The South Waikato District Council caught lying to drone and RC plane enthusiasts worldwide
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 11. 2023
- Here is the proof that the SWDC is lying to all those drone and RC plane flyers who contacted them regarding the situation I find myself in here. Not satisfied with bullying, they new resort to lies.
Is this really the level of ethics and competence that anyone should accept from a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians? I think not.
And still, they refuse to spend 30 minutes with me, sitting around a table and sorting this mess out. Unbeleivable! - Sport
I am not surprised, As the old Mayor had a vendetta against you even using ratepayers money to demolish the airport tower a month before she left office. Yes, I was a Councillor sitting in the chamber when that happened. They increased the rates by 18.5% and this actually shows that they have too many staff with nothing else todo than harassing you. Shocking
I bet your testimony will only get accepted if you have your Wings, and become a lifetime member of Model Flying New Zealand. As per council decree. ;-)
Had to look up "ratepayer".
To me, it sounds like "consumer", which in part I guess is true, but for gov services?
The 'old mayor' used to run Radio Forestland didn't she ? Ran it into the ground. RIP.
I have no involvement in model aircraft, but having a place with a relatively isolated airfield, in the middle of the island, should be viewed as an asset to the town. Tokoroa is on SH1, so it's easy to access from all over the island.They spend ratepayers money building a swimming pool, events centre, and and multimillion dollar carpark, but won't utilize an existing asset.
Vendetta ? Yes, and it hasn't ended with the departure of that mayor.
@@GhostRyderFPV I refer to myself as the customer or client when dealing with public services.
Who was and who is in charge makes no difference, this all boils down to a internal agreement that its OK to push the legal limits of the council when need be. Look, im 47 yrs old, if all of the sudden you came to me and said I can't fly my rc airplanes at a field I've been doing it at for 32 years, even thou I'm insured and qualified to do so within the rules..... your going to need to start explaining to the other local people, that have been enjoying watching me fly the toys around for over 3 decades, why I can't do it anymore even thou I'm allowed to do it per the rules..
Seems the council is unfit to serve the public. 😮
And unfit to mingle with humans.
"We've never banned mr. Simpson, we just invent our own rules to keep him from flying."
I have yet to see anyone being prevented from doing anything. Bruce is just getting old. He is bored and rather than simply going out and flying his toys, he makes videos about these phantom authorities that are going to do what exactly? NOTHING! Bruce is being silly and needs to stop these ridiculous videos and do what he claims he enjoys, FLYING!
@@keri-lynnbell6877 They sent him a letter which tells him he's only allowed to fly under conditions he can't comply with. And which are not based upon CAA regulations, despite the council claiming their restrictions are legally sound. So you are suggesting Bruce should just ignore that letter and risk getting fined, instead of pointing out the errors in the ways the council changes CAA regulation into self invented rules? And you think they will let him be? Like they left the Tokoroa Tower alone, you mean? That is still standing, right? Oh wait, it got torn down, also under false flag operation...
If the council had been reasonable so far, it would have been no issue, but so far the council hasn't shown any signs of being able to reason with. So just choosing the non-compliance route isn't going to work here, that has become clear by now.
He can rejoin the MFNZ and sit his wings badge.
@@phileldridge1901 But it's not required to be allowed to fly in for example shielded operations, despite being in the neighbourhood of the airport. The council just added that as extra requirement, and made it appear like those are CAA regulations, which these clearly aren't, looking at their website.
So giving in to these self invented extra council rules might initially seem like an easy way out, but it also opens the door for the council to come up with new ones, again self invented. Like maybe requiring an annual flight exam, to be paid by the rc pilot, in this case Bruce, naturally, and further "creative" restrictions. It's now become a matter of principle, it shouldn't be a requirement to pay an annual fee and thus be considered a safely flying rc pilot, and suddenly lose all rights when no longer paying MFNZ, which isn't a even government agency afaik.
Imagine having to pay an annual fee to a generic nationwide car organisation to be allowed to drive, instead of the once in 10 year fee for renewal of your driver's license. Would you find that acceptable? It's basically be-allowed-to-fly-tax, without any foundation in CAA regulations, which should be the only rules that apply here, especially if the council pretends that their actions are led by these regulations, right?
@@phileldridge1901 That seems like an arbitrary rule. What's to stop them from making up a different arbitrary rule?
