own independent public liability cover (NZ$3 million) for the past six months. Insurance is not the issue.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 08:34:07 pm
content: Quote from: sleemanj on May 08, 2013, 12:07:46 pmNot possible. As I replied to another poster -- I specifically asked CAA if this was an option and I was told that no alternative to MFNZ would be recognised by CAA.His justification was that when alternative bodies are set up they are usually filled with disaffected members of the original organisation and thus tend to be more trouble than they're worth.Fair? Reasonable? Convenient?

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 08, 2013, 08:35:37 pm
content: Quote from: peter.mitchell on May 08, 2013, 12:19:50 pmWell it's a great insight into the character of the guy involved, he's now denying that he was going to pull Barry's wings, even though he made the statement in front of witnesses.However, having made a public denial, this means that Barry's wings are safe.

author: peter.mitchell
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2013, 07:46:07 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 08, 2013, 08:35:37 pmPhew! Thats relieving, it is bad enough that you are in this situation, let alone an unquestionably innocent bystander.

author: chibiace
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2013, 04:51:25 am
content: I recommend you go through the effort of setting up a new club by the book. if CAA wont play nice, take them to court.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2013, 07:39:22 am
content: Here's an update on the lunacy.CAA has said I can not fly unless I have the "wings" proficiency certification issued by MFNZ.CAA say I am not considered to be a commercial operation, despite this being a full time job and despite the fact I am a good way through the development of my Sense And Avoid anti-collision system (a cool bit of RF/digital technology I've been working on for some time).CAA says that if I want to fly, I must join MFNZ.MFNZ offered me membership if I pay $72 to join their parkfliers club -- which I did.Now MFNZ have refused to accept my membership.So we have a government organisation telling a private business that they have to belong to a hobby group if they want to stay in business and that hobby group refusing to accept membership.This is criminally insane!Imagine if CASA told QANTAS that it had to belong to the local RC model club or it couldn't fly.Someone needs a kick up the arse here.I am being put out of business here by a hobby organisation that has got its nose out of joint because I criticised the performance of their executive and the government department responsible for administering commercial aviation activities gives them that power by unilaterally declaring that my full-time job is "not commercial".Time to take this to a ministerial level I think because the bureaucrats have gone mad.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2013, 08:46:16 am
content: Quote from: chibiace on May 10, 2013, 04:51:25 amOr just go fly anyway and challenge them to do something about it, pointing out you will raise issues of the monopoly in any legal proceedings.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 03:35:22 am
content: An update...CAA has changed their mind about my flying activities.After repeatedly stating that my RC model flying activities were most definitely *not* commercial -- they have now done a 180 and say that I *am* flying commercially -- especially any flying associated with my design and development activities for the "Sense And Avoid" system I've been working on for the past 9 months or so.Apparently, now that I'm deemed to be "commercial", I am no longer flying RC model aircraft, I'm flying "unmanned aerial systems" (UAS).Now that they've done this dramatic about-face, I'm told that if I want to continue flying my RC models, I will have to spend $17K or so to geta full-sized private pilot's license(?)and/or undergo hours of "unmanned aerial systems" training before I'll be allowed to fly any of my RC models again.Here's an exact quote from their email:QuoteYes... that's right... all this to fly some toy planes usually made of foam and weighing a Kg or so in the way I have been doing for over 40 years without incident and in the way that hundreds of people, including kids, do every weekend across the country.Why did they change their mind?Well I suspect that after MFNZ started copping some serious flak from its members over their obvious personality-driven agenda against myself, they opted to pass the problem on to CAA and thus be able to say to their members "nothing to do with us, we only deal with hobby flying and this guy is a commercial operator".The interesting thing is that CAA have told me that the RC flying I'm doing to make videos still isn't really considered to be "commercial" by them but my SAA work is -- but all my flying will be the subject of a commercial operators certification if I obtain one (ie: PPL, UAS training, etc).So how does this work?My SAA system has been developed solely by myself, funded out of my own pocket and reliant largely on my 40+ years of RF comms, digital electronics and software experience. Nobody is *paying* me to do this development work, I have made no plans to sell it and have considered it to be a "hobby project" to date -- yet CAA claim it is "commercial" -- presumably because it has commercial potential.So what does this mean?Well the next step in the SAA development is to take the 300g of electronics, put it in a box and stick it in a small electric-powered foam RC model then fly around for a while to collect a dataset that will be used for refining the software that turns a whole lot of data into a 3D model of the airspace around that model.We're not talking about *any* interface between the SAA system and the model's control system -- this is simply flying to collect data for the "sense" component. In effect, it's just one of the same models I've flown for years, but with an extra 300g box of electronics strapped to the side.However, because CAA has unilaterally deemed this activity to be "commercial" in nature, I am now forbidden to do it at all.Even if I fly on private property miles from any airfield or air traffic, such "toy plane" flights would be illegal and they have previously warned me that they are prepared to take "enforcement action" if I dare to breach their policies.So here we are -- I'm working on a system that has the potential to *significantly* improve the safety of the aviation industry (many people die every year as a result of mid-air collisions and with "drones" now becoming increasingly widely used, the risks escalate to a whole new level) and the CAA (who are challenged with the job of ensuring airspace safety) have effectively shut down this project, apparently for no reason other than their mates at MFNZ have asked them for a favour.Something smells here.And, for the record, in the static testing done on the SAA system to date, performance has exceeded my expectations. Unfortunately, with no legal way to take the testing to the next step, I'm stymied.What the hell is wrong with this country (NZL) where petty bureaucrats and grumpy old men whose noses are out of joint because they've been quite rightly criticised, work so hard to be negative and stifle innovation and enthusiasm, seemingly out of petty vindictiveness?Bah!

