Everyone please look at this

[cynr100]

It is the South Waikato District Council that have issued the notice, shall we say to cease and desist a right or privilege previously enjoyed? If so what was the process used and was it fair, transparent and reasonable? If not it may be considered erroneous and therefore unlawful.

How they arrived at this decision is, in my opinion, irrelevant at this time. Having the SWDC rescind this order/directive would allow further investigation (in a non-hostile environment) either by an independent authority or the SWDC themselves to arrive at some remedy or correction if erroneous conditions exist.

I am no lawyer, but I like to read a lot.
Bruce you say the club has a lawyer in it's ranks, could the SWDC find itself in breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 -
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... #DLM225519
This is not a long document, of particular interest Part 2.27(2) and Part 3.28, if members of the SWMAC found themselves in violation of the directive by SWDC and are faced with legal action, as individuals, could this Act not afford them some protection.
Dealing with Courts cost money, no one wants to go that track.
On reflection, if another sanctioned club was to loose it's field through a similar action of local government without recourse or proof, would the MFNZ come to it's aid

[BillGriffiths100]

You look cold with your wings clipped

[cynr100]

You look cold with your wings clipped

I am losing part of me everyday this debacle continues

[cynr100]

Another worrying issue has woken me from my deep slumber.
If, as MFNZ have stated, the SWMAC are not covered by the associations insurance are the SWMAC members entitled to a refund of that portion of annual fees representing monies paid to the insurance provider.
Has MFNZ been accepting monies from members under false pretence. Knowingly or not they have been accepting monies for which they, their insurance or their agent would be unable to provide value when called upon as a result of their action or inaction.
The stink is getting worse.

[quarry44]

The same thought occurred to me.If,as mfnz claim,swmac was not insured,where did their insurance part of the affiliation monies go?
At the very least,mfnz should have ascertained what the situation was regarding swmac's flying area.
By the same token,the area i fly at,owned by the local council,has somehow got registered as a flying site with mfnz.I was certainly never asked if I agreed to that,which begs the question,how does the registration process work?The site was definitely never inspected by any mfnz official.Being not affiliated to mfnz,am I now not allowed to fly at the flying site I was instrumental in obtaining?
I had thought of re-joining my old local,mfnz affiliated club,but am having second thoughts,due to the incredible arrogance shown by mfnz over the swmac debacle.
Another thing,years ago,when I was still in this club,a member hit another members car with his airplane.The claim was rejected by (then) NZMAA,because the car was owned by a member of the same club.WTH?So much for a $1 million insurance policy.

[zann68]

It's been my experience that nobody ever really wants to stand for election to such positions -- and if they do then they're probably the least suited to the role.

"One of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them: It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job. Another problem with governing people is people."

also since no one seems to have linked to the video (which apparently isnt ip blocked or at least isnt for german ips)
http://www.3news.co.nz/Model-aero-club- ... fault.aspx

that said while i agree that this was handeled incredibly poorly be the looks of it i can see their point as far as flying across a motorcross circuit with people driving on it is concerned (although i wouldnt consider that reason enough to shut down a club)

I just watched this news cast. This "Roger Fisher" is a freaking idiot! He is out of his comfort zone in this interview. They look like total horses asses now and are in a mad state of panic! I see Mr Fisher now, "OK fellas we have stopped these fun loving hoodlums from flying, ummm somebody tell me why we did this." "Ohh yea, they flew a FOAM! model into a structure! Yea that'ell hold them off!" Yeah they had these videos of them having fun for the world to see! Can't have that either." Hey Mr. Fisher - your dumb ass is on the World Wide Web to SEE Now ALSO!! You and your crew look like TOTAL JERKS now for this." Even the lady reporter doing the interview is totally baffled by there sad sad lack of reason.

Sorry I had to say something about that news video.

[RCModelReviews]

Things get even more interesting...

MFNZ has released an "official statement" in which they say their hands were tied and they had to take action when CAA received serious complaints from two members of our local aero club.

No prizes for guessing who that would have been -- the guy who's been trying to get us kicked off the field for a long time and who assaulted Ron in front of a dozen or so people.

What is unbelievable about this is that CAA have taken this guy's lies as gospel.

They haven't come to us to get our side of the story so they are unaware of the guy's agenda and his repeated (unsuccessful) attempts to provoke a real incident.

CAA chose to complain to MFNZ who -- like CAA, did not investigate the claims by asking us for our side of the story.

We had a lawyer, and two full-sized pilots in attendance when this guy lost is rag and rang CAA to complain about something that never happened.

Why has nobody asked us for OUR side of the story?

We can provide a list of sworn statements from witnesses who will clearly state that there was *no* incident to report -- yet nobody as even come to us to check.

It would appear that MFNZ have found this trumped-up complaint to be a very convenient excuse to shut us down.

Disgraceful and a huge violation of natural justice.

Surely, when "serious allegations of law-breaking" are leveled at a group, they ought to have a right to see what those allegations are and challenge them if they are untrue.

Why were we denied this?

[RCModelReviews]

Interestingly enough -- they are also citing the flying of an FPV model beyond visual range as an example of the regulations that we've broken.

So how come CAA can't cite the regulation that prohibits that and have refused to provide me with the list of rules and regulations that pertain specifically to UAV/UAS (ie: FPV beyond visual range)?

I'm nearly 100% sure that it's because there are no rules covering this type of operation. The discussion paper of 2007 doesn't seem to have been followed up and no regulations have been created from it.

So we're being accused of breaking regulations that don't exist (yet).

[cynr100]

[quote="RCModelReviews"] the guy who's been trying to get us kicked off the field for a long time and who assaulted Ron in front of a dozen or so people.[quote]

Not too late to lodge a complaint of common assault, that should keep the nutter busy. Once that gets judged, in favour, that then leaves him open to civil action for damages. Assuming NZ law is comparable to AUS.
Anyway it costs nothing to lodge a complaint with the constabulary

[Gypsy]

Interestingly enough -- they are also citing the flying of an FPV model beyond visual range as an example of the regulations that we've broken.

So how come CAA can't cite the regulation that prohibits that and have refused to provide me with the list of rules and regulations that pertain specifically to UAV/UAS (ie: FPV beyond visual range)?

I'm nearly 100% sure that it's because there are no rules covering this type of operation. The discussion paper of 2007 doesn't seem to have been followed up and no regulations have been created from it.

I don't know about CAA regs but NZMAA Club Manual Section 6 Safety page 8 ................

First Person View
First Person View (FPV) flying makes use of video piloting equipment. It is a system whereby a radio control model aircraft is piloted, not through direct line of sight, but by using a live video downlink from an on-board camera allowing the pilot to experience a 'cockpit view' and to control the aircraft from the visual perspective of the on-board camera.
An FPV equipped Model Aircraft shall be flown by two Members utilising a buddy-box system, or equivalent. The pilot in command shall not use the FPV down link.
The pilot in command shall have flown the model prior to FPV operations
The pilot in command shall maintain visual contact with the model and shall be able to immediately assume control of the model in the event of a problem without any action from the other party.
The operational range and flight path of the model shall be limited to the pilot in command’s visual line of sight.
The pilot in command shall be solely responsible for the safety of the flight.
FPV equipment shall only be used in aircraft that do not require either a Large Model or Gas Turbine Permit to Fly.
Reliable operation of the buddy-box and a clear handover protocol shall be
established prior to every flight.
A successful radio equipment ground range check with camera equipment turned both on and off shall be completed before the first flight of the day. This shall ensure that the range of the model control system is not significantly degraded by the operation of the FPV equipment.