Bruce I am truly surprised that this council doesn’t stop this nonsense. Do they know how bad they look to the rest of the world. Because not only do we drone operators see this ,but we show our families and friends this nonsense they are putting through. My message to the council is STOP and try and save some face !
They do not care about the reputation of the organisation they serve. They do not care about facts. They do not care about reason, They do not care about ethics. All that is important is saving face and pursuing petty vendettas and agendas (see the pinned comment from a former councilor who is honest enough to spill the beans).
@@xjet Hey, You just described a "power trip"😲
@@xjet Don't you have to sign the Official Secrets Act to serve on the Council over there? 🤔😉
Congratulations to South Waikato District Council, known around the world for their incompetence, arrogance, and lack of integrity.
Sounds like their "expert" has a degree from the University of Coffee and Donuts.
Which of course means they know everything about everything.
Do we even need the CAA anymore?
You should sue the council for the anxiety & mental stress you've suffered & endured as a result of their incompetence & dishonesty.
Hold my beer :-)
Agree, this needs legal action against the council.
Jerry
@@xjet Can't promise there'll be any left when I return it to you though. 😛
Those types of Lawsuits are all the rage in the United States of Litigation. Not sure if they'd get much traction in the civilized world though. 🥸
Its not about you Bruce, do some property searches for land close by and I bet you will find councilor or family of own some that they want to sell to developers and the aerodrome is limiting the value of such land. Its always $$$$$
This is highly likely to be the case.
How stupid can the Council be? They know you know your stuff and you impart your knowledge on us. How do they think they could lie to people who watch your channel, without you calling them out.
Sounds like a story for "Fair Go" bring them out into the public.
CAA trumps local counsils
Bruce knows this, but he still likes to bitch and wine. Just shut up and go fly dude.
But not in the case of Owners Permission of the land over which you fly that is set in Regulation and not discretionary for CAA
Not if the CAA says you need the aerodrome operator's permission, and the council is the aerodrome operator.
If it's not a law and they claim it is they will never admit wrong. They will just write the matter into law
We are with you Bruce, and it is getting more interesting all the time. Keep posting as the story evolves. Cheers.
These lying idiots need to be sacked and find a new job, take it court and see how far these idiots get, remember contempt of court rules.
It's so sad that a lot of people in power lack integrity. They can't admit that they made a mistake and correct it. Why don't just say sorry and give you a bouquet of flowers and call it a day.
Seems to me that they could sack a few Councillors with nowt to do and save the tax payer some money that could be better spent elsewhere! They’re a bloody disgrace!
Seems as though the petty bureaucrats of the South Waikato District Council are probably bitter little incompetents who couldn’t get (or retain) jobs in bigger towns or cities, but are determined to wield their authority somewhere, no matter what.
Politicians care only about those who have power over them. Anyone else is at most an annoyance to be done away with. Even voters may be dismissed if elections are compromised.
Yep. Bruce won the election for Mayor last time up - but Captain Cook spiked the Dominion voting machines! Any Yahoo who says different can't be Serious! 👿🙄😬
Our "so-called leaders" are weak! They are sad,,,, I will pray for these 'leaders" that they find peace in their hearts. Keep flying!
I received the same answer from the Council. I will write to them again and ask where the specific requirements are written in the part 107. Maybe you should ask the CAA to inform the councel about matter...😂😅
NZ CAA - it's not Part 107. It's part 101 - read the rules. He needs an appropriate valid unmanned pilot certificate issued by MFNZ and will need to be renewed every 5 years. If he has one but is a lapsed member > 3 years, he'll need to be a member of MFNZ and be re-certificated. Finally, the Council own and operate the aerodrome so they can impose whatever rules they like.
Ok, thanks. Part 101 is right.
@@stevefish782 You may want to refresh your own knowledge of the rules... 101.205 (a)(3)(i)(A) clearly makes mention of supervision by a license holder being permissible, which is how Bruce was operating. And there is no denying that the council as the aerodromes operator can impose conditions per 101.205 (a)(1), but these would be council mandated conditions, not CAA ones.