author: PeterG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 03:48:50 am
content: Easy fix, move to Australia.....Regards

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 04:33:42 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 27, 2013, 03:35:22 amHow much legal defense does $17K buy you when you tell them where they can shove this?

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 04:48:04 am
content: This sounds like dicking around by both parties, all this he said she said. Just get a lawyer and let her/him figure it out. You personally are nobody, lawyer on the other hand is a threat of wasted time and money and will be taken seriously.

author: Majorstrain
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 05:15:49 am
content: Australia may not be much better. When I was a flight instructor in Western Australia, I met a guy who was flying around the coast of Australia in his own aircraft taking pictures of light houses for a book he was writing. He said that before he could start, CASA made him get a commercial pilots license because the photos were to be used in the book that he was going to sell. It was deemed a commercial operation. Now I never verified the story, but it would seem to fit the rules.Anyway, what's going down in NZ sucks big time. It would be cool if a legal eagle would take this case on for free.Cheers,Phil

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 05:18:05 am
content: Quote from: Rasz on May 27, 2013, 04:48:04 amThere are two options in this case.1) Ignore them and go fly anyway.2) Ignore them and go fly anyway, but pay a lawyer to send them a nasty letter to make you feel better.I'd probably save the lawyer money for when/if they take you to court.Of course, there are actually other options:A) continue to fight as you are in the public sphere hoping they will finally cave. Although it appears that they can and will change their mind at any time. Although once you have something in writing that's a win, run with it and refuse to open any more of their mailB) third option is get around them entirely by finding a private place and fly simple stuff. That will at least keep your channel and hobby alive.The options are of course not mutually exclusive.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 05:22:15 am
content: Quote from: Majorstrain on May 27, 2013, 05:15:49 amSurely that's hogwash? Commercial photographers take aerial photos all the time from hired planes and helicopters.There are some stupid rules in places though.For example, you are not allowed to do "commercial" photography or filming in national park without consent and/or a license fee or whatever.So technically, if I made a made cent from that canyoning multimeter video, that would not be legal. Or if I put a photo taken in a national park on my website and got adsense money from it, that's could be deemed "commercial".

