Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Put up or shut up

Well I've had a guts-full.

Yes, I continue to bang my head against the walls of bureaucracy and today I received an email from CAA advising that I'm unlikely to get a special exemption to fly RC models at the Tokoroa airfield because I could simply rejoin MFNZ.

Well as we all know, MFNZ have refused to allow me to rejoin -- so CAA are way out of touch.

I'm also forbidden to continue my SAA development because it has been deemed to be "commercial" in nature and if I want to do so, I've got to invest a fortune in getting ridiculously onerous qualifications such as a PPL.

So I have only one option left to me...

I will carry on regardless.

Yes, it's a bit of a risk -- but I think it's time that we had a test case to show clearly the difference between "policy" and "legislation".

CAA have a comprehensive set of "regulations" which are based on legislation that define what someone can and can't do. That's fair enough and absolutely essential for safety and to allow the Authority to do the job it is challenged to do.

However, CAA also have a much bigger pile of "policy", which is the way they implement those regulations.

As I've mentioned before, "policy" in itself has no legal standing.

CAA can't create new laws simply by enacting new policy. All policy must have legislative support.

CAA bases its "policies" on the provisions of the CAA Act and the bottom line is that if you're doing something which creates a threat or danger to person or property then there is regulation to prevent this.

However, if you're doing something that does *not* create a threat then you can't simply implement "policy" to try and ban it or control it.

The whole area of UAVs (or UAS as CAA prefer to call them) is a dog's breakfast of inadequate legislation and an over-abundance of poorly thought-out (and ultimately unenforceable) policy.

Now I should make it totally clear right from the start that nothing I am doing or will do has any potential to endanger persons or property. I'm not an idiot and, despite claims to the contrary from grumpy old men hooked on cocoa, I've always taken the issue of safety *very* seriously.

If CAA believe that they can prove to a court of law that what I am doing *does* represent a threat to person or property and therefore that they can enforce their policies by way of far more general legislation then good luck to them, and I'll see them in court.

However, I'm hoping that they have more sense than that.

"Man arrested for working on ground-breaking air-safety technology" makes an awkward headline, especially when we're edging ever-closer to an election.

I have told CAA I'm very keen to work with them and meet their compliance requirements - but in the meantime, I *will* be making plans to recommence my flying activities this week.

Given that this is my full-time occupation, I have given CAA lots of time to try and come to the party on this but it was only today (after more than a month) that they even referred me to the necessary forms to apply for the required authorisations -- along with their opinion that it would be futile anyway.

So the ball is very much in their court now.

I am no threat to anyone, I am working to improve aviation safety and promote safe RC flying around the country and the world. If they feel they must prosecute me for this then so be it. However, they *will* have a fight on their hands and it *will* be a huge one watched and funded from all corners of the globe.

No, I'm not being bolshy and goodness knows I've tried all the other options, however it's time for CAA to start acting reasonably and pragmatically or put their "policies" to the test in a court of law and the court of public opinion.

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font