@@stevefish782 Yep. The only possible legal loophole might be the circumstances under which the Council gained stewardship of the Airfield. For example a former Council (since subsumed into a larger Corporation) was left a town-adjoining farm by an old bachelor many moons ago with the stipulation that it be used as the venue for local sporting clubs. In those days the local elected officials only got meeting fees and travelling costs if going to check up on local infrastructure, so the clubs were installed and all flourished. The restructured "more efficient" modern Aggregated Corporation City Hall is finding it hard to scrape up new ways to finance the six figure salaries of the Mayor and the rest of the Dalton Gang and are contemplating a partial sell-off of the land. Depending on the terms of the Will they can expect a much rougher treatment with the pineapple condom! 👿😲
Embarassing for the South Waikato District Council!
Given the reply from the council, and their previous comments on this matter, maybe its worth putting them on notice, and lodging a FOI (or equivalent, as I think it goes by a different name?) request as to the justification for the MFNZ requirement, and evidence to support it being a CAA requirement? Let them dig the hole deeper for themselves.
Get out of here Peter! You're ruining the "Letters To the Editor" section of the local rag with your sane talk! ☹😉
''Facts and statistics? Those are just words and numbers''
-The council, probably
I just sent a reply to the council's response to my first email. I noted that I could not find any reference to MFNZ or NZJMA anywhere in the CAA Part 101 rules. I asked them to please quote the exact passage/rule stating that requirement. I said if that is not a true requirement, then Mr. Simpson is compliant.
Maybe you should have given them two options. Either provide the exact regulation that states what they claim, or a retraction on all their previous statements, by email.
@@mavv7088 Well I got the automated response that said they received my email and that it will be forwarded to the relevant department and person. I am to expect a response ASAP. I'll bring this up with them if a real person answers the email.
The Minister for local government should be interested in the draconian action of this local government council in its efforts to ensure illegal restrictions on you as a member of the public at their airfield.
Unacceptable.
Reminds me of jobs I have been on. Usually there are several that go around telling workers what to do and claiming it came from the top man. Come to find out they are lying and the boss doesn't even know about it.
Why wait to get media involved? Locals would like to know how their taxs are being misused and it will have an effect on reelection results. People will want to know even if they themselves are not interested in model aviation.
"He can fly where ever he wants as long as he follows our rules we keep making up to stop him from flying"
Your problem is that the council is the aerodrome operator whose permission you need. If they as the operator decide that membership of MFNZ is required before they will give permission, then that is a defacto precondition. Whether they (the council) or the CAA require this is a distinction without a difference.
That is true... but to lie about CAA's requirement in order to have an excuse for denying that permission is unacceptable.
Not completely true, because all Fed/Reg trumps all others, Unless the current regulator ( CAA ) stipulates that as a requirement, it is not a requirement as No council can over ride the Regulators rules /laws/stipulations . Unless NZ has a total separate set if laws ( which I do not believe they do )
@@edwill62 Unfortunately, the way our regulations are written, the CAA has handed a *lot* of power to property owners. You can't fly a drone/RC over any property without the owners permission and you can't fly within 4Km of an airfield without the airfield operator's permission. So, regardless of CAA rules, property owners and airfields *can* restrict you from flying.
Yes landowners should have rights and well they do even here .
Airfields have rights but it is dictated by the Aviation regulator normally.
But all are subject to Federal guide, here the courts have upheld land rights and it has been the Regulator who has controlled air fields authority, I would assume the same applies even there . As with all things exceptions apply. But a council has no authority over either .
Why we know when the FAA states they have authority in ones backyard they lie .When a state or local council makes a drone law, it only applies if it does not go against federal laws regarding drones/UAS or the courts who have set a precedent ruling regarding land owner rights.@@xjet
Here in the States we have LAANC and according to FAA Facility maps one can fly fairly close to an airfield/Airport and get permission instantly by the net or cell phone App using ALOFT or another USS Provider when flying in controlled space.
State or City Government have no say in that. Our laws in my state also say one must get permission to fly over a neighbors property, but that is if you intend to fly in the lower stratus. Most people never know your aircraft is even there unless they just happen to see it which is very rare.
Here I have always spoke to neighbors and ask if they have an issue with my flying, so far all have been polite and welcoming. I do not fly over another's property unless necessary for some odd reason which also is a very rare occasion. I mostly fly in my own yard and well under the trees and fence line. I do fly in a field owned by a State entity by permission and it to is a private field and I am the only one there and the neighbors know it and do not care in any manner . The local AMA field has a 200 ft AGL limit because it is near a airport so why would I fly in such a place when i can fly up to the 400 ft AGL limit without issue..LOL @@xjet
I am over 60.
Gosh someone has lied......again.
That's how things are done now.
Always disappointing.
They and their ilk have probably been doing this unchecked by the authorities for generations as entitled landowners. This was still SOP in rural communities throughout NZ when I lived there. As in “that land is sort of owned by the ---- family” in reference to public land. It’s not about the public good and all about control. Keep calling them out on their BS!👍🏻
I love your dedication to hobby, keep up the good work
xjet im sending a response to the council now.
Oh Yes I got a response - written by AI - Sent on a Saturday - Council Customer Service Officers don't Generally work on weekends ???? and yes the robo letter is full of B.S. but you are allowed to "HOLD a WINGS Badge" ..... So paste a Wings Badge - any Wings Badge on your transmitter and your good to go Flying. This Council needs to be reported to the Ombudsman for a full investigation.
You need to run for Mayor and restore common sense and justice for the people. What a breath of fresh air that would be.
Her cant run for council, rules prevent him
Not at all surprised by this. Ten years or so back I had a run-in with a jobsworth manager at the local council here in the UK. I asked them for proof that something they were stating as council policy actually was. They sent me something that, courtesy of the council's website excellent search function, I found was an extract from an appendix to a report they had submitted to a progress monitoring committee, the contents of which were just 'noted' in the minutes. Their response when challenged was to pass it up to their superior who never got around to dealing with the issue before they moved on a few years later.
They will close the airfield so no one can use it in the hope you will go away.
Rest assured Bruce, if you are getting a raw deal and this kind of utterly belligerent attitude then you are not alone. I can only imagine how many of the people living within the auspices of that local council area are quite rightfully feeling otherwise slighted on all manner of issues.
@@dougj8186 what exactly does that matter? I'm old enough to remember a time before all levels of government forgot that their first and foremost duty as elected officials was to serve the people.
Not sure about over there but a council regardless of location are subject to the Regulators rules . Over there the CAA ( it use to be the same here ) but now it is the FAA . So when the rules given by the CAA are in force the Council has to abide within them same as the citizen . That is what they need to be reminded of, by all of us .
Problem is Bruce the media don't care and are as corrupt as the Gov/council. Its not about rules is about control and how much power i have. They are not of the people, by the people, for the people anymore, just look how much it cost to run for anything these days. I hope you can get some traction with the press as this needs to be shown as like you said how many times have they done this to other people and you have no recourse if they will not engage with you. all the best Bruce from Whangarei.
They will never admit to telling a lie. The only thing to do is to keep doing what you are doing. If they want to take action, it appears you have the law on your side. It could all get very messy for them, and cost them in court fees as well as compensation. I think you have done everything you can to appease them. I think it’s time to call them out.
Bruce is right. to simply ask the council expert for the paragraph or section in the CAA part 101 stating what they claim. Has anyone approached Fair go.
If I were you, I'd let it cool off for a while. If you back them into a corner they may come out swinging. You could find yourself jailed for some trumped up charge, or they will find cronies that will find ways to make your life miserable.
Nah, not in little ole NZ. Councils can act like gangsters sometimes, but we have Govt watchdogs. If you did something like that Journalists would have your ass..
this is unbelievable, considering all the crap they have put you through!!!!! go get em!!!
Thanks for the share.
I have just replied SWDC and asked the question. I don't expect a reply.
2:45 Even if the government is wrong and made a cock up, because they are the ultimate authority, you still have to follow their rules. A council which is below the government in authority can't decide that they are right and fix the "cock-up".
We are still waiting for them to reply.
The council thinks they're the king, And all of it subjects should bow to its rules of the day. It's time for people to come together and stand up against the machine. If we don't, it shows just how weak we are and how strong they can be. Remember you're allowing their strength.
How about this support Bruce... sic em boy!
Hi bruce
what they are doing in my opinion is bringing public office into distrapute . dont know about your laws in new zeland hopefully there is rules you can use against them
ps you may need to get caa involved orgo above the council eg region
keep up the fight bestest from scotland
On 2nd thought, maybe I should email them!
Mr Simpson keep fightin!!! dont let this burocrat got you!!
Keep em honest Bruce, this is important since such overreach by people who hold a small amount of authority turn into little Emperors and start making up their own rules. This is becoming the norm everywhere and all the while they bloat their government departments with people who are, of course, entitled to huge benefits and entitlements that are all funded by the people they think they can bully into submission and silence.
I seriously wonder what is worse, this council's behavior, or the borderline vengeful replies by some, suggesting that if a citizen points out to a government body that they are not being consistent and/or not basing their local rules on actual valid legislation, deserves to get a "special treatment" as the inevitable and deserving logical result...
✌🏻😎🏴Let’s organise a 365 flight plan where we all ignore everyone but ourselves & show that we can fly every day in all sorts of situations, crowded locations safely without any fatalities or serious injuries or property damage.
What are they going to do? Probably close the airfield.
I have offered to lease the airfield from them for two years and run it like it should be run -- for the benefit of the community, local businesses and everyone. You can bet they won't be the least bit interested though.
@@xjet You don’t bail the water out of the boat. You fix the leak. Don’t try working around the problem. Eliminate the source.
they want to sell the land
@@davidwebb4904 Sadly, the source is an entire council.
@@xjet so, now you know the enemy. Nothing else I can say on here without violating CZcams terms and conditions. Be creative....
Are all the others who fly at the airfield members of the organisations you mention ?
Wow that Council is making a fool of themselves
And they are essentially good at it... 🤣
Hi, Bruce, We have the same ruling here in Australia but we fly within about 1.5ks of our local airstrip as we fly at our local showground we have permission from CASA the council has used a bit of common sense here at least in this matter and has given us permission to fly there because we obtained the permission from CASA, The RAAF C130 also does maneuvers out here as well and council sends us an email of the date and time that this aircraft will be using the airstrip so everybody is on the same page, Your council sound live a bunch of dictators to me in this regard.
Sounds like you need a magistrate to point it out to them while they stand before him. 😉
As the operator of the airfeild they can make any rule they like, wile CAA qalifies it as an approved organisation, Council have deemed it to be "All unmanned aircraft operations at the Tokoroa Airfield require approval either by Permit or other prior arrangement and can only be undertaken by those who have a pilot’s qualification or Part 102 Qualification or ‘Wings’ badge through Model Flying New Zealand. Other operators may fly so long as they are supervised by suitably qualified persons"
Yes, the SWDC can layer whatever other conditions they want on top of CAA's regulations but they have no right to represent *their* additional conditions as being a part of CAR101 -- which is exactly what they have done. To do so is to lie about what CAR101 requires and, even when challenged with proof, they have continued this lie to a large number of people around the world. You think that is acceptable and does anything but bring the council into disrepute and make it the subject of justifiable ridicule?
Also, to further demonstrate their incompetence and lack of understanding of how things actually work, I would still be required to file every intended flight with Airshare according to their communications with me. This is something, as I have clearly demonstrated, which is simply not possible. These people have no clue what they're doing and that makes them look even sillier. Such incompetence and arrogance does not produce safety -- in fact quite the opposite.
Hey Arthur, be part of the solution, not the problem. Have a chat with your council mates and point out that they are misinforming people around the world regarding this issue and that perhaps they ought to just suck it up and talk to me in order to sort this out. Otherwise it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better and do they really need that?
Even you have to concede that they're dead wrong in asserting that CAA requires MFNZ/NZJMA membership when flying under the provisions of CAR101.205(3)(b) so their staff or their "consultants" are know-nothings. I think I've proven my bonafides when it comes to these regs so why the hell aren't they taking advantage of my repeated offers to lend a hand... for *free*. With rates already up 18.5 percent and predicted to go up by another 12 percent next year the council has an obligation to cut costs where-ever they can so my offer sounds like something too good to refuse.
The media will love this. Maybe keep some of the media outlets up to date on developments, so they can quickly publish a factual version of events.
Probably all in on it.
Bruce this is quite unacceptable, but throughout the world there's a great increase of incompetence!
Crazy stay your course!!!
I am sensing a Netflix documentary in the making
question sent Bruce,,
Thanks for your reply, but '2' Membership of MFNZ or NZJMA is NOT a requirement on the CAA 101 !
can you please post me whare you say that it is .
thanks Mr P................
Hey Bruce, UK here, words spreading about how corrupt your council is. Hope your council is proud that they are famous for being corrupt 😁
Keep up the good work! Good luck!
I got a response from Swdc and they did not talk about pools accessibility or library core business of the council and the cost and services to the rate payer. So good you call them out. Integrity call out. Well done Bruce. May the new government call them on this. So the new minister of regulation to address this video.
Hi Bruce, in one of your replies you wrote "They claim ownership -- even though it could reasonably be asserted that this is a property purchased with public funds for the use of that public",
How can a council OWN property? My understanding is that councils are administrators of public assets within their declared area of responsibility. Councils are funded by Rate payers, members of the public, to administer, they can't own public buildings, fields or roads, these are public property, owned by the community!
Or am I totally wrong? If I am not then how can a member of the public be trespassed for being on public property. The council is not the owner of the Airfield!
They claim that the airfield is not a public place but the private property of the council.
Show you the deeds! Or any other document that declares that. As far as my understanding the council is an administration for the public, they can't own anything!
If it was bequeathed to the council then that was probably for the public benefit, it is still public property then, the will would have to be seen. If it was purchased by the council then it must have been with public funds, the council is a public body, there can not be any PRIVATE ownership, That's my understanding. If the council owns the airfield then they must pay rates! That payment comes from the rates paid by the public. Or is the council, as owners of the airfield using public facilities, the council's staff to manage private property without paying rates. It's a rabbit hole!
As an additional thought! When the Tower was demolished the council claimed it was on private grounds, so the tower was private property, but who paid for the demolition, was it out of Ratepayers funds? Who do you pay your Lease fees to, it must be to the Private owners of the Airfield or do you have receipts of payment to the council?As my thoughts get more targeted I can only have the possibility of serious maladministration!@@xjet
Sounds like a council of Karens.
I've noticed in my life that anyone with my authority than others abuse there authority if they are trying to be right about something they don't like.Its so hard to fight against people who have more authority than you but it is always possible to win!We just have to know the right people to be on are side to help us.
Council have anything to do with the latest fire in town??
Section 101.205 Aerodromes - para (d) is a bit of a weird one.
Does it imply the requirements are less or more stringent?
once the council loses peoples trust, its gone.
Your talking about a Government mindless entity, what else would you expect from them ? When they speak , they lie, that is why they are on the council. If anyone of them stand for what is right and speak the truth, they rarely last long in that position
forty years ago on a road next to my uncles farm the road was flooding what did the council do they turned the water off the road on to his fields making a mess on the land he built a dam to stop them they said he couldn't do that he took the council to court an won the case ever since they have had a vendetta against him
101.205 Aerodromes
(a) A person must not operate a remotely piloted aircraft or a free flight
model aircraft on or within 4 km of-
(1) an uncontrolled aerodrome, unless-
(iii) in the case of a remotely piloted aircraft -
(Fluff Removed)
(3) any aerodrome, unless-
(i) the person-
(Fluff Removed)
(C) is the holder of a pilot licence or certificate issued
under Part 61 or Part 149.
I dunno, Bruce... To me it looks like licensure or certification is indeed required, but I look forward to hearing your interpretation of 101.205. Just trying to put my 20/15 to use as Devil's Attorney, and help my favorite Kiwi save his pp. Are they (council) and 101.205.a.3.i.c referring to certification through MFNZ or MCJMA? I'm not aware of any other orgs that can issue said cert, so did the council list those two bodies incorrectly, or do you dispute their interpretation?
Just checking, bud.
You missed 101.205(3)(b) which allows anyone to fly a drone/RC plane at/within 4Km of "any aerodrome" if that person:
"is under the direct supervision of a person
appointed to give instruction in the operation of
remotely piloted aircraft by an approved person or
organisation"
That's the part of the rule, under which I have been flying, and it does not require the supervised person to be a member of any organisation. The person doing the "supervision" has to be a member and hold the relevant qualification -- but the person being supervised does not.
Ah, I see NZ AC101-1 grants them, MFNZ, certification authority. Edit: What the heck is MCJMA?
@@xjet Thank you for your (immediate, holy crap) reply, Sir. This grantor statement requires a certified pilot, under 205 regs, granted by orgs as determined by 149 an AC101-1, for your specific situation;
To fly under Ron's Wings, or similar case.
But you attest to flying solo, so I may be missing what the point, as I don't remember you stating that you're always flying with _*the homies*._ (The Licensed Homies, that is)
Except when you hilariously provide evidence to the contrary, lol. Loved that.
But since you've cleared that up for me, then you fly your ass off young man, but please wait for those homies to get there, I really want to keep watching and laughing, until both our suns set. Cheers.
@@GhostRyderFPV Yep, when you see videos from the field I'm always there with the guys. I do fly solo in the parks or where a shielded operation allows me to do so under CAA regs but at the field it's Ron or another qualified MFNZ member who's doing the "supervision" because, as we know, for lack of $100 I'm too unsafe to leave to my own devices 🙂
sounds like they going same way as usa rules
Fair Go!!!!!
What can you do. It's the government 🤔🤔
Some of those people in the council surely have something stuck up their bee hinds. WTF is going on? Did they drink from a contaminated creek or something?
They drink from the fountain of hubris.
@@xjet 👍
This council person or persons sounds like a real plonker, if you were be forces to take this to court or be taken to court that they would loose, simple because you can’t just make up rules just to suit yourself. Then if they were to lie or make up things in court they would be thrown out and they would be done for content. Any judge with any brain would or should uphold the laws of the land and not the laws of a dictating plonker. If I were you I would keep pushing and make the do something like try and fine you then you could force this into the courtroom, then they would have to prove themselves and at best this plonker could loose his/her job.
Give them free air tickets to Gaza Strip!
Go get em ! i got e mail to write :0)
GO YOU GOOD THING !!!
I admire your courage and knowledge, while I feel your fighting a good fight, well being from America I can't help but see similarities. Here many thought the AMA would represent them during FAA hearings . Strange they didn't show up? However AMA fields are reaping a benefit of having their field cleared and approved at the head of the line ... As to my local laws well I have had little time or care to study them. Just too much aggravation besides the FAA map of my area shows too many airports overlapping , yea they worry about my little planes when the pattern of local airports overlaps ....oops that sounds dangerous. I wish you the best , but these days politicians do what somebody with deep pockets says it seems. Find the true enemy find the man behind the curtain, find a money trail ...then make a show of it.
Hi yes I got the same response hope at least they are inundated with lots of emails and are thinking about what they are doing.also mentioned that I was not going to visit from Scotland?
It's funny how they seem to have unlimited time to respond to emails (even on weekends) but still refuse to spend 30 minutes meeting with me to try and sort the issue out. Speaks to the prejudice involved here doesn't it?
So international visitors have to join a NZ association if they want to fly their craft... Potentially anywhere in NZ?
Or is this in just fiefdom?
Just this little backwater.
i will be asking for the paragraph in the CAA rules they mention 👍👍👍
Hi Bruce I was about to contact you re e-mail response from the council But they have Your message has also been passed on to the Chief Executive can't Lie straight in bed these bastards
keep flying and let then try to take you to court.
View count was 666 so I had to view...hheehehheehe keep fighting Bruce!
So I sent the new message asking for the clause within the CAA, Part 101 rules that stipulates these requirements. I recieved a reply which was exactly the same as the previous answer. So sent a third stateing that their reply did not address my question. We will see if anything different happens.
It's pretty easy to see that they're not even reading the emails they receive. Such contempt and arrogance is pretty standard for this crowd :-(
Go fly anyway. Wait till you get arrested or fined and then take it to trial. Once it's found your rights were trampled. Sue the pants off them and become rich.
Bruce's concern is that the council could then withdraw his access to his hangar workspace on the aerodrome, therefore he is trespassing if he tries to access it.
Just fly Bruce, and get yourself arrested. Can they afford to let it play out in a court, if they're prepared to let it go that far?
Then I could be tresspassed from the airfield and lose access to my planes, my workshop, my studio andmy tools. Check the livestream I did yesterday for details of that. czcams.com/users/live3y2iGQxjFjE
@@xjet just fly a sub 250 foamie ... get caught and let the judge see the ludicrous rules re drone v rc planes and persecution by the council...you have more than enough evidence to justify your actions ...
They would still tresspass me -- the CAA regulations make no distinction between my 25g Mobula 6 and a 15Kg octocopter.
A few things to consider. They may decide to tresspass you anyway and they have already shown that they don't need a valid reason to do so. I would assume that if they did decide to tresspass you, especially without reason, it could make for a more robust case against them if you decided to pursue legal action. Regardless I would probably start the process of moving anything you care much for off of their property to keep them from holding that over your head. Another option that you may consider is wearing a disguise. Maybe some of those glasses with the mustache attached, that way you could still go fly without the worry of being recognized and tresspassed.@@xjet
Check out the latest episode of alluring Arctic sailing. It's a good advert for drones saving lives.
Gubment " EGGSPURTS "