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 05:46:37 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 27, 2013, 05:18:05 amActually Dave, this is the kicker....Once your activities are declared to be "commercial", it makes no difference where you fly -- CAA's expressed authority to fly is required.I can't even fly on private property without effectively being in breach of CAA's UAS policies now.They have already indicated that they will take enforcement action against me if I defy them.That's right -- if I fly a 1Kg foam model (at 50kph on private property), I am risking prosecution because my flying activities are deemed to be "commercial" in nature and therefore I require the expressed authority of CAA to do so -- something that, as they have informed me, will require significant expenditure on my part to obtain an PPL or several hours of full-sized flying experience plus "training" from someone who's likely done a whole lot *less* RC model flying than myself.What a crock of SHIrT and an abuse of power at so many levels.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 06:46:02 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 27, 2013, 05:46:37 amFor activities that meet the "commercial" guidelines, yes.But for anything that is covered under the existing hobby rules, almost certainly not enforceable, regardless of what they may say or claim.You cannot be in both camps at once. You either fly hobby craft, or you fly commercial craft. If others can fly hobby craft on private property, you can fly the same craft too under the same conditions.I can imagine that would be trivial to defend in court, or likely wouldn't even get that far because it would get thrown out.Revert to declaring your activities "hobby income" if you have too.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 06:47:28 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on May 27, 2013, 05:57:13 amYes, that's what it's for.But of you go to them and actually ask "can I go take some photos and put them on my commercial webpage", they will likely default implement the rule.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 07:33:55 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 27, 2013, 06:46:02 amUnfortunately for me, CAA have clearly defined *my* flying activities as being "commercial" in nature and stated that they are prepared to take "enforcement action".Perhaps I could win in a court of law -- but at what cost?The problem is that government departments effectively spend your own money against you and have very little to lose if they fail in their legal actions -- after all, the people who make the decisions to prosecute are paid their salaries regardless of whether they prevail or not.That it even comes to a point where CAA threatening to prosecute someone for promoting a hobby and for working to improve aviation safety is ludicrous in the extreme.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 07:50:02 am
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 27, 2013, 07:33:55 amSo they claim, but they oculd be full of shit.As I see it you have these options lefta) Dance to the tune of their fiddle.b) Preempt them and take court action now.c) Ignore them and call their bluff, and defend yourselfifrequired.You'd be foolish to do b), when doing c) may mean you never have to because they are bluffing.Also, making it all public helps lot too, and (as much as I hate them) the TV networks lap up this kind of story. The CAA will look like fools, and that alone may prevent them proceeding.QuoteUsually I'm totally anti-lawyer anti-court, and will avoid that at all costs. But it appears as though you are being backed into a corner where you either give up your hobby, or you extend the middle finger and be prepared to fight at all costs.It may perhaps be worth seeking out an experienced lawyer in this area and get their paid advice.QuoteCorrect. It's a one way losing street. But that doesn't mean they have any more chance of winning a court case.QuoteI totally agree.They deserve to be publicly smacked over the head with a wet fish.

author: Slothie
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 07:57:35 am
content: You'll get nowhere fighting them on their own rules, you need to attack them from a direction they can't so easily defend with their usual bull. Write to the government minister whose remit includes the activities of the CAA and ask him why he/she is permitting a private body like the MFNZ to control a government body that is there to protect the safety of the public. Ask him why his department allows a private organisation to abuse a monopoly handed to it by the CAA to persue a vendetta against a citizen and taxpayer who is only trying to go about his legitimate business, who's only crime was to point out how that organization was failing in its duties to protect the public. Make it clear that you're writing an article for a national newspaper and you'd like to hear his comments before publishing. You might even want to get a national newspaper interested if you can.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 08:01:14 am
content: Quote from: Slothie on May 27, 2013, 07:57:35 amIt's starting to look as if this is the only real option that might work.I'll give CAA until the end of the week to sort this mess out and if nothing happens by then well I'll simply call on folk to email our minister of Transport (to whom CAA answer) and our Minister for Science and Technology) to explain why a government organisation is putting hurdles in the way of genuine innovation and improvements in aviation safety when they ought to be doing exactly the opposite.Escalating this up the food chain might be the only option -- but I'd hope that before that's necessary, CAA will come to their senses and become more pragmatic about this situation.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 08:05:40 am
content: Quote from: Slothie on May 27, 2013, 07:57:35 amThat alone sounds like a juicy court case that some hot shot may take on a no-win no-fee basis. After all, they are trying to deliberately deprive you of carrying on yourexisting lawfulbusiness, especially if you revert to the same craft that other hobbyists fly. Some of the more advanced UAV type stuff though they may be able to get you on technicalities, because hardly anyone else (no one?) is doing that, so little precedence. But if they are trying to stop you from flying the exact same craft thousands of hobbyists are entitled to do, surely that don't have a leg to stand on?

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 09:20:21 am
content: Can't this crouz missile directed at CAA building?Alexander.

author: Slothie
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 10:03:24 am
content: When it comes down to it thus is a civil rights issue and you should frame it as such. If you have broken no laws or regulations they have no right to deprive you of the right to fly your models that are granted to others. The relationship between the MFNZ and CAA seems too cozy and incestuous and, if it is as it appears that the tail is wagging the dog then it is wrong. Claims that you've been a dick are irrelevant - that is your right as a citizen and pointing out an unhealthy monopoly is a responsibility not a fault. Upsetting self important people who are not doing their job is a civic duty.

author: Rasz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 10:22:53 am
content: Quote from: Slothie on May 27, 2013, 10:03:24 amThats the thing. He broke many. They seem ridiculous, but he broke them. Now its just he said she said, oh look others are breaking the rules and nothing happens blablabla.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 11:03:24 am
content: QuoteDo the CAA have any authority to enter public property to prove it?Seems to me if you are flying on private property out of sight, they would have trouble proving anything.And of course how would they prove whether it was private or commercial?Maybe you are developing your system as a hobby but only later decide to commercialise it... I'm sure there are plenty of ways to structure the activity and business to work round any rules like this. Maybe all the flying is done by a non-profit research organistion,Bear in mind that the avarage government official has little imagination, and rules are generally made without much consideration from the point of view of how they may be subverted in subtle ways.It would probably be worth some time going through all the legislation that gives the CAA their powers - as much of this will have been drafted way before modern RC stuff, you may find some loopholes that mean they don't actually have he power to restrict some activity. You may also find things that could be subject to legal challenge - e.g. if the law basically says the CAA can do what they like, this may contravene other legislation, e.g. monopolies, human rights etc... and as regards their 'training' requirements, how exactly is radio comms training relevant to unmanned flying....?

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 11:42:03 am
content: Yeh just wear a hoodie.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 12:27:24 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 27, 2013, 11:03:24 amThey don't have to, he posts videos on youtubeQuoteOr indoors. How big a warehouse can you hire?

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 01:17:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 27, 2013, 12:27:24 pm

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 01:51:56 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 27, 2013, 01:17:02 pmWhen is easy, as he would likely be demoing new stuff etc. Kinda like us reviewing a new Siglent scopehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/spotted-new-birds-(siglent)/and saying it was an old video from 5 years ago.Where apparently doesn't matter, as they claim he's banned everywhere, even on private property. Unless he takes lots of overseas trips.Come to think of it. It's probably cheaper to fly to Oz and shoot video here than pay lawyer fees...

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 10:03:57 pm
content: Quote from: Rasz on May 27, 2013, 10:22:53 amActually, no, I haven't broken CAA regulations -- although many others have.Others flying RC models at the airfield *have* been prosecuted by CAA and convicted -- I have never been the subject of any complaints to CAA nor any prosecution (despite what some may claim).

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 10:19:08 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 27, 2013, 11:03:24 amYes, just like Customs and the IRD, CAA have a right to enter private property as/when they choose to for whatever reasons they deem to be relevant.QuoteProof only becomes an issue once you get to court.QuoteWell they've already made that assessment and declared my flying to be commercial in nature.QuoteYes, this is the real problem -- and one I've pointed out in the past.The CAA Act (ie: the "law") is woefully outdated. CAA have been working on new laws, especially in respect to "drones" and thus RC models for over 7 years now -- with nothing to show for it apart from a raft of "policy".Now CAA seem to believe that they can create new laws by simply coming up with new policy -- but no matter how much they wish it was, policy is *not* law. Without legislative backing, policies are not enforceable. However, CAA claim that the far more general provisions of the CAA Act effectively allow them to implement their "policies" as if they were "laws" -- which is patently untrue.For example, there are *laws* that cover "pilotless aircraft" but, because this legislation is so out of date, they only apply to craft that weigh 15Kg or more. Now that technology has advanced and we're seeing pilotless vehicles that weigh as little as 40g, CAA has invoked a raft of "policies" that treat sub-15Kg craft the same as those which weigh more. However, the *law* does not recognise anything under 15Kg as a "pilotless aircraft" so if it went to court, they'd be reliant on using the more general provisions of the Act to support those new policies.The problem with "policies" is that they do not undergo the same scrutiny and aren't subject to public submissions in the way that laws are -- therefore they can be far more draconian and unfair. That is why parliament has prescribed a very strict procedure for drafting new laws and why policies can not be enforced without relying on actual laws.If CAA want the laws changed to be congruent with their "policies" then they have mechanisms available for doing so -- but they seem to be sitting on their thumbs and doing nothing in that regard. Hence, we have a bunch of ridiculous "policies" that have no specific legislative backup and perhaps need to be tested in a court of law.The interesting thing is, that although they have these draconian policies and regularly threaten those who risk breaching them with prosecution, they have not risked a "test case" yet -- perhaps because they realise that losing such a case would effectively render their catalogue of "policies" toothless.QuoteIt's so that you know "alpha" means A and "bravo" means B etc, etc.I already have my official "Post Office Issued" RTOC (Radio Telephone Operator's Certificate) which I sat back in 1977 -- but apparently that doesn't count.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 10:39:58 pm
content: Quote..and if they could not show any legislation to back up the policy that was being breached, it shouldn't even get as far as court, and if it did, it ought to get thrown out, however they probably could and would pull the generic 'safety' and 'security' cards out of their arse to throw FUD and pull the wool over the eyes of a judge who has no knowledge of the subject other than that flying things can be dangerous....Unfortunately protecting the rights of a minority hobby is not a big vote winner, so probably hard to get any political will behind the cause.

author: RCMR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 10:48:20 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on May 27, 2013, 10:39:58 pmMind you -- "Man arrested for working to improve aviation safety" has a kind of political power to it.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 27, 2013, 11:07:43 pm
content: Quote from: RCMR on May 27, 2013, 10:48:20 pmUnfortunately "Man illegally flying homemade drone - developing tech that could be used by terrorists" is probably a better headline, and the avarage journalist or politician can't be trusted to bother finding out the facts.

author: Majorstrain
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 28, 2013, 01:19:13 am
content: Quote from: Majorstrain on May 27, 2013, 05:15:49 amQuote from: EEVblog on May 27, 2013, 05:22:15 amBut the planes or helicopters they hire are flown by commercial pilots operating under an appropriate Air Operators Certificate.If they paid there mate or any private pilot to fly the aircraft, that would be illegal (not for the photographer but for the pilot) becausea private pilot cannot conduct a flight for hire or reward.The reward part is the kicker. Selling the photos from the flight that you piloted is reward for that flight.So is receiving money for fuel or getting your meal paid for.Can they prove it? maybe not, but your guilty until you prove yourself innocent. aka 'there goes your licence'.I guess the CAA view selling a product (even years down the track) as reward for the flights.But in that lies an interim way around the problem.Have a mate fly the aircraft and make sure that there is no payment or reward (giving of fuel, batteries, gifts etc.) for the flights.No reward, not a commercial operation for the pilot.Now that pilot just needs to stay within the model aircraft rules and regs.Cheers,